Dems eye big infrastructure package, with or without Trump

If Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiAs coronavirus surges, Trump tries to dismantle healthcare for millions Sunday shows preview: Coronavirus poses questions about school safety; Trump commutes Roger Stone sentence Pelosi plans legislation to limit pardons, commutations after Roger Stone move MORE (D-Calif.) and President TrumpDonald John TrumpDeSantis on Florida schools reopening: 'If you can do Walmart,' then 'we absolutely can do schools' NYT editorial board calls for the reopening of schools with help from federal government's 'checkbook' Mueller pens WaPo op-ed: Roger Stone 'remains a convicted felon, and rightly so' MORE can’t strike an infrastructure deal, key Democrats say they should push their own partisan bill through the House ahead of the 2020 elections.

That strategy, backers argue, would demonstrate to voters that they’re making good on the campaign promises that won them the lower chamber last year — and remain focused on those bread-and-butter issues looking ahead.

It would also allow Democrats to shift the conversation away from the intense focus on the many investigations into Trump, including special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) MuellerCNN's Toobin warns McCabe is in 'perilous condition' with emboldened Trump CNN anchor rips Trump over Stone while evoking Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting The Hill's 12:30 Report: New Hampshire fallout MORE’s report, which they fear could alienate voters in crucial swing districts.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Why doesn't the House just pass a $2 trillion infrastructure bill with our pay-fors and then put the ball in the Senate and Trump's court?” asked Rep. Ro KhannaRohit (Ro) KhannaSome in Congress want to keep sending our troops to Afghanistan House panel votes to limit Trump's Germany withdrawal It's time to eliminate land-based nuclear missiles MORE, a San Francisco Bay–area Democrat and a leading progressive in Congress.

“I think we have to pass something that's really going to convince people the problem isn't politicians. The problem isn't broken Washington. The problem is this president and the Senate,” Khanna added. “If we don't do that, if it's just rhetorical, then I feel that [voters] are just going to increase the cynicism and most people will blame the entire Congress.”

Rep. Peter DeFazioPeter Anthony DeFazioShould the United States withdraw from the WTO? OVERNIGHT ENERGY: House approves .5T green infrastructure plan | Rubio looks to defense bill to block offshore drilling, but some fear it creates a loophole | DC-area lawmakers push for analysis before federal agencies can be relocated Republicans score procedural victory on Democrats' infrastructure bill MORE (D-Ore.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said he still intends to move a sweeping infrastructure package through his committee this year — even if talks with the White House break down.

Whether it gets a floor vote, he emphasized, is up to leadership. But he was quick to note that Democrats ran their successful 2018 campaign on a bare-bones message that featured just three line items: clean government, health care and infrastructure.

“One of the three key issues in us winning back the House was infrastructure,” said DeFazio, who attended the first new White House meeting on the issue on April 30. “I would certainly write a transportation bill.”

Rep. Jared HuffmanJared William HuffmanHouse members race to prepare for first-ever remote votes Overnight Energy: Biden campaign says he would revoke Keystone XL permit | EPA emails reveal talks between Trump officials, chemical group before 2017 settlement | Tensions emerge on Natural Resources panel over virtual meetings Tensions emerge on Natural Resources panel over virtual meetings MORE (D-Calif.), another member of the Transportation panel, is endorsing that idea enthusiastically.

“I have always thought we should simply be full speed ahead. Waiting for the goalposts to stop moving with this administration, I think, is a recipe for paralysis and inaction,” Huffman said.

The price tag — and the difficult task of finding money to offset those costs — should not discourage Democratic leaders from forging ahead, Huffman said. DeFazio backs a gas tax hike, while progressives are pushing for corporations that now pay zero taxes to fork over money for infrastructure.

“Having promised to do infrastructure, we can't be afraid of the pay-for and let that be an excuse for inaction,” Huffman said, advocating a plan of “at least” $2 trillion. “We’ve got a lot of need out there.”

DeFazio, however, questioned why Democrats would stick their necks out to come up with offsets for a package that was sure to go nowhere in the GOP-controlled Senate. Some of those funding sources would likely be unpopular and could prove politically perilous to centrists who face tough elections next year.

“Probably the Republicans wouldn’t be very supportive,” he said, “If it's just going to be a one-house bill, I don't think there's a great desire to walk the plank on funding.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The debate comes as many Republicans, particularly those in control of the Senate, are balking at the enormous $2 trillion price tag for infrastructure that Trump agreed to in talks with Democratic leaders earlier in the month. The GOP grumbling has led to widespread doubts about the fate of the negotiations.

Still, many Democrats are holding out hope that Trump, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerDemocrats blast Trump for commuting Roger Stone: 'The most corrupt president in history' A renewed emphasis on research and development funding is needed from the government Data shows seven Senate Democrats have majority non-white staffs MORE (D-N.Y.) can reach a bipartisan agreement to address the nation’s aging roads, bridges, waterways and other projects.

The two sides shook hands on that $2 trillion figure a couple weeks ago at the White House and are aiming to meet again during the week of May 20 to negotiate the hard part: how exactly to pay for it all.

That’s why Pelosi isn’t tipping her hand about her next move if negotiations with Trump collapse. Other Democrats want to give Pelosi and Schumer space to get a deal rather than turn quickly to what Republicans would surely deride as a 2020 Democratic messaging bill.

“I think we should wait and see if a deal is made, and see what the executive branch proposes and have a thoughtful negotiation,” said freshman Rep. Dean PhillipsDean PhillipsIn the next COVID-19 bill, target innovation and entrepreneurship Small businesses receive much-needed Paycheck Protection Program fixes House passes bill to grant flexibility for small business aid program MORE (D-Minn.), who’s planning to hold an infrastructure hearing in his swing district in the Minneapolis suburbs. “I don’t think disrupting the process right now would be beneficial.”

Democratic negotiators are also urging patience.

“I want to not just pass a bill out of the House, but I think it’s important to get it through the Senate and to the president for his signature,” Assistant Speaker Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), who attended the infrastructure meeting with Trump, told The Hill.

“But if our Republican colleagues don’t want to find a way to work together, we should show the American people the package that we would offer as Democrats.”

If Democrats do decide to go it alone, progressive leaders say this should be the approach: Go big and go bold.

“I think we should take a vote on an infrastructure package that the whole caucus can support, and we should make that as broad as possible and as generous as possible, because I don’t think we should wait for the administration if it looks like they’re not going to support it,” Rep. Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalDemocrats fear US already lost COVID-19 battle Progressive lawmakers call for conditions on Israel aid Hillicon Valley: Democrats introduce bill banning federal government use of facial recognition tech | House lawmakers roll out legislation to establish national cyber director | Top federal IT official to step down MORE (D-Wash.), co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, told The Hill while walking into the Speaker’s office.

“Is that $2 trillion? Is it $1.5 trillion? I don’t know, but my intent would be to make it as big as possible because that’s what we need to get the caucus to support it, something that shows we are united as a caucus and that infrastructure investment into jobs is absolutely critical.”

Khanna, the other progressive leader, actually wants leadership to be even more aggressive and bring an infrastructure bill to the floor “as soon as possible” to stake out a negotiating position with Trump and also show voters that Democrats are not obsessed with probing the president and his administration.

“It shows we’re not just focused on investigations,” Khanna said. “Let’s put forward something we can pass. ... I’m for $2 trillion. If it’s a trillion, it’s a trillion.”