Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast.
Speaker 2: Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appo, CarPlay
Speaker 2: and then Droun Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen
Speaker 2: on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us
Speaker 2: live on YouTube.
Speaker 3: We also have to bring you an important conversation live
Speaker 3: from Capitol Hill. Joining us now on both Bloomberg Television
Speaker 3: and radio is Democratic Congressman Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, who
Speaker 3: sits on the House Intelligence Committee and also just returned
Speaker 3: from a visit to Ukraine where she met with President
Speaker 3: Vladimir's Eelinsky. Congresswoman, thank you so much for being with
Speaker 3: us today as we question now the fate of this
Speaker 3: supplemental package that would provide sixty billion dollars in ad
Speaker 3: to Ukraine in the House, can you tell us first
Speaker 3: what you saw and heard what happens if Ukraine does
Speaker 3: not get this aid.
Speaker 4: The provision of this aid through this national security this
Speaker 4: national security supplemental is of the utmost importance. It is
Speaker 4: dire importance to our national security. And on the ground
Speaker 4: when we were in Kiev, what we kept hearing from
Speaker 4: Ukrainian military officials, from President Zelenski himself, but importantly also
Speaker 4: from US officials at the US embassy. Is how incredibly
Speaker 4: vital this aid is to Ukraine's ability to defend itself,
Speaker 4: to defeat Putin, to regain more of its territory, to
Speaker 4: protect its citizens, and ultimately to defeat Russian aggression and
Speaker 4: Vladimir Putin's army.
Speaker 5: Well, reality seems to be biting pretty hard here, a congresswoman.
Speaker 5: I appreciate the message that you're delivering today, but your
Speaker 5: speaker says, this is doa that this funding will not
Speaker 5: even get a vote in the House of Representatives, and
Speaker 5: the calendar looks pretty challenging right now. Even if this
Speaker 5: money does get past, it's going to take a long time.
Speaker 5: Do we need to be honest with ourselves or honest
Speaker 5: with Ukraine about what's happening in your House of Representatives?
Speaker 4: The reality is that one person, the Speaker of the House,
Speaker 4: has the ability to bring this bill for a vote.
Speaker 4: If he were to bring the bill for a vote today,
Speaker 4: it would pass with.
Speaker 6: An overwhelming majority.
Speaker 4: This bill would deliver vital support to our Ukrainian allies.
Speaker 4: It would deliver vital support to our Israeli allies. This
Speaker 4: bill would deliver vital humanitarian aid to stabilize a region
Speaker 4: that is currently destabilized. And this bill would support our
Speaker 4: partners and our.
Speaker 6: Allies in Taiwan.
Speaker 4: Because make no mistake, right now, China is watching, Iran
Speaker 4: is watching, and Vladimir Putin is watching as the world
Speaker 4: is questioning, will the United States continue you to be
Speaker 4: a global leader for democracy, in support of freedom and
Speaker 4: American values? Will the United States actually take steps and
Speaker 4: work in its own our own best national security interests
Speaker 4: and pass this bill?
Speaker 6: And that decision comes down to one man.
Speaker 4: Is he going to choose the national security priorities of
Speaker 4: the United States?
Speaker 6: Bring this bill forward.
Speaker 4: I don't even care if the Speaker votes for it himself.
Speaker 4: He just needs to bring the bill because the reality
Speaker 4: is failure to bring this bill is an abdication of
Speaker 4: our responsibility.
Speaker 6: It is an.
Speaker 4: Absolute capitulation to Vladimir Putin, and it endangers our country.
Speaker 6: So there's no other option but starts to bring it.
Speaker 3: But Congresswoman, theoretically there is another legislative option that could
Speaker 3: go around the speaker, a discharged petition. Are you effectively
Speaker 3: telling us today that you don't think that stands a
Speaker 3: real chance of working.
Speaker 6: Oh.
Speaker 4: I think all options are on the table. But I
Speaker 4: think it's tragically sad that we are trying to come
Speaker 4: up with procedural avenues around.
Speaker 6: The most simple and straightforward manner. We're the House of Representatives.
Speaker 6: We're supposed to take votes up or down.
Speaker 4: This bill represents a major priority for our security, and
Speaker 4: so yes, I am happy to look at all of
Speaker 4: the other contingencies we could put in place if we
Speaker 4: are dealing with the reality that the Speaker of the
Speaker 4: House doesn't want to protect our country and our national
Speaker 4: security interests. But the fact that we're actually having to
Speaker 4: plan for these sorts of contingencies is, in my mind tragic.
Speaker 4: I'll continue working with my colleagues to make those plans
Speaker 4: because we need this bill to pass. But the bottom
Speaker 4: line is it could pass today if only the Speaker
Speaker 4: would bring it.
Speaker 7: Well, you wonder what's going on here.
Speaker 5: Some have suggested it's a bit of gas lighting going
Speaker 5: on at the hand of Donald Trump, And as long
Speaker 5: as the speaker's on the phone with mar Alango, this
Speaker 5: is never going to happen.
Speaker 4: Congresswoman, you know what, I that's one step even further.
Speaker 4: The idea that a former president and you know now
Speaker 4: candidate for president, would want to stand in the way
Speaker 4: of the United States Congress protecting our own national security interests.
Speaker 4: The United States Congress House of Representatives passing a bill
Speaker 4: that passed with the support of seventy senators, Democrats and Republicans.
Speaker 4: It is absolutely just ridiculous that Donald Trump would be
Speaker 4: on the phone with the Speaker and encouraging him to
Speaker 4: do anything other than bringing a bill forward that protects
Speaker 4: our interests, that protects our values, and that ensures our
Speaker 4: national security interests are prioritized.
Speaker 3: And you mentioned that you think Vladimir Putin, the president
Speaker 3: of Russia, is watching this very closely. I do have
Speaker 3: a question pertaining to Russia for you, Congresswoman, given your
Speaker 3: seat on the Intel Committee. The chair of that committee,
Speaker 3: Mike Turner, posted put out a statement today saying he
Speaker 3: was asking the president to declassify all information related to
Speaker 3: a serious national security threat. Congresswoman, we've seen reporting that
Speaker 3: this is about Russia.
Speaker 6: Can you confirm that.
