CHUCK TODD:
This Sunday: Tragedy on Miami Beach.
FIRST RESPONDER:
Oh (BLEEP) most of the building is gone.
CHUCK TODD:
156 people still missing in that building collapse.
PABLO RODRIGUEZ:
‘Til we have official word, we are still trying to hold on to whatever hope remains. But realistically, we know that they are gone.
CHUCK TODD:
The heroic moments.
NICHOLAS BALBOA:
He was asking: Please don't leave me alone, don't leave me alone.
CHUCK TODD:
But hopes fading of finding more survivors.
MAYOR DANIELLA LEVINE CAVA:
Our top priority continues to be search and rescue and saving any lives that we can
CHUCK TODD:
And now a three-year-old report surfaces identifying major structural damage to the building and flaws in its construction. We'll have a report from the scene and I'll also talk to Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava. Also --
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
We have a deal.
CHUCK TODD:
A case of bipartisanship appears to break out on infrastructure.
SEN. KYRSTEN SINEMA:
We all gave some to get some because what we did was put first the needs of our country.
SEN. MITT ROMNEY:
This group came together and actually got the job done.
CHUCK TODD:
But soon threatens to breaks down after President Biden says a larger plan must also be part of the deal:
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
If this is the only thing that comes to me, I'm not signing it. It's in tandem.
CHUCK TODD:
Where does the deal stand now? My guests this morning: Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. And the Justice Department sues Georgia over its new voting law.
ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND
The rights of all eligible citizens to vote are the central pillars of our democracy.
CHUCK TODD:
This just days after Senate Republicans block consideration of new voting rights legislation. Joining me for insight and analysis are: NBC News chief Washington correspondent Andrea Mitchell, Yamiche Alcindor, moderator of Washington Week on PBS, MSNBC Host Joshua Johnson and Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute. Welcome to Sunday. It's Meet the Press.
ANNOUNCER:
From NBC News in Washington, the longest running show in television history. This is Meet the Press with Chuck Todd.
CHUCK TODD:
Good Sunday morning. Look, we're going to get to all the politics of the day, including the shaky bipartisan infrastructure deal. But we're going to begin with the terrible tragedy of the Miami Beach condo collapse. As of this morning, 156 people remain missing in the collapse of the Champlain Towers South complex and, frankly, hopes are fading that more survivors will be found in the rubble. For perspective, the death toll could end up roughly on par with Oklahoma City. And these terrible images of floors of a collapsed building pancaked one on top of the other has reminded many of the devastation that took place on September the 11th. Joining me now is our own Sam Brock. He has been covering this story from the very beginning, literally there in the early hours after the collapse. And, Sam, we know yet more fires in the rubble slowed down the search and rescue process. But I know officials insist this is still search and rescue. What can you tell us about how realistic it is that they're going to find more survivors?
SAM BROCK:
Well, they're maintaining hope. I guess that's the best I can tell you right now, Chuck. Look, we are entering the fourth day of this search. It is truly round-the-clock efforts that we're witnessing. And for some context, over my shoulder here in that building on the other side is a pile of rubble that is three or four stories high. And that rubble is incredibly fragile. Now, we do know search and rescue crews at this moment have much better accessibility than they did even 24 hours earlier. The fire, as you mentioned, was emanating from the belly of that building. They could not locate it, Chuck. Had to use infrared technology to try. And they were then deploying water and foam to try to tamp down the flames and all of that smoke, which I can also tell you, we were several blocks away. It was so thick we were having trouble breathing. So imagine what the conditions would be like on top of the rubble. On top of that, Chuck, you also have downpours constantly throughout the course of the day, oppressive heat, falling debris. But things are clearing up right now and we know that they are going full scale at this point with canines that are certainly searching for the scent of human life; sonar, trying to detect some sort of sound; and excavation and heavy machinery, some of which you see right there: a 240-ton and 400-ton cranes that are picking up some of the small pieces of debris and also big chunks of concrete and moving that to the side so they can look into voids and into cracks to potentially find people. But, Chuck, I’ve got to tell you. I spoke with someone with decades of experience in urban search and rescue. He told me he anticipates we'll probably be a couple more weeks, in his gut, of this going on, of recovery efforts. As you mentioned, 156 people still unaccounted for this morning. An unimaginable figure, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD:
Look, there's a lot of people that want to know why. Why did this happen? We've gotten a treasure trove of papers released from the community of Surfside. And there already seems to be some evidence in there of what may have been the initial cause. Where is the investigation going?
SAM BROCK:
So here's where we stand. Big news dropped Friday night when the inspection report from 2018 -- so about two and a half years ago -- came out and the consultant, Morabito, that conducted it for the recertification of that building in its own words described “significant cracks and breaks” in the concrete. They also said there was a concrete slab underneath a pool deck that needed to be switched out in its entirety in a timely manner. And, again, Chuck, that was two and a half years ago. Now, we did speak with the attorneys for the condo association. They say those kinds of cracks and spalling that they saw are not atypical of a building that's been there for 40 years seaside. But they said, "Look, we are lawyers. We're not engineers. If there were imminent signs of failure, that should have been in big, bold print in that report. And it was not."
