The NPR Politics Podcast - Trump Comments Threaten DACA Deal

Episode Date: January 16, 2018

President Trump's now-infamous comments from last week, disparaging Haiti and many African countries, are still ricocheting around the world, and are complicating efforts to reach a bipartisan deal on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The government is, once again, set to run out of funding on Friday. And a record number of House Republicans have announced they're not running for re-election ahead of the 2018 midterms. This episode, host/congressional correspondent Scott Detrow, congressional correspondent Susan Davis, political reporter Jessica Taylor 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

Hi, this is Kevin. And this is Lauren at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library in Austin, Texas. We're standing in the exhibit commemorating the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. This podcast was recorded at Tuesday, January 16th at 2 10 Eastern. Things may have changed by the time you hear it. To keep up with all of NPR's political coverage, check out NPR.org, download the NPR One app, or listen on your local public radio station. Okay, here's the show. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast.

President Trump's vulgar comments from last week disparaging Haiti and many African countries are still ricocheting around the country and the world. They've had a major effect on the deal several senators were trying to cobble together to make DACA protections permanent. That deal is now in question, leading to a lot of uncertainty about how this week is going to play out. The government runs out of funding again Friday, and that's the day lawmakers from both parties had set as a goal to figure out a DACA deal. We'll get to all of that and we'll take a look at the record number of House Republicans retiring ahead of a midterm that right now does not look too good for their party. I'm Scott Detrow. I cover Congress for NPR. I'm Susan Davis. I also cover Congress. And I'm Domenico Montanaro, political editor. So guys, I just want to say I have been hosting

all of the episodes the last few days because Tamara Keith has been taking a well-deserved vacation away from the news, away from the daily headlines. And I hear it was very restful. Yes, it was so restful that for a half hour this weekend, Tamara Keith thought she was going to die in a nuclear explosion because she vacationed in Hawaii. No, it's unbelievable, right? You go away on vacation. You think that, you know, you're getting a little restful time off and you get this on your phone. I can't even imagine what that was like listening to people. It's crazy.

It seems horrifying. And she, of course, pulled out her recorder, interviewed several people during the process and filed a story for NPR. We would expect nothing less. Safe to say she will never forget her trip to Hawaii. No. All right. Now let's get out from under the tables and start the show. So the timestamp was good celebrating Lyndon Johnson because he in the history of the White House was one of the more foul mouthed presidents that we

have on tape. And that was what we have all been talking about. Let's recap all that and get into it. It's Tuesday, of course. And we are all still talking about a White House meeting that happened Thursday. President Trump was meeting with lawmakers from both parties to talk about a possible deal extending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. It would have made a lot of changes to legal immigration policies, too, and added a lot of money for border security. But Trump grew angry with it, and in the meeting, he used a vulgar slur. We're not going to say it here because, let's the meeting, he used a vulgar slur. We're not going to say it here because let's be honest, you have heard it a lot already. But basically, what he did was question why the U.S. wanted to let in immigrants from Haiti and many African

nations, which he disparaged instead of from places like Norway. So there has been a lot of back and forth about what was actually said in this meeting and what specific word Trump used. But, Domenico, I think that almost misses the point that we have reports from multiple people in the meeting that Trump was saying, I don't want immigrants from these countries. I want immigrants from those countries. And there was a racial difference between the countries, among many other things. I mean, look, it certainly news when the president uses that kind of language to describe any kind of a country or another person. And certainly, you know, with the context of race in this presidency, it was a big, big deal. But, you know, for me, it suddenly became this kind of shiny object where a lot of people were talking about the vulgarity and the language that was used and not talking about the underlying sentiment.

And the underlying sentiment that he was talking about, still no one denies that. And the underlying sentiment there was that there are certain countries and certain types of people that the United States should not take in as immigrants. And that is a lot different than the immigration system that we've had in the United States for a very, very long time. And for some of us who are products of that immigration system, my father was born in Italy. I'm first generation American. And, you know, my family, you could say, was not the, quote, best of the best coming from Italy. You know, they were my grandparents had, you know, not more than third grade education. They were, you know, farmers who were kind of suffering under poverty and famine

and decided to take this journey across oceans and, you know, to leave whatever they've known to go to a place where they don't even know the language so that in the hopes that their children could have a better life. So amid all of this today, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen is testifying in front of the Senate. One of the people questioning her, Dick Durbin. It's fitting since they were both in that meeting. Here's what Durbin asked Nielsen today. What was that strong language? Let's see. Strong language there was.

