Manchin 'saved the Democratic Party': Lieberman
Former Sen. Joe Lieberman reveals the disconnect between voters and the woke wing of the modern Democratic Party.
This is a rush transcript of "Your World" on November 5, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
NEIL CAVUTO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: All right, we're focused on Washington, but we're also focused on what could be a turn in the pandemic, a pill to treat COVID. That's all it takes.
The Pfizer CEO coming up to tell us the magic behind what some are calling a whole new game when it comes to tackling the pandemic. You just take a pill, and your chances of avoiding hospitalizations and even death tumble 90 percent. We are on top of that. And it's a stunning development here that's being echoed around the world.
But, in the meantime, what's happening in Washington. If only there were a pill to deal with political anxiety.
Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto. And this is "Your World."
And now to growing concern that the progressives and the moderates in the Democratic Party are not seeing eye to eye, this just moments ago from U.S. Democratic congresswoman Jayapal, who is, of course, very big in that Progressive Caucus, saying that: "If moderates want to wait for a CBO score, progressives are willing to wait to vote on both Build Back Better and the infrastructure bills together."
I think that's her way of saying, your way or our way, or, well, I don't know, maybe, the highway.
Chad Pergram now in Washington with the very, very latest.
Hey, Chad.
CHAD PERGRAM, FOX NEWS CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon, Neil.
What you're basically seeing here are these fissures inside the Democratic Caucus. And keep in mind that if the House goes ahead with the infrastructure vote today, they can probably pass it even if they have some attrition of votes on the Democratic side of the aisle, because you have about 15 Republicans who could vote for this in the House of Representatives.
Now, this is the plan. We think that there's going to be a vote on the infrastructure bill later today. That is something that they want to do. The Democrats don't have the votes to pass the social spending bill. the House wants to decouple infrastructure from the social spending plan.
The left held up passage of infrastructure. Liberal wanted the bills melded together, but the House could show a win by aligning with the Senate and passing infrastructure. Progressives are pushing back on that. The GOP says Democrats are tone-deaf after Tuesday's election.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): You have got thousands to millions of voters who just gave you a very clear message. And where are the Democrats today? Breaking their own rules, setting new records of just keeping votes open, and trying to intimidate and bully members to vote for something.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PERGRAM: The House set a record for the length of a roll call vote. A vote to adjourn began just after 8:00 this morning and lasted more than seven hours. Lots of Democrats demand action.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. TIM RYAN (D-OH): And you got to deliver. We have been saying this since we got in, and we got to get it done.
You can't look like you're in disarray.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PERGRAM: Democrats can only lose three votes and still pass the bill. Moderates are holding out, demanding a final price tag. Progressives now say the House should wait for a score and consider both bills together -- Neil.
CAVUTO: All right, Chad, thank you very much for that, Chad Pergram following the developments.
And, meanwhile, from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, some curious musings from the president of the United States on exactly what role he's playing in strong-arming something getting done.
Peter Doocy is there with more -- Peter.
PETER DOOCY, FOX NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And, Neil, we have got eyes on the outside of the West Wing. There is no Marine sentry posted outside.
That means that, whatever the president is doing it, it's most likely not in the Oval Office. He said earlier that he was going to go into the Oval Office to make some calls. We know that he spent most of his afternoon, though, at the memorial service for the late Colin Powell.
And he also said very confidently earlier today that he was going to come out and answer questions after the House passed these bills. It's not clear if they're going to pass a bill or just a rule, like Chad was talking about. It's not clear if any of this is even going to happen today.
A few minutes ago in the Briefing Room, officials said they are leaving it all up to Nancy Pelosi.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, WHITE HOUSE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: He's going to continue to work the phones. He's going to continue to stay in close touch and stay in lockstep with Speaker Pelosi on getting this done.
Everybody -- there's a sense of urgency, as you have heard us say, from everyone, from all the members on the Hill to get this done for the American people, and inaction is not the answer. So we're going to try and get this done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOOCY: A few things about that. When they say that the president is working in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi, it appears that he's really letting her take the lead.
That's a better way to think about this, because the White House can't even confirm if the two of them have talked today. The president also is saying two different things about the better-than-expected jobs report earlier.
He's saying that's proof that the plan is working, but that means that the plan is working without these plans. And he's saying the only way to continue economic recovery is to spend a few trillion taxpayer dollars more. What's going to happen? Will we see him again? Is he going to go to his Rehoboth beach house the way that he wants to. Stay tuned, Neil.
CAVUTO: Got it. Thank you, my friend, Peter Doocy, at the White House right now.
Well, the figure they're bouncing around for this spending package, as you're looking in Washington, not too far outside Nancy Pelosi, the speaker's office there. It's about a $2 trillion package, give or take, I don't know, a couple of hundred billion.
