It includes a $4.1 billion tax break for people who buy electric bicycles, $2.5 billion for “tree equity,” another $2.5 billion to help “contingency fee” lawyers recoup their expenses and a long-sought tax break for producers of sound recordings.

The marquee programs within the Democrats’ social safety net and climate change bill — such as universal prekindergarten, child care subsidies and prescription drug price controls — have garnered most of the public attention. But when a nearly $2 trillion piece of legislation moves through Congress, it affords lawmakers ample opportunity to pursue any number of niche issues — and lobbyists and industries plenty of room to notch long-sought victories tucked deep inside thousands of pages of text.

That is the case with the Build Back Better Act, which could aid a wide array of special interests and Democratic allies that have waited years for such a moment.

“I welcome the attention. I don’t think these are fringe, niche issues,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., who had no reservations about extolling one of his cherished provisions: the tax incentive to help consumers purchase electric bicycles, or e-bikes.

So far, President Joe Biden and leading Democrats have publicly championed the bill’s biggest-ticket and most ambitious items. Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, said Tuesday that he expected a vote on the measure by Friday, although it could slip to Saturday.

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, chairman of the House Democrats’ campaign arm, called it “the most important investment in our families, our people, since the New Deal.”

Republican opponents, too, have largely fixated on the broader issues: the role of government, the economic repercussions of tax increases and the potentially inflationary effect that more government spending could have.

That has left lawmakers that much freer to secure provisions that have largely avoided scrutiny. Rep. Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif., another proponent of electric bike subsidies, said the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee drafted its section of the bill, provision by provision, and no one objected to the e-bike measure, which would cover 30% of the cost, up to $900, to, as he put it, “put butts on bikes.”

“Once you get out there, once you start talking about benefits and once you talk to people who have tried e-bikes, they accept it and they want it,” he said. Getting the money into the bill “was easier than I expected,” he added.

Such pride of authorship appears to be widely shared. Many obscure provisions may emerge as subjects of ridicule, but Democrats are not shying away from their work. Every niche item has a constituency that regards it as central.

A Senate Republican memo, for instance, singled out the $50 million pilot program, tucked into a broader home health care section, to promote the use of doulas, professionals whose sole priority is to support and provide guidance to birthing mothers. Doulas — the word means “servant” in Greek — typically lack formal obstetric training and provide care such as massage and other touch therapy, rather than medical services. They are used by only a small percentage of pregnant women in the United States.

But some Democratic-led states have moved to broaden access to them, including New York, which began a pilot program to expand Medicaid coverage for doula services. The Democrats who secured the doula funding in the hulking social policy bill do not duck their responsibility for it. Rep. Alma Adams, D-N.C., co-chairwoman of the Black Maternal Health Caucus, said the doula provision is just one of several she helped secure.

Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Ill., said Black women die in childbirth at four times the rate of white women, arguing that the doula assistance is a necessity.

“Too many moms have died in the United States, and doulas have the cultural competency to support mothers before, during and after birth,” Kelly said. Doulas, she said, are “advocates for the birthing mom.”

Blumenauer was especially proud of a $1.9 billion provision, written to stave off the death of local news media, that would provide local newspapers and broadcasters a payroll tax credit worth 50% of wages up to $50,000 for the first year and 30% of wages in the second year for each employee. And it is not confined to tiny outlets; a “qualifying publication” must “serve a local community by providing local news,” but the credit is capped at 1,500 employees a quarter.

“The collapse of local journalism has had serious consequences for our ability to govern,” said Blumenauer, a senior member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, pointing to anti-Muslim and other offensive remarks made by a Republican truck driver who defeated New Jersey’s Senate president this month — but revealed by the news media only after his election.

“There was no opportunity for local media to provide even basic information about the candidates,” Blumenauer said. “The guy would never have been elected if he had gotten any scrutiny at all.”

Some of the measures tucked into the bill have languished for years. In 2007, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., drafted legislation that would allow lawyers who work on a contingency basis — they will be paid only if they win — to take a tax write-off of expenses from a case as they are incurred. Currently, such expenses can be claimed only once judgment on the case has been rendered.

Since the measure was written, Specter switched parties, was defeated and then died, but his work has found its moment. The change would generate considerable savings for trial lawyers — $2.5 billion, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’ nonpartisan referee on tax policy.

“Lawyers working on a contingency fee basis cannot deduct their expenses until the case resolves, which can be years after the expense is incurred,” said Carly Moore Sfregola, a spokeswoman for the American Association for Justice, the trial lawyers’ lobby. “Contingency fee arrangements are the only way that regular people can afford to seek justice.”

And many of the measures have bipartisan origins. An effort to include independent music producers in an existing tax break for film, television and live theatrical productions found a champion in Tennessee’s conservative firebrand senator, Marsha Blackburn, at the behest of Nashville.

Rep. Linda T. Sánchez, D-Calif., initially drafted the Helping Independent Tracks Succeed, or HITS, Act at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, but she was able to bring along Blackburn; Rep. Ron Estes, R-Kan., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

Now, with Sanchez’s help, the act and its tax deduction of up to $150,000 for the costs of producing sound recordings have found their way into the social policy bill, at a cost to the Treasury of $35 million over 10 years.

Blackburn has no intention of voting for the larger bill, but, she said, the act still “is my baby.” In a recent interview on the Fox Business Network, she condemned the legislation, saying, “You’ve got the socialist Democrats who are trying to push all of these socialist wish list items into this bill.”

Other provisions might suffer from their names more than their intentions. Tree planting is widely accepted as a way to absorb carbon from the atmosphere, and a provision in the climate change section of the bill to ensure that tree planting include poor neighborhoods might have escaped notice.

But because Democrats used the buzz phrase “tree equity” to describe it, Senate Republicans singled out the $2.5 billion provision in a memo as one of the questionable “earmarks for Democrat interests and allies,” along with environmental justice tax credits for universities and climate justice block grants.

Republicans have also denounced a $177 million tax credit to entice university donors to support infrastructure research, a provision that Blumenauer said should be extolled, not ridiculed.

“Large research institutions are awash in money,” he said. “For smaller colleges, we’re trying to give an opportunity to build their own programs on infrastructure and give more flexibility by encouraging private donations.”

So far, the highest-profile Republicans have kept their criticism at the loftiest level. Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader, took to the House floor to declare, “On the merits, this bill deserves to be defeated. Fundamentally, it’s anti-worker, anti-family, anti-jobs, anti-energy and anti-American.”

But as its more obscure provisions come to light, the line of attack may change.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, previewed that message before the House Rules Committee last week, when she denounced a bill that she said “gives kickbacks to your political allies and campaign donors, all while you print records amount of money that we don’t have to build more inflation.”

It includes a $4.1 billion tax break for people who buy electric bicycles, $2.5 billion for “tree equity,” another $2.5 billion to help “contingency fee” lawyers recoup their expenses and a long-sought tax break for producers of sound recordings.

