Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg sound on.
Speaker 1: Our world is in beak drop. The Ukrainian conflict is
Speaker 1: exceeding the seventh month threshold. This remains a war of aggression,
Speaker 1: Wi Ushi. When you're fighting the war against such an
Speaker 1: an enemy, you need more weapons. Bloomberg sound on politics,
Speaker 1: policy and perspective from DC's top name. So there's much
Speaker 1: too much money that flows in the shadows to influence
Speaker 1: our elections. It's called dark money. This is what makes
Speaker 1: people sick about politics, makes me sick about Bloomberg sound
Speaker 1: on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg radio. Russia calls for
Speaker 1: votes to annex parts of Ukraine before it's pushed out
Speaker 1: of the country. Welcome to the fastest hour in politics,
Speaker 1: as the U N General Assembly gathers in New York
Speaker 1: against the backdrop of the war and new calls for
Speaker 1: more weapons. We'll talk military strategy and geopolitics with former
Speaker 1: secretary of Defense Mark Esper. Later, a move to reform
Speaker 1: the electoral count acts and prevent another January six gains
Speaker 1: momentum on Capitol Hill and Senator Joe Magin accuses Republicans
Speaker 1: of revenge. Politics will cover it all with Bloomberg Congress
Speaker 1: reporter Billy House and our signature panel. Bloomberg Politics Contributors
Speaker 1: Jeannie Chanzano and Rick Davis, are with us for the hour.
Speaker 1: President Biden on his way to New York now for
Speaker 1: the U N General Assembly. He will speak tomorrow, but
Speaker 1: today we heard from Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who opened
Speaker 1: with a blique statements. is in big trouble. Divides are
Speaker 1: growing deeper, inequalities are growing wider and challenges are spreading farther.
Speaker 1: Our world is in big trouble, he says, with an
Speaker 1: eye on Ukraine, of course, where Russia now has called
Speaker 1: last minute votes on annexing parts of the country after
Speaker 1: losing a lot of ground the last couple of weeks,
Speaker 1: with the Lou Hanskin donatsk regions now set to hold
Speaker 1: re Ferrenda as soon as this weekend. This is just
Speaker 1: a couple of days away. White House National Security Advisor
Speaker 1: Jake Sullivan. The bottom line is that Russia is throwing
Speaker 1: together sham referendums on three days notice as they continue
Speaker 1: to lose ground on the battlefield and as more world
Speaker 1: leaders distanced themselves from Russia on the public stage and
Speaker 1: Russia is scraping for personnel to throw into this fight.
Speaker 1: Went on to say President Biden will not address Russia's
Speaker 1: role as a member of the UN Security Council when
Speaker 1: he talks tomorrow. That's where we begin our conversation with
Speaker 1: former defense secretary Mark Esper. Mr Secretary, welcome back to Bloomberg. Thanks, Joe.
Speaker 1: It's great to be with you again. You're on your
Speaker 1: way to New York as the United Nations General Assembly
Speaker 1: gets underway. Secretary, is it time to address whether Russia
Speaker 1: should be kicked off the UN Security Council? Well, it's
Speaker 1: it's a great question. I know a lot of people
Speaker 1: are debating that. They certainly their behavior in Ukraine has
Speaker 1: been atrocious with regard to the unwarranted and unlowed for invasion, than,
Speaker 1: of course, war crimes and everything else. And Look, while
Speaker 1: we'd all like to see, many of us would like
Speaker 1: to see, Russia off the Security Council, I think it's
Speaker 1: unlikely give them the process by which that has to happen.
Speaker 1: The administration says it doesn't plan to bring it up
Speaker 1: this time around. Yeah, because I think it's it's likely
Speaker 1: to fail, particularly as long as you have China on
Speaker 1: the Security Council as well. That will defend Russia's interest.
Speaker 1: President Urdawana, Turkey, says Vladimir Putin is willing to end
Speaker 1: this war as soon as possible. He says they talked
Speaker 1: about it last week in Uzbekistan, that Russia, he says,
Speaker 1: should return occupied territory as part of a peace settlement.
Speaker 1: Some saw that maybe as a trial balloon, maybe floating
Speaker 1: some ideas on behalf of Putin. But when, with Russia
Speaker 1: holding these votes, these referenda in Ukraine, do you see
Speaker 1: that happening? Well, of course, not pritty to the conversations
Speaker 1: between Vladimir Putin and UH and President Urdawan, but I'm
Speaker 1: sure put would end uh the war immediately, as long
Speaker 1: as it was on his terms and and frankly, his
Speaker 1: terms this point continue to diminish in some ways. I
Speaker 1: don't think he's going to end until he annexes more
Speaker 1: of of Ukraine that he seems to be positioning himself
Speaker 1: that as earliest tonight and announcing an annexation of the
Speaker 1: Dawn Bass, which is the regions of the Neetsk and Lahunt.