But the fact of the matter is, as things stand right now, it could be a lot pricier than that. Wharton has just completed an examination of the whole thing and said it could easily be double that.
Let's get the read from the guy who crunched the numbers, Kent Smetters. He's the Wharton Budget Model faculty director.
Professor, thank you for joining us.
How did you come up with the much, much higher number?
KENT SMETTERS, PENN WHARTON BUDGET MODEL DIRECTOR: Well, the legislation, as is, as actually written, we estimate would increase spending by about $1.87 trillion over the next decade and raise about $1.56 trillion in new revenue.
But we have been asked by members of Congress, what would happen if some of the temporary spending provisions were made more permanent, such as child tax credit? And that's where, under this alternative, illustrative scenario, we estimate that total spending would be about $4.26 trillion, so more than double over the next decade.
CAVUTO: Professor, I think the White House took up this figure that you and your colleagues came up with and disputed it. This is from just a short while ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEAN-PIERRE: The biggest problem with Penn Wharton's report is that they didn't model the actual bill. And so, for one thing, they incorrectly assume just $1.56 trillion in offsets, when the Build Back Better agenda is fully paid for with over $2 trillion in offsets that the president outlined in the Build Back Better framework.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: What do you think of that, Professor? It's all paid for and it's not close to your finger?
SMETTERS: Yes. Right.
I mean, so the legislation as written in terms of the Build Back Better framework, we estimate at $1.56 trillion. And we issued that brief last week that compared on a line-item basis our numbers vs. the White House. And so we just have different numbers. And that is a disagreement about how much each item would bring in.
And that comes down to some of the tax provisions, as well as some of the spending offsets. So, for example, on IRS enforcement, they deduct a much larger number than we project.
CAVUTO: You know, if your larger number is accurate, and there's some who are saying even your larger number is conservative when all is said and done, then the taxes to presumably pay for it are not there. This isn't paid for then. This is a long way from being paid for.
SMETTERS: Right.
And we estimate that increased IRS funding will bring on net an additional $190 billion over the next 10 years. Some scoring agencies will give even less money than that. Traditionally, IRS funding would not be scored under the assumption that people are supposed to pay their taxes anyway.
But -- so our number is bigger than what CBO would produce based on previous practice.
CAVUTO: You know, I'd be curious, Professor, your view on a lot of moderate Democrats who are waiting for a score from the CBO and not some other entity, whether it's considered unbiased or not, and they're holding off for that.
Do you think that's a wise strategy? Do you think that the seal of approval or at least the stamp from the CBO is crucial to moving forward?
SMETTERS: Historically, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office are the official scorers for the U.S. Congress.
We have had differences with them in the past, including over the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. It's not an us vs. them. We have different ways of modeling. And it's a friendly relationship. And so, sometimes our numbers are larger than CBO. Sometimes, they're smaller. And we document in great detail how we got to those numbers.
CAVUTO: All right, Kent Smetters, thank you very, very much, the Penn Wharton Budget Model, faculty director, came up with these numbers that is sort of roiling Democrats right now, because, if true, his numbers show that this thing is twice as expensive as it's being billed.
We're on top of that.
Also on top of the grief that Joe Manchin is getting right now, and he has a sympathetic former colleague.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: All right, Joe Manchin continuing to get grief, this time outside a parking garage in Washington, D.C.
It follows up on a similar protest outside his house boat. But it continues. And the target is simply because he wants to wait, look at this, don't be in any rush for all the spending.
Joe Lieberman feels for him. The former senator and former vice presidential candidate has a great book out that hearkens back to a time that maybe we could talk to each other. It's called "The Centrist Solution." Lot to get into there.
Senator, very good to have you.
What do you think of what your former colleague is getting into almost every other day?
FMR. SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (I-CT): Yes.
Well, first, Neil, welcome back. I'm so glad you're feeling better.
CAVUTO: Thank you, sir.
LIEBERMAN: We were all concerned about you.
CAVUTO: I appreciate it.
LIEBERMAN: I would say that I feel Joe Manchin's pain, because I have been there a few times.
But I know Joe, and I know his record. He's just doing what he's always done. He is a centrist. He always -- he may be more liberal on some things, conservative on others, but he's always moving to the center to try to bring different opinions together to get something done.
And that's exactly what the government in Washington needs now, instead of all the catcalling and attack and counterattack. I think Joe Manchin has single-handedly saved the republic from the adoption of some legislation that will cost taxpayers a lot and probably increase the debt, hasn't been able to consider it.
I mean that social service entitlement, the second bill being considered in the House. Now, incidentally, although the Democrats don't seem to appreciate it, I think Joe Manchin has saved the Democratic Party from a political disaster if that bill is adopted, because, as we saw in Virginia, to some extent, in New Jersey, people got the message that those programs sounded good.
