This is a rush transcript from "Your World with Neil Cavuto," October 1, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: All right, the president up on Capitol Hill right now, and he is trying to get the Democratic Caucus or at least so far work on the Democratic Caucus to rally around a plan that will unite progressives and moderates, even though they are miles apart.

The pitch is pretty much the same. We need a win. Now, does that win mean a vote on the $1.2 trillion infrastructure-only package that Nancy Pelosi has promised? Or does it mean, as progressives like to see, that we wait and wait and wait until at the very least we got a framework, a far more pricey, at spending about $3.5 trillion, before we even entertain the bipartisan infrastructure package?

It's that much of a mess? But in the push to get everything that they want, will the president end up getting nothing of what he wants? Welcome, everybody.

I'm Neil Cavuto. And this is "Your World." Fast-moving developments right now, where the president of the United States is making the personal pitch himself.

Now, some have likened this appearance on the Hill, even though the president has met with a number of top Democrats and a couple of those Republicans, the fact of the matter is, this is a Democrat-only push to try to get them on the bigger spending same page and satisfy Republicans -- remember, there were 19 in the Senate who voted as part of this bipartisan infrastructure package -- not to lose hope, as well as moderate Democrats who don't want to lose the chance to vote on something they think is worth the money.

Let's go to Hillary Vaughn keeping track of all of these developments on Capitol Hill.

Hey, Hillary.

HILLARY VAUGHN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Neil.

Well, House Democrats, several of them were grumbling after their two-hour meeting this morning did not make as much progress as they wanted, saying they think the president should be more involved.

Well, now the president is showing up on their doorstep. He was greeted by House Democratic leadership, and he asked House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer permission to come aboard.

Now he is behind closed doors, and he has the task in front of him to try to bring both sides of his party together. One of the members joked on their way in that these hard lines dividing Democrats, progressives and moderates are just schoolyard positions.

And Biden coming here is kind of like the principal showing up in the room. And it really is kind of like class is in session. Lawmakers had to stuff their cell phones into wooden cubbies before entering the room.

We will see if Biden is about to break the gridlock within his own party. The House Democrats huddled for two hours this morning, but still did not break through. But several of them are not giving up hope that the president might be able to seal the deal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D-TX): I'm open to staying, because maybe a vote comes not today or maybe tonight, and maybe, in addition, sometime in the future. There's no deadline for drop-dead.

QUESTION: No matter how much time it takes?

JACKSON LEE: No matter how much time it takes. We may be fast. We may be a little slower than fast.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUGHN: But notably missing from Capitol Hill today, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, who was out of the office and out of town.

She is back home right now in Phoenix, Arizona. Her spokesman tells me that she has been remote negotiating with the White House. And this is relevant, because progressives had said they want a vote in the Senate on the reconciliation bill first. That is their hard line.

But with Sinema not here, there was no chance that any reconciliation bill is going up for a vote in the Senate. But progressives have said also today that they still have not received a counteroffer from Senator Sinema or Manchin.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): We have been waiting for an offer to counter the $3.5 trillion that is on the table.

So, until we get that, we don't have anything to say about numbers. So if you ask me about whether I'm willing to accept a number or not, there's no number on the table, and I'm not negotiating against myself.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUGHN: And, Neil, there have been reports that after this meeting with the full Democratic Caucus wraps up with the president, the Progressive Caucus will hold their own meeting with their members after that -- Neil.

CAVUTO: Hillary, the one thing I didn't understand, when they said we're not going to negotiate with ourselves, I mean, there is a number out there, a $1.5 trillion number on that human infrastructure package that is a starting point.

Is she saying it's not? Is she saying that I have got to see the details or what the senator would plan to cut before she even entertains it?

VAUGHN: Yes, well, the problem in all of this, Neil, has been that the moderate Senators Manchin and Sinema have not been negotiating directly with the progressives. They're not talking to each other. They're talking through intermediaries.

CAVUTO: Right.

VAUGHN: The president, the White House.

And so the progressives' perspective is, yes, there is this report about the $1.5 trillion that Manchin put out with conditions and things he wants to be included in the reconciliation bill, but progressives, from their perspective, have not been offered that. And that has not been put on the table in front of them with their own Democratic leadership or the White House that had been the in-between point in all of these negotiations.

CAVUTO: All right, got it. Thank you, Hillary, very, very much.

Let's go to Jacqui Heinrich at the White House. As Jacqui has been pointing out, of course, throughout is, the president was going to make this trip to Capitol Hill. He's up there right now talking to the Democratic Caucus.

Is there a concern, Jacqui, that he's taking this human press-the-flesh approach too late in the process?

JACQUI HEINRICH, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's certainly a question being asked of the White House, depending on the outcome of his meeting this afternoon.

Jen Psaki in the Briefing Room said that the president is not going to the Hill to sort of pick off individual votes and pressure people. But I am hearing from Democrats who are in this meeting or who are going into this meeting, that they felt like the vote was coming together, that they were nearing a place where they might have enough support among their own caucus to put up this bipartisan infrastructure bill and get a vote on it.

And, in fact, Congressman Dean Phillips said that what was sort of illuminating about this is that presidents don't typically come to caucus meetings to make a pitch. They come to seal the deal. He said, it feels awfully close.

So, all day today, Speaker Pelosi was really trying to sort of gauge just how much support she had within her own caucus for that bill, and to decide whether she wanted to bring it to the floor for a vote, because, historically, she doesn't like to bring up votes that are going to fail.

And we had seen from the progressives, they have been continuing to promise that they would vote this down if they didn't get not just an agreement, but a text and a vote on the reconciliation package, which really is not possible today.

I mean, it is not even in its final form. So, to get that vote on the BIF today, you can't do that without the text. And the conditions that they were setting, the goalposts, were just really impossible. Even this morning, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said that progressives were holding out for those conditions, for the text and the vote, and, without it, they would vote down the bipartisan bill.