Apologies. I don't remember a specific word. What I was struck with, frankly, as I'm sure you were as well, was just the general profanity that was used in the room by almost everyone. Did you hear me use profanity? No, sir. Neither did I. Did you hear Senator Graham use profanity? I did hear tough language from Senator Graham, yes, sir. What did he say?

He used tough language. He was impassioned. I think he was feeling very strongly about the issue, as was everyone in the room. And to underscore a point, I think he was using some strong language. Do you recall that the strong language you used repeated exactly what the president had said prior to that? I remember specific cuss words being used by a variety of members. So, Sue, strong language, profanity, vulgar language. It really gets beyond that for some people, though, doesn't it? Absolutely. And I think that the effect that this meeting has had in practical terms to these negotiations is that emotions are running really high on this issue right now,

particularly among Democrats and their voters who saw what the president said as explicitly racist. The number two House Democrat, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, who's part of the group of leaders who are trying to negotiate a deal, today told reporters he considered those racist comments. And again, in that hearing today, we heard from New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker. And I think I want to play a little bit of tape because I also think what he says and the tone of what he's saying does capture how passionately Democrats feel about this issue right now. The commander in chief in an Oval Office meeting referring to people from African countries and Haitians with the most vile and vulgar language,

that language festers. When ignorance and bigotry is allied with power, it is a dangerous force in our country. Your silence and your amnesia is complicity i also think this tells you why it's going to be hard to cut a deal or to change the terms of the original agreement that was put forward to the president he wants tougher uh immigration language in there he wants a win for conservatives and now democrats because of all this are under so much more pressure to not cede any ground to their voters. It would look like they were capitulating to a racist president. And that is what makes negotiations that much harder.

And and as this has come up again, it's worth pointing out that I think one reason why this struck so hard is that this is not an isolated event. I mean, there have been key moments in President Trump's political career that repeatedly get back to this question. First of all, the fact that he became a political figure by repeatedly questioning, in the face of all facts, whether or not President Obama was born in the U.S. Then you go to the very first event of his presidential campaign. He says that Mexicans entering the country illegally are rapists. And then, of course,

last summer, when he made the equivocating comments on Charlottesville, and there are several other examples as well, that Democrats are becoming increasingly strident in their response to saying this is racist. And what he said repeatedly about black communities, you know, that blacks are living in hell, that he, you know, during the campaign went and made a speech about black society, essentially to a white community and a largely white community. So a lot of Democrats have been questioning who is his audience for this? Is he really trying to win over African-Americans or is he trying to win over suburban white Republicans who might be uncomfortable with some of President Trump's stances, but want to see him reach out a little bit more. It's also why you see this president continue to trumpet the African-American unemployment level being the lowest that it's ever been, because he wants to take some measure of credit for this and say, see, this shows I'm not a racist,

which is something that he said over the weekend. He said he is the least racist person. Right. And he said that during the campaign, too. You know, he is the least racist person. Right. And he said that during the campaign, too. You know, I'm the least racist person that you will ever meet. Sue, one of the things that is not in dispute is that when Trump made these comments disparaging African countries specifically and saying, you know, why don't we have more people from places like Norway? Republican Lindsey Graham, who's grown increasingly close to Trump over the last few months, really took him to task and disagreed with the basic premise of what he was saying. Well, I also think it's worth because there has been so much controversy over what was said in

this meeting. There are two Republican senators, David Perdue of Georgia and Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who were in the meeting in question, who both publicly have said the president never used those words. Part of what I think is so interesting about that is that every other person on record in this meeting, including White House officials, either say the president said it or don't deny that he said it. So it's also created the controversy over what was said has also created a couple other brush fires and I think has contributed to what I think right now on this Tuesday before a shutdown deadline, a very toxic climate on these negotiations that you have not only the actual disagreement over what this deal is going to look like and can they keep the government open, but you have these now very personal fights among senators who are key negotiators to getting a deal where they're questioning each other's integrity, calling each other liars. And from the beginning, what it would take to get an immigration compromise, which is a very difficult thing to do, was some element of goodwill and trust among the two parties. And I don't think that we have that right now. If anything, things