Somebody was going to have to pay for them. And it was going to be the taxpayer.
CAVUTO: You know, it's interesting. And I want to get into your book a little bit, because you talk about a centrist, not necessarily being a matter of liberal or conservative, but there are bigger issues for your party or your former party to deal with right now.
LIEBERMAN: Right.
CAVUTO: And no less than James Carville kind of capped it this way on what bedevils Democrats. Take a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Defund the police lunacy, this take Abraham Lincoln's name off of schools, that -- people see that.
And it's just -- really have a suppressive effect all across the country to Democrats. Some of these people need to go to a woke detox center or something. They're expressing language that people just don't use. And there's a backlash and a frustration at that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: What did you make of that, Senator?
LIEBERMAN: Oh, I think -- first of all, I love the idea of a woke detox center.
(LAUGHTER)
LIEBERMAN: But, secondly, James is right.
And there's some groups in the Democratic Party, maybe the so-called progressive wing, that think, if you just keep creating programs, don't charge anybody anything, everybody will love it.
But we saw something. And the voters spoke. The voters are always the way government gets a message in our democracy. In New Jersey and in Virginia, particularly, they were really more focused on so-called cultural issues, like the ones James is talking about, than they were on whether the social service entitlement, $2 trillion, $4 trillion bill was going to pass Congress, because it's not their values.
CAVUTO: Yes.
LIEBERMAN: They know they need the police. They respect Abraham Lincoln. They don't want their kids taught to downgrade America.
And unless the Democratic Party goes back to some of those mainstream values, American values, the values that really broke our country, the Democratic candidates are not going to win elections.
CAVUTO: You know, Senator, I was wondering what has happened to the Democratic Party. And a lot of people say, well, every party goes through these sort of what are we stages.
But it does seem to me at least to be the progressives running the show, the argument about dealing with both of these measures at the same time, no matter what moderates say. The president seems to be on their side.
Do you see it that way? Do you see that the progressives and maybe by doubling down even after these contests this week have not changed?
LIEBERMAN: Yes, I think the progressives, particularly in the House, but also in the Senate, have more influence in the Democratic Party and, unfortunately, apparently, with the Biden White House, than their numbers entitle them to.
I mean, remember, in my opinion, why did Joe Biden get nominated? Because he was the moderate candidate. A lot of Democrats were worried that Bernie Sanders was going to get nominated, and he would never defeat Donald Trump.
CAVUTO: Right.
LIEBERMAN: So, now Biden comes in, really, in all my years, 24 in the Senate with him, really a centrist, always building bipartisan coalitions.
And he beat Trump for that reason, because he -- they were looking for somebody who would be calmer and try to bring people together. The country is hungering for unity. And then the left in the Democratic Party began to demand and demand and pull the White House in that direction.
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: But there's some history to this, right?
I mean, think about it, Joe, there's a lot of history to this. You bring up in the book -- it's a fascinating book. I urge a lot of people to read it, because there's actually a lot of great dirt in there.
(LAUGHTER)
CAVUTO: But, in "The Centrist Solution," you talk about, back in 2008, when John McCain was very seriously entertaining you as his running mate -- as you know, he later picked Sarah Palin. The rest is history.
But that Karl Rove played a key role in trying to push you out of the notion of joining the ticket. What happened then? Could you explain that?
LIEBERMAN: Yes.
I mean, first off, you got to give McCain credit, because when he told me he wanted a vet me and seriously consider me for vice president, I said, John I love you. You're one of my best friends ever. But there's a problem here. What's that, he said. I said, you're a Republican. I'm a Democrat. Well, that's the point, he yells at me.
The country needs and I think wants, he said, a bipartisan ticket. They are sick of the partisanship. But I never thought it was possible.
CAVUTO: But did Rove talk you out of it? Was Rove telling you, don't even consider it?
LIEBERMAN: Rove didn't talk me out of it, because I said to him when he called me, that John is a grownup, and he's...
CAVUTO: He thought it'd be a bad idea?
LIEBERMAN: He thought it'd be a bad idea.
And he said to me -- I sort of remember the words. He said, if McCain chooses you, it'll do in his nomination or election, because a lot of the Republicans will not support him because you are a Democrat, and it will ruin the Republican Party.
Wow. I said, I doubt it. But it's...
CAVUTO: Well, take a look -- but look at what happened. I think a financial meltdown took care of that, Senator, at the time.
LIEBERMAN: Yes.
CAVUTO: But, real quickly, it was the same Karl Rove who helped you get elected senator as an independent, right? So it was a give and take.
LIEBERMAN: Yes, it was strange.
