The NPR Politics Podcast - Weekly Roundup: Thursday, September 5

Episode Date: September 5, 2019

Congress prepares to return from their recess, and guns and spending are on the top of their minds. Plus, NPR deep dives on election security. This episode: White House correspondent Tamara Keith, political reporter Tim Mak, congressional reporter Claudia Grisales, political reporter Miles Parks, and national political correspondent Mara Liasson. 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 the Collie Family in Corvallis, Oregon for our annual Collie Family Decathlon. Ten events in two days. Hogwarts Tag. Meditation. Flash Science Fiction. Baseball. Croquet. Freeze Dancing.

Ghost in the Graveyard. Dictionary. Badminton. And recording this NPR Politics Podcast Timestamp. This was recorded at 1242 p.m. on Thursday, the 5th of September. Things may have changed by the time you hear this enjoy the show coley family this is adorable um what what is freeze dancing i've not heard of that sport is it kind of like you know you do a dance and then you like pass it maybe i thought it's

like multiple people where you do like a dance move and then you pass it over to Claudia and then they start dancing and then they pass it over. Well, I'm dancing and I'm passing. And I'm dancing and I'm passing. And I'm going to dance some more. I thought it was after the music stops you freeze. Mara's not telling it. Mara Larson is not playing this game. She's opting out.

I thought it was like the music stops and you freeze. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Claudia Grisales. I cover Congress. I'm Tim Mack. I cover politics.

And I'm Mara Liason, national political correspondent. And you guys, summer is almost over. Summer doesn't end until mid-September. Okay, well, right. But I'm just holding on to it. Washington, D.C. summer is almost over. Congress comes back on Monday. Right. They have been on an extended recess. While that recess was happening, a lot of things happened in the world of politics.

Claudia, what are the three things that you are watching for as Congress comes back? Well, one of the primary issues that we're looking for first is any movement on gun legislation. There's going to be plenty of debate and conversation there. We'll see if some measures get moved forward. We'll also be watching spending. A series of bills need to be considered to fund the government, at least by September 30th. And then finally, a series of retirements that we're seeing from the Hill. Some of the things on that list legislatively seem like very small potatoes.

They don't seem like big things at all. I mean, there's nothing on that list that is actually legislation that is something the president promised. Right. Where's the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement, which needs to be ratified? Where's the infrastructure bill? Where's the Chinese trade deal? I mean, this is a president who is acting as though he doesn't think he needs big legislative accomplishments to take into his reelection campaign. Either he thinks the economy will stay good, which is a risky premise, then he can run on that or that policy and policy accomplishments just don't matter anymore.

Let's start where Claudia started, which is gun legislation. There were these two mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton and a lot of conversation about what to do about guns after that. And then there was another mass shooting in West Texas. Where is Congress on all of this? Well, let's separate it between what the House is doing, what the Senate's doing, okay? The House Democrats are trying to lay a marker in the ground. So the House Judiciary Committee is considering a number of pieces of legislation, including limiting the size of magazines, including issues around red flag laws,

and also whether people who have been convicted of misdemeanor hate crimes can obtain a firearm. So they're trying to pass this out of committee, eventually set up some votes on the House floor in the fall, and ultimately put some pressure on the Senate to pass some gun legislation. All right, that is the House. The Senate is run by Republicans. What are they looking at doing? There's a framework that they're using from six years ago called the Manchin-Toomey legislation. This would expand the number of firearm sales that are covered under federal background checks, that you'd have to have federal background checks before you could obtain a firearm in more cases. Now, this is something that's being negotiated by Republicans, Democrats, and the White House. But the thing is, as Senator Mitch McConnell has said, what it really comes

down to is whether or not the president is willing to back something ultimately. He's been all over the place on this issue and has only made it a little bit more confusing over time. He said he's been for background checks, then he's kind of muddled the waters. Here's what he said earlier this week. I support safety for our citizens. I support keeping guns out of the hands of sick people, mentally ill people. And I also support something having to do with mental illness. We have to get these people off the streets. You know, I listened to that. And the translation is he doesn't know what he is for. Yeah, I feel like we're in this moment where Republicans in Congress in particular, but Democrats, too, are saying we need to know what the president supports. And the president is saying, well, I need to know what can pass

Congress. But the only thing that can pass Congress, as Mitch McConnell has explained, is something the president is going to not just support but throw his weight behind. And we've seen a pattern every time. Mass shooting happens. President says, I'll ban certain kind of weapons. I'm open to universal background checks. Has a phone call with the NRA, and then he backs off. This happens every time.