So it's unclear right now how many progressives will keep to that commitment, or if there could be Republicans who are going to be making up the difference. That all is part of Pelosi's calculation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Speaker Pelosi, could you answer a few questions for the camera right now?

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): I have a very important thing. I will come back, though, later.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HEINRICH: So the president's visit to speak to these Democratic members is a significant part of this effort to find a new path forward and try to get this done.

Aides in the White House this week were trying to get Senators Manchin and Sinema to agree to a $2.1 trillion reconciliation package. But the framework alone was not enough for progressives to vote for the bipartisan bill.

Progressive Caucus Leader Pramila Jayapal indicated that she doubted the president's visit would make much of a difference.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Did the president wait too long to get seriously involved in these discussions? I mean, this is happening so late that Speaker Pelosi is, like, using a legislative trick to pretend that it's still Thursday.

JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Anyone who's ever been through a legislative fight before or covered it on the Hill knows that the negotiations and the deal-making always happens at the end.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HEINRICH: So, in the meantime, hanging in the limbo here is 3, 700 Department of Transportation employees who've been furloughed because the baseline funding for their jobs is part of the bipartisan bill. It hasn't been renewed because the bill hasn't been brought up for a vote or passed.

There's a short-term fix that they're talking about, a temporary extension of that funding that would be a plan B if this doesn't come together later on today, but it's unclear going hour by hour which way this is going to end up -- Neil.

CAVUTO: Jacqui, I'm curious. And maybe I'm getting way into the weeds on this.

I'm all -- looking for one or the other side to blink or show some flexibility here. And when I heard progressives were talking about not voting on the infrastructure-only package until they had, and they stressed, a structure in place on the far more expensive $3.5 trillion plan, whatever it will be, rather than outright Senate vote on that, that seemed to be a slight change, a pivot from their earlier position, voted and approved in the Senate, then go to the House.

Now they're saying structure. Are we over-read into that, or what?

HEINRICH: I think you're right to read into that the way that you did.

I mean, there have been so many discussions to try to get progressives on board. And up until today, you saw both sides kind of moving the goalposts, right? You had progressive saying, we're not going to take a framework. We want text and we want a vote.

And then you had Manchin yesterday throwing out that $1.5 trillion number and saying well, I'm not going to go any higher than this. This is my top- line amount, and I came up from zero.

So there was a lot of that coming from both sides. But, behind the scenes, I think what's really unclear is just how many progressives are actually going to follow through with their pledge to vote this down without those terms.

And that's why there's also eyeballs on how many Republicans are going to vote in support of this. You had 19 who did it in the Senate.

CAVUTO: Right.

HEINRICH: And Press Secretary Jen Psaki called them out in the briefing today and said Republicans can get behind this, too. So we shall see, Neil.

CAVUTO: Oh, all right. We will watch it very, very closely. Thank you, Jacqui, very, very much.

Now to Jacqui's point, where the $1.5 trillion figure that Joe Manchin just threw out there was cheap, paltry, nothing even remotely progressive about it, leave it to Brian Riedl.

I don't know if you have ever read and his work today musing in The New York Times. He's the Manhattan Institute senior fellow. And he really put it in great perspective that -- and I loved it, Brian, because you said, $1.5 trillion is still a lot of money. It's a lot of money.

It used to be the entire budget of the United States, used to be our entire debt at the start of the Reagan administration. And yet they're getting on hot under the collar at Joe Manchin because he would dare, dare throw out such a ridiculously low figure.

What did you make of that?

BRIAN RIEDL, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE: Yes, I mean, $1.5 trillion is a huge figure.

I remember, four years ago, when the Republicans cut taxes by $1.5 trillion, it was the biggest budget-busting number in the universe. I remember a $400 billion Medicare bill a couple decades ago that was huge.

CAVUTO: Right.

RIEDL: But it's not just the $1.5 trillion. There's a $1.9 trillion stimulus bill that already passed. The infrastructure bill would add $550 billion.

The extensions of policies like the child tax credit with fake expiration dates are a trillion dollars. And the president has already committed to increasing discretionary spending by a trillion dollars over the decade.

So this $1.5 trillion is really part of a $5 trillion or $6 trillion increase in spending that the Democrats are looking to pass in a span of nine months.

CAVUTO: You know, it's interesting too. When you refer to the package, the core infrastructure package at roughly half-a-trillion, even though you hear $1.2 trillion, they are repurposing a lot of COVID-related funding plans to do that.

It's still an eye-popping figure. But it says a lot about the times in which we live that, if you're only going to do something at $1.5 trillion, there's something wrong here.

So I'm just wondering where this goes, because I know that both sides are saying it's not about the final number. It's about the details and the priorities. I think the Progressive Caucus has said, all right, how much are you going to cut, Joe Manchin, presumably Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who has not weighed in with a number of her own, and let's discuss that.

But it's going to be bigger than $1.5 trillion. It's going to be smaller than $3.5 trillion. But you have also reported extensively on the notion that those numbers don't give you a gauge of how big this thing is, right?

RIEDL: Yes.

I mean, they're using so many gimmicks to cover up the cost of these bills. What -- the way they're shrinking the bill down is by having all sorts of policies expire in 2025 or 2026 that Democrats have no intention of expiring.

An example is the child tax credit expansion, where it's going to go to $3,000 per kid or $3, 600 for young kids. The Democrats are assuming that that's going to -- in the bill that that expires after 2025, even though they have announced they have no intention of it ever expiring.

These extensions that are going to come are going to add a trillion dollars to the final cost of this bill. But this is kind of Washington budget accounting gimmicks to cover up the cost.

CAVUTO: And I suspect I'm only jaded about this because this isn't a red or blue issue. It's just green, money. And I have seen how the these things come together.

