The NPR Politics Podcast - Hurricane Harvey: How Does A Government Respond?

Episode Date: August 29, 2017

Texas continues to feel the affects of Hurricane Harvey as the Trump administration decides how it will respond. This episode: Host/Congressional reporter Scott Detrow, political reporter Danielle Kurtzleben and political editor Domenico Montanaro. Email the show at [e-mail]. Find and support your local public radio station at npr.org/stations.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Quick reminder before the show, you can hear more of our political coverage on another NPR podcast, Up First, the morning news podcast from NPR. Up First is about 10 minutes produced and posted at 6 a.m. every weekday. Make it a part of your morning routine. You can listen on the NPR One app or wherever you get your podcasts. This is Nicholas Cope. I'm 12 years old, about to start seventh grade, and my dad makes me listen to NPR in the car on the way to school. This podcast was recorded at 6 o'clock on Monday, August 28th. Things have probably changed since this podcast was recorded, so keep up with all of NPR's political coverage at NPR.org, the NPR One app, or your local public radio station.

Okay, here's the show. It's the NPR Politics Podcast. President Trump is headed to Texas where Hurricane Harvey is still dumping rain on Houston. Thousands of people are displaced and the Trump administration is facing a major test. How the government responds will in part decide how people move on after the water settles. I'm Scott Detrow. I cover Congress. I'm Danielle Kurtzleben, political reporter. I'm Domenico Montanaro, political editor. And we are joined on the line by David Green, Morning Edition host. Are you in Houston

or where are you, David? Yeah, Scott, we're in Houston. We're actually in a community called Spring, Texas. That's sort of on the north edge of Houston about 20 miles from downtown right along Interstate 45 which is the big interstate that comes down into Houston from Dallas and we were trying to make our way downtown and just got caught up because I-45 is much of it is flooded out like a lot of the roads that head into the downtown area so we're right in the thick of it where the rain is just it's it's just more rain than I've ever seen in my life. It's pretty amazing. And that's the big problem, right? That the storm has just settled over Houston and is not moving and it's just dumping rain over and over again? Yeah, it's just parked here. And I mean, meteorologists say this

happens, but a lot of them are saying they've just never seen something like this. We talked to a guy, the American Red Cross's vice president for disaster services, Brad Kaiserman. He says this is the most catastrophic event he's ever seen in his career. So even people who have been responding to disasters, who do it as a business and as their life's work, I mean, they say this is something they've never seen. So, David, to what degree did people actually get out of the city and get out of the way of the storm? You know, that's going to be one of the analyzed things here. I mean, the mayor of Houston decided not to do a mandatory evacuation, and he was really worried about having,

you know, millions of people on the roads, potentially trapped in vehicles and trying to get out of here. So there was no mandatory evacuation. So a lot of people, you know, have been, as we've heard, some of these dramatic rescues. I mean, going up to their attics, getting up onto their rooftops and being saved that way. Or, you know, people who have fishing boats just riding around in the boats, getting people out as they can see them. You know, we were talking to one guy here at the hotel. He was in his house with his girlfriend, their nine-month-old daughter. They thought things were okay. And then when they opened up one of the reservoirs to relieve the dams here in Houston, water in his neighborhood started really getting higher. And, you know, he said there was talk of evacuating his neighborhood, but nothing official firm. He got

out. He was rescued by a boat, dumped at a drugstore. The boat just said, here, you know, you're on high ground now. A guy in a truck came and picked him up, got him to this hotel. So it's really a tough call. Given all that, are people frustrated? Are people just dealing with the moment and just trying to take care of one thing at a time? And what's the general sense of how people are reacting at this point? Yeah, I mean, we've heard a lot of different voices from all of our colleagues here. And we've certainly heard different emotions. I mean, people saying Houston should have been more prepared.