have gotten considerably worse than one week ago today, which was that public meeting at the White House that started this talk on immigration, where the president had a group of lawmakers and hosted them on live national television for almost an hour and said, told them that he would sign the bipartisan deal that they could send him. And we are in a very different place right now. Right. Because he said almost word for word, if you come up with a deal, I'm not going to say, oh, I wanted this. I wanted that. I'm going to sign it. Then lawmakers like Democrat Dick Durbin, Republican Jeff Flake and others, do they still think that they can sell this plan to other lawmakers? This is a minor point, but I do think it matters for people to understand why things also contributed going off the rails last week is that the fact that the faces of this and two Republicans announcing this deal were people like Jeff Flake of Arizona and

Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who don't have a lot of credibility among the conservative base on the issue of immigration. And so the optics of those two sort of being seen as leading a deal just had the reflexive effect of getting a lot of conservatives to think automatically, then it must be a terrible deal, right? If Jeff Flake is on board, I can't be on board. This is the question that I've had kind of throughout this process was, I didn't really understand why they didn't go through leaders. You know, the fact that there wasn't the imprimatur from McConnell or Ryan or Pelosi or Schumer. And then you had this other working group that Pelosi kind of trashed of the number twos, calling them five white guys and said maybe they'll open a hamburger stand.

You know, it was just odd that the leadership wasn't what was involved to bring something to the White House rather than this group of six going to the president first. Right. Right. And it's the question of who's in charge here. And I do think that in these situations, the burden goes to the president. The burden goes to the president to clinch the deal. And the White House has sent what I think is fair to say confusing signals on what the White House and what the president specifically wants on immigration. And the president's all over the map. And even if they get close to a deal, because this has been so poisonous, I think there's questions of can we trust each other? Can we believe that the president's going to sign something that he says he's going to sign?

And then you have this secondary wave of this conversation that started over this controversial meeting where Democrats, I think, are increasingly dug in on this issue because they don't want their leaders to cede any more ground on immigration to a president that their base and their voters increasingly look at as someone who harbors racial or racist views towards their core constituents. Right. And this initial deal that was put together was something that gave Democrats what they wanted on one front, permanent protections for people in the DACA program that's expiring in just a couple couple months now, just more than a month now. But it also included three things that most Democrats really disagree with. More money for

border security, including possibly partial wall for President Trump, and big changes to the legal immigration system that the Democrats really disagree with. So a lot of them just resent the fact that they have to make these trades to begin with for something that they think is common sense and they think in the end has bipartisan support. But in terms of Trump going back and forth, Domenico, Trump has sent really mixed signals on this, like Sue was saying, even changing his mind over the course of hours, as he did last fall, saying, I want a wall. No, a wall can wait. No, I want a wall. But this also fits into a broader pattern we've seen throughout his presidency of Trump kind of shifting his mind depending on who he talked to, where reports were that Dick Durbin and the Republicans who helped cut this deal called him. He was on board with it. But then he gets in touch with Tom Cotton and Bob Goodlatte, two Republicans who have pushed a much harder line on immigration. They end up in the meeting as well. And when he's sitting with them, he suddenly turns on this bipartisan deal. Here's the political pickle, as I see it in this week.

Alliteration. Yes, political pickle. Republicans in this initial deal that was presented to the president that he rejected, that they say has been characterized to me as they view it as unreasonable, that they want more in this that conservatives can feel good about and can vote for. But this has always been a deal that from the beginning, the negotiators have kind of recognized that they're going to need probably more Democratic votes to pass it than Republican votes. That if you put this bill that has to pass in the Senate with 60 votes, it's probably going to need around 35 to 40 Democratic votes and 15 to 25 Republican votes. So if the bill has to pass

with a preponderance of Democratic support, then the deal's going to be more to their liking, right? You can't put in, the negotiation can't be conservatives need to get more wins, but Democrats need to supply the votes. The math doesn't add up. And the challenge that we're seeing is that it often the burden again of solving that math falls on the White House. It falls on the commander in chief. It falls on the president. And he has not proven an ability to be able to do that. And why I think that is why at this moment, the prospect of a shutdown is more real than I think most lawmakers thought it was going to be. So let's talk about that for a second, because just a reminder that Friday is the day that government funding runs out. This is the

