I didn't even see her use the word then. It's possible if I play enough videos she might use it, but I'm not going to do that.
My point isn't about her, it's about the writer of the article and the headline. It's very misleading because that's not at all what she says.
"A conversation about the process of "reconciliation" -- a technical term -- is pretty opaque to the rest of the country and goes right over our heads, so it does have to be put into other words."
It's certainly possible most people don't know what "reconciliation" means in this context, but that doesn't make "bipartisan" a substitute for it. They are two different things. It is pointed out to Pelosi that the Democrats has 60 votes and she acknowledges that. She does not appear at all to be making a point about being "bipartisan". Instead, she's making a point about using the reconciliation process now, which she says isn't right because that wasn't used before. That might be debatable, but it's wrong to cast that argument as one about being "bipartisan".
“But by and large the whole process was done with the 60 votes – hundreds of hearings, bipartisan, over and over again.”
But that's just one small reference to bipartisanship.
It does look like the article or headline writer was trying to remake her remarks into something they weren't quite.
I don't know enough about the reconciliation process to understand how close or how far off the article and headline are from the actual exchange.