and once it does start we will take you to the briefing there. also right now, the senate on the cusp of a blockbuster bipartisan break through. it's a big step for president joe biden and something he promised and a lot of folks doubted would actually happen. a major infrastructure bill. in seconds the senate will be holding a final vote to pass, and a live look on the senate floor right now. this is senator tom carper of delaware speaking. we expect senator chuck schumer to address the bill in just a moment. breaking news from the upper chamber. we will go there as well. also, the pandemic intensifying in new dangerous ways. we just crossed 36 million covid cases in our country since all of this started by nbc's tally, and it only took eight days to add 1 million new cases.

coming up we will talk to health and human services secretary becerra is tackling the new challenges. but we are going to start with the infrastructure vote in the senate, and monica alba is in wilmington, delaware, and we're following this particular bill from the very start. and i want to bring in the assistant dean of public affairs at the university of texas, and she's also a msnbc contributor. and we will start with you, ali vitali. >> craig, a halting process all the way through. we saw negotiations repeatedly fall apart and start again. one of the early republicans that tried to reach across the aisle and put together a deal, once that fell apart we saw

other bipartisan senators step into the breach there, and got us to the point where we had a working bill framework and then more stop and start on the process front. last weekend it was a question of when the bill text would come, and then when the votes would happen. the senate taking the long way here and not exactly as quick as democrats would have wanted to move on this, and nonetheless arriving at the point where just a few minutes from now as soon as we see senator carper speaker, and chuck schumer will take to the floor and tout the achievement and open the vote. we are expecting in terms of how bipartisan this is going to be, and we have seen procedural votes get 18 and 19 republicans onboard with democrats and it gives you a sense of how bipartisan this bill is going to shake out to be, and a long and winding road here on an issue that has been bipartisan lure in washington for over a decade.

everybody says infrastructure is one of the key pillars where people can reach across the aisle and come together, and here in this congress it seems like they are on the verge of actually getting it done. craig? >> that's right. we have all sat through and covered a number of infrastructure weeks in washington. mr. hank, let's talk about what is in the bill. apologies in advance if i have to cut you off for senator schumer or governor cuomo's attorney. while we have time, let's talk about what is the bill? >> it's a huge amount of cash for roads and other major projects, and $66 billion for trail, and i think that's all the time we'll have to talk about, craig. >> i think you are right. counsel has started the virtual

briefing. let's listen in. >> the problems with that report, biases that i think came with that report, and i want to spend a few minutes today on behalf of the governor walking through that report, and the issues that we have with the report. because what happened between tuesday, august 3rd, when this report came down, was that dozens of people called for the governor's resignation. the governor had no opportunity to respond, and a press cycle ensued. journalists were saying things that he had groped and fondled 11 women, and that was not true and that was not in the report. over the last eight days, the media frenzy contributed to what the report was, which was the investigators acted as the

prosecutors, the judge and the jury of governor cuomo. nobody vetted through the report. i want to spend some time talking about it, because he has been convicted in the media, and the assembly, most of the members have made up their mind without hearing the other side. the report, as i said before, contains errors. it omits key evidence. it omitted evidence that undermine the narrative that began on day one of this investigation. this was not about an independent review of the allegations and the circumstances surrounding them. from day one this was about building a case against governor cuomo. the investigators, if you go through the report with a

discerning eye and give it the scrutiny that it deserves, it failed to collect relevant evidence. the investigators credited people that they know had lied in the past or had motives to lie, and the report didn't explore this, or any of it. this is about the veracity and the credibility of a report that is being used to impeachment and take down an elected official. let me start with some of the facts that the report got wrong. the report that the media has repeatedly credited and not bothered to present the other side. the report concluded on page 24 and on page 142, it confirmed the governor groped miss

commisso, and anne clarke said to the world that cuomo groped the breast of an executive assistant in the mansion during the work day. but what was so apparent when i read the report is that the investigators didn't bother to collect or review evidence about november 16th to determine if their conclusion was correct, and everyone has to ask themselves why didn't they do that? why didn't they get all of the e-mails from that day? why didn't they get the records about when ms. commisso was in