Is that fair, Tim? You're the expert on this. Lawmakers just don't want to get ahead of the president because if he pulls the rug out from under them, as he has in the past, then their voters are going to be angry with them for getting ahead on some gun legislation. If the president doesn't take leadership of his particular proposal, Republicans do not want to be ahead of where the NRA is going to be come next election cycle. And even if there's not legislation, the bigger politics of this is that the House of Representatives, the Democratic House of Representatives wants to send a message to voters that says, here is what we are for and the kind of thing we would pass if we had the Senate and the White House. So, Claudia, another thing that you said that you would be watching is appropriations,

also known as the spending bills. I thought that was all resolved. No? No. They did reach a broader budget deal this summer. So that's the larger framework. But they need to hammer out budgets for all these various federal agencies. And they're coming up against a deadline, September 30th. If they don't have some sort of new funding in place, there could be another government shutdown. And so there's already... Don't say those words. I know, I know. We're still recovering from the longest government shutdown that happened earlier this year. So there's already talks of passing a temporary funding bill, otherwise known as a continuing resolution that could run into November, December, by lawmakers some more time to hammer out 12 different appropriations bills or spending

measures to fund all these various agencies. And it's all made a little bit more awkward by the fact that this week, the Trump administration announced that they were going to be taking money from a bunch of different military construction projects in many members of Congress in their districts and using it to build the wall. Now, they've been talking about this for a while, but now it's really happening and right at the moment when they're supposed to be figuring out budget stuff. Yeah, the timing could not be worse. This ties back to the national emergency that President Trump declared in February, said he would pull $8 billion from various pots of money, including the Pentagon,

to divert that money to help build border fencing, security, what have you. It's raising eyebrows because they released the list this week, and it'll impact schools for children, for service members, facilities in Puerto Rico. West Point is going to lose some projects for their engineering center. And one other project that's being lost is overseas, and it involves defenses for our allies against Russia. Claudia, in terms of the fight over the funding bills, Democrats are pretty angry that he is taking money away from the military, including military daycare centers, they will tell you, to build the wall that they did not approve of or authorize. So it doesn't sound like they're going to be in a very forgiving mood, and they're not

going to be willing to give him other things that he wants. Right. It seems like this sets the tone just before these critical negotiations, and it doesn't set a great one. So it lays out a road for some tough negotiations ahead for Democrats and Republicans to meet in the middle when it comes to funding these agencies. But no one thinks there's going to be another government shutdown. Not yet, but they're not guaranteeing it. Let us move to the last item, which is Texas or Texas. Explain what that means. So we're seeing a rush of Republican lawmakers. The fifth announced this week, Representative Flores, whose who have retired just in recent months, three of them faced very tight races where they won by margins of less than five points. And these are districts where Republicans previously dominated by double digits or more. And it's not just Texas.

It's not just Texas. There's a broader exit from Congress from a number of Republicans. Fifteen House Republicans are not running for re-election in the House, but two of them are seeking higher office. Now, you want to compare that to House Democrats. You have four House Democrats not running for re-election in the House, and just one of those are seeking election to a higher office. And it represents a number of things. This is both what they may forecast as a political issue in 2020 and whether or not they can win election. But there are also other more legitimate reasons not to run for reelection, whether it's age or health problems. Those things will come up as well. And the bottom

line is an open seat is always easier for the opposition party to get than defeating an incumbent. It's just good news for Democrats no matter how you cut it. And I would make a prediction that depending on what happens next Tuesday in the 9th District of North Carolina where they're having a special election because the results of the first election were thrown out because there was voter fraud, real old-fashioned voter fraud. If the Republican loses there, which he shouldn't, it's a Republican district, you will see more retirements. All right, Claudia, we're going to let you go get ready for the return of Congress. Yes. And when we get back, it is time for Election Security Week, which is different than Shark Week. Support for this podcast and the following message come from Google. From Connecticut to California, from Mississippi to Minnesota,

millions of American businesses are using Google tools to grow online. The Grow with Google initiative supports small businesses by providing free digital skills workshops and one-on-one coaching in all 50 states, helping businesses get online, connect with new customers, and work more productively. Learn more at google.com slash grow. Support also comes from BetterHelp. BetterHelp offers licensed professional counselors who specialize in issues such as depression, stress, anxiety, and more.

