The NPR Politics Podcast - Senate To Vote On Tax Bill, Two Directors Claim Control Of CFPB

Episode Date: November 27, 2017

Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.) has stepped down from his role on the House Judiciary Committee, amid an ethics investigation into allegations of sexual harassment. President Trump has all but endorsed Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate race. There is a dispute over who is now the Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And Senate Republicans are aiming to pass a major tax bill before the end of the week. This episode, host/congressional reporter Scott Detrow, White House correspondent Tamara Keith and congressional correspondent Susan Davis. 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

Hey, this is Scott Detrow. Before I covered Congress for NPR, I spent a lot of time covering state houses for NPR member stations. First WITF in Pennsylvania, then KQED in California. Before that, I covered City Hall for WFUV in New York. The point is there are public radio reporters all over the country covering local politics and covering state politics. And this year, they've been really busy. When you support public radio, you're supporting journalism that covers your city hall, your county government, your state house, and you're supporting the work we do on the NPR Politics Podcast to try and make sense of everything that's happening nationally.

One contribution really does help support all of that up and down, because first it goes to your local NPR affiliate, and then part of that goes to NPR. So this week, we're asking you to help public media on all levels by supporting your local station. You can do that by going to donate.npr.org slash politics. It's donate.npr.org slash politics and making a contribution. And when you've done that, tell your friends why you decided to help this podcast and public media in general with the hashtag Why Public Radio. Thank you so much. It really does help. And now here's the show. Hi, this is Ashley Johnson. I'm Paul Cook.

And we are in a London cab on the way to our wedding today. The following podcast was recorded at... 1.37 Eastern on Monday, November 27th. Congratulations. Things may have changed by the time you listen. Keep up with NPR's political coverage at npr.org, the NPR One app, and your local public radio station. Okay, here comes the show and the bride. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast.

If you are listening to us on a treadmill, working your way out of Thanksgiving weekend, we are here for you. The holiday break is over and there is now a lot going on again in Washington. Democratic Congressman John Conyers has stepped down from his role on the powerful House Judiciary Committee while he's under investigation by the Ethics Committee for Sexual Harassment. And leaders in both parties are struggling with how to deal with serious allegations. Here was Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi on Meet the Press this weekend. Just because someone is accused, and was it one accusation, is it two? I think there has to be. John Conyers is an icon in our country. Meanwhile, President Trump has all but endorsed Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate race, even after all of the allegations against Moore. Two different people say they're in charge of the

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Senate Republicans are trying to pass a major tax bill this week. And, oh, yeah, less than two weeks left before government funding runs out. I'm Scott Detrow. I cover Congress for NPR. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. And I'm Susan Davis. I also cover Congress. Welcome back, everybody. Yeah, that was just the most awesome timestamp, especially on the day that we learn about a royal engagement. It just seems so right.

I'm ready to talk about the Prince Harry engagement. I think I would rather talk about the Prince Harry engagement than more sexual harassment on Capitol Hill. Okay. I actually have a thought about that. Having been fresh off watching The Crown, which was my favorite show from last year, like half the season is about the scandal of someone marrying an American divorcee. Now Prince Harry does it and everyone's like, oh yeah, that's cool. Congratulations anyway. The times are changing, Scott.

My favorite tweet about this was somebody who said it was just one long play by the British to take back over the United States because if and when they have a child, they'll be an American citizen who can run for president. Whoa. All right. Well, I assume we will do a special podcast

when the royal wedding happens. And I'm happy to volunteer for it. All right. We could talk about that for a while, but there's like 90 different news items we need to get through. So let's jump into it. Our last podcast before the holiday was Tuesday. And that one, we talked about everything going on in Congress about sexual harassment, including the allegations against Congressman John Conyers and Senator Al Franken, both Democrats. Both stories have updated since then. Conyers has now stepped down as the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, though he is remaining in Congress. But before he made that announcement Sunday, Nancy Pelosi went on Meet the Press,

and her answers about whether Conyers should step down did not go over well. You said there's now a zero tolerance. John Conyers. What does that mean for him right now? Let's say we are strengthened by due process just because someone is accused. And was it one accusation? Is it two? I think there has to be.

