Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound on
Speaker 1: Love calling on the Biden administration today. Secretary Americus, do
Speaker 1: your damn job. This is the best chance that we
Speaker 1: have to control the borders. American border problems won't be
Speaker 1: fixt for Congress acts. The only thing that changed was
Speaker 1: the administration and the administration policy. Floomberg Sound on Politics,
Speaker 1: Policy and perspective from DC's top name. It's been nearly
Speaker 1: one year since Russia's cruel and unprovoked convasion of your Frank.
Speaker 1: A very significant grinding battle of attrition. When there is
Speaker 1: a hope and when there's a lost man standing, there
Speaker 1: is a chance to win this war. Bloomberg Sound On
Speaker 1: with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. Kevin McCarthy makes another
Speaker 1: run for the border with the stare offf with Democrats
Speaker 1: drags on. Welcome to the fastest hour in politics, as
Speaker 1: we grab the third rail. In a conversation with former
Speaker 1: Texas Congressman Will heard for it in Biden is packing
Speaker 1: for poland we'll look at what's behind the mission with
Speaker 1: our signature panel including Bloomberg Politics contributors Rick Davis and
Speaker 1: Jeannie Chanzano. Don't bet on crypto regulations this year in Congress.
Speaker 1: Nathan Dean will join us from Bloomberg Intelligence that's actually
Speaker 1: running odds on legislation. Did the US just shoot down
Speaker 1: a thirteen dollar hobby balloon? We'll talk to the man
Speaker 1: who builds them. Speaker Kevin McCarthy makes his first trip
Speaker 1: as speaker to the southern border, bringing a delegation of
Speaker 1: freshman Republican House members to Arizona. Are they toward customs
Speaker 1: and border protection operations in Coaches County? He spoke with
Speaker 1: reporters with the border wall as a backdrop. Listen, there
Speaker 1: has been no legislation change, But why has the border?
Speaker 1: Why has this region gone from sixty six thousand people
Speaker 1: come across to fifty thousand? Why is everybody who comes
Speaker 1: across here where camouflage outfit and rugs on their feet?
Speaker 1: Why are we catching so much Finnel? The only thing
Speaker 1: that changed was the administration and the administration policies. He
Speaker 1: was ready and promised legislation here, but made clear in
Speaker 1: conversation with reporters you listen to this, that it's not
Speaker 1: ready yet. Here's McCarthy again. We've got a lot of
Speaker 1: ideas inside Congress it's different than the Congress before. We're
Speaker 1: just not going to write the bill and put it
Speaker 1: onto the floor. We're gonna listen to the people that
Speaker 1: are on the border. We're gonna listen to border agents.
Speaker 1: We want the very best ideas, and we're gonna each other. Yes,
Speaker 1: we're moving it now, just as we bring our committee
Speaker 1: down here. Okay, So legislation forthcoming presumably, And we recall,
Speaker 1: of course President Biden's urgings at the State of the
Speaker 1: Union to pass his immigration plan. Here he is again. Remember,
Speaker 1: we now have a record number of personnel working to
Speaker 1: secure the border, resting eight thousand human smugglers season over
Speaker 1: twenty three thousand pounds of fentin all in just the
Speaker 1: last several months. We launched a new border plan last
Speaker 1: month on lawful migration from Cuba. Hating Nicaragua in Venezuela
Speaker 1: has come down as a consequence of that. Remember, Kevin
Speaker 1: McCarthy was shaking his head when the President called on
Speaker 1: Congress to pass his legislation. But all we have in
Speaker 1: the meantime here is a lot of photo opportunities. McCarthy's
Speaker 1: trip today followed by other Republican delegations the next couple
Speaker 1: of weeks. Minority Leader Hockeyen Jeffrey showed up on the
Speaker 1: border today with a trip to Laredo, Texas, and so
Speaker 1: we wanted to talk with Will Herd, who of course
Speaker 1: represented a border district in Texas. The twenty three covers
Speaker 1: about five miles between San Antonio and El Paso, served
Speaker 1: on the Intelligence Committee, dealt with the immigration issue a
Speaker 1: lot after her career in the CIA, and wanted his
Speaker 1: view on all of this. Congressman, welcome back to Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: It's great to have you. Is there any chance of
Speaker 1: getting immigration reform through this Congress or is this really
Speaker 1: all for show? I think it's going to be difficult because, unfortunately, um,
Speaker 1: a lot of folks are more interested in using this
Speaker 1: issue as a political legend against one another encamp pains,
Speaker 1: rather than actually solving the issue. And this is an
Speaker 1: issue that started becoming a crisis under the last administration
Speaker 1: and Trump administration and has just bloged um under under
Speaker 1: the Biden administration. And look, we know what fixes needs
Speaker 1: to happen. It's not like there's some new thing that
Speaker 1: needs to become that needs to come up to be done.
Speaker 1: Got to stop treating everyone that's coming across the border
Speaker 1: as an asylum seeker. UM, we can talk further than
Speaker 1: that if you want. We need to stop. You know,
Speaker 1: I know when the President's mentioned these eight thousand human smugglers,
Speaker 1: I don't know where those eight thousand human smugglers were dismantled.
Speaker 1: Because we should be dismantling networks throughout Central in South America. UM.
Speaker 1: We should be working on streamlining legal immigration as well. UM,
Speaker 1: and we should be still working on some of the
Speaker 1: root causes that is causing people to leave their homecome
Speaker 1: Historically speaking, you know, a lot of illegal immigration was
Speaker 1: coming from Hundre or so I'll sal what a Guatemala
Speaker 1: over the last year and a half or so, basically
Speaker 1: almost every country um, that that has been coming here
Speaker 1: but historically asked diploma. We can be addressed in those
Speaker 1: root causes there. So, so those are those are some
Speaker 1: of the buckets that we need to be addressing. Well.
Speaker 1: Speaker McCarthy says, he's on a listening tour though, kind
Speaker 1: of like they're starting from scratch here. If you think
Speaker 1: that we already know the solutions, why can't we start
Speaker 1: writing a bill? Look so, so part of this also
Speaker 1: is is implementation of existing laws Um, there's been a
Speaker 1: lot of discussion about Title forty two. This is using
Speaker 1: health reasons to prevent somebody from coming in the country.
Speaker 1: But there's already legislation, is already a role called Title eight.
Speaker 1: A Title eight basically says that if somebody is coming
Speaker 1: into the country illegally UM oftentimes defined by coming in
Speaker 1: between our points and intrigue, that doesn't have proper identification,
Speaker 1: that they're they're they're illegally in the country and can
Speaker 1: be deported. That doesn't have to go through an immigration court.
Speaker 1: It's it's it's expedited removal that can be happening immediately.
Speaker 1: Why um, that's using that Title eight was something that
Speaker 1: stopped under the Trump administration and President Biden's administration has
Speaker 1: has continued this notion of asylum. Asylum is very clear
Speaker 1: what asylum is. You have to be part of a
Speaker 1: protected class, meaning, um, you know, based on your your gender,
Speaker 1: your ethnicity, your sexual orientation, and that you're being persecuted
Speaker 1: by your government because you're a member of that protected class,
Speaker 1: or you're being persecuted by a group because you're part
Speaker 1: of that protected class, and your government won't defend you
Speaker 1: right that those are the reason doesn't cover pretty much
Speaker 1: all of Central America though, No, and it doesn't, it
Speaker 1: actually doesn't. Right, What if you're coming from an oppressive,
Speaker 1: an oppressive regime and you're knocking on the door at
Speaker 1: the United States, how do you make that judgment? Well,
Speaker 1: so it's so it's it's it's clear in legal terms, right.
