Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound on
Speaker 1: the year over year headline number at nine point one
Speaker 1: per cent. CPI data is already out of date because
Speaker 1: energy prices have come down. When you're hearing there is
Speaker 1: sort of like a Wizard of Oz. Don't look behind
Speaker 1: the curtain. Bloomberg Sound on Politics, Policy and Perspective from
Speaker 1: DC's top name. Say, Israel and the United States continue
Speaker 1: to grow and prosper together for the benefit of the
Speaker 1: entire world. If the US pulls out of the Middle East,
Speaker 1: China and Russia move in, and that's a big spot
Speaker 1: to fill. Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: The CPI hits hard in Washington. Welcome to the fastest
Speaker 1: hour in politics, as today's inflation report feeds both sides
Speaker 1: of the argument over spending and whether the Biden economic
Speaker 1: agenda has a future. We'll talk about it with Miya McGuinness,
Speaker 1: president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. President
Speaker 1: Hiden touches down in Israel, a trip aimed at shoring
Speaker 1: up relationships and oil. Will discuss it with CIA officer
Speaker 1: turned Congresswoman Abigail Spanburger, Democrat from Virginia who serves on
Speaker 1: the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Analysis from our signature panel
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeanie Chanzano and Rick Davis are with us.
Speaker 1: The CPI certainly landed hard this morning in Washington. Reactions
Speaker 1: swift from both ends of Pennsylvania avenue. A statement this
Speaker 1: morning from the President called it unacceptably high and reminded,
Speaker 1: as we heard from the Press Secretary yesterday, it does
Speaker 1: not reflect the full impact of the last month of
Speaker 1: lower gas prices. Same argument on Capitol Hill, as Democrats
Speaker 1: use this as an argument for the reconciliation bill that
Speaker 1: we have been talking about here, the drug price components,
Speaker 1: lower deficit spending, Republicans using the same argument for why
Speaker 1: that shouldn't happen. And that's where we begin with Mia McGuinness,
Speaker 1: president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budge it
Speaker 1: with us now on Bloomberg's sound on Maya. Welcome back,
Speaker 1: Thank you, it's great to be back with you. Well,
Speaker 1: now that you've seen today's CPI and you've had a
Speaker 1: minute to digest this, what does it mean for the
Speaker 1: Democratic agenda in Washington. We've been talking about another reconciliation
Speaker 1: bill lately. Does this mean the store is closed for
Speaker 1: the rest of summer, Well, I mean it's it is.
Speaker 1: It is bad news all around, but it is bad
Speaker 1: news that actually might be good news for the Reconciliation
Speaker 1: Bill if we follow the policies that make sense. And
Speaker 1: that's a big ift, because things are not always sensible
Speaker 1: in d C these days. But um, the Reconciliation Bill,
Speaker 1: as people know, has changed massively from what it used
Speaker 1: to be, which was a huge kind of budget busting
Speaker 1: many many trillions, even more than it was advertised, with
Speaker 1: some gimmicks in it, and it was something that kind
Speaker 1: of imploded on its own weight. But the new version
Speaker 1: of it, everything that we're hearing is really a very
Speaker 1: different structure, which is more modest in its size. About
Speaker 1: a trillion dollars we're reading, and half of that would
Speaker 1: go to deficit reduction. And I guess what I would
Speaker 1: point out is from what we're hearing, is that the
Speaker 1: deficit reduction portions of that bill, the parts that would
Speaker 1: focus on healthcare savings, um and uh, the fact that
Speaker 1: it would have higher revenues, those things are some of
Speaker 1: the most important things for the fiscal policies run by
Speaker 1: the federal government that would actually push against inflation. So
Speaker 1: the point would be inflation is really bad. It's not
Speaker 1: going away anytime soon. Uh. The more that that we
Speaker 1: can do at the federal level to help the FED
Speaker 1: where the heavy lifting is better, it's going to be.
Speaker 1: So I think that gives a lot of economic justifications
Speaker 1: for the structure. It sounds like reconciliation maybe. Well, that's fascinating.
Speaker 1: I've been calling it, build back better light. The White
Speaker 1: House says exactly what you just said, that this is
Speaker 1: actually what we need now to bring prices lower, to
Speaker 1: bring the deficit lower. Republicans say you're spending money like
Speaker 1: drunken sailors. I mean, we even saw Mitch McConnell throw
Speaker 1: down is the gauntlet on the China Competitiveness Bill over this.
Speaker 1: But my I was taken by Senator Joe mansion statement
Speaker 1: on the CPI report today. He talked about the pain
Speaker 1: facing families in West Virginia, but he ended with this line,
Speaker 1: no matter what spending aspirations some in Congress may have,
Speaker 1: it is clear to anyone who visits a grocery store
Speaker 1: or a gas station that we cannot add any more
Speaker 1: fuel to this inflation fire. Does that sound like someone
Speaker 1: about to vote yes for a trillion dollar bill? So
Speaker 1: I think actually it could from what the bill and listen,
Speaker 1: we don't know what the bill is going to be.
Speaker 1: But what Joe Mansion has basically single handedly done is
Speaker 1: changed this bill from a huge deficit increasing bill to
Speaker 1: something that would have deficit savings bring the deficit down
Speaker 1: by about half a trillion dollars. So absolutely that would
Speaker 1: be the opposite of throwing fuel on the fire. Now,
Speaker 1: they're still going to be spending a lot of money,
Speaker 1: and one could say, well, they should spend less and
Speaker 1: save more through more deficit reduction. But from the new structure,
Speaker 1: the build back better light as you're saying, um, now
Speaker 1: that it has deficit reduction in in it instead of
Speaker 1: a lot of borrowing. It's consistent with fighting the price
Speaker 1: rises that he's seeing in West Virginia and we're seeing
Speaker 1: all over the country. So again, I think it does
Speaker 1: make sense that if everybody kind of follows the reasoning
Speaker 1: rather than looking at it from a political angle, which
Speaker 1: is probably how most people are looking at it. But
Speaker 1: if they think about the economic effects, this would be
Speaker 1: pro fighting inflation, and you want to do every single
Speaker 1: thing you can grow in that direction right now? All right,
Speaker 1: So this is a very positive take from miamc ginness.