John Conyers is an icon in our country. He has done a great deal to protect women. Violence Against Women Act, which the left wing, right wing is now quoting me as praising him for his work on that. And he did great work on that. But the fact is, as John reviews his case, which he knows, which I don't, I believe he will do. I believe that he will. Excuse me, may I finish my sentence? That he will do the right thing. Sue, what did you make of that as you were watching it? The hard part is that Nancy Pelosi has never been a particularly effective communicator. And I think that in this situation, that was made acutely obvious to people.

And also that she was given a platform to maybe make a stronger, clearer statement on this issue. And it was just very muddled and inarticulate, right? I also think she clearly knew that this was likely to happen that same day, but maybe didn't want to play her hand, that John Conyers later in the same day made an announcement that he would step down as the ranking member of the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. And that was sort of what she was referring to, obliquely referring to, by saying he would do the right thing. It wasn't a great moment for her. And I think to say the least.

Right. And I think that particularly in this debate where I think there has been so many clear female Democratic and Republican voices in Congress on this. People like Jackie Speier, a Democrat from California, Barbara Comstock, a Republican from Virginia. In the Senate, you have Kirsten Gillibrand. Pelosi just didn't really hit the right notes. a background to understand here is that the Congressional Black Caucus, of which John Conyers is a founding member, is incredibly influential inside the House Democratic Caucus, that Conyers, as she referred to him, is an icon of the civil rights movement. So I think that there's a sensitivity among Democrats about how you talk about him. But she had a moment where she could have said something clearer and more articulate, and she didn't really land it. What this ends up looking like is, well, President Trump just wants due process for Roy Moore

and Nancy Pelosi just wants due process for John Conyers. Like, if it's the other guy, rush to judgment. If it's your guy and you like him, then maybe we should have due process. And this is a weird time. There has been this sort of very swift justice for people in the private sector, people in media, Harvey Weinstein or Charlie Rose. And we should say NPR executives like Mike Oreskes, who was forced out of NPR. Right. And it was swift and they were gone. And now it goes to Congress and it goes to the political realm and also like the social media realm, you know, because you have just what we're talking about right now. We're talking about Al Franken, who has been accused of grabbing women's butts in pictures and forcefully trying

to kiss someone, as we talked about last week. John Conyers, accused of sexually harassing multiple staffers. Roy Moore, accused of something much different. Of going after teenage girls, hitting on teenage girls. And trying to initiate sexual encounters with underage girls, right? Right. Very different. These things aren't linear. They're different things, but they all get compressed together. And I think it's hard to make sense of that, especially when you add in the extra element of partisanship. But here's something that I think is important to note and something that Pelosi said as well.

The facts in every case are very different. But Democrats like Nancy Pelosi are saying the standard should be zero tolerance. In that case. So there's a spectrum of offenses. And I think Roy Moore, Al Franken and John Conyers highlight that spectrum. But if the people that are making the argument that something has to change is saying the standard is zero tolerance, then that politically is really tough. I don't know what you do with that. And I think that that's part of what lawmakers are wrestling with is what is the appropriate way to respond to this stuff, but also recognize that, you know, there's political concerns, and then there's legal

concerns, and then there's ethical concerns. I mean, there's a lot of different buckets that you have to view these things through. One thing that Congress does have complete control of is how it responds and processes future complaints and allegations. Sue, this Conyers case has put a lot of attention on the arcane, lengthy and very discreet and private process by which Congress deals with with allegations. There is a vote scheduled in the House this week, but that has nothing to do with the reporting process, right? That's just about mandatory training like what the Senate did before Thanksgiving? Right. The Senate already passed this by unanimous consent, which just essentially mandates the sexual harassment training that was optional previously. The House is going to do the same