CHUCK TODD:
And then --
SAM BROCK:
Chuck.
CHUCK TODD:
-- also the potential that there was a fatal flaw in construction from the beginning. Anyway, Sam Brock, good work, sir. Thank you.
SAM BROCK:
Thank you.
CHUCK TODD:
And joining me now is the mayor of Miami-Dade County, Daniella Levine Cava. Mayor Levine Cava, welcome to Meet the Press. I know this has been a tough 96 hours. Anything you can update us overnight? Any new signs of hope?
MAYOR DANIELLA LEVINE CAVA:
Well, thank you for following this important story, and we did control the fire and the smoke as of about noon yesterday. So, the search and rescue operation continued unabated throughout the night.
CHUCK TODD:
You announced a decision that you're going to reinspect, I guess, anything that is 40 years old, any building 40 years old or older, at least in the county. Explain that process and why did you just start with buildings that are 40 years, 40 years old or older?
MAYOR DANIELLA LEVINE CAVA:
We have a recertification process that starts at 40 years and then it's every ten years thereafter. So, it's really important that we make sure that all of the buildings have followed that procedure, that we have the necessary reports on file and that all of the remediation that has been ordered in those reports, recommended in those reports goes forward. So, we'll be doing that deep dive over the next 30 days to make sure that we're up to date. Now, these are the buildings that are in unincorporated Miami-Dade County, which is about 40% of the county. 60% is in cities, and cities are going to have to do their own.
CHUCK TODD:
There is voluntary evacuation in some of the other buildings in the Champlain complex here. Is the county going to be able to provide resources for those that don't want to live in -- right now stay in these buildings for fear that they're not structurally sound?
MAYOR DANIELLA LEVINE CAVA:
So, just the building that is the sister building to the one that came down, that is the one that Surfside has authorized for voluntary evacuation. And, yes, anyone who chooses to leave can, can be supported. It's also true that the town building inspector went and did not find any immediate causes of concern.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, this brought back a lot of memories for those of us that went through Hurricane Andrew down there in South Florida, when sadly we found out that in the '70s and '80s building inspections in the county were pretty shoddy. This is what the Miami Herald back in 1992 uncovered: “Shoddy building practices exposed.” “Panels faulted Dade's building inspections.” A grand jury back then “overhauled the building code.” And many of the building codes were indeed overhauled. But this building was built in 1981. Are you going -- do you think you should order a review of any building basically that was built essentially in the '70s and '80s, pre-Hurricane Andrew and have them all reinspected with a fine-tooth comb?
MAYOR DANIELLA LEVINE CAVA:
We have a very strong building code, as you know. And based on Hurricane Andrew, as you say, we learned so much from that. And buildings subsequent have been built to a very high standard. For sure, when we get this information, we may look at what else we might do. At this point, we're starting with the review of those 40-plus. And, you know, look, this, as far as we know and hope, is an anomaly. But the investigation is going to be ongoing. Right now, we're still very focused on search and rescue.
CHUCK TODD:
I understand that, but we've seen the initial, the initial release of papers about and the inspections of this building. And clearly, some flaws were identified three years ago. Look, obviously hindsight makes that all look very haunting when we're reading about it today. But does that give you a lot of concern that maybe there's quite a few buildings that maybe you don't know about -- and why would you at this point because it's going through the process. That has to give you more concern that there may be more troubled buildings in the area.
MAYOR DANIELLA LEVINE CAVA:
So, I've been speaking to my fellow mayors of cities and we are talking about what we will do in the municipalities as well as Miami-Dade County, and I can assure you that we'll be taking a very aggressive look at everything.
CHUCK TODD:
Are you getting all the federal and state support you need?
MAYOR DANIELLA LEVINE CAVA:
We are very grateful. Not only the state of Florida has been here in force but the president, on the morning of the disaster, called to offer all possible assistance and by the end of that day, we had FEMA approval. So, we're working super hard to get everything we need and we have not lacked for any support as well as support from around the world.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, it is -- hurricane season just began. The barrier island that contains Surfside and Miami Beach have not been directly hit in a generation, if not more. Andrew missed the barrier island with a direct hit. Are you, do you feel as if the barrier island is ready for this hurricane season?
MAYOR DANIELLA LEVINE CAVA:
You know, we have a very aggressive drill for hurricane season. We know how to manage hurricanes. Our emergency operations center is ready to go. In fact, is activated because of this disaster. But we're on top of it. And of course, we'll deal with whatever comes our way.
CHUCK TODD:
And finally, I'm thinking about the first responders who are going into a very unstable situation. You've talked about the fire that was put out. We remember after 9/11 many first responders ended up with breathing issues. Ended up with, you know, the air quality ended up becoming very harmful to them. What kind of protections are you guys trying to put into place to keep our first responders as healthy as possible?
MAYOR DANIELLA LEVINE CAVA:
Yeah, as you say, our first concern is those who are saving lives. So, we have all of the protective gear. They have respiratory equipment. We've been using fans, obviously, quelling the fire and the smoke. And, you know, if it was not a condition in which they could breathe, they have had to avoid that area. And we're keeping our people safe because they are sacrificing for us each and every day.
