YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND BUDGET CHEAT SHEET 
By Lisa Desjardins, @LisaDNews
Correspondent

Buckle up. This is going to be a bumpy month.

Democrats in Congress and the White House are hoping to emerge by mid-August with two major deals: A bipartisan infrastructure bill and a likely very partisan policy bill covering everything from climate to child care.

It is thorny territory and lawmakers do not have a clear map. To help us all navigate, here is a question-and-answer guide.

What’s happening exactly?
Congress is working on two major pieces of legislation which are politically connected to each other: 1. One of the largest infrastructure bills in modern history and 2. A separate bill which could be one of the largest policy proposals in modern history, including climate, child care, education, health care and as many other Democratic priorities lawmakers can cram into it. 

What does “infrastructure mean” exactly? 
The term “infrastructure” is as flexible as a Twizzler, which is a delicious candy, by the way.  So what does “infrastructure” mean here? The bipartisan infrastructure bill is focused on physical structures and travel: roads, bridges, ports, airports, rail, buses and high-speed broadband. It also contains some funding for electric vehicle charging stations.

(Incidentally there is also a third track for some of these ideas, in various appropriations and authorization bills moving at the same time. The fate of those is unclear as they overlap significantly with ideas in the infrastructure bill. Some see those as a worst-case “plan C” if everything else falls apart.)

Why are these two bills so tricky?
In addition to the size of both bills, there is an overriding math issue: Democrats have a thin margin in the House and no margin in the Senate, where the chamber is split evenly with 50 members of each party. Both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have to thread needles to keep progressive and moderate Democrats simultaneously on board with any proposal.  

In addition, most bills need 60 votes to pass in the Senate. So, at least 10 Republicans. 

So how are these two bills connected? 

This situation has led Democrats to get creative. They are trying to leverage the broad enthusiasm for an infrastructure bill to help the process for the more partisan policy bill coming behind it. This is why they are connected.

In addition, it could be easier to get through one relatively smaller infrastructure bill separately from a bigger policy bill, rather than jam all of that together in a single super mega proposal.

Let me try a potentially stretched metaphor: food. Think of a large group of people deciding what to eat.  It’s almost as if the Democrats are saying:

• We know nearly everyone loves a classic American sandwich (infrastructure). We’ll super size it this year into a triple decker. With fries. Republicans tentatively like this idea. As long as the sandwich isn’t too expensive.

• But, Democrats say, “for many people in our party that falls far short.” They want a permanent buffet with totally new menu items on it (new programs in child care, climate, health care, education). Republicans generally hate this idea.

• SO, Democrats are putting together the one-time sandwich (infrastructure) because that is relatively easy to do and it appeals to key moderates in their party who have smaller appetites.  And President Joe Biden likes the idea of working with Republicans. All of it makes moderates more amenable to go along with the big buffet progressives want.

• Meanwhile, to keep the much hungrier progressives in the kitchen, Democrats are pushing the idea for that buffet.  Because for progressives, a sandwich (infrastructure) is NOT going to do it. 

• All of this could easily fall apart in a political food fight.

Translated back to Congress-speak: The infrastructure bill is moving as a bipartisan measure. It could get significant Republican support and bounce over the 60-vote filibuster in the Senate that way.  

At the same time, the as-yet-unnamed child-care-health-care-education bill is likely to move with all or nearly all Democratic votes only.  

To add to the complexity, a number of progressive Democratic senators say they will only vote for the infrastructure bill if they like what’s going into the second bigger policy bill. This is because progressives fear a situation where only the bipartisan bill makes it all the way through Congress, and then the second bill gets watered down, leaving them with a shell of what they really want.  They are directly linking their votes in order to try to get a robust second bill.

If the big policy bill only gets Democratic support, how will it get through the Senate?
Democrats want to invoke the Senate’s version of procedural magic. It’s called (waves fingers jedi-style) budget reconciliation.  

Got it. And what is budget reconciliation?
If you’re reading this, may already know, but let’s do a reminder. Budget reconciliation is a process in which the Senate uses a large procedural loophole to get around the 60-vote requirement for most bills.  It essentially makes any item that spends or raises money part of a budget debate, which needs just 51 votes in the U.S. Senate.  

Reconciliation generally is used just once a budgetary year, so the party in control has to be deliberate and careful in how and when they trigger it.  And anything in a “reconciliation” bill must get the blessing of the Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough. She must sign off that it meets reconciliation rules, a process called the “Byrd bath”.  Which, by the way, is a much better name than “reconciliation.” 

Alright and how does reconciliation happen?
Great question! Now we are circling in on action this week.

Reconciliation is a two-step process.  

Step One: Both the House and Senate must pass the same budget resolution. That’s a non-binding piece of legislation that essentially sets spending limits by which Congress hopes to abide. The president does NOT have to sign this.

The key to the budget resolution here is that it contains “reconciliation instructions” -- language that tells specific committees to save or spend a certain amount of money to “reconcile” it with the overall budget. (Notable nerd fact: Reconciliation can also adjust the numerical debt limit.)

