No images? Click here
10 November
"Finally, infrastructure week!"
The INVEST in America Act (IIAA) was voted up by the US Senate three months ago, on a 69-30 vote, with all 50 Democrats and 19 Republicans in favour. After months of haggling among House Democrats, IIAA finally passed the House and will become law as soon as President Biden signs it, leading him to cheer, "Finally, infrastructure week!"
But substance before politics: IIAA will help lift infrastructure spending in the United States to levels not seen since the late 1970s, to around 1.5 per cent of GDP for at least the next four years, even higher than the 1933-37 New Deal. The Act provides for US$550B incremental spending on infrastructure including:
- US$284B for transportation: roads, bridges, and public transit
- US$65B for broadband internet
- US$55B for clean water
- US$65B for energy infrastructure
Relative to these big-ticket items, the climate change and renewable energy initiatives in IIAA seem small. Electric buses and electric vehicle (EV) charging stations get US$7.5B each. Still, $7.5B amounts to about US$23 per capita. In contrast, the Australian Government’s announcement this week of $178M of new funding for EV charging lifts its total spend on EV charging to US$250M or about US$7 per capita.
The extent of Republican support for IIAA in the Senate saw the Act become known as the BIF, the ‘B’ standing for bipartisan. But House action on the Senate amendments to BIF stalled as Democrats debated whether or how to tether BIF to progress on the even bigger package of social spending and taxes in the “Build Back Better” bill (BBB).
In the end, it was again the Congressional Black Caucus that played a key role, helping to broker a compromise between Democratic progressives and moderates: an up-or-down vote on BIF and a procedural vote to bring forward legislative action on BBB.
The infrastructure bill passed the House late last Friday night (US time) with 13 Republicans in favour and six progressive Democrats voting no (see the data analysis below). Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s skills as a vote counter and dealmaker were in full display. On a party-line vote, Pelosi had only three or four Democratic votes to lose. The six Democratic “nay” votes appear to have been carefully managed, recorded late in the vote count as it became clear that the bill would pass as the number of Republican “yea” votes grew.
The fate of BBB is much less clear, while its significance for the progressive left should not be underestimated.
Professor Simon Jackman
CEO, United States Studies Centre
NEWS WRAP
Dems divided, but still deliver
- Six Dems vote no | After weeks of brinksmanship, only six progressive Democrats opposed Biden's long-awaited infrastructure bill, passing the House by 228 to 206
on 5 November. Now they turn to their US$1.75 trillion social spending bill. The infrastructure deal is the largest public investment in the nation’s infrastructure in decades and something Biden's predecessors repeatedly failed to deliver. READ MORE HERE
- Arbery trial begins | In Georgia, three men are on trial for the murder of Ahmaud Arbery in 2020. They chased Arbery in their pickup truck and shot him while he was jogging. The trial hinges on two controversial state laws – a Civil War era 1863 citizens’ arrest law, and stand-your-ground self-defence. READ MORE HERE
- Vaccine mandates on trial | As the United States border reopens for vaccinated travellers, the Biden administration faces a legal battle in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals over its latest vaccine mandate. The mandate requires private sector companies with 100 or more employees to vaccinate their workers or subject them to testing. The president cautioned that blocking the mandate would cost
“hundreds of lives per day”, but the court temporarily blocked the rule over constitutional concerns. READ MORE HERE
- Trump aides subpoenaed | Ten of former President Trump’s aides have been subpoenaed by the January 6 House Select Committee. The aides – dubbed the "command center” – will likely be questioned about blocking and delaying vote counting in key swing states, and lobbying Republican-dominated legislatures to reassign votes from Biden to Trump. READ MORE HERE
I commend the President in securing the passage of this once-in-a-century infrastructure investment on a strong bipartisan vote.
Statement by Nancy Pelosi | 6 November 2021
ANALYSIS
Legal loophole vs. constitutional right: The Texas abortion ban and the Supreme Court
Victoria Cooper
Research Associate, United States Studies Centre
The Texas Heartbeat Act, known as Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), legally bans abortions in Texas after the point of detectable cardiac activity, or six weeks into a pregnancy. It requires physicians who perform abortions to first check for foetal heartbeat and states, “a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child.” The new law provides exceptions in the case of medical emergencies and Texas Governor Greg Abbott stated the purpose of the new act is to “protect the safety of both the mother and the child.” However, SB 8 provides no exceptions for instances of rape or incest, joining a growing number of states abandoning the exception including Louisiana, Ohio, Mississippi and Alabama. Lawyers for Texan abortion clinics asserted that 85 to 90 per cent of abortions in the state occur after six weeks, meaning the law essentially presents a near-complete ban on abortions and makes it the most restrictive law in the United States.