CHUCK TODD:
Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava, quite the first-year challenge that you have before you. Hang in there. We're all pulling for you.
MAYOR DANIELLA LEVINE CAVA:
Thank you. Thank you, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD:
All right, turning now to the big political story of the week here in Washington, President Biden's effort to get an agreement on infrastructure. When Mr. Biden said on Thursday, "We have a deal," it seemed like the kind of bipartisan accomplishment he promised during the campaign to skeptics that he could deliver. Then again, maybe not. Republicans were angered when Mr. Biden announced a few hours later that he wouldn’t sign this bipartisan package unless he could sign a more progressive -- and yes, it would be more expensive -- Democratic bill on what they’re calling human infrastructure at the same time.
[BEGIN TAPE]
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
If only one comes to me, I’m not-- if this is the only thing that comes to me, I’m not signing it. It’s in tandem.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
Well, Lindsey Graham, one of the 11 Republican senators initially onboard responded by saying, "If he's going to tie them together, he can forget it. I'm not doing that. That's extortion. I'm not going to do that." Well, yesterday with the deal apparently in jeopardy, the president walked back his statement a bit. In a lengthy statement, he writes, "My comments also created the impression that I was issuing a veto threat on the very plan I had just agreed to which was certainly not my intent." Well, many progressive Democrats, meanwhile, won't go along with Thursday's bipartisan package without that two-bill guarantee. So where does that leave us? Joining me now is Republican Senator Bill Cassidy who's part of a group at the White House, that bipartisan group, on what was initially quite the celebratory day. Senator Cassidy, welcome back to Meet the Press.
SEN. BILL CASSIDY:
Thank you, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD:
So let me start with the president's statement yesterday. Does the -- is the deal still in jeopardy? Or was that enough to calm the waters?
SEN. BILL CASSIDY:
I sure hope it's enough. It's a great deal. It is actually going to provide the infrastructure that American people -- that the American people want, that they need, that will make our country more prosperous for all Americans. So I hope it's enough. We'll see going forward. But I'll continue to work for the bill.
CHUCK TODD:
I was just going to say, it sounds like it's enough for you. You know there’s a little bit of a -- to quote Casablanca, are Republicans really shocked that the Democrats were going to pursue their own bill? I mean, you've stated it quite clearly, you knew, you knew exactly what the situation was. What makes this, what makes tying them together somehow more fraught for some than if it's, you know, back to back the way it's likely to be?
SEN. BILL CASSIDY:
First, we were assured that the two would not be linked. Yes, the human infrastructure, if you will, as they call it, would be pursued. But the two would not be linked. Why is that important? First, there's bipartisan opposition to the non hard infrastructure portion of their bill. Bipartisan in both chambers. That's number one. Number two, Republicans think that portion is bad for our country. We have an inflation rate that is higher than it's been in quite some time. And that bill would make it higher. So we don't want to be party of something that might coerce the passage. And lastly, it'll, it’ll probably sink both. This infrastructure bill is good for America. For all Americans. It is going to make us more productive. It's going to create lots of jobs. If you sink both, we lose the advantage of that which is in our hand, which is this infrastructure bill.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, considering the infrastructure problems we still see, and there's some experts who say as good as this bill is, the problems we face in this country of rebuilding our roads and bridges and adding some 21st century technology, that this bill still isn't enough. Do you accept that criticism?
SEN. BILL CASSIDY:
First, CBO, I'm told, estimates that the most we can absorb per year is about $70 billion in infrastructure spending, hard infrastructure, roads, bridges, et cetera, before, you know, it becomes a little wasteful. That's the capacity we have. We kind of get there. We're close to what we say is the maximum. But by the way, we go further. We also have $47 billion for resiliency. I was discussing this with the White House, I said, "Does that include things like coastal restoration and working on rivers to make sure they don't flood as much?" They said, "That's absolutely what we're thinking of." So I'd also argue that not only do we have the roads and the bridges and the tunnels, but we also have the other infrastructure which will protect those roads and bridges and tunnels. There's a lot here to like. It's a good bill.
CHUCK TODD:
What's your case to some skeptical Republicans who, on one hand, I think want to go home and say, "Hey, I did get some work done. I was able to secure funding for this bridge over here or this restoration project over there," but somehow, the political chattering class tells them, "Hey, you're going to give Joe Biden a win, right, because you're supporting a bill he supports"? And I know we're so politically cynical in this town. But sadly, there's quite a few senators that stick their finger in the wind with the political base and make a decision on it. How do you, how do you walk that line? What's your message to those Republican senators?
SEN. BILL CASSIDY:
If you go home and talk to constituents who are stuck in traffic for an hour and a half getting to work, and an hour and a half getting home, three hours a day that they don't spend with their family, they want these -- they want a bridge coming to a town near them. My wife says that roads and bridges are a, a woman's problem, if you will. Because oftentimes, it is the woman, aside from commuting to work, who's also taking children to school. They're doing the shopping. And the more time she spends on that road, the less time she spends doing things of higher value. So if you speak to her, she's going to say, "This is a good bill." Lastly, I will say if you speak to communities which have flooded, which have been in danger, you just spoke about hurricanes striking Miami. My coastline is -- in Louisiana has been melting away. If you speak to those communities, they really like the resiliency piece. If you put your finger up in the air, you're going to feel a breeze blowing in favor of this bill.