thing this week. It doesn't have to go further than that. These are rules of the House, so you only need the chamber itself to vote to change their own rules. So that's going to happen on Wednesday. And it will be effective essentially at the start of the next year. And this includes lawmakers, too, that everybody that works in the Capitol complex will have to take sexual harassment training. Ethics training is also mandatory, as is cybersecurity training on Capitol Hill. So it'll just go into that bucket of mandatory training. But at the same time, they are now looking at legislative responses. And that is separate. That is about how complaints about harassment beyond including but not limited to sexual harassment, all harassment claims are reported, processed and completed in Capitol Hill.

There's a real outstanding question that I don't think we know the answer to, which is, is the Senate or House Ethics Committee the place where complaints about lawmakers go to die, or is it a place where justice is actually done? Well, speaking of the Senate Ethics Committee, that is a committee that's now going to be looking into allegations made against Senator Al Franken. This all started happening just before the Senate left for a week. Franken said nothing over the past week, aside from issuing a couple statements. But Sunday, he gave his first round of interviews, including to Minnesota Public Radio.

And then just before we started taping this podcast, he gave a very brief press conference outside his Senate office in Washington. Here's what Franken said. This has been a shock, and it's been extremely humbling. I am embarrassed. I feel ashamed. What I'm going to do is I'm going to start my job. I'm going to go back to work. I'm going to work as hard as I can for the people of Minnesota. And I'm going to start that right now. Thank you all. Sue, the two things that jump out to me about Franken's situation, how he's responding is, first of all, there's none of the indignant tone. There's none of the combative tone that you hear

from some of the other people who have been responding to this. Franken seems horrified with himself. But secondly, he's been asked several times now, will there be any future accusations? And he keeps saying, I can't say. I don't know. I didn't even remember these. And that certainly raises a lot of questions. It does. And to me, Franken in some ways speaks to the broader cultural problem or issue in this debate that we're seeing in other fields is that people do things and don't realize it may be harassing behavior.

Because when he was asked about that today, when he said, why can't you say any more women will come forward? And he said, well, if you would have asked me two weeks ago, would any woman have accused me of sexual harassment? I would have said never. And then they came forward with these allegations. So the fact that he did not see his behavior as potentially sexually harassing or unwanted towards women suggests that we don't know if more women may come forward. And that, to me, with Franken specifically, is still one of the question marks here, right? If he seems to be able to survive for now, he obviously made clear today he has no intention of resigning, that he hopes he can weather the storm, apologize, cooperate with any investigation. But if the trickle, the drip, drip, drip effect keeps happening,

at some point, does it become unsustainable? I also wonder how much Democrats are looking to what ultimately does happen in the December 12th Alabama special election to politically at least guide their thinking on this in that if Roy Moore wins, I'm not sure that they're going to feel really empowered to maybe continue to elbow out the John Connors and the Al Frankens. Or do they sort of say that it's up to the voters and let them make up their minds? The opposite. What if Doug Jones wins, right? What if the message is so clear from the voters in Alabama that this is not behavior that can be tolerated? Does that increase the pressure on people like John Conyers and Al Franken to say, you know,

your political careers aren't more important? Meanwhile, in the Alabama race, we're starting to see a shift in the way that some, but not all, which is something we'll talk about, Republicans are talking about it. And I think the new framing is best exemplified by a tweet from President Trump over the weekend. As a holiday gift to you, I will read the latest Trump tweet, which takes full advantage of 280 characters. Why, thank you. Take a deep breath. It's going to be long. All right. So this is from Trump over the weekend. The last thing we need in Alabama and the U.S. Senate is a Schumer-Pelosi puppet who is weak on crime, weak on the border,