Speaker 1: So so Honduras, Guatemala, you know, Costa Rica, it's not
Speaker 1: happening now, Venezuela, Cuba, even Russia. Now that is something
Speaker 1: that is is it's it's a little bit, it's a
Speaker 1: little bit. You know, there's more likelihood that those grounds
Speaker 1: are met. If you look over the last thirty years,
Speaker 1: I'm a people that have asked that have sought asylum
Speaker 1: in the United States, the numbers similar between like thirty
Speaker 1: five actually get asylum. Um so that means, you know,
Speaker 1: seventy are actually not. So so trying to come to
Speaker 1: the US to get a better paying job is not
Speaker 1: a reason to to to seek asylum. So oh and
Speaker 1: by the way, because this system is being abused, the
Speaker 1: people that really need asylum are getting impacted by this.
Speaker 1: And so so that's a big reason why you're seeing this,
Speaker 1: this this influx um let me ask you we can
Speaker 1: just flip the coin here for a second. And something
Speaker 1: that Speaker McCarthy talked about today and I thought it
Speaker 1: was interesting because you know, there are different ways of
Speaker 1: looking at this, you know, do you go on the
Speaker 1: supply side or the demand side, and do you go
Speaker 1: outside of the country as he's suggesting in this case,
Speaker 1: to stop things before they ever get to the border.
Speaker 1: Here's McCarthy again. So if you want to stop fitting
Speaker 1: on the first call you should make as the president.
Speaker 1: She's exactly what I told President Biden inside the Oval
Speaker 1: office the other week. Called President she and tell him
Speaker 1: to stop the chemicals coming down. If you want to
Speaker 1: stop the cartels, you've got to be serious about it.
Speaker 1: These are terrorist organizations. Calm as such and take the
Speaker 1: action to stop them. They are making billions of dollars.
Speaker 1: They are human trafficking. So we'll heard how much of
Speaker 1: this is a diplomatic failure as opposed to a security
Speaker 1: failure at the border, and I think a lot of it.
Speaker 1: And I would even broaden that into saying a diplomatic
Speaker 1: failure of all when intelligence failure, um, you know, we
Speaker 1: it is hard to get from Guatemala City to del
Speaker 1: Rio Texas and people, you know, when when people are
Speaker 1: coming across the border and what people have to remember.
Speaker 1: The two point five million people that came in the
Speaker 1: country legally last year, a lot of them in essence surrendered,
Speaker 1: you know, they came across the word legally trying to
Speaker 1: find someone from border patrol and surrendered themselves. Oftentimes they
Speaker 1: had a phone number of of someone who smuggled them.
Speaker 1: They had a license plate of a bus they were
Speaker 1: supposed to get on to transit through Central American in Mexico,
Speaker 1: they had a meeting location and where to go. A
Speaker 1: lot of that information is being collected by border patrol.
Speaker 1: Our intelligence services need to be using that to work
Speaker 1: with partner countries in order to dismantle those those networks.
Speaker 1: See that sounds like a much more realistic or mightly
Speaker 1: more effective approach here. And I know that you were
Speaker 1: always known for having kind of a high tech view
Speaker 1: on this when it comes to border sex already. How
Speaker 1: do you layer that on on top of what we're
Speaker 1: talking about here. I know that you were not a
Speaker 1: fan of the Wall, for instance, which is something that
Speaker 1: Speaker McCarthy was talking about. Your quote back then the
Speaker 1: wall was a third century solution to a twenty one
Speaker 1: century problem. So how do we employ better technology here? Yeah,
Speaker 1: and and it looks so we should be able to
Speaker 1: have what the official tip term is operational control of
Speaker 1: our border. We should know everything that's coming back and
Speaker 1: forth across our border and guess what. Several mile by
Speaker 1: mile assessments of what kind of tool needs to go
Speaker 1: along that border has already been done. We know whether
Speaker 1: a physical barrier like like, a physical barrier makes sense
Speaker 1: when there is urban to urban contact, but in far
Speaker 1: West Texas, where it takes border patrol hours or days
Speaker 1: to respond to something at the border, a physical barrier
Speaker 1: is not going to stop anything. So you need technology
Speaker 1: that can detect the threat and monitor that threat until
Speaker 1: someone is able to deploy. You need additional manpower for sure.
Speaker 1: So we know all of the different tools, and multiple
Speaker 1: administrations have done these mile by model assessments. Those mile
Speaker 1: by modele assessments have found out the same thing. So
Speaker 1: so this is an addition that we need, Like you know,
Speaker 1: everyone is to be a less expensive than building a
Speaker 1: wall the length of the border. Correct, Yeah, it look
Speaker 1: it is, and and it's a fraction of the cost,
Speaker 1: you know, you know, we're talking about all these balloons,
Speaker 1: right that the Chinese surveillance balloon and potentially balloons plural.
Speaker 1: There's a number of drones that are coming across our
Speaker 1: border in the southern border, and that's bringing in drugs
Speaker 1: and monitoring whether there's there's border patrol agents. We're also
Speaker 1: seeing um uh unmanned vehicles in the in the in
Speaker 1: the oceans um as well, and so so so we
Speaker 1: have to have an all of the above approach. And
Speaker 1: there's not one thing that's going to fix this problem.
Speaker 1: It's multiple things, and it starts at the source. It starts,
Speaker 1: you know, here in our country. Oh and by the way,
Speaker 1: it's a fraction on the cost to deal with these
Speaker 1: problems um you know, overseas and the arm before they
Speaker 1: get through our border. And so so we need people,
Speaker 1: we need leaders and understand all these things that are
Speaker 1: more interested in solving the problem, that are going to
Speaker 1: work with people that to be honest, that don't like
Speaker 1: one another in order to have some common sense problems
Speaker 1: to what's really a crisis. The former Republican of Texas
Speaker 1: congressman will hurt to really appreciate the time. Thanks for
Speaker 1: being with us as we assemble our panel here and
Speaker 1: their take on this whole matter and our conversation Rick
Speaker 1: Davis and Jeannie Chanzano Bloomberg Politics contributors Jenie are are
Speaker 1: we at the point here as Will hurt Is suggesting
Speaker 1: of needing to redefine asylum? You know, we very well
Speaker 1: may need to be at that point. But the reality is,
Speaker 1: and I think he's absolutely right that the solutions are there,
Speaker 1: and the problem is, what we're getting is a lot
Speaker 1: of you know, politicking, certainly a lot of show voting.
Speaker 1: You know, you see, uh the Congress in the Republican
Speaker 1: side basically moving down to the southern border. They're planning
Speaker 1: to hold hearings for the next several months. But the
Speaker 1: reality is there are solutions in front of us that
Speaker 1: take congressional implementation. And what we haven't heard from Kevin
Speaker 1: McCarthy is what the legislative agenda is going to be.
Speaker 1: He says he wants to hear from security people on
Speaker 1: the border. Yet, what about your legislative agenda? What do
Speaker 1: you want to do policy? What wise? Is the real question?
Speaker 1: And that's something we haven't heard from the GOP. We
Speaker 1: heard from a local rancher by the name of John
Speaker 1: Ladd who showed up at the border with Speaker McCarthy.
Speaker 1: He was part of the group. They're talking to reporters.
Speaker 1: Interesting to get the I mean this, this is the
Speaker 1: real local view. Listen to what he said. I'm a
Speaker 1: fourth generation rancher down here. I haven't given up, but
Speaker 1: this is the best chance that we have to control
Speaker 1: the border. Uh. We talked about the Fenton all, we
Speaker 1: talked about the number of people that are coming to
Speaker 1: this country. But it's a national security threat and I
Speaker 1: think America understands it. But they better wake up and
Speaker 1: get behind this group of congressmen coming from Washington. Rick
Speaker 1: Davis obviously he was brought there because he was agreeing
Speaker 1: with them and would say that in part. But tell
Speaker 1: our audience what us coastal elites don't get about that
Speaker 1: local view. You spent a lot of time in Arizona
Speaker 1: politics not far from where they were today. Yeah. No,
Speaker 1: I mean, with all due respect to John Light, I
Speaker 1: assume he was not talking about Hockeyen Jefferies as these
Speaker 1: congress he agreed with so much. Look, I mean, these
Speaker 1: are these are real problems for local people. Right. There
Speaker 1: are a lot of ranches, a lot of farms. Um
Speaker 1: enormous amount of dairy is produced, you know, on the
Speaker 1: border between Mexico and Arizona, for instance, And and and
Speaker 1: you've got a lot of people just walking through these facilities.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, it's a porest border. And that
Speaker 1: actually means that people just move right in and they
Speaker 1: move into these border towns, and they want to have
Speaker 1: their kids go to school in those border towns. They
Speaker 1: want to get jobs in those border towns, and and
Speaker 1: it puts enormous pressure on him. But but with all
Speaker 1: due respect, I mean, it's it's it's that's not the problem, right,
Speaker 1: And I think that you know, what's what's really great
Speaker 1: about having someone like um uh, you know a conversation
Speaker 1: like this today is there are already solutions to these problems. Right,
Speaker 1: this has been picked apart a hundred times and it's
Speaker 1: a combination of existing law and policies. We know, we
Speaker 1: we know we have to fix the dreamer's problem. The
Speaker 1: dreamers are now adults. I mean, like that should be
Speaker 1: the easiest thing in the world to do. Uh. We
Speaker 1: know we need workers. Uh. John ladd on his farm
Speaker 1: needs workers for that farm. And where do you think
Speaker 1: he gets them? You know, and uh so these are
Speaker 1: these are all solutions, with all due respect to the
Speaker 1: Republicans and the Democrats going down the border. Uh, this
Speaker 1: is not the first generation to look at this crisis,
Speaker 1: and they ought to just get together and they can
Speaker 1: do it together at the border and come up with
Speaker 1: a plan and bring it back to Washington. But uh,
Speaker 1: it really is one of those issues that is not
Speaker 1: that hard to solve, vexing political problems. And and yet
Speaker 1: I think the politics is is so good for both
Speaker 1: parties that they don't want to actually take the time
Speaker 1: and effort to fix it. Are these trips anything more
Speaker 1: than photo ops? Jennie Speaker McCarthy says, he's you know,
Speaker 1: he's on a listening tour essentially, what's Hockeen Jeffreys doing there?
Speaker 1: The Democrats were accusing Republicans of photo ops. Yeah, they're
Speaker 1: accusing of Republicans of photo ops. They themselves are down
Speaker 1: there to show they are not seating the border to
Speaker 1: the Republicans and of course down there to make the
Speaker 1: case that they too want to own this issue. To
Speaker 1: Rick's point, it's a political win for both sides and
Speaker 1: until they get beyond that, they're not going to come
Speaker 1: to the solution. But we know what the solution is.
Speaker 1: You're listening to The Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the
Speaker 1: program live weekdays at five pm Easter on Bloomberg Radio,
Speaker 1: the tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Business App. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa
Speaker 1: from our flagship New York station Just Say Alexa playing
Speaker 1: Bloomberg eleven. The President Biden's about to head overseas. It's Monday.
Speaker 1: He makes the trip to Poland. He'll be there Monday
Speaker 1: for two days. We'll meet with the Polish president there,
Speaker 1: and we heard a bit about it, a little bit
Speaker 1: of insight from Press Secretary Karine Jean Pierre on the
Speaker 1: purpose of the trip, remembering we're just a week out
Speaker 1: here now from the anniversary the first anniversary of the
Speaker 1: war in Ukraine. Here she is, look, this is going
Speaker 1: to be the one year. He's going there ahead of
Speaker 1: the one year anniversary and sending a strong message of
Speaker 1: solidarity and UH and the President understanding to reaffirm right
Speaker 1: our support for the Ukrainian people as they're fighting back
Speaker 1: against the brutal war that Russia started almost a year ago.
Speaker 1: Also plans to meet with leaders of the so called
Speaker 1: Bucharest Nine group of Eastern Flank NATO allies that have
Speaker 1: a lot of skin in the game. Right now is
Speaker 1: we reassemble our panel with some thoughts on this, Rick
Speaker 1: Davis and Jeannie Chanzino. It's an important trip, Rick, Uh.
Speaker 1: The President will be in Poland. There's been some talk
Speaker 1: of him maybe even creeping over the border, but certainly
Speaker 1: the White Houses has no plans to announce anything like that. Now,
Speaker 1: how important is the journey. He's the only Western leader
Speaker 1: that has not actually been to Ukraine since this war started. Sure,
Speaker 1: and obviously security matters are the deepest requirement in that construct.
Speaker 1: So they're going to be careful as to what they
Speaker 1: do with the president. And and I don't think anyway
Speaker 1: doubts his his resolve on this issue. UH. It's a
Speaker 1: great lead up this week with the Munich Security Conference
Speaker 1: happening in Germany where leaders from all around the world
Speaker 1: were there to discuss primarily Ukraine UH and sixties senators
Speaker 1: from the United States went. There's no lack of UH
Speaker 1: support and commitment UH in the U s Government to
Speaker 1: UH to Ukraine. UH. And what is really interesting is
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin who has attended this event in the past,
Speaker 1: actually was disinvited. UH. So this is a great lead
Speaker 1: up to the anniversary of the invasion UH and I
Speaker 1: suspect that the President and his team will use it
Speaker 1: to leverage continuing UH commitments from Europe and other allies
Speaker 1: around the world UH and put increasing pressure on on
Speaker 1: on Vladimir Putin. He's got a few audiences on this trip, Genie,
Speaker 1: what is the most important one in Europe? Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: I think it is, But I also think the American
Speaker 1: public is equally important. You look at the latest AP
Speaker 1: and r C poll on this. Americans still support Ukraine,
Speaker 1: but there is signs of waning there. It's not as
Speaker 1: strong as it was a year ago. And so he
Speaker 1: needs to continually make the case that he has been making.
Speaker 1: And we'll hear Kamala Harris make it in Munich that
Speaker 1: we stand with Ukraine and this is a moral and
Speaker 1: just war and that there is no question about what
Speaker 1: we should be doing. And of course Zelenski is going
Speaker 1: to keep asking for more money and more support, as
Speaker 1: he should, and the question is going to be how
Speaker 1: much can we how much can we support and for
Speaker 1: how long? Because you are hearing drop off on both
Speaker 1: the right and the far left. You know, questions about budget,
Speaker 1: questions about balancing budget debt, all of those things come
Speaker 1: into play here. So while I think Europe is critically important,
Speaker 1: of course, there is also the public both in the
Speaker 1: United States States and in Europe who we need to
Speaker 1: appeal to. And let's not forget look over in Africa.
Speaker 1: Look at what Russia and China South Africa are doing
Speaker 1: just this week in terms of the these you know
Speaker 1: tests that they're running. You know, there is a worldwide
Speaker 1: audience here that has to get behind Ukraine to make
Speaker 1: it through this next really important spring. What are the
Speaker 1: optics uh for this trip? Rick, It's it's gonna be
Speaker 1: a more casual Uh. Look, you have him go to
Speaker 1: a refugee camp at the border if if those are
Speaker 1: even still there. You have him mingling with locals. What's
Speaker 1: the what's the White House Communications Office cooking up for this? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I I get the impression, and it's going to be
Speaker 1: more like a working visit. Uh and uh And yet
Speaker 1: I would expect some kind of a central uh speech
Speaker 1: U themed around the anniversary and in the global resolve.
Speaker 1: Uh and and I think it will be broadcast through
Speaker 1: the world. Right, this is an important moment, uh, both
Speaker 1: because of the anniversary, but also it just happens to
Speaker 1: be an important moment on the ground in Ukraine, UH,
Speaker 1: in the fighting, and so I think that he'll get
Speaker 1: a lot of attention. But I agree with Jennie. I
Speaker 1: think he needs to come back from that trip and
Speaker 1: address the country because there is slippage in the polling
Speaker 1: around support for the Ukraine and in the Ukrainians in
Speaker 1: Munich right now are saying, hey, guys, shore up your base,
Speaker 1: make sure that the American public are behind you, because
Speaker 1: we need this to go the long haul. Uh. We
Speaker 1: got plenty of resources. They've only spent a fraction of
Speaker 1: the forty billion that have been allocated for the Ukrainians.
Speaker 1: So it's not so much an economic issue. It's going
Speaker 1: to be an issue around can we can we stay
Speaker 1: in the fight as long as Vladimir Putin and and
Speaker 1: further than Vladimir Putin thinks will stay in the fight.
Speaker 1: Hearing General Mark Milley describe it, and he held a
Speaker 1: news conference earlier in the week ahead of the Munich
Speaker 1: conference with press with the Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. I
Speaker 1: should say and he talked about the fight in the
Speaker 1: dun Boss specifically and what he was seeing on the battlefield.
Speaker 1: Listen to General Mark Millie. Most of the uh dynamic
Speaker 1: movement back and forth is in generally in the vicinity
Speaker 1: of back moot. Uh. The Ukrainians are holding, uh, they're
Speaker 1: fighting the defense. The Russians, primarily the Wagner group, are attacking.
Speaker 1: But there's a what what I would describe it as
Speaker 1: as a really a very significant grinding battle of attrition
Speaker 1: with very high casualties, especially on the Russian side. Um.
Speaker 1: There there's no fancy arts of maneuver going on here.
Speaker 1: This is frontal attacks, wave attacks, lots of artillery with
Speaker 1: extremely high levels of casualties in that particular area. It
Speaker 1: sounds brutal rick and and no end in sight. I mean,
Speaker 1: you're talking about shoring up support now. General Millie is
Speaker 1: making it sound like we're gonna be talking about this
Speaker 1: year from now. Well very well could Uh. That's certainly uh.
Speaker 1: The situation on the ground right now, there's no there's
Speaker 1: no real movement um uh. And I think the point
Speaker 1: he's making about the fact that, you know, bach Mood
Speaker 1: has become such a meat grinder. Um. I heard reporting
Speaker 1: today that eight hundred to a thousand Russian troops are
Speaker 1: dying every day in that battle. Uh. It's just beyond
Speaker 1: my comprehension as to how long that is sustainable on
Speaker 1: a frontal assault, day after day. Um. But at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, UM, I think everyone has to
Speaker 1: be committed to a long haul. UH. If that then
Speaker 1: means that that could generate a discussion around a a
Speaker 1: withdrawal troops in a in a peace agreement with Russia, great,
Speaker 1: But they're not gonna withdraw if they think we're in
Speaker 1: the process of of of minimizing our commitment. So Jeannie,
Speaker 1: zoom out the lens here and and look at this
Speaker 1: politically in a presidential campaign cycle, the war in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: funding for the war in Ukraine, or how you stand
Speaker 1: on this could really be one of the biggest issues
Speaker 1: in the presidential debate. It certainly can. But I think
Speaker 1: the reality is that if you know, when we go
Speaker 1: you know, forty years from now and we look back,
Speaker 1: this will be the most important, if not one of
Speaker 1: the most important moments of Joe Biden's UH presidency is
Speaker 1: what he has done to shore up support for Ukraine.
Speaker 1: We go back a year how many people would have
Speaker 1: believed that Ukraine would be standing as strong as it is.
Speaker 1: That has a lot to do with the United States
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's leadership on this. Even people like Lindsay Graham
Speaker 1: have given him props for that, So I think that
Speaker 1: that is really important. The reality is this is a
Speaker 1: fight between rules based international order and autocracy, and he's
Speaker 1: got to keep making making this case. This is not
Speaker 1: just about someplace far away that we haven't been, but
Speaker 1: it is about who we are and we need to
Speaker 1: keep fighting for them. And for that reason, it's gonna
Speaker 1: play in four But he had he's on the right
Speaker 1: side of history here, but he's got to keep making
Speaker 1: the case. Donald Trump is gonna be on the other
Speaker 1: side of this issue right. Right by the time there's
Speaker 1: any kind of a real back and forth, Trump's gonna
Speaker 1: be saying, bring the money back home. Right, let's stop
Speaker 1: this war with Russia. I could, I could have ended this.
Speaker 1: It would never have happened if I was president. We're
Speaker 1: wasting our money. Yeah. As we get into the presidential cycle,
Speaker 1: it will be interesting to see what kind of backbone
Speaker 1: these Republicans and Democrat candidates who are running have. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know when our campaign in two thousand eight was
Speaker 1: in the duldrums, uh last place, John McCain came up
Speaker 1: with a brilliant idea of sort of campaigning on pushing
Speaker 1: the surge and I rack very unpopular thing, but it
Speaker 1: won't even the nomination. So are there are They're brave
Speaker 1: people running for president who are willing, especially when it
Speaker 1: looks bad, to stick their neck out and say no,
Speaker 1: we're staying at distance. We're gonna double down on this commitment.
Speaker 1: We're going to back them up for all the reasons
Speaker 1: that Jennie just said, Because this is a real, you know,
Speaker 1: epic battle of good versus evil. You know, from what
Speaker 1: we understand Jennie, that Ukraine money has Rick pointed out, Uh,
Speaker 1: not a lot of it is and spent but won't
Speaker 1: likely last the year. Is that going to collide with
Speaker 1: the budget debate that surrounds the debt ceiling as well?
Speaker 1: It's certainly going to come up. And I think the
Speaker 1: case that the President has to make, and he has
Speaker 1: to use his supporters from Mitch McConnell to Lindsay Graham
Speaker 1: and other Republicans to make the case it all hasn't
Speaker 1: been spent. We can do this. This is not an
Speaker 1: issue of money for us. And in terms of the campaign,
Speaker 1: this is why I'm going to be watching Monday, as
Speaker 1: I know everybody else will be. Does he go over there?
Speaker 1: Because that would be great video for the campaign. It
Speaker 1: would also help shore up public support. Otherwise we may
Speaker 1: see Zelensky, may see Zelynsky go to Poland, because you know,
Speaker 1: all the cool kids have gone over and so Biden
Speaker 1: is the last, including our first lady. So Biden is
Speaker 1: the last, and I think we may see him go
Speaker 1: for that reason. If it's safe. You wonder, maybe not Keith,
Speaker 1: but maybe it is give into the GIV or somewhere
Speaker 1: kind of nearby. We'll see how that goes. You're listening
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: We've had a running conversation here in Washington about regulating
Speaker 1: crypto for months, what years now, and nothing has really,
Speaker 1: of course come to fruition, even doubts about whether lawmakers
Speaker 1: know what they're talking about. All the while the chair
Speaker 1: of the SEC has been cracking down on his own
Speaker 1: and creating some controversy along the way. Nathan Dean at
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Intelligence dares to use two words in his crypto
Speaker 1: policy watch out today, regulatory clarity, and he's with us
Speaker 1: now to talk about it. The senior government analyst at
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Intelligence, Nathan Dean, welcome back, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: It's a pleasure to be here. So you're actually putting
Speaker 1: odds on crypto regulations happening this year in Congress, and
Speaker 1: they're actually not great, are they now? I mean, if
Speaker 1: you think about what the industry wants, and it's really
Speaker 1: like you, like I said before, regulatory clarity. You know,
Speaker 1: there's been a lot of proposals that came out of
Speaker 1: the tail in two. There's going to be more proposals
Speaker 1: that are coming out this year. But even in the
Speaker 1: light of f t X and this current SEC crackdown,
Speaker 1: I mean even uh, just recently, the SEC came out
Speaker 1: and said that they've come to an agreement with former
Speaker 1: NBA player Paul Purse over his his crypto uh disclosures
Speaker 1: and so forth. Like I think he's gonna pay some
Speaker 1: like just north of a million dollars and penalties for
Speaker 1: that um. But even with all that happening going on,
Speaker 1: and everybody's agreeing that we should do something or at
Speaker 1: least most people agreeing we should do something. There's just
Speaker 1: not general consensus on what that is. And so our
Speaker 1: take is is that you're gonna see a lot of
Speaker 1: proposals come up from the beginning of this year, a
Speaker 1: lot of debate. Key proposals to watch will probably come
Speaker 1: from the Senate Banking Committee, the Senate ad Committee. How
Speaker 1: friendly they are to crypto still to be determined. But
Speaker 1: we're we're putting in about chance of passage this year
Speaker 1: because we're just not, uh, we're not feeling that Congress
Speaker 1: actually knows exactly what they want to do. Forty percent chance.
Speaker 1: This is why I love the analysis that comes out
Speaker 1: of b I Bloomberg Intelligence. Uh, the SEC important that
Speaker 1: you mentioned this, And by the way, I'm looking at
Speaker 1: their announcement here charging NBA Hall of Famer Paul Pierce
Speaker 1: for unlawfully touting and making misleading statements about crypto security.
Speaker 1: My god, there's gonna be a lot of celebrities and
Speaker 1: athletes here looking their wounds, uh, for for what they
Speaker 1: got into in crypto. Just ask Tom Brady, right, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: I mean, we saw Kim Kardashian, We've seen a couple
Speaker 1: of other celebrities over the years, and this is just
Speaker 1: all as part of one strategy that's going on over
Speaker 1: at the SEC. And my colleague Elliott Stein put out
Speaker 1: a note this morning highlighting all the actions that the
Speaker 1: SEC has done. I mean, if you think about the
Speaker 1: SEC has going after Ripple, the SEC is currently just
Speaker 1: this week, is going after Terraform the uh. You know,
Speaker 1: there was a settlement with Kracking for thirty million dollars.
Speaker 1: And really this goes back to what Sherman Ginsler has
Speaker 1: been saying for the last year and a half. And
Speaker 1: he's what he's been saying is coming and register and
Speaker 1: coming and talk to us, because if on in in
Speaker 1: the SEC's mind, crypto tokens outside of bitcoin, Bitcoin is
Speaker 1: a commodity, it's deemed by the courts as a commodity,
Speaker 1: but pretty much everything else is a security. And therefore
Speaker 1: nineties era securities law still applies. If you talk to
Speaker 1: the industry, they'll say, we have a new digital asset class.
Speaker 1: This is brand new regulations from you know, ninety years ago,
Speaker 1: just don't apply to us. And because neither side is
Speaker 1: actual acquiesced to the other, the SEC is bringing forth
Speaker 1: these cases and ultimately for the industry. They're gonna get
Speaker 1: clarity one of two ways. It's either going to come
Speaker 1: from Congress and we just said chance there, or it's
Speaker 1: gonna come from the courts. And our take is is
Speaker 1: that the courts actually may be looking favorably at the
Speaker 1: SEC and a lot of this. How about that? Okay,
Speaker 1: Well you mentioned the crack and settlement. Every time Gary
Speaker 1: Gensler announces something like this, Nathan, the crypto community cries
Speaker 1: for that again, regulatory clarity. How how could legislation change that?
Speaker 1: If it's not this year, it's going to be eventually. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So there's really two mean pieces here, and you have
Speaker 1: the stable coin piece and then you have everything else.
Speaker 1: And I'll start with stable coin here because even though
Speaker 1: we think that there's a chance of passage this year,
Speaker 1: we are more favorable on a stable coin specific piece
Speaker 1: of legislation. We're putting around a chance on that. And
Speaker 1: what this would probably entail, uh, this is actually probably
Speaker 1: coming from the House Financial Services Committee, is you're going
Speaker 1: to have a bill that would require stable coins to
Speaker 1: be backed by a percent and high quality liquid assets. Uh.
