Speaker 1: Joe and I are in Washington, but we actually have
Speaker 1: our eyes on Las Vegas at this hour, where the
Speaker 1: Bitcoin twenty twenty five conference is taking place. Remember last
Speaker 1: year when it was in Nashville, then candidate Donald Trump
Speaker 1: spoke before the conference, and today his now sitting Vice President,
Speaker 1: Jade Vance, was the keynote speaker, talking a big game
Speaker 1: about how this administration wants to be friendlier for the
Speaker 1: crypto industry overall. Make it, of course, as they've said often,
Speaker 1: the bitcoin capital of the world. Jadvance today Joe saying,
Speaker 1: we want our fellow Americans to know that crypto and
Speaker 1: digital assets, and particularly bitcoin are part of the mainstream
Speaker 1: economy and are here to stay.
Speaker 2: So helping us connect the dots between Las Vegas and Washington.
Speaker 2: Here an actual policy from what goes on inside the
Speaker 2: Venetian Resort to underneath the Capital Dome is Byron Donald's
Speaker 2: the congressman, Republican from Florida's nineteenth is with us right
Speaker 2: now on balance of power. Congressmen, welcome back. I hope
Speaker 2: things are going well in Las Vegas.
Speaker 3: Kaylee's right.
Speaker 2: It was Donald Trump's term last year when he promised
Speaker 2: America would become a bitcoin super power under his leadership.
Speaker 2: What changes need to happen right now to make that happen.
Speaker 4: Well, first, it's good to be with you. The first
Speaker 4: couple of changes are going to be a legislation.
Speaker 3: We're going to be moving through.
Speaker 4: The Financial Services Committee this summer one. Dealing obviously with
Speaker 4: stable coin legislation. We've been at that for a couple
Speaker 4: of years now under the leadership of former chairman mckenry,
Speaker 4: who's now left Congress and now chairman of french Hill.
Speaker 4: And then of course our market structure legislation to create
Speaker 4: the regulatory framework for digital assets overall, to actually have
Speaker 4: a rules to the road where you have regulators understanding
Speaker 4: what their purview actually is and unlike what was happening
Speaker 4: with Gary Gensler, just making up your purview as you
Speaker 4: go along, because that's how you see that industry. So
Speaker 4: I think those are those are steps one and two
Speaker 4: for making bigcoin. As the President talks about the making
Speaker 4: bitcoin the United States the bigcoin capital of the world.
Speaker 3: You have to address the regulatory environment.
Speaker 4: You have to create a clear regulatory system when it
Speaker 4: comes to stable coins in particular, that will feed the
Speaker 4: engine for people to bring more investments into the United States,
Speaker 4: and then that's how the United States will become a
Speaker 4: true leader when it comes to digital assets.
Speaker 1: But as all of that legislative effort, Congressman, and it's
Speaker 1: great to have you on the program. Again complicated by
Speaker 1: the conflict of interest questions around President Trump knowing he
Speaker 1: has a meme coin and attended a dinner last week
Speaker 1: with investors in said meme coin that DJT, the media
Speaker 1: company that literally bears his name, is raising money so
Speaker 1: that it can buy a bitcoin. Does that add a
Speaker 1: complicating factor to any kind of bipartisan effort in advancing
Speaker 1: legislation like that when that's giving Democrats a lot of
Speaker 1: noise to make, no, I don't think so.
Speaker 4: There's a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill who do
Speaker 4: realize that digital assets are here to stay. Bitcoin is
Speaker 4: here to stay. It's not going anywhere, and so it's
Speaker 4: time for the United States to actually take the necessary
Speaker 4: steps forward to fully embrace digital assets. And so I
Speaker 4: think what's going to happen is we're going to move
Speaker 4: that policy out of the House. There are going to
Speaker 4: be Democrats in my view, who are going to support
Speaker 4: both packages in the House, and you're going to have
Speaker 4: Democrats in the Senate support it. I think what what
Speaker 4: you saw, and I think Democrats saw this by and
Speaker 4: large with how they acted towards the digital assets industry
Speaker 4: under the Biden administration, and you know, if you're here
Speaker 4: on the conference, it was soundly rejected. I think people
Speaker 4: here understand that you have to have clear rules for
Speaker 4: to the road. You can't have regulators just picking and
Speaker 4: choosing how they're going to look at digital assets.
Speaker 3: You simply can't.