bad for our military and our great vets, bad for our Second Amendment and wants to raise taxes to the sky. Jones would be a disaster. And then Roy Moore released an ad this morning that kind of made the same argument, that this is about Republican issues versus Democratic issues. And if you don't vote for me, you're endorsing the Democratic agenda. What is fascinating to me is how this has, especially coming from Trump world, rapidly transformed into the very same contours that existed after the Access Hollywood video came out during the election last year, where initially there was this huge rush. There were many Republicans coming out and saying, whoa, he said some things on tape that we just cannot stand for. This is not OK. Some just a few endorsements were withdrawn. A couple came back. And then slowly over that month before the election, President Trump, then candidate Trump, was able to move on and make it about partisan politics and ask evangelical voters, basically, you know, I'm not perfect.

However, I would be better than a Democrat. What about the Supreme Court? And now Moore and his allies and President Trump is making a similar argument. What about the courts? What about the tax legislation? Sort of making the argument that a flawed Republican is still better than a Democrat. So, Sue, the thing on the Democratic side is that this is a special election. It's mid-December. I assume turnout's probably going to be on the lower end. So the Democrats need to just mobilize their voters to turn out and maybe hope enough Republicans will stay away that they have a chance. But the thing is, like, the more the Democrats actively look like they're campaigning, the more they think it hurts them. But you have to actively campaign to mobilize

those voters and get out the vote. If Roy Moore wins, I think it will, in some ways, validate the worst views that people have of American politics, that nothing is more important than whatever letter comes after your name name and that there is no offense too great that will make you not side with your party. And if that is the lesson, I think that both parties will take from it to the point about like what happens with other allegations that may come forward. I mean, the impact of what happens in Alabama will have a ripple effect to any further and current sexual harassment cases against lawmakers, that the charges or the allegations against Roy Moore are some of the ickiest, I would say, is that a technical term?

Because in part, because in some of the allegations involve minors, and that would seem to be one of the red lines of cultural appropriateness that if he still wins, they might say, you know, all boundaries in American politics are off now. And I think that's already kind of been happening in our politics, but the acceleration of that, it's going to be incredibly complicated. And if he is sworn in by the end of the year, then you do have this secondary impact of what does someone like him do to the Senate? And will the Senate have to revisit this question of whether they might try to expel him? We should say Roy Moore has and continues to deny those allegations. All right.

We can talk about that for a while. We'll probably talk about it a lot more. We're going to shift gears, though, and talk about a very confusing and interesting story that's happening right now at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. So the director, Richard Cordray, stepped down last week. He named a deputy director to replace him in the interim, his former chief of staff, Leandra English. But the president also named someone, budget director Mick Mulvaney. Both of them showed up to work today. One had donuts. I don't think the other did. Tam, donuts aside, who is in charge at the CFPB? Well, Mick Mulvaney, the budget director,

is the one who brought the donuts. Leandra English, according to our reporting, got to the office earlier, like way earlier, like before 7 a.m. Right? Like, wouldn't you, you wouldn't want to roll in at 9.30 if somebody was competing for your job. Right. So she showed up super early. She sent an email that was like, happy Thanksgiving. Hope everyone had a great holiday. I'm thankful for you. Sincerely, acting director Leandra English.

Your boss. Shortly thereafter, Mick Mulvaney sent an email that said, hi, you may have gotten a note from Leandra. I'm actually the boss and I have donuts. Come visit. Now, the donuts I saw did not look like there would be enough for the entire staff of the CFPB. Basically, this is a feud that will be settled by judges or at least one judge. And it is a fight between an outgoing Obama appointee and the Trump administration. Let's take a step back, though, and remind everybody what the CFPB is, because it's very technical and gets into very wonky areas of the financial world. But it is something that both parties care deeply about.

