Congress

Hochul talks House races, Mamdani and Albany struggles

Published

2 months ago

August 25, 2026

ALBANY, New York — Gov. Kathy Hochul wants to prove she can be a strong top of the ticket this year to sweep down-ballot Democrats into office and help her party regain control of the House.

The stakes are high for the moderate Democrat, who took office five years ago Monday and has worked to build an anemic state party apparatus into something more formidable. Yet she must also contend with the success of candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America who have defeated institutional Democrats this year — victories that stand to upend the establishment’s plans to compete in purple areas of New York.

Unlike some moderate Democrats who are trying to halt the socialists’ advance, Hochul has taken a big-tent view of the party.

“I think the party is broad. It’s vast, but there are still a lot of people outside our urban areas who would view themselves as more traditional Democrats in the sense of FDR and Kennedy and Carter and Clinton and Obama and Biden,” she told Blue Light News in an interview Monday. “But if, in certain districts, the democratic socialist brand is more appealing, and they think it stands for something that they want to support, my job is to make it all work out. I work with everybody, whoever the voters want.”

Hochul sat down with Blue Light News Monday to discuss her five years in office, how she’s pushing for House Democrats and the role New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani will play in her reelection bid.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What has been your biggest challenge in the last five years?

Overcoming inertia here in Albany. There have been so many times when I want to just be, you know, take bold action and do what’s right, and not have institutional opposition to so many of our grand plans. I’ve had to work through that. Overall, I’d say the biggest challenge is just having to navigate, and then also to have breakthroughs, and that sometimes leads to conflict.

I don’t mind conflict if the result is better for New Yorkers than the status quo. So I think it’s partially my impatience and my desire to shake up the status quo — felt sometimes it was running into a brick wall, and then I had to dismantle that brick wall.

Who’s to blame for that institutional inertia at this point? Is it part of the climate?

There’s all kinds of lobbyists and advocates and interest groups and legislators with specific agendas, and it’s the whole ecosystem of Albany. There have been dramatic improvements since it was labeled probably the most — what did they call it?

The most dysfunctional in the country.

The most dysfunctional in the country, and I think the two [legislative] leaders that we have now have worked hard to eliminate that reputation. But beyond just elected officials, there’s just a lot of institutional, strong interests out there that conspire against changing the status quo, and I am hardwired to drive for change. I’m not complaining. I did it, but if I thought about what was a challenge, that was a challenge. But we’re overcoming it. We have overcome it in many specific instances.

I know the car insurance changes were part of that frustration. Anything else kind of fell under that inertia?

Anything we wanted to do with the State Education Department. We wanted to change how we teach literacy, and it was 20 years of a debunked theory that other states had walked away from, but it was not walked away from here.

My cell phone ban — that was not embraced by institutional interests here, and there’s organizations that at first were very resistant. Teachers were on board, teachers came on board, and I was happy with that. But there’s just the administrative roles, and the parents were anxious. There’s all sorts of groups representing everybody, and I look at that as one of our greatest accomplishments. That has had the most immediate result, and of anything we could have done, that had the most immediate impact in a positive way.

That was kind of a signature policy, fair to say?

That and overall taking care of families, whether it’s making sure no child goes hungry, there’s not a single child in the state of New York who doesn’t get two out of three meals now provided by the state, breakfast and lunch. That is huge.

That and other tax credits for families have really helped drive down poverty rates among children. Proud of that. Our work in social media has been nation leading, putting in guardrails where there had been none to protect our children. So a lot of it centers around family, whether it’s what’s happening in schools, what’s happening for parents who have to pay the bills, grocery prices, the largest middle-class tax rate cut in 70 years, taking on taxes, taking on utility bills with our utility rebate, taking on costs of groceries with our inflation rebate.