I mean, he called me on primary day in 2006. I was about to lose the priority to anti-Iraq War candidate who campaigned against me only on that basis. And Rove called me and said, the boss, President Bush, really appreciates your support for staying in until we could win something in Iraq, win a victory, stabilize it. So if you run as an independent, we're going to help you all we can.
I was shocked. I thanked him. I hung up. I had no idea what they were thinking about. But they did. And, boy, that's real centrism and bipartisan.
CAVUTO: Exactly.
LIEBERMAN: It really speaks a lot about the good person George Bush...
CAVUTO: Exactly.
LIEBERMAN: Amen.
CAVUTO: And you. And you. You took a gutsy move there.
"The Centrist Solution" is the book. I highly recommend it, because there is some funny and intriguing dirt in there. Of course, the senator is not one to...
LIEBERMAN: Hear, hear.
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: ... revelations, but it's very good stuff.
And it reminds you and hearkens back to a time we could kind of talk to each other. There's a concept.
Joe Lieberman, thank you.
LIEBERMAN: Not so long ago. And they can do it again.
CAVUTO: Not so long ago, yes. I hear you .
LIEBERMAN: Yes. They can do it again if they...
CAVUTO: Senator...
LIEBERMAN: Thank you, my friend. God bless you. Have a good a weekend.
CAVUTO: Thank you. Thank you very, very much. Thank you for the kind words.
All right, in the meantime, this was a big development today. I know you're thinking about Washington and everything else. A pill, a pill to treat COVID. Can you imagine people who are leery of injections and fusion therapies and the like, just a pill, you're off to the races?
The CEO of the company behind it on what it means for the world -- after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: A jobs report that had a lot of people saying, wait a minute, why do we need all this government spending, when more than half-a-million Americans found jobs? Why, indeed?
After this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: All right, Nancy Pelosi coming out of her offices now, maybe updating us on where we stand on this twin spending bill drama.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): ... historic and transformative agenda, the president's agenda to Build Back Better, and also to pass a bipartisan infrastructure framework to create good-paying jobs across the country, building the infrastructure of our country with mass transit, to help clear the air, with safer bridges, for safety for the American people.
For broadband to help people communicate better, whether it's distance learning, telemedicine or commerce, or just family relations. There's many other elements -- there are many other elements in the legislation. They are very important, very important to the success of our economy.
But in order to Build Back Better, we wanted to do that and pass the Build Back Better bill. I call it Build Back Better for women because it makes a big difference in being transformative for women in the workplace.
We had hoped to be able to bring both bills to the floor today. Some members want more clarification or validation of numbers that have been put forth, but its top line, that it is fully paid for. And we honor that request.
So, today, we hoped to pass the BIF and also the rule on Build Back Better, with the idea that, before Thanksgiving -- it should take them another week or so to get the numbers that they are requesting, as -- I don't know. That's how long it takes.
And, as we do, then we will have a Thanksgiving gift for the American people.
I do want to thank the Black -- Congressional Black Caucus for the creative alternative that they presented today that advances the agenda, but does -- to do so in a way that, again, is historic and transformative.
With that, I will yield to the distinguished Democratic majority leader -- the majority leader of the House, Mr. Hoyer.
REP. STENY HOYER (D-MD): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. And thank you, Jim Clyburn, for the hard work that you and your whip organization, and you in particular, have put forward in terms of getting the work done.
What is the work? The work is two bills. They are the president's vision of a better and stronger America, a more competitive America, an America that reaches out to its working men and women, its families, to its children to educate them, to seniors to care -- make sure that they're cared for properly.
These two bills will make, as the president says, a generational change for our country. I believe that the votes today to pass the Build -- infrastructure bill and to provide for a path forward by adopting the rule for the passage of the Build Back Better legislation will be a giant step forward.
And I am absolutely convinced beyond a doubt that, before Thanksgiving, the week of the 15th, we will pass the Build Back Better legislation. All members of our caucus have indicated they are for BIF. All the members have indicated, and I believe we will have an overwhelming Democratic vote and pass on our side of the aisle the Build Back Better legislation.
I would now like to yield to my friend Jim Clyburn, who has been so important in moving this bill forward.
Jim.
REP. JAMES CLYBURN (D-SC): Thank you, Leader, and the speaker for their vision getting us to where we are today.
I think that what we're about to do is hopefully pass a piece of legislation that will be very transformative to many of our communities. If you look at this bill, the so-called infrastructure bill, we see funding that gets us to about 70 percent of the way with a 100 percent bill out for broadband in our country.
That, to me, is very, very important. You're not going to be able to have the kind of medical care that we need unless we have telehealth and telemedicine. You're not going to have the adequate education for our children unless there's online learning. That has to take place.