Senate Bill 8 is unique because it does not require state enforcement, the usual reason abortion bans are declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Rather, under this law, anyone can file a private civil lawsuit against an abortion provider or anyone who ‘aids and abets’ a woman to receive an abortion after cardiac activity is detected. This implicates everyone from medical staff who assist in the procedure to taxi drivers who take women to the clinic. Successful plaintiffs — that is, those who successfully prove that an individual received or helped with an illegal abortion — can be awarded damages of up to US$10,000, in addition to the reimbursement of legal fees per illegal abortion. The plaintiffs do not need to live in Texas, have any connection to the abortion or show any injury from it. In essence, the new law empowers ordinary citizens to uphold the law and removes state responsibility related to the law’s enforcement.
Since the law’s enforcement on 1 September, the costs associated, including the fact that there is no upper limit for the US$10,000 per abortion suit (meaning a single provider could be forced to pay millions for one violation), has sparked considerable concern amongst the few abortion providers left in the state. Many abortion providers in Texas stopped practising, with abortions in Texas dropping by half and clinics in nearby states seeing a significant uptick in patients from Texas.
The new law is exceedingly difficult to challenge in court, which, critics suggest, was intentional. The restrictions of SB 8 challenge seminal US Supreme Court rulings Roe v. Wade (1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992). Roe v. Wade determined women in the United States have a constitutional right to seek an abortion within the first trimester. Casey v. Planned Parenthood protected abortion up to the point of “foetal viability” (usually around 24 weeks gestation) and, critically for SB 8, declares states’ regulations of abortions cannot create an “undue burden” for patients. By removing state enforcement, SB 8 has found a potential loophole that will be decided by the Supreme Court.
This is an excerpt of Victoria Cooper's explainer, Legal loophole v. constitutional right: the Texas abortion ban and the Supreme Court. Click below for the full version.
BY THE NUMBERS
Party defectors in the infrastructure bill
Nineteen members of Congress – 13 Republicans and six Democrats – broke party lines in last week's vote on Biden's infrastructure bill in the House. The six progressive Democrats, mostly members of 'the squad', come from strong Democratic districts that Biden won with high margins in the 2020 presidential election.
On the other side, the 13 Republicans that crossed party lines to vote in favour of the bill represent districts with far lower support for Trump than other Republican districts. The notable outlier, however, is Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) whose district Trump won by a 37.7 margin in 2020.
THE ALLIANCE AT 70 | Trade and investment
The following is an excerpt from the soon-to-be-released The Alliance at 70
Free trade blossoms
In 2018, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull called on Australia’s deep relationship with the United States to gain exemption from tariffs the United States imposed on steel and aluminium imports from other trading partners. Initially, the Trump administration said Australia would not be exempt but Turnbull argued, and the US Government accepted, Australia had demonstrated it was a steadfast security partner. Conversely, in the same year, Turnbull proposed offering a chunk of Australia’s A$2.5 trillion superannuation pool to help unlock funding for President Trump’s US$1.5 trillion infrastructure push.
The United States was Australia’s third-largest two- way trading partner in goods and services in 2018-19, worth A$76.4 billion, and accounting for 8.6 per cent, behind China (dominated by Australia’s major export, iron ore and concentrates) and Japan. APEC members accounted for 73.2 per cent of Australia’s total trade.
For trade of services alone, the United States remains on top (A$27.7 billion in 2018-19). And the United States has been the largest source of foreign investment into Australia for more than 30 years; Australia has received more direct investment from the United States than China, Japan, Mexico or even all of Africa and the Middle East combined. At the same time, the United States has also been the largest destination of Australian foreign investment for many decades. Today, more than 10,000 Australian companies sell to, or operate, in the United States.
The economic benefits for the United States remain substantial given it has run a healthy trade surplus with Australia every year since 1952. In 2019, the United States’ US$28 billion trade surplus with Australia was its third-largest, despite Australia’s size. Over 94 per cent of US goods exports to Australia are manufactured goods. Australian companies such as Atlassian, Bluescope, Brambles, CSL, Lendlease, News Corp, Pratt Industries and Rio Tinto directly employ more than 150,000 American workers. And, notwithstanding the pandemic, normally Australia’s single biggest export is travel services: in 2019, 1.3 million Australian tourists visited the United States spending US$7.5 billion on hotels, restaurants, shopping and attractions.
Australia has proven to be an appealing and profitable market for US companies for many years. It offers very few barriers to entry, a familiar legal and corporate framework, and a sophisticated yet straightforward business culture.
VIDEO
Sky News Interview: Trump-like messages helped GOP Virginian win
United States Studies Centre CEO Simon Jackman spoke to Sky News on Monday to discuss last week’s historic infrastructure bill as well as Republican Glenn Youngkin’s win in the Virginian gubernatorial election.
Catch more analysis on the United States on the USSC YouTube channel.
Manage your email preferences | Forward this email to a friend
United States Studies Centre
Institute Building H03
University of Sydney NSW 2006