the mansion that day. records from the mansion reflect that senior members of staff were present there on november 16th and the investigators did not ask -- they did not ask any of those people about what they saw or what they heard, what ms. commisso was doing that day? they don't match any of that up with the evidence, and the investigators didn't get that. now we are in a situation

whereas of yesterday i read "the albany times union," and it says the governor groped her around november 25th is what she's saying. as i said before, my team has looked through the records for november and we're aware of no record indicating that brittany commisso was at the mansion on any other day than november 16th, and she has consistently said this occurred in november. why did the investigators not get the records and why did they not include them in the report? what else was so bothersome and hard for me to take as a lawyer for the governor is that the report suggests that the governor testified falsely about that day. it suggests that when the

governor said others were present, including maybe up to ten staff members in the mansion, the report just discredited him. but i now know that they did not bother to get the records and the e-mail that reflected who was in the mansion that day. in fact, the governor -- the documents prove the governor testified honestly, and many were in the mansion, and the staff that is around there all throughout the day helping out with various things within the mansion. ms. commisso was there for three hours and was there to work on a speech and not there to fix a technical problem with the governor's problem, which is what she told "the times union",

and she said the governor shut the door so hard, so hard and then groped her, and she thought for sure somebody must think, hey, what is going on? did they hear that? the attorney general's investigators did not ask the witnesses who were in that mansion that day about what they heard and what they saw. during the governor's testimony on july 17th, the investigators told the governor unequivocally that this occurred on november 16th. so why not ask the people that were there? ask yourselves that question and whether this report was thorough and fair and to give everybody a balanced view to draw conclusions for themselves. the report also states -- and

the attorney general has stated that ms. commisso's claim of sex -- sexual assault was corroborated, and that's not true. the other corroborated fact is that she first made her claim in march after the investigation began. the independent corroboration corroborates the governor. the simultaneous e-mails and documents corroborates governor cuomo. there was also testimony by several witnesses about potential motives and what was going on with ms. commisso in late 2020 and early 2021, in

concerns that she had about her job, that she had been turned down for a raise and concerns that there was a possibility that because her work hours might change she could be transferred. that was not reflected in the attorney general's report. another aspect to the attorney general's report, deals with a referral to the albany police department about ms. commisso's claims. i am sure a lot of you have seen over the last few days, that she made a complaint to the albany county sheriff. what nobody is talking about is that it was actually the executive chamber that referred ms. commisso's complaint when she first made it when she was out with friends on drinks on march 6th and then a lawyer called the executive chamber on

monday, march 8th, and when that lawyer called to make the allegation the lawyer indicated that he did not want to pursue this criminally, but it was the executive chamber that referred the allegation to the albany police department. as further evidence of the bias of this report, look at page 147 buried in footnote 1,239. the report won't even credit the executive chamber for this. it said, quote, we understand that certain criminal authorities, including albany police department, had been alerted to the most egregious allegations of physical touching including the groping of executive assistant one. i ask you, why couldn't the report say the executive chamber promptly reported it to the albany police department? it's because every inference was

going to be drawn against the executive chamber and governor cuomo. the report got key facts wrong, and it omitted key evidence, and it failed to include witnesses whose testimony did not support the narrative that was clear that that this investigation was going to weave from day one, and i want to talk about that. this began in december of 2020 with lindsay boylen. lindsay boylen made some tweets on december 5th and december 15th that talked about her departure from the mansion and accused the governor of sexual harassment. one of the things she said in an article that she published on medium in february a couple months later is that she was on

a plane with the governor and he made a comment about, hey, let's play strip poker. there were several other staff members on the flights with ms. boylen, and every single one of them said that didn't happen. and after that came out that they said that didn't happen, and one of the people on the flights was howard zemski, and he testified he received a disparaging message from ms. boylen that he found bizarre and jarring, and they don't tell you what that message was. they don't include it as an exhibit. why not? that's the equivalent of witness tampering, and if any member of the chamber or the governor himself had engaged in that