CHUCK TODD:
Senator Mitch McConnell, we know that if he doesn't like something, he can convince probably more than 40 Republicans to vote no. How much are you consulting with him and is he still comfortable with where this deal's going even if he doesn't personally support it?
SEN. BILL CASSIDY:
Hey, Mitch has been -- if we can pull this off, I think Mitch will favor it. Now he didn't like the president throwing the wrench in there saying, "Listen, the two are tied together." That's not what we were told. And so, of course, that caused a little bit of a hm, let's think about this. But I think Mitch McConnell wants infrastructure as much as anyone else. He wants the jobs that this will create. I think Leader McConnell will be for it if it continues to come together as it is.
CHUCK TODD:
I've got to ask you, the former president is on what some have deemed a revenge tour. He's basically trying to go after people that either voted to impeach him or voted to convict him. How much does that concern you politically?
SEN. BILL CASSIDY:
It doesn't concern me at all. There's a scripture, "Let the day's own troubles be sufficient for the day." If Republicans focus on doing what is right, if they focus on that woman's issue, as my wife calls it, the roads and the bridges, the protection of our coastline, the decrease to the risk of wildfires and floods, future politics will take care of themselves. Good policy is good politics. Let's stick to the good policy and this is good policy.
CHUCK TODD:
Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican from Louisiana, and part of this bipartisan group trying to strike this deal, thanks for coming on and sharing your perspective.
SEN. BILL CASSIDY:
Thank you, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, we're going to hear from one of the leading progressive Democrats on this debate over one or two bills. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York joins us next. Stay with us.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. President Biden wasn't the only Democrat who linked the two infrastructure bills on Thursday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly told her Democratic conference members, "There ain't no infrastructure bill without the reconciliation bill." And yes, she emphasized the word "ain't" on that one. That's the Democratic bill that would include many progressive priorities, including more money for education, child poverty, money to fight climate change, deal with the care economy. All paid for by tax hikes on the wealthy and on corporations. So, joining me now is one of the leading progressive voices in the party, it's Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. Congresswoman, welcome back to Meet the Press.
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Of course, thank you for having me.
CHUCK TODD:
So, it's basically the flip question here that I asked Senator Cassidy. President Biden's, I don't know what do we call it, the statement, a walk back or not, his clarification of his -- was it a veto threat was it not. What he said on Thursday seemed to cheer progressives. Do you think his, are you a little upset by the walk back that he made yesterday, or do you consider it a walk back at all?
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
You know, I think regardless of the president’s statements, there are three key chess pieces that we need to align to pass any legislation, as we know. There's the Senate, there's the House and there's the White House, there’s the presidency. So, I believe that, you know, the president is more than able to take his own approach, but I believe that we also have to talk about this missing piece which is the, the House. And I believe that in the House and House Democrats are very committed to making sure that, you know, in Senator Cassidy's words, that infrastructure is very centered on women and in addition to a bridge, you need a babysitter. And it's very important that we pass a reconciliation bill and a families plan that expands childcare, that lowers the cost of Medicare, that supports families in the economy.
CHUCK TODD:
Would you like it to be -- would you like the president to be issuing a veto threat on the bipartisan deal, if the reconciliation package doesn't come to fruition?
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Well, I think, I think what's really important is that -- I think it's very important for the president to know that House progressives, and I believe, you know, the Democratic Caucus is here to ensure that he doesn't fail. And we're here to make sure that he is successful in making sure that we do have a larger infrastructure plan. And the fact of the matter is is that while we can welcome this work and welcome collaboration with Republicans and in those areas where there is agreement, Republicans are more than welcome to join, so that we can get this work on infrastructure done. But that doesn't mean that the president should be limited by Republicans, particularly when we have a House majority, we have 50 Democratic senators and we have the White House, and I believe that we can make sure that he's successful in executing a strong agenda for working families.
CHUCK TODD:
Look, the Democratic majorities are precarious, right. They're very narrow in the House. Extraordinarily narrow in the Senate. And when I think about the makeup of the Democratic coalition, you know, we could make a case here that maybe 50% or a slight majority is progressive, but that doesn't give you the majority votes here. How big do you think this reconciliation package can be? I mean, I've seen upwards of $3, $4 trillion. But I've also heard from some more conservative Democrats in the House, who think 3 trillion is too much. So, is there a baseline number that you can tolerate before you come out against the deal?