Speaker 4: I respect you answer for asking that question, but as
Speaker 4: a former intelligence officer and current member of the Intelligence Committee,
Speaker 4: I'm going to just defer to the statement that the
Speaker 4: Chairman has made and not provide any additional comment on that.
Speaker 3: Well, Congressman, could you at least tell us if this
Speaker 3: should concern us, Should we be eminently worried about a
Speaker 3: threat here wherever it's coming from.
Speaker 4: I think we should always be concerned of the threats
Speaker 4: that are targeting the United States. There will always be
Speaker 4: foes the world round. We know them economically and militarily, China, Iran,
Speaker 4: North Korea, Russia, and that is why we must pass
Speaker 4: this national security supplement, And particularly at a time when
Speaker 4: we do see a statement coming out from the Chairman
Speaker 4: of the Intelligence Committee noting that there are specific threats
Speaker 4: at this time that there have been specific briefings about.
Speaker 6: No, there's no time like the present for us.
Speaker 4: To actually focus on our national security and push this
Speaker 4: bill forward.
Speaker 8: I realized you don't want to talk about this, Congresswoman.
Speaker 5: As a former CIA officer, I wonder if you think
Speaker 5: this is irresponsible for the Chairman to put something out
Speaker 5: like that without telling people what the heck it means.
Speaker 4: So it's not an issue of want, It's an issue
Speaker 4: of what I legally can do, and so I can't
Speaker 4: disclose any information related to what I've been briefed on
Speaker 4: and I am aware that the all statements, there's been significant,
Speaker 4: you know, discussion within the intelligence community about what can
Speaker 4: be made public or not. And so I'll defer to
Speaker 4: the Chairman for what regarding what he put out, but
Speaker 4: I you know, in legally and with my responsibility to
Speaker 4: protect classified information, we'll not comment beyond what it.
Speaker 6: Is that he put out in his very brief statement.
Speaker 3: All right, Congressman will certainly we respect that. We appreciate
Speaker 3: you answering what you can. On a different related matter,
Speaker 3: Joe was mentioning the legislative calendar how it may not
Speaker 3: favor passage of emergency aid, and in part that's because
Speaker 3: we're just a few legislative days away from potentially a
Speaker 3: partial government shutdown. The deadline is March first. You're going
Speaker 3: to be out of session for a few weeks between
Speaker 3: now and then. Can it be averted?
Speaker 9: If so?
Speaker 4: How this is another question where, you know, when Speaker
Speaker 4: Johnson stepped forward and said he wanted to be speaker,
Speaker 4: that puts him and his leadership team in.
Speaker 6: Charge of the calendar.
Speaker 4: Certainly, I think it's totally appropriate if Speaker Johnson wants
Speaker 4: to say, you know what, not only do we have
Speaker 4: this supplemental, this National Security supplemental to do, but we
Speaker 4: also must fund the government. We also need to do
Speaker 4: fis A seven oh two reauthorization.
Speaker 6: We also need to focus on FAA reauthorization. Let's cancel
Speaker 6: that district time.
Speaker 4: Everybody come back to Washington, stay in Washington until we
Speaker 4: get this done. I would be wholly supportive of a
Speaker 4: Republican leadership choosing to do that, because you're right, there's
Speaker 4: limited time, and there is much to do, and particularly
Speaker 4: when we do see you know, floor time being spent
Speaker 4: impeaching Secretary of majorcists rather than actually putting forth the
Speaker 4: government funding that will ensure border patrol has the dollars
Speaker 4: they need to actually enforce the current laws broken or
Speaker 4: in need of improvement. Though they may be the idea
Speaker 4: that we're spending time on that and not funding vital
Speaker 4: agencies like border patrol, like you know, our military et cetera.
Speaker 4: Is is you know, I think it speaks to the
Speaker 4: sorts of priorities that are currently being put forward. But
Speaker 4: the limited calendar that is of the majorities doing and
Speaker 4: it is fixable if they want to keep us here,
Speaker 4: and I would be wholly supportive of.
Speaker 5: That, We'll let you get back to your day in
Speaker 5: just a moment. Here, we only have a minute left. Congresswoman,
Speaker 5: if Mike Johnson passes a cr to keep the government open,
Speaker 5: will he be fired?
Speaker 4: You know, I can't imagine the reality that. Well, I
Speaker 4: can't predict what my Republican colleagues would do. I would
Speaker 4: say the fact that we live in a world where
Speaker 4: a speaker is routinely choosing not to govern because that
Speaker 4: might lead to his ouser by his right wing flank.
Speaker 4: You know, that is everything that is wrong with the
Speaker 4: United States Congress.
Speaker 6: I wish that he would.
Speaker 4: Say, I'm a Speaker of the House. My job is
Speaker 4: to ensure that governance is occurring. Therefore I will bring bills,
Speaker 4: vote for them, vote against them.
Speaker 6: That's the prerogative of each individual member.
Speaker 4: But to actually keep us from governing because he might
Speaker 4: lose his job. It's a sad reality and one I
Speaker 4: wish that he you would push through and not be
Speaker 4: fearful of.
Speaker 5: We're glad you could talk to us today, Congresswoman Abigail
Speaker 5: Spanberger live from Capitol Hill only here on Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast.
Speaker 2: Kens Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and
Speaker 2: Enroid Oro with a Bloomberg Business app. You can also
Speaker 2: listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station,
Speaker 2: Just Say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 7: With News Today from The New York Times.
Speaker 5: Kayley, that's very concerning about what we're hearing from Ukraine.
Speaker 5: You've heard of a hypersonic missile that Russia has this technology.
Speaker 5: Kiev is claiming that it's been used, has evidence for
Speaker 5: the first time. The State Department Pentagon trying to confirm this.
Speaker 5: But this is a government run Kiev Scientific Research Institute
Speaker 5: of Forensic Expertise that we're hearing from here concluding that
Speaker 5: a three twenty two to Zircon missile was used in
Speaker 5: an attack on February seventh that targeted cities across Ukraine.
Speaker 5: This is a big deal, Kelly, because these missiles could
Speaker 5: evade our own patriot defense missile systems that we're providing Ukraine.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's exactly the concern here is that hypersonic missiles
Speaker 3: would be essentially impossible or just extremely difficult to actually
Speaker 3: shoot down. And as we're having a live conversation about
Speaker 3: what additional lethal aid the US could be providing Ukraine
Speaker 3: going forward. Is there actually anything we could provide that
Speaker 3: would help them counter this specific threat?