conduct, that would be another ten pages of the report and i am sure that i would have received another subpoena from the assembly. they also did not deliberately choose to investigate communications that occurred between lindsay boylan's campaign in december of 2020, and she first made these allegations about two weeks after she announced she was running for manhattan borough president, and in that time period there were communications between the chief of staff, abraham khan and ms. yang, and there were a number of conversations about what was ms. boylen saying. one of her aides resigned, and

did the investigation subpoena the records from the campaign in the same way they subpoenaed the executive chamber and my client for anything and everything having to do with the sexual harassment with lindsay boylan. the complainants needed to be scrutinized just as much as the governor and the chamber, and that didn't happen here. the investigators credited lindsay boylen despite the fact they knew she threatened a witness to get them to change his story, and he did. one thing that has been missing through this is that there was a signal about seven or eight months before ms. boylen made her tweets in december, a signal that she was out for some type

of revenge against the governor's office. you see, ms. boylen had ran in a primary against congressman, jerry nadler, and in march of 2020 when covid start the governor issued a executive order that limited the time you could get petitions to be on the ballot, and she felt that was directed at her and she sent two threatening messages to members of the governor's staff. one of them said, quote, absolutely not helpful. please relay that while we are okay -- i see what the point is here, and i'll find ways to respond. life is long and so is my memory and so are my resources. her second message, absolutely

not -- >> okay. let's talk about what is happening here on the left side of your screen and the right side of your screen. again, this is governor cuomo's private attorney talking about the attorney general's report that came out a few days ago, and so far we have heard her claim that the report got key facts wrong and omitted evidence. she's even claimed witness tampering as well. it would seem as if the attorney here is going sort of line by line, if you will, with regards to the report talking about a specific accusers and trying to discredit them. that's happening on the left side of your screen. on the right side of the screen, that's the historic vote that we have been talking about all morning here on msnbc, and the u.s. senate, the bipartisan infrastructure bill that we expect to pass, roughly $1

trillion. we just heard from senate majority leader chuck schumer moments ago extolling the virtues of a bill that would spend hundreds of billions on what is being described on hard infrastructure, bridges, roads, rails, things of that nature. again, it's expected to pass. we're going to continue to monitor the vote on the right side of your screen there in the upper chamber. for now let's go back to rita glavin, personal attorney for governor cuomo. we did get a note that governor cuomo will be speaking at 11:45, but for now let's listen to his personal attorney. >> out of interviewing 179 witnesses, the investigators made a choice not to include what a lot of people had to say,

and buried at the end, at page 121 is a sentence that should scare everybody, scare everybody if you are being accused of something and this is all you get about what have people have to say that is good about you. here's what it said. it said a number of former and current executive chamber staff, particularly the senior staff, as well as state troopers, with the protection detail denied having witnessed or experienced any conduct by the governor that could be characterized as sexual or otherwise inappropriate. that sentence is buried at the end in the over 1,000 footnotes. why didn't they cite transcripts and quote what those people had

to say? did what they had to say bear anything upon the conclusions. the report doesn't identify who the witnesses were, what they said and what they were asked. i want to talk also about trooper number one. the report does corroborate that the governor supported trooper one's transfer to his detail to increase diversity among the detail members. please read that portion of the report on page 35, because when you read the narrative of the report it makes it sound as though he wanted this trooper on his detail to sexually harass her and that's just not true. there's another member of the state police that corroborated

that the governor was very interested out of the detail, 62 troopers that were mostly white males, to have diversity. the governor has great respect for trooper one. he did not touch her in a text -- sexual manner, and none of his contact for trooper one -- for that matter, any of the troopers, he did not contact them. the governor will tap the trooper on the back and say, hello, particularly as he's walking out of the elevator. >> again, we have been watching and listening to rita gleven, and it's governor cuomo's personal attorney addressing the