Connect with your professional counselor in a safe and private online environment at your convenience. Get help at your own time and your own pace. Schedule secure video or phone sessions, plus chat and text with your therapist. Visit betterhelp.com slash politics to learn more and get 10% off your first month. Celebrity chef Samin Nosrat will not do events anymore if she's the only brown person speaking. And often, and I'm like, I have at the ready list of names because a lot of times the excuse is like,

oh, couldn't find one. The stories behind the celebrities. Every Tuesday on It's Been a Minute from NPR. And we are back. And here at NPR,

it is a very special week because it is election security week. Woo! Why is it election security week? You gotta ask that before the podcast, Mara. But wait, who said it was who decreed that? So Miles Parks is with us. Hey, Miles. Hi there. And both Miles and Tim have been working on this series along with NPR's Phil Ewing and Pam Fessler. And you guys really dove into the

election system and election security. There are two concepts. One is sort of the security of voting, like the physical security of voting. And the other is the voters, like hacking the machines, hacking the minds. Starting with just the physical, actual act of voting, which even within that gets kind of complicated when you start talking about all the different things you have to protect when you're protecting elections. My piece focused specifically on voting machines, which is actually the electronic equipment that is used to cast the ballot, which is different than the electronic equipment that's used to count the ballot or the electronic equipment that's used to register voters who are then going to go check in at their polling places and they check in on electronic equipment. So there's all these different layers of cybersecurity in voting. My piece focused specifically on the actual act of casting a ballot. And let's go back to the year 2000. There was a major issue where there were problems with voting machines and hanging chads and votes not being counted properly. And there was this massive sweeping

change in America where all kinds of jurisdictions bought new voting machines. It was this time in America where people just weren't coming up with bad things that computers could do yet. We just thought computers could solve all our problems. And so for voting, we were like, paper is a problem. It's sometimes it takes a lot of labor to count it. And sometimes we have these weird marks. We can fix that.

Let's just have everyone touch this cool touch screen. And then the machines will count the votes too. And so it's just going to simplify the whole process. But flash forward 20 years later, and it's added a lot of security headaches as we go back and try to fix all the problems that that decision created. technologically, the big turn in balloting security is to use this technology that was invented thousands of years ago in ancient China, which is paper. And I'd love to hear from you about kind of why it is that paper is so suddenly important again with regard, like it obviously cannot be hacked, but what's the basis? It's really interesting. It's not on the internet. So like 20 years ago, there was a backlash against paper.

And now there's a backlash against the computers. Yeah. Well, so it's this evolution of election security where we had this basic idea over the last decade where we were like, we just have to protect the ballots. And that's the biggest thing is make sure people aren't finding a way to fake the ballots or people aren't screwing up the count of the ballots. And now there's this evolution where we want to protect the integrity of the vote. But more importantly, we want to have a way where after an election, we can go back and double check the results. We can audit the results and we can have a result that is not in any way based on computers or software. We have something we can hold in our hands and double check it and make sure it's right.

And if it's wrong, we want to know where it's wrong and how it's wrong so we can fix it. So I think that what you're saying is that a voter verified paper trail is the gold standard of voting or under the current thinking about the best way, the most secure way for people to vote. Is that widespread? Is there an effort to make that be the standard? And what does this all mean for 2020? Yeah, so it does exist now in most of the country. We've done a really good job of mostly eradicating the kind of paperless systems. There's a report by the Brennan Center for Justice that came out this summer that wanted to quantify exactly how many people are going to be using these sorts of paperless voting machines, which cyber experts say is the most insecure way that you can cast a ballot.

How many people are going to be using those in 2020? It's going to be about at most 12 percent of voters in the U.S. We should just, to be clear, say that there is no evidence that in 2016 any votes were changed. So in terms of that form of election security, 2016 was not broken. 2020. Yeah, exactly. And so we have no evidence that 2016 was messed with. At the same time, the Senate Intelligence Committee in their report this summer said it's possible that they were just doing an intel mission, that there could be a future hack at some point. You don't want to sound the sirens and say everything's broken. People should still go out and vote. Your vote is still counted

correctly all the time in America. But there are all these different pockets where things could be improved. But in 2016, there was a successful misinformation campaign. That's what we learned from the Mueller report and from the Senate Intelligence Committee that Russia did succeed in a lot of ways at getting a lot of misinformation out there through social media we have a shared reality, right? Do we get the same kinds of information? Do rural voters and urban voters and old voters and young voters and Republicans and Democrats have a shared sense of what America is and what policies in 2016 election and trying to gin up a lot of anger on both extremes of all sorts of issues. And that's problematic enough. But one thing that we saw in the last few weeks and what I did a story on this week is about China. Now, China has been really focused in the past on kind of promoting themselves as a wholesome and positive force in the international community. That's been their real focus.