You can make the figures work for you. And you talk about expiring credits and the rest, when we know full well that any Congress, Republican or Democrat, especially if they're popular, like child credits and the rest, they're not going to let them go. They're going to keep renewing them, because these bennies have a way of just growing.

Having said that, though, I'm wondering why the progressives are holding, let's say, the moderates hostage on this because you could make the argument -- I'm not taking sides here -- that better half-a-loaf than none, right, better something that does have bipartisan support, could make the president look good, them look good, actually all the Congress look good, because at least that package has -- polls better than this monster that they're working on.

And they're not allowing that. I'm just wondering where this is going yes,

RIEDL: I mean, historically, the Democrats have been very effective at expanding government by doing it relentlessly a piece at a time.

They get half-a-loaf. And then they come back a week later and ask for another half-a-loaf. And so what's interesting is, the progressives have moved the ball so far, they have moved the goalposts so far, that even a couple trillion dollars in a span of a few months seems like not worth getting out of bed in the morning.

There's certainly a feel that they want a Hail Mary. And, really, this is where the Democratic Party is. Joe Biden ran on a proposal of $11 trillion in new spending last fall. And he would seen as a centrist because Warren wanted $40 trillion and Sanders wanted $97 trillion in new spending over 10 years.

So we have moved into such fantasyland Monopoly money that doing $1 trillion or $2 trillion at a time, which is historically the biggest expansion of government in half-a-century, is now seen as peanuts compared to the bigger plans they have.

CAVUTO: You know, Brian, I look back at some of the criticism that president has gotten, whether it's deserved or not, is that he's late to the party to start doing some arm-twisting, if, in fact, that's what he's doing at all.

If we're to take Joe Manchin at his word, when he talked to the president, he said: Well, you got to do what you got to do, Joe.

I'm paraphrasing here, but there was none of that so-called LBJ: Oh, I don't think that would be a good idea, Senator.

I'm just wondering. Past presidents who really stormed hard for what they really believed in, Ronald Reagan with his tax cuts and working even the conservative Democrats in Congress, the Boll Weevils at the time, or JFK in the early '60s pushing for a tax cut that was an anathema to his own party, so he worked on Republicans as much as he did Democrats, but that that sweat equity paid off, tragically, for JFK after his death, but clearly for Ronald Reagan early in his presidency.

I don't see that here. There's a lot I know. And Chris Wallace is mentioning this, where the president is meeting with the key players at the White House, but nothing beats going to the Capitol to make your pitch and aggressively do so.

RIEDL: It can help somewhat for Democrats for the president to make its pitch, if he can win. If he goes there, makes his pitch and doesn't convince people, it just weakens him further.

But a lot of moderate Democrats, they read their history. The ones who stood with Bill Clinton's push in '93 got slaughtered in '94, and they lost the House. The Democrats who went along with Barack Obama in 2009 and 2010 got slaughtered in 2010. And they lost the House.

And so a lot of Democrats are aware hitching yourself to a president, particularly one with an approval rating under 50 percent, is not necessarily going to save you, especially in moderate districts, next year, when the president is trying to move you so far to the left.

CAVUTO: All right, Brian, thank you very much.

You do have a way with words and I appreciate that, Brian Riedl.

I want to go to Melissa Armo right now, because I want you to take a peek at the lower right portion of your screen, looking at the Dow soaring today. This is the first day of October. That surprised a lot of people. It really has little to do with the drama at the Capitol, as much as people try to link that. It had everything to do with some promising news on vaccines, virus cases going down, and out of Merck that could be a pill to treat the vaccine.

That was the catalyst for a lot of this, but none of this, I guess, Melissa, for the time being a worry for the markets, even if they come up zero. What do you think?

MELISSA ARMO, THE STOCK SWOOSH: Well, the market has been worried, Neil.

We fell all week until today, and even this morning, we were down before we rallied. So, yes, we had a good close. Thank God we had a good close into the end of the week and Friday. But remember Monday? That was just a couple of days ago. We were down huge.

We have fallen hard from off the highs, which was about two weeks ago.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Well, wasn't that a lot -- Melissa, a lot early in the week on fears that they wouldn't even get the short-term funding thing through, the government would be pushed to the brink?

Now, we got a little breathing room because they did write off on something that kind of keeps the government lights on through October 18 or so. And then all bets are off. But there was a lot of worry about that. I guess the reason why I bring that up, Melissa, is that could there be similar confidence here that even though this looks perilous now, they will come up with at least a vote on the infrastructure itself package, putting aside this far more gargantuan one?

ARMO: I think the market would prefer the $1.5 trillion, even though that's an astronomical number, than the $3.5 trillion. How are we going to pay for this, Neil?

I have read a lot about this in the last week. So far, raising the corporate tax rate to 21 to 26 percent and on high earners from 37 to 39, supposedly, that's only going to generate $2 trillion in revenue to cover this for the next 10 years. The big $3.5 trillion, it's still going to fall short.

As much as Nancy Pelosi is selling this to the American people that this is going to help the little guy and it's going to -- the rich people are going to pay for this, let me tell you something, Neil. The rich people never turn out on the downside.

The little guy is going to end up paying for this. You're already seeing this now with the cost of goods and services, gas, food, everything going up.

CAVUTO: But, Melissa, let's say they get something not on this human infrastructure deal, but it's not nearly as big, that you could switch that around and say, then, the tax increases to pay it for don't have to be as big.

This is me taking the leap here that we don't even know what they're doing. How would investors respond to that? Because, you think about it, how investors react go a long way toward, you think about it, paying for all of this?

ARMO: Well, remember, the market rallied and was very bullish during the Trump tax cuts. We have had a very bullish period in the last five years.

Now I know the market has rallied this year, but that was really the COVID recovery. We're going into a period here, into 2022, where even the Fed chair, Jerome Powell, said he expects inflation to continue, and interest rates could go up in 2022. That's not good for anyone.

We can't increase corporate tax rates too much. So, if they -- if they keep on the same or lower them less, like you're stating, I definitely think the companies would react positive to that.

The problem I'm really seeing for the country right now is, Neil, how many people really voted this in? I have heard you discussing this earlier with Martha. Is this really what people voted in who voted for Joe Biden?

Don't forget half the country voted for Trump. And the people that voted for Joe Biden thought he was a moderate. Now this seems we're moving towards more socialist, where you have all these entitlements. And like you said as well, it's really hard to pull those back then once they're given out there. They tend to carry on and last forever.

I'm not so sure that this is the direction that the majority of the country wants to go. Most of the people in the country are not far right. And most of the people in the country are not far left. Why are the Democrats trying to push this leftist agenda?

CAVUTO: You know, on that point, Melissa, I just want to pick your brain on this.

The argument for Democrats pushing this is that it will give a sugar high to the economy. I'm very much trivializing and simplifying what they're saying, is that it's going to goose the economy, and it's going to goose the economy at just the right time, into the midterms.

There is the inflation risk that you raise, but that it'll do more good than bad. Timing is everything. And, by next year at this time, it will all be good. What do you say to that?

ARMO: No, I disagree with that.

Boost the economy. We boosted the economy when we had the stimulus. Companies had the PPP loans. They had two of them. We're on our fourth stimulus check now, some people are getting. They have the child tax credit. People are getting $300 per child until the end of the year.

What more stimulus do we need? Eventually, we have to pay this back. While it might have an uptick initially, just like the stimulus we have seen in the last 19 months, it's going to come to a head, and it's going to come to a head sooner than people realize.

And by soon, I mean six to 12 months. You cannot continue to borrow without paying it back. It's like, if you borrowed money on a credit card, Neil, and you can make the minimum payment, that's fine. But when you have to borrow to make the minimum payment on what you borrow, don't you see that's a problem?

And we're heading down some very dangerous road. I have heard you discussing these numbers. They're crazy numbers. You can see in two years now we will be talking about $10 trillion. I mean, when does it end? I mean, I can't pay for it all. You can't pay for it all. Your kids can't pay for it all.

What's going to happen is, the value of the dollar is going to go down. And all these cryptocurrencies that everyone's in love with, I'm not a big proponent of them, but some people love them. Guess what? People are going to start talking about other forms of -- besides the dollar to go to.

We don't want to devalue our currency. It's very important to have a strong dollar.

CAVUTO: Well, somehow, remarkably, over decades, Republican and Democratic presidents, as we have been piling this up, it's been operation ignore.

So -- but, eventually, that stops. And we just don't know when that would be.

Melissa, thank you very much, Melissa Armo.

I want to go to Chad Pergram just updating us on this. We're showing you the Capitol. For those of you just tuning in, the president's up on the Capitol meeting with the Democratic Caucus talking about a way to move forward here and to maybe avoid what seems to be a pretty serious split between moderates of the Democratic Party and progressives.

They're at loggerheads here.

Chad, what can you tell us?

CHAD PERGRAM, FOX NEWS SENIOR CAPITOL HILL PRODUCER: Well, the president really has some risk involved with this meeting, because what happens if he comes up here, meets with the Democratic Caucus, and then they still can't pass the infrastructure bill later tonight or sometime over the weekend? What does that mean?

There is some risk in that. But the other school of thought here is that he is wearing three hats. He is a referee. He is refereeing this dispute between the moderate Democrats and also the liberal Democrats. He's a salesman. He is making his pitch here. And he is also a closer.

You bring the president up, as our colleague Jacqui Heinrich said at the White House, maybe to close the deal. And, typically, this doesn't happen until the very end.

Now, I have been getting mixed messages here about where they are. It is thought that you bring up the closer, so to speak, in the ninth inning. You're right there. And maybe you call the vote later tonight.

The one thing we do know is, even if they're able to get this general framework here, that means that the progressives have probably given in a lot, because they wanted this vote in the United States Senate on a framework first, and then they would consider voting on the infrastructure package.

And it just isn't set up to work that way right now parliamentarily. They are on the verge, at least they were yesterday and even today, to just calling that vote on the infrastructure bill. And if you have an agreement, what that does is, it unlocks those votes on the progressive side that they will say, OK, we will support this because we have gotten enough assurances.

And that's a pretty big give there by the liberal side of the caucus. It's unclear how that's going to go. But the one thing I also want to underscore is that we are probably days, if not weeks away from having some sort of a general framework where they actually move this so-called reconciliation package to the floor.

Joe Manchin came out yesterday. He was pretty clear, $1.5 trillion, that was his ceiling there. That kind of took House Speaker Nancy Pelosi aback a little bit. Apparently, she didn't know that there was this agreement, this document that was even signed by Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate.

That said, what that also told me is that Joe Manchin was all about getting a number. So now we know what that number was. And we always thought, Neil, that that top-line number was going to come down. And there's all sorts of ways that they can kind of fudge the math here.

They do a program for three years vs. five years. They do a program for five years vs. seven years. And so those costs, once they get something from the Congressional Budget Office, it starts to come down. Keep in mind that the CBO does something called static scoring.

They look right now at what the cost of these programs are. Now, that cuts two ways. What that means is that you later get hurricanes and wars and pandemics, and the costs eventually go up.

But, also, it's harder -- you have a finite period of time that that program is on. And then there is a sunset. Now, sometimes it's easier to reauthorize those programs because it's harder to turn them off. They just go on ad infinitum. And that's what your previous guest was talking about.

So, if they can convince the liberals in the Democratic Caucus that they're going to get a lot of those programs, that's going to be important to them. And if they talk to the Manchins and Sinemas of the world and say, to you, it's a number, it's still a big number, $1.5 trillion, but that is your number, and Joe Manchin can go back and say, look, I brought them down from $3.5 trillion to $1.5 trillion.

So the question in this meeting this afternoon, is which of the three hats does the president wear, salesman, referee, closer? A little bit of all three.

CAVUTO: How about Tony Soprano? Play that role, and where you really want to force the issue, right, I mean, where you're saying, look, guys, this isn't about just me. This is about all of us.

If we fail on either or both measure, we're done. You're done. I'm done. We're all done.

Is there any -- you hear these just legendary stories about presidents who meet and really twist arms, Lyndon Johnson famously, but certainly Ronald Reagan, when he wanted to work on those wayward Democrats who were vulnerable in districts that Reagan won to get their vote for his big tax package.

And he wasn't subtle about it. Now, maybe different styles, I grant you, but is this president that kind of guy, because if you're trying to pull a rabbit out of your hat, now's the time to do it, and being genteel about it probably isn't a good idea. What do you think?

PERGRAM: Usually, the heavy pressure does not work on Capitol Hill.

What usually works is just the presence of the president. Once those doors to the Capitol swing open, and he walks inside and he's greeted by the Democratic leadership, and they walk him down to the caucus room, that pretty much usually closes the deal right there.

Now, again, you probably have to work out particulars. That's one part of this. The other thing I should talk about in all this is that there's a real problem they have here on Capitol Hill with something operational that expired last night, these highway transportation programs, which were essentially shut off at 11:59.

Now, so long as an e-mail wasn't sent over to the highway folks that these programs are dark, they're usually fine. So this bill, this infrastructure bill -- and this is why the agreement was partly to vote on that bill yesterday, because that bill partly reauthorized those programs. Maybe they just do that bill later tonight.

The Senate is also still in session. They're out recess, subject to the call the chair. They could come back and approve just that tonight. And that would accomplish two things, three things, really.

You turn on the programs again. They don't go dark. Number two, you take the pressure off of getting a deal right now. But the third part -- and this is the downside of this is -- is that you take the pressure off of doing a deal right now.

You kind of need that pressure...

CAVUTO: Right.

PERGRAM: ... because the longer this sits out there, it's kind of like house guests and fish. You don't want it to be around too long. And a lot of people think that this is already pretty calcified, frankly.

CAVUTO: I'm usually that guest, Chad.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: I'm staying there late at your place, watching pay-per-view movies, raiding your refrigerator. I don't know what's going on there. But I wonder.

Thank you, my friend. Very good.

PERGRAM: Drinking all the wine, the Scotch.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: Yes, please. Oh, no wine bottle would be safe.

Thank you, Chad. That's a very nice explanation.

So, we don't know what's going on behind these closed doors here or how forceful the president is being. As Chad said, sometimes, just the presence of the commander in chief, the most powerful man in the world, you know the whole drill, can influence people.

But that depends on what the president pitches and what he really wants. We don't know. We know he's flexible on this. But the -- what is he not flexible on? What does he want to see? Maybe he's relaying that to them right now.

We just don't know. What we do know is Democrats are in a pickle here, because the two sides are far, far apart. Now, we have seen that before, and gaps and bridges have been formed. But time's, well, running out, isn't it?

We will have more after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: We are told that the president has wrapped up his meeting with the Democratic Caucus and actually did so about 10 minutes ago.

He has still not come out of the room, though. We're waiting to see if he will announce anything or that those in the room will say anything -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, meaning wrapped up, and now the president of the United States Nancy Pelosi are speaking.

Let's listen to the president.

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It doesn't matter when.

It doesn't matter whether it's in six minutes, six days or six weeks. We're going to get it done.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Why has it been so challenging to unite your party, Mr. President? Why has it been so challenging to unite the party?

Why isn't the party united? Why isn't the party united?

(CROSSTALK)

BIDEN: ... 50/50. Come on, man. Unite the party; 50/50. I got it.

QUESTION: How big is this bill...

(CROSSTALK)

BIDEN: You ought to get (OFF-MIKE)

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: Mr. Richmond.

CAVUTO: All right, you always wait to see if you hear anything else. But

it must have been in response to when something will be cobbled together on all of this stuff, but the president making clear that, eventually, it will, and they will succeed at it.

Let's get the read from Francesca Chambers, McClatchy D.C. White House correspondent.

Francesca, if I'm taking the president at this late word here, there's no rush. We will get it done. By that, I assume a vote on the infrastructure- only package, something acceptable to both the right and left of his party on the far bigger spending package, but it's going to happen, but it might not happen immediately.

What do you think?

FRANCESCA CHAMBERS, MCCLATCHY D.C.: Well, it didn't certainly -- it certainly didn't sound, Neil, like there was a deal when he came out, when he's saying it could be six days, it could be more weeks from now.

So that does not sound like they have arrived at a deal. And you need to at least buckle up and wait to see what happens into next week, Neil. But it is notable that the president went to Capitol Hill today. That was something that the White House had resisted doing. They said that they would only do it when they felt that he needed to.

CAVUTO: Francesca, I hate to interrupt you, but Congresswoman Jayapal of the Progressive Caucus is now speaking.

JAYAPAL: But we need to get this reconciliation bill.

And it's going to be tough. Like, we're going to have to come down in our number, and we're going to have to do that work. So, we're going to get to work and see what we can get to.

QUESTION: And how much time is he kind of giving you on this?

JAYAPAL: There was no timetable.

QUESTION: What was your takeaway? Is there going to be a vote? And will it be this weekend or tonight?

JAYAPAL: On the BIF?

QUESTION: Yes.

JAYAPAL: No.

QUESTION: And he's OK with the strategy?

JAYAPAL: The president said we're going to get both bills done. And in order to get the BIF done, we have to get this agreement on the reconciliation.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: I don't know. I don't know. You will have to ask them.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: Does that mean you're going to stay here next week? I mean, did you get any message?

JAYAPAL: Well, I'm here. I'm not going anywhere.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, did you get any indication as far as the House (OFF-MIKE)

JAYAPAL: I didn't. I don't know. I don't know.

We will do the surface transportation extension.

QUESTION: Today?

JAYAPAL: I would assume so.

QUESTION: Do you expect that to happen this afternoon? When...

CAVUTO: All right, that's a very interesting read from Congresswoman Jayapal, of course, who heads the Progressive Caucus.

I know that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others get more attention within that group, but they're not budging on a couple of things. Even -- this is the first time I have heard the congresswoman talking about bring that $3.5 trillion number lower.

You might recall earlier on today she had said there's nothing to respond to with the $1.5 trillion dollar figure that Joe Manchin had mentioned, because we don't know the details or she didn't know the details.

Francesca, I rudely interrupted you. I apologize for that.

But it seems clear, if we're to take her at her word, that a vote is not imminent on either package right now. Certainly, there's nothing to vote on in the reconciliation one, but there is one standing and waiting on the bipartisan infrastructure package itself, the roughly $1 trillion one.

That doesn't seem immediate. So where are we here?

CHAMBERS: Well, the White House has said that the president wasn't going to go to Capitol Hill until they felt that he needed to. We saw him do that today, Neil, at the end of the day.

And after listening to Congresswoman Jayapal, it sounds like that conversation with the president did make a difference. As you just noted, she said something to the effect of, we're going to have to come down from that number...

CAVUTO: Right. Right.

CHAMBERS: ... which is the first time that we're hearing about coming down.

So what would they come down to? Is that $1.5 trillion? Is that 2? Are all the progressives going to be satisfied with that, Neil? Because we have heard Bernie Sanders already say they -- Neil, they have already come down significantly to the 3.5.

So what are they willing to do? And then that opens up a whole new set of questions. What gets cut?

CAVUTO: You know, as you said, the president made it very clear leaving the Capitol, or was on his way out of the Capitol, it doesn't matter if it's in six minutes, six days, six weeks. We will get it done.

But there's a lot of moving parts here, including the whole debt ceiling issue. I mean, we're bumping up against still, even with this short-term funding plan, October 18. The Treasury secretary seems to indicate that's when we essentially run out of money.

And you and I know you could rob Peter to pay Paul to push that October 18 deadline back. And the government is very good at finding money under couch cushions. Their couch is a lot bigger, and they have a lot more cushions.

But I am wondering how this all times out. That's what's crucial here. What do you think?

CHAMBERS: So, that's currently a separate issue, Neil, with the debt ceiling.

And, of course, they have at least funded the government through the beginning of December.

CAVUTO: Right.

CHAMBERS: So, push that deadline back a little bit.

When it comes to implementing the president's policies, what you have to look forward to, Neil, is at what point does the deadline affect when they can implement these things? And that matters for Democrats, because they feel that if these things don't get implemented in time before the election, that they could lose seats in the House, because people aren't really feeling the real effects of the president's agenda in the way that they had intended them to.

So that's what matters here. And from what I have heard, that they can afford to wait a few more weeks until that point.

CAVUTO: Francesca, no matter how you slice it, they can come up with figures that say, all right, this is a trillion dollars less than we were originally looking at, when you and I know you don't have to even be a quasi-clever accountant to make the numbers show whatever you want them to show, to cut back the number of years for a program to make it look like it fits a certain number, when popular programs that are included in this are not going to be removed by a Congress, Republican or Democrat, in most cases.

So they stay. They have a way of staying. So whatever compromise they come up to, you could make the argument it isn't worth its -- the pencil details on paper. That's what's a concern here. What do you think?

CHAMBERS: Part of the conversation is, how much of this is new spending, Neil, and what is the time frame? Is it eight years, is it 10 years, is it 15 years over which they're spending this amount of money?

CAVUTO: Right.

CHAMBERS: That all -- that all makes -- it all makes a difference.

But, as you were saying, as we talk about some of these new programs and how long they exist, the -- there are programs, as you were saying, that are intended to sunset. And then whenever Congress gets to a deadline for that, they don't want to be the ones to end that program, like the expanded child tax credit.

CAVUTO: Exactly.

CHAMBERS: They don't want to be the ones.

So, some of that is an assumption that, if you get closer to that deadline, especially in election years, that lawmakers will vote to renew some of these things, that they do not want to be the ones who had to take a program away.

CAVUTO: Yes, it's like me making the assumption that I'm going to lose 10 pounds in the next two years. And, if I don't, I could stretch it out or renew it. It really is kind of fascinating.

Francesca, thank you very, very much, Francesca Chambers on all of this.

The news there, and Francesca seized on it quite properly, is hearing out of the Progressive Caucus that they're open to bringing that number down, the $3.5 trillion number down. And whether that came as a result of the president meeting with the Democratic Caucus, of which progressives are clearly members, hard to say.

But he might have gotten them to think about the long-haul picture on all of this.

To Charlie Gasparino now on where this might be going.

The assumption in the financial community, Charlie, was that it's not going to come to fruition, or, if it is, it's going to be late and watered down. But the upside of that was that the tax hikes that are going to come with it are going to be late and watered down. What are you hearing?

CHARLIE GASPARINO, FOX NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's exactly it.

And that's why I think the market was up today. I mean, listen, the biggest problem that this country faces right now, at least according to Wall Street, according to investors, and according to the clients of the banks, which are small businesses, is inflation.

They can't get people to work because they have to pay them a lot more because of all these programs. Prices are going up. There's supply chain bottlenecks. It's all -- it's all -- it's really impacting small businesses.