report that came out a few days ago, and she's reporting that the report got key information wrong, and the governor is going to address the people of new york according to the news release we got at 11:45. when that starts we will take you there, but for now i want to turn to tom winter, and he's been following the many investigations into governor cuomo, and i want to bring in a former albany bureau chief, and a former assistant chief for manhattan, and mr. winter, let me start with you. if you could, perhaps start by fact checking what we just heard there from the governor's personal attorney criticizing the investigation? >> a couple different points. she spoke repeatedly about

omitted evidence, so evidence that she believes did not make it into the report or people she believes the governor -- or rather the attorney general's independent investigations did not speak to, yet it has been the talking point of ms. glavin for the last week ago, that, a, they got no heads up to the report although none is required by law, and they did not receive any of the grand jury reports, and they have not received transcripts or information that is not contained within the independent review that took about 168 pages plus all the different evidence that was associated with it. so on one hand she's telling us they omitted a whole bunch of stuff and didn't speak to these people and ask these questions, and yet for the past week she has been saying she doesn't have access to the underlying

transcripts, so a bit of a conflict there. and just before we started talking ourselves, she was talking about the idea of the singling out trooper number one who said she was independently touched and harassed by the government, and that was in an effort to diversify the detail, the new york state police, and that was part of a diversation effort. according to the report, only one trooper was asked to join the detail, and there are e-mails included in the report that made it clear that this particular trooper was singled out. and the second thing, she addressed the inappropriate touching saying the governor just tapped her on the back, and what she did not address was a series of comments made according to the report, and there were witnesses, and he

said she should wear a dress and that was laughable, and apparently he asked her about that, and asked about the colors that she chose for her attire as well, and the attorney did not address those comments. two other things. this is supposed to be the governor's personal attorney, and as you can see on the screen you are looking at a live stream produced by the governor's office, and paid for by the taxpayers of the state of new york in front of the governor's seal, and in the past including the former president has been criticized for mixing up the personal attorney and the taxpayer side of the house, and that happens to be happening here. reporters were not allowed in the room. you mentioned the 11:45 press

conference, he's yet to take a single question from a reporter since the independent report was published, and he won an international emmy award, and we were able to get a picture of him at a helipad on the west side of manhattan. he is perhaps in the building as she speaks but is not speaking hill self. and sometimes in these investigations, the media has apparently, according to her, convicted the governor. i can only speak for myself and what i have seen on this network, but every single time we have talked about this we attributed the allegations to the report, to the people. we have never said that we have definitively found out ourselves or uncovered some sort of

evidence that directly says the governor groped executive assistant number one that has come out publicly, for instance, and we included the governor's denial so it's interesting now that apparently us, the press are the bad people, even though sexual harassment has been identified from 11 different women according to the report, and one woman claims she was groped by the governor and another trooper said she was inappropriate touched. i wanted to make a couple fact checks and points there. >> that's one of the many reasons we keep you around. excellent points, mr. winter. you are correct in pointing out, at the height of the pandemic one of the most dangerous places in new york was between governor cuomo and a microphone and camera, and it's been unusual not to see or hear anything from

the governor with regards to the allegations, and we should note governor cuomo has from the beginning denied all of these allegations as we continue to watch and listen to his personal attorney flanked by the flag of new york and the united states of america and sitting under the seal of the governor's office, conduct the live stream. she's not expected to take questions. and governor cuomo is speaking at 11:45, and if i was a betting man i would not bet on the governor taking questions as well. suzanne, i will come to you and you have covered governor cuomo for a long time now. we just heard his attorney walking us through years of history based on your reporting, what do you make of what we have heard so far from his personal attorney and what we have heard and not heard from governor cuomo himself? >> i mean, governor cuomo has

spent 40 some years in office and is a fighter and is going to go down fighting. what i see here is setting the table for a very protracted fight going forward. i think what is fascinating about the message coming out every day through his attorney is that they have got the talking points being the same, and i am writing them down as we go and i have them on three pages in the last three days, and key facts are wrong and evidence is omitted and they are speaking both to the people of new york, who are listening, they want to plant seeds of doubt about the report, about the people who have come forward, and they want to get a message to the assembly that there are problems and they have to look into it, and i think this is just setting the table for a fight. he's a fighter and we're going to really see that in the coming days. and weeks. >> we should point out for our