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Well, to me, it's not just about a price tag, right. You can have an enormous price tag that is chock full of fossil fuels giveaways and doesn't spend that money in a way that is going to, that is going to solve our problems. So, and likewise, you can also have an infrastructure plan that is too small, and it's so small that it doesn't invest in any meaningful way that people can really feel a positive impact in their everyday lives. And so for me, it's not as much about a price tag, although I do think that there is a level where we do go too small, but I think it's really about what impact are we making. And I believe that you all -- it's really important that we talk about, you know, that this 3 trillion, 6 trillion, these figures that are tossed around, they're spread out over 10 years, we aren't -- or in eight years in some of these packages. And so when you break that down into a per year cost, it is much, much smaller and frankly, we really need to understand that this is our one big shot, not just in terms of family, childcare, Medicare, but on climate change. The IPCC report just came out this week that showed devastating consequences if we under invest. And so while I appreciate, for example, Senator Kennedy's emphasis on resilience. Resilience does not draw down carbon and building car infrastructure does not draw down carbon, while I appreciate the EV investment, we need to have real deal rail investment, high speed rail investment, that will help actually electrify and transition a lot of folks, so that they have the option to take rail almost wherever they need to take it.
CHUCK TODD:
Obviously, a lot of this depends on the Senate Democrats holding together. I know where you stand on the filibuster, so I'm curious what you thought of Senator Sinema’s op-ed, where she made this defense of keeping the filibuster. And she wrote, “Would it be good for our country if we did,” did this, basically using the fili -- getting rid of the filibuster, “only to see that legislation rescinded a few years from now, and replaced by a nationwide voter ID law, restrictions on voting by mail in federal elections over the objections of the minority?” I, look, the argument she's making is, let's say you get rid of the filibuster, you get all of this progressive change that you would like to see, and then all of a sudden, the roles are reversed, and everything gets rolled back. Is that a good enough defense to you for the filibuster?
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
No. I mean, it is a, it's essentially an argument of saying, “Well why do anything at all, in case something in the future may change it.” Political systems all across the country, I mean all across the world, pass legislation with majorities and they're fine, and frankly, here's the thing, is that Democratic legislation, once enacted, is popular. Republicans have tried to gut Social Security. They've tried to reverse the ACA. They've tried to claw back on legislation that has passed by simple majorities in the Senate, and they haven't been able to because Democratic policies are popular, and once they are enacted, they are very politically difficult to undo. And so you know, I do not believe in the defeatism of saying, “We will lose in the future, and that, this will automatically mean that anything we do now is going to be reversed, so we might as well not do anything now.” Our job is to legislate. Our job is to help people. Our job is to do as much as we can. And even if that's the case, even if that is the case, wouldn't it be better to get people health care and voting rights for three years instead of zero years, even if, even if you concede the point that I don't even think is true in the first place. And so, beyond that, then the argument is, “Okay, why 60 votes. Why not stop at 70 votes? Why not need 80 votes to pass any legislation? Why defend a 60 vote filibuster, when the Senate already amplifies minority power, so that the 50 Democratic senators already represent millions and millions and millions more Americans than 50 Republican senators.” And so, I would argue that 50 Republican senators is already a built in, kind of filibuster-esque firewall.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, really appreciate you coming on, sharing your perspective with us. I wanted to get in a little bit of New York City politics. But you know what, we've still got a lot of counting to do. So, maybe we ought to wait for the analysis --
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
We do. We do.
CHUCK TODD:
-- until we have the votes counted. Anyway, thanks for coming on. Appreciate it.
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:
Thank you very much.
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, President Biden's high wire act. Can he keep enough moderate Republicans and progressive Democrats together to prove he's right that bipartisanship in this town is still possible? Panel is next.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. The panel is here and, yes, in person again. NBC News chief Washington correspondent Andrea Mitchell; Joshua Johnson, host of The Week with Joshua Johnson on MSNBC; Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute; and Yamiche Alcindor, who -- this is the first time you've been here when we've been able to say you are the moderator of Washington Week on PBS.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR:
Yes.
CHUCK TODD:
By the way, congratulations --
YAMICHE ALCINDOR:
Thank you. Thank you.
CHUCK TODD:
-- publicly on that. All right, in First Read on Friday, Mark Murray and I, and our team, laid out, sort of, three ways that this bipartisan deal can get derailed. Scenario one, conservatives revolt. You saw that with Lindsay Graham, dual track infrastructure plan he called extortion. You heard Bill Cassidy seemed to think maybe the president's statement helped calm the waters. Scenario two is that the Democratic consensus unravels. We heard how that could be possible from Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez. There, although, I sensed that there is an attempt to not make the White House mad. I mean, I thought that was interesting there. And then scenario three is something we call the great unknown, but the fact is these are fragile majorities, okay, and anything can happen and suddenly the majority can change. I mean, we have very narrow majorities in the House and Senate. Andrea Mitchell, where does this deal stand?
ANDREA MITCHELL:
It is in such a fraught place, just teetering on the balance. They want it. You could hear from Senator Cassidy, they want it. There's a lot that's good in it. He says Mitch McConnell might want it. I don't know about that.
CHUCK TODD:
Well, he wants the new bridge between northern Kentucky and Cincinnati.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
He wants the bridge, yes.