Speaker 4: So I think that to your question, I don't think
Speaker 4: that's going to matter at all. We're talking about an
Speaker 4: industry that it really has the potential to be a
Speaker 4: trillion dollar industry here in the United States, and not
Speaker 4: just to talk about the guys who are doing big things,
Speaker 4: whether it's coinbase or any other company that's out there,
Speaker 4: talk about the little guy people who are getting in
Speaker 4: at the bottom of this industry, who are finding an
Speaker 4: opportunity to really build a company, really build wealth that
Speaker 4: crosses party lines, acrosses demographic lines. And so we need
Speaker 4: to lead on this and not be afraid of talking
Speaker 4: points or other things that are going on.
Speaker 1: But as we consider building wealth, what if all of
Speaker 1: this effort directly leads to further building the wealth of
Speaker 1: the president of the United States. Do you not see
Speaker 1: an issue their congressman.
Speaker 4: Look, I would tell you that a rising tide lifts
Speaker 4: all boats. You know, if Eric and don are doing
Speaker 4: things in their personal capacities, that's fine, and that's all
Speaker 4: well and good.
Speaker 3: That's America.
Speaker 4: I don't think people should be told that you can't
Speaker 4: do business in our country. Actually, to be blunt with you,
Speaker 4: it's better that these things are actually out in the
Speaker 4: open for people to know and to see, as opposed
Speaker 4: to what was happening under the previous administration, where they
Speaker 4: were hiding how the family was making money. They were
Speaker 4: hiding it from everybody. They were lying to the American people.
Speaker 4: The president, President Biden, or the auto pen whichever one
Speaker 4: you choose, had to do preemptive pardons.
Speaker 3: That stuff is ridiculous. That's how ages.
Speaker 4: What we're talking about is regulating an industry in a
Speaker 4: proper way so the industry can thrive, it can grow,
Speaker 4: people can invest, capital can be raised, and people, whether
Speaker 4: you're at the top or the.
Speaker 3: Bottom, can get in. One of the things that I'm.
Speaker 4: So excited about digital assets is that when we finally
Speaker 4: get the regulatory environment settled, you can do things like
Speaker 4: fractional You can do fractional exchanges where people can buy
Speaker 4: a fractional piece of real world assets or a fractional
Speaker 4: piece of companies going forward. So if somebody doesn't have,
Speaker 4: you know, fifty thousand dollars to their name to invest,
Speaker 4: and they might have a couple hundred dollars, they might
Speaker 4: have five thousand dollars under a fractionalized, fractionalized, tokenized.
Speaker 3: Exchange, you can invest in that.
Speaker 4: That helps people grow their asset base, It helps them
Speaker 4: grow themselves financially in our country.
Speaker 3: That's a good thing. We should celebrate that.
Speaker 2: Congressman, I want to ask you about the effort on
Speaker 2: Capitol Hill that you're in the midst of right now
Speaker 2: when it comes to reconciliation Trump tax cuts, the spending cuts,
Speaker 2: and all the rest that comes with it. Here, Kaylee
Speaker 2: mentioned a moment ago that the President was just asked
Speaker 2: in the Oval office about comments from Elon Musk about
Speaker 2: the way this bill took shape in the House and
Speaker 2: is now of course on its way to the Senate.
Speaker 2: Let's listen to what he said and we'll have you react.
Speaker 4: I was like disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly,
Speaker 4: which increases the bunch depths if not doesn't decrease it.
Speaker 3: And that reminds the work that the NOES team is doing.
Speaker 3: I actually thought that when this big, beautiful bill came along.
Speaker 1: I mean, like everything he's done on dose gets wiped
Speaker 1: out in the first year.
Speaker 3: I think a bill can be can be big or
Speaker 3: it can be beautiful.
Speaker 2: It can be big or it can be beautiful. Congressman
Speaker 2: that was with CBS, is Elon Musk wrong.
Speaker 3: Well, a couple of things. One in the package.
Speaker 4: Obviously, we maintained all of the President's tax policy and
Speaker 4: made a lot of it permanent, which is said the
Speaker 4: betterment of every small busin owner, every American. We secure
Speaker 4: the border, we actually build border wall, We modernize our
Speaker 4: defense department. We do a lot of things that have
Speaker 4: been neglected, especially over the last four years, that need
Speaker 4: to get done, and we were able to accomplish that.
Speaker 3: When it comes to spending cuts, yeah, Elon's right on this.
Speaker 4: We have to do a much better job and making
Speaker 4: sure that these DESA bills are at a minimum deficit neutral.
Speaker 4: But what they need to do is decrease deficits and
Speaker 4: so That was a major sticking point for a lot
Speaker 4: of conservatives in the House. They want to see real
Speaker 4: spending cuts in these packages. I know that there's a
Speaker 4: recisions package that the House has in their possession. We
Speaker 4: need to move that to the floor and do that immediately.