It was a core part of the Democratic response to the Wall Street meltdown, and it is a core Republican grievance with overregulation. Right. So the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created in 2010 as part of the Dodd-Frank Act, which was the sort of rewriting of rules for the financial services industry and banks and whatnot that was done after the financial crisis. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was actually the idea of Elizabeth Warren, who is now a senator, but at the time was a Harvard professor, who was this sort of populist hero on the left, still is. And she really pushed for this idea. It is supposed to be a very independent bureau, an independent agency. Its funding comes not from Congress, but through the Federal Reserve,

designed to protect it, give it independence, and let it look across the financial sector to see where consumers might be hurt. And Richard Cordray was on Morning Edition this morning, actually, and talked about, in his view, the role that the Bureau has played and what it's done. It has been an enforcer, a referee to enforce rules of the road, even handedly on all institutions, not just banks, but other large financial companies that compete against them. That should be a level playing field. And we've worked to accomplish that. We've also enforced the law, and it's really important, Rachel, that institutions know that the laws will be enforced and they have to follow them. We've gotten back about $12 billion for consumers who were cheated or mistreated in various ways. We have set up a complaint hotline

so that people can, instead of just wringing their hands over issues where they think they're getting treated badly, they can actually have a voice. They can get things fixed. And we've done that for many consumers. I think this has been a very important new development in the financial industry. So advocates argue that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been good for consumers. They've been looking out for people. Republicans in Congress who have opposed this thing from the very beginning have concerns about it being unaccountable, unaccountable to Congress, sort of out on its own. The president tweeted that it injured and hurt banks and hurt the financial services industry.

And Republicans have been trying to rein it in. In fact, it took a couple of years to get Cordray confirmed by the Senate. He didn't get confirmed until 2013. He was sort of in purgatory for a couple of years. And Mick Mulvaney, in his confirmation hearing, Mick Mulvaney is the one of two people now saying he's acting director. He had some not so nice words about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau during his confirmation hearing earlier this year. Senator Jeff Merkley starts asking him a question.

Do you still believe that CFPB is a sad, sick joke? Yes, sir, I do. And I'll be happy to tell you why. It is, to me, sir, one of the most offensive concepts, I think, in a representative government, which is almost completely unaccountable government bureaucracy, government regulatory agency.

Sue, I feel like the CFPB is a great example of the way that Trump campaigned and presents himself publicly clashing in to the way he governed, because, you know, back regulations and trying to undo a lot of the response to the financial crisis. Yeah. In some ways, it's always just been a political football of an agency that has been a proxy fight between the two parties over what the role of the government should be, right? And because I think on the left, Elizabeth Warren has always been so closely associated with this agency. It has always reflexively made conservatives think it is inherently a bad thing. And because Elizabeth Warren is who she is on the left, it has also made Democrats double down in their defense of it and be willing to fight over this agency that I don't think most Americans and probably most people inside the Beltway

fully understand what it exists to do and what its mission is. So I just wanted to get into the legal fight here because I think it's sort of interesting. The Trump administration is citing the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 that says very clearly that the president can pick an acting director for any agency. They say that supersedes any other law. Now, Richard Cordray and activists on the left and consumer advocate types, they say, and Elizabeth Warren, say, if you look at the statute, if you look at the law, Dodd-Frank, that created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, it says very clearly that the director can have a deputy director and

that that person would automatically become acting director in case of an absence of the director. So they both say that they have the law on their side. This is already headed to court because Leandra English, one of the acting directors, sued to say Mick Mulvaney isn't the acting director. I'm the acting director. I think this is the same section of the law that allowed Sue to fill in as podcast host when we were both gone a few weeks ago. Yeah, I believe that might be it. It's the succession planning as part of the podcast and federal agencies. But the White House is saying not only do we have the law on our side, but we have an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department. And we have an opinion from

the counsel within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This is going to be one of those things that's just going to have to be fixed by judges. So we're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, the Senate is gearing up to vote this week on a tax overhaul. And also there might be a government shutdown. We'll keep you posted. We'll be right back. Support for this NPR podcast and the following message come from Away. Away asked thousands of people how they pack and why they travel before designing their luggage. So Away has an internal compression system to help you squeeze in that extra pair of shoes. And their carry-on suitcases are able to charge anything powered by a USB cord.