CHUCK TODD:
That, he does want.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
But he does not want a Biden victory. That's very clear. And this would be a Biden victory. So, people want infrastructure, but I never, in my experience, have seen two bills so different moving in tandem, which Pelosi and Schumer have said is their bottom line. And, you know, you heard Nancy Pelosi say, "It ain't gonna happen without it," using that word, “ain't.” And that, of course, precipitated the president misspeaking so badly that he had to release this long statement of apology, and you know you never see anything like that. But for both of these to work through. And they have to wait. And they can't move quickly because in August they're going to be writing the language. So, I think that senators like Moran and others are really --
CHUCK TODD:
Dany, I think you're the one former Senate staffer here. So, I say that because you know how these compromise bills are “hurry up and vote,” right? That's the thing that I sit here and you’re like -- they're not going to vote on this until September, those three scenarios, I think they're going to happen 3,000 times between now and the end of September. What say you?
DANIELLE PLETKA:
Well, I think that's absolutely right. There's also the question of what's going to happen on reconciliation, right. What's going to happen on this other -- how many trillion are we talking about now? $4 trillion? $5 trillion? $6 trillion?
CHUCK TODD:
Well, by the way, I thought it was interesting AOC wouldn't say what her number -- bottom line number is, because they have to negotiate that number.
DANIELLE PLETKA:
Yeah. But it starts with a T. And for Republicans, I think they are increasingly -- the closer we get to the end of the year, the closer we get to next year's election, they're going to start to ask themselves the question, A, are we paving the way towards this other reconciliation bill in which we say, okay, you can spend $1.3 trillion, $1.4 trillion? But then you're going to do three, four, five, six more on reconciliation? Are Republicans really going to be okay with letting that happen? Are their voters? Can I just also ask one last question? Where's all this money coming from? It's not crazy.
CHUCK TODD:
Yes, well, we’ve seemed to not worry about the deficit in a long time.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR:
Well pay fors are, of course, a real question, but what this week really underscores is how fragile bipartisanship is in Washington and this really delicate dance that is being done. You had that list of three. I was surprised that it was three because then I realized number three is really 1 through 99, right?
CHUCK TODD:
Yes, it is. I know.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR:
Anything could happen because what the president, of course, said was, "I want both of these bills on my desk." And, of course, he had that long 600-word statement where he was really trying to assure people, "Yes, I am behind the bipartisan bill." With that said, there also is this feeling, I was on the White House driveway when the president swaggered out with all the senators. All of those smiling senators had to know that Democrats were going to have a second bill, right. There, of course, was not the veto there, but we have to remember that, I think, the White House has been saying and Democrats have been saying for a long time that they wanted this second track bill. So, there is this real understanding, I think, between Democrats and Republicans, we can have this, but you can't say that it's too tied together.
JOSHUA JOHNSON:
I do take the points in terms of having a bill that starts with a T, the price tag, because this will be two, right? Covid relief and then infrastructure. So, I think that's a good --
ANDREA MITCHELL:
This year.
JOSHUA JOHNSON:
This year, exactly, right. In the first year. And that politically, potentially, that's ammunition, I think, to speak to a Republican base. I do think, however, there's nothing like a disaster to focus the mind. I have never spent a night in a building and wondered if it was going to hold me up by morning. I stayed in the hotel right across the street from here. I'm on the seventh floor. I laid in bed and, just before my eyes closed, I thought about the condo. There's nothing like a disaster to focus the mind. The idea that we have infrastructure in this building, and you and I are both from south Florida. Florida is one big infrastructure project, right? Bill Cassidy is in Louisiana.
CHUCK TODD:
Same thing.
JOSHUA JOHNSON:
That's a big infrastructure -- right. Built on swamp land. New York subways have flooded in the last few years. And the National Institute of Building Sciences has said --
CHUCK TODD:
We had a pedestrian bridge fall in this town --
JOSHUA JOHNSON:
Exactly. This week on the D.C. Maryland line. And the National Institute of Building Sciences has said for every dollar you spend on hazard mitigation, it saves $6.00 in disaster relief. Miami Beach hasn't been hit by a major hurricane since about 1926. They called it the Big Blow. It was a Category 4 hurricane that killed 113 people, drowned and crushed by a hurricane. So, I understand all these political calculi that are playing, but there's nothing like a disaster to remind the American people the home you sleep in may not stand by morning. And there's something you can do about it.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
But there's just one thing about the so-called pay fors. They are completely made up. If you're not doing a gas tax and you're not doing an electric car tax, which the White House has ruled out --
DANIELLE PLETKA:
And you're not doing entitlement reform.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
And you're not doing entitlement -- well, forget that. You know, you're doing IRS collections? That's the old waste, fraud, and abuse of the 1980s. It doesn't exist.
CHUCK TODD:
I wish we would get rid of the Department of waste, fraud, and abuse. We always think there's so much money in it. Why do we fund the waste, fraud, and abuse department? Sorry, old joke of mine.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
You know, they will agree on it -- because both sides, nobody wants to face the reality that there is no way to pay for any of this. And inflation rearing its head. Let's just see where we are with the economy by fall.
CHUCK TODD:
And Yamiche, do the House Democrats have the votes for $3 trillion in reconciliation spending?
YAMICHE ALCINDOR:
Right now they do not. And there’s a real -- Nancy Pelosi already has lost at least one vote from a moderate, Blue Dog Democrat and she can't afford to lose more than two votes, right?
CHUCK TODD:
What are we down to, right, yeah.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR:
Right. Right. So, this is a very, very fragile situation for Democrats. They're trying to also get Senator Manchin to agree with Senator Bernie Sanders, which is going to be a feat in the Senate here. But I will go back to I think something that Josh said, because as a south Florida native myself who has family searching the rubble right now, there is something to really be said about the idea that we're talking about 156 to even 200 souls that may possibly go missing at the end of this. Right now the number is 156. But it's really, really scary when you think about the idea that that building, it's an anomaly that it came down, but the fact that it was dealing with corrosion, the fact that there was a consultant three years earlier saying there's major structural issues with this building, how many more buildings have reports like that? How many more senators are now getting notes from their constituents saying, "Are the buildings in our cities and states safe?" That might be the thing that was one of the unknowns that might actually help this in your list.
CHUCK TODD:
It could. It could.
DANIELLE PLETKA:
But this isn't just about money. This is about responsible governance. You want to talk about south Florida. And without that, all the money in the world isn't going to make a difference.
CHUCK TODD:
This is a reminder, folks, your local officials, worry about who you're voting in. We had terrible local officials in the '70s and '80s that allowed all of this shoddy stuff to happen down there. And to see it now, when this building -- when I saw 1981, it was just one of those you just got --
DANIELLE PLETKA:
You sort of knew exactly --
CHUCK TODD:
You just got angry all over again. We don't know the answer yet, but Occam's razor does. When we come back, in a country deeply divided on cultural and social issues, the growing acceptance across the board for same-sex marriage. Stay with us.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. It is Data Download time. This week, Carl Nassib of the Las Vegas Raiders became the first openly gay active player in the NFL. And what made it newsworthy was the fact that it elicited mostly a shrug from the general public. So, to mark the end of LGBTQ pride month, we wanted to look at how far the debate has shifted in the last few decades. And the best place to look, of course, is on the issue of same-sex marriage. When you look at what we have now, 70% of all adults believe that same-sex marriage should be legal. And this is across the board on the political spectrum. 83% of Democrats, 73% of independents and a majority of Republicans, 55%. In fact, there is more acceptance of same-sex marriage than there is of global warming occurring or that abortion is morally acceptable, as you can see. So, we've made a lot of progress there. Now, and this has changed a lot. In 2004, the idea of same-sex marriage was a polarizing debate in this country, and it was used in that presidential campaign in order to generate voter turnout. Well, there is a new divisive part of the LGBTQ rights fight these days, and it has to do with trans people. Legislation targeting trans people in this country is occurring in more than 30 states. And this is the, quote, “new battleground” that you're going to see. In 2004, you would have seen a map like this that would have been states targeting and trying to make same-sex marriage illegal. So the question we have is, will we see the same rate of acceptance of the trans community over the next couple of decades as we did with same-sex marriage this, earlier this century? When we come back, Republican state legislatures limit voting access, and the Justice Department is striking back. Stay with us.
[BEGIN TAPE]
ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND:
Our complaint alleges that recent changes to Georgia's election laws were enacted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right of Black Georgians to vote on account of their race or color, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. That was the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, announcing that they are going to challenge Georgia's laws. And Yamiche, this feels like this is the first of what could be many Justice Department attempts to challenge some of these state laws around the country. Where is this going?
YAMICHE ALCINDOR:
When you talk to people who are really familiar with the thinking about this, it's that Democrats realize that they might- that it’s not going to only be solved in a legislative way. There has to be a judicial and a court battle ahead. And when I'm talking to Civil Rights activists, they say they want to see two specific things when the DOJ really going after state legislatures. So, it's that you can not just not only voters- suppress people's votes, but nullify people's votes. So, that can't be the way that America works. The second thing that they want to see is more judges on the court. They want to see President Biden accelerate his nominees to the courts. So, I think that's also where this is going. This is an existential crisis in America. Who can actually get the access to vote? Republicans in state legislatures are saying if you- essentially, and critics would say, that if you, if we don't like the way that you voted, we will take away your vote. And that, I think, is a real problem. If you look at Philadelphia state legislatures and if they- whether or not they can even nullify a million votes in Philly. That could be a problem and a big problem.
CHUCK TODD:
Well, look, and I think this is where, sort of, the, the multiple conversations here, Dani. There's the fight about access to the polls, and then there's the fight about who decides what vote counts. And I want to put up a map here. We have about a dozen states that have attempted to either change or already have changed laws or restricted local officials from what they can do to change election laws. This seems to be, first of all, the harder to defend position for the right. And the question I have is whether the courts can effectively stop this.