We put $5,000 back in a family’s pocket with covering the school meals for your family of two kids. School meals, $1,000 tax break for children under the age of four, $500 for higher. All this combined to say, I hear you. So I think the number one issue I took on was affordability, but specifically focused on families that are struggling because that was my life story. That was my early, early years, and then, as even a young parent, it’s one income in the house. It was hard, and those experiences have really focused me on my priorities, have driven my priorities because I know that those priorities will help New Yorkers.

Is there anything that you would have done differently looking back on the last five years? Any mistakes, any regrets that you have?

I would say I wish that the rules hadn’t been changed in the process for nominating chief judges. You know, we were trying to really help make history and have the first Latino chief judge. This person had tremendous judicial temperament and passed with flying colors. I was surprised that then the rules were changed in committees here to make it more challenging. So I would say that was frustrating for me. But what would I have done differently? I wish I had won. I wish I had won on that, wish my candidate had been able to get the fair hearing and be successful. But again, a lot of interests conspired against him, and that was probably the one big loss.

Lieutenant governor selections have also been kind of tough.

The selection isn’t tough. You do what [you can] with all the information you have at that moment. You do what you think is right. So the process isn’t flawed. Obviously becoming governor unexpectedly five years ago today required me to have a very, very shortened process to identify an individual that could be supportive. I had a relationship with Brian Benjamin. I thought he was an ideal candidate. I had no idea that charges would be brought and then later dropped against him. How do you foresee that when you’re going through a process and selecting someone? So there’s nothing to change there.

Antonio Delgado. I didn’t know him well. I did not know that loyalty was such a problem for him, or understanding the role is not that of the governor, and he understood later. Probably too late. But I function very well now. Having been lieutenant governor, I would say I’ve been performing lieutenant governor and governor simultaneously, which is why I do what I need to do in the Capitol. I spend a lot of time going out around the state and touching people and listening directly — literally in Rochester the other day, sitting in a diner talking to young people very anxious about data centers. These are the best conversations I have. Just sitting down, randomly starting to have conversations with people, and I learn a lot. I perform both roles for now, and am looking forward to having a new lieutenant governor who understands the role and has tremendous experience in government. I’d say it’s been handicapped not having a number two the way my predecessor had a hardworking number two.

What would you say is the biggest difference between how you’re approaching the job today versus how you initially thought it would go this time five years ago?

I’ve learned that it’s important to build coalitions around that idea. I initially thought if an idea was meritorious, that it would prevail on the merits, and that’s not how it works here.

Building coalitions, outside support, doing a lot more legwork, even on the cell phones, for example. I took a year to go around and build support for it and overcome the opposition from anxious parents or school boards that didn’t want to have opposition from their community. They just wanted to be left alone. But me spending the time and then listening more to young people about how they were struggling, it made me feel even more emboldened in the cause, brought people along with me.

I wanted to be bold and ambitious on housing. I wanted to overcome years and years of resistance to building more housing because I knew it was a huge driver of expenses for families, young people being denied the opportunity to have that first home, if ever. Maybe they’ll afford a decent apartment sharing with five people from college. So that first [housing] plan was bold. It was rejected because we didn’t have a chance to explain ourselves, and it was weaponized politically. That became an issue in a place like Long Island — government-paid-for literature going to everybody’s house, showing giant skyscrapers in a nice little multi-million dollar neighborhood. So, those are things that we couldn’t have foreseen in our first months on the job when I put together this bold agenda. But round two, the next year, we were very successful. So that was a learning curve there, but definitely have overcome it. And everything I set out to do in this year’s budget, for example, many of which I was told were dead on arrival, they all happened. We know the path.

Has the Democratic Party in the last five years gone too far to the left for the comfort of many voters — the very same voters you’ll need this year?

I have a broad perspective of the Democratic Party in this state, having been in every corner many times and understanding that the politics really is local.

Someone who gets elected in a particular Congressional district in New York City would never get elected in the North Country, or the Southern Tier, or perhaps even Western New York. I understand that. My job as the leader of the party in New York is to allow the locals to decide who they want as their candidates, and be as supportive as I can.