And rural businesses are not going to be able to thrive unless they have just-in-time delivery of their services and their products. So, broadband alone was a big, big deal for me. But if you look at the communities that I represent, rural communities, many of them, these communities with this bill get the water and the sewage kind of development that is needed to make these communities attractive for future growth and development.
This bill gets us a long ways down that road, and not to mention what it does for our ports. The Charleston Port is in my district. Our ports. When you see a state like South Carolina building, and now we do more tires in South Carolina than they do in Ohio.
And we have got Mercedes-Benz. Their Sprinter is made in North Charleston. Volvo, and these plants, BMW, they have got to have the ability to get these products out.
So, this bill, this infrastructure bill is huge for my state and the community that I represent. And then that gets us to the rule on Build Back Better. And in Build Back Better, the reason we have got to have that bill is because that's where so much of what we need for families to get to where they need to be, for the communities to get to where they need to be.
Just take, for instance, children in that bill is where we made it permanent for another year the tax credits for children, tax reductions, I call it, for families with children. These things are very, very important, not to mention the other parts of the family that are taken care of in that bill.
And so when I think of what we have got to do for the cost of pharmaceuticals, I have to use -- I try to use the word pharmaceuticals, rather than the drugs.
The cost of pharmaceuticals, the cost there, it's in Build Back Better. And so I think that there's strong support, if not unanimous support, in our caucus for Build Back Better.
And so today, for us to do the infrastructure bill, give the president this bill to sign, so that he can keep the job growth that we just heard about this morning moving forward, that is a huge deal for us. And then we will go on to do the rule, so we can go home and await these final numbers coming from wherever they have got to come from and do what we need to do to pass that bill sometime out into the future.
And I will let the speaker tell us when that will be.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Madam Speaker...
PELOSI: Let me just say how important it is to have a rule vote.
Once we have the rule vote, we have the path to the floor. And all of our members voted for the rule, so that we will pass, as Mr. Hoyer said, we will pass the bill, and as the distinguished whip said as well.
So, there's the rule vote. People have to understand, this is the threshold. And so we will cross the threshold that will take us...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Do you have enough Republican votes to pass the bipartisan plan?
PELOSI: Well, we hope to have as many Democrats as possible to pass the bipartisan plan.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Madam Speaker, a couple of questions on that.
Congresswoman Jayapal came out with a statement indicating that they will not, she will not support, her caucus, the Progressive Caucus, the infrastructure bill if it goes without Build Back Better, that she'd rather wait until the CBO score comes and that moderates are on board both.
Have you spoken to her, and do you have the votes right now for the infrastructure bill?
PELOSI: We have -- we all speak to each other quite regularly.
In fact, it's not a chance to say I spoke once or twice. It's a constant conversation among all of us in our caucus. And the fact is, we believe it is necessary to pass the BIF, so that these jobs can come online as soon as possible.
We have waited awhile. We had hoped to pass it sooner. But we can't wait too much later for the legislation. I do believe there are a large number of members of the Progressive Caucus who will vote for the bill.
That is my understanding. (INAUDIBLE) And my own -- Mr. Clyburn has the official whip count. I have the speaker's secret whip count. I don't tell anything what people tell me, not even you, my dear good friends, but I have a pretty good feeling.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Do you have 218 votes to pass it?
PELOSI: We will see, won't we?
QUESTION: Speaker Pelosi?
PELOSI: Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: The inability...
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: Anybody else here?
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: Please.
QUESTION: We have seen this, there's going to be a vote. OK, there's not going to be a vote. There's going to be a vote. There's not going to be a vote.
At a certain point, do you worry it starts to look like the Democrats can't get out of their own way?
PELOSI: No, welcome to my world. This is the Democratic Party.
It is -- hold on to your (INAUDIBLE) wherever he is.
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: And it is a party whose vitality and diversity is something that we all respect and admire.
We're not a lockstep party. We are not -- just speaks as one person and nobody else needs to show up. And that exuberance is the vitality of the party, which we value and treasure and respect the different opinions within our party.
If -- one of the challenges that we have, though, because I have been here a long time, as have all three of us, the -- in those days, all of this would be done, but not on 24/7 platforms, where there are opinions going out, characterizations going out before anybody even knew what was going on.
So it's an additional challenge, but I see every challenge as an opportunity.
QUESTION: Speaker Pelosi...
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: Speaker Pelosi, what is your message to progressives who say they will not vote for this infrastructure bill?
CAVUTO: All right, we're having some difficulty there.
Surprising development, to me, at least, a knee-jerk read. There's a big divide between Nancy Pelosi and some of these progressives. It seemed like she is signaling an infrastructure vote as soon as today.
Let's listen in again.
PELOSI: The American people want to see progress in their communities with job creation, but not only that, but those jobs we will create in terms of mass transit to protect the air, water projects, to protect the water that the children drink, broadband, so that we can have fairness in how people learn and buy and sell and get health care online.