Untether yourself from airport outlets and visit awaytravel.com slash politics. Use promo code politics at checkout for $20 off. Five, four, three. It used to be the playground of governments, but now rockets and satellites are becoming so small, so cheap that even a podcast can do it. We have ignition. I'm Robert Smith, and starting November 29th, the Planet Money team launches their very own satellite into the cosmos.

Listen on NPR One or that app you're using right now. Copy that, Ops 1. We are back. The Senate is back today, too, and they have a lot to do between now and the end of the year. The current plan is to have a pretty busy week this week and pass the tax overhaul. Sue, what would this week look like, assuming everything goes according to Republican leaders' plans? Assuming everything goes to plan, and I would say that Republicans,

as we sit here Monday afternoon, are feeling very confident about this week. But again, we have seen this story before, so all the obvious caveats to be prepared for failure at any given time. In a perfect world, the Senate Budget Committee is going to meet tomorrow and report out the bill that will actually go to the floor. It will likely be brought up sometime Wednesday or Thursday. And this is the point at which, if you remember the repeated attempts to trying to get on a health care bill, this is when that process always failed. When McConnell would try to bring up a bill to get on the bill, have a procedural vote to begin debate, and they could never get there. So that's the first big moment to look for on track, off track? Yes. And so if they get on the bill, that is a very good sign that before they leave here at the end of the week, they're going to pass that bill.

After they get on the bill, they have a mandatory 20 hours of debate. Then they go into the thing that we've talked about many times on this podcast called a voterama, which is they vote on as many amendments that are offered to the bill that are relevant to the bill. And that's usually about a 14 to 18 hour process in which they just boom, boom, boom, boom, boom through those amendments. It sounds more entertaining than it really is. It's very boring. It still doesn't actually sound that entertaining. Voterama! And you can't just add arama and expect people to be excited about it.

Once they get through that process, they will vote on final passage of the bill. A lot of times before they do that, they vote on something called a manager's amendment, which is the leadership's way of doing all the final fixes to the bill in the end, which is really the most important vote. And then they will pass a bill out of the Senate. One very encouraging sign in Republicans' favor today is that Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has been a bit of a question mark on this bill, said in an op-ed on Fox News that he intends to vote for it. Sue, I would like to read you a tweet. Now, maybe this is just me being like,

Scott, you don't get to read all the 280 character tweets. But the president tweeted out something today, and I'm kind of confused by what he's saying and what this means. But I mostly think it means that they're still working on the bill. But here, let me read. The tax cut bill is coming along very well. Great support with just a few changes, some mathematical. The middle class and job producers can get even more in actual dollars and savings. The pass through provision becomes simpler and really works well. Exclamation point. Yeah. I mean, here's the thing. The tax bill, as we sit here today, is in better shape than the health care effort ever was. They are in broad agreement on what this bill is and what it should do and how much it should cost. But we are going to see a lot of

final negotiations still about things like that pass-through issue that you referenced, which is a problem for Wisconsin Republican Ron Johnson. That's essentially how they're going to tax smaller businesses like the one he owned before he came to Congress. Yes, they still have some horse trading and negotiations to do. But I have not spoken to a single Republican yet today who doesn't feel really good about where they are right now and very confident that they're going to pass this bill before they leave here. OK, one more roadmap for the week ahead question for both of you. Can you both name one or two Republican senators who you think will be key people to watch to see? Are they on board? Are they not on board?

I'm going to take the easy one. This is Tam. I would say Bob Corker, who has said that he will not support anything that adds one cent to the deficit. But he's typically a pretty good Republican that falls in line. But then again, he's an R retiring. And Senator John McCain from Arizona, who has been an unpredictable vote and was a key vote against the health care legislation. Sue? I agree with Tam. Two really important senators to watch. Two more. Jeff Flake. Jeff Flake, McCain's junior senator and also retiring and frequent critic of the administration. President Trump had already tweeted that he anticipates Jeff Flake will be a no on this bill, although Jeff Flake's office has said he's still reviewing it.