[That] does not mean I embrace a particular philosophy, and it doesn’t mean the rest of the party, outside of certain districts, should be labeled with that either. But it doesn’t mean that there aren’t people in a district that want a certain brand of candidate and a label. And I’m not going to stand here as a leader of the party [and] say no. I need to win in November. Let’s stay focused on the prize. It is taking back our country, one Congressional seat at a time, and that’s why I’ve invested a lot of political capital, and fundraising time and effort, and calling candidates and helping them work through the challenges.

I was that candidate in 2011 who took a shot at a longshot run. People said I would never win, but I knew there was a path because people were fed up with what was happening in Washington. Medicare was under attack. I knew this could win in a Republican district. I didn’t have any help from the state party. My predecessor literally sent someone to Buffalo, my home in Hamburg, to tell me not to run, because the state party would not be there for me, and the national party [the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] was not there for a long time. So I said I’m not letting that happen to people. [The] state party should be a vehicle to help all of our candidates who get through a process selected by primary or designee, as I was in a special election. I feel really good about the efforts we’ve undertaken.

I think the party is broad. It’s vast, but there are still a lot of people outside our urban areas who would view themselves as more traditional Democrats in the sense of FDR and Kennedy and Carter and Clinton and Obama and Biden. But if, in certain districts, the democratic socialist brand is more appealing, and they think it stands for something that they want to support, my job is to make it all work out. I work with everybody, whoever the voters want. My job is to make it work out.

Why do you think so many younger voters are choosing a socialist candidate, or are open to socialism? We’ve seen polling show that they’re rejecting capitalism.

The world is changing so rapidly around them. It’s a frightening time. You don’t know whether AI is going to take a job that you were told you should go to school for and study STEM and study computer science and get a degree that’ll position you for the rest of your life. The rug has been pulled out from under a lot of young people for a variety of reasons. They didn’t ask for the pandemic. Everything got so expensive. Their lives were disrupted. If they had little kids, the little kids were learning from home, and they’re trying to keep it all together while they have their jobs. Mom stayed home.

This has been a wildly disruptive time for young people starting out, whether just getting out of school or a young family. And there’s a lot of anxiety. Will the jobs they thought were going to be there? Why can’t I afford to get an apartment? My parents were able to get an apartment. My parents could even buy a home in some cases. Why is that American dream on hold for me? I didn’t do anything wrong. I did everything I was asked to do by society.

I feel that deeply as a parent who sees young people struggling like that, and why even child care, which was an issue when I was having babies, why is it still a problem today? Why can’t we as a society, do more to help lift this burden off of families? Why can’t we do more to stand up for them against high utility bills? Why can’t we be supportive of them? I have incredible empathy for people who are just feeling very unsettled and anxious about the future, and I think that drives them to listen to voices that are offering more. But at the end of the day, I feel the same concern. I’m a moderate Democrat who is responding to their same anxieties, and maybe they don’t see that, but that is hardcore what I’m all about — fighting for families, reducing the burdens they have on childcare and school lunches and cost of living.

Our interests are more aligned than people believe. I don’t think it’s a socialism versus capitalism debate. Most people are not thinking that. The vast majority of New York Democrats are not caught up in that struggle, and they’re just not. They don’t have the luxury of even having those thoughts. They’re trying to pay the bills at the end of the month and see whether or not their job is going to be there, or are they going to be replaced by AI?

Do you expect the mayor to be campaigning with you? Have you talked to him about campaigning? Will he be helpful on the trail?