Speaker 5: That's right, because we don't have this technology, and I
Speaker 5: know that we are working on it, but it's something
Speaker 5: that we wanted to talk to Kelly Grico about from
Speaker 5: the Stimpson Center, a senior fellow with the Reimagining US
Speaker 5: Grand Strategy Program. It's great to see Kelly. You're an
Speaker 5: expert in asymmetrical warfare. You understand the stakes on the
Speaker 5: ground here in Ukraine. This sounds like a game changer,
Speaker 5: is it.
Speaker 10: Yes, Well, Fars, thank you for having me. I will
Speaker 10: say that I was skeptical of this reporting that the
Speaker 10: Russians had actually used what is a true hypersonic cruise missile.
Speaker 10: But I'm a little taken aback that the United Kingdom's
Speaker 10: intelligence put out a statement today essentially confirming that they
Speaker 10: believe this was in fact a true hypersonic missile that
Speaker 10: the Russians used.
Speaker 3: And if that's the case, how do you counter that,
Speaker 3: if this is going to be a live, potential force
Speaker 3: being used against Ukraine in this ongoing conflict.
Speaker 10: Well, I think the good news is that these are
Speaker 10: going to be very expensive weapons, so they if this
Speaker 10: is really the case, indeed the case that it was used,
Speaker 10: I don't think Russia will have large stockpiles of these weapons,
Speaker 10: and they're choosing a very expensive way, frankly, to go
Speaker 10: about destroying Ukrainian infrastructure by using these kinds of weapons.
Speaker 10: It will be extremely difficult for the Ukrainians to defend
Speaker 10: against this because this kind of weapon is moved so quickly.
Speaker 10: Because it moves so quickly, it means that Ukrainian air
Speaker 10: defenders have very little time to identify this and intercept it.
Speaker 5: Kelly, we've spent a bit of time talking about F
Speaker 5: sixteen's and whether they could help Ukraine close the skies.
Speaker 5: As President Selenski likes to say, you've had contrarian views
Speaker 5: on this. I wonder if there are any other means
Speaker 5: to help Ukraine close the skies considering a new threat
Speaker 5: like this.
Speaker 10: No, I mean, I think in terms of this specific weapon,
Speaker 10: this hypersonic weapon, I think it will be very difficult,
Speaker 10: given in existing systems, to be able to defend that.
Speaker 10: And it's not as though we're keeping something back stateside
Speaker 10: from the Ukrainian in that regards. This doesn't really exist.
Speaker 10: I do think though, there's a broader question here instead
Speaker 10: of focusing just on this particular missile, which is that
Speaker 10: I'm quite concerned about Ukraine's and air defenses at this point.
Speaker 10: We're seeing regularly that they're intercepting missiles, and and I
Speaker 10: am concerned about what the stockpiles on their air defense
Speaker 10: systems look like at this point, particularly given we're no
Speaker 10: longer sending more missiles and other countries have limited supplies.
Speaker 3: So as we have Congress now grappling with the question
Speaker 3: specifically the House, as to whether or not they are
Speaker 3: going to provide any more a to Ukraine, it is
Speaker 3: now in the hands of Speaker Johnson and the Republican
Speaker 3: majority in large part, how soon do you think Ukraine
Speaker 3: is at risk of full depletion of the ammunition of
Speaker 3: the lethal aid the US was providing.
Speaker 10: Yes, I mean this is a closely guarded secret in
Speaker 10: terms of exactly what they have left in terms of
Speaker 10: their stockpiles of air defenses and ammunition. I think the
Speaker 10: ammunition story, it's a little bit easier to tell because
Speaker 10: we can, based on reports with soldiers on the ground
Speaker 10: are talking about how much they're rationing their ammunition you know,
Speaker 10: I think one thing I just say is that my
Speaker 10: colleague Emma Ashford and I recently wrote an article in
Speaker 10: Foreign Affairs talking about Ukraine's need to really adopt a
Speaker 10: defensive strategy. And I think as we're thinking about supplementals
Speaker 10: and if we are potentially going to continue some kind
Speaker 10: of funding, I think we need to be really targeted
Speaker 10: and kinds of systems were providing to Ukraine. And so
Speaker 10: I would really focus this on air defense. I would
Speaker 10: focus it on artillery, and I would focus it on
Speaker 10: defensive works, fortifications, concrete fortifications that are making very difficult
Speaker 10: for Russia to try to take more territory.
Speaker 5: We've heard the extent to which, and this is from
Speaker 5: intelligence in Estonia, the extent to which Russia is lapping
Speaker 5: Ukraine when it comes to munitions, specifically old fashioned shells,
Speaker 5: the stuff that we just can't make fast enough, never
Speaker 5: mind get money to produce for Ukraine. We started our
Speaker 5: conversation talking about hypersonic missiles. How about the most old
Speaker 5: fashioned mortar rounds that Ukraine needs.
Speaker 10: Kelly, You're absolutely right. This is actually the most important thing.
Speaker 10: Are these old fashion is expensive Canada hybrisonics, but it's
Speaker 10: really this is an artillery war, very much in artillery war,
Speaker 10: and I think this is the lack of artillery right
Speaker 10: now for Ukraine, and also it's lack of band power.
Speaker 10: We're seeing a lot of reports I think that are
Speaker 10: very concerning coming out of Ukraine but not being able
Speaker 10: to get the recruits it needs for demand its front
Speaker 10: lines and debates they're having about recruiting, you know, having
Speaker 10: another call up, and so it's partly about getting them
Speaker 10: more ammunition, but Ukraine actually is also having some real
Speaker 10: difficulties I think internally about the future direction of the war.
Speaker 10: And I do think this is a place again where
Speaker 10: we do have some leverage, particularly if we decide to
Speaker 10: provide more aid, that we should be making it clear
Speaker 10: that we would like this to be about doubling down
Speaker 10: on a defensive military strategy. Well, of course, Kelly, in
Speaker 10: this supplemental aid package, it's not just about providing aid
Speaker 10: for Ukraine, but providing aid for Israel as well, and
Speaker 10: there's an ongoing conflict as we know, between Israel and Hamas.