end of the month extension that we got just before the holidays. So we've we've now played this out at least three times over the last couple of months of an impending deadline. Will there be a shutdown? What will happen? So is what makes this more tense? The fact that many Democrats view what Trump said is straight up racist or the fact that many Democrats view what Trump said as straight up racist or the fact that he keeps changing his mind? Or is it just a combination of those? It's a combination of those. I would say in the previous cases where we've had to vote on these stopgap funding measures, what made it different is all the key players leading up to those votes were signaling we've got the votes they're going to pass. Everybody calm down. And

that has the effect of everybody calming down. This time around, key players are increasingly saying, I think a shutdown might be on the table. Senator Chris Coons is a Democrat from Delaware. He said this morning, as of right now, a shutdown seems more likely than not. What's different this time is Democrats see this as a leverage moment, that Republicans can't keep the government open without Democratic votes. And Democrats are saying, if you want our votes, you need to cut a deal on immigration. Yes, that would mean in this iteration, Democrats are the party that are more likely to threaten the shutdown. But they also have political leverage there because Republicans control everything. And while Republicans may blame Democrats for shutting down the government, and while they may be correct that Democrats were voting against keeping the government open,

history and politics have taught us that voters tend to blame the party in power when the government shuts down, not the party out of power for when they can't keep the government open. I think the other thing that Democrats might be thinking about is the fact that I don't think if you're a Republican, you can rely on President Trump to have a tightly focused message if there is a government shutdown. I mean, imagine what he would say on Twitter, what he would say when talking to reporters. I feel like that would probably go into Democrats' advantage if Trump just starts angrily lashing out at them once the government shut down. Well, three points here. Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House. So it's very difficult to say, oh, it's just Democrats fault. Secondly, though, when Latinos are a big part of the Democratic base, how long can Democrats go on not holding the line on DACA? You know,

the deferred action on childhood arrivals. This now expires. Those recipients protections expire in March. If they go with, let's say, a four week, you know, continuing resolution to keep the government open. Now we're suddenly within a month of those protections expiring. What can what, you know, Democrats at some point are going to be held accountable by their political base for not holding the line. Remember, they're still smarting from thener and President Obama who did not want a shutdown and one happened anyway. So why would it be surprising that we're careening from possible shutdown to possible shutdown to possibly actually shutting down? All right. We will pick up this conversation in our next podcast later this week. Maybe we will have a little more resolution or

maybe not. Who knows? We're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, we are going to look at the midterms and the fact that a record number of Republicans are just retiring ahead of an election cycle that might not be so great for them. Support for NPR politics and the following message come from Rocket Mortgage by Quicken Loans. Rocket Mortgage gives you confidence when it comes to buying a home or refinancing your existing home loan. With Rocket Mortgage, you can apply simply and understand all the details so you can mortgage confidently.

To get started, go to rocketmortgage.com slash NPR politics. Equal housing lender licensed in all 50 states. NMLSConsumerAccess.org number 3030. Hello, just dropping in to remind you about Here and Now. in all 50 states. NMLSconsumeraccess.org number 3030. Hello. Just dropping in to remind you about Here and Now.

We cover the day's most essential news with context so you know the why and what's next. A fast-paced snapshot of the world every day. Listen to Here and Now

on NPR One or wherever you listen to podcasts. Okay, we're back and we are only a couple weeks into 2018, believe it or not, but there's been a lot happening right now that will have a big impact on this fall's election, namely retirements. A lot of House Republicans are deciding to call it quits and not run for reelection this year. Political reporter Jessica Taylor has been digging into this and is here in the studio. Hey, Jess. Hey, Scott. How's it going? Good, good. So what's the best way to put all these retirements into historical context?