The dollar amount in those instructions, and the way they are written, is pivotal. It sets up the parameters for step two.

Step Two: Using the instructions in the budget resolution, lawmakers on specific committees start writing the larger policy bill they want. Because it is being written under budget reconciliation, it then requires 51 votes instead of 60 to pass through the Senate.

Well that sounds easy. I sense your skepticism.  

It’s not easy.  Because the House and Senate must agree on all of these steps.  But where there is a large will, there can be a way. Whether Democrats will find that way is unknown.

Huh. I’m taking this in. Cool. Silent pause.

So, what is happening now? Democrats are negotiating with one another over the budget resolution and the important language that will determine how large the actual reconciliation bill that follows it can be. $2 trillion?$4 trillion? 

Many of the nation’s largest issues are on the table here.  Democrats are deciding: Will this include immigration? How? Will they expand Medicare? How? Will they provide some free community college? What about child care help?

This is all packed into the talks today and tomorrow. 

Overall, it is a question of how much of the Biden agenda and progressives hopes, like those of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., can get into that yet-unnamed mega-policy bill.  Sanders, by the way, isn’t just a key progressive voice. He is chair of, oh, the Senate Budget Committee overseeing the budget resolution draft. So he has a commanding position in terms of process.

BUT, he needs moderates to agree. He likely needs all 50 Senate Democratic votes to get through both step one (budget resolution) and step two (reconciliation bill with all the Democratic policy in it). 

Hence, the tricky choreography right now. 

And the need to buckle up.

FIVE OVERLOOKED POLITICAL STORIES FROM THE PAST WEEK
By Ian Couzens, @iancouzenz 
Politics production assistant 

Tucson to ignore Arizona 'Second Amendment sanctuary' law, enforce tighter gun laws July 6. The move by Tucson, a Democrat-run city, puts the city at odds with the state over how to regulate gun sales and use. Why it matters: The debate surrounding guns in this country continues to be heated. Without action on the federal level, cases like this will most likely end up being decided in courts. -- The Arizona Republic 

Why Congress is finally starting to claw back its war powers from the president July 7. Democrats and a large number of Republicans oppose Authorizations to Use Military Force (or AUMFs), which have given presidents broad and mostly unchallenged legal authority to deploy soldiers conduct airstrikes, for decades. Now, under President Biden, who is open to changes as well, there is a new push to repeal some of them. Why it matters: Now may be the best chance in at least a generation for Congress to mount a fight for more control  over war powers; however, a path forward for this legislation remains complicated. -- Politico

Opinion: Shifting Oregon-Idaho border can help us all live in peace July 11.Tension has arisen between Democrats and Republicans in Oregon over the impact of liberal voters in the north, prompting conservative group leaders, including the author of this Op_ed, to propose moving 18 counties to Idaho. Why it matters: Yes, basic geography is another example of how the country’s political divides continue to bubble up in nearly all aspects of government. This seemingly small proposal already has some in Idaho worried about the effects of moving so many people, especially on farm land and the housing market.   -- The Oregonian 

Biden has a plan to remove some freeways. Will it make cities more healthy?  July 12.  The L.A. Times takes a deeper look at the Biden administration’s plan to replace highways built between 1950 and1970 in low-income neighborhoods filled largely with people of color, with the goal of rebuilding those communities and addressing health and other disparities that exist there. Why it matters: While advocates are pleased that Biden proposes spending $1 billion in his infrastructure package for “reconnecting communities,” this story shows the complexity of the problem and its history, and raises concern about possible gentrification  -- The Los Angeles Times

A big-league push: A lobbying effort to save small-town baseball following pandemic shutdowns July 11. Due to the Major League Baseball's messy reorganization of its farm teams last year, many minor league teams were ineligible for COVID relief assistance, despite the pandemic forcing the league to cancel its 2020 season altogether. They are now pressing Congress to change that.  Why it matters: This story connects two defining issues for America: the financial well being of local-level professional baseball and the way Congress is spending money right now, including trillions of deficit spending on COVID relief.   -- Pittsburgh Post Gazette


#POLITICSTRIVIA
By Tess Conciatori, @tkconch 
Politics associate producer

On this day in 1985, Vice President George H.W. Bush became acting president for the day, assuming President Ronald Reagan’s duties for about eight hours, from 11:28 a.m. to 7:22 p.m. It was the first time the 25th amendment was invoked temporarily. 

Our question: Why did President Reagan need to transfer power for the day? 

Send your answers to [email protected] or tweet using #PoliticsTrivia. The first correct answers will earn a shout-out next week.

Last week, we asked: What Connecticut city was President George W. Bush born in on this day 77 years ago? 

The answer: New Haven, Connecticut. 

George W. Bush was born while his father, former President George H.W. Bush, was studying at Yale University, where the younger Bush would eventually study as well. The Bush family moved to Texas when George W. Bush was just 2 years old, and it was in the Lone Star state that the younger Bush made a name in politics and eventually assumed the presidency. 
 
Congratulations to our winners: Suzanne English and Lawrence Widem

Thank you all for reading and watching. We’ll drop into your inbox next week.