Right, a rules follower. Right, and something that's beneficial to countries in, say, Africa or across Asia or South America. But with the Hong Kong protests, they kind of crossed a threshold. What they did was they started to use Russian-style techniques, these networks of fake accounts, to spread disinformation to undermine the protests in Hong Kong. That really marks a huge escalation, and it raises the question on whether China will employ similar Russia-style tools in future American elections, whether 2020 or elections after that, might be disrupted by an infrastructure that the Chinese government is starting to build around

misinformation on social media. Well, and what stood out to me in your story was the idea that China has a lot more tools than Russia has. Right, that Russia is isolated diplomatically. It doesn't have a ton of international trade sway. But China has an immense amount of international trade sway and all sorts of relationships with countries around the world, foreign aid programs. And using those kinds of diplomatic tools combined with an infrastructure to spread misinformation, could be even more devastating than Russia's campaign in 2016. Why is that any different than pro-Trump actors in America? It's not just coming from abroad. And I guess the question I have for you is, does it matter where it originates? Or is it only important because it creates chaos, distrust, and undermines,

you know, social cohesion? I think what it all comes down to is volume, how much of it. And when we're online, are we talking to real people, providing their real opinions? But the real question is, is whether we share a reality, whether we have the same sorts of facts, and whether the people who are expressing their opinions online are real people and real Americans. But we know we don't anymore. When you have the president of the United States saying that climate change is a Chinese hoax, he constantly promotes a set of facts that set odds with science or reality. So I guess what I'm asking is, aren't we doing this to ourselves without any help from the Russians and the Chinese? Well, the fact is that the Russians in 2016 and to this day are trying to take advantage of existing fissures in the American political system, that they're taking these issues that

really divide a lot of Americans, whether it's things like abortion or the presidential campaign or guns, and trying to create and foment extreme feelings on both sides of that issue. So it's not as if there weren't already divisions on those issues. It's about the extent to which that exists. So are these sort of misinformation campaigns coming from foreign adversaries? Is this the future of American politics? month, a little over a million dollars per month. That is nothing in this. When you think about how much a military, like the Chinese military has at its disposal, the amount of bang for your buck in this cyberspace, as Mara put it, is just amazing. And so I think it's impossible to think this is going to lessen. If anything, it's going to like exponentially grow. And all of these things are kind of eroding the same thing, whether we're talking about the vulnerabilities in our voting is going to lessen. If anything, it's going to exponentially grow. And all of these things are kind of eroding the same thing, whether we're talking about the vulnerabilities in our voting

equipment and making people feel like, oh, my vote isn't going to be counted or it's going to be hacked or something like that, or making people believe information that's not true or is biased in some way. It's all eroding people's confidence in the very institution of what we're doing here in America. Institutions. All right. We are going to take a quick break. And when we get back, it's time for Can't Let It Go. Support for this podcast and the following message come from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, developing solutions to support strong families and communities to help ensure a brighter future for America's children. More information is available at AECF.org.

There's more to watch and read these days than any one person can get to. That's why we make Pop Culture Happy Hour from NPR. Twice a week, we sort through the nonsense, share reactions, and give you the lowdown on what's worth your precious time. Listen and subscribe to NPR's Pop Culture Happy Hour. And we're back and we are going to end the show the way we always do with Can't Let It Go, the part of this pod where we talk about the things we cannot stop thinking about, politics or otherwise. Miles, what can't you let go of? Yes. So I cannot let go of a pretty genius invention that I think was announced a couple weeks ago, but I just heard of it today, honestly, which is that Pabst Blue Ribbon, PBR, as many people may know it, is releasing an iced coffee beverage that's called hard coffee. And it's going to be a 5% alcoholic beverage, kind of like one of those things. Yeah, I got Mara doing a scrunchie face.

You must not listen to the radio. Bad. Everything has to have alcohol in it now. Everything. Just horrifying. Have you tried it? No, I haven't tried it. I think you should let that one go as soon as possible.

I'm not sitting here saying I'm going to become a regular drinker of these. I am very curious to try it. And a lot of people on the internet, which is notoriously accurate, have said it is delicious. So I'm just saying don't knock it until you try it. But it's morally wrong. But why didn't you bring it? Yeah, that's a good question. Well, the packaging is pretty well done. It's got the PBR kind of branding, but it looks a lot like the Starbucks Frappuccino, that kind of light brown. It is terrifying, the fact that this is like just normal. Every single thing has to have alcohol in it. Especially a morning beverage.

I don't think people are getting up, rolling over, and pounding these in the morning. This is like you're about to go to the club. The club? I don't know. I'm seeing this. When I saw this, I was thinking like- It's like 8 o'clock at night, and you're trying to get your energy up. I'm with Mar on this.

I actually do think this would be a 9 a.m. drink. It's the drink for the darty. What does that mean? A darty is a daytime party. Oh, my God. Mara, what can't you let go of? I have something so much more wholesome. OK, so Vice President Pence went to Ireland.

He was having meetings in Dublin. He decided to stay 180 miles away from where he had to meet with the Irish prime minister in Doonbeg, where, just by coincidence, Donald Trump has a golf resort. And he stayed there. And there was some confusion when Pence's chief of staff, Mark Short, was asked whether the president suggested he stay there. He said, well, it was a suggestion. It was not an order. But this is an occurring, a recurring situation in the Trump administration. Trump, unlike any other American president, decided not to divest from his businesses, continues to make money from them, continues to promote them regularly

in every possible forum, including the other day suggesting that the G7 should be held there next year when the U.S. is the host. And he continues to get lots of taxpayer money funneled to his resorts because, of course, when the vice president goes there, the Secret Service has to stay, thousands of dollars. Now, any Republican campaign organization, foreign government who wants to curry favor with Trump stays at Trump hotels. Now, in defense of Mike Pence or in Mike Pence defense of Mike Pence, it is his ancestral homeland. His great-great-grandmother lived there. He worked at a bar in Doonbeg. He could go visit. We're talking about why he chose to stay there

for the whole time. And of course, he says, I had a lot of Secret Service agents. There's a plausible explanation. But when you make the decision not to divest and you ran on draining the swamp and you promised you'd never have anything to do with your business and then you go ahead and promote it at every turn, these questions will come up. And Vice President Pence also said that he wasn't planning to stay there two nights, that originally the schedule had him ending in Doonbeg and then he was going to jet off to the next stop. But instead, because the president canceled his trip to Poland, then Mike Pence had to go to Poland and the schedule got screwed up. And suddenly it's two

nights at this luxurious resort owned by the president. But, you know, there are totally legitimate reasons, explanations for this. To me, this story is a metaphor about how even a super careful, disciplined vice president like Mike Pence can't escape all of the ethical questions that always swirl around Donald Trump. Tim, what can't you let go of? Well, so we talked a little bit about hydration with Miles's thing, and I have a different kind of hydration story. This guy, there's a reporter who covers soccer for the Russian Premier

League. And he's really my inspiration of Perseverance this week. So he's giving a report. And he just got hit by a sprinkler. And he's continuing to give the report, but wait. It's a hilarious video of a Russian reporter trying to give a report. He said that the light was really good where he set up his stand-up position. The light was great, but the water not so much.

And then the water just, like, the sprinklers pop up during his report. They start spraying and very ominously approaching behind him. And as it comes up, he realizes something is coming, so he speeds up his report. You hear him very panicked, and then he gets hit by it. I do feel like it's a staple. It's kind of like an homage to the staple of physical comedy. People being soaking wet has been hilarious. It will remain hilarious for all eternity.

And there's a subset of physical comedy which is a reporter trying to do a stand-up. Either they're photo bombed or sometimes I've seen people outside the White House in Lafayette Park that have been rushed by a homeless person and knocked over. Wow. So I just want to say that I appreciate his perseverance and he's an inspiration for me this week. Well, I'm going to go last. And what I cannot let go of is this video that went a little viral in NPR circles,

but it is a Voices of NPR video montage put together by a guy named Nate Smith. His Twitter says that he is an actor, comedian, writer, and director. Hello, I'm Ron Elving. Live from NPR News, I'm the sexiest man in radio, Ari Shapiro. From Los Angeles, I'm Kai Rizdal. Monday, 2 September. Good as always.

That's pretty good. He needs to get a female colleague to do some women. Yeah, seriously. He also did Scott Simon. So the other thing to know is that this whole thing is various NPR voices talking about Taylor Swift. Oh, that's so funny. Welcome to Weekend Edition Saturday. I'm Scott Simon.

Taylor Swift. I think we can all agree that we found a universal fondness for the pop star from her earliest crossover. I don't know. Nate Smith, we salute you. This was awesome. And you really did capture the voices of NPR.

Nailed it. Alright, and that is a wrap for today. We will be back as soon as there is political news that you need to know about. Until then, join us on Facebook. We recently launched a Facebook group, a private group, just for you to interact with us and other pod listeners. We talk about politics and share things that make us think or make us laugh. You can join the discussion by heading to npr.org. Oh, no. You can join the discussion by heading to in.pr slash politics group. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House.

I'm Miles Parks. I cover voting. I'm Tim Mack. I cover politics. And I'm Mara Liason, national political correspondent. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.