He has been very vocal that he has a lot of problems with this bill, specifically what it does to the deficit over the next 10 years. He's a question mark still. And always when it comes to legislation like this, Susan Collins of Maine, she has also been, she's a moderate Republican. Her broader macro concern is that the tax cuts are skewed too much towards the wealthy and big businesses and not enough towards smaller businesses and middle-class families. She's probably a winnable vote. She has been generally kind of positive. She wants to be able to vote for a tax cut at the end of the day, but she has not said where her position is yet. So she's always one to watch. OK, actual last tax question for real this time. You said they're feeling very confident, but they can only lose two votes. And you guys just

named more than two people who have concerns. Scott, you're exactly right. Right. Like the math is still very hard. And this is why I say people feel confident. But people felt very confident at the beginning of the year that the Republican Party had the votes to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act and they could never quite get there. So, you know, it's fool me once, politics behind this are that Republicans feel an immense amount of political pressure to be able to say that they delivered on something in their first year of a Republican-controlled Washington. And that political push may be more compelling than any policy concerns that any one Republican has about the bill. Also, polling over the weekend indicated that it is not popular. Yeah, although I think we're also seeing a lot of parallels being drawn to the atmospherics around the Affordable Care Act, that the Democratic Party was doing something that was polling unpopular, but the party believed in deeply and thought long term the voters would thank them for.

And in that regard, that's what Republicans are doing. They're advancing a policy that they believe deeply is for the good of the country, even though the public's very skeptical. And they're saying, you know, once this becomes law, your life will get better and you'll thank us. One last thing to mention is that because of the agreement reached in September, mostly between President Trump and Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. Government funding expires on December 8th. So shutdown clock vaguely looming. Here's the thing, though. I don't think it's worth spending much time talking about today right now,

because tomorrow there's another meeting between Trump and congressional leaders. And who knows, maybe he will once again, spur of the moment, cut a deal with the Democrats and reach some sort of agreement. I think that meeting will be very interesting to watch. Are there any other dynamics, you know, knowing that it could all be changed tomorrow that are worth mentioning when it comes to this upcoming funding fight? The point of tomorrow's meeting is to agree on or start the conversation, at least, on what the spending caps should be for this year-end spending bill that they're working on. So that alone has been a really tough situation that hasn't been unresolved all year in terms of how much the government's allowed to spend.

And then also one of the big questions surrounding this final spending bill is what are they going to do about immigration? Before Thanksgiving break, Democrats in the House and Senate are getting louder and louder and louder and saying, we're not going to give you the votes, the votes that you need to pass a spending bill, unless we get some kind of promise on what to do about the so-called dreamers, the ones affected by the Obama-era DACA program, the Deferred Action Program, and they want something. And if they don't get it, in this situation, Democrats are the ones more leaning forward towards a shutdown situation, saying, we're not going to vote for something unless you give us something on immigration. And it won't pass if the Democrats don't vote for it. Exactly, which is why Democrats see this as a leverage point,

and a leverage point that Donald Trump handed them by making that decision back in September to say he was going to end that program, which I believe if Congress does nothing is going to be phased out in the spring of next year. A lot going on over the next few weeks. We will talk about it again on Thursday. In the meantime, keep up with all of our coverage on NPR.org, on your local public radio station and on the NPR One app. If you love Thank you. by going to donate.npr.org slash politics and making a contribution. That's donate.npr.org slash politics. And when you do, tell your friends why with the hashtag WhyPublicRadio. Thanks so much. It really helps. I'm Scott Detrow. I cover Congress.

I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. And I'm Susan Davis. I also cover Congress. Thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.