We looked at it this way. We looked back and we wanted to know when was the last time that even close to this number of members were retiring from either party. And what we found was the last time in a midterm year that anywhere close to this number retired was 1994. And there were 28 Democrats that retired. And of course, 1994 was the Republican Revolution, Newt Gingrich and the contract with America. That was President Clinton's first midterm election. And that was when Republicans took back the House in a very big way. And so we have, as you mentioned, we have 31 retiring, 18 of them retiring outright, 13 are seeking higher office. And so we can't look at it as completely as, OK, all of them want to get out of here in a mass exodus because there are a lot of them that are

running for other office. But when you do have some of these longtime members that are calling out quits or even some shorter term members, I think a lot of them are maybe sort of starting to see the writing on the wall of what kind of election cycle this is becoming. And a lot of these seats, as you point out, are deep red seats. They're not going anywhere in terms of changing parties. But some of these are in some of the districts where Democrats have have focused the most attention and most resources and feel like are the most likely to flip, namely some of the last couple ones that we saw in Southern California. Yeah, so last week, we actually had two members decide to outright retire. And that was House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce. He represents

Orange County. It's a very changing area, typically very reliably Republican area. But it saw a big swing in the last election where that district actually voted for Clinton. Same with Daryl Issa's seat. He actually only won reelection by about 1600 votes, a really close election. He's not a committee chairman, but of course, he was the House Oversight Committee chairman during Obama's term, really sort of, you know, known as a firebrand conservative. And, you know, he only barely won last time. His district also voted for Clinton. So those were two, I think, that sort of were really sort of telling. And then on Friday, we had Martha McSally in Arizona. She's deciding to run for the Senate, actually.

And that's a great thing for Republicans because she'll be a very competitive Senate candidate. And they needed someone there with Jeff Flake retiring. But her Tucson seat is also one that's really sort of always been more of a swing district. This is the old Gabby Gifford seat. And it also voted for Clinton. So that brings us up to five total districts held by Republicans that Hillary Clinton won. So, Domenico, when we talk about the fact that this is shaping up to be a not so great cycle for Republicans, what are the factors that we're looking at when we say that?

And how certain can we be at this point that things are shaping out that way? Well, the thing is, if I were to say to you before this election started, you know, I were to take Jessica's numbers and say we would have more Republican retirements today at this point in this cycle than at any cycle for any party back to 1994. We'd all be pointing to a wave. But the difficulty here, it certainly does put Republicans on their back foot a little bit, a lot, in fact. But there are a couple of fundamental things that do favor Republicans. You know, the economy is still pretty good. And because of the way districts have been redrawn since 2010, the 2010 census, because Republicans controlled so many governorships and so many House legislatures, that Republicans really have an advantage when it

comes to what these seats look like. So, you know, I mean, I remember, you know, 12 years ago, I was able to come up with a list of potentially competitive seats that were like 125. And, you know, the last cycle, when we're looking at 2016, Jessica and I were, you know, trying to come up with... We couldn't even come up with 50 last time. I think we were really struggling with that. I was like pushing you to get to 50 and it was like 40, you know, we could get to. So you think about that when Democrats need 24 seats, you know, that makes it much more difficult because they almost have to run a straight flush. They got to like draw exactly the right hand. Now, what has helped Democrats is winning in places like Virginia, winning up and down the ticket there and winning

in that seat in Alabama. You know, they're going to have another test in Pennsylvania with this House special election where Trump had won by a big margin, but that a Democrat's running fairly well and the White House seems worried about it. If they're able to pull off that as well, now we're looking at the kind of thing that could shake a lot other Republicans to think, oh, maybe it's time to retire. So, Sue, you spend more time than most of us talking to House Republicans in the hallways. Can you pick up the vibe of we're feeling embattled? We're feeling like things might not go well in the hallway or does that not really show itself? It does. And I would say that our colleague, Kelsey Snell, did a great piece that ran over the weekend in which she talked to a lot of these Republicans who have decided not to run for

reelection. And one of them is Pennsylvania Republican Charlie Dent. He's someone we actually reference a lot, both in our stories on air and in the podcast, because he is one of these kind of critical swing votes in the House. And he's always kind of an interesting person to talk to. And he was in a pretty good shape for reelection. I do think one of the things we should say is that a lot of these Cummins who are choosing to retire weren't as necessarily seen as vulnerable as people like Daryl Issa out in California. Charlie Dent was not really seen as a top target for defeat. And he basically told her that a lot of Republicans just look at 2018 like it's going to be a very exhausting year.