It includes a $4.1 billion tax break for people who buy electric bicycles, $2.5 billion for “tree equity,” another $2.5 billion to help “contingency fee” lawyers recoup their expenses and a long-sought tax break for producers of sound recordings. The marquee programs within the Democrats’ social safety net and climate change bill — such as universal prekindergarten, child care subsidies and prescription drug price controls — have garnered most of the public attention. But when a nearly $2 trillion piece of legislation moves through Congress, it affords lawmakers ample opportunity to pursue any number of niche issues — and lobbyists and industries plenty of room to notch long-sought victories tucked deep inside thousands of pages of text. That is the case with the Build Back Better Act, which could aid a wide array of special interests and Democratic allies that have waited years for such a moment. “I welcome the attention. I don’t think these are fringe, niche issues,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., who had no reservations about extolling one of his cherished provisions: the tax incentive to help consumers purchase electric bicycles, or e-bikes. So far, President Joe Biden and leading Democrats have publicly championed the bill’s biggest-ticket and most ambitious items. Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, said Tuesday that he expected a vote on the measure by Friday, although it could slip to Saturday. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, chairman of the House Democrats’ campaign arm, called it “the most important investment in our families, our people, since the New Deal.” Republican opponents, too, have largely fixated on the broader issues: the role of government, the economic repercussions of tax increases and the potentially inflationary effect that more government spending could have. That has left lawmakers that much freer to secure provisions that have largely avoided scrutiny. Rep. Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif., another proponent of electric bike subsidies, said the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee drafted its section of the bill, provision by provision, and no one objected to the e-bike measure, which would cover 30% of the cost, up to $900, to, as he put it, “put butts on bikes.” “Once you get out there, once you start talking about benefits and once you talk to people who have tried e-bikes, they accept it and they want it,” he said. Getting the money into the bill “was easier than I expected,” he added. Such pride of authorship appears to be widely shared. Many obscure provisions may emerge as subjects of ridicule, but Democrats are not shying away from their work. Every niche item has a constituency that regards it as central. A Senate Republican memo, for instance, singled out the $50 million pilot program, tucked into a broader home health care section, to promote the use of doulas, professionals whose sole priority is to support and provide guidance to birthing mothers. Doulas — the word means “servant” in Greek — typically lack formal obstetric training and provide care such as massage and other touch therapy, rather than medical services. They are used by only a small percentage of pregnant women in the United States. But some Democratic-led states have moved to broaden access to them, including New York, which began a pilot program to expand Medicaid coverage for doula services. The Democrats who secured the doula funding in the hulking social policy bill do not duck their responsibility for it. Rep. Alma Adams, D-N.C., co-chairwoman of the Black Maternal Health Caucus, said the doula provision is just one of several she helped secure. Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Ill., said Black women die in childbirth at four times the rate of white women, arguing that the doula assistance is a necessity. “Too many moms have died in the United States, and doulas have the cultural competency to support mothers before, during and after birth,” Kelly said. Doulas, she said, are “advocates for the birthing mom.” Blumenauer was especially proud of a $1.9 billion provision, written to stave off the death of local news media, that would provide local newspapers and broadcasters a payroll tax credit worth 50% of wages up to $50,000 for the first year and 30% of wages in the second year for each employee. And it is not confined to tiny outlets; a “qualifying publication” must “serve a local community by providing local news,” but the credit is capped at 1,500 employees a quarter. “The collapse of local journalism has had serious consequences for our ability to govern,” said Blumenauer, a senior member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, pointing to anti-Muslim and other offensive remarks made by a Republican truck driver who defeated New Jersey’s Senate president this month — but revealed by the news media only after his election. “There was no opportunity for local media to provide even basic information about the candidates,” Blumenauer said. “The guy would never have been elected if he had gotten any scrutiny at all.” Some of the measures tucked into the bill have languished for years. In 2007, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., drafted legislation that would allow lawyers who work on a contingency basis — they will be paid only if they win — to take a tax write-off of expenses from a case as they are incurred. Currently, such expenses can be claimed only once judgment on the case has been rendered. Since the measure was written, Specter switched parties, was defeated and then died, but his work has found its moment. The change would generate considerable savings for trial lawyers — $2.5 billion, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’ nonpartisan referee on tax policy. “Lawyers working on a contingency fee basis cannot deduct their expenses until the case resolves, which can be years after the expense is incurred,” said Carly Moore Sfregola, a spokeswoman for the American Association for Justice, the trial lawyers’ lobby. “Contingency fee arrangements are the only way that regular people can afford to seek justice.” And many of the measures have bipartisan origins. An effort to include independent music producers in an existing tax break for film, television and live theatrical productions found a champion in Tennessee’s conservative firebrand senator, Marsha Blackburn, at the behest of Nashville. Rep. Linda T. Sánchez, D-Calif., initially drafted the Helping Independent Tracks Succeed, or HITS, Act at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, but she was able to bring along Blackburn; Rep. Ron Estes, R-Kan., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Now, with Sanchez’s help, the act and its tax deduction of up to $150,000 for the costs of producing sound recordings have found their way into the social policy bill, at a cost to the Treasury of $35 million over 10 years. Blackburn has no intention of voting for the larger bill, but, she said, the act still “is my baby.” In a recent interview on the Fox Business Network, she condemned the legislation, saying, “You’ve got the socialist Democrats who are trying to push all of these socialist wish list items into this bill.” Other provisions might suffer from their names more than their intentions. Tree planting is widely accepted as a way to absorb carbon from the atmosphere, and a provision in the climate change section of the bill to ensure that tree planting include poor neighborhoods might have escaped notice. But because Democrats used the buzz phrase “tree equity” to describe it, Senate Republicans singled out the $2.5 billion provision in a memo as one of the questionable “earmarks for Democrat interests and allies,” along with environmental justice tax credits for universities and climate justice block grants. Republicans have also denounced a $177 million tax credit to entice university donors to support infrastructure research, a provision that Blumenauer said should be extolled, not ridiculed. “Large research institutions are awash in money,” he said. “For smaller colleges, we’re trying to give an opportunity to build their own programs on infrastructure and give more flexibility by encouraging private donations.” So far, the highest-profile Republicans have kept their criticism at the loftiest level. Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader, took to the House floor to declare, “On the merits, this bill deserves to be defeated. Fundamentally, it’s anti-worker, anti-family, anti-jobs, anti-energy and anti-American.” But as its more obscure provisions come to light, the line of attack may change. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, previewed that message before the House Rules Committee last week, when she denounced a bill that she said “gives kickbacks to your political allies and campaign donors, all while you print records amount of money that we don’t have to build more inflation.”

From electric bikes to ‘tree equity,’ Biden's social policy bill funds niche items

President Joe Biden signed into law a $1 trillion infrastructure bill at a White House ceremony on Monday. The white House witnessed a rare bipartisan for the signing.

United States: Joe Biden signs $1 TN infrastructure bill into law

Amid heavy criticism and a bleak outlook from opinion polls, President Joe Biden signed into law the largest US infrastructure overhaul in more than half a century on Monday at a rare bipartisan celebration in the White House.

$1.2 trillion of infrastructure improvements includes fixing bridges and roads, replacing lead water pipes, building a charging network for electric vehicles, and the expansion of broadband internet access.

A government investment of this magnitude hasn't been seen since the national highway system was built in the 1950s.

Also read&nbsp; |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-china-virtual-summit-biden-urges-for-guardrails-against-conflict-xi-calls-for-better-communication-429645">US-China virtual summit: Biden urges for 'guardrails' against conflict, Xi calls for better communication</a>

"We've heard countless speeches… but today we're finally getting this done," Biden told hundreds of invitees on the White House South Lawn.

"So my message to the American people is this: America is moving again and your life is going to change for the better."

The bill is "proof that Democrats and Republicans can come together to deliver results," Biden said. "Let's believe in one another and let's believe in America."

Spending on infrastructure is popular, but Biden's predecessor, Donald Trump was unsuccessful at achieving the goal for four years, making promises of an upcoming "infrastructure week" a running joke.

Even now, Biden had to rack up months of negotiating with his fractious Democratic Party to get them to vote, running the risk of a humiliating defeat.

In a bitterly divided Congress, Democrats control only a narrow majority, but in a rare moment of cooperation, a substantial number of Republicans in the Senate joined them along with a symbolic handful in the House.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/insisting-china-play-by-the-rules-of-the-road-biden-xi-virtual-summit-seeks-to-settle-tense-relationship-429637">Insisting China 'play by the rules of the road', Biden-Xi virtual summit seeks to settle tense relationship</a>

"We agreed this would be a truly bipartisan process," Senator Rob Portman, a Republican from Ohio, told the White House gathering. "This should be the beginning of a renewed effort to work together on big issues facing our country." 
 
However, there is a possibility that this&nbsp;feel-good moment will not last.

Biden's approval ratings are on the decline, with the latest Washington Post-ABC poll showing just 41 per cent approval. It is most concerning for the White House that support is ebbing away not only among independent voters but also within the Democratic Party itself.

In spite of the outreach by some Republicans, the majority of the opposition party has little interest in declaring a truce.

In a scathing attack against the 13 Republicans in the House who voted alongside the Democrats, Trump said Republicans who crossed the aisle should be "ashamed" and are not real Republicans.

The hard-right Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, particularly vocal in her support for Trump, called the 13 fellow Republicans "traitors." She tweeted out the office phone numbers of the fellow Republicans, some of whom reported receiving torrents of violent abuse.

"These are the 13 ‘Republicans’ who handed over their voting cards to Nancy Pelosi to pass Joe Biden’s Communist takeover of America via so-called infrastructure" she had&nbsp;said in the since-deleted tweet.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-china-trade-taiwan-warnings-ahead-of-biden-xi-summit-429229">US, China trade Taiwan warnings ahead of Biden-Xi summit</a>

Republicans will almost certainly increase their numbers in midterm congressional elections in just under a year, further straining Biden's already tenuous hold on Washington.

However, the White House hopes the bill signing will give a boost to Biden, who holds a video link meeting with Xi Jinping today.

Watch |&nbsp;Biden-Xi summit: Presidents of world's two largest economies to meet, Chinese aggression in focus

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/biden-xi-summit-presidents-of-worlds-two-largest-economies-to-meet-chinese-aggression-in-focus-429595/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The $1.75 trillion package for childcare, education, and other social spending that Biden describes as a historic effort to eliminate social inequalities is still pending.

The proposal is being held up by internal party disagreements and has zero Republican support. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House Speaker, told the White House gathering that she hopes the bill will be passed this week.

Amid heavy criticism and a bleak outlook from opinion polls, President Joe Biden signed into law the largest US infrastructure overhaul in more than half a century on Monday at a rare bipartisan celebration in the White House.

Amid heavy criticism and a bleak outlook from opinion polls, President Joe Biden signed into law the largest US infrastructure overhaul in more than half a century on Monday at a rare bipartisan celebration in the White House. $1.2 trillion of infrastructure improvements includes fixing bridges and roads, replacing lead water pipes, building a charging network for electric vehicles, and the expansion of broadband internet access. A government investment of this magnitude hasn't been seen since the national highway system was built in the 1950s. Also read | US-China virtual summit: Biden urges for 'guardrails' against conflict, Xi calls for better communication "We've heard countless speeches… but today we're finally getting this done," Biden told hundreds of invitees on the White House South Lawn. "So my message to the American people is this: America is moving again and your life is going to change for the better." The bill is "proof that Democrats and Republicans can come together to deliver results," Biden said. "Let's believe in one another and let's believe in America." Spending on infrastructure is popular, but Biden's predecessor, Donald Trump was unsuccessful at achieving the goal for four years, making promises of an upcoming "infrastructure week" a running joke. Even now, Biden had to rack up months of negotiating with his fractious Democratic Party to get them to vote, running the risk of a humiliating defeat. In a bitterly divided Congress, Democrats control only a narrow majority, but in a rare moment of cooperation, a substantial number of Republicans in the Senate joined them along with a symbolic handful in the House. Also read | Insisting China 'play by the rules of the road', Biden-Xi virtual summit seeks to settle tense relationship "We agreed this would be a truly bipartisan process," Senator Rob Portman, a Republican from Ohio, told the White House gathering. "This should be the beginning of a renewed effort to work together on big issues facing our country." However, there is a possibility that this feel-good moment will not last. Biden's approval ratings are on the decline, with the latest Washington Post-ABC poll showing just 41 per cent approval. It is most concerning for the White House that support is ebbing away not only among independent voters but also within the Democratic Party itself. In spite of the outreach by some Republicans, the majority of the opposition party has little interest in declaring a truce. In a scathing attack against the 13 Republicans in the House who voted alongside the Democrats, Trump said Republicans who crossed the aisle should be "ashamed" and are not real Republicans. The hard-right Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, particularly vocal in her support for Trump, called the 13 fellow Republicans "traitors." She tweeted out the office phone numbers of the fellow Republicans, some of whom reported receiving torrents of violent abuse. "These are the 13 ‘Republicans’ who handed over their voting cards to Nancy Pelosi to pass Joe Biden’s Communist takeover of America via so-called infrastructure" she had said in the since-deleted tweet. Also read | US, China trade Taiwan warnings ahead of Biden-Xi summit Republicans will almost certainly increase their numbers in midterm congressional elections in just under a year, further straining Biden's already tenuous hold on Washington. However, the White House hopes the bill signing will give a boost to Biden, who holds a video link meeting with Xi Jinping today. Watch | Biden-Xi summit: Presidents of world's two largest economies to meet, Chinese aggression in focus The $1.75 trillion package for childcare, education, and other social spending that Biden describes as a historic effort to eliminate social inequalities is still pending. The proposal is being held up by internal party disagreements and has zero Republican support. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House Speaker, told the White House gathering that she hopes the bill will be passed this week.