From our vantage point, again, we know, we're talking about a very small sample size, but everyone keeps saying that the city just, this is what Houston does. They come together and help each other. We're just hearing story after story of people who, you know, my neighbor did this. A guy in a boat was out on, you know, the street and he pulled the boat over to help someone else and help a neighbor. So it's I think we're still in that that moment where, you know, the rescue efforts are still happening. I haven't heard a lot of questioning the government, questioning the approach yet. But, you know, we're still in the thick of this thing. David, the conversation keeps coming back to Hurricane Katrina. And I think a lot of that was this weekend, the dramatic images of a major city

flooded, of these dramatic rescues happening, but also the way that the federal government is responding. It seems ever since Katrina, presidents in the federal government have been so mindful of looking like they're doing everything possible. I mean, you covered Katrina. You were with President Bush flying over New Orleans on Air Force One, right? Yeah, I mean, I was down in Crawford with President Bush, and you could just see his entire White House trying to figure out the best way to respond. Do you stay in Crawford and make a trip to New Orleans? Do you rush back to Washington and look very presidential, like you're overseeing efforts, federal emergency efforts from there. And he ultimately made this decision that has been, you know, debated for more than a decade now. You know,

we boarded Air Force One, took off from Crawford. He's rushing back to Washington to sort of take charge of the efforts and decides to hover over New Orleans at a few thousand feet. I mean, he wanted to show that he cared and show that he was interested in seeing the damage and destruction. But the idea of a president, you know, in this comfortable 747, you know, looking down and seeing death and destruction, I mean, a lot of people were wondering

whether that was a miscalculation. So President Trump, I mean, is, I think, any president before him would say is in a very difficult spot to decide what exactly to do right now. And I think, in particular, you're going to be looking for tomorrow, given what you're seeing on the ground today and what you covered a decade plus ago? I mean, what he says and also how much it

matters. You know, it's so interesting because I think a lot of what a president is probably thinking about, I remember this from President Bush, was, you know, perception and image and looking like to the rest of the country that he is in charge in this moment and is caring about this community. I think it's a really different perspective from the ground itself, and I'm interested to see if people are actually interested in what their commander-in-chief is saying or doing, whether or not he should have come here, if they're actually interested in trying to find some food. All right, David, last question before we let you go.

What do you think the biggest question mark is on the ground with Houston right now? Is it how much rain continues? Is it what happens at the shelters? What are you and what are officials worried the most about right now? I mean, I think it's sort of two stages. Scott, right now, the question is, how bad is this going to get? I mean, this storm is expected to be out on the Gulf again, make another landfall potentially on Wednesday and just keep bringing in these unbelievable amounts of rain. So how much can this city and these neighborhoods withstand? And then looking forward, it's how much is this going to cost? I mean, are there even enough people to lead a rebuilding effort of the city? You're talking about entire neighborhoods that are just decimated, a lot of people without flood insurance.

So, I mean, these are problems that officials say are going to keep going, not for weeks, not for months, but, you know, for years. All right. That's David Green, who hosts Morning Edition and is reporting from Houston this week. Thanks for coming on the podcast, David. Thanks, David. Thank you. You got it, guys. So President Trump will be in Texas tomorrow. He spoke about the storm and the recovery efforts at the White House today.

Here's a little bit from President Trump speaking during a press conference. We are one American family. We hurt together. We struggle together. And believe me, we endure together. We are one family. To the people of Texas and Louisiana, we are 100 percent with you. We're praying for you.

We're working closely with your leaders and officials. And I will be visiting the impact zone tomorrow to ensure that you're receiving full support and cooperation from the federal government. And on Saturday, we think we're going back to Texas, and also we will be going to Louisiana. Nothing can defeat the unbreakable spirit of people of Texas and Louisiana. Right now, every American heart sends its love and support to those whose lives have been upended, totally upended, totally, by this very horrible storm. We ask God for his wisdom and strength. We will get through this. We will come out stronger.

And believe me, we will be bigger, better, stronger than ever before. The rebuilding will begin. And in the end, it will be something very special. And I just want to thank everybody in the affected area, because it has been absolutely incredible to watch the spirit, the cooperation and the love. Domenico, you've been looking at the challenge that faces presidents in a big crisis like this, just how to get that message right, how to talk about this, what to do. Right. Well, look, you know, speeches after tragedies present presidents with a special challenge. I mean, it's one that President Trump hasn't faced yet. And he's going to face on Tuesday when he heads to Texas. He's going to witness this aftermath of Hurricane Harvey. And, you know, the president really needs to be able to express a level of empathy that we haven't really seen him comfortable with doing so much in public. I mean, this is somebody who is most comfortable kind of fighting back in this situation. He needs to show a level of sincerity