Speaker 1: Now let's let's just usually very pessimist. Well, I don't know,
Speaker 1: but it looks this is why we wanted to talk
Speaker 1: to you. And let's so let's just extrapolate this little bit.
Speaker 1: Let's assume this reconciliation bill moves forward. I already mentioned
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell on this, So I guess my question is
Speaker 1: can you have both? Can Democrats get this done? And
Speaker 1: could there still be a bipartisan China Competes bill you
Speaker 1: seek of the Chip Act and the rest. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: that that is a tough political question because as we
Speaker 1: get closer to the election, it becomes more difficult for
Speaker 1: all policymakers who really want in a bipartisan way to
Speaker 1: get that work done, to come together. But boy, am
Speaker 1: I feeling optimistic compared to normal. I think you could
Speaker 1: see both of those happen. I think you could see
Speaker 1: the Reconciliation bill and I think you could see something bipartisan,
Speaker 1: or you could take some of those policies and see
Speaker 1: which of them could fit into the reconciliation bill and
Speaker 1: get something done that way. Um. All of that said, listen,
Speaker 1: the calendar short between now and the election. Um. People
Speaker 1: are much folk more focused on their elections right now
Speaker 1: than doing policy. And I know there's a very high
Speaker 1: level frustration on the Hill about policymakers who care about
Speaker 1: all of these ideas feeling like they are there's just
Speaker 1: no avenue to move forward. So I wouldn't bet on both,
Speaker 1: but I think it's possible. Well, I'm gonna throw another
Speaker 1: iron on the fire here, and that's a defense spending
Speaker 1: The House taking up the National Defense Authorization Act this week,
Speaker 1: and we're in a very different world than we were
Speaker 1: when the request was made my due to inflation and
Speaker 1: the billions of dollars and weapons we've been sending to Ukraine.
Speaker 1: The House version is just over eight hundred billion dollars
Speaker 1: at least at the stage. Is that number going to
Speaker 1: end up being a lot higher? Will there be an
Speaker 1: appetite for more? Uh? It probably is. And here's where
Speaker 1: my my optimism ends. So when it comes to the appropriations,
Speaker 1: I think we're going to see and this is normal
Speaker 1: for the appropriations process, but more so now is that
Speaker 1: there's going to be a pushing up of the price
Speaker 1: tag on the defense side. There are a lot of
Speaker 1: arguments for that, but it's not clear how many more
Speaker 1: dollars we actually need. A lot of time, this is
Speaker 1: mercy signaling, showing how you want to spend more on
Speaker 1: the things that you think are important priorities. There will
Speaker 1: be a struggle over that, and it may well be
Speaker 1: met by that. They then agree to actually bump up
Speaker 1: to spending on the non defense domestic discretionary area of
Speaker 1: the budget. Also, this is the deal we often see,
Speaker 1: which is will spend more in our area, you spend
Speaker 1: more in your area. The problem with all of this
Speaker 1: is none of this will be paid for, none of
Speaker 1: it will be offset, and therefore that means it's war borrowing.
Speaker 1: That goes back to the inflation story in the wrong direction.
Speaker 1: Every dollar we borrow is going to put more money
Speaker 1: into the economy rather than paying for it, and that's
Speaker 1: going to be inflationary, So more deficit spending. We've got
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff to buy. It was not just
Speaker 1: Ukraine in the cost of this proxy war, but we
Speaker 1: have to we have to refill our own inventories. There's
Speaker 1: plenty of things we have to spend money on, and
Speaker 1: it's not that you can't spend money that you have
Speaker 1: to pay for the things that you want to spend
Speaker 1: money on. And occasionally picking and choosing would also be
Speaker 1: an excellent part of budgeting. We don't do that very often.
Speaker 1: Everybody should keep in mind we don't even have a
Speaker 1: budget in place this year. We are just about to
Speaker 1: hit the point where we are three months late in
Speaker 1: Congress coming up with a budget, and they're not even
Speaker 1: lifting a finger to try to pass one. So that's
Speaker 1: that's a big part of this problem as well. Mia Beginness.
Speaker 1: I haven't asked you about the Federal Reserve yet. People
Speaker 1: came out of the CPI report today and said a
Speaker 1: hundred basis points and I can't really imagine it even
Speaker 1: if I saw it. I'm not sure how that would feel.
Speaker 1: But I wonder how concerned you are about the trajectory here.
Speaker 1: The Federal Reserve is the first to say that it
Speaker 1: cannot impact oil prices, energy at large, or food prices.
Speaker 1: That's why they look at the core. But those are
Speaker 1: the two very things that are driving inflation to these
Speaker 1: historic levels. So while the Fed is hiking interest rates,
Speaker 1: it is not solving those two problems, but appears to
Speaker 1: be sending us into a recession. Is that how you
Speaker 1: see it? Well, I think a jury is still out
Speaker 1: and whether that whether we will be in a recession,
Speaker 1: but I think it's certainly likely given the conditions without questions,
Speaker 1: is I think the FED, I mean, I I don't
Speaker 1: think we're gonna see a hundred based points without some
Speaker 1: guidance that's going to happen ahead of time. So I
Speaker 1: still at seventy. I mean we're going to see aggressive
Speaker 1: rate hikes and that certainly means that it's more likely
Speaker 1: that we go into a recession. And it is very
Speaker 1: difficult to control somebody specific parts of the economy where
Speaker 1: the big problems are. And that has to do with
Speaker 1: the fact that all of this is brought on by
Speaker 1: both the demand side supply side right by flooding the
Speaker 1: economy with too much in the last um COVID spending bill,
Speaker 1: which which led to inflation, and then all the supply
Speaker 1: chain problems that we've had since. So the best tools
Speaker 1: we have are from the FED. The tools that can
Speaker 1: help them are borrowing less and bringing our deficits down.