viewers, viewers and listeners on satellite radio, we were showing you a live feed of the attorney, and we took them down because they were starting to show pictures, and as the policy of the network we are not going to identify any woman or accuser that has not come forward publicly, and that's why we have taken the feed down, and we may get that feedback up in a second as soon as we can be sure we are not going to see pictures of those folks coming forward. and daniel, as this state house considers the political process of impeachment, and that seems inevitable, and how did the legal defense stack up based on what you heard? >> i think i will disagree with you just a little bit. this is not what i would call a traditional legal defense. these are the kinds of arguments

where if you are doing a legal defense would be directed at the albany district attorney who is considering whether or not to file criminal charges based on the allegations by the executive assistant and the governor's testimony under oath relating to that. this is a pr strategy. she's making the same arguments, i think, and by the way, i will not make a comment on whether or not the arguments are effective or not, they are the kinds of arguments lawyers make in criminal trials or in prosecutor's office to persuade them to go forward, and they don't usually do them in a press conference, and she's not really speaking to the albany d.a., as we just heard, and she's speaking to the public and also to the assembly. that's a political process and it has substantive aspects of it, and it's ultimately a political vote by the assembly. she's really speaking to them and she's speaking to the public to try and garnish rapport.

and so hopefully the d.a. will consider the argument she makes in his office but will not be persuaded if she persuades the public or not. >> we do expect to hear from governor cuomo himself at 11:45. but we do that, let's get back to that final infrastructure bill that is happening now. the u.s. senate, i want to bring back nbc's ali vitali, and victoria and assistant dean of public affairs at the university of texas is also with me as we watch this play out. ali, any surprises so far?

>> reporter: no surprises yet. we are seeing them go through the vote and we have seen several republicans, as expected, voting yes on the bill. this is going to be an interesting split of which republicans say no, and certainly former president trump has tried to play a part in shaping this in trying to pressure certain members not to vote for the bill, and in large part many of the republicans ignored the former president. clearly as we track the power he has over the party, it's clear it's more of a controlled power more than a policy shaping and politics power, and that's certainly something to keep an eye on. when senate majority leader chuck schumer began this process today, he said this is a sign of what can happen when the senate is run with an open hand instead of a closed fist. a lot of the conversation here from the white house to the halls of congress has been

trying to show that bipartisanship and that washington can work. that's important for both parties as they try to get a political message out there ahead of the midterms, and clearly there's reasons for both parties to go along with this bipartisan, quote, unquote, hard infrastructure piece. where it does come back to normal partisan lines though is in what they do next, which is moving on to the budget reconciliation bill, the $3.5 trillion of soft infrastructure or human infrastructure. a lot of the democratic policy priorities that we heard talked about as far back as the presidential campaign, things like universal pre-k, child care, paid leave, a lot of the top priorities including combating climate change is important to activist that really have kept the pressure on and of course important to democrats here. it does shake out when you get into how this translates in the house. we have seen moderate democrats already voicing they would like to see a vote in the house on

just this bipartisan infrastructure bill. that's not the plan that speaker pelosi has laid out at this point. she wants to see both of the tracks, budget resolution and bipartisan infrastructure bill through the senate before she brings them up with the members, and it's clearly part of the push and pull she had to manage and schumer has had to manage in the senate, and when you have a tight margin some things underscore, just because you go at it with partisan lines, doesn't mean every member of the party will follow and that's what we are going to be tracking as the bill makes its way through the legislative process. certainly here, democrats on the hill and at the white house, feeling good about where this is at. i have to say, i am so struck by the role that cuomo could play in overshadowing the passage through the senate, and it's a milestone moment, a huge issue as you and i were talking about

earlier, and this infrastructure issue vexed many congress and house, and i think it's so striking that it's the top of the news cycle. >> we should also sort of describe the scene here in the upper chamber for folks that might be listening on the radio and even folks watching at home, there could be confusion, because you see certain folks with masks on and some with them off, and they are required in the house and not required in the senate. you can see there on the right side of your screen, mitt romney from utah engaging in conversation with susan collins of maine. i think we see bernie sanders just walking by as well. we can also tell you that the senior senator from south carolina, lindsay graham spotted there in the upper chamber for the vote. of course, for those of you who have been following over the