Speaker 1: It would give bank issuers the ability to register with
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve and go under Federal Reserve oversight. The
Speaker 1: hold up is on non bank issuers, so like paxos
Speaker 1: and so forth like that. Uh, you know, the current
Speaker 1: thinking is is that non bank issuers could potentially eventually
Speaker 1: regular or register with state regulators. But even just recently
Speaker 1: the SEC has put out statements sort of questioning whether
Speaker 1: state regulators are there. So the stable thing stable coin piece,
Speaker 1: we think it happened this year for everything else. You know,
Speaker 1: some of the provisions you're looking for is what is
Speaker 1: a commodity versus a security. If you get a commodity
Speaker 1: status like bitcoin and the CFTC ultimately gets authority over
Speaker 1: spot markets, that's a lot less regulation in my view
Speaker 1: than if you're dealing with the SEC. But anything that's
Speaker 1: gonna pass the crypto industry is going to remain under
Speaker 1: the jurisdiction of the SEC, and more likely than not,
Speaker 1: it's going to be very stringent on regulatory requirements in
Speaker 1: terms of customer protections, custodial governance, anti money laundering. Know
Speaker 1: your customer disclosures, which cost money. It's the cost of
Speaker 1: the industry may want to you know, some of the
Speaker 1: industry will absolutely want this, but for those that are
Speaker 1: favoring a decentralized market. That's not exactly what they want.
Speaker 1: It's not at all. And it costs a lot of
Speaker 1: money to talk to the SEC, doesn't it, Nathan, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: I mean it just in this is just ballpark figures.
Speaker 1: But you know when Chairman Gendler says, come in and
Speaker 1: talk to us, Well, if you're going to approach the SEC,
Speaker 1: you need external legal counsel, and that costs money. I mean,
Speaker 1: we've heard we've heard folks say that they've spent somewhere
Speaker 1: a hundred thousand dollars to two fifty dollars just for
Speaker 1: one meeting. And if you and I decide to go
Speaker 1: to our garage and create a new crypto platform, they
Speaker 1: that's not money that we really want to spend at
Speaker 1: the moment. So it's not as easy as it sounds.
Speaker 1: And you know what we see a lot of times
Speaker 1: in regulations is that when you have this type of
Speaker 1: industry altering regulation come out, it's usually the folks that
Speaker 1: are either have the cryptos, the technology, spend, the legal spend,
Speaker 1: the risk spend high backers. They usually gain market share
Speaker 1: as the mom and pop suffer. This is incredible insight
Speaker 1: you're suggesting that if I'm if I'm reading you right,
Speaker 1: or maybe we can advance this a little bit. If
Speaker 1: you're a start up crypto firm, it's probably it's cheaper
Speaker 1: for you to run the risk of being fine than
Speaker 1: to actually interface with the SEC. Well, you know, a
Speaker 1: lot of the bloom In fact, Bloomberg News just reported
Speaker 1: today that you know, Bonance is thinking about just you know,
Speaker 1: essentially segregating itself from the United States. We've heard a
Speaker 1: lot of this from the crypt the community of why
Speaker 1: should he even play in the United States. You know,
Speaker 1: there's this idea here is that the U S regulation
Speaker 1: is not going to change at least until let's say
Speaker 1: that the presidential election. If you get a Republican president,
Speaker 1: then maybe it would, but that's two years and for
Speaker 1: a lot of these firms, that's not that's two years
Speaker 1: day I want don't want to spend. So there's more
Speaker 1: of a momentum I think for crypto firms to move
Speaker 1: outside in the United States. The European Union has a
Speaker 1: more favorable regulatory framework. The United Kingdom just put out
Speaker 1: a Treasury in the United Kingdom just put out a
Speaker 1: consultation that's more favorable du Bui, Hong Kong. So there's
Speaker 1: this idea out here is just, you know what, we're
Speaker 1: gonna take our toys and go play somewhere else that's
Speaker 1: set back to the US. And that's the great concern
Speaker 1: that pro crypto lawmakers have here, right, is that we
Speaker 1: blow our chance to regulate a nascent industry here or
Speaker 1: currency or whatever you want to call it, and you
Speaker 1: just let the whole thing go off shore. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: And there's a lot of there's a lot of policymakers
Speaker 1: that would just say, you know what, it's better to
Speaker 1: just let it go. You know, this is something that
Speaker 1: the crypto industry struggles with because you know, for those
Speaker 1: of us who work in crypto, we think it's a
Speaker 1: very big deal. But when you took it, when you
Speaker 1: look at the total market cap for crypto, you're just
Speaker 1: south of a billion or sorry, a trillion dollars. You know,
Speaker 1: the New York Stock Exchange. The last time I saw
Speaker 1: it was like twenty nine trillion dollars. And so for
Speaker 1: all the attention it gets, it's scrypto is also just
Speaker 1: a second tier issue when you talk about things like
Speaker 1: inflation and China and stimulus and economics and so forth
Speaker 1: like that. And this is where I think the absence
Speaker 1: of you know, Sam Bank ben Free is going to
Speaker 1: be felt, is uh. You know, he was very much
Speaker 1: a proponent of trying to get this regulation in front
Speaker 1: of policymakers and keep it at the high part of
Speaker 1: their priority lists. Certainly, we've seen coin based try this,
Speaker 1: We've seen the Trade Association to continue to try this.
Speaker 1: But somebody's gonna have to keep that issue at the
Speaker 1: forefront of this year or else it's just going to
Speaker 1: get lost amongst a lot of other priorities. He's the
Speaker 1: senior government analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence with us here in
Speaker 1: our washing In Studios Nathan Dean find his column on
Speaker 1: the Terminal the b I Policy Watch us Crypto Framework Outlook. Nathan,
Speaker 1: thanks so much as ever for the insights today. Thanks
Speaker 1: for having me with the real player. Let's reassemble the
Speaker 1: panel for their take on at Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeanie
Speaker 1: Schanzano and Rick Davis, Genie Odds Bloomberg Intelligence cuts through
Speaker 1: the muck here. Forget all the talk. They don't see
Speaker 1: it happening. I suspect you agree. I do. I love
Speaker 1: the percentage. Thank you Bloomberg Intelligence. I that that's the
Speaker 1: best And you know what you said towards the end
Speaker 1: is absolutely right. I mean, we heard the same thing
Speaker 1: from Tim Scott, who's the ranking member on the committee.
Speaker 1: He said, part of the problem is not just that
Speaker 1: the guidance has been unclear, but the lack of clarity
Speaker 1: is driving them out of the outside of the United States.
Speaker 1: And so this is certainly a concern. And there are
Speaker 1: so many competing proposals and ideas out there, and quite frankly,
Speaker 1: the one that had the bipartisan support, that had some
Speaker 1: momentum last year was written by Bankman Freed, and of
Speaker 1: course that now has gone by the wayside, and so
Speaker 1: you know, we are left in this sort of no
Speaker 1: man's land. And I think that they are absolutely right
Speaker 1: when they say the chances right now look really dim.
Speaker 1: It's a recurring message from the industry though, when we've
Speaker 1: had this talk and just the last week here with
Speaker 1: Harvey Pitt on this program, Rick Davis, the the industry
Speaker 1: is crying out for some rules of the road. Here
Speaker 1: all the while, uh, the SEC is kind of picking
Speaker 1: its battles and creating a lot of confusion. But it
Speaker 1: looks like that doesn't end anytime soon. Yeah. I was
Speaker 1: really surprised when Gary Gensler was picked to run the SEC.
Speaker 1: I thought he'd be the leader of this right and
Speaker 1: and his Genny pointed out Tim Scott's been looking for
Speaker 1: guidance from Kinsler, shared Brown, the chairman of committee has
Speaker 1: been looking for guys from Gensler. And you know, pakasta,
Speaker 1: a hundred fifty thars have a meeting with you. That's
Speaker 1: a racket. How do I get into that? Um? But um,
Speaker 1: But at the end of the day, I do think.