Speaker 10: We actually just were getting headline out from Prime Minister
Speaker 10: bb Net Yahus who said Israel will fight until victory,
Speaker 10: including in Rafa, that they will operate in Rafa after
Speaker 10: civilians are allowed to leave. As we are now moving
Speaker 10: to the kind of to new.
Speaker 3: Stages of this conflict between Israel and Hamas, what is
Speaker 3: it that Israel needs from the United States in terms
Speaker 3: of aid?
Speaker 10: Yeah, so, you know, I think in terms of issue,
Speaker 10: it's probably more going to be about munitions replaced munitions.
Speaker 10: Some are artillery because they are using a considerable mount
Speaker 10: but my guess is it's probably more high end missiles
Speaker 10: because they're doing a lot. They're conducting a lot of strikes,
Speaker 10: so I think they're looking for for more of those
Speaker 10: kinds of systems. They're not necessarily there's not necessarily a
Speaker 10: competition as much between what Israel needs and what Ukraine
Speaker 10: needs in terms of these supplementals. So I guess that's
Speaker 10: that's the one piece of good news for the US
Speaker 10: industrial base.
Speaker 5: Boy, well, I guess we could use that in the meantime.
Speaker 5: What is in store for Ukraine? We only have a
Speaker 5: minute left, Kelly, in the next month, when will we
Speaker 5: know if this was real?
Speaker 10: Yeah, I mean, I think what we need is for
Speaker 10: US intelligence to come out and confirm it, and I'd
Speaker 10: like to see that and more information about this particular,
Speaker 10: how they confirmed it. You know what evidence was used
Speaker 10: to confirm that this was actually truly a hypersonic missile.
Speaker 3: All right, Kelly Greco, thank you so much as always
Speaker 3: for joining us. We really appreciate your time. Kelly Greco
Speaker 3: joining us from the Dimpson Center. She's a senior fellow
Speaker 3: there with the reimagining a US Grand Strategy program and
Speaker 3: interesting to contrast the conversations we're having about the military
Speaker 3: reality on the ground in Ukraine versus the reality on
Speaker 3: the ground and Capitol Hill and a reluctance to get
Speaker 3: this across the line.
Speaker 5: Yeah, they're two different worlds right now, but we're getting
Speaker 5: used to that scenario here in Washington.
Speaker 8: Kyley, we'll have a lot more straight ahead on Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Bellain. It's some power podcast.
Speaker 1: Catch just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car
Speaker 1: Play and then Roun Auto with the Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 2: Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
Speaker 2: us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3: We want to head out back up to New York,
Speaker 3: where a very own David Weston, host of Wall Street Week,
Speaker 3: is joined for a conversation with Gary Gensler, the chair
Speaker 3: of the sec David.
Speaker 11: Cally somebody you know well. Actually Gary Gensler is the
Speaker 11: chair of the Securities in Exchange coquestion. Thanks so much
Speaker 11: for being here with us in New York.
Speaker 9: No, it's so terrific to be here Valentine's Day.
Speaker 11: Now, about that heavy Valentine's Day, I hope you're taking
Speaker 11: care of that.
Speaker 9: I hope, well, but you are with that great wife.
Speaker 11: Of Yeah, I did the first thing in the morning.
Speaker 11: So let's first talk about the news of the day,
Speaker 11: this typographical era, apparently from Lyft. It's too soon, I
Speaker 11: assume for you to know what happened, and you don't
Speaker 11: talk about any difer cases. But I want to ask
Speaker 11: a more general question about fat fingers. Is it part
Speaker 11: of your jurisdiction to make sure the public traded companies
Speaker 11: have certain mechanisms in place to minimize We can never
Speaker 11: eliminate mistakes, but to minimize them.
Speaker 12: Well, so it's really part of their responsibility.
Speaker 9: You use the term fat finger.
Speaker 12: It could be a trading shop that sends a flood
Speaker 12: of orders to an exchange. In the old days, they
Speaker 12: called it a fat finger because somebody's finger hit. Now
Speaker 12: it could be in an algorithm, or even that your filings,
Speaker 12: your press releases, and your annual reports are accurate.
Speaker 9: So that's really up to them. But yes, we have
Speaker 9: a role.
Speaker 12: With the Security is an exchange commission to oversee to
Speaker 12: make sure that people don't defraud the public and that
Speaker 12: they publish accurate financials.
Speaker 11: So when something like this happens, you call somebody up
Speaker 11: and say, are we're looking into this to just make
Speaker 11: sure there wasn't something efficient.
Speaker 9: I can't. I can't speak of individual things. Let me
Speaker 9: step back.
Speaker 12: So I'm chair of a five thousand person agency. A
Speaker 12: quarter of our agency does enforcement, another quarter does examination.
Speaker 9: They don't call me up. I don't call them up
Speaker 9: on a.
Speaker 12: Daily basis, say look at this really talented David. They
Speaker 12: figure out what to We literally get something like forty
Speaker 12: to fifty thousand tips, complaints and referrals a year, and
Speaker 12: they have to figure out which ones to pursue, which
Speaker 12: ones not to. And so occasionally I read about things
Speaker 12: in the press and I go, oh, I didn't know
Speaker 12: we were investigating that's a really that's great. Our Boston
Speaker 12: office is on that.
Speaker 11: Another subject, very much in the press has been for
Speaker 11: some time now. Obviously is bitcoin. The ETF Spot Bitcoin
Speaker 11: that you approved, and as I understand that, part of
Speaker 11: the reason you did it, the explanation for it was
Speaker 11: you felt that the CMA futures Bitcoin situation would be
Speaker 11: good enough to indicate if there's any market manipulation going on,
Speaker 11: are you far enough into it to know whether that
Speaker 11: theory holds true than in fact, you can tell from
Speaker 11: that CME futures trading what might be going on with Spot.
Speaker 12: So it's a little bit more nuanced than that. But
Speaker 12: several years ago, back in twenty twenty one, there was
Speaker 12: a product that went live, so to speak, an exchange
Speaker 12: traded fund wrapped around these bitcoin futures at the Chicago
Speaker 12: Mercantil Exchange. And then a different set of products came
Speaker 12: to us and asked a list on the stock exchanges.
Speaker 12: And while we had denied like two dozen of these
Speaker 12: over about five years, a court in Washington said no,
Speaker 12: they thought we had not gotten that right, and they
Speaker 12: remanded it back to us. And I thought, really the
Speaker 12: most sustainable thing forward was.