Achieving what Trump couldn't, Biden celebrates rare win with US infrastructure bill signing

US President Joe Biden hailed Congress’ passage of his $1 trillion infrastructure package as a “monumental step forward for the nation” after months of tough negotiations.

US Prez Biden hails passage of infrastructure bill as ‘monumental step forward’

On the highway over the Teton Pass in Wyoming, avalanches have been threatening motorists since the 1960s. In Washington and Oregon, drivers live with the daily awareness that, in a major earthquake, the bridge between Vancouver and Portland will probably collapse. In California, residents are increasingly at the mercy of out-of-control wildfires and megadroughts — and their stratospheric costs.

America’s to-do list has been growing for years, since well before President Joe Biden and a bipartisan committee in Congress agreed this year to a historic upgrade of the nation’s aging infrastructure. On Friday, the measure — held up for months amid negotiations over some $2 trillion in other spending — finally passed.

“This is a game changer,” said Mark Poloncarz, the county executive in New York’s Erie County. “Right off the bat, I have somewhere around $150 million in capital projects we could move, from bringing our wastewater treatment system into the 20th century to smaller bridges, some of which are 100 years old.”

Mark Weitenbeck, treasurer of the Wisconsin Association of Railroad Passengers and a retiree from suburban Milwaukee, celebrated the potential expansion of rail service: “While we have been doing nothing, the Chinese have been building 20,000 miles of high-speed rail line.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California said in a statement: “President Biden understands the critical need to build a climate-resilient future.” He added that the new funding will “bolster our clean transportation infrastructure, help mitigate some of the worst impacts of climate change, and accelerate new projects that will create thousands of jobs.”

Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., the minority leader, had urged Republicans to oppose the bill, and Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., the minority whip, warned that the spending “is going to induce more inflation.” But 13 House Republicans crossed party lines to help pass the measure.

And Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, a Republican and chair of the National Governors Association, commended Congress “for setting aside partisan differences to pass a bill that works for the American people.”

With nearly $600 billion in new federal aid to improve highways, bridges, dams, public transit, rail, ports, airports, water quality and broadband over 10 years, the legislation is a once-in-a-generation chance to overhaul the nation’s public works system. And it offers a rare opportunity for states that for decades have been forced to balance huge short-term backlogs of repairs and upgrades against larger, longer-term projects and needs.

The federal outlay, while less generous than Biden initially proposed, is still immense by any measure. According to the White House, the transportation aid alone is the largest federal investment in transit history and the largest federal investment in passenger rail since the creation of Amtrak in 1971.

Some $110 billion will be allotted to roads, bridges and other major surface transportation projects. Another $66 billion will go to passenger and freight rail, including enough money to eliminate Amtrak’s maintenance backlog. Yet another $39 billion will modernize public transit, and $11 billion more will be set aside for transportation safety, including programs to reduce fatalities among pedestrians and cyclists.

Broadband systems will get a $65 billion infusion, as will investments to rebuild the electricity grid to refurbish power lines and accommodate renewable energy sources. A $55 billion pool of funds would expand access to clean drinking water. Some $25 billion would go to airports and $17 billion to ports.

Government agencies will determine which projects are funded, but some state priorities were written into the bill during negotiations.

For example, several provisions benefit Alaska, whose Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, was a core member of the bipartisan group of senators who helped hammer out the legislation. Included in the bill is $250 million for a pilot program to develop an electric or low-emitting ferry that would almost certainly go to her state, which has the most miles of marine highway.

Another $1 billion program will pay for a ferry system to reach rural communities such as those in Alaska; the bill allows it to be operated and maintained with federal highway dollars. And other parts of the bill will pay to fix more than 140 bridges, along with more than 300 miles of the highway that stretches across Alaska’s border and into Canada.

West Virginia Sens. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican, also helped draft pieces of the legislation, which includes a $2 billion rural grant program expected to direct funding toward the Appalachian highway system. A stretch of that system, Corridor H — intended to connect Interstate 79 in north-central West Virginia to Interstate 81 in Virginia — has gone unfinished for more than a half-century, but will now get a jump start. The bill also pumps more than $11 billion into a program to clean up toxic leaks from abandoned coal mines, an undertaking estimated to cost at least $2 billion in West Virginia alone.

Mostly, however, the legislation will address public works challenges that have long confounded the political and financial ability of states to address them. Experts predicted that it will reshape priorities across the country and boost critical projects.

New Jersey, for example, could tap the new funds to help construct the proposed Gateway Tunnel, easing chronic congestion on the train route that links the state’s population centers to New York. Nearly a decade after Superstorm Sandy flooded the tunnel to New York, leaving structural damage, progress has stalled amid estimates of up to $13 billion to complete repairs.

Along the Gulf Coast, Louisiana officials are eyeing the money to help speed a long-studied passenger rail route between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. In the Pacific Northwest, where the Interstate 5 bridge connecting Oregon and Washington over the Columbia River is at risk of collapsing in a major earthquake, the spending could help settle years of political disagreement and pay for a new, more resilient structure with space for bicycle lanes and pedestrians.

In Michigan, the bill will infuse a record $1 billion into a decade-old program to restore and protect the Great Lakes, where drinking water and wildlife have been compromised by pollution. In Wyoming, where the threat of avalanches annually shuts down Wyoming Highway 22 through the mountains, impeding commercial traffic, it could help fund a tunnel through the Teton Pass.

The legislation also offers a critical lifeline to states and cities struggling to curb greenhouse gas pollution in the face of the escalating disruptions from climate change. In the Northeast, $7.5 billion in funding for zero- and low-emission buses and ferries could help Connecticut and New Jersey to electrify municipal bus fleets. A loan program in the bill also will help local governments in states like Michigan set up projects to reduce the risk and damage from extreme flooding and eroding shorelines.

Other parts of the legislation will address long-standing equity and civic design issues created by old freeway projects, which split many cities, leveled homes and historic landmarks and worsened car dependence and segregation. In Minnesota, it could advance a proposed revamping of the I-94 corridor between St. Paul and Minneapolis, reconnecting neighborhoods that were cut off from one another in the 1960s. And in Connecticut, it could boost projects to help reunite sections of Hartford and East Hartford that were fractured more than 60 years ago by interstates.

Few states, however, are likely to feel the measure’s impact as widely as California, where 40 million people have come to rely on freeways, aqueducts, sea walls, dams and other feats of engineering to maintain their way of life.

Parched by megadrought and scorched by towering wildfires, the state has pumped billions of dollars in recent years into water conservation, forest clearance, firefighting and renewable energy initiatives. Federal money, state officials said, would supercharge that push.

A pot of more than $8 billion for Western water projects, for instance, includes billions for water recycling systems and groundwater storage, critical to California’s conservation efforts. More funding in the bill will help upgrade aging dams and canals and perhaps underwrite desalination projects.

Disaster funds in the measure will help mitigate the danger and impact of wildfires and other natural disasters, allowing the state, for example, to bury power lines in rural areas where sparks from old equipment have set off some of California’s most destructive infernos. Also on tap will be federal funding to bring the pay of federal wildland firefighters into parity with the state’s far better paid fire crews, addressing critical shortages of experienced crews in a state where most of the forested wilderness is on federal land.

The new federal money could deliver a boost, as well, to the high-speed rail line that California has been trying for a decade to construct between its largest cities and its rural Central Valley. In recent years, the priority has been merely to complete an electrified route between Merced and Bakersfield. But with additional funding, state officials say they could expand to the Bay Area and the Los Angeles Basin, connecting one of the state’s most economically depressed regions to major cities and better-paying jobs.

One small part of the measure, however, has been especially anticipated in California: a $7.5 billion initiative to build a nationwide network of chargers for electric vehicles. Although 40% of the electric vehicles in the nation are sold in California, sales still lag in part because car buyers fear they will be unable to easily recharge on long car trips. So far, even electric vehicles with long ranges — Teslas, for instance — lack the power to make the 400-mile journey between San Francisco and Los Angeles without stopping for a charge.

On the highway over the Teton Pass in Wyoming, avalanches have been threatening motorists since the 1960s. In Washington and Oregon, drivers live with the daily awareness that, in a major earthquake, the bridge between Vancouver and Portland will probably collapse.