Speaker 4: A lot of the Doge cuts are in that recisions package.
Speaker 4: We should be voting on that at the end of
Speaker 4: the day, before you get to bills or how any
Speaker 4: of that looks like. I look at the bond market
Speaker 4: and one thing is crystal clear. The bond market is
Speaker 4: looking at the United States and they are saying, you
Speaker 4: better get your fiscal house in order, or we're going
Speaker 4: to charge you more to borrow money. No nation can
Speaker 4: thrive under that kind of a sen So we have
Speaker 4: to be serious on Capitol Hill. Last thing I will
Speaker 4: say is the President and his team. They did a
Speaker 4: tremendous job of trying to get this bill through the House.
Speaker 4: Some of the sticking points on why we didn't cut
Speaker 4: more spending was because of Republicans who, to be blunt,
Speaker 4: we're concerned about their re elections and their districts as
Speaker 4: opposed to making sure that we put the fiscal health
Speaker 4: of the nation forward. And have that be the number
Speaker 4: one thing we're concerned about. So I think that as
Speaker 4: this bill goes through the Senate, the Senate's going to
Speaker 4: make changes, it will come back to the House, and
Speaker 4: if for future packages, I'd urge my colleagues we have
Speaker 4: to take our deficits in our debts seriously because if
Speaker 4: we don't get this under control, the bond market is
Speaker 4: going to come for everybody. I don't care if you're
Speaker 4: a Republican or Democrat, it does not matter. The bond
Speaker 4: market charging higher rates for Treasury bonds is going to
Speaker 4: be a major issue that really could hurt the United
Speaker 4: States over the long term, if not sink.
Speaker 1: Us well on the bond market. Congressman White House Trade
Speaker 1: advisor Pete Navarro just penned an op ed about that
Speaker 1: today in The Hill, saying that the bond market is
Speaker 1: wrong about Trump's tax bill. It misses the substantial positive
Speaker 1: revenue impact of tariffs. What's your take on Navarro's argument, Well, I.
Speaker 4: Agree with Peter when it comes to the President's tax
Speaker 4: policy and even some tariff policy. Yes, those are revenue raisers,
Speaker 4: and I would argue that when you get out of
Speaker 4: the frankly, the negotiating around what the economic growth rates
Speaker 4: are going to be on Capitol Hill. That was a negotiation.
Speaker 4: It's not about what's going to happen. I think things
Speaker 4: in the President's tax package, obviously Section one ninety nine
Speaker 4: A being continued and now permanent one hundred percent expensing
Speaker 4: over four years, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime.
Speaker 4: I think all those things are going to be stimulative
Speaker 4: to the economy. But I think what the bond market
Speaker 4: is really talking about is our deficits and our debts
Speaker 4: and the velocity of borrowings into the future.
Speaker 3: That's what we have to get under control.
Speaker 4: I would argue that if the bill was deficit neutral
Speaker 4: coming out of the House, Moodies would not have downgraded.
Speaker 3: I'll tell you that right now. Don't think they would have.
Speaker 4: So I think that those are the things that the
Speaker 4: bond market is looking at. It's not tax policy. Peter
Speaker 4: is correct when it comes to tax policy. Totally agree
Speaker 4: with him on that. But the bond market is looking
Speaker 4: at the deficit projections, the debt projections of the United States.
Speaker 4: We have to take this stuff seriously. There are real
Speaker 4: reforms that need to happen in Washington, DC, and So
Speaker 4: that's the stuff that when you look at future pieces
Speaker 4: of legislation when it comes to deficits and debts, that's
Speaker 4: the stuff that we have to get to get serious about.
Speaker 2: This is fascinating for us to hear congressmen in our
Speaker 2: remaining moment. Are you quietly hoping the Senate cuts spending
Speaker 2: further when it gets its hands on the bill?
Speaker 3: Oh? Yeah, of course. Listen. I am all for cutting spending.
Speaker 3: And look, let's be clear on this.
Speaker 4: I know that there are a lot of Americans to say, well,
Speaker 4: if you cut spending, is that the thing that I use?
Speaker 4: And I will tell you that the federal government weighs
Speaker 4: so much money, we could actually do more when it
Speaker 4: comes to spending and actually not hit vulnerable populations. I'll
Speaker 4: give you an example. There was a lot of conversation
Speaker 4: around me de in this bill. The Democrats are saying that, oh,
Speaker 4: medicaid is to pay.
Speaker 3: For tax cuts. That is a lie.