past week or so senator graham was diagnosed with covid and we can tell you that he was there in the senate wearing a mask a short time ago as we see senator tom cotton of arkansas there in the distance maskless, and so is lisa murkowski of alaska. let me turn to garrett haake, and he spends a lot of time covering both houses of congress. we can let our viewers and listeners know mitch mcconnell was a yes vote on the infrastructure bill. is that a separate at all? >> no, mitch mcconnell has said from the word go that infrastructure was something on which he thought there could be bipartisan progress, and i think it's interesting to note his three lieutenants all republican

senators with the first name of john all voted against this, so the jockeying to eventually be the next republican party in the senate as they are trying to align with the majority of republican senators. mcconnell wanted to be out on front of this for two reasons, the straightforward one where he said he wanted to see infrastructure get done, and the other thing this does for him is it takes some of the steam out of the effort to get rid of the filibuster, to change senate rules to pass big things. mcconnell has been making the argument and will continue to make the argument that the passage of this bill, he will say, proves that you can do big things in the senate with the rules the way they are. that argument may carry water with joe manchin and kyrsten sinema who wanted to prove the same thing, that the senate could function. we're up around 16 or so

republicans that voted yes for the bill, and mcconnell does both of those things simultaneously. >> for folks that have not been following it closely, $1.2 trillion in the hard infrastructure, so what is in the bill? >> this bill is huge. if it were not for the other bill coming down behind it we would be spending more time on the details of this. you will see $110 billion for roads and bridges and $66 billion for rail, and that's the single largest investment in amtrak ever made, and $25 billion for airports. and the largest investment from the government in rural broadband. there are changes to how people and goods move around this country contained in this. some of the money was already going to be spent and some was money added to other categories to see how far they could credibly take this while still saying they were able to pay for

it. >> shannon, what is the mood there at the white house within this administration after months of work at times, a fair amount of cynicism over whether this would happen at all, and certainly whether it would happen in a bipartisan way? >> we got indications from the white house that they are looking for a way to seize this moment. the president just returned to the white house from wilmington where he spent a long weekend, and this is a time when presidents are traditionally on vacation and he's back in washington this afternoon for this vote. the vice president is planning to travel to capitol hill to preside over the vote, and the predicated he will talk to reporters after the vote, and he said i'll talk to you after the vote. we can expect to hear more from the president today. the white house is certainly aware that it's not a done deal to ali's point about the hurdles

this has to get through, and the trump administration called all the republican members to the white house for a big celebration about the repeal of obamacare, and there's an awareness of not trying to spike the football, and also a need for acknowledgment about what a victory this is for the president, and it's not just a victory for the projects that will be funded with this and also the bipartisanship and the ability to show that the republicans and democrats can come together and work together on something big. it was such a key promise of his campaign and it's been a theme he has tried to hammer home in the first few months of his presidency, and now you see it finally playing out, and that's something they will try to get through as well as be acknowledging it's not over

until it's over as this goes to the house now. >> as a testimony to just how much of a priority this is and was for the administration, we just have been told that vice president kamala harris will join her former colleagues there in the senate and she'll be presiding over the final vote, not a spiking of the football, shannon, but it would seem that that's as close as you can get. victoria, let me come to you for a moment because president biden emphasized bipartisanship during the campaign and since he was elected and to use some of his language, how big of a deal is it that democrats and republicans are coming together on this bill in the middle of such a polarized political climate, to say the least? >> craig, it is a huge deal, but the key piece now is reminding the american public of what a big deal it is and what a big

package it is. i think the most important thing in politics and policy is to learn from past mistakes. let's go back to 2009 and the town halls that gave birth to the tea party movement. i think what democrats know that what they need to do is go back and remind the constituents, when they go back to their home states of what this is going to do for them and do so clearly. the biden administration has been very good about reminding folks what they are doing, staying on message, and right now during the august recess, this is going to be critical for the representatives and senators reminding folks of the good work they are doing for those that send them to washington. remember, in just a couple months we are getting into election season and it's going to be an uphill battle for democrats and this august recess could not be more important. >> oh, yes, election season.