and empathy that has become almost mandatory for presidents. That's part of what you expect, because in a crisis like this, I mean, the images we're seeing out of Houston are so frightening and so unnerving that you often look to the president to calm you down a little bit. And that's a role that, given his approach, is hard to see President Trump fitting into. And he's really seemed most comfortable in these kind of freewheeling rallies that you've been to plenty of. And these scripted moments for him don't quite seem as Trump as those moments are. So how he balances that is going to be a challenge for Trump. But there's also another part to this. He has to show a level of competence

that's important, not just the optics and the style of what he's going to say and how he says it, but whether or not he really understands the full depth and breadth of what the federal government can do. You know, to some degree, there's also a parallel in, you know, George W. Bush, his response to 9-11, this whole idea of being comforter in chief. He came out in front of the country and really did try to strike this sense of, you know, I am here for you. We're going to pull together. You know, we're all Americans. Let's all be on the same team. People really did rally behind him after that. There is a bit of a difference here as well, right? Because, you know, with 9-11, you had a distinct adversary that people could rally against, whereas this is mother nature. Yeah. I mean, I think most people remember George W. Bush standing on the rubble after 9-11, you had a distinct adversary that people could rally against, whereas this is mother nature.

Yeah. I mean, I think most people remember George W. Bush standing on the rubble after 9-11, bullhorn in hand, channeling the country's defiant anger and being able to say that these people who knocked these buildings down, quote, would hear from all of us soon, right? You know, one historian I talked to, though, actually sees a parallel with not George W. Bush, but more to Bill Clinton in 1995 after the Oklahoma City bombing. Now, Bill Clinton then was coming off a political low point. The midterms were a disaster. Democrats lost the House for the first time in 40 years. And the president really had his back up against the wall. So at that point, going down to Oklahoma City, Bill Clinton was actually able to turn around what was the perception of his presidency and of him personally in a nine-minute speech at

the memorial. And he told the families of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing that, you know, a tree takes a long time to grow and wounds take a long time to heal, but it's time to begin. I mean, really, if you look at, you know, the way presidents have reacted to past hurricanes, it just seems like there's a certain kind of balancing act they have to do, right? You know, I mean, you have all of these people who are clearly in pain, clearly are going to go home at some point to a fair amount of destruction. So, I mean, so first of all, you need to be speedy in orchestrating this federal response. And it's a massive federal response, but not only that. And Trump sort of nodded at this this week.

You don't want to get in the way, you know, because the president's visit can sort of siphon off some of those resources and some of that attention as well. And the president and how he talks about the storm and its aftermath is a big part of this. The communication part is key. But the other part that's more important is the federal government's management of the storm, management of the evacuation, what comes next. The point person for that is FEMA Director Brock Long. Here's how he was talking about things in recent days. This disaster is going to be a landmark event. We're already pushing forward recovery housing teams. We're already pushing forward forces to be on the ground to implement National Flood Insurance Program policies as well and doing the inspections that we need.

So we're setting up and gearing up for the next couple of years. Now, Long is an interesting figure because, of course, if you go back to Katrina, one of the biggest criticisms of FEMA Director Michael Brown was that he didn't have much government experience. It wasn't that qualified. A lot of President Trump's appointees do not have much political experience, government experience. But Brock Long, that's not the case with him. He has deep experience in emergency management at the state and federal level. Right. He was in emergency management in the state of Georgia. He was the director of the Alabama Emergency Management Agency. He was in consulting dealing with emergency management. This guy, you know, went in appearing to, you know, really know what he's doing. And so far, Domenico, do we have a sense at this point in time, Monday evening,

how FEMA is responding to this, how the coordination between federal and state government is going? Well, certainly the Trump administration has tried to show that they're doing all that they can. You had Governor Greg Abbott of Texas on some of the Sunday shows talking about how they're getting everything that they need at this point from the federal government, that they're in coordination and communication with the federal government. I think what's difficult, though, is that because the rain is still continuing, there is such a long road to go for recovery. Well, a big part of the federal response is money. President Trump says he's not worried about Congress passing emergency spending. We expect to have requests on our desk fairly soon. And we think that Congress will feel very much the way I feel in a very bipartisan way. That will be nice. But we think you're going to have what you need and it's going to go fast. But we think you're going to have what you