The list goes on and on. And it's very important that we pass it. So, I hope that they would make a judgment on the merits of the legislation.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: This inability of Democrats to pass this today, what does this show to the American people?
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: What inability? What inability?
QUESTION: The inability to pass the Build Back Better plan.
(CROSSTALK)
PELOSI: Well, that's -- it's not -- we're moving the Build Back Better along. This is the first major step.
We have never -- let me -- with all due respect to your characterization, this is this -- we're in the best place ever, today, to be able to go forward.
We have not had this level of progress in terms of where we are on build back, the BIF, bipartisan infrastructure framework, what we call the job creation legislation, and the opportunity to have a path to Build Back Better for women, and for women because there's so much in there that is liberating for women, women in the workplace, and dads, too, who have home responsibilities, whether it's child care, whether it's eldercare and home health care, whether it's children learning, parents earning, with the -- again, the child tax credit that helps pay the bills.
But in so many ways -- and, of course, we're very proud of the fact that, in this legislation, we have the opportunity for people in the 12 states that did not embrace the Affordable -- the Medicaid provisions in the Affordable Care Act to be taken under the Affordable Care Act.
This is transformational. And everything I mentioned, everything I mentioned is supported by Senator Manchin and Senator Sinema, everything that I just mentioned.
There's some things that they may add, subtract or whatever. But 99 -- over 90 percent of the bill was built House, Senate, White House.
So, if there are a couple of things at the end that are different, we will deal with those. But this is, again, transformative, historic. And, again, this is a giant -- two giant steps forward today.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
PELOSI: No. No. Watch the vote when it comes up, OK?
QUESTION: But the voters -- but some voters think...
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.
CAVUTO: All right, well, that really didn't solve anything.
Nancy Pelosi indicating that they're making progress on the Build Back Better plan, the $2 trillion measure. Steny Hoyer, the number two in the House, saying that maybe before Thanksgiving that could be done, and then maybe they're going to attempt to get the infrastructure-only measure done with a vote as soon as today, as Herculean a task as that sounds.
When it comes to progressives, they're clearly not on the same page. A short while ago, California Democratic Congressman Jared Huffman says that he wants both bills to go together, said that: "At the end, those waiting for a CBO score, that's a disingenuous position. We have heard as well from a number of other key players in the Progressive Caucus that it's either together or none."
That certainly is the kind of sentiment they're relaying here.
So to Chad Pergram now and the significance of all of this, and what, if anything, we can expect today, tonight.
What do you think, Chad?
PERGRAM: What you're seeing right now are the fractures inside the Democratic Caucus and the challenge of governing when you only have a three-seat majority in the House of Representatives.
Nancy Pelosi, she has these disparate wings of her caucus, the liberals, the moderates, here and ne'er the twain shall meet. And this is where, when you have just three votes, you need to get everybody on the same page when you're trying to do big things.
It's obvious that the moderates were very displeased with trying to go ahead and vote today without a final price tag on this bill from the Congressional Budget Office. And I have been told just in the past few minutes that there's a coalition of the progressive members who say that they will not vote for the infrastructure bill if they put that on the floor because those bills are not riding together.
Remember that that was the demand of the progressives. And this is where Nancy Pelosi said, well, we will find out. Keep in mind that you do have some Republicans, anywhere from nine to 15 Republicans, who could make up the difference. This is all about the math, as I always say here, if you have a significant number of Democratic defections.
Or do some of those Republicans, kind of in a Machiavellian way, perhaps see that here's an opportunity to give Democrats a loss and withdraw their support? I mean, Kevin McCarthy, the minority leader, indicated earlier today that he didn't think that this would help any of those Republicans running in 2022.
So that's very significant there. Again, so here's the timing. What they have to do is, they're going to have a pre-debate, a pre-debate to set up the parameters -- this is called the rule in the House of Representatives - - on the social spending bill.
They're not going to put that piece of legislation the floor. Then they would vote on infrastructure. Remember that the House of Representatives did everything that they had to do several weeks ago on this bill. The Senate approves that piece of legislation in early August.
So, if the House passes that bill, those two bills are in alignment and can go to the president for his signature. Now, again, here's the other problem you start to run into from a timing and a schedule perspective. The Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, indicated that he wanted to start debate in his chamber on the 15th of November.
You heard Steny Hoyer say that maybe we will pass the social spending plan the week of November 15 and then get this done by Thanksgiving. If you're waiting for the House to get this done, the Senate is going to take a lot longer to get this done. This slams you right up against Thanksgiving.
And if you have problems there, well, here's the other thing that you're staring at, December 3. That is the date that the government is scheduled to shut down, that they run out of money and also hit the debt ceiling.