an unending election season. victoria, do stand by. we want to let our viewers know, rita glavin, the person for governor cuomo wrapped up the talk she started at the top of the hour, and governor cuomo expected to speak any moment and when that starts, we will take you there. and ali vitali, let's go back to you and talk about what is next specifically with the bill specifically, and by the way, democrats have the $3.5 trillion budget resolution as well. what is in that plan and when does that vote happen next? >> reporter: craig, what we can tell you what we have seen on the senate floor here, 19 republicans have voted yes on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, and once this vote wrapped up we will see chuck schumer move on the reconciliation

portion of this, and they long said they were operating on two tracks, and we are coming to move to the second tract of reconciliation. garrett is right, so much attention has been paid to the larger infrastructure bill in part because all of washington for some weeks there was debating what the word infrastructure actually meant. democrats here are trying to split up what that words could mean in terms of hard infrastructure and human infrastructure. schumer saying earlier that while this bipartisan bill was something that proved the senate could work together, democrats believed more needed to be done. this is where we are seeing all of the last three years of progressive policy solutions try to find a home in actual policy. the way that we are seeing this $3.5 trillion shake out, we saw the blueprint released just yesterday and basically now they go to the committees and they work within the top line numbers

and they start drafting what the legislation is going to look like. they have until september 15th for that, and this is not going to be a quick process. we went through a reconciliation process earlier this year and we know the snags it can hit and how drawn out it can be. the point we were making earlier is so important, operating on tight margins. this is a partisan effort now, this reconciliation process. it can be passed with a simple majority. we know all 50 democratic senators here do not always march in lockstep in terms of what they think the right policy prescription is. it's going to be fascinating watching this jockeying act play out, and there are some and mitch mcconnell referred to this that thinks this may go too far, and at the same time there are progressives that continuously said and kept the onus on the party to highlight the issues like climate change and other things that bolster the american family. certainly this was crucial to the white house's efforts as well in selling the plans, like

free community college and university pre-k, and those are issues that i was hearing about back when i was out on the campaign trail when all of the senators ran, and that's where the process goes next, and we are watching how the house contends with that and whether they continue on the path nancy pelosi laid to say the senate has to finish both of these tracks before the house begins to move on them or if that becomes a bifurcated process in the house and at the same time in the senate we are moving toward september after this august recess that could be messy and full of work. not just on reconciliation, but also on the debt limit. we saw yesterday treasury secretary janet yellen saying that could be raised in a bipartisan manner. there's no appetite for that for republicans and as of right now the way reconciliation bill is written there is no debt ceiling in it. that could change and they could amend their bills and certainly

republicans who spoke to that yesterday, this could be exercised in party politics where democrats feel they could hang this around republicans next and republicans feel the same. so we could be going into while this is a moment of celebration for actual progress happening here in the senate, we are likely going into a september that goes back into the mire and muck that washington is so typically known for, craig. >> as you've been reporting there, we've seen a number of senators come and back. senator rand paul making his way into the upper chamber. we saw senator tim scott, as well. i believe -- i believe vice president harris has taken her seat, and i believe we can listen in for just a moment. >> madam president?

>> majority leader. the senate will be in order, please. >> once again, congratulations to all of those who worked hard, so hard on this very significant and very important bill, and now we proceed to the second track. so madam president, i move to proceed to calendar item 122 congress 14, the concurrent resolution on the project, and i ask for the yeas and nays. is there a sufficient segment? there is. >> ms. baldwin. >> aye. >> mr. barrasso, mr. bennett? [ inaudible ] >> vice president harris now presiding. garrett haake, let me come back to you for a moment for folks watching at home or listening to the sirius satellite radios,

explain what we are seeing right now. walk us through the sausage making. >> here's what we just saw. the vote just ended on the bipartisan infrastructure bill. it passed the senate. our cough count was 19 republicans in favor along with all democrats. you saw kamala harris there gaveling that down and then leader schumer moved immediately to bring up the first vote in this process of passing that $3.5 trillion bill that will be democrats only. this vote is also democrats only or it can or midwest certainly will be and they need a 50-vote threshold to get started on debating that part of the resolution. part of the reason harris is in the chair is the possibility that she would have had to break a 50/50 tie. we are down republican senator, mike browns of south dakota is with his wife who receiving cancer treatment and he could not be here today.