Speaker 1: I mean, like the only thing I would I would say,
Speaker 1: might sir vibe And it's not really regulatory, but uh,
Speaker 1: there is a lot of impetus for consumer protection around
Speaker 1: uh crypto in Washington, D C. And And so I
Speaker 1: I could see a consumer protection bill where members could
Speaker 1: go out and say, Okay, you know we've we've put
Speaker 1: up disclosure regulations, we put up you know, UH save
Speaker 1: harbors for for consumers to be able to play in
Speaker 1: this uh and and and yet not actually address the
Speaker 1: big big issues of you know, whether or not these
Speaker 1: tokens are security or commodity, or whether or not they
Speaker 1: ought to be regulated as Nathan Dean has discussed, so
Speaker 1: so there may be some action. They're enormous pressure on
Speaker 1: this um and I would say to one thing that
Speaker 1: is a problem for Congress is this is a new industry. Uh.
Speaker 1: Wall Street's done a better job of sort of getting
Speaker 1: ahead of it and understanding it, uh than government hallways
Speaker 1: in Capitol Hill or in the Treasury Department. Uh. It's
Speaker 1: hard to find experts on the Hill who can talk
Speaker 1: to members intelligently about, you know, what the impact of
Speaker 1: these various crypto opportunities are. And so that's one of
Speaker 1: the reason why you don't have a lot of action
Speaker 1: right now is because there's just no not the infrastructure
Speaker 1: that you would normally have. It's fascinating. Rick just outlined
Speaker 1: two great job opportunities for your up and coming students. Genie,
Speaker 1: I hope that you're listening and taking notes here. The
Speaker 1: fact of the matter is a lot of the students
Speaker 1: in your class probably no more than we do about this,
Speaker 1: But if this does go off shore, they'll be on
Speaker 1: their VPNs buying uh, you know, coins or that we've
Speaker 1: never heard of through exchanges based in other countries. If
Speaker 1: they want to. It's it's it's a much different game
Speaker 1: than than traditional banking regulation. It is. I was taking
Speaker 1: notes on what Rick said. Forget the students, I'll get
Speaker 1: that job that Rick's talking about. And you know VP
Speaker 1: what Joe mad No, I know what then is. But
Speaker 1: you know, listen, you know cryptocurrency. It was a libertarian
Speaker 1: revolution against government control of money. So in some ways
Speaker 1: it's not surprising where we are, and in other ways
Speaker 1: it's maddening, especially considering considering what work was just talking
Speaker 1: about the consumer issues at asked, which we all just
Speaker 1: lived through with FTX, And absolutely students understand this well.
Speaker 1: I asked my sons to explain it to me constantly. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, they try and I shake my head, but
Speaker 1: you know, it is something that Congress, to Rick's point,
Speaker 1: has simply not been adept at regulating and talking about
Speaker 1: an understanding, you know. And of course that means they
Speaker 1: rely on insiders like Sam Bankman freedom. To me, that
Speaker 1: is always a concern. Yeah again, you saw how well
Speaker 1: that worked out. Rick Davis and Jennie Chanzano our signature
Speaker 1: panel for the rest of the hour. Here is it
Speaker 1: possible the US just shot down a hobby balloon? Recall
Speaker 1: President Biden's remarks from yesterday. As we discussed, we still
Speaker 1: do not know exactly what the second, third, or fourth
Speaker 1: objects were that the US shot down. Listen, we don't
Speaker 1: yet know exactly what these three objects were, but nothing,
Speaker 1: nothing right now suggests they were related to Chinese spy
Speaker 1: balloon program or that there were surveillance vehicles from other
Speaker 1: any other country. Intelligence community's current assessment is that these
Speaker 1: three objects were most likely balloons tied to private companies,
Speaker 1: recreation or research institutions studying weather or conducting other scientific research.
Speaker 1: Enter the Northern Illinois Bottle Cap Balloon Brigade, known as
Speaker 1: the n I b b B, which declared one of
Speaker 1: its balloons missing in action on February fift Aviation Week
Speaker 1: got the story rolling on this has been picked up everywhere.
Speaker 1: The club's silver coated party style Pico balloon reported its
Speaker 1: last position on February at thirty eight thousand, nine ten
Speaker 1: feet off the west coast of Alaska, and a popular
Speaker 1: forecasting tool projected that the cylindricy shaped objects, of course
Speaker 1: one was described as such already by the government, would
Speaker 1: be floating high over the central part of the Yukon
Speaker 1: Territory ding on February Aviation Week reports and reminds us
Speaker 1: that is the same day in f twenty two shot
Speaker 1: one down of cilinar description in that same in general area.
Speaker 1: And apparently the man that talked to you about this
Speaker 1: is Ron Meadows, the founder of Scientific Balloon Solutions, which
Speaker 1: is a company based in Silicon Valley that makes these
Speaker 1: purpose built pico balloons. I'm talking about for hobbyists, for educators,
Speaker 1: for scientists, exactly like President Biden said, I think even
Speaker 1: in the same order yesterday, Ron, I really appreciate your
Speaker 1: being with us here. Uh did they just shoot down
Speaker 1: one of your balloons? Well, it's hard to say without
Speaker 1: seeing a picture, but the description of a cylindrical object
Speaker 1: is the shape of the balloons that we produce, typically
Speaker 1: the party balloons. UM. So there's two types of balloons that, um,
Speaker 1: the industry can fly. When I say industry, I mean
Speaker 1: HAM radio operators, people do in science, UM STEM education schools. UM.
Speaker 1: They can fly just an expensive party balloom that they
Speaker 1: can go by at a store. Typically they don't fly
Speaker 1: as high and they typically are around UM. The one
Speaker 1: that was shot down UM near Michigan. Yeah, that one
Speaker 1: was probably a party ballooon. When they talked about the
Speaker 1: long wires hanging down underneath. Its probably twenty UM. They
Speaker 1: call it whispered WSPR. It's like short wave communications, long
Speaker 1: distance communication, and UM it fit that description of that
Speaker 1: group's balloon. So this is news to all of us.
Speaker 1: Run you're an expert. When you heard these reports, your
Speaker 1: your own antenna went up. I'm guessing you had an
Speaker 1: idea what this was. Yes, yes, I had a real
Speaker 1: good idea. UM. The description of the cylindrical object is
Speaker 1: like our SPS thirteen that we build scientific balloon solutions,
Speaker 1: and we primarily build that for the education STEM community. UM.
Speaker 1: They buy these bloons, they put a small tracking system
Speaker 1: on them that is basically the size of a popsicle
Speaker 1: stick that weighs between ten and twenty grams. There's two
Speaker 1: types of communications. One is called a p RS that
Speaker 1: carries about a nineteen inch antenna, and the other one
Speaker 1: is WHISPER and that's about a twenty ft long antenna. UM.