I think he’ll be helpful. Like I said, I really carved out a very different path in this role. People understand I get the job done. I’m here to get a job done, not to look for glory for myself, or get into fights with the mayor of New York and show I can win the battle because I’m bigger state government. It’s never been about battling egos here. So many people have told me they appreciate — whether or not they support the mayor — they appreciate the fact that I understand my role is to make New York City successful. That’s why I am making the relationship work. As is he — he is working with me to build a relationship where we’re both putting New York City first, and that is something that this state has not seen, perhaps ever. If you go back through history, there’s always conflict between the governor and the mayor, almost universally. I wanted to end that, and we did with Bill de Blasio, Eric Adams, Zohran Mamdani.

How eager are you to prove Nancy Pelosi wrong this year after her comments from four years ago saying that New York didn’t come through for House Democrats?

Forgot about it. Don’t even think about it. I didn’t have the luxury of time in ‘22 to build out a state party. I inherited a skeleton. I took two solid years to bulk it up. In 2024, I already proved that I’m a leader, and I know how to win races. We won five out of seven battleground races with money that I raised, opening up 42 field offices, hiring an additional 100 staffers, and that’s how we win. So I already established I know how to win. Give me two years. Now I’ve got four. We’re going to do it again.

Thanks for your time.

Congress

A vulnerable Republican takes on both parties over immigration

Published

1 day ago

October 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

NEW YORK — One of the most vulnerable Republicans in the House is running on immigration — and taking on both parties over it.

Rep. Mike Lawler is hammering Democrats over “sanctuary” policies while criticizing the Trump administration’s aggressive — and at times lethal — immigration enforcement tactics.

“Renee Good and Alex Pretti should not be dead. But neither should Sheridan Gorman, and neither should Laken Riley, and neither should the thousands of people who have been murdered by people who are in our country illegally and committing crimes,” Lawler said at a candidate forum earlier this month. “So yes, ICE needs reforms, but you know what? Sanctuary jurisdictions should not exist. Criminals should be deported.”

Lawler is betting his self-described “common sense” approach can win him a third term in a suburban Hudson Valley district Kamala Harris carried in 2024. His race against Democrat Cait Conley, an Army veteran and first-time candidate, could help determine control of the House.

Immigration has helped Republicans win elections, but broad dissatisfaction with President Donald Trump’s policies has made it a less certain advantage this year. Lawler is pressing it anyway.

He’s run paid media on the topic and held multiple events decrying Democrats’ immigration policies. In a recent interview with a panel of local reporters, he even brought it up himself: “We did not touch on immigration, and I want to raise this because this is a real problem,” he said.

“Fundamentally, when you look at the challenge, I think most people want common sense, not extremism, on the issue of immigration,” Lawler told reporters after a debate with Conley earlier this week.

Whether that emphasis matches voters’ priorities is another question. A recent Emerson College poll found immigration ranked far behind the economy and threats to democracy among the district’s most important issues. And Trump, whose approval ratings are abysmal in New York state, is often at the center of the immigration debate.

Lawler has been able to criticize Trump without drawing the backlash other Republicans have faced. He repeatedly highlights his fight with the president to raise the cap for the state and local tax deduction, which Trump ended up praising him for at a rally earlier this year.

Other Republicans who’ve sought to create distance with the president haven’t fared nearly as well. Rep. María Elvira Salazar is just one. Trump eviscerated the Florida Republican after she released a campaign ad challenging his immigration crackdown.

Yet even Lawler’s leverage with Trump has limits.

He’s highlighted his support for extending Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for Haitians, thousands of whom live in his district. When the Trump administration announced it would be ending those protections for Haitians earlier this year, Lawler made his opposition known, warning it was not safe to send people back to the country.

He said he’s been working on individual cases to support Haitians in his district. Jean Bernard Charles, who lives in Rockland County, told Blue Light News that Lawler’s office was helpful in getting his wife to the country and he recommended his friends facing the same situation to go to the office for help.

Lawler also cosponsored legislation to extend TPS, which is stalled in the Senate. He argued that he’s fulfilled his role by passing a bill through the House and has blamed Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for not moving it along. (In response, Schumer’s office said in a statement that the leader “moved to extend Haitian TPS on the Senate floor by unanimous consent and was blocked by Senate Republicans and President Trump, who Lawler constantly supports.”)