On the highway over the Teton Pass in Wyoming, avalanches have been threatening motorists since the 1960s. In Washington and Oregon, drivers live with the daily awareness that, in a major earthquake, the bridge between Vancouver and Portland will probably collapse. In California, residents are increasingly at the mercy of out-of-control wildfires and megadroughts — and their stratospheric costs. America’s to-do list has been growing for years, since well before President Joe Biden and a bipartisan committee in Congress agreed this year to a historic upgrade of the nation’s aging infrastructure. On Friday, the measure — held up for months amid negotiations over some $2 trillion in other spending — finally passed. “This is a game changer,” said Mark Poloncarz, the county executive in New York’s Erie County. “Right off the bat, I have somewhere around $150 million in capital projects we could move, from bringing our wastewater treatment system into the 20th century to smaller bridges, some of which are 100 years old.” Mark Weitenbeck, treasurer of the Wisconsin Association of Railroad Passengers and a retiree from suburban Milwaukee, celebrated the potential expansion of rail service: “While we have been doing nothing, the Chinese have been building 20,000 miles of high-speed rail line.” Gov. Gavin Newsom of California said in a statement: “President Biden understands the critical need to build a climate-resilient future.” He added that the new funding will “bolster our clean transportation infrastructure, help mitigate some of the worst impacts of climate change, and accelerate new projects that will create thousands of jobs.” Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., the minority leader, had urged Republicans to oppose the bill, and Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., the minority whip, warned that the spending “is going to induce more inflation.” But 13 House Republicans crossed party lines to help pass the measure. And Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, a Republican and chair of the National Governors Association, commended Congress “for setting aside partisan differences to pass a bill that works for the American people.” With nearly $600 billion in new federal aid to improve highways, bridges, dams, public transit, rail, ports, airports, water quality and broadband over 10 years, the legislation is a once-in-a-generation chance to overhaul the nation’s public works system. And it offers a rare opportunity for states that for decades have been forced to balance huge short-term backlogs of repairs and upgrades against larger, longer-term projects and needs. The federal outlay, while less generous than Biden initially proposed, is still immense by any measure. According to the White House, the transportation aid alone is the largest federal investment in transit history and the largest federal investment in passenger rail since the creation of Amtrak in 1971. Some $110 billion will be allotted to roads, bridges and other major surface transportation projects. Another $66 billion will go to passenger and freight rail, including enough money to eliminate Amtrak’s maintenance backlog. Yet another $39 billion will modernize public transit, and $11 billion more will be set aside for transportation safety, including programs to reduce fatalities among pedestrians and cyclists. Broadband systems will get a $65 billion infusion, as will investments to rebuild the electricity grid to refurbish power lines and accommodate renewable energy sources. A $55 billion pool of funds would expand access to clean drinking water. Some $25 billion would go to airports and $17 billion to ports. Government agencies will determine which projects are funded, but some state priorities were written into the bill during negotiations. For example, several provisions benefit Alaska, whose Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, was a core member of the bipartisan group of senators who helped hammer out the legislation. Included in the bill is $250 million for a pilot program to develop an electric or low-emitting ferry that would almost certainly go to her state, which has the most miles of marine highway. Another $1 billion program will pay for a ferry system to reach rural communities such as those in Alaska; the bill allows it to be operated and maintained with federal highway dollars. And other parts of the bill will pay to fix more than 140 bridges, along with more than 300 miles of the highway that stretches across Alaska’s border and into Canada. West Virginia Sens. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican, also helped draft pieces of the legislation, which includes a $2 billion rural grant program expected to direct funding toward the Appalachian highway system. A stretch of that system, Corridor H — intended to connect Interstate 79 in north-central West Virginia to Interstate 81 in Virginia — has gone unfinished for more than a half-century, but will now get a jump start. The bill also pumps more than $11 billion into a program to clean up toxic leaks from abandoned coal mines, an undertaking estimated to cost at least $2 billion in West Virginia alone. Mostly, however, the legislation will address public works challenges that have long confounded the political and financial ability of states to address them. Experts predicted that it will reshape priorities across the country and boost critical projects. New Jersey, for example, could tap the new funds to help construct the proposed Gateway Tunnel, easing chronic congestion on the train route that links the state’s population centers to New York. Nearly a decade after Superstorm Sandy flooded the tunnel to New York, leaving structural damage, progress has stalled amid estimates of up to $13 billion to complete repairs. Along the Gulf Coast, Louisiana officials are eyeing the money to help speed a long-studied passenger rail route between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. In the Pacific Northwest, where the Interstate 5 bridge connecting Oregon and Washington over the Columbia River is at risk of collapsing in a major earthquake, the spending could help settle years of political disagreement and pay for a new, more resilient structure with space for bicycle lanes and pedestrians. In Michigan, the bill will infuse a record $1 billion into a decade-old program to restore and protect the Great Lakes, where drinking water and wildlife have been compromised by pollution. In Wyoming, where the threat of avalanches annually shuts down Wyoming Highway 22 through the mountains, impeding commercial traffic, it could help fund a tunnel through the Teton Pass. The legislation also offers a critical lifeline to states and cities struggling to curb greenhouse gas pollution in the face of the escalating disruptions from climate change. In the Northeast, $7.5 billion in funding for zero- and low-emission buses and ferries could help Connecticut and New Jersey to electrify municipal bus fleets. A loan program in the bill also will help local governments in states like Michigan set up projects to reduce the risk and damage from extreme flooding and eroding shorelines. Other parts of the legislation will address long-standing equity and civic design issues created by old freeway projects, which split many cities, leveled homes and historic landmarks and worsened car dependence and segregation. In Minnesota, it could advance a proposed revamping of the I-94 corridor between St. Paul and Minneapolis, reconnecting neighborhoods that were cut off from one another in the 1960s. And in Connecticut, it could boost projects to help reunite sections of Hartford and East Hartford that were fractured more than 60 years ago by interstates. Few states, however, are likely to feel the measure’s impact as widely as California, where 40 million people have come to rely on freeways, aqueducts, sea walls, dams and other feats of engineering to maintain their way of life. Parched by megadrought and scorched by towering wildfires, the state has pumped billions of dollars in recent years into water conservation, forest clearance, firefighting and renewable energy initiatives. Federal money, state officials said, would supercharge that push. A pot of more than $8 billion for Western water projects, for instance, includes billions for water recycling systems and groundwater storage, critical to California’s conservation efforts. More funding in the bill will help upgrade aging dams and canals and perhaps underwrite desalination projects. Disaster funds in the measure will help mitigate the danger and impact of wildfires and other natural disasters, allowing the state, for example, to bury power lines in rural areas where sparks from old equipment have set off some of California’s most destructive infernos. Also on tap will be federal funding to bring the pay of federal wildland firefighters into parity with the state’s far better paid fire crews, addressing critical shortages of experienced crews in a state where most of the forested wilderness is on federal land. The new federal money could deliver a boost, as well, to the high-speed rail line that California has been trying for a decade to construct between its largest cities and its rural Central Valley. In recent years, the priority has been merely to complete an electrified route between Merced and Bakersfield. But with additional funding, state officials say they could expand to the Bay Area and the Los Angeles Basin, connecting one of the state’s most economically depressed regions to major cities and better-paying jobs. One small part of the measure, however, has been especially anticipated in California: a $7.5 billion initiative to build a nationwide network of chargers for electric vehicles. Although 40% of the electric vehicles in the nation are sold in California, sales still lag in part because car buyers fear they will be unable to easily recharge on long car trips. So far, even electric vehicles with long ranges — Teslas, for instance — lack the power to make the 400-mile journey between San Francisco and Los Angeles without stopping for a charge.

This is where the States want billions in infrastructure funding spent

Reaching consensus after a day-long standoff, Democrats set aside differences between progressives and centrists to pass a $1 trillion package late on Friday. &nbsp;&nbsp;

This package, which includes highway, broadband and other infrastructure improvement, has been sent to US President Joe Biden to sign it into law. &nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/havana-syndrome-blinken-vows-to-solve-mystery-of-illness-affecting-us-diplomats-427052" hreflang="en">Havana Syndrome: Blinken vows to solve mystery of illness affecting US diplomats</a>

The bill was passed with the 228-to-206 vote in the House of Representatives. It was a substantial triumph for Democrats. &nbsp;

Over the ambitious spending bills, which make up the bulk of Biden's domestic agenda, the Democrats have been sparring for months. &nbsp;

Through this, Biden's administration will oversee the biggest upgrade of roads, railways and other transportation infrastructure in a generation. The president has promised that it will create jobs and boost US competitiveness. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/bidens-aide-who-travelled-to-scotland-with-him-tests-positive-for-covid-426975" hreflang="en">Biden's aide who travelled to Scotland with him tests positive for Covid</a>

On the second pillar of Biden's domestic programme, Democrats still have to do a lot. The president looks for a sweeping expansion of the social safety net and programmes to be able to fight climate change. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The package would be the biggest expansion of the US safety net since the 1960s at a price tag of $1.75 trillion. But the party has struggled to unite behind it. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Reaching consensus after a day-long standoff, Democrats set aside differences between progressives and centrists to pass a $1 trillion package late on Friday. This package, which includes highway, broadband and other infrastructure improvement, has been sent to US President Joe Biden to sign it into law.

Reaching consensus after a day-long standoff, Democrats set aside differences between progressives and centrists to pass a $1 trillion package late on Friday. This package, which includes highway, broadband and other infrastructure improvement, has been sent to US President Joe Biden to sign it into law. Also Read | Havana Syndrome: Blinken vows to solve mystery of illness affecting US diplomats The bill was passed with the 228-to-206 vote in the House of Representatives. It was a substantial triumph for Democrats. Over the ambitious spending bills, which make up the bulk of Biden's domestic agenda, the Democrats have been sparring for months. Through this, Biden's administration will oversee the biggest upgrade of roads, railways and other transportation infrastructure in a generation. The president has promised that it will create jobs and boost US competitiveness. Also Read: Biden's aide who travelled to Scotland with him tests positive for Covid On the second pillar of Biden's domestic programme, Democrats still have to do a lot. The president looks for a sweeping expansion of the social safety net and programmes to be able to fight climate change. The package would be the biggest expansion of the US safety net since the 1960s at a price tag of $1.75 trillion. But the party has struggled to unite behind it. (With inputs from agencies)

Ending standoff, Democrats finally pass $1 trillion infrastructure bill in US to push Biden's domestic agenda

One grew to a size larger than Rhode Island and levelled a Gold Rush-era town. Another swelled to a quarter of a million acres as it came within a few miles of Lake Tahoe. Another burned down 900 buildings and was the first-ever to reach 1 million acres.

In the past two years, California has found itself under siege from more large-scale fires burning with greater intensity than at any time on record. Giant blazes are tearing across the state with greater speed and frequency, destroying towns and sending smoke hurtling hundreds of miles away. Nine of California’s 20 largest fires have occurred since 2020, according to Cal Fire, the state’s firefighting agency. Four of them are still burning. The fires have forced state and federal officials to marshal armies of people and resources at all costs.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/in-pics-firefighters-try-and-protect-giant-sequoias-amid-california-fires-415158">In Pics | Firefighters try and protect giant sequoias amid California fires</a>

In late August, New York Times journalists shadowed emergency crews in a remote forested area of Northern California as they battled the Dixie fire, which at nearly 1 million acres is the second-largest fire in state history. Over several weeks, the operation grew to a scale rarely seen before: Thousands of personnel were deployed, as well as hundreds of bulldozers, aircraft and other equipment, along with millions of gallons of water and flame retardant. Officials spent more than $610 million over three months to bring the fire under control — by far the most expensive suppression campaign in California history, according to the head of Cal Fire.

The Dixie fire shows that as wildfires have grown in size, so has the magnitude of the effort to combat them. But as government budgets become strained and extreme drought and the effects of climate change, alter the landscape, battling megafires — massive blazes that spread quickly and burn at high intensity — is increasingly costly, raising questions about the long-term sustainability of the firefight.

At the height of the operation, 6,579 people worked around the clock to battle the Dixie fire.

The command centre at the Lassen County Fairgrounds appeared like a small town that sprung up overnight. It was filled with offices in trailers, catering stations, fueling areas, laundry services, sleeping tents and parking spots for many of the 569 fire engines and 194 water trucks working Aug. 16, when the operation was at its peak.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/the-secret-war-over-pentagon-aid-in-fighting-wildfires-416479">The secret war over Pentagon aid in fighting wildfires</a>

Each morning at 7 a.m., hundreds of firefighters, bulldozer operators and pilots gathered under a poplar grove for a daily briefing. Some crew members wore sweatshirts bearing the names of past big fires like badges of honour: Creek fire, Campfire, Lightning Complex. Dixie already had one, too.

In one area of the command centre, a resupply warehouse roughly the size of a Home Depot store serviced engine crews returning to the fire line. In another, volunteers with the California Conservation Corps rewound heaps of used 100-foot lengths of the yellow fire hose. In all, more than 1,174 miles of hose were used — enough to stretch from San Diego to Vancouver.

At the time, the Dixie fire, one of a growing number of wildfires that had broken out across the American West, spanned five counties, threatening nearby communities and spewing smoke into the atmosphere. Kristen Allison, a 25-year veteran firefighter who was stationed 70 miles away, struggled to comprehend the scale.

“Fifteen years ago, a 100,000-acre fire would be the largest fire of your career. Now, we have 1-million-acre fires,” Allison said. “We’re the size of Rhode Island, working toward Delaware.”

Watch |&nbsp;Gravitas US Edition: Wildfire in Northern California destroys nearly 6,000 acres of land

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-us-edition-wildfire-in-northern-california-destroys-nearly-6000-acres-of-land-415956/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

“Meanwhile, there are five other 100,000-acre fires burning right now in Northern California,” Allison added. “Even if we had all the resources we wanted, we would not be able to contain these fires.”

At the fire’s peak, 198 bulldozers worked to contain it, helping cut 1,792 miles of fire breaks.

Much of the fight against the Dixie fire was a gruelling and dirty effort to head off future burn: As many as 89 hand crews on a single day burned ground cover and carved so-called line breaks — barriers to slow or stop the progress — through the forest. Bulldozers, many of which were operated by contractors for upward of $7,000 a day, cleared wide swaths of trees and flammable vegetation. Strike crews laid those dozer lines with fire hose and stood guard, often through the night, to prevent the fire from jumping over.

Fueled by a combination of high winds, mountainous terrain and dry conditions, Dixie shows how the scale of wildfires has dramatically increased. In 2010, 72,000 fires in the United States burned 3.4 million acres; last year, 59,000 fires burned 10.1 million acres, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

Trying to put out Dixie sometimes felt like an exercise in futility. It routinely leapt over breaks, and a team led by Sarah Collemer, a Cal Fire equipment boss from Santa Cruz, worked to clear them.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/in-california-even-fire-resistant-trees-need-to-be-protected-from-flames-414740">In California, even fire-resistant trees need to be protected from flames</a>

“We’ve been trying to hold the line, but the wind keeps coming up, and most of the embers start a new fire,” Collemer, who was overseeing a team of 30 bulldozers, said. “It’s just hard to start over every day on the line.”

Like other recent megafires, the Dixie blaze has burned at a severe pace, sometimes scorching 50,000 acres in a sustained run over 8 miles in one day.

Crews used enough fire retardant to fill 31 Olympic-size swimming pools.

Air attack — deploying planes and helicopters to drop water and retardant — is often the costliest part of any large wildfire operation.

Aircraft have dropped about 21 million gallons of flame retardant mixture on the Dixie fire, at a cost of $4.62 per gallon. The aircraft themselves cost more than $1 million a day in the initial weeks of the fire.

“They call me the most expensive man on the fire,” said Matt Stanford, the air operation branch director at Cal Fire base camp. “Every day, costs come in, and I’m on the top of the heap.”

Some critics argue that retardant, a mixture of water and phosphate salts often used as a fertilizer, does more damage than good. The U.S. Forest Service restricts use around waterways to avoid fish kills and algae blooms.

Despite the trade-offs, air attacks are the most visible show of force and can cover lots of ground quickly. The candy-colored liquid retardant lingers long after water has evaporated and is more effective at lowering a fire’s intensity so that crews can engage on the ground.

When the smoke thickens, planes are grounded, forcing aviation chiefs to use large helicopters that can fly under the smoke — though they hold smaller quantities of water or retardant. Under heavy smoke conditions, helicopters, too, are grounded.

Crews were diverted even as the fire still raged.

Even before the Dixie fire was close to contained, Cal Fire began diverting resources from it. While crews were using drip torches to burn off dry ground cover that could feed oncoming flames, some personnel were reassigned to the Caldor fire, which was racing up the Sierra Nevada mountains toward South Lake Tahoe, one of California’s premier tourist destinations.

The Caldor fire stopped within just a few hundred meters of South Lake Tahoe, and the town was spared.

California pays for large wildfire responses through an emergency fund with no set limit on spending. In recent decades, the percentage of the U.S. Forest Service budget spent on wildfires increased to 50% from 20%, and in 2021 the Forest Service received a $2 billion budget for wildfires. State and federal officials threw every resource possible at both megafires.

Thom Porter, who leads Cal Fire, said he supports more wildfire prevention strategies but that the reality during this high fire season doesn’t allow for it.

“The efforts that we put in are absolutely necessary,” Porter said. “There is no choice but to fight a fire when the fire is going. We’re seeing entire centers of towns burn up, historic centers of towns, like Greenville,” he added, referring to the city that burned.

Since July, California has spent $1.1 billion trying to put out fires.

President Joe Biden, who has called wildfires “a blinking code red for our nation,” has made fire suppression a priority of his infrastructure bill, pledging to increase federal funding and military assistance. During a joint conference with Gov. Gavin Newsom in September, the president said the bipartisan bill would include $8 billion for wildfire resilience and promised to provide California with “every resource available to keep families safe.”

“It’s a great starting point,” Porter said, adding that he welcomed more investment by the federal government while acknowledging that it’s impossible to put out megafires under certain weather conditions, no matter the amount of firefighters and flame retardant.

As of Sunday, fires had burned more than 2.8 million acres across the state. The end of fire season is still weeks away.

One grew to a size larger than Rhode Island and levelled a Gold Rush-era town. Another swelled to a quarter of a million acres as it came within a few miles of Lake Tahoe.

One grew to a size larger than Rhode Island and levelled a Gold Rush-era town. Another swelled to a quarter of a million acres as it came within a few miles of Lake Tahoe. Another burned down 900 buildings and was the first-ever to reach 1 million acres. In the past two years, California has found itself under siege from more large-scale fires burning with greater intensity than at any time on record. Giant blazes are tearing across the state with greater speed and frequency, destroying towns and sending smoke hurtling hundreds of miles away. Nine of California’s 20 largest fires have occurred since 2020, according to Cal Fire, the state’s firefighting agency. Four of them are still burning. The fires have forced state and federal officials to marshal armies of people and resources at all costs. Also read | In Pics | Firefighters try and protect giant sequoias amid California fires In late August, New York Times journalists shadowed emergency crews in a remote forested area of Northern California as they battled the Dixie fire, which at nearly 1 million acres is the second-largest fire in state history. Over several weeks, the operation grew to a scale rarely seen before: Thousands of personnel were deployed, as well as hundreds of bulldozers, aircraft and other equipment, along with millions of gallons of water and flame retardant. Officials spent more than $610 million over three months to bring the fire under control — by far the most expensive suppression campaign in California history, according to the head of Cal Fire. The Dixie fire shows that as wildfires have grown in size, so has the magnitude of the effort to combat them. But as government budgets become strained and extreme drought and the effects of climate change, alter the landscape, battling megafires — massive blazes that spread quickly and burn at high intensity — is increasingly costly, raising questions about the long-term sustainability of the firefight. At the height of the operation, 6,579 people worked around the clock to battle the Dixie fire. The command centre at the Lassen County Fairgrounds appeared like a small town that sprung up overnight. It was filled with offices in trailers, catering stations, fueling areas, laundry services, sleeping tents and parking spots for many of the 569 fire engines and 194 water trucks working Aug. 16, when the operation was at its peak. Also read | The secret war over Pentagon aid in fighting wildfires Each morning at 7 a.m., hundreds of firefighters, bulldozer operators and pilots gathered under a poplar grove for a daily briefing. Some crew members wore sweatshirts bearing the names of past big fires like badges of honour: Creek fire, Campfire, Lightning Complex. Dixie already had one, too. In one area of the command centre, a resupply warehouse roughly the size of a Home Depot store serviced engine crews returning to the fire line. In another, volunteers with the California Conservation Corps rewound heaps of used 100-foot lengths of the yellow fire hose. In all, more than 1,174 miles of hose were used — enough to stretch from San Diego to Vancouver. At the time, the Dixie fire, one of a growing number of wildfires that had broken out across the American West, spanned five counties, threatening nearby communities and spewing smoke into the atmosphere. Kristen Allison, a 25-year veteran firefighter who was stationed 70 miles away, struggled to comprehend the scale. “Fifteen years ago, a 100,000-acre fire would be the largest fire of your career. Now, we have 1-million-acre fires,” Allison said. “We’re the size of Rhode Island, working toward Delaware.” Watch | Gravitas US Edition: Wildfire in Northern California destroys nearly 6,000 acres of land “Meanwhile, there are five other 100,000-acre fires burning right now in Northern California,” Allison added. “Even if we had all the resources we wanted, we would not be able to contain these fires.” At the fire’s peak, 198 bulldozers worked to contain it, helping cut 1,792 miles of fire breaks. Much of the fight against the Dixie fire was a gruelling and dirty effort to head off future burn: As many as 89 hand crews on a single day burned ground cover and carved so-called line breaks — barriers to slow or stop the progress — through the forest. Bulldozers, many of which were operated by contractors for upward of $7,000 a day, cleared wide swaths of trees and flammable vegetation. Strike crews laid those dozer lines with fire hose and stood guard, often through the night, to prevent the fire from jumping over. Fueled by a combination of high winds, mountainous terrain and dry conditions, Dixie shows how the scale of wildfires has dramatically increased. In 2010, 72,000 fires in the United States burned 3.4 million acres; last year, 59,000 fires burned 10.1 million acres, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. Trying to put out Dixie sometimes felt like an exercise in futility. It routinely leapt over breaks, and a team led by Sarah Collemer, a Cal Fire equipment boss from Santa Cruz, worked to clear them. Also read | In California, even fire-resistant trees need to be protected from flames “We’ve been trying to hold the line, but the wind keeps coming up, and most of the embers start a new fire,” Collemer, who was overseeing a team of 30 bulldozers, said. “It’s just hard to start over every day on the line.” Like other recent megafires, the Dixie blaze has burned at a severe pace, sometimes scorching 50,000 acres in a sustained run over 8 miles in one day. Crews used enough fire retardant to fill 31 Olympic-size swimming pools. Air attack — deploying planes and helicopters to drop water and retardant — is often the costliest part of any large wildfire operation. Aircraft have dropped about 21 million gallons of flame retardant mixture on the Dixie fire, at a cost of $4.62 per gallon. The aircraft themselves cost more than $1 million a day in the initial weeks of the fire. “They call me the most expensive man on the fire,” said Matt Stanford, the air operation branch director at Cal Fire base camp. “Every day, costs come in, and I’m on the top of the heap.” Some critics argue that retardant, a mixture of water and phosphate salts often used as a fertilizer, does more damage than good. The U.S. Forest Service restricts use around waterways to avoid fish kills and algae blooms. Despite the trade-offs, air attacks are the most visible show of force and can cover lots of ground quickly. The candy-colored liquid retardant lingers long after water has evaporated and is more effective at lowering a fire’s intensity so that crews can engage on the ground. When the smoke thickens, planes are grounded, forcing aviation chiefs to use large helicopters that can fly under the smoke — though they hold smaller quantities of water or retardant. Under heavy smoke conditions, helicopters, too, are grounded. Crews were diverted even as the fire still raged. Even before the Dixie fire was close to contained, Cal Fire began diverting resources from it. While crews were using drip torches to burn off dry ground cover that could feed oncoming flames, some personnel were reassigned to the Caldor fire, which was racing up the Sierra Nevada mountains toward South Lake Tahoe, one of California’s premier tourist destinations. The Caldor fire stopped within just a few hundred meters of South Lake Tahoe, and the town was spared. California pays for large wildfire responses through an emergency fund with no set limit on spending. In recent decades, the percentage of the U.S. Forest Service budget spent on wildfires increased to 50% from 20%, and in 2021 the Forest Service received a $2 billion budget for wildfires. State and federal officials threw every resource possible at both megafires. Thom Porter, who leads Cal Fire, said he supports more wildfire prevention strategies but that the reality during this high fire season doesn’t allow for it. “The efforts that we put in are absolutely necessary,” Porter said. “There is no choice but to fight a fire when the fire is going. We’re seeing entire centers of towns burn up, historic centers of towns, like Greenville,” he added, referring to the city that burned. Since July, California has spent $1.1 billion trying to put out fires. President Joe Biden, who has called wildfires “a blinking code red for our nation,” has made fire suppression a priority of his infrastructure bill, pledging to increase federal funding and military assistance. During a joint conference with Gov. Gavin Newsom in September, the president said the bipartisan bill would include $8 billion for wildfire resilience and promised to provide California with “every resource available to keep families safe.” “It’s a great starting point,” Porter said, adding that he welcomed more investment by the federal government while acknowledging that it’s impossible to put out megafires under certain weather conditions, no matter the amount of firefighters and flame retardant. As of Sunday, fires had burned more than 2.8 million acres across the state. The end of fire season is still weeks away.

Inside the massive and costly fight to contain a megafire

Business groups and some Senate Republicans — working at cross-purposes with Republican leaders in the House — have mounted an all-out drive to secure GOP votes for a bipartisan infrastructure bill before a final vote Thursday.

Although the measure is the product of a compromise among moderates in both parties, House Republican leaders are leaning on their members to reject the $1 trillion infrastructure bill by disparaging its contents and arguing that it will only pave the way for Democrats to push through their far larger climate change and social policy bill.

Their opposition has ratcheted up pressure on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has the more progressive members of her Democratic caucus threatening to withhold their support for the infrastructure package until Congress acts on that broader bill. If Republicans unite in opposition, Pelosi can afford to lose as few as three Democrats on the bill.

But some Republican senators who helped write the bill, along with influential business groups that support it — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable — have started a countereffort to try to persuade House Republicans to back the legislation.

“It’s a good bill; it’s right there for the country, so I’m encouraging Republicans to support it,” said Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and one of the bill’s negotiators, who said he was working the phones hard. “There’ll be some that have told me they will, but they’re under a lot of pressure.”

How the conflicting pressure campaigns play out could determine the fate of the infrastructure bill. On Tuesday, liberal Democrats accused Pelosi of a betrayal for abandoning her promise that the House would not take up the infrastructure bill until after the Senate secured passage of the larger measure.

While Democratic leaders are working hard to secure as many of those liberal votes as possible, they know defections will have to be made up by House Republicans.

“I’d say the bill is likely to pass, but it’s going to be a squeaker,” Neil Bradley, an executive vice president and chief policy officer for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who once worked for House Republican leadership, said Tuesday.

Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., who runs his party’s vote-pressuring operation in the House, is closely tracking which Republicans intend to vote for the infrastructure bill.

“We’re working to keep that number as low as we possibly can,” he said.

A few House Republicans who are members of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus have announced their support for the measure, including Reps. Tom Reed of New York, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Don Bacon of Nebraska. On Monday, Rep. Don Young of Alaska, the longest-serving member of the House, announced his support with an impassioned speech on the House floor.

But so far, such declarations are few. On Wednesday, Third Way, a centrist Democratic group with corporate backing, released a testy letter its president had written to 26 Republican “Problem Solvers” — only one of whom, Bacon, has indicated he is a “yes” vote — demanding they live up to their name.

“You have run for office and raised campaign funds on the promise that you are there to solve the nation’s problems and put country over party,” wrote Third Way’s president, Jonathan Cowan. “Anything other than declaring your support now and voting for the bill, in turn, would signal clearly to your constituents that you support nothing more than faux bipartisanship.”

Moderate Democrats say other supporters may surface — maybe as many as 20 Republican votes — if Pelosi can win over enough liberals to keep it close. But with a Thursday vote looming, time is running out.

Rep. Peter Meijer, a freshman Republican from Michigan and one of the “Problem Solvers” who received the letter, said he had heard from Republicans on both sides of the issue, and, “the consensus is: better both fail.”

President Joe Biden "saddling infrastructure with this $3.5 trillion albatross around its neck was a poison pill for those of us who wanted a bipartisan solution,” he said.

The infrastructure bill is an unusual phenomenon in a starkly polarized Congress: a truly bipartisan and significant bill, hammered out by Democrats and Republicans before it passed the Senate last month with 69 votes, 19 of them Republican, including that of the minority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

With $550 billion in new federal spending, the measure would provide $65 billion to expand high-speed internet access; $110 billion for roads, bridges and other projects; $25 billion for airports; and the most funding for Amtrak since the passenger rail service was founded in 1971. It would also renew and revamp existing infrastructure and transportation programs set to expire Friday.

But because House Democratic leaders have at least verbally packaged it with a larger, $3.5 trillion climate change and social policy bill, it has been caught up in the politics of that measure — and broader Republican efforts to thwart Biden’s agenda.

Scalise put it in the loftiest of terms Tuesday: “This week, we’re going to see an epic battle play out between free-market capitalism and big-government socialism. That’s what’s at stake.”

With Democrats publicly feuding over Biden’s agenda, senior Republicans have little interest in having their rank and file bail Pelosi out of her predicament.

“The legislative crisis that’s before her is one of her own creation that she needs the progressives to bail her out of,” said Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee.

Supporters of the infrastructure bill are trying to stay cleareyed about the bill’s merits, not the broader politics.

“It’s true people have been rhetorically linking the two, but really they aren’t,” Bradley said. “If that vote passes, the bill goes to the president for his signature.”

And they argue that House Republicans are making the wrong political calculation about the infrastructure measure. GOP leaders have warned that the bill is a Trojan horse whose passage would only increase the chances of Democrats passing the more costly plan that Biden calls his Build Back Better agenda, which is packed with expansions of social safety net programs, initiatives to combat climate change and tax increases on corporations and the wealthy.

“I just think it’s not accurate,” Portman said.

Instead, some proponents of the infrastructure measure see its passage as a potential setback for the bigger plan. They argue that the enactment of the infrastructure bill could sap progressives of their leverage to dictate the terms of the more ambitious and costly piece of their agenda.

Joshua Bolten, a former White House chief of staff for George W. Bush who is president of the Business Roundtable, said the chief executives’ organization was pushing for the bill’s passage, running radio and social media ads in Republican districts and pressing for meetings with lawmakers.

“This is a really good bill. It’s urgently needed. It will have a dramatic effect on the productivity of U.S. economy. It’s investment really well spent,” he said Tuesday. “Pass it now and have the fight over the other bill later.”

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said he had lobbied every member of his state’s delegation to support the measure.

“I can’t predict where they will end up, but I’m certainly encouraging people to consider the merits of the bill as opposed to worrying about what outside observers have to say,” he said.

In this case, House Republican leaders appear to be heeding pressure from conservative groups, which have disparaged the infrastructure bill as bloated with spending that goes far beyond its stated purpose. And they predict that moderate Democrats who have pressed for its passage will be angered enough by its demise that they will exact revenge by bringing down the social policy bill.

“This is a desperate administration looking for a win to distract Americans from the Biden-caused crises, both home and abroad, while opening the floodgates to trillions more in spending to come,” said Rep. Beth Van Duyne, R-Texas.

Business groups and some Senate Republicans — working at cross-purposes with Republican leaders in the House — have mounted an all-out drive to secure GOP votes for a bipartisan infrastructure bill before a final vote Thursday.

Business groups and some Senate Republicans — working at cross-purposes with Republican leaders in the House — have mounted an all-out drive to secure GOP votes for a bipartisan infrastructure bill before a final vote Thursday. Although the measure is the product of a compromise among moderates in both parties, House Republican leaders are leaning on their members to reject the $1 trillion infrastructure bill by disparaging its contents and arguing that it will only pave the way for Democrats to push through their far larger climate change and social policy bill. Their opposition has ratcheted up pressure on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has the more progressive members of her Democratic caucus threatening to withhold their support for the infrastructure package until Congress acts on that broader bill. If Republicans unite in opposition, Pelosi can afford to lose as few as three Democrats on the bill. But some Republican senators who helped write the bill, along with influential business groups that support it — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable — have started a countereffort to try to persuade House Republicans to back the legislation. “It’s a good bill; it’s right there for the country, so I’m encouraging Republicans to support it,” said Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and one of the bill’s negotiators, who said he was working the phones hard. “There’ll be some that have told me they will, but they’re under a lot of pressure.” How the conflicting pressure campaigns play out could determine the fate of the infrastructure bill. On Tuesday, liberal Democrats accused Pelosi of a betrayal for abandoning her promise that the House would not take up the infrastructure bill until after the Senate secured passage of the larger measure. While Democratic leaders are working hard to secure as many of those liberal votes as possible, they know defections will have to be made up by House Republicans. “I’d say the bill is likely to pass, but it’s going to be a squeaker,” Neil Bradley, an executive vice president and chief policy officer for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who once worked for House Republican leadership, said Tuesday. Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., who runs his party’s vote-pressuring operation in the House, is closely tracking which Republicans intend to vote for the infrastructure bill. “We’re working to keep that number as low as we possibly can,” he said. A few House Republicans who are members of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus have announced their support for the measure, including Reps. Tom Reed of New York, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Don Bacon of Nebraska. On Monday, Rep. Don Young of Alaska, the longest-serving member of the House, announced his support with an impassioned speech on the House floor. But so far, such declarations are few. On Wednesday, Third Way, a centrist Democratic group with corporate backing, released a testy letter its president had written to 26 Republican “Problem Solvers” — only one of whom, Bacon, has indicated he is a “yes” vote — demanding they live up to their name. “You have run for office and raised campaign funds on the promise that you are there to solve the nation’s problems and put country over party,” wrote Third Way’s president, Jonathan Cowan. “Anything other than declaring your support now and voting for the bill, in turn, would signal clearly to your constituents that you support nothing more than faux bipartisanship.” Moderate Democrats say other supporters may surface — maybe as many as 20 Republican votes — if Pelosi can win over enough liberals to keep it close. But with a Thursday vote looming, time is running out. Rep. Peter Meijer, a freshman Republican from Michigan and one of the “Problem Solvers” who received the letter, said he had heard from Republicans on both sides of the issue, and, “the consensus is: better both fail.” President Joe Biden "saddling infrastructure with this $3.5 trillion albatross around its neck was a poison pill for those of us who wanted a bipartisan solution,” he said. The infrastructure bill is an unusual phenomenon in a starkly polarized Congress: a truly bipartisan and significant bill, hammered out by Democrats and Republicans before it passed the Senate last month with 69 votes, 19 of them Republican, including that of the minority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. With $550 billion in new federal spending, the measure would provide $65 billion to expand high-speed internet access; $110 billion for roads, bridges and other projects; $25 billion for airports; and the most funding for Amtrak since the passenger rail service was founded in 1971. It would also renew and revamp existing infrastructure and transportation programs set to expire Friday. But because House Democratic leaders have at least verbally packaged it with a larger, $3.5 trillion climate change and social policy bill, it has been caught up in the politics of that measure — and broader Republican efforts to thwart Biden’s agenda. Scalise put it in the loftiest of terms Tuesday: “This week, we’re going to see an epic battle play out between free-market capitalism and big-government socialism. That’s what’s at stake.” With Democrats publicly feuding over Biden’s agenda, senior Republicans have little interest in having their rank and file bail Pelosi out of her predicament. “The legislative crisis that’s before her is one of her own creation that she needs the progressives to bail her out of,” said Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee. Supporters of the infrastructure bill are trying to stay cleareyed about the bill’s merits, not the broader politics. “It’s true people have been rhetorically linking the two, but really they aren’t,” Bradley said. “If that vote passes, the bill goes to the president for his signature.” And they argue that House Republicans are making the wrong political calculation about the infrastructure measure. GOP leaders have warned that the bill is a Trojan horse whose passage would only increase the chances of Democrats passing the more costly plan that Biden calls his Build Back Better agenda, which is packed with expansions of social safety net programs, initiatives to combat climate change and tax increases on corporations and the wealthy. “I just think it’s not accurate,” Portman said. Instead, some proponents of the infrastructure measure see its passage as a potential setback for the bigger plan. They argue that the enactment of the infrastructure bill could sap progressives of their leverage to dictate the terms of the more ambitious and costly piece of their agenda. Joshua Bolten, a former White House chief of staff for George W. Bush who is president of the Business Roundtable, said the chief executives’ organization was pushing for the bill’s passage, running radio and social media ads in Republican districts and pressing for meetings with lawmakers. “This is a really good bill. It’s urgently needed. It will have a dramatic effect on the productivity of U.S. economy. It’s investment really well spent,” he said Tuesday. “Pass it now and have the fight over the other bill later.” Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said he had lobbied every member of his state’s delegation to support the measure. “I can’t predict where they will end up, but I’m certainly encouraging people to consider the merits of the bill as opposed to worrying about what outside observers have to say,” he said. In this case, House Republican leaders appear to be heeding pressure from conservative groups, which have disparaged the infrastructure bill as bloated with spending that goes far beyond its stated purpose. And they predict that moderate Democrats who have pressed for its passage will be angered enough by its demise that they will exact revenge by bringing down the social policy bill. “This is a desperate administration looking for a win to distract Americans from the Biden-caused crises, both home and abroad, while opening the floodgates to trillions more in spending to come,” said Rep. Beth Van Duyne, R-Texas.

Republicans at odds over infrastructure bill as vote approaches

Liberal Democrats dug in on Tuesday against voting for a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill this week, angrily rejecting a decision by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to push the bill forward before the party could resolve bitter disagreements over a sprawling social policy and climate package.

The day after Pelosi signaled she would follow through with a Thursday vote on the infrastructure plan, the backlash reflected deep mistrust in the Democratic ranks that is threatening to derail President Joe Biden’s domestic policy agenda.

At the heart of the impasse was a lack of clarity from moderate and conservative Democrats about what they would accept in the broader social safety net package, which has hamstrung negotiations led by Biden and Democratic congressional leaders to unify the party around a plan that can pass both chambers. Without a compromise, progressives say they cannot support the smaller, Senate-passed infrastructure plan, which omits many of their top priorities.

“Let me be clear: bringing the so-called bipartisan infrastructure plan to a vote without the #BuildBackBetter Act at the same time is a betrayal,” Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., said on Twitter on Tuesday. “We will hold the line and vote it down.”

Pelosi initially said the House would not take up the infrastructure plan until after the broader bill had passed. But in recent days, she has effectively decoupled the two bills, saying the party needed more time to resolve its differences over the proposed $3.5 trillion social policy plan, which conservative-leaning Democrats have called too costly.

“There was an intervention, as you know, in the past week or 10 days, of saying, ‘Well, we can’t go there,’” Pelosi said after a morning meeting with her caucus. “We’ll see what that is, and hopefully it will measure, it will reach the level that we need in order to pass both bills.”

“We will pass both bills,” she concluded.

Biden has been negotiating privately with some of the prime holdouts and met at the White House on Tuesday with two of them, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia. In the evening, the president canceled a Wednesday trip to Chicago, which was intended to promote COVID-19 vaccinations, so he could remain focused on brokering an agreement on his economic agenda.

Democrats are pushing through the social safety net package using the fast-track reconciliation process to shield it from a filibuster. But with slim margins of control in both chambers and Republicans unified in opposition, Democratic leaders must keep all their senators united in favor, and they can afford to lose as few as three votes in the House.