Speaker 9: To approve these. Given the court ruling.
Speaker 12: In terms of the statistics, we really do look out
Speaker 12: and sure as best we can there's not fraud manipulation.
Speaker 12: But one of the challenges on the bitcoin markets, David,
Speaker 12: is so much of its traded on trading platforms that
Speaker 12: are non compliant with our laws. Now, bitcoin's not a security,
Speaker 12: but they're trading on those platforms a lot of other
Speaker 12: crypto tokens. Without prejudging anyone that'd be careful that with
Speaker 12: hundreds of other crypto tokens on there, likely there's other securities.
Speaker 12: And we are in court in a number of these
Speaker 12: cases in front of various judges and panels, and so
Speaker 12: the American public when you're investing in something like bitcoin,
Speaker 12: to be aware one it's a highly speculative asset. Number two,
Speaker 12: it's generally trading on some platform that is not fully
Speaker 12: compliant with the securities loss for other things they're doing.
Speaker 12: And number three I had meant sin is think about
Speaker 12: what use case?
Speaker 9: What is the actual use case?
Speaker 12: When you buy one hundred shares of XYZ stock, you
Speaker 12: kind of know what's behind that company, what that they
Speaker 12: are there is.
Speaker 11: You said you're not going to pre judge. I wouldn't
Speaker 11: expect you to prejudge, So let me ask you to prejudge.
Speaker 9: Yeah, David, I figured.
Speaker 11: That a big question people are asking is ethereum. Is
Speaker 11: there a principal difference, a reasonable difference between bitcoin and ethereum.
Speaker 11: Now I understand you'll have to have an application to
Speaker 11: look at all the details and stuff, but just in
Speaker 11: a general sense, is there a distinction between the two
Speaker 11: for this purpose?
Speaker 12: So you help the American public understand why. I'm not
Speaker 12: going to answer that because I am in just one
Speaker 12: member of a five member commission, but two there's various
Speaker 12: applications in front of our commission, and just as you
Speaker 12: wouldn't want to know a judge to prejudge, a commissioner
Speaker 12: shouldn't prejudge those applications are in front of us right now.
Speaker 11: Okay, let's talk about the disclosure of climate issues, which
Speaker 11: has been pending before the Commission and it has not
Speaker 11: come out yet.
Speaker 8: It's not clear.
Speaker 11: Why can you give us as the timetable and when
Speaker 11: you may have those regulations?
Speaker 9: So let me just step back.
Speaker 12: So the Securities and Exchange Commission is not a climate regulator.
Speaker 12: We are not a regulator of climate risk. But we
Speaker 12: oversee companies raising money in the public and they disclose
Speaker 12: their material risks to you, or they're supposed to disclose
Speaker 12: some material risk of rules that have been around for decades,
Speaker 12: and many of those companies that are already making significant disclosures.
Speaker 12: I think something like ninety percent of the top thousand
Speaker 12: companies in the US by market cap disclose something about climate.
Speaker 12: Over half to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. So there
Speaker 12: we have a role to bring some consistency, some comparability.
Speaker 9: You can compare and contrast. That's our role.
Speaker 12: It's a securities market role, not a climate role. You
Speaker 12: asked about timing, Ah, they're the great question. We proposed
Speaker 12: that rule back in March of twenty twenty two. We
Speaker 12: tend to take somewhere in the order of year and
Speaker 12: a half to two years to adopt rules if if
Speaker 12: we adopt them. Can't prejudge, but I would say, here's
Speaker 12: the one wrinkled of this, my friend, sixteen thousand public comments.
Speaker 12: We got four four hundred of them, unique different comments.
Speaker 12: We not only have to read them, we have to
Speaker 12: consider them. We have to think about what adjustments we make.
Speaker 12: That's the biggest docket of comments we've ever received on
Speaker 12: a rule. So that's part of why it's you know,
Speaker 12: we do our work carefully.
Speaker 11: Well, I'm curious about behind the scenes what you take
Speaker 11: into account. And one thing's very specifically. We have an
Speaker 11: election year this year. You might have noticed there may
Speaker 11: be changes in the Congress in the presidency. There's a
Speaker 11: Congression Review Act that says, basically, if you don't get
Speaker 11: some of these rules out before something like six months
Speaker 11: before the election, they can be reversed by the next Congress.
Speaker 11: Do you even take that into account and thinking about
Speaker 11: the timing and bringing regulations out.
Speaker 12: I try not to have this managed by the clock.
Speaker 12: And you know, everybody says, oh, no, come on, no,
Speaker 12: it's really about getting it right and allowing that's they have.
Speaker 9: To work their part, the.
Speaker 12: Economists, the lawyers, the policy folks, the five Commissioners to
Speaker 12: weigh in. But we're certainly aware. I mean, Congress is
Speaker 12: a really important part of you know, they ask a
Speaker 12: lot of questions about every one of our important initiatives,
Speaker 12: but this climate risk disclosure. But again, we want to
Speaker 12: get it right and not against the clock.
Speaker 11: You also have just brought out a regulation involving hedge
Speaker 11: funds and trading in US treasuries. A lot of complaints
Speaker 11: about it, a lot of gnashing of teeth, if I
Speaker 11: can call it that, on part of some of the
Speaker 11: hedge funds. Do you take into account the possibility of
Speaker 11: challenges in court and putting together regulation because you're going
Speaker 11: to get challenged, do you shape the regulation try to
Speaker 11: minimize the chance of being overturned by the Court of appial.
Speaker 12: It's going to be a yes. But let me just
Speaker 12: answer something. What we've done is the US treasury market
Speaker 12: is the base of the rest of our capital markets.
Speaker 12: It's also how when you talked to or Pow or
Speaker 12: sometimes you talk to former Secretary of Summers about monetary policy.
Speaker 12: It's how we do our monetary policy. So the treasury
Speaker 12: market is so critical. It's how we also maintain our
Speaker 12: dollar dominance around the globe. So what we've had is
Speaker 12: a series of four or five rules around the US
Speaker 12: treasury market, central clearing, and yes, something about the dealers.
Speaker 12: And by the way, it's mostly about something called principal
Speaker 12: trading firms, not hedge funds, not hedge funds. But to
Speaker 12: your question, we live within the law, and we live
Speaker 12: within how the courts interpret the law, and ultimately the
Speaker 12: Supreme Court rights the law of the land, as the
Speaker 12: Great Chief Justice Marshall once wrote two hundred years ago.