So, Neil, we have talked about this many times before. Maybe what they do is glom all of these issues together. But, again, Democrats have been very resistant about talking about deadlines. We had the president come to the Capitol in late September. We thought there was going to be a vote then. They did not.
He went away and it sat out there for a month. He came a little more than a week ago, thought there was going to be a vote then. We thought we might be here all weekend. Nothing there.
The longer that you let these bills sit out there -- as I always say, it's kind of like houseguests and fish. People start to find more problems. By the same token, they start to ripen. Sometimes, people say, OK, I really want to vote for this bill.
There is kind of the parliamentary equivalent of the Stockholm Syndrome. If you keep everybody here over a period of time...
CAVUTO: Right.
PERGRAM: And that's not exactly what they're doing here. But you keep people here trudging through the same trenches day after day after day, somebody cries uncle and they say, OK, let's just vote for this and get out of here.
If they were to stay here this weekend -- apparently, they don't think that's the case. They don't have the votes on that. And you're not going to get a CBO score for at least a week, week-and-a-half. So that's why it's not worth their time to burn the effort over the weekend here and maybe vote the first of the week, Monday, Sunday, Tuesday, some combination thereof, Neil.
CAVUTO: Chad, I'm one of those guests who stay so late that I don't smell like fish. I'm a blue whale.
(LAUGHTER)
CAVUTO: But I am curious what you make of Nancy Pelosi's strategy.
It seems like she's almost calling the progressive members' bluff, that they will vote for infrastructure, she said, but that conflicts with many of them, who've said, no, if you force it this way, we will opt out.
So will there be a vote on infrastructure or not? Is she going to roll that as soon as tonight, this weekend?
PERGRAM: Yes, that is...
CAVUTO: Any possibility? What?
PERGRAM: No, that's the plan here, that they would consider the rule, the pre-debate on the social spending plan.
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: But that would go down to defeat, wouldn't it, as things stand now?
PERGRAM: Well...
CAVUTO: If you take the progressives at face value, that would not work, unless she is, as I said, calling their bluff.
PERGRAM: That's right.
Well, a lot of times, members will vote for the rule. That's a different vote.
CAVUTO: Understood.
PERGRAM: You have to have the rule.
If the rule goes down, then you're in real trouble, because you cannot bring the underlying piece of legislation to the floor. That's why that rule is so important. It -- the rule establishes how you will play the game that day. And if you don't have that, you can't bring up the bill.
CAVUTO: Got it. Chad, thank you very much.
Chad Pergram following these developments.
I don't know how you guys feel about the politics of all of this, but just think if miraculous drugs had to come to the market the same way that they get things done or presumably try to get done in Washington. I don't think there would be available now the potential of a pill to deal with COVID.
Pfizer's CEO on getting that done and what it could mean now -- after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: A pill to treat COVID.
Now, Merck already has one out there, but along comes Pfizer with one that could be at least twice as effective. And to hear from Dr. Albert Bourla, the Pfizer CEO, there is something to this one that could change our approach to COVID, period.
Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DR. ALBERT BOURLA, CEO, PFIZER: The efficacy of this oral pill, it is 90 percent.
And the study was performed in one of the most challenging populations. All of them, they had COVID, but, in addition to COVID, they had comorbidities, either obesity, or cardiovascular diseases, pneumonias, heavy smokers, et cetera.
And the results were almost 90 percent. That means that, instead of 10 people of this population going into hospitals and ICUs, only one will go. Imagine the difference, not only for the health care system, but also for the individuals.
The treatment was done at home, because these are pills. So this is really a game-changer.
CAVUTO: So, explain, Doctor, how it would work. I mean, what is the regimen for this? How many pills do you take over what period of time?
BOURLA: You take the -- it is 10 pills. You take two pills, one morning and one pill in the evening, for five days.
And there's an additional pill that you take once a day, so three pills per day in reality.
CAVUTO: So, at the first sign of symptoms, is that when you should take this, or can it be after that? How would you describe who benefits from this?
BOURLA: The study saw that it worked extremely well even a bit later.
So, we had 89 percent effectiveness for people that they got -- they started the treatment within three days that have been diagnosed. But when we expanded that to five days of being diagnosed, the efficacy was 85 percent, so very relevant, very similar.
CAVUTO: So, what if you have already been vaccinated, Doctor? Is there a benefit to this?
BOURLA: I think the -- one, vaccine -- vaccines are made to protect people not to get disease, and people should not confuse the two. People should get vaccinated.
And they should be able to protect themselves and their families by doing that, because, otherwise, they can spread the disease. But there is a percentage that will not be vaccinated. And there is always big numbers that are -- right now they are having COVID every day in the United States.