This bill is superfluous to that. This bill has nothing to do with that. It's not going to make the inflation better. It's not going to make small businesses be able to handle what's going on with worker shortages. And it's so out there that Wall Street knows this, and they know that anything that basically waters this down, both on the tax increases side, on the spending side, is a good thing.

I mean, this thing is really interesting, Neil. If there was ever a bill, a spending measure that was not needed, if the time does not call for it, it's this thing, because the time is calling for getting people to...

CAVUTO: You're talking about -- you're talking about the bigger one, the human infrastructure one.

GASPARINO: Yes. Well, and even the older one. I mean...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Switch that around.

What do you think about the other one?

GASPARINO: Listen...

CAVUTO: I mean, that's the one that did have 19 Republican senators voting for it.

GASPARINO: Right.

CAVUTO: I don't know how many in the House would do so. But it could be up to 10, 12, maybe more.

GASPARINO: That -- and, the way, that could pass.

CAVUTO: But what do you think of that?

GASPARINO: Well, could pass.

CAVUTO: Yes.

GASPARINO: But it -- that's not needed either. I mean, none of this is needed.

And I think Wall Street knows that. I mean, this is just spending more money. And it's -- and I think that's why, when you see this sort of impasse and nothing getting done, weeks away, the Street is saying, not a bad idea. We're not going to add to the debt. We're not going to raise taxes anytime soon.

I will say this, though. everybody talks about Joe Manchin being the kingmaker. It is really Kyrsten Sinema, from what I understand. And based on my sources who are these Wall Street guys that are very plugged in because they're trying to gauge what's going on here, she wants nothing to do with a $3.5 trillion thing. She's actually said that to people.

It's the $1.5 trillion which she probably, dollars to donuts, is OK with, like everybody else. But...

CAVUTO: But she hasn't said.

GASPARINO: I know. I know. I know.

CAVUTO: Joe Manchin at least has. And it's always in the details.

But we don't know her priorities.

GASPARINO: That's it.

CAVUTO: We know, right now, she's in Arizona. So, we don't know.

GASPARINO: But she thinks she's channeling John McCain -- John McCain, from what I understand.

Now, we will have -- the devils will be in the details. We will see what happens.

John McCain, if you knew John McCain, he would vote against both of these things, both of them right off the bat, because they don't -- they don't do what needs to be done going forward. The country's opening up. The vaccines are working. Delta is going down. That's the best stimulus package.

We're just throwing money and expanding the welfare state, and money we don't have, raising taxes at a time we probably shouldn't. We have problems with inflation. And one of the problems is that government is spending so much money to keep people at home.

And those are the real problems here. The banks know it. John McCain would know it.

CAVUTO: Right.

GASPARINO: And I bet you Kyrsten Sinema is hearing from her constituents, and she knows it.

And I don't think she's going to budge on this. And one other thing, Neil. One of the reasons why I think Joe Biden's having a hard time putting -- saying, listen, we're going to -- why he can't go to his caucus and say, listen, vote for this, or else we're all going down the tubes, because there's separation between them, a lot of moderates and him.

They think he's going down the tubes, not them necessarily.

CAVUTO: Yes.

GASPARINO: He is.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Well, let me ask you about this. We're tight for time, Charlie.

I want to go on something here...

GASPARINO: Right.

CAVUTO: ... that the popular argument I hear among Democrats pushing for a vote on the infrastructure package itself, the core one...

GASPARINO: Right.

CAVUTO: ... is that, if we don't, it'll be another TARP deal, the Troubled Asset Relief Program deal...

GASPARINO: Right.

CAVUTO: ... that Congress surprised people by not approving in the first run. And it led to at the time a nearly 800-point falloff in the Dow.

GASPARINO: Right. I was there. I remember.

CAVUTO: And it -- they were with -- that panicked them. They got back. They regrouped.

GASPARINO: Right.

CAVUTO: They got another package together, passed that one, the irony there being that, as time went on, thousands more points fell in the Dow.

GASPARINO: Right.

CAVUTO: So it did little to alleviate that.

But that that is what will happen if this fails.

GASPARINO: I don't think so.

CAVUTO: I don't think it's a proper analogy, but what do you think?

GASPARINO: Listen...

(CROSSTALK)

GASPARINO: Yes, it's not, because the bank -- the banking system was about to collapse.

I mean, that was a problem. If the banking system collapsed, you can't, theoretically -- not theoretically -- literally, you cannot use your credit card to buy stuff. The economy collapses. That's what was -- the market was pricing in when they voted down TARP that first time.

This is something different. The economy is not going to collapse if this thing doesn't happen. And, matter of fact, the economy might even be better off if this doesn't happen, because people might start taking those jobs that are open right now, and small businesses to get people to do the stuff they need to do.

I mean, that is -- that is the difference. And I think investors know that. And so I don't see -- listen, we're at an impasse, an incredible impasse, on both of these things. Markets up 500 points a day for a reason. It's not because they think it's a good -- the thing is going to pass tomorrow. It's because they don't like this bill.

They know it's a waste of money.

CAVUTO: Well, I think other things came into play, right, I mean, the optimism about this Merck pill that you could take for COVID and good news on the vaccine. There are a lot of things going on.

GASPARINO: Yes, that's...

(CROSSTALK)

GASPARINO: It's never one reason. It's never one. It's never one.

But this is a big one.

CAVUTO: No, I hear. OK.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: Very good. Good seeing you again, my friend.

GASPARINO: You got it.

CAVUTO: And thank you for wearing the tie. It does sort of spruce up the place.

GASPARINO: Did I wear a tie?

CAVUTO: Oh, you're not wearing a tie. No, you did not.

GASPARINO: Now I thought maybe I'm...

CAVUTO: You even have to check? You even to have to check? Wait a minute.