need and it's going to go fast. But the politics are tricky. And one reason is that many Republicans have been pushing in recent years to offset emergency spending to make cuts elsewhere. Here's then Congressman Mike Pence in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina. As we tend to the wounded, as we begin to rebuild, let us also do what every other American family would do in like circumstances and expects this Congress to do. Let's figure out how we're going to pay for it. Congress must ensure that a catastrophe of nature does not become a catastrophe of debt for our children and grandchildren. And then after Sandy in 2012, you had a catastrophe of debt for our children and grandchildren. And then after Sandy in 2012, you had a lot of lawmakers,

including both Texas Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, voting against a big Sandy recovery bill, saying it's not that they were against spending money on Sandy, it's that the bill had become a vehicle for all these unrelated things in it as well. But still, that's something a lot of people have been pointing out in recent days, as Ted Cruz has been saying, hey, Texas needs some help. Well, you know, you cite a couple of very recent examples, but has the funding of recovery efforts for hurricanes historically, has that been politicized as well? Or is that a function of, you know, our modern, more polarized era? I mean, hurricane funding, disaster relief funding was never a political football.

It was never an issue before the Tea Party, frankly, came along. I mean, when the Tea Party came along in 2010, you had this idea that whatever amount of money you spend, there have to be equal cuts. And you might remember that Eric Cantor, when he was majority leader, there was an earthquake in his district, and he caught a lot of flack for having said, well, sure, yeah, we'll allocate funding, but there are going to have to be equal cuts if we're going to allocate that funding. And even in his district, people took him to the woodshed for that and said, now, hold on a second. We need this money. We need this funding. We've been talking a lot about FEMA and the federal government here, and there are 8,500

federal personnel on the ground right now. But the thing is, at this point in time, it's really the local government, the state government, and especially, you know, the city fire and police and rescuers who are doing the brunt of the lifting right now. Now, the further we get away from the actual flooding, the more that the federal government steps in, the more that FEMA begins to coordinate in a big picture way how to start cleaning up and start recovering. And that's where the money comes in. And the other thing is that next month is already so jam-packed for Congress. There's a funding deadline for funding the government, keeping it running. There's a debt ceiling deadline. And now

this is one more thing that's probably going to be viewed as a must pass bill in a very tight legislative schedule. So how many must pass things are there now? I mean, between this funding, keeping the government running, right? And raising the debt ceiling? Sure. Well, the question of how many, I think, is the key question, because we might see some of these things combined so that maybe you vote for government funding, but also to help the good folks of Texas who need money. You know, it's harder to vote no against that bill because as we're seeing with Ted Cruz four years later, people are going to bring it up when you vote no, even if at the time you think you have a good reason for voting no. All right, a lot more to keep track of here. NPR

does have a big team of reporters on the ground in Texas and Louisiana right now. So make sure you're following all of their latest reporting at NPR.org on your local public radio station on NPR One. And I'm sure we will be talking about this on Thursday's roundup and in the weeks to come. We're going to take a quick break and we're going to come back and talk about some of the other political news, including President Trump's Friday pardon of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Sun Basket takes the guesswork out of preparation, makes cleanup easier, and you get to skip the grocery store. With meals designed to fit every busy lifestyle, choose from paleo, lean and clean, gluten-free, vegetarian, and family options. Get $35 off your first order at sunbasket.com slash politics.

I'm Linda Holtz. And I'm Stephen Thompson. There's more stuff to watch and read these days than any one person can get to. That's why we make Pop Culture Happy Hour. Twice a week, we sort through the nonsense, share reactions, and give you the lowdown on what's worth your precious time and what's not. Find Pop Culture Happy Hour on the NPR One app or wherever you get your podcasts. And we're back. Just before Hurricane Harvey made landfall,

the White House made a big announcement. President Trump had issued a full pardon to former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Arpaio had been found guilty last month of criminal contempt of court for ignoring orders from a federal judge. And the timing was a surprise, but the pardon itself was probably not. And that's because President Trump all but promised a pardon at a political rally in Phoenix earlier last week. You know what? I'll make a prediction. I think he's going to be just fine. OK? Turns out Arpaio was just fine. After all, Danielle, can you catch us up to speed on why exactly Joe Arpaio was such a controversial figure and why he needed a pardon to begin with. Right. Yeah. So Joe Arpaio, sheriff of Maricopa County, which includes the Phoenix metro area, it's a very heavily populated county. He was elected in 1992. So this is well before