“I’ve explained this to the White House, repeatedly, that ending TPS was a stupid decision,” Lawler said at the forum. “I am opposed to it, and I will continue to fight back against it.”

The administration hasn’t budged, though. Community leaders in Rockland County, where the district’s Haitian community is based, say many immigrants are too scared to leave their homes. Some are growing frustrated that more isn’t being done.

“If there was the help, our folks would not be wearing ankle monitors,” said Nicole Hines, the NAACP’s mid-Hudson and Westchester regional director.

Renold Julien, the executive director of Konbit Neg Lakay, a Haitian community center in Lawler’s district, pointed to Lawler’s close relationship with Trump, including the president coming to the district earlier this year and Lawler appearing at a meeting at the White House with Jewish leaders, some of whom are from the district.

“I feel bad for Mike Lawler,” Julien said. “Friends don’t treat friends like that. … His friend Donald Trump is doing his best to create a problem between him and the dark-skinned immigrants here of Rockland.”

Conley has also questioned his work regarding Haitian TPS.

“He can have enough capital to get Donald Trump to fly out here and visit the district in May, to go to Dallas at Trump’s midterm convention and be a keynote speaker, but he can’t get Donald Trump to actually take care of people in the Hudson Valley and protect our Haitian community by extending TPS?” she asked.

Democrat Cait Conley and Republican Rep. Mike Lawler participate in a debate hosted by News 12 on Sept. 28, 2026.

When asked how she would advocate for Haitians if she wins — especially since she won’t have Trump’s ear like Lawler does — Conley said she thinks Democrats will win the Senate, clearing the way for the bill to extend TPS to get to the president’s desk.

Lawler has repeatedly bashed Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul’s recent law that ended cooperation between local police departments and Immigration and Customs Enforcement on civil immigration cases, and questioned why the state is not honoring the Department of Homeland Security’s detainer requests, as the agency has stated. The parents of Sheridan Gorman — a teenager from Lawler’s district who was killed earlier this year in Chicago, allegedly by a Venezuelan living in the U.S. illegally — have appeared on the trail with him a handful of times to criticize Democrats’ immigration policies.

“The sanctuary policies being pushed by Kathy Hochul and Democrats killed our daughter,” Jessica Gorman, Sheridan’s mother, said in an advertisement for Lawler. At an event last week, she accused Hochul and Conley of not caring about protecting families.

Hochul has waved off such criticisms, saying that law enforcement is still permitted to work with federal officials to remove violent criminals.

Even if immigration isn’t voters’ top concern, it’s a topic Lawler can own, said Sarah Chamberlain, the head of the Republican Main Street Partnership, of which Lawler is a member. The economy is a harder sell to frustrated voters, she added. Focusing on Hochul’s policy also taps into her middling popularity as she runs for reelection. Hochul’s opponent, Bruce Blakeman, has similarly been hammering the issue.

“He’s been extremely successful finding middle ground on it,” Chamberlain said of Lawler, praising his focus on deporting immigrants who have committed crimes and noting the district’s proximity to New York City. “He uniquely can do it because it’s very specific to his district and to where he lives. Some other members couldn’t be doing it the same way.”

Not everyone is convinced his approach will work.

“Mike Lawler is reading the tea leaves and realizing what we have been saying is true — that the vast majority of Americans across this country and in this state are against Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda,” said Murad Awawdeh, president and CEO of NYIC Action, the political arm of the nonprofit New York Immigration Coalition. “While he may be doing a couple of vibes-oriented things to illustrate he’s not 100 percent MAGA and mass deportation, his actions actually speak louder than his words.”