And they know that 2018 at its heart and soul is going to be a referendum on President Trump. So the candidates that are running for office this year, everything is going to be in response to the president. And for Republicans like Dent, who have been frequent critics of this president, this administration, he was pretty candid that, you know, if given the option to run again or maybe do something else in his life, he was ready to do something else. I think, too, we're very early sort of in the retirement cycle. And if we see more of these members, not just in the Clinton districts, but like Dent's seat that Trump did one, but by a smaller margin, Dave Trott in Michigan, if we see sort of these members that are retiring, maybe in seats that Trump won by less than five points or something, that's where I think those are the majority making seats. When is this all settled? When would the last

retirements be? I mean, it really depends on when the filing deadlines are in states. But I think, you know, typically February, they want to know by, you know, historically, we would see them announced. A lot of them will make decisions probably even this month. They've gone home, they've talked to their family members, they've, you know, wanted to make a decision or something, too. And certainly the House committees would rather know sooner rather than later so they can start recruitment and different things. But Jess, that brings up a good point, because I also wonder in this climate and when we're talking about retirements, to me, there's also a flip side to this in that I think we've seen Republicans having a harder time recruiting the kind of candidates that they would like to

see run. Just today, former Governor Tim Pawlenty announced he would not run for the Senate race in Minnesota. I know there was a lot of hope among Republicans he would get in there. And a lot of these Democrats that Domenico referenced, these red state Democrats in the Senate, Republicans have had a really hard time recruiting the kind of candidates that they think they need to knock them out. Another one that comes to mind is Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota. The Congressman Kevin Cramer, who Republicans were trying to get to recruit to get into that race last week, announced he wasn't going to challenge her. So I think that also speaks to the climate that we're talking about. It feels almost self-fulfilling, the whole cycle of, you know, it's not going to go well

for Republicans. So Republicans say, well, maybe I'll take a pass on this. And then because of that, it doesn't go well for Republicans. Same Republicans say, well, maybe I'll take a pass on this. And then because of that, it doesn't go well for Republicans. Same thing with Democrats in years like 2006 and 2010. Yeah. And Democrats, listen, they've had a lot of success in recruiting candidates, but they've got to worry about primaries, too. They've got to get their candidates through these primaries and candidates that can win in swing areas, too. And so, you know, Democrats, there's a lot of things that have to absolutely go right. But I think that the House is absolutely in play. And when you look at this and when you look at, and I think we're probably somewhere in the range of like 80 to 90 competitive seats right now,

I don't think we're going to have trouble getting to, you know, the 40 or 50 that we talked about last cycle. The Senate is a much different ballgame, certainly. One thing that I would argue is also potentially a factor in some of these Republicans opting not to run again. And I was wondering this in December as well, is that when they pass that tax legislation, for a lot of lawmakers, that is the biggest thing they will ever do here. For a lot of Republican lawmakers, right? That is the thing that they came to Washington to do. And after it was signed into law, there was already a conversation starting up here that was wondering if more Republicans would decide to opt for retirement and not to run for reelection, because there's an element to some Republicans who are like, hey, mission

accomplished. You know, I didn't I said I didn't want to be a career politician. I came to Washington. I did the biggest thing I wanted to accomplish. And it's time to move on with my life. And also, if you have any interest in becoming a lobbyist in your life, sometimes the best time to do it is right after Congress passes a major piece of legislation that will require years of implementation policies that people like to make money around. And could benefit from your behind-the-scenes expertise on said bill. And you still have plenty of connections to sitting lawmakers in Congress. All right, then that is a wrap for today. We'll be back a little later than normal this week. That's because instead of our weekly roundup, we are doing a live show in Washington, D.C. at the Warner Theater Thursday night. There are just a few tickets left. If you want to join us,

go to NPR presents dot org. If you're not able to join us live, two things. First of all, the podcast of that show will be in your feed first thing Friday morning. And secondly, we'll be back at it again in February, but this time in Cleveland doing another live show. In the meantime, you can keep up with all of our coverage on npr.org and on your local public radio station. I'm Scott Detrow. I cover Congress for NPR. I'm Susan Davis. I also cover Congress. I'm Scott Detrow. I cover Congress for NPR. I'm Susan Davis. I also cover Congress. I'm Jessica Taylor, political reporter. And I'm Domenico Montanaro, political editor. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.