any of this started. But even before a lot of this national controversy, he was a controversial figure in Arizona. You know, he instituted chain gangs. He had inmates wear pink underwear, quite famously. He put jail cams in the jails. You know, his whole thing was, I want all of this to deter further crime. So fast forward, you know, he really decided he was going to crack down on illegal immigration. So what ended up happening was in 2008, the Bush administration decided to start investigating him for alleged civil rights violations. In 2009, the Obama administration expanded that. So bumping this ahead, what happened was in December of 2011, and this is where the meat of the story that we are talking about really starts. You had a district judge

that issued a preliminary injunction that said Arpaio and his deputies were targeting Latino drivers and that they had to knock it off. You're racially profiling these people. So eventually in 2013, the judge ruled that, yeah, there was racial profiling going on. But the problem is that, you know, a few years later, they went back and looked and said, huh, you guys aren't following the order. You guys haven't stopped racially profiling. In fact, you have quite publicly, Sheriff Arpaio, you have quite publicly said that you don't even mean to follow this order. So what ended up happening was this past July, he was convicted of contempt of court and the sentencing was scheduled for October. So he hadn't even been sentenced yet.

But President Trump, of course, as we all know, swooped in this last Friday and pardoned him. And Domenico, as all of that was happening, Joe Arpaio had become a big political ally of Donald Trump during and before last year's presidential campaign. Oh, well, this relationship goes back five years. I mean, Sheriff Joe Arpaio was one of the main people who was investigating, quote unquote, investigating President Obama at the time, his birth certificate. He was claiming that he thought it was fake and that he wanted to go through with this investigation. Trump sent him something of a fan letter and said, you know, keep up the good work, et cetera. And Arpaio says that they both had sort of parallel investigations going on at the same time. And they got to know each other. They got to be pretty friendly with each other. And Arpaio was on the campaign trail quite a bit with President Trump. he, you know, was just doing what he thought was a good thing for the country, keep them safe from immigrants who are in the country illegally and potentially committing crimes. Of course,

the courts disagree with that. Yeah. Let's take a listen. Let's take a listen here to what President Trump said today. He's done a great job for the people of Arizona. He's very strong on borders, very strong on illegal immigration. He is loved in Arizona. The president has the right to pardon anyone he or she wants to on federal crimes under the Constitution. It's pretty broad. But Danielle, a lot of Republicans have been criticizing President Trump's decision. Yes, absolutely. I mean, you've had, you know, a range of people, for example, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Arizona Senator John McCain, Arizona Senator Jeff Flake.

You've had all of these people come out and say, you know, you're disrespecting the rule of law, essentially, in doing this. He didn't really go through the judicial review process that most presidents go through. You know, President Trump on Monday, for example, pointed to a series of other pardons that presidents have undertaken. And it's certainly true that presidents have pardoned people, commuted their sentences, et cetera. But most of the time, if not all of those times, they go through a judicial review. There's a certain degree of waiting that these folks do. And then the president makes a decision. Right. Well, let's back up because, you know, let's get at what the real critiques of this are.

Domenico, of course, laid out, you know, some of the reasons for this pardon. But, you know, the argument here is that Sheriff Arpaio was convicted of doing unconstitutional things, right? Of, you know, detaining people without cause, and of course, of racial profiling, you know, and there is a great quote that came from some reporting by our own Kerry Johnson, where you had an Obama administration judicial official saying, quote, by pardoning him, Trump effectively neutered the ability of the judge who issued that order to have it enforced. That's a dangerous precedent. So he's undercutting a member of the judge who issued that order to have it enforced. That's a dangerous precedent. So he's undercutting a member of the federal judiciary, a member of the executive branch, by the way. So that is one of the big arguments here about like what makes this so special. And

to some people, what makes this a dangerous pardon? Now, this is not the first presidential pardon that's been controversial, nor will it be the last. And that is something that President Trump was very quick to point out when he was asked about this during that press conference today. But I wanted to look at some of the other people that were pardoned over the years. who was charged with crimes going back decades, including illegally buying oil from Iran while it held 53 American hostages, wasn't allowed to do that, selling to the enemies of the United States. He was pardoned after his wife donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Clintons. Then you have dangerous criminals.