Awawdeh said that even though Lawler has made some moves on Haitian TPS, that “doesn’t erase the horrors that he’s cosigned to date” in supporting increased funding for ICE. And while Lawler does back the Dignity Act — the bipartisan immigration reform bill that would create a vehicle for potentially millions of immigrants who entered the country unlawfully to gain work permits and remain in the U.S. legally — some immigrant advocates argue it doesn’t go far enough in creating a pathway to citizenship. The bill has yet to reach the House floor for a vote.

“Immigrant families are not props for his moderate image,” Awawdeh said.

When asked if he thinks his immigration message is getting muddled, Lawler said he has “never wavered in my position” and that most Americans “want the border secure, they want criminals deported and they want cashless bail gone.”

Lawler has sought to cast Conley as too weak on the border and crime, pointing to her support for revoking partnerships between local police and ICE, known as 287(g) agreements.

Conley told Blue Light News she’s in favor of getting rid of those agreements because she wants “our local cops to be focused on protecting our local communities, not doing the federal government’s job.” While she said former President Joe Biden messed up border security, she criticized ICE under Trump for “violence against American citizens” and not “prioritizing violent criminals.” She said she does not support cashless bail, which Lawler has repeatedly pointed to as a catalyst of crime, along with sanctuary policies.

Conley, though, has focused more of her energy on voters’ top concern this cycle: affordability. She said she hears concerns about paying bills and affording gas and health care more frequently on the trail, as opposed to immigration. She accused Lawler of using the issue as a “distraction” to “shift focus away from where he is failing our communities.”

Mike Madrid, a Republican political consultant, said it’s commendable that Lawler is finding balance on the issue but “the problem is no one’s making their voting decision based on this” and it “doesn’t cut through the headwinds on the economy.”

Lawler thinks voters are picking up on the nuance.

“I’ve been leading on this issue for years, saying that the immigration system needs to be reformed,” he told Blue Light News after a recent press conference slamming Hochul’s law. “These things are not in conflict. It’s recognizing how complex our immigration system is, but it’s also having common sense and applying it.”

Congress

No one wants to be on the Senate Ethics Committee

Published

1 day ago

October 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Senate could soon be in the market for a new internal cop. Nobody wants the job.

The top two lawmakers on the Senate Ethics Committee are poised to take over other panels next year, depending on the outcome of the midterms. Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, the current chair, is in line to potentially lead the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, while the current senior Democrat, Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, would chair the Foreign Relations Committee if his party flips the chamber.

Asked if he’d want to stay on as Ethics chair, Lankford laughed.

“No one asks to be on the Ethics Committee. No one — you can ask Chris Coons the same thing — no one asks to be on the Ethics Committee,” he said. “You’re asked to be on it and it’s a way of serving your conference.”

Coons was more diplomatic when asked if he wanted to serve on the panel again in any capacity, patting Lankford and himself on the back for their ability to “reach effective, swift, reasonable bipartisan resolutions to complex issues.”

“I enjoy the members of the committee,” he added.

Serving as chair of the Ethics Committee is an unenviable role — requiring lawmakers to lead investigations into allegations of misconduct against their coworkers and, in many cases, their friends.

There are also few rewards for the assignment: Unlike other committee leadership posts, sitting atop Ethics doesn’t provide a fundraising foothold or generate campaign ad-worthy headlines. It leaves little incentive for any lawmaker to take on the task.

“Nobody wants to be chair of the Ethics Committee. Period,” said Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho, the second-most-senior member of the panel who is also expected to continue leading Foreign Relations Republicans. “It’s very difficult when you have matters you have to deal with concerning your friends and colleagues.”

The third-ranking Ethics Committee Republican, Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska, noted she’s on tap to become Rules Committee chair next year.

As for whether she’d be willing to lead Ethics, too, she replied, “Deb Fischer is not going to do that.”