Speaker 12: So we do take that into consideration, and we're appropriate,
Speaker 12: we pivot, we moderate, taking into consideration, and it's critical
Speaker 12: the American public have confidence in their sec but it's
Speaker 12: also critical that a rule will be stained in court
Speaker 12: because then it can actually help investors and issue us
Speaker 12: for hopefully years to come.
Speaker 11: Gary, thank you so much for being with us. Really
Speaker 11: appreciate that's Gary Genster, Chair of the Securities and Exchange.
Speaker 11: Thank to you, Kaylee and Joe David Weston.
Speaker 7: We thank you, of course.
Speaker 5: David the host of Bloomberg's Wall Street Week in a
Speaker 5: fascinating conversation there that we're glad we could bring to
Speaker 5: our TV and radio audiences worldwide. They covered a lot
Speaker 5: of ground, Kaylee, and this this is your wheelhouse when
Speaker 5: it comes to climate rules and timeline. No concern by
Speaker 5: the chairman about a potential change in administration with a
Speaker 5: lot of work left this.
Speaker 3: Year, Yeah, no concern expressed saying he's operating in the
Speaker 3: absence of a timeline and mind though, the Congressional Review
Speaker 3: Act that David asked about is a very real thing.
Speaker 3: With it a certain amount of legislative days, you could
Speaker 3: have a future in Congress in which there potentially could
Speaker 3: be an overturning of some of these rules that the
Speaker 3: SEC as a regulator has proposed. He was right to
Speaker 3: point out that this is just a proposal. They wereved
Speaker 3: a ton of feedback on it, thousands of comments, because
Speaker 3: there has been a great deal of pushback, specifically on
Speaker 3: Scope three emissions, concern about what it would mean for
Speaker 3: the supply chain, for even things like small farms to
Speaker 3: be able to report these kind of disclosures. And it's
Speaker 3: kind of that level of disclosure that really has received
Speaker 3: a lot of the pushback and what we're waiting to
Speaker 3: see if it ends up in the final rule, if
Speaker 3: and when we get it. We didn't really get a
Speaker 3: lot of clues there from the chairman as to when
Speaker 3: that will come.
Speaker 5: He plays it pretty close to the vest, just as
Speaker 5: a rule wouldn't budge on ether and ether ATF.
Speaker 8: Does that mean we're getting close to.
Speaker 7: A decision potentially?
Speaker 3: He hasn't actually said whether he thinks it's a security
Speaker 3: or commodity. And there are more filings for spot ether ATFS.
Speaker 3: We got another one from Franklin Templeton just this week,
Speaker 3: and that's what a lot of crypto markets are looking
Speaker 3: ahead to.
Speaker 8: They've got a lot to clear through the end of
Speaker 8: this year.
Speaker 6: He's a busy man.
Speaker 5: Yeah, fascinating conversation with Kaylee Lines. I'm Joe Matthew. Stay
Speaker 5: with us on the fastest show in politics. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast.
Speaker 2: Can just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and
Speaker 2: then ron Oto with a Bloomberg Business app. You can
Speaker 2: also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New
Speaker 2: York station, Just say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 5: Welcome to the Valentine's Day edition of Balance of Power.
Speaker 5: We are now down to two I was told there'd
Speaker 5: be no math, but we have to do a little
Speaker 5: bit today, a two vote margin essentially for Speaker Mike Johnson.
Speaker 5: If you put this together, follow me what happened in
Speaker 5: New York three last night, Democrats flipped the seat that
Speaker 5: once belonged to George Santos. We are now at a
Speaker 5: two nineteen two thirteen majority with three vacancies. That means
Speaker 5: Mike Johnson can only lose two to get anything done here.
Speaker 5: So the walls may be closing in as for that race,
Speaker 5: and we're going to talk about that with Don Levy.
Speaker 5: Aren't we glad Don Levy's back today? From Siena College poll,
Speaker 5: they called it Tom Swazi wins, but it was by
Speaker 5: a wider margin, about eight points. The poll showed him
Speaker 5: up by four. Either way, it changes the math here
Speaker 5: in Washington, in a Congress and a House that was
Speaker 5: already having trouble getting anything done, or maybe we haven't
Speaker 5: gotten anything done. That's where we start with Billy House,
Speaker 5: who might be the last person left on Capitol Hill today.
Speaker 5: Billy is great to see a Bloomberg Congress reporter. If
Speaker 5: my math is right here, Mike Johnson's job just got
Speaker 5: a lot more difficult, right, Billy.
Speaker 13: That's correct because although to nineteen versus two thirteen is
Speaker 13: six votes, tie, boats go to defeat. In other words,
Speaker 13: you got to get more than a tie if you're
Speaker 13: going to pass a bill, there you go.
Speaker 5: And so we actually saw a tie almost last week
Speaker 5: when they tried to impeach Alejandro Majorcis and Al Green
Speaker 5: showed up and things started to get a little more complex.
Speaker 5: Republicans had to take the fun on that bill so
Speaker 5: they could do it again, Billy, and it happened last night.
Speaker 5: This says everything to me, we've had an historic impeachment
Speaker 5: of a cabinet secretary, the Homeland Security Secretary. He was
Speaker 5: impeached by one that says to me following the election
Speaker 5: that vote could not be duplicated. Tonight, they actually managed
Speaker 5: to thread the needle on this, Billy.
Speaker 13: You're absolutely correct. I mean there were two votes on
Speaker 13: both sides of the aisle that weren't so a total
Speaker 13: of four that weren't cast. Two Democrats couldn't make it
Speaker 13: to town, and two Republicans apparently didn't want to cast
Speaker 13: that vote. But you're correct. A margin of one is
Speaker 13: not a big margin.
Speaker 5: And now that they've flipped New York three to Democrats,
Speaker 5: that would be a tie again if they held the
Speaker 5: vote tonight. So good time, I guess on the part
Speaker 5: of Mike Johnson, Billy. The conventional wisdom here in Washington
Speaker 5: is that the impeachment goes to die in the Senate,
Speaker 5: that we don't even see a trial, you.