President Clinton pardoned Susan Rosenberg, a member of the Weathered Underground, charged as part of a bank robbery that led to a guard and two police officers being killed. Drug dealers. President Clinton commuted the sentence of Carlos Vignali, a central player in a cocaine ring that stretched from California to Minnesota. Criminal leaker. You've heard the word leaker. President Obama commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning, who leaked countless sensitive and classified documents to WikiLeaks, perhaps and others, but horrible, horrible thing that he did, commuted the sentence.

What do you make of that argument? Well, I mean, we've talked about this before. We'll talk about it again. It's once again, whataboutism, you know, saying someone else is imperfect and therefore you cannot criticize me for this thing that I've done. This is just a shameless plug from Danielle for you to go read her story again. Is there a way to merge whataboutism and Clinton? Because it always involves the Clintons. Clintaboutism. Yeah. I mean, you know, it just keeps coming up. That story is remarkably evergreen. It certainly is. But, you know, he brought up this Mark Rich pardon,

which was, by the way, quite controversial. It was one of 140 pardons that President Clinton did on his last day in office, which I did not know until today. That's remarkable. And that was controversial at the time of presidential pardons often are. And you can go back to, you know, President Gerald Ford's pardon of former President Richard Nixon way back when. That likewise was controversial at the time. And Domenico, I know that presidential pardons are a pet peeve for you, especially one that comes around Thanksgiving, which we'll talk about in a couple months. But on this particular pardon of Joe Arpaio, do you sending this signal pretty clearly to Robert Mueller, the former FBI director who's now in charge of the investigation into Russian meddling in the election and whether or not they coordinated with the Trump campaign or Trump campaign

officials. He's sending a very strong signal to Mueller to say that he's willing to bypass the judicial review process, go very quickly to pardoning somebody. And if it's going to pardon someone like Arpaio, why wouldn't he then potentially pardon somebody who's a close ally from his campaign, who helped run his campaign, if someone were to be convicted? We know that the president has also looked into whether or not he can pardon himself as some of this had came up. So, you know, I think the president here is signaling very strongly that he has this power and that he's

willing to use it. All right. And one last thing on the note of that ongoing investigation, quick update on that today. The Washington Post reported today that in 2016, one of Trump's top aides, Laura Michael Cohen, sent an email to a top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin, the focus of potential real estate deal to build a Trump development in Moscow. Now, remember, all along, candidate and President Trump had said there was never any contact between Russian officials and Trump aides. And he also repeatedly said this. I have no dealings with Russia. I have no deals in Russia. I have no deals that could happen in Russia because we've stayed away. So while a deal may have never happened, we now know there was talk of a deal. NPR has obtained a statement that Cohen gave to the House Intelligence Committee.

He says that from September 2015 to January 2016, and that's during Trump's presidential campaign, he considered a proposal for a Trump-licensed luxury hotel, office, and residential space in Moscow. Cohen said this was similar to countless overseas development offers the Trump organization fielded over the years. Now here's one other wrinkle. The potential deal with a Russian company was conducted through a third party, someone named Felix Sater. And the New York Times has emails from Sater to Cohen. This is during that period, saying that a Trump Tower Moscow could help Trump get elected. So in his statement, Cohen says Sater, quote, sometimes uses colorful language and has been prone to salesmanship.

Cohen also says that that email to Putin's press secretary was a one-time effort to move along stalled government permitting and that he doesn't recall any response to the email. So that's one more development in the ongoing investigation. But the first development like that, I think in a while, either that or the time-space continuum of 2017 has melted my brain. But just big picture real quick, what do you make of this? Drip, drip, drip is the first thing that comes to mind. Yeah, I think unquestionably, we're just seeing the fact that this Russia investigation is going to go on for some time and still be something of a monkey on the back of President Trump and his administration as much as he'd like to get rid of it. All right. Well, we will follow up on that on Thursday. That is it for us tonight. Again, a reminder, NPR is covering the ongoing storm in

Houston. We have a lot of reporters there. You can catch all of our coverage on your local public radio station on NPR One and at NPR.org. If you have any questions or comments for us, or if you want to record one of those timestamps we play at the beginning of the show, send us an email, nprpolitics at npr.org. I'm Scott Detrow, I cover Congress. I'm Danielle Kurtzleben, political reporter. And I'm Domenico Montanaro, political editor. Thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast. © transcript Emily Beynon