Speaker 4: That is simply not true. The reason why it's a
Speaker 4: lie is because when the Democrats were in charge, they
Speaker 4: did not touch Donald Trump's tax policy. They left it
Speaker 4: in place because it's good tax policy. So what the
Speaker 4: real argument is in medicaid should the federal government be
Speaker 4: spending nine dollars for every one dollar that the state
Speaker 4: spends on able bodied adults with no kids, versus the
Speaker 4: same federal government paying a dollar thirty three for poor kids,
Speaker 4: elderly people who are poor, and pregnant women. That is
Speaker 4: a dichotomy set up by Barack Obama and Obamacare, and
Speaker 4: it's terrible policy because what you've done is you've expanded
Speaker 4: the Medicaid population for able bodied adults, and you're actually
Speaker 4: disincentivizing state systems and hospitals from serving the most vulnerable.
Speaker 4: So there are positions on the hill that said, look,
Speaker 4: let's try to rework some of this stuff. Let's do
Speaker 4: more investment into poor people, vulnerable populations, let's actually take it,
Speaker 4: try to take a stab at rural health and some
Speaker 4: other issues that are happening in the country. But we
Speaker 4: have to end this Medicaid expansion fallacy around essentially creating
Speaker 4: expansion populations around Medicaid.
Speaker 3: You have to end that.
Speaker 4: One of the big reasons the Democrats want to keep
Speaker 4: Medicaid expansion is not for health care. It's because they
Speaker 4: want single payer health care. That was the reason they
Speaker 4: wanted the public option back when they did the Affordable
Speaker 4: Care Act back in what.
Speaker 3: Twenty ten, that was the purpose of that.
Speaker 4: So there are conversations like that happening on Capitol Hill
Speaker 4: where you can make changes to a program like Medicaid,
Speaker 4: you can make sure people who are on those programs
Speaker 4: are grandfathered in their benefits don't get cut.
Speaker 3: But going forward, the.
Speaker 4: Federal government says, we're not going to be funding able
Speaker 4: bodied adults going forward into the future. We're going to
Speaker 4: make sure we prioritize vulnerable populations, people who are truly
Speaker 4: in need. That's the kind of spending reform that I
Speaker 4: think the bond market would say, you know what, they're
Speaker 4: being serios. That's also the type of spending reforms and
Speaker 4: I think the American people would get behind because they'll
Speaker 4: be like, that makes sense. We should be making sure
Speaker 4: that people who are truly vulnerable get the help that
Speaker 4: they deserve.
Speaker 1: What about people who are vulnerable to the elements? Congressman,
Speaker 1: and I ask you this knowing you would like to
Speaker 1: be the next governor of Florida, are you worried that
Speaker 1: funding cuts in areas like FEMA and elsewhere as we
Speaker 1: head into Atlantic hurricane season could leave states like Florida
Speaker 1: more vulnerable and responding to disasters.
Speaker 4: Well, look, I think that what you're going to see
Speaker 4: is the reworking of FEMA, which is something I have
Speaker 4: advocated for. I filed a bill with Jared Moscowitz, Democrat
Speaker 4: out of Florida about getting FEMA out of Holan and Security,
Speaker 4: having it being a direct report agency to the White House.
Speaker 4: So I think I commend the White House on what
Speaker 4: they're doing. President Trump is leading on this issue, making
Speaker 4: sure that FEMA is reformed. So I'm not concerned about that.
Speaker 4: Knowing the President, knowing his team, they're going to be
Speaker 4: there to make sure that people are getting every help
Speaker 4: that they need and they deserve from the federal government
Speaker 4: when disaster shrikes. So I have no concerns about that.
Speaker 4: But you do ask the real question about FEMA. FEMA
Speaker 4: is a bureaucratic mess and it has been for quite
Speaker 4: some time. Go ask the people in North Carolina. They
Speaker 4: will tell you. Ask the people in the Panhandle, Big
Speaker 4: Band area, Southwest Florida, my district, they will tell you this.
Speaker 4: So FEMA needs to be reworked. I commend the President
Speaker 4: for what he's doing. Let them go through that process,
Speaker 4: but I will tell you Americans, Floridians, they're going to
Speaker 4: get the help that they need when disaster strikes. From
Speaker 4: Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: All right, Florida gubernatorial candidate and current Republican Congressman representing
Speaker 1: Flora's nineteenth District, Byron Donalds, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: joining us here on Balance of Power live from Las Vegas,
Speaker 1: where Bitcoin twenty twenty five is underway. We'll have more
Speaker 1: on crypto and its ties to this White House and
Speaker 1: this President later on.