Speaker 1: But the problem is we are in a situation that
Speaker 1: we don't have complete control. We are too interdependent as
Speaker 1: a global economy as things have gotten out of control,
Speaker 1: and this is going to be tough to weather. It
Speaker 1: is going to be a bumpy road. Well, that's why
Speaker 1: you wonder if the Fed wants to drive us maybe
Speaker 1: not necessarily a new more recession, but but certainly to
Speaker 1: such low growth that demands for things like oil and
Speaker 1: food start to come down. That's a pretty tough scenario
Speaker 1: to be in, isn't it. That's a pretty tough scenario.
Speaker 1: I mean, one of the worst things about having to
Speaker 1: fight the situation we're in is that there's people who
Speaker 1: are undergoing real hardship from the economic conditions. And the
Speaker 1: true answer about what we do to fight it is
Speaker 1: we ask people to spend by less of those things.
Speaker 1: That's right, spend less money. We actually need people to
Speaker 1: be saving more money. But when gas and food and
Speaker 1: rent are eating up more of your pocketbook, that's a
Speaker 1: really tough ask. And so um, this, this is this
Speaker 1: is why you want to not get in a situation
Speaker 1: in the first place. You're here, miam A Guinness. Great
Speaker 1: to talk with your President of the Committee for a
Speaker 1: Responsible Federal Budget. Thanks for your time and insights today
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg. Thanks so much. We assemble the panel next
Speaker 1: for their take. Rick Davis Jennie Chanzano on the fastest
Speaker 1: hour in politics. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Sound on on Bloomberg Radio. It's always a
Speaker 1: fun time in Washington when political opponents use the same
Speaker 1: argument for different ends. Democrats say we need a spending
Speaker 1: bill right now because of inflation. Republicans say we can't
Speaker 1: afford a spending bill because of inflation. Listen to New
Speaker 1: York Congressman HAACKEM Jeffreys. This is democratic leadership. He he
Speaker 1: leads the House Democratic Caucus. Our focus really is is
Speaker 1: to make America as affordable as it can be for
Speaker 1: American families and everyday Americans. And we've taken legislative step
Speaker 1: after legislative step to do that. So I hope that
Speaker 1: whatever comes out of the Senate is focused on lowering
Speaker 1: costs for everyday Americans consistent with what we've done in now.
Speaker 1: But that wouldn't work according to Republicans like Congressman Bill
Speaker 1: Kazinga of Michigan, talking today on Capitol Hill. Heap serves
Speaker 1: on the House Financial Services Committee. We are we are
Speaker 1: on this committee on Financial Services. Have been talking about
Speaker 1: this for well over a year, trying to reign in
Speaker 1: the federal reserve, trying to reign in Congress's appetite for spending,
Speaker 1: knowing that that is fueling this and if we don't
Speaker 1: do so soon, we are going to be even worse trouble.
Speaker 1: Let's assemble the panel for their take. Bloomberg po takes
Speaker 1: contributors Jeannie Shenzano and Rick Davis. I'm not going to
Speaker 1: try to turn you guys into economists here. We're curious,
Speaker 1: of course, about policy and political outcomes. Does this a
Speaker 1: genie mean? As I asked Miami Guinness, and by the
Speaker 1: way I was, I was taken by her optimism on
Speaker 1: the future of a reconciliation bill. Does this make it
Speaker 1: less likely or does it shut it down? Well, I
Speaker 1: too was taken by it, and I am here to
Speaker 1: balance that out with a bit of pessimism. So I
Speaker 1: will balance may out in that because I agree with Maya.
Speaker 1: If they followed what makes sense from a policy perspective
Speaker 1: and an economic perspective, they would go through with this
Speaker 1: skinny bill as you've been talking about. But the reality
Speaker 1: is about politics, and you rightly said the thing that
Speaker 1: we're all thinking, what does Joe have to say about it?
Speaker 1: And that is Joe Mansion. And he was very very clear.
Speaker 1: How did you interpret the statement? I interpreted the statement
Speaker 1: as putting the brakes on this discussion. And let's not
Speaker 1: forget Joe mansion is to start with, what about Kristen cinema?
Speaker 1: You're just playing people from the house. What about people
Speaker 1: in the house. They have so little room to maneuver
Speaker 1: in this And oh, by the way, Senator Schumer is
Speaker 1: laid up in New York City with COVID while we're
Speaker 1: trying to do all this. I mean, it is such
Speaker 1: a difficult position to be in. So yes, from a
Speaker 1: policy perspective, I agree with Maya. But from a politics perspective,
Speaker 1: the amount of spending their talking about, when you're talking
Speaker 1: about inflation at a forty year high, very difficult for me.
Speaker 1: Imagine you're not going to lose a couple of Democrats
Speaker 1: here there, and that's enough to kill this thing. Ricky
Speaker 1: ends the statement again, Joe Mansion. No matter what spending
Speaker 1: aspirations some in Congress may have, it's clear to anyone
Speaker 1: who visits a grocery store or gas station that we
Speaker 1: cannot add any more fuel to this inflation fire. What
Speaker 1: does that say to you? Well, I think he's aligning, Um,
Speaker 1: what what ma was saying that people need to do,
Speaker 1: which is actually spend less money, with what he wants
Speaker 1: to do in government, which is actually spend less money.
Speaker 1: And so how can you ask the American public to
Speaker 1: do something that you're not willing to do yourself. Does
Speaker 1: that make a call for the legislation that he's been
Speaker 1: talking about with Chuck Schumer though, to have deficit reduction,
Speaker 1: to have lower drug prices. Was that an argument for
Speaker 1: it or against it? I guess is my question? Well,
Speaker 1: as long as he raises revenue, and of course he
Speaker 1: you know, he has a plan to raise taxes potentially
Speaker 1: to to pay for that. And that's my McGinniss point. Look,
Speaker 1: you don't want to just you know, write blank checks
Speaker 1: from the federal reserve to pay for government. You want
Speaker 1: to actually take it out of existing funds and and
Speaker 1: so or raise new revenue. I can't imagine it's a
Speaker 1: good idea to start taxing people right before a ripe
Speaker 1: for an election, and and and it's not like they
Speaker 1: haven't spent a lot of money already. I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: sensitive to the need to fix some of these problems
Speaker 1: that government has, but this has been a big check
Speaker 1: writing Congress, and I'm sure they're starting to feel a
Speaker 1: pinch if you're a Democrat right now, Jennie, And and
Speaker 1: that's the side of the aisle you're coming from. How
Speaker 1: important is this versus getting this a bipart is an
Speaker 1: effort done on the China Competes bill, getting the chip
Speaker 1: back passed, which we've been told for well a year
Speaker 1: now that that was a way to lower inflation to
Speaker 1: start making semiconductors here in the US. It's critically important,
Speaker 1: and I have to say, on a pause of no,
Speaker 1: I think Secretary of Commerce Gina Romando has been so
Speaker 1: on top of this and pushing for the bill, and
Speaker 1: I think they are right, as is Chuck Schumer, to
Speaker 1: talk about it from the perspective of national security. I
Speaker 1: think that's the way to keep some of those Republicans
Speaker 1: who may be tempted to drop off this thing. But
Speaker 1: it is still going to be difficult at fifty two
Speaker 1: to get that done. But I do think on that point,
Speaker 1: Gina Romando is sort of leaving the charge for the
Speaker 1: Cabinet and the administration. And you know, my bet would
Speaker 1: be if they can get something, it would be on
Speaker 1: the Chips bill because you're more likely to be able
Speaker 1: to make the choice. Though that's what Democrats might be facing.
Speaker 1: You might have to choose between the two. And I
Speaker 1: have to admit the conversation with Gina Romando hasn't changed
Speaker 1: a lot in the last six months. No, it hasn't.
Speaker 1: And you know, if they're if they have to choose,
Speaker 1: I think this is where the difficulty is because I
Speaker 1: think many Democrats want to go with that reconciliation. They
Speaker 1: want both, but if they have to choose, they're probably
Speaker 1: going to go reconciliation, and that's going to leave the
Speaker 1: American public probably with neither. Joe Biden wants that prescription
Speaker 1: drug plan. He wants to say he lowered the deficit. Rick,
Speaker 1: That's is that better for him than saying we're going
Speaker 1: to start investing in computer chips here in places like Ohio. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's a binary decision. I mean, like,
Speaker 1: the House could take up the Senate bill on the
Speaker 1: Chips Act fifty two billion dollars and pass it tomorrow
Speaker 1: and he could be signing it on the day he
Speaker 1: gets back, that's how easy that is, and then reconciliation exactly. Well,
Speaker 1: so how come he doesn't. Someone's got to say that though,
Speaker 1: you know, beyond Rick Davis on this program, I mean,
Speaker 1: you've got a couple of House members who are arguing, oh,
Speaker 1: I've got some things I want to change. Well, that
Speaker 1: blows the whole deal. So just suck it up. It
Speaker 1: was a bipartisan bill. Republicans and Democrats pass that in
Speaker 1: the Senate and that in the House. Would be nuts
Speaker 1: not to take that up tomorrow and pass it. One thing,
Speaker 1: it sounds like you agree, both of you with miamc Ginnison, though,
Speaker 1: is the store is not closed. More things could in
Speaker 1: fact come from this Congress before the end of summer.
Speaker 1: Our signature panel, Rick Davis, Jeannie Chanzan will be back
Speaker 1: there with us for the hour. As we turned next
Speaker 1: to the trip abroad, President Biden has landed. We'll be
Speaker 1: joined ahead by Congresswoman Abigail Spanberg where the Foreign Affairs Committee,
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberdon. President Biden's trip to the Middle East
Speaker 1: gets underway with all the pomp and circumstance you would expect.
Speaker 1: Here we go. They gave him the treatment the red carpet,
Speaker 1: the color guard, the band, of course, the leadership with
Speaker 1: him there on the tar match Air Force One park
Speaker 1: behind them. They did a nice ceremony in what looked
Speaker 1: like very hot sun, and the President spoke into the
Speaker 1: sun standing outdoors there about the relationship here between our
Speaker 1: two nations series now Israel and the United States continue
Speaker 1: to grow and prosper together for the benefit of the
Speaker 1: entire world. Went on to say that he supports a
Speaker 1: two state solution, knowing that that's not in the offing
Speaker 1: on this trip, and of course he's not spending the
Speaker 1: whole time in Israel. He will go to the West Bank,
Speaker 1: and then he's onto Saudi Arabia. That's going to be
Speaker 1: the big one on Friday. As we've discussed, the meeting
Speaker 1: with MBS, the ask for oil and so forth. But
Speaker 1: security has become a big part of this conversation, at
Speaker 1: least around this trip, whether you believe that's why he's
Speaker 1: going or not. Diplomacy, and you could see security through
Speaker 1: the guys of energy here, right. We talk about energy
Speaker 1: security all the time, So is that more of what
Speaker 1: we're talking about in these statements. The op ed from
Speaker 1: the President's statements from the White House. Jake Sullivan were
Speaker 1: there for security. This is where we begin the conversation.
Speaker 1: I'm curious to hear what the congresswoman has to say.
Speaker 1: Abigail Spanburger, of course, democrat from Virginia, service on the
Speaker 1: House Foreign Affairs Committee and is with us now for
Speaker 1: more on this. Congresswoman, welcome back. Thank you so much
Speaker 1: for having me join you. Much has been said about
Speaker 1: the president's trip to the Middle East here, and as
Speaker 1: a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a
Speaker 1: former CIA officer, I know you have a unique view
Speaker 1: on that part of the world. The President says this
Speaker 1: trip is about security. His critics say it's about getting
Speaker 1: more oil. But are they the same thing. I think
Speaker 1: that's a complicated question. I think that one could make
Speaker 1: an argument either way. Notably, what's important is when the
Speaker 1: President is traveling throughout the Middle East, or in Saudi
Speaker 1: Arabia specifically, he has to He must advocate for American values.
Speaker 1: He must raise the issue of Jamal Kashok's murder. He
Speaker 1: must continue to ensure that we have strong expectations of
Speaker 1: what our Saudi partners are or are not bringing to
Speaker 1: the table, whether they are or are not. Um meeting
Speaker 1: the expectations that we have in terms of the values
Speaker 1: that they UM are abiding. Notably, as a former CIA officer,
Speaker 1: I know that they have been important partner partners in
Speaker 1: our counter terrorism work throughout the Middle East and beyond. UH.