Speaker 13: Hearing, well, what we do know from the Senate and
Speaker 13: Senator majority leader of Schumer's office is that they do
Speaker 13: not expect the articles to be and there's a solemn
Speaker 13: sort of Masonic march of the articles over from the
Speaker 13: House to the Senate. If you might remember the Trump impeachments,
Speaker 13: this won't occur untill after the Senate returns on January.
Speaker 13: I'm in February twenty seventh, and then the Senate would
Speaker 13: be sworn in as jurors in a tribal start. Ironically,
Speaker 13: House Republicans's varies. This impeachment efforts are going to run
Speaker 13: into each other because Hunter Biden's supposed to test by
Speaker 13: in the House on February twenty eighth, So you've had
Speaker 13: both of those happening at the same time.
Speaker 5: Well, we've got a calendar problem again here, Billy, because
Speaker 5: it's recess time now, and by the looks of things,
Speaker 5: there's something like six legislative days left to avoid a
Speaker 5: government shutdown, and by the time they come back from
Speaker 5: recess there will be only three. Do we need to
Speaker 5: start having a more serious conversation about this. I've been
Speaker 5: asking people every day and I keep hearing, oh, no,
Speaker 5: they'll figure this out. But what three weeks from tomorrow
Speaker 5: we start shutting down?
Speaker 13: Absolutely? In fact, I asked last night Senior Appropriator Tom Cole,
Speaker 13: the Rules chairman, are we gonna have a shutdown? He
Speaker 13: said emphatically, no, but what you are seeing when you
Speaker 13: see the calendar is an impeachment in the Senate Hunter
Speaker 13: Biden questioning over here in the House, and just a
Speaker 13: couple of days before a shutdown. They do have a
Speaker 13: lot of things going on when they return later this month,
Speaker 13: a lot of them self imposed deadlines, and of course
Speaker 13: the government shutdown ones are kind of self imposed. They're
Speaker 13: just you know, pick the can deadlines that were supposed
Speaker 13: to be resolved earlier this year.
Speaker 5: Well, so, speaking of kicking the can, is that what
Speaker 5: members think? Is that why everyone's convinced that we will
Speaker 5: not have a shutdown because the Speaker will have to
Speaker 5: cave do another can hinuing resolution, which you vowed not
Speaker 5: to do.
Speaker 13: Hey, that's a good question. There does seem to be
Speaker 13: a malaise or a lack of concern, and perhaps now
Speaker 13: we've just gotten into a feeling that, well, well we
Speaker 13: can always do another CEDR. Now that's what House conservatives
Speaker 13: get really irate over. But despite all their stomping and
Speaker 13: fist pounding, they haven't really taken that out on the
Speaker 13: new Speaker Johnson yet.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 7: Well, we'll stay tuned.
Speaker 8: Billy.
Speaker 5: I can't figure out how they're going to avoid this
Speaker 5: at some point in the next several weeks, and we'll
Speaker 5: remind our viewers and listeners that the State of the
Speaker 5: Union would only be a couple of days after that.
Speaker 5: So these all overlap along with Super Tuesday. Billy House,
Speaker 5: great to see you reporting live from the Capitol. Bloomberg
Speaker 5: News congressional reporter with Love in the air today in
Speaker 5: Washington on this Valentine's Day. Too bad, it's not helping
Speaker 5: the bipartisanship. Don Levy told us what was going to
Speaker 5: happen last week in the race in New York three.
Speaker 5: He runs the Sienna College Poll. He's the director of
Speaker 5: the Sienna College Research Institute.
Speaker 7: And Donn, it's great to see.
Speaker 5: I'm glad you came back because we do have questions
Speaker 5: about the way this all came down. You were inundated
Speaker 5: with a big snowstorm up there yesterday. And I'll remind
Speaker 5: everybody that this is the seat once held by George Santos.
Speaker 5: We were told that George Santos may have ruined the
Speaker 5: district for Republicans for some time, and it seemed to
Speaker 5: not be a great factor in this race.
Speaker 7: Donn.
Speaker 5: It came down to a lot of national issues, like
Speaker 5: the border, like spending, and it's been interesting Israel as
Speaker 5: well to watch this whole thing shake out.
Speaker 7: He won by more than you thought, didn't.
Speaker 14: He He did. Tom Swazi ended up winning by just
Speaker 14: a little bit under eight points. We had him at
Speaker 14: about four points, and he overperformed really relative to our
Speaker 14: poll in both the Queen's component of the district, which
Speaker 14: is about twenty percent, actually showed up at the rate
Speaker 14: of only about fifteen percent last night, and Nasau County
Speaker 14: eighty percent of the district voted at the rate of
Speaker 14: about eighty five percent. And Tom SWASEI is a known
Speaker 14: quantity within that district. He's been active in Nascau County
Speaker 14: politics now going back twenty years. So the voters there,
Speaker 14: most especially in Nasau, but also in that small section
Speaker 14: of Queens certainly knew him. He served three terms in Congress,
Speaker 14: so they were prepared last night to send Tom swase
Speaker 14: back to Washington.
Speaker 5: Well, Sienna did the work there, and I hope you're
Speaker 5: taking a victory lap today. Don I wonder to what
Speaker 5: extent turnout factored into this. That's all we heard about
Speaker 5: all day was the weather.
Speaker 14: Well, I think the weather did have some effect, as
Speaker 14: you know, Democrats turned out very strongly in the early voting,
Speaker 14: and when the early vote came out last night, you
Speaker 14: saw the Democrats and Tom Swase take it enormously. Republicans
Speaker 14: do quite well in same day voting, but certainly there
Speaker 14: was just not enough same day Republican vote. There's a
Speaker 14: couple of sections district, the southern section district Massapequa Levittown,
Speaker 14: where the Republicans were a little unhappy with the degree
Speaker 14: to which they got turned out. In fact, they went
Speaker 14: out and hired private snowplows to try to clear the
Speaker 14: roads to encourage that turnout, but they were a little
Speaker 14: bit deflated with the same day turnout. And as a result,
Speaker 14: whereas we had Tom Swase in our poll carrying Nassau
Speaker 14: by about a point, he ended up carrying Nassau by
Speaker 14: about five points, and to some effect, that was turnout.