she should not have to cast any tiebreaking vote. >> garrett haake, thank you again. the u.s. senate just passing a massive infrastructure bill, $1.2 trillion bipartisan support. let us take you now to governor andrew cuomo. he has started his news conference. let's listen in. >> -- however, it was also false. my lawyers, as you just heard have reviewed the report over the past several days and have already raised serious issues and flaws. that should concern all new yorkers because when there is a bias or lack of fairness in the justice department it is a concern for everyone, not just those immediately affected. the most serious allegations made against me had no credible, factual basis in the report, and there is a difference between

alleged improper conduct and concluding sexual harassment. now, don't get me wrong, this is not to say that there are not 11 women who i truly offended. there are, and for that i deeply, deeply apologize. i thought a hug and putting my arm around a staff person while taking a picture was friendly, but she found it to be too forward. i kissed a woman on the cheek at a wedding, and i thought i was being nice, but she felt that it was too aggressive. i have slipped and called people "honey," "sweetheart" and "darling." i meant it to be endearing, but women found it dated and offensive. i said on national tv to a doctor wearing ppe and giving me

a covid nasal swab "you make that gown look good." i was joking, otherwise i wouldn't have said it on national tv, but she found it disrespectful. i take full responsibility for my actions. i have been too familiar with people. my sense of humor can be insensitive and off putting. i do hug and kiss people casually. women and men. i have done it all my life. it's who i've been since i can remember. in my mind, i've never crossed the line with anyone, but i didn't realize the extent to which the line has been

re-drawn. there are generational and cultural shifts that i just didn't fully appreciate, and i should have. no excuses. the report did bring to light a matter that i was not aware of, and that i would like to address. a female trooper relayed a concern that she found disturbing, and so do i. please let me provide some context. the governor's trooper detail had about 65 troopers on it, but of the 65 only six women and nine black troopers. i'm very proud of the diversity of my administration. it's more diverse than any administration in history, and i am very proud of the fact that i have more women in senior positions than any governor before me. and the lack of diversity on the

state police detail was an ongoing disappointment for me. in many way, the governor's detail is the face of state government that people see. when i attend an event people see the detail that's with me. i was continuously trying to recruit more to diversify. on one occasion, i met two female troopers who were at an event. both seemed competent and impressive, and i asked the state police to see if they were interested in joining. i often meet people, men and women, and if they show promise i refer them to be interviewed. the state police handled the interviewing and the hiring,one of the two troopers eventually joined the detail. i got to know her over time and she's a great professional, and

i would sometimes banter with her when we were in the car. we spent a lot of time driving around the state. this female trooper was getting married, and i made some jokes about the negative consequences of married life. i meant it to be humorous. she was offended, and she was right. the trooper also said that in an elevator, i touched her back, and when i was walking past her in a doorway i touched her stomach. now i don't recall doing it, but if she said i did it, i believe her. at public events troopers will often hold doors open or guard the doorways. when i walk past them i often will give them a grip of the arm, a pat on the face, a touch

on the stomach, a slap on the back. it's my way of saying i see you, i appreciate you, and i thank you. i'm not comfortable just walking past and ignoring them. of course, usually they are male troopers. in this case, i don't remember doing it at all. i didn't do it consciously with the female trooper. i did not mean any sexual connotation. i did not mean any intimacy by it. i just wasn't thinking. it was totally thoughtless in the literal sense of the word, but it was also insensitive. it was embarrassing to her and it was disrespectful. it was a mistake, plain and simple. i have no other words to