Speaker 1: And so, certainly, when we're saying it's about national security, yes,
Speaker 1: it's about ensuring that LEE continue to have a strong voice,
Speaker 1: a strong relationship with the Saudis, but one where we
Speaker 1: do demand UH certain expectations of behavior and UH engagement
Speaker 1: on the world stage. Well, what deliverables are you looking
Speaker 1: for in terms of energy and diplomacy of bringing the Saudis,
Speaker 1: for instance, into the Abraham Accords. Is that the kind
Speaker 1: of announcement that Americans should look forward to at the
Speaker 1: end of the week. UH. So, I think that that
Speaker 1: would be an extraordinary announcement if that's one that is
Speaker 1: able to be made. UH. Certainly, the Abraham Accord has
Speaker 1: done so much for the normalization of some relationships within
Speaker 1: the Middle East. It's they have been an important step
Speaker 1: forward for the safety and security of our friends and allies,
Speaker 1: the Israelis within the region. And it's also been important
Speaker 1: from an economic standpoint, bringing economic engagement and with it
Speaker 1: UH certain expectations for um UH democratic values to some
Speaker 1: area some countries within the region. So if if we
Speaker 1: do see movement towards that sort of agreement, I think
Speaker 1: that would be an extraordinary. President Biden today made clear
Speaker 1: he supports a two state solution. Some of the first
Speaker 1: words out of his mouth as he arrived on the tarmac,
Speaker 1: do you congresswoman as well? I absolutely support a two
Speaker 1: state solution. He also indicated that that's a long way off.
Speaker 1: Is there any point in talking about it as he
Speaker 1: prepares to sit down with the Saudis. No, I think
Speaker 1: it's important to continue to demonstrate and be very clear
Speaker 1: in what one's goals are. We may view that we
Speaker 1: are many paces away from a two state solution, but
Speaker 1: it doesn't remove the necessity that we continue to advocate
Speaker 1: for a two state solution, that we continue to demonstrate
Speaker 1: through our discussions, through our policy, through the priority objectives,
Speaker 1: and through our discussions with anyone in the region, being
Speaker 1: Israelis or otherwise, that a two state solution is one
Speaker 1: that we continue to advocate for as a country. President
Speaker 1: made some news this more ring in an interview conducted
Speaker 1: by Israeli media, saying that he's committed to keeping the
Speaker 1: Iranian Revolutionary Guard on the list of foreign terror organizations,
Speaker 1: even if it means no Iranian nuclear deal. Do you
Speaker 1: support that? As he right on that absolutely, we should
Speaker 1: not be removing the i r g C from the
Speaker 1: Terror Watch or the Terror listent in agreement with him
Speaker 1: on that. It's interesting some of the lines that are
Speaker 1: being drawn right now as he prepares to talk with MBS.
Speaker 1: We understand that Vladimir Putin, for instance, is headed to Iran.
Speaker 1: Iran is going to be providing Russia with drones for
Speaker 1: use in Ukraine. Are we entering a world order where
Speaker 1: we've got this sort of axis and maybe you see
Speaker 1: it already in place between Iran and Russia, and then
Speaker 1: you'll have Israel, the United States, Saudi Arabia on the
Speaker 1: other side. I think we are seeing uh an alignment
Speaker 1: of countries, and I think that this is incredibly important,
Speaker 1: whether or not we, you know, want to call it
Speaker 1: with some level of finality, this is a new world order.
Speaker 1: I think it's most appropriator, or perhaps a kind of
Speaker 1: most beneficial for the way that we interpret the threats
Speaker 1: that exist or the partnerships that exists. For us to
Speaker 1: recognize that we are seeing an orienting of certain countries
Speaker 1: towards others. Um and. This is exactly why US global
Speaker 1: leadership is important. This is why our strengthened relationships with
Speaker 1: NATO are important. This is why UM US recognizing the
Speaker 1: importance of moving away from dependence on UH, the oil
Speaker 1: produced in in in certain UH you know, petrol driven
Speaker 1: regimes is important. Um And, so I think that we
Speaker 1: should always be very clear on who's aligning themselves with
Speaker 1: whom on the world stage. Um And. This is also
Speaker 1: a reason why the United States that needs to continue
Speaker 1: galvanizing support for organizations such as NATO, while the United
Speaker 1: States needs to look within our own in hemisphere for
Speaker 1: greater partnerships economic and political, so that we can continue
Speaker 1: to ensure that that we are aligned very very clearly
Speaker 1: with democratic nations the worldwide UH and then in fact
Speaker 1: that's the club that other countries want to be a
Speaker 1: part of. More broadly, Congresswoman, when we look at this
Speaker 1: trip and the conversation that preceded it, including the president's
Speaker 1: op ed, the idea of him asking for more oil,
Speaker 1: the concerns that some have with what he might be
Speaker 1: able to do here to help lower gas prices or
Speaker 1: expectations simply too high to be able to make this
Speaker 1: a success. I think that it's important to have clear
Speaker 1: goals and and even if they are kind of a
Speaker 1: starting point for expectations or negotiations, I think that's that's fair. Certainly.
Speaker 1: I have long held, as have many members of Congress,
Speaker 1: great concern about Saudi engagement within Yemen UM and the
Speaker 1: ongoing atrocities that we see occurring there. So I do
Speaker 1: hope and expect that the President will again make clear
Speaker 1: UH to his Saudi counterparts, to anyone that he may
Speaker 1: meet with the expectations that the United States holds UH
Speaker 1: for Saudi Ribby to be a responsible UM UH you know,
Speaker 1: actor on the world stage in terms of how it
Speaker 1: is that they choose to engage economically, so not locking
Speaker 1: down UM oil production that is important to global markets,
Speaker 1: and also importantly not UH continuing UH to support UH
Speaker 1: international UM atrocities as as the like those that we've
Speaker 1: seen in Yemen. Do you expect to see gas prices
Speaker 1: drop as a result of this trip UM? I think
Speaker 1: that's a couple of steps ahead of what I'm willing
Speaker 1: to declare as an eventuality. I do think that in
Speaker 1: the House. You know, we've passed good legislation, the Lower
Speaker 1: Food and Fuel Costs Act. Uh. Certainly we are taking
Speaker 1: it all of above approach at trying to bring down
Speaker 1: the cost of gas UM and certainly directionally we've seen
Speaker 1: some progress. Uh though given uh the inflation numbers that
Speaker 1: Americans continue to experience, that's that's not yet anywhere close
Speaker 1: to being a point of celebration. But UM, I appreciate
Speaker 1: that the administration continues to be focused on this issue.
Speaker 1: And certainly, I think as evidenced by our recent votes
Speaker 1: UM supporting biofuel, supporting us in all um and UH
Speaker 1: the bills that we've put forth in the House and
Speaker 1: pass in the House with bipartisan support. We're also working
Speaker 1: in tandem to to take strong steps forward. And with
Speaker 1: all of that said, gosh knows we're hearing about inflation
Speaker 1: every day, Congressman, when you're preparing for mid term elections.
Speaker 1: Is the president an asset or a liability? Considering the
Speaker 1: environment that we're in for a Democrat running for re election?
Speaker 1: So you know, in my rates, I have a record.
Speaker 1: I've been in office now for almost two terms. I
Speaker 1: have worked uh aggressively on issues that matter to the
Speaker 1: people I represent, be it related to agriculture issues and
Speaker 1: UH monopolistic behavior within the meat processing industry, lowering the
Speaker 1: cost of prescription drugs, focus on veterans issues, toxic exposures,
Speaker 1: UH infrastructure of course, which is a major and important
Speaker 1: issue within my district. UM. And so I am out
Speaker 1: on the campaign trail making sure that my constituents, current
Speaker 1: and future recognize what it is that I've done. I'm
Speaker 1: meeting people, making sure that they know who I am,
Speaker 1: what my background is, what it is that I bring
Speaker 1: to my work on Capitol Hill end in the district,
Speaker 1: and why I'm asking to be re elected to continue
Speaker 1: that service. Would you bring Joe Biden with you though
Speaker 1: along the campaign trail, as you know, at this point,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm out there meeting people individually. UM. You know,
Speaker 1: I was very happy to invite the President to come
Speaker 1: to my district to meet my instituents, to talk about
Speaker 1: prescription drug prices, UM, to give my constitution, my constituency
Speaker 1: opportunity to speak directly to the leader of the free
Speaker 1: world and say, this is what the cost of insulin
Speaker 1: means to me, this is what the cost of my
Speaker 1: prescription drug means to my family. UM. And that's the
Speaker 1: type of advocacy that I will always do. And that's
Speaker 1: you know, outside of politics, that's just policy making sure
Speaker 1: that if I have the chance, uh to give any
Speaker 1: constituent the ability to speak with the leader of the
Speaker 1: free world, that I'm going to do that. Um. And
Speaker 1: on the campaign trail, I'm I'm run around making sure
Speaker 1: people know who I am, how to vote, when to vote,
Speaker 1: and why they should vote for me. That was an
Speaker 1: incredibly effective answer. I don't know how you did that,
Speaker 1: but I'm still going to be thinking about it later.
Speaker 1: Congresswoman Abigail Spanburger, thank you for being with us once
Speaker 1: again on Bloomberg. Thank you for having me. I really
Speaker 1: appreciate it. We'll reassemble the panel next n Chanzano and
Speaker 1: Rick Davis their take on the trip here, the way
Speaker 1: it's starting, and what we should expect later on this week.
Speaker 1: Thanks for being with us here on Bloomberg. Sound on
Speaker 1: as we reassemble the panel here and picking up where
Speaker 1: we left off with Congresswoman Spanburger here, the President on
Speaker 1: the tarmac, on the red carpet reaches for the two
Speaker 1: state solution, and you'll have to listen to the language
Speaker 1: that he used because he's not expecting this obviously to
Speaker 1: take place tomorrow, but it is part of the conversation
Speaker 1: on this trip. Here's the President Biden. Greater face, greatest stability,
Speaker 1: greater connection. It's critical. It's critical, if I might add,
Speaker 1: for all the people of the region, which is why
Speaker 1: we'll be we'll discuss my continued support, even though I
Speaker 1: know it's not in air term and two state solution
Speaker 1: that remains. It might be the best way to ensure
Speaker 1: the future of equal measure of freedom, prosperity and democracy
Speaker 1: for Israelis and Palestinians. A life sounds a day from
Speaker 1: the arrival ceremony and hell aviv Rick Davis and Jeanne
Speaker 1: Chanzano or with this Bloomberg Politics contributors, Rick, is it
Speaker 1: important for him to restate this as he begins talks.
Speaker 1: He had just arrived, of course at this point, and
Speaker 1: you've talked a little bit about the idea of bringing
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia, for instance, into the Abraham Accords. Is that
Speaker 1: the way to get there? Look, I think that um,
Speaker 1: the Palestinians had hard slog during the Trump administration. You know,
Speaker 1: the two state solution was dead within his administration, and
Speaker 1: so I think that that Biden was under a lot
Speaker 1: of pressure to sort of get that back on the
Speaker 1: table officially as president, and uh, it's been a constant
Speaker 1: within the Democratic parties, um, you know, uh policy reviews
Speaker 1: for the region. So he did what he had to do,
Speaker 1: but he was not going to get into the slippery
Speaker 1: slope of being the guy who's going to try and
Speaker 1: deliver it. He had eight years that he watched it
Speaker 1: happen in the Obama administration and he made no progress
Speaker 1: on it. And I'm sure he does not want to
Speaker 1: attach his wagon to that policy that sting. He went
Speaker 1: out of his way to say, uh that, you know,
Speaker 1: even though it's not in the near turn Genie. I
Speaker 1: don't know if that was in the speech or now,
Speaker 1: but he certainly said it. He did and and and
Speaker 1: typical Joe Biden. And he's absolutely right. While he has
Speaker 1: long supported it, and I give him credit for raising
Speaker 1: it as soon as he gets there. Well, typical that
Speaker 1: he says, you know, he talks about the elephant in
Speaker 1: the room. There's no support for that on the ground.
Speaker 1: That's the reality there. But I give him credit for
Speaker 1: raising that, um, you know, as soon as he landed,
Speaker 1: and I thought he did a very warm greeting with
Speaker 1: the Israeli officials. He talked about this bone deep relationship
Speaker 1: with Israel, and he made certain, unlike some of his predecessors,
Speaker 1: that Israel was his first stop. It's his tenth visit
Speaker 1: to the Middle East, but his first as president. Then
Speaker 1: it's onto the West Bank, Rick, is it going to
Speaker 1: be Will there be similar energy when he gets there? Yeah? Look,
Speaker 1: I mean it'll be more negative energy, right, because the
Speaker 1: Palestinians are gonna be looking for, you know, all kinds
Speaker 1: of promises to make about you know, limiting the settlements
Speaker 1: and and and that kind of thing, and trying to
Speaker 1: get engaged in this administration open up, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: various kinds of access points for them that have been
Speaker 1: close since Trump. So yeah, it's gonna be a different
Speaker 1: kind of conversation, but one worth having. Uh. And I
Speaker 1: think for the purpose of his balance of his trip,
Speaker 1: it is helpful to have that conversation with the Palestinian
Speaker 1: leaders before he gets to Saudi Arabia. We'll tell you
Speaker 1: we're talking about handshakes and body language already. This trip
Speaker 1: is hours old, uh, Genie and Rick, I don't know
Speaker 1: if you saw this whole handshake controversy here, we'll call
Speaker 1: it handshake gate or fist bump gate or something. But
Speaker 1: the President was not supposed to shake hands with the
Speaker 1: other foreign leaders on this trip. It was said to
Speaker 1: be a COVID precaution. He was going to be fist bumping,
Speaker 1: and the idea was, you know, that way, he's not
Speaker 1: holding hands or seen shaking hands with nbs. At the
Speaker 1: end of the week, he he did fist bump Prime
Speaker 1: Minister Lepide as he landed. But then he gives that
Speaker 1: Benjamin Netan Yahoo a big old handshake because they've known
Speaker 1: each other for a long time. Jeannie, I know this
Speaker 1: isn't the most important stuff in the world, but now
Speaker 1: he's got to shake hands when he gets to Jettah. Right,
Speaker 1: this is the thing I've been watching, so I hope
Speaker 1: it's important. You know. It was. I thought just a
Speaker 1: classic when the White House announced that he would not
Speaker 1: be handshaking because of COVID and the variants. And the
Speaker 1: minute he got off, You're right, he fist bumps and
Speaker 1: then he handshakes. I don't know if he forgot or
Speaker 1: he got so excited by seeing some of these officials
Speaker 1: that you know he shook hands. We know he likes
Speaker 1: to rub shoulders and all kinds of things, so he's,
Speaker 1: you know, a touchy guy. So maybe it was hard,
Speaker 1: but there it goes. And now he has no reason
Speaker 1: not to shake MBS his hand, and so it's going
Speaker 1: to be fascinating to see on Friday. He's just invited
Speaker 1: the press to watch this. Is he or is he
Speaker 1: not going to be holding hands with MBS when he
Speaker 1: gets there, and it's a it's or not, Rick, What
Speaker 1: do you think? Yeah, I think it's much at two
Speaker 1: about nothing. I mean, the initial greeting with MBS probably
Speaker 1: won't even be on camera. My bet would be they
Speaker 1: do it inside a palace somewhere and uh, and there'll
Speaker 1: be a public display of the two of them. But uh,
Speaker 1: I think it's much to do about nothing. He is
Speaker 1: gonna go break bread with MBS. He's gonna get all
Speaker 1: the positives and all the negatives related to that, regardless
Speaker 1: of the bear hug or fist pump or shake hands.
Speaker 1: I asked you guys both about deliverables yesterday. I don't
Speaker 1: know if you feel the same way about it right now,
Speaker 1: But does he need to have Jake Sullivan suggested he
Speaker 1: will have a relatively specific statement to make on what
Speaker 1: he has secured on this trip. When it comes to oil, Genie,
Speaker 1: are we talking about you know, three million barrels a day?
Speaker 1: What what kind of a message, what kind of a
Speaker 1: statement has to come from this trip? Well, I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean what they're hoping to see is that they
Speaker 1: get something that allows them to see a decrease in
Speaker 1: those prices, and a lot of experts saying that's not
Speaker 1: going to happen, which is why it's your can't over promise.
Speaker 1: You should not be over promising. And there are positive
Speaker 1: deliverables from this trip, things about travel, things about regional
Speaker 1: air defense, you know, the funding of Palestinian hospitals, the visit.
Speaker 1: There are positives to talk about. You know, if they
Speaker 1: can guarantee the oil prices, that's a great thing. Many
Speaker 1: experts say that's going to be hard to get that
Speaker 1: win there. In that case, it's a disappointment. Right. Does
Speaker 1: he need to be specific, as Jake Sullivan has suggested,
Speaker 1: he will be. Yeah. I think he wants to be right.
Speaker 1: He wants to put something on the table that will
Speaker 1: say that this trip was worth the cost, that he
Speaker 1: had to take to sort of backtrack on the relationship
Speaker 1: that he has said. You know, uh, saudis a pariah state,
Speaker 1: So what is the trade. The trade is gonna be
Speaker 1: lower gas prices, and and I think that's got to
Speaker 1: be out there. No doubt NBS is gonna be willing
Speaker 1: to participate in this. He's he's part of the beneficiary
Speaker 1: of this visit, and I'm sure he'll go out and
Speaker 1: say we're gonna work with O pick or lower gas prices,
Speaker 1: that we know this is good for the global economy,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna work with these guys. So that to
Speaker 1: me is a message to the market. It looks like
Speaker 1: we're gonna get our final January six committee hearing next week.