Speaker 14: But I think there was more to it than that. Actually,
Speaker 14: I think that this closing week of the election and
Speaker 14: the build up to this special election, Tom Swazi did
Speaker 14: a fantastic job closing. He took the immigration issue on
Speaker 14: head on. What was seen as a weakness for Tom Swazi,
Speaker 14: he ended up turning into a strength, perhaps in part
Speaker 14: aided by the bill in the Senate, actually dying the
Speaker 14: bipartisan bill, which he said he was a strong supporter of.
Speaker 14: Mazi Phillips said that she was opposed to that that
Speaker 14: didn't play well this bipartisan spirit that exists in New
Speaker 14: York three.
Speaker 5: Well, Donald Trump says it was all about him. Don
Speaker 5: I'm guessing you've seen the post by now referring to
Speaker 5: Mazi Pillup as foolish. And he's of course making the
Speaker 5: case that she didn't use him enough ro lean into Maga,
Speaker 5: he says, running in a race where she did not
Speaker 5: endorse me, tried to straddle the fence when she could
Speaker 5: have easily won if she understood anything about modern day
Speaker 5: politics in America. So what extent was there a Trump
Speaker 5: factor or a lack thereof?
Speaker 8: In New York three?
Speaker 14: Our poll and continued to show that Donald Trump was
Speaker 14: unpopular in the district, about as equally unpopular as Joe Biden.
Speaker 14: I think that's a bit of Monday Morning quarterbacking. Mazie
Speaker 14: Pillup did straddle defense, though, and really I think didn't
Speaker 14: close strongly because of that. You know, her position on
Speaker 14: a national abortion band, you know, and previously in New
Speaker 14: York abortion, while an important issue, didn't seem quite as salient,
Speaker 14: because in New York most people feel as though a
Speaker 14: woman's right to choose is sacra sank. But to the
Speaker 14: degree that Mazi Phillop was identified as potentially being a
Speaker 14: vote for a national abortion band and not really taking
Speaker 14: a razor clear position on that, that hurt her in
Speaker 14: the final week. Santos on the other side, you see
Speaker 14: the Swazi, on the other hand, took a very strong
Speaker 14: position on abortion, and so between that classic Democratic position
Speaker 14: of support for abortion rights as well as Swazi taking
Speaker 14: the immigration issue on head on allowed him to close
Speaker 14: very strongly in the race.
Speaker 5: Well, he's got some people calling this the recipe to
Speaker 5: win for Democrats here in November. Down I wonder your
Speaker 5: thoughts on that, because he called out Republicans on that
Speaker 5: border plan that collapsed, the compromise that never got a
Speaker 5: vote in the House.
Speaker 7: Is that going to be the model going forward?
Speaker 14: Well, certainly, I think in swing districts, and we've got
Speaker 14: about five of them here in New York. This idea
Speaker 14: of getting something done, whether it's getting something done on
Speaker 14: the border, which is paramount right now, but getting something
Speaker 14: done across the board the issue could be Ukraine, it
Speaker 14: could be Israel, it could be keeping the government open.
Speaker 14: Tom Swazi did a great job saying I am a bipartisan,
Speaker 14: hard working representative and getting something done is what has
Speaker 14: to happen. So when you look to a couple of
Speaker 14: the other districts in Long Island, a couple of the
Speaker 14: districts in the Hudson Valley, certainly the Republicans who occupy
Speaker 14: those seats right now are taking notice and are going
Speaker 14: to have to pay attention to how Tom Swase closed
Speaker 14: against Mazi pibliup, including saying immigration, I'm for a bipartisan agreement.
Speaker 14: Let's get something done that worked for him.
Speaker 5: I'm talking with Don Levy of the Siena College Research
Speaker 5: Institute as we look ahead to fall, and this is
Speaker 5: going to be a quick turnaround here. Donald Trump said
Speaker 5: something else in his post, give us a real candidate
Speaker 5: in the district for November. Swase, I know him well,
Speaker 5: can be easily beaten. And I wonder your thoughts on
Speaker 5: what Republicans might do as an answer to what happened
Speaker 5: here for the full blown election, but also the extent
Speaker 5: to which redistricting could play into this, because it's supposed
Speaker 5: to go back to making this an easier fight for
Speaker 5: a Tom Swazi or any Democrat, isn't.
Speaker 14: It it is? Redistricting is still a little bit up
Speaker 14: in the air here in New York. There's talk that
Speaker 14: there's a compromise. I think that this particular district will
Speaker 14: end up being, if not safe, I think this will
Speaker 14: be a lean Democratic district, and Tom Swase is going
Speaker 14: to look pretty secure more than likely New York State Democrats.
Speaker 14: The excuse me, Republicans are interested in holding some of
Speaker 14: these other seats are going to look through the other
Speaker 14: couple of districts on Long Island as well as the
Speaker 14: hut In Valley districts to try to hold those, and
Speaker 14: probably you're going to end up conceding districtor Mazi Pillip
Speaker 14: has said she's going to run. There could be a
Speaker 14: couple of other Republicans who are going to throw their
Speaker 14: hat in, But right now New York three looks like
Speaker 14: it's Tom Swazi's to hold.
Speaker 5: I've only got a minute left on I don't want
Speaker 5: to set you up here, but I wonder if you
Speaker 5: buy the Bellweather talk this morning, the extent to which
Speaker 5: New York three is unique or something we can read
Speaker 5: into nationally.
Speaker 14: Again, I don't think we can help ourselves we're going
Speaker 14: to read into it. But it was a special election,
Speaker 14: had a slightly more than twenty five percent turnout. These
Speaker 14: are the most engaged voters. Democrats have been doing well
Speaker 14: in these special elections. But as far as a bell Weather,
Speaker 14: it's something to look at. It doesn't necessarily foreshadow exactly
Speaker 14: what's going to happen, because as you know, there's going
Speaker 14: to be one thousand and one things that are going
Speaker 14: to happen between now and November, and Donald Trump and
Speaker 14: Joe Biden will be on the ballot, then not only
Speaker 14: Tom swat Now.
Speaker 5: Keep that in mind when you hear TALKO Bellweather throughout
Speaker 5: the day, because Don knows what he's talking about.
Speaker 8: Really glad you can come back and talk to his.
Speaker 5: Don Levy is director of the Siena College Research Institute,
Speaker 5: the man who called the race for us last week.
Speaker 5: Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make
Speaker 5: sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 5: or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
Speaker 5: us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern
Speaker 5: at Bloomberg dot com.