So, this is a wonderful tool, medical tool, in the hands of the doctors to keep those people alive, to start with, but also out of the hospitals. So, it is a significant difference. And because, before, all treatments were injectables, you had basically to go to hospital or in a very supervised medical environment to get the treatment.
Now you can do it at home. Very big difference.
CAVUTO: So, just to be clear, Doctor, I mean, normally, if you test positive for COVID, as I was a couple of weeks ago, for example, they put you on a -- and I was fully vaccinated, with your vaccination, as a matter of fact, and it would have been a lot worse had I not been. I understand that.
But the immediate treatment with monoclonal antibodies, that sort of thing, how does your pill deal with breakthrough cases or those who are close to them?
BOURLA: Yes.
First of all, as with all things, the doctors should examine the individual and make a decision as to which is the best course of treatment.
But how the pills are designed to work, it is that, once you are diagnosed with COVID, instead of going -- what you are doing, you are taking the pills at home, so you will not end up in the hospital. Usually, the monoclonal antibodies or other injectable treatments, they need to be administered at hospital.
CAVUTO: Would this pill be available to kids?
BOURLA: No, we started the pill from adults 18 years of age and above.
And we have two other studies that are ongoing right now. One, it is in standard risk. These are people that do not have comorbidities, and some of them also are vaccinated and they have breakthrough cases. But, also, we tested in another study for protecting the household members of someone who will get the disease.
So, if someone gets the disease, you give not only the pills to him, but also you give the pills to the people living with him at home, so that we prevent them getting the disease. So, we will see how those studies will work.
But, so far, all three studies are 18 years and above.
CAVUTO: The storyline is that you and your colleagues were so impressed with the results you were getting from this treatment tested in I think about 600 individuals that you immediately stopped to try to get -- move forward with emergency approval. Where does that stand?
BOURLA: I think we stopped enrolling more patients, but we have enrolled already in this study way more than 2,000 patients.
CAVUTO: OK.
BOURLA: We don't plan to enroll anymore.
And we are going to file these results likely before Thanksgiving to the FDA and to the European authorities, Japan authorities, Canada authorities, et cetera.
The other two studies, they are continuing enrolling, the -- in standard risk and in household contacts. And they should give us results in the first quarter.
CAVUTO: So, the study participants, as I understand it, Doctor, were unvaccinated, right?
BOURLA: This study is high-risk people. So, they were all unvaccinated, all of them.
CAVUTO: Got it.
BOURLA: And all of them had, in addition to being diseased with COVID, they were diagnosed COVID, they had also other diseases.
So, it is the most difficult population to treat. I expect, actually, the others, it's way easier to be able to demonstrate the results. Here, it was the most difficult.
CAVUTO: Could you give me an idea, Doctor, assuming everything goes OK, and you get the kind of approval you're looking for, about the rollout of this?
BOURLA: Yes, I think that, one, it is regulatory approvals.
And those, I can't speak about how long FDA will take. But I can tell you that we will submit before the end of the month, likely before Thanksgiving. Then it's up to them to give the approval. I suspect that they will do it quickly, so sometime in December.
We will have already this year a few million pills manufactured. I think it should be in less than -- around, let's say, two million pills, around 200,000 courses, because we have 10 pills, as I said, per treatment.
And we should be able next year, in year 2022, we are gearing to produce 500 million pills, which is 50 million treatments. All of that is because we have invested at risk without knowing if we had a product or not, and we started manufacturing almost six months ago.
But, right now, now that we know that not only we have a pill, but we have a very effective pill, so we are revisiting our forecast as to how many doses the world might need. So, we will try to see how we can increase even further the 500 million pills, 50 million treatments, that we are planning to manufacture.
CAVUTO: And what would be the cost?
BOURLA: The cost is -- again, we are negotiating with governments, but it will be way less than the antibodies, I think should be less than half of the antibodies, the cost.
CAVUTO: So, the monoclonal antibody treatment that's available to people now, this would be dramatically less than that?
BOURLA: Yes.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CAVUTO: All right, Dr. Albert Bourla, the head of Pfizer, the CEO there, on the remarkable development today.
If it pans out, along with Merck also getting U.K. approval for its pill to treat COVID, it is a big-game changer.
For example, take a look what it did alone today to Pfizer's stock. It was up better than 10 percent here. That's another $30 billion in market value, Pfizer a very dominant player in this entire COVID relief arena, including a vaccine just approved for kids as young as 5 and a treatment with booster shots that is now all the rage.
So, a stunning development all the way across the board, so stunning it was among the reasons that all three stock market averages raced to new highs today. Now, that very, very strong employment report where we found that more than half-a-million Americans found jobs, didn't hurt.
But this one sealed the deal.
That'll do it. Here comes "The Five."
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.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox