For congressionalphiles, there is nothing sexier than a well-crafted budget reconciliation measure.
This week, the House and Senate will vote on budget reconciliation measures in an effort to make it slightly easier for President Biden to sign a nearly $2 trillion COVID-19 relief package, all without any assistance from the Republicans.
For those of us who love Congress, but not necessarily the arcane rules that govern each chamber, procedures and rules — like reconciliation — often induce a headache or two.
Fortunately for journalists (and staffers and lawmakers) procedural headaches can be preempted with the help of rare individuals like Eric Ueland – my guest on this week’s episode of Article One with Molly Hooper.
Ueland helps decipher what-the-heck-is-going-on-in-the-Senate, explains how a 50-50 Senate can operate, and clarifies the whole budget reconciliation process and how it works. He also lifts the curtain on White House/Congress relations and law-making.
During his career, Ueland has held many high-ranking positions in the nation’s capital city – in both public and private sectors. But, his experience as former chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), former staff director of the Senate Budget Committee, and former White House Legislative Affairs Director for President Donald Trump, feature most prominently in our Article One conversation on the branch of government.
In my early days reporting on the Senate, a body that operates by “unanimous consent,” Ueland was one of the first people I searched out for answers to thorny and convoluted questions on procedural shenanigans.
And I wasn’t alone.
The long-time GOP operative’s reputation as a Senate historian/parliamentarian/policy strategist, with the skill to patiently explain operations and procedures, made Ueland the go-to guy for confused reporters, staffers and lawmakers.
We spoke the last week of January, and I’m sure you will find the answers to all those questions swirling around in your head!
Gainer, who led the USCP as police chief from 2002-2006 and then served as Senate Sergeant at Arms (SAA) from 2007-2014, shares his informed insights on the Jan 6th attack, its aftermath and what may come next to protect the thousands of staffers, lawmakers and support staff who work on the Capitol Complex.
He says an outside, independent investigation, similar to the 9-11 Commission, is needed to discover the failures of intelligence and to recommend measures to prevent a similar attack from occurring in the future.
This is a wide-ranging interview that delves into preventative security measures, morale of the USCP and background on the notoriously secretive USCP operations, among other topics.
“Protecting and defending the Constitution,” the oath taken by our elected leaders, means securing the institutions where they gather to govern the United States of America.
On January 6th, that security was lacking.
Ten days ago, an angry mob attacked the U.S. Capitol – our nation’s iconic symbol of democracy, as well as Article One’s impressive home.
Since that disturbing day, sources on Capitol Hill have told me similar variations of “heads must roll,” “security plans need to be bolstered” and “stovepipes must come down.”
Lawmakers, staffers, support staff and journalists who cover Congress want answers, not just for intelligence failures, but also for assurances that it won’t happen again.
An outside, independent commission, tasked with investigating the law enforcement failures of January 6th, and subsequently providing recommendations to prevent future domestic attacks on the Capitol, is needed, a former head of the United States Capitol Police (USCP) tells Article One.
“The 9/11 commission may be one of the best examples of an independent assessment,” retired U.S. Capitol Police Chief and Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance Gainer says in an upcoming podcast episode of Article Onewith Molly Hooper.
He’s not alone in this thinking. A growing number of bipartisan lawmakers in the House and Senate have also called for some form of an outside inquiry but to date, Congress has not voted on the matter.
In her Friday statement announcing “an immediate review of the security of the U.S. Capitol Complex,” under the direction of Ret. Lt. General Russel Honore, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) confirmed “there is strong support for an outside commission to conduct an after action review.”
Honore’s review will delve into the “security infrastructure, interagency processes and procedures and command and control,” Pelosi stated.
But it is unclear if that type of review will be enough to satisfy the large number of members calling for an independent commission similar to the 9-11 Commission.
Gainer, who led the USCP as police chief from 2002-2006 and then served as Senate Sergeant at Arms (SAA) from 2007-2014, says that USCP, DC police, the Defense Department, the FBI and the Secret Service will all be “doing after action reports” to figure out “what do I have to worry about tomorrow that I didn’t do today?”
But, the former USCP Chief believes a broader inquiry is necessary in light of recent “cross talk that we’ve had already, about what intelligence was available and what people had … it gets a little bit multi-jurisdictional so, an independent commission with the power to do (investigate) and not be shy about pulling punches” will be required.
Congress created the bipartisan, independent “9-11 Commission” in the wake of the September 11, 2001 al Qaida terrorist attacks on New York City, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania (the plane many believe was headed to the U.S. Capitol).
The commission was tasked with preparing “a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks” and it was mandated to “provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.”
Gainer took command of the USCP in 2002, a short time after the 9–11 attacks. During his four year tenure as USCP police chief, and subsequent eight years as Senate Sergeant at Arms, he implemented and oversaw many security enhancements on the capitol complex.
A comparable outside investigation into the January 6, 2021 breach of Capitol Hill would undoubtedly demand answers from Congress – an institution that prefers to oversee and investigate Article Two (executive branch) departments and agencies, as opposed to subjecting themselves to rigorous public self-examination.
In his wide-ranging interview with Article One, Gainer sheds light on the inner workings of the notoriously secretive USCP operations, which he acknowledges are “less open” than most other city police departments.
The former chief provides background on decision-making among the leaders atop Capitol Hill’s law enforcement operation, and shares his insights on the current morale among officers (it is low).
At the end of our conversation, Gainer directs a special message to Capitol Hill-based Article One listeners – “young and inexperienced or even old and experienced” – officers, staffers, and lawmakers who work in the Capitol or on campus at the Supreme Court and Library of Congress.
“PTSD and the feelings” that accompany it are real, and Capitol Hill workers “are going to need support for some time to come,” Gainer said, adding “my heart goes out to you and you’ve got to take care of each other.”
Gainer projects that for some time to come, a key question shall remain top of mind for the thousands who call the U.S. Capitol their “office:” how will Congress regroup and provide security to lawmakers, personnel, committee staffers, support staff, journalists and (eventually) tourists who populate the campus every day?
Make sure to subscribe to “Article One with Molly Hooper” wherever you listen to your podcasts so you don’t miss this interview with Terrance Gainer, as well as future episodes dedicated to the very important topic of protecting our precious Article One branch of government.
This is the 10th episode of ARTICLE ONE and I’m joined by House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth (D-Ky.)
Yarmuth, serving in his seventh term, represents Kentucky’s 3rd Congressional district, based in Louisville.
The former journalist spoke with me in a lengthy discussion. In our conversation, Yarmuth reveals the dynamics among the Kentucky congressional delegation (reminder, Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) and Sen. Rand Paul (R) belong to that bunch), how his Bourbon Caucus actually influences policy, what reconciliation could mean if Democrats win back control of the Senate and how earmarks helped rebuild parts of his Louisville-based district.
Following the House Democratic caucus’ underwhelming election results, a key member of leadership told ARTICLE ONE that his party needs to get better at empathy.
House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) recently sat down for a conversation with me for the podcast. In our chat, Yarmuth reflected on some reasons why the caucus failed to hold onto a number of vulnerable Democratic seats in the 2020 election.
Yarmuth’s theory – that he shared with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) – is that a majority of voters don’t vote on issues, “60 percent vote with their gut – it’s visceral.”
The seven-term Kentucky lawmaker says that voters want candidates to understand the challenges they have, “that you are empathetic. We’re great at policy … We’re not good at empathy.”
Yarmuth says that Democrats “have the empathy – we just don’t show it well enough and instead would rather say ‘hey – look what we’re going to do for you.”
Yarmuth’s candid reflections are just one part of our lengthy conversation.
Tune in on Friday morning — ahem — download the conversation to hear Yarmuth – a former journalist – reveal the dynamics among the Kentucky congressional delegation (reminder, Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) and Sen. Rand Paul (R) belong to that bunch), how his Bourbon Caucus actually influences policy, what reconciliation could mean if Democrats win back control of the Senate and how earmarks helped rebuild parts of his Louisville-based district.
Recently, I sat down with outgoing GOP Rep. Ted Yoho (Fla.) – among the matters we discussed, I asked him about the aftermath of his encounter with Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) that took place over the summer.
What was reported: Yoho challenged AOC’s position on crime and poverty … then a reporter overheard Yoho calling the progressive freshman lawmaker a derogatory term (which Yoho denies saying).
Vanity Fair featured AOC in their December 2020 edition – and the encounter, the apology and the privileged resolution – came up again.
In the immediate aftermath of that political imbroglio, Yoho describes the influx of hate mail to his congressional offices and possibly criminal behavior that was aimed at him and his family.
“There was close to 20,000 hate emails, phone calls to all my offices … we’ve had death threats, we had fecal matter sent to my wife and to my kids, my kids were going to be raped they were going to get killed,” Yoho said adding that an individual who threatened his life may be headed to prison after an investigation by the Capitol Hill police.
While Yoho took a lot of heat for challenging a smaller, younger, female lawmaker, the congressman points out that he has challenged GOP leaders including President Trump.
When Yoho is passionate about a particular matter be it poverty and crime or healthcare, the former veterinarian stands up for his beliefs.
He describes one particular encounter with President Trump over the GOP’s failed healthcare plan. (Link to the interview below.)
But the conversation about AOC was a small portion of our wide-ranging discussion.
Yoho came to Congress eight years ago, as an outsider who defeated a longtime Florida Republican incumbent. Since that time, the congressman has dealt with controversies and intra-party ire but he has also worked across the aisle on a number of issues including foreign affairs and agriculture.
Outgoing GOP Rep. Francis Rooney (Fla.) is leaving Congress at the end of the year and he’s not saying which presidential candidate will earn his vote on Election Day.
In a wide-ranging interview with Article One last month, Rooney spoke of accomplishments and frustrations. A key frustration: allowing the Republican party to relinquish their stake in climate change and environmental issues at a time when young people and suburban voters say that it is of utmost importance.
“The Republicans were the original environmentalists, but we seem to have lost our way,” Rooney said in the interview.
Rooney, who was elected to the House in 2016, says he is leaving because his campaign promises were fulfilled and it is time to go.
New York’s 22nd Congressional District Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D) learned how to become an effective legislator in the state assembly.
That experience helped him when he came to D.C. in 2019 and managed to get two standalone veterans-related bills signed into law. President Trump also signed into law several other measures that included Brindisi-sponsored bills as part of a larger package.
The New York lawmaker is currently locked in a tough reelection fight with the former lawmaker he defeated to win his current seat – former Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.)
But in our conversation, Brindisi and I focused on his work on behalf of the district and the daily grind of legislating instead of the politics of winning another term. (No mudslinging, etc.)
Some of the topics we discussed include the likelihood of a 5th COVID relief deal before Election Day, his work with the Problem Solvers Caucus, his stance on defunding the police, who he would support for Speaker (if Dems and Brindisi win on Nov. 3) and how he bridges differences with GOP lawmakers to create legislation on tough issues.
With constituents hurting, in need of economic relief, moderate GOP and Democratic lawmakers have varying degrees of optimism that a fifth COVID relief package will be enacted before Election Day.
New York Democratic Rep. Anthony Brindisi is pressing leaders in both parties to return to the negotiating table.
Last week, amidst the wild swings of on/off negotiations between the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif), New York Dem Rep. Anthony Brindisi said he would “remain optimistic.”
We spoke the day after President Trump tweeted to “stop all negotiations until after the election.” (See below for the ups/downs of the COVID relief talks.)
“We all know how much (President Trump) loves the stock market and when he sees those numbers going down and he sees that reaction to his statement yesterday, I think he has got to take a pause for a second and say maybe my comment wasn’t such a good idea … we’ve got to get back to the negotiating table,” Brindisi told Article One.
Brindisi’s prediction proved prescient because a short-time later, President Trump pivoted from ending negotiations to offering a $1.8/1.9 trillion COVID relief package.
The White House’s new offer of $1.8 trillion for a relief deal moves closer to the House Democrats’ demand for $2.2 trillion. For weeks, President Trump would not budge from his $1.6 trillion top-line number.
But, the Senate Republicans are not quite there yet. As of this writing, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) intends to hold a vote on a smaller package next week – challenging Senate Democrats to filibuster the relief bill, as they did in September.
The numbers are still far apart, so why are lawmakers optimistic?
House and Senate office switchboards are lighting up: industries (including the airlines), individuals, local governments, all have been hard hit by the COVID crisis and lawmakers are hearing about it at home in the districts.
Arizona Rep. David Schweikert explained that some industries in his Phoenix/Scottsdale area district “are doing remarkably well but there’s a lot that are not: take a look at our hotels and our tourism, some of the restaurants that cater to that population have been just brutalized.”
“I’m hoping we can step up and stop this crazy impasse of everything or nothing and help them. … I’m inherently really optimistic: I’m 58 (years old) my wife’s 58 (years old) and we have a five-year-old.”
Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.)
Moderates, especially lawmakers locked in tough re-election battles, are open to making a deal and getting relief back to the districts.
Shortly before heading back to her central Virginia district, Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger said “all options are on the table if it helps get support to the folks who need it. … I’m ever the optimist.”
Moderate GOP Nebraska Rep. Don Bacon, “wasn’t optimistic” that a deal would come together before Election Day but was insistent that without help, certain industries won’t come back.
Bacon said that his Omaha-based district is doing a little better than the rest of the country in terms of jobs lost/gained but the city still has “niche industries that are on their backs and they’re going to die.”
With the on again/off again developments (or lack of developments) in the negotiations, I went back to check-in with the moderates to make sure that they still believe a package could come together soon.
Rep. Brindisi has redoubled his efforts to get both sides to the negotiation table yet has been disturbed by the comments made by GOP and Democratic leaders, a source close to Brindisi told me.
Consider this: the four lawmakers I spoke with represent swing districts – these people are moderates who are running for reelection in very tight contests, according to the non-partisan Cook Political Report.
In order to get rehired by their constituents, these vulnerable members must answer the needs of their constituents. Leaders realize how important it is for these lawmakers to get rehired … re-elected by the voters.
Again – whether it will come together is a separate matter. But for lawmakers – GOP and Democratic – in swing districts – getting a win for a fifth COVID relief measure is very important … and leaders in both parties are feeling the pressure.
At this point, it is unclear what will happen. With little more than 20 days until Nov. 3, the clock is running out.
So how did we get here?
The ups and downs, on again/off again negotiations
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have taken the lead in negotiations to reach a fifth COVID related relief package.
In mid-September the negotiations ground to a standstill with Dems demanding a $3-4 trillion measure (which the House passed in May) while The White House called that number a non-starter. Senate Republicans favored a smaller $500 billion measure.
At that time, the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus stepped in with an effort to shake things up – introducing a general framework of a deal supported by 25 Republican and 25 Democratic House members.
Spanberger, Brindisi and Bacon are all members of the Problem Solvers Caucus, a group formed to “inspire negotiators to return to the table.” They helped to craft and sell the “March to Common Ground: Bipartisan COVID Relief Framework” to the various member House caucuses, reaching out to senators as well.
Key lawmakers on both sides of the aisle approached the idea cautiously, as Spanberger explained during our interview.
However, as the Washington Post’s Erica Werner reported in the last week of September, Speaker Pelosi and Democratic leaders offered a “scaled down” HEROES Act with a $2.2 trillion price tag.
The White House responded with a $1.6 trillion package. Still, both sides engaged in daily discussions, continuing their negotiations even after the House passed the HEROES Act 2.0 on Oct. 1.
Ensuring Speaker Pelosi did not to send her rank-and-file home for the recess empty-handed, the House passed a $2.2 trillion in COVID related spending package that included money for stimulus checks, unemployment insurance, small business grants, local and state first responders, testing and tracing and schools.
Still, eighteen Democratic lawmakers, including Brindisi and Spanberger, opposed the package, calling it a partisan exercise.
On that same day, the White House revealed that President Trump had COVID-19.
As members departed Capitol Hill, both parties still believed a deal would be struck, according to various reporting and sources I spoke to who are familiar with the discussions.
Especially since House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) let members know they could be called back to D.C. on 24 hours notice, to vote on a negotiated relief package.
Several days later however, President Trump seemed to end the negotiations.
On Oct. 6th the President tweeted:
But soon, as Rep. Brindisi predicted, President Trump reconsidered his “stop negotiating until after the election,” statement.
By the end of the week, the White House upped the amount of the relief deal to $1.8 trillion. Some Democrats, including progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), seemed willing, but Nancy Pelosi was still arguing for more.
In a conference call with her Democratic colleagues, Pelosi said xxx, according to a source on the call.
In the meantime, some Senate Republicans balked/are balking at a $1.8 trillion price tag and want to try to pass their own smaller package.
Sen GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) says the Senate will try to vote on such a package next week. When McConnell tried to vote on a $500 billion COVID relief package last month, Senate Democrats refused to allow the chamber to vote on it.
The posturing by President Trump and Speaker Pelosi belie the reality: both parties need a win on COVID relief.
The challenge remains: IF the White House strikes a deal with Pelosi … will that deal pass in the Senate.
Covering Congress for as long as I have, anything can happen in 20 days, including the passage of a fifth COVID relief bill.
We spoke in late September shortly before the ebbs and flows and ebb of the negotiations between the White House and Speaker Nancy Pelosi on reaching a 5th COVID-related economic recovery package.
As of this writing, it appears Rep. Bacon’s outlook proved prescient.
Bacon touches on politics briefly in our chat but mostly we discussed his work as a lawmaker representing a deeply purple district in a deeply divided Congress.
The retired Air Force lieutenant colonel shares bits of his personal life, areas where he disagrees with President Trump and ways that legislating in Congress has helped the folks of the 2nd District in Nebraska.
Take a listen and let me know your thoughts.
*** Correction – I accidentally assigned Bacon to the 5th district … mea culpa … Bacon represents the SECOND District … many thanks for the heads up (she types sheepishly) ***