GASPARINO: Well, I'm getting old there, Neil, you know?

CAVUTO: All right. Tell me about it. Tell me about it.

GASPARINO: Sometimes, I forget to wear my underwear, you know?

CAVUTO: Well, it's a family show. We will just leave our viewers with that thought.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: Charlie Gasparino.

All right, here's where we stand now, 10 minutes before the hour. We're kind of in park.

But there was an interesting little development. Maybe we're overinterpreting it, with the president walking out with the speaker of the House, this idea that the progressives are open to lowering the price of their so-called reconciliation, rescue bill, whatever you want to say. They don't like human infrastructure, I'm told, so sorry I keep repeating that, but it has a variety of names.

But they're open to bringing that price down, the first time I remember hearing that. It could be a significant development. It could be as a result of meeting with the president. It could be just the idea of the Democrats, moderate to progressive alike, are saying, well, we got to get something done. Which we it be, getting something done or nothing done?

I think they're erring on the side of something. We just don't know what that something is.

Stay with us. You're watching "Your World."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, the president's meeting on Capitol Hill with the Democratic Caucus all over right down. So I think it lasted maybe 20, 25 minutes, maybe tops.

To Jacqui Heinrich at what comes now.

Jacqui, what are you hearing?

HEINRICH: Well, I'm hearing a lot of disappointment from some Democrats who are hoping for a vote on the bipartisan bill tonight. One Democratic source described the president's meeting there as having the highest of expectations. It was being viewed by a lot of people as an indicator that things were potentially heading in the right direction in order to get that piece of his agenda passed tonight.

But it didn't turn out that way. He did not make any push to have a vote tonight. He essentially linked the two pieces of legislation and said that there's not going to be an agreement until there is -- or there's going to be a vote, rather, until there's a reconciliation agreement. They have got to get the reconciliation piece, finalized, the two sides to settle on that, before they can move forward with the bipartisan vote.

The president indicated that as much on his way out of the meeting. He told reporters: I'm telling you, we're going to get this done.

Reporters said, when?

And his words were: It doesn't matter when. It doesn't matter if it's six minutes, six days or six weeks.

So that's pretty significant, because you would think that the president might feel like, if there was a reason to go to the Hill, and then you hold a vote that fails, it would be an embarrassment for him or his administration. So that indicates that probably this infrastructure bill is not going to happen.

Jayapal said the same thing walking out, the chair of the Progressive Caucus, saying that we're going to have to come down on our number to reach that agreement. We're probably going to do the surface transportation bill, the temporary extension for that.

So, it looks like the president is in no rush, and trying to convey that is not a problem. There was some thought that he wouldn't go there unless he was going to be closing it out, and that if he were to go on the day that a vote was scheduled, and that scheduled vote did not happen, that that would be some sort of a black mark on his administration or on his ability to get things done, or Congress' ability to get things done for his agenda.

And it seems like his presence there was really an intention to just make the case for the two pieces of legislation, saying that we got to get it done at some point, we're not in a rush, but if we don't do something together, we're not going to get anything done at all, so let's all work this out -- Neil.

CAVUTO: Is he going to be at the White House this weekend? Is he traveling? Do you know?

HEINRICH: I wish we knew.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: Yes, right.

HEINRICH: We have been trying to get updates from them all day long.

I mean, they have not been very revealing in this sort of state of affairs. I also know that it's close-knit group of people who really are in the know on these things. They're keeping that information to a small, small group, because it was very up in the air where things stood in Congress how many votes would potentially be there for a bipartisan vote...

CAVUTO: Right.

HEINRICH: ... and if that would move forward tonight.

So, we will see.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: Yes, right. Right.

HEINRICH: We have been saying that all day, and we're still waiting to see.

CAVUTO: What is that line, right? Time will tell. Time will tell.

HEINRICH: Yes.

CAVUTO: All right, thank you so much, Jacqui, very, very much.

We're getting word right now that the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor refuses to block New York City's vaccine mandate for public school employees.

Bryan Llenas has more on this.

So, Bryan, this is something that was really bothering teachers who felt that the mandate went too far. What are you hearing now?

BRYAN LLENAS, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, this was an emergency order that was -- they were asking for, these four New York City teachers, to have the U.S. Supreme Court come in and block this vaccine mandate that takes effect in exactly two minutes.

And Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who also is from New York, decided that she will not be blocking this vaccine mandate. And now all 148,000 teachers and staff members that work for the New York City Public School System, the largest in the country, must be vaccinated.

Those that are unvaccinated come Monday morning will be on paid leave. The mayor, Bill de Blasio, has said that he is not worried about staff shortages come Monday. He says class will not be disrupted. They have enough substitutes who are vaccinated that can step right in and do this.

But, again, these teachers that filed this lawsuit said that it was a violation of their 14th Amendment rights to due process, as well as they say it was a discriminatory policy, because they believed that these teachers should be able to opt out of the vaccine, and instead be able to take weekly COVID tests, just like other city employees.

That was not offered to them, specifically because they worked with children inside those classrooms. Again, U.S. Supreme Court deciding it will not intervene in this case. And they're now out of options. This vaccine mandate will take effect come Monday morning -- Neil.

CAVUTO: And they have to have at least one shot, or their job is shot, right?

LLENAS: That's right.

And we now know that it's 93 percent of the teachers at least have at least one shot.

CAVUTO: OK.

LLENAS: And 90 percent of the Department of Education employees in New York City have a shot.

CAVUTO: Got it.

Bryan Llenas, thank you very, very much.

And more than a few things developing this hour.

We hope you will join us tomorrow 10:00 a.m. Eastern time. We might have a better idea on "Cavuto Live," our weekend show, about where we stand, not only with teachers and those worried about mandatory vaccinations, but what's happened on...

Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published, or broadcast without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.