Unlike the House Ethics Committee, which has picked up the pace in recent months in holding members accountable, the Senate Ethics Committee has gone through long stretches of public inaction. It has issued just two public rebukes in the past decade: a letter of admonition to former Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) in 2018, and one to the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in 2023. Aside from those instances, one would have to go all the way back to 2012 to find the next most recent public disciplinary action.

When Menendez was found by the panel to have improperly received gifts from a friend — then used his position of power to advance that person’s interests following a mistrial in his federal bribery case — the committee wrote him a letter of admonition requiring him to repay the gifts.

Menendez went on to be convicted in a subsequent federal corruption case on charges of bribery and acting as a foreign agent, resulting in an 11-year prison sentence.

The Senate Ethics Committee slapped Graham with an admonishment in 2023 for “impermissibly conducted campaign activity in a federal building.”

Neither Senate Majority Leader John Thune nor Minority Leader Chuck Schumer — who are both focused on the Nov. 3 midterms — have spoken publicly about who they might put atop the Ethics panel if they find themselves needing a new chair.

There are also some unknowns. For Lankford to take over Homeland Security, for instance, current Chair Rand Paul of Kentucky would need to first decide whether to decamp for the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, where Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy’s retirement will leave an opening.

Given the Ethics Committee’s distinction as a “select” panel, Senate leaders have more leeway over who they tap for a chair position, especially if they run into hurdles finding someone willing to take it.

It’s rare, but not unheard of, for a senator to lead both the Ethics Committee and a “standing” committee simultaneously. It’s happened on three occasions since the committee was given its name in 1977, according to data compiled by the Congressional Research Service and the Senate Historical Office.

That means Lankford or Coons could end up being asked to continue in their roles, even if they are also chairing another panel. If not, Senate leaders could struggle to find a replacement further down the committee rosterr, which would force them to bring in a senator not currently on the panel.

Democrats already need to recruit at least one new member to the panel: Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire is not returning for the next Congress, and Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii is expected to succeed outgoing Sen. Dick Durbin in the caucus’s No. 2 leadership spot.

As for Republicans, Risch said he’ll pass.

He burst into laughter and said he was confused why someone would ask if he wanted to serve as chair.

Congress

Bernie Moreno says GOP needs to prep for ‘Last Supper’ reconciliation bill

Published

2 days ago

October 15, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Bernie Moreno said Thursday he expects the Senate to move a party-line legislative package after the midterm elections — especially if Democrats flip one or both chambers.

“We will do a reconciliation bill — one way or the other we will,” the Ohio Republican told reporters at the Capitol, referring to the simple-majority budget process. “Obviously, if we lose control of Congress, it’ll be the Last Supper.”

Such a bill, he added, would be “giant” and would include “all the Republican priorities that we can get done.”

The House approved a framework for a party-line bill over the summer that includes war funding, farm aid and election integrity incentives. But the push has so far run aground in the Senate

Moreno said the threat of imminent Democratic control of either the House or Senate would jumpstart matters — and potentially push Republicans to include a debt-ceiling increase as well.

The borrowing limit is set to be reached sometime next year, and a Democratic majority could have significant leverage to demand concessions as part of any deal — something the GOP could forestall by acting in the lame-duck session.

“I mean, nobody wants to see a debt default,” Moreno said. “That would be 1929 on steroids.”

Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.) also told reporters on Capitol Hill that a new reconciliation bill “has to happen” after the election but warned against expanding the scope of the House framework.

“I think you have to go with the one that we’ve got,” he told reporters. “The Senate needs to act and get the job done.”

A senior member of the Armed Services Committee, Wittman said the legislation is “key to restock our weapons magazine” and “should be the main focus when [members] get back.”

Moreno said if Democrats win control of both chambers, Republicans should stay in session nonstop to pass GOP legislation — which could be a tall order given worries about poor post-election attendance.

“If we lose the House and the Senate, we should be here from Nov. 9 until Dec. 31 with no break at all,” Moreno said. “Like, we’ll have turkeys here for Thanksgiving because we have to get this done.”