DANIELLE PLETKA:
I mean, there are a whole bunch of issues at play here. I don't think that the Republican Party, whether at the state level or at the federal level, wants to be known as the party of voter suppression any more than I think the Democratic party wants to be known as the party of voter fraud. But the challenge here is that, because of Covid, there were a lot of changes on a state-by-state level. It is confusing to me, and I think to a lot of people, that when states seek to adjust based on some of those changes, for example, drop boxes, okay, Georgia never had drop boxes before. Now drop boxes are in law. This is the law that Merrick Garland was just talking about. You know, there are going to be problems if, at the federal level, they decide that they only need to go after Republican states, that they need to go after Republican run states for laws that mirror, for example, things that exist in Delaware or New York or Connecticut or New Hampshire. And I think the other challenge is that, I think it's hard to argue that we are in an existential crisis. How many people voted in the last election? More than ever before. We have unbelievable voter engagement. So, again, there are reasonable arguments to be had here, but I'm not sure that those are the ones that are going on.
CHUCK TODD:
I do want to get to the point though of whether the bigger mistake here is that there hasn't been a bigger push to renew the Voting Rights Act.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Absolutely.
CHUCK TODD:
And because I don't know if Merrick Garland has the tools, and has the, to push back on these.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
This is an attempt to deal with the preclearance issue. And it is no accident that it, these changes are taking place in particular states. And it is a nullification. It's Arizona taking away from the state, Secretary of the State Katie Hobbs, her right. And in Georgia--
CHUCK TODD:
By the way, they write it so that the law, the change would expire--
ANDREA MITCHELL:
It's specific, exactly.
CHUCK TODD:
--when her election term expires.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
There’s this new question
CHUCK TODD:
It's the most bizarre attempt of all.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
It's taking 100,000 people off the --
DANIELLE PLETKA:
Andrea, can I ask a question?
ANDREA MITCHELL:
No, I'm sorry, it is specifically aimed at people of color, at people who have voted in this last election, people who had access because of the changes, because of COVID. They had more access. It's taking away, in Texas, taking away Sunday voting, you know, Souls to the Polls. It's exactly aimed at minority voters.
(OVERTALK)
DANIELLE PLETKA:
But Georgia added Sunday voting. Not, didn't take it away.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR:
But Dany, they --
ANDREA MITCHELL:
But they took away other aspects. They are purging the rolls. And it's just, it’s so explicit that, in each of these cases, if you talk to lawyers on both sides of the case, there's no question that, in Georgia, they have a very, very good case.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR:
And we have to remember that this is based on a lie, right. We have to remember that when you push Republicans, I've talked to state Republicans, "Why are you doing this?" "Well, there were, there was voter fraud. There were voter issues." You have William Barr, just out today, with an interview with The Atlantic saying, "It's BS. All of the Trump stuff about--"
CHUCK TODD:
He didn't say BS. He said the whole word.
JOSHUA JOHNSON:
He said the word, right.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR:
I’m on TV. But it was BS, that President Trump didn't like that he lost and then he said the election was stolen. And he said that he won when he didn't. And then Republicans, who are keeping, letting him continue to have power, understanding that he has a lot of influence with the base, that, that they are following suit in this conspiracy theory. And we have to really base all the conversation in the fact that there was no widespread voter fraud, and that Black people and people of color, who fought and died for the right to vote, that their access to the ballot box is now in, in, in jeopardy.
JOSHUA JOHNSON:
And I think, in a way, that's what makes me have a little bit of hope about all of this in the long term. This whole voter suppression big lie thing is such a mood. It feels very much like a Hail Mary. I think both parties know demographically where the country is going. The nation knows this was a lie. I think there's a very strong core of people who buy into this, but this whole last gasp to try to take votes away from people because you didn't like the way the election is going. When I talk to younger people, younger voters who are getting more and more politically engaged, this feels very much like a desperate last gasp, especially among people who know what happened to the Voting Rights Act
ANDREA MITCHELL:
But you know --
JOSHUA JOHNSON:
-- and who are serious about seeing everyone just being able to cast their ballot.
CHUCK TODD:
Dany, finish here.
DANIELLE PLETKA:
I understand. I think it's important we separate out the big lie part of this, because for Donald--
ANDREA MITCHELL:
You can't.
DANIELLE PLETKA:
Hang on a second. Hang on a second. First of all, I can. There may be people who can't. There may be legislatures that don't want to. I agree with you about Arizona and I think that this, this transparent attempt to replace someone they don't like is wrong. On the other hand, I think there, I think that part of the argument that we're making about places like Georgia is, is, is unjust, you know? They, they're allowing Sunday voting. They've expanded access. So, and the very hero against Trump, Brad Raffensperger, who was Secretary of State, is now a, a villain. I don't get--
YAMICHE ALCINDOR:
To Republicans.
DANIELLE PLETKA:
No, nope. He's a villain also in this Georgia voting rights question.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
One of the --
CHUCK TODD:
Quickly, last word.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
I think one of the problems here is that, that you've got two bills, the John Lewis bill and the For, the For The People Act. And the first was a messaging bill with everything voted in. It's the John Lewis bill that's important.
CHUCK TODD:
That, that to me, was a mistake.
ANDREA MITCHELL:
Exactly.
CHUCK TODD:
I think Congressional Democratic leadership made a mistake not focusing on H.R.1 first. Okay, that's all for today, a very lively panel discussion here at the end, I appreciate that. Thank you for watching. We'll be back next week, even on Independence Day, because if it's Sunday, it's Meet The Press.