Senior White House officials worked feverishly on Tuesday to unite Democrats around both the infrastructure bill and the reconciliation plan, meeting with key lawmakers and staff members in an attempt to forge a compromise between moderates and progressives. Biden held a series of meetings at the White House, as well as calls with progressives, an administration official said.

A White House adviser said Biden and his team were working through the often competing positions that Democrats in various factions have staked out. On Capitol Hill, moderate Democrats remained confident that enough Republicans would support the infrastructure bill to allow it to clear the House, sending the legislation to Biden’s desk.

But liberals held firm, and received some high-profile encouragement from across the Capitol. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who leads the Senate Budget Committee, issued a fiery statement encouraging liberals to remain united in their stance.

“If there was a framework that addressed the major issues that we are fighting for in reconciliation, if there was a serious top line — I believe of $3.5 trillion — and Manchin and Sinema were 100% in agreement they would support that as we work out the fine details, that’s one thing,” Sanders said in an interview. “We’re not there yet, and it is upsetting to me that, as I understand it, they go to the White House and still nothing is happening. So I think it’s premature at this point to be passing the infrastructure bill.”

Lawmakers in both chambers have said they hope to quickly iron out the remaining differences between the moderate and liberal factions of their party, although many of the specific demands from the holdouts remain unclear. Pelosi has privately reiterated that she would not take up a reconciliation bill that could not pass the Senate.

But she told Democrats that she wanted to leave time for continued negotiations on it and as of Tuesday afternoon, it did not appear that a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure legislation would be delayed. That bill includes $550 billion in new funds over 10 years and maintains a series of key transportation programs set to lapse with the end of the fiscal year on Thursday.

“Man, holding one hostage over the other is not fair — it’s not right, it’s not good for the country,” Manchin said after his afternoon meeting at the White House, when pressed on his position and the vote conundrum in the House.

“You have to have trust a little bit, you know. Everybody’s not going to get what they want,” he added. “But let’s find out what the country needs.”

Both Manchin and Sinema have become a main target of liberal ire, having refused to publicly commit to an overall price tag after openly opposing a final $3.5 trillion package. Moderates in the House have also raised a wide variety of reservations about the scope of the legislation, leaving Democratic leaders with a complex web of issues that have frustrated efforts to reach a deal.

Sinema, for example, has privately expressed concern about current proposals for tax increases on wealthy people and corporations, while Manchin and others have floated the possibility of trimming back some of the spending.

“I think we just need them to say what’s the top line over there, which there’s always been a bit of reticence about saying,” said Rep. Richard E. Neal, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Without assurances from Senate moderates that they would embrace key components of the reconciliation legislation, progressives said they would not be comfortable backing the infrastructure measure.

“I think we’re in a situation where there’s a lot of needless hostage-taking — we can support everyone’s agenda here,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. “The idea that we must split them apart or have them on different dates is an artificial construct in order to take people’s child care away.”

“Realigning these two votes will bring our party together,” she told reporters.

Even as they worked to keep both pieces of Biden’s agenda on track, Democratic leaders were confronting two more urgent fiscal deadlines: the lapse of government funding at midnight on Thursday and the breach of the federal debt ceiling, which would cause a default. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen informed lawmakers on Tuesday that the deadline to avoid a default could come as early as Oct. 18, narrowing the window of time for Congress to act.

Senate Republicans on Monday blocked an emergency spending bill that would have lifted the statutory limit on federal borrowing, forcing Democratic leaders to consider a new strategy for averting a fiscal crisis. On Tuesday, they blocked another procedural attempt by Senate Democrats to avoid a filibuster and raise the debt ceiling.

Republicans have demanded that Democrats use the reconciliation process to raise the debt ceiling. But the maneuver would be complex and time-consuming, and House Democrats were considering taking up a separate bill raising the debt limit as early as Wednesday to continue pressuring the GOP on the issue.

Liberal Democrats dug in on Tuesday against voting for a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill this week, angrily rejecting a decision by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to push the bill forward before the party could resolve bitter disagreements over a sprawling social policy and climate package.

Liberal Democrats dug in on Tuesday against voting for a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill this week, angrily rejecting a decision by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to push the bill forward before the party could resolve bitter disagreements over a sprawling social policy and climate package. The day after Pelosi signaled she would follow through with a Thursday vote on the infrastructure plan, the backlash reflected deep mistrust in the Democratic ranks that is threatening to derail President Joe Biden’s domestic policy agenda. At the heart of the impasse was a lack of clarity from moderate and conservative Democrats about what they would accept in the broader social safety net package, which has hamstrung negotiations led by Biden and Democratic congressional leaders to unify the party around a plan that can pass both chambers. Without a compromise, progressives say they cannot support the smaller, Senate-passed infrastructure plan, which omits many of their top priorities. “Let me be clear: bringing the so-called bipartisan infrastructure plan to a vote without the #BuildBackBetter Act at the same time is a betrayal,” Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., said on Twitter on Tuesday. “We will hold the line and vote it down.” Pelosi initially said the House would not take up the infrastructure plan until after the broader bill had passed. But in recent days, she has effectively decoupled the two bills, saying the party needed more time to resolve its differences over the proposed $3.5 trillion social policy plan, which conservative-leaning Democrats have called too costly. “There was an intervention, as you know, in the past week or 10 days, of saying, ‘Well, we can’t go there,’” Pelosi said after a morning meeting with her caucus. “We’ll see what that is, and hopefully it will measure, it will reach the level that we need in order to pass both bills.” “We will pass both bills,” she concluded. Biden has been negotiating privately with some of the prime holdouts and met at the White House on Tuesday with two of them, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia. In the evening, the president canceled a Wednesday trip to Chicago, which was intended to promote COVID-19 vaccinations, so he could remain focused on brokering an agreement on his economic agenda. Democrats are pushing through the social safety net package using the fast-track reconciliation process to shield it from a filibuster. But with slim margins of control in both chambers and Republicans unified in opposition, Democratic leaders must keep all their senators united in favor, and they can afford to lose as few as three votes in the House. Senior White House officials worked feverishly on Tuesday to unite Democrats around both the infrastructure bill and the reconciliation plan, meeting with key lawmakers and staff members in an attempt to forge a compromise between moderates and progressives. Biden held a series of meetings at the White House, as well as calls with progressives, an administration official said. A White House adviser said Biden and his team were working through the often competing positions that Democrats in various factions have staked out. On Capitol Hill, moderate Democrats remained confident that enough Republicans would support the infrastructure bill to allow it to clear the House, sending the legislation to Biden’s desk. But liberals held firm, and received some high-profile encouragement from across the Capitol. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who leads the Senate Budget Committee, issued a fiery statement encouraging liberals to remain united in their stance. “If there was a framework that addressed the major issues that we are fighting for in reconciliation, if there was a serious top line — I believe of $3.5 trillion — and Manchin and Sinema were 100% in agreement they would support that as we work out the fine details, that’s one thing,” Sanders said in an interview. “We’re not there yet, and it is upsetting to me that, as I understand it, they go to the White House and still nothing is happening. So I think it’s premature at this point to be passing the infrastructure bill.” Lawmakers in both chambers have said they hope to quickly iron out the remaining differences between the moderate and liberal factions of their party, although many of the specific demands from the holdouts remain unclear. Pelosi has privately reiterated that she would not take up a reconciliation bill that could not pass the Senate. But she told Democrats that she wanted to leave time for continued negotiations on it and as of Tuesday afternoon, it did not appear that a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure legislation would be delayed. That bill includes $550 billion in new funds over 10 years and maintains a series of key transportation programs set to lapse with the end of the fiscal year on Thursday. “Man, holding one hostage over the other is not fair — it’s not right, it’s not good for the country,” Manchin said after his afternoon meeting at the White House, when pressed on his position and the vote conundrum in the House. “You have to have trust a little bit, you know. Everybody’s not going to get what they want,” he added. “But let’s find out what the country needs.” Both Manchin and Sinema have become a main target of liberal ire, having refused to publicly commit to an overall price tag after openly opposing a final $3.5 trillion package. Moderates in the House have also raised a wide variety of reservations about the scope of the legislation, leaving Democratic leaders with a complex web of issues that have frustrated efforts to reach a deal. Sinema, for example, has privately expressed concern about current proposals for tax increases on wealthy people and corporations, while Manchin and others have floated the possibility of trimming back some of the spending. “I think we just need them to say what’s the top line over there, which there’s always been a bit of reticence about saying,” said Rep. Richard E. Neal, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Without assurances from Senate moderates that they would embrace key components of the reconciliation legislation, progressives said they would not be comfortable backing the infrastructure measure. “I think we’re in a situation where there’s a lot of needless hostage-taking — we can support everyone’s agenda here,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. “The idea that we must split them apart or have them on different dates is an artificial construct in order to take people’s child care away.” “Realigning these two votes will bring our party together,” she told reporters. Even as they worked to keep both pieces of Biden’s agenda on track, Democratic leaders were confronting two more urgent fiscal deadlines: the lapse of government funding at midnight on Thursday and the breach of the federal debt ceiling, which would cause a default. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen informed lawmakers on Tuesday that the deadline to avoid a default could come as early as Oct. 18, narrowing the window of time for Congress to act. Senate Republicans on Monday blocked an emergency spending bill that would have lifted the statutory limit on federal borrowing, forcing Democratic leaders to consider a new strategy for averting a fiscal crisis. On Tuesday, they blocked another procedural attempt by Senate Democrats to avoid a filibuster and raise the debt ceiling. Republicans have demanded that Democrats use the reconciliation process to raise the debt ceiling. But the maneuver would be complex and time-consuming, and House Democrats were considering taking up a separate bill raising the debt limit as early as Wednesday to continue pressuring the GOP on the issue.

Liberals dig in against infrastructure bill as party divisions persist

infrastructure-bill

Infrastructure Bill, News on Infrastructure Bill, stories on Infrastructure Bill, articles on Infrastructure Bill, Infrastructure Bill stories at Wion, Infrastructure Bill news, Infrastructure Bill latest news