Speaker 1: The reports now UH that the prime time event set
Speaker 1: for Thursday of this week will happen next Thursday. We
Speaker 1: still don't know exactly who's going to testify or how
Speaker 1: they're going to wrap up this whole thing. But I
Speaker 1: want to ask both of you. Got a comment that
Speaker 1: was dropped yesterday on cable news, because it's just I
Speaker 1: have to know what we're talking about here, and you know,
Speaker 1: I could use your help. John Bolton on CNN talking
Speaker 1: after yesterday's hearing about the idea of a carefully planned
Speaker 1: coup data. He's talking to Jake Tapper. Apparently he would
Speaker 1: know a lot about this. Listen, with all due respect,
Speaker 1: one doesn't have to be brilliant to attempt a coup.
Speaker 1: I disagree with that as somebody who has helped planned
Speaker 1: coup data a lot, not here, but you know other places.
Speaker 1: It takes a lot of work. And that's not what
Speaker 1: he did. It was just stumbling around from one idea
Speaker 1: to another. Ultimately he did unleash the rioters at the Capitol.
Speaker 1: As to that, there's no doubt. Okay, I'm sorry, back
Speaker 1: the tape up. Rick Davis, do you know anything about this?
Speaker 1: Where was he helping to plan a coup data? This
Speaker 1: is the former National Security Advisor. Yeah, I mean the
Speaker 1: only one that I'm really familiar with is venez Awaye.
Speaker 1: How well, look how well that worked out. Does that
Speaker 1: mean the United States was getting involved in that in
Speaker 1: a way we didn't know about or is he a
Speaker 1: row of agent? I think we telegraph that Murduro had
Speaker 1: to go, and we immediately endorse the presidency of somebody else,
Speaker 1: and and and by almost definition, you know, we we
Speaker 1: were participants in fomenting a coup. But if if John
Speaker 1: Bolton is holding that up as a great success or
Speaker 1: a difference, and then then January six, I would say
Speaker 1: that he may want to find a different coup. Okay,
Speaker 1: ever helped the plan a coup genie? I have not.
Speaker 1: But I loved this because John Bolton was like indignant
Speaker 1: at the fact that he was, you know, defending you know,
Speaker 1: coup people all over the world that they are brilliant
Speaker 1: and if you know, he won't have it, that they
Speaker 1: will be insulted as if they could be engaging in
Speaker 1: coups and not be brilliant. I mean it was you know,
Speaker 1: I couldn't quite grab my head around it. And and
Speaker 1: and one a thing for John Bolton to come out
Speaker 1: and defend. I mean, I'm assuming you took him at
Speaker 1: his word. Uh rick people, You know, this is why
Speaker 1: people wonder about Washington, is you know, is he out
Speaker 1: there working as a contractor. He was speaking in in
Speaker 1: plural at first. You know, he's he's he's done this
Speaker 1: type of thing before. Yeah, this is why people scratch
Speaker 1: their head about Washington, like, who are these folks unelected?
Speaker 1: You know, um, what are they doing with our taxpayers
Speaker 1: dollars and uh, and it's a fair question to ask.
Speaker 1: I think you know, John Bolton's got some splaining to
Speaker 1: do here. Yeah. Well, I'd say it's all in the book,
Speaker 1: but I don't think that was in the book. How
Speaker 1: about next week? If this happens Thursday, Jennie, how do
Speaker 1: they close this without it seeming like a fade to black?
Speaker 1: Some of the most dramatic testimony was in the beginning
Speaker 1: of this process. Many argued they did not connect a
Speaker 1: lot of the dots yesterday that they were hoping to
Speaker 1: with the Proud Boys and the oath keepers. What are
Speaker 1: we in for? What's the final message next week? Well?
Speaker 1: I think it is a danger. And I've heard from
Speaker 1: several people since the hearing yesterday that they thought there
Speaker 1: was a little bit too much of grandstanding um on
Speaker 1: the part of some of the congress men and women,
Speaker 1: and we need a little bit of less of that
Speaker 1: and a little bit more of testimony. So I think
Speaker 1: the big key is going to be do they put
Speaker 1: out that testimony by sipolony? I think they will, But
Speaker 1: do they have any other testimony to drop? And better yet,
Speaker 1: live witnesses? And to your point, can they connect the
Speaker 1: Trump administration to this, you know, effort to to overturn
Speaker 1: the election. And you know, some people don't feel they
Speaker 1: did a terrific job doing that yesterday. I think they
Speaker 1: did a fairly good job. But they need to certainly
Speaker 1: have new testimony on Thursday. They're going after that hundred
Speaker 1: and eighty seven minutes rick that it took for for
Speaker 1: President Trump to tell people to leave, to tell the
Speaker 1: rioters to leave the capital. Uh, do we need new
Speaker 1: footage or is this more about repackaging everything that we've
Speaker 1: seen so far into some full smash video that the
Speaker 1: former president of ABC News is helping them produce right now. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I just I'm assuming that what they're looking for is
Speaker 1: a smoking gun in that one eight seven minutes that
Speaker 1: has him telling somebody, uh that they need to get
Speaker 1: up there and bust into the place. And so they
Speaker 1: need to have something new, Yeah, because that's that is
Speaker 1: when the riot is happening, and and and the reason
Speaker 1: why isn't he asking them to leave? Well, maybe maybe
Speaker 1: the expectation is that they've got him on the record
Speaker 1: or somebody willing to testify the fact that they were
Speaker 1: talking to him during that period of time and he
Speaker 1: was given the ghost sign and if they have that
Speaker 1: that is a smoking gun, well this is gonna be
Speaker 1: We're understanding, at least according to reports. Next Thursday will
Speaker 1: let you know when it's actually formally scheduled, and who
Speaker 1: knows if we'll no one advance witnesses, other information and
Speaker 1: so forth. We will get more views, though apparently at
Speaker 1: the Capitol Riot and the part of this documentary and
Speaker 1: in the video tape that he's provided, Rick Davis thinks
Speaker 1: it's always Jennie Chanzino, our signature panel on Bloomberg's sound on.
Speaker 1: Always a pleasure to spend time talking about some of
Speaker 1: the most important issues in our lives. That's what we
Speaker 1: do every day here on the fastest hour in politics.
Speaker 1: Subscribe to the podcast. If you got here late, be
Speaker 1: ready for you every evening. I'm Joe Matthew will see
Speaker 1: you back here tomorrow. This is Bloomberg