Speaker 1: The radar signature of these are minimal and none. Although
Speaker 1: I'm not an expert in that field, the long antenna
Speaker 1: for WHISPER may be picked up easier than UM the
Speaker 1: direct line of site communications type tracking system. But you
Speaker 1: have to keep in mind that these are UM ten
Speaker 1: to twenty gram tracking systems and we are f A
Speaker 1: A exempt for launching them in the United States. Do
Speaker 1: they get lost pretty often? Typically they're never recovered. Every
Speaker 1: once in a while one will be really a big
Speaker 1: deal though, right because they I'm reading that they cost
Speaker 1: as little as twelve dollars each. Is that true? Um? Yeah,
Speaker 1: a party balloom does the ones we sell or in
Speaker 1: the hundred and fifty dollar range for education. So that's
Speaker 1: the that's like the sweet package. But the idea here
Speaker 1: is we we spent thousand dollar missile potentially to shoot
Speaker 1: down a twelve dollar balloon. Yeah, and really all they
Speaker 1: had the jet had to do is to fly close
Speaker 1: to that balloon and it would have taken it out
Speaker 1: with You're ever going to know? Can we prove whether
Speaker 1: this is what you think it is? Uh? I haven't
Speaker 1: had the opportunity to see pictures. Do you add you
Speaker 1: reached out to the Pentagon? I read? Is that true? UM?
Speaker 1: I tried calling d D, Homeland Security, UM, the Air Force,
Speaker 1: multiple UM, multiple calls local left B. I didn't seem
Speaker 1: to have any interest that the National FBI did take
Speaker 1: my report, but I haven't heard anything back. I was
Speaker 1: trying to let them know that these things have been
Speaker 1: flying the technology that we developed, because I believe we're
Speaker 1: the only company in the world that designs and bills
Speaker 1: and sells small super pressure balloons to the amateur and
Speaker 1: stem education community. UM. It's it's something that we've been
Speaker 1: flying since two thousand fifteen. UM and a lot of
Speaker 1: UM universities, middle schools. In fact, we have one middle
Speaker 1: school was the first middle school to fly around the world.
Speaker 1: You're not going to tell me that some students lost
Speaker 1: that their balloon shotdown, are you. It's very possible. Ron.
Speaker 1: I appreciate your coming in to talk to us. We
Speaker 1: learned a lot of Uran Meadows. His company is Scientific
Speaker 1: Balloon Solutions, the Silicon Valley based company that makes these
Speaker 1: balloons that we may well have shot down, trading in
Speaker 1: f twenty two mission and thousand dollars sidewinder missile for
Speaker 1: a twelve dollar balloon. Genie Schanzano and Rick Davis are
Speaker 1: with us. Is this really how this story is gonna end? Rick? Yeah? Sure,
Speaker 1: I think this was the most entertaining part of the
Speaker 1: aerial objects debate this week that I've heard has answered
Speaker 1: more questions than the President United States could give us.
Speaker 1: So I think giving time to uh to Ron was
Speaker 1: a worthy task here. He knew exactly what it was
Speaker 1: when he heard the descriptions coming out of the Pentagon Genie.
Speaker 1: I mean, we we think we we have figured this out, right. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Although I have mixed feelings about this, Joe, I'm very
Speaker 1: happy for Ron, and you know that he feels like
Speaker 1: he's identified it because on the one hand, yeah, we've
Speaker 1: were all waiting to see who owns this thing, because
Speaker 1: you shoot something down three times, clearly somebody owns these things.
Speaker 1: But the reality is I thought maybe they were extraterrestrials,
Speaker 1: and as we know, I was waiting for us all
Speaker 1: to be visited on sound on and so it's a
Speaker 1: little sad for me that that's not going to happen.
Speaker 1: It would explain though, Rick. I mean, if, as we
Speaker 1: were talking yesterday, if these things are really lost, what
Speaker 1: kind of records are you going to have left from
Speaker 1: something from this twelve dollar balloon that weighs ounces? Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: wonder they can't find anything exactly it vanished. I mean,
Speaker 1: as he said, the thing and it's gonna POPU. Look,
Speaker 1: this falls into the category in Washington, where if it's
Speaker 1: not true, it ought to be. I like that that's
Speaker 1: got to be the name of your of your book.
Speaker 1: That that's fantastic. But Ron, you know, I hope Ron
Speaker 1: Meadows understands that he's beaming at fifty thousand watts here
Speaker 1: across the Potomac from our transmitter in Washington to the Pentagon.
Speaker 1: Are you surprised, Jennie that he did not get a
Speaker 1: call back or are they still listening to that message
Speaker 1: laughing about it. No, I think they're listening to sound
Speaker 1: don They're going to get roun right on the phone
Speaker 1: right now and they're going to clarify this. You know,
Speaker 1: I wish Ron had talked to Joe Biden before we
Speaker 1: all know idea. It wasn't a fan of that press
Speaker 1: conference yesterday. You know, if he had talked, we could
Speaker 1: have gotten more clarity on this. So, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: they will get back to Ron. I'm waiting to see
Speaker 1: because I'm still a little unclear. Doesn't run is Ron
Speaker 1: saying he owns all three or just one and there's
Speaker 1: two other people out there. That's a great question that
Speaker 1: we only know of the one that was declared missing
Speaker 1: in action. By the Bottled Cap Balloon Brigade, but all
Speaker 1: jokeing a scythe here, Rick. This kind of like the
Speaker 1: guy the Pentagon we want to talk to, right, he
Speaker 1: runs the only company that makes balloons like this. It
Speaker 1: would be pretty interesting of a black Hawk helicopter lands
Speaker 1: in his backyard. And where are these guys? Where's Harry Stamper,
Speaker 1: you know, like, hey, where Ron? We wanted dusr Meadows
Speaker 1: come with us? Yes, exactly. So look, I mean, Jeannie's
Speaker 1: still hoping that one of the other three were as
Speaker 1: her alien balloon. Um and uh, and I hope she's right.
Speaker 1: I'd hate her for her disappointed that, you know, she's
Speaker 1: not going to have an alien encounter anytime. So I
Speaker 1: suppose the odds the odds with you still at this point, Genie, Um,
Speaker 1: is the trip next week gonna draw the attention away
Speaker 1: from the balloon gate debate here or whatever we're calling
Speaker 1: it at this point? Like is it done this week?
Speaker 1: In the news cyclo? Gene. I'm not if I can
Speaker 1: help it, Joe Matthew, but I think it might. I
Speaker 1: think trying hard to bury this thing on this program
Speaker 1: right now. Yeah, we like this one a lot, but
Speaker 1: you know, I think Anthony B. Lincoln may meet with
Speaker 1: his counterpart at the Munich conference. That may sort of
Speaker 1: tamp things down a bit, But who knows. Over the weekend.
Speaker 1: You never know. They shoot, something melts down. We could
Speaker 1: be right back at this on Tuesday. That's true. It
Speaker 1: was a daily occurrence for a minute, wasn't it. Yes,
Speaker 1: the Fifth Dimension. Come on, let's do it right, Rick Davis,
Speaker 1: Genie Chanzano have a long weekend. I hope you do too.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna try and I'll meet you back here Tuesday
Speaker 1: on the fastest hour in politics. I'm Joe, Matthew and Washington.
Speaker 1: Subscribe to the podcast go to Apple, Spotify, or wherever
Speaker 1: you find them. Search for sound on This is Bloomberg.