Speaker 1: He's already annexed Crimea in all those cases. None of
Speaker 1: this should be recognized under in your national law, because
Speaker 1: completely illegal and unwarranted. But this may be a way
Speaker 1: by which he tries to first of all save some
Speaker 1: face and be changed the game in terms of what
Speaker 1: it means to whether it's a special military operations still
Speaker 1: or actually a war. So these things are important. Plays
Speaker 1: out the Biden Administration and specifically Jake Sullivan today saying
Speaker 1: Russia will manipulate the results of these votes. That's not
Speaker 1: even a question in our eyes. So will the outcome
Speaker 1: of these votes complicate the war or any potential peace deals,
Speaker 1: or do we just ignore this and move forward with
Speaker 1: the operation? Okay, we know predictably what's going to happen.
Speaker 1: Is they will vote, these regions will vote to join Russia,
Speaker 1: to be an x, and that's predictable, and Putin will
Speaker 1: manage it, manipulated in whatever way you can. I don't
Speaker 1: think we should recognize him. I think the sovereign territory,
Speaker 1: the boundaries of Ukraine have been identified clearly and recognized
Speaker 1: by the UN since the breakup of the Soviet Union
Speaker 1: and we should continue to assist Ukraine in restoring their
Speaker 1: complete sovereignty, to include Crimea by the way. Well, do
Speaker 1: you worry though, this would give Vladimir Putin license, at
Speaker 1: least in his eyes, to inflict more harm on civilians. Voyer,
Speaker 1: you gotta wonder how much more harm can you do
Speaker 1: to the Ukrane? He's bombarding schools and maternity wards and hospitals,
Speaker 1: and you know the war crimes that are being committed
Speaker 1: in in city after city, every time the Ukrainian military
Speaker 1: moves forward. Now in the Don Bass region, they're uncovering
Speaker 1: graves where there's evidence of torture. I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: horrendous what's happening. And so's there's going to be an
Speaker 1: accounting one day of what happened and at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, a Vladimir Putin will be held responsible
Speaker 1: for all this. So your thought is calling it Russia
Speaker 1: or Ukraine, doesn't matter. He's already doing what he's doing.
Speaker 1: He's gonna do what he's gonna do. Look at Ukrainian territory.
Speaker 1: He can call it what he wants, and only he
Speaker 1: and maybe a few other countries they recognize the results
Speaker 1: of it, but the overwhelming majority of of United Nations
Speaker 1: members will still recognize Ukraine's territory, sovereign territory. Is What
Speaker 1: it was at the end of the Cold War, secretary
Speaker 1: asked for. The Washington Post reports Russia has now lost
Speaker 1: fifty five aircraft in this war. The Pentagon says Russian
Speaker 1: casualties now top eighty thousand. possibly. What would be the
Speaker 1: fastest way to force an end of this war? Is
Speaker 1: The answer? Tanks, fighter jets. What is it? Well, I
Speaker 1: think now, with the Ukraine moving on the offensive and
Speaker 1: doing exceptionally well, I think what you have to have
Speaker 1: is maneuver assets, and I've I've spoken about this before.
Speaker 1: They need to have both fixed wing and rotary aircraft,
Speaker 1: Rotary Wing aircraft, helicopters, if you will, to move troops
Speaker 1: quickly around the battlefield and I think that the addition
Speaker 1: of armor in the West, whether it's German armor or
Speaker 1: American whatever the case may be, provided to the Ukrainians
Speaker 1: will given the ability to move quickly on the ground
Speaker 1: on the battlefield protected, and that's important. But these are
Speaker 1: things that we should have anticipated, that we should have
Speaker 1: been training and thinking about some time ago. Some again,
Speaker 1: we find ourselves behind the ball with regard to whether
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians are and where they need to be. But
Speaker 1: I think this would be helped them in this maneuver
Speaker 1: phase of the warfare in terms of ejecting Russia out
Speaker 1: of Ukraine. Where does intelligence play into this? And I
Speaker 1: know there's probably only so much that we can discuss
Speaker 1: on the radio about it, but the shared intelligence can
Speaker 1: be as valuable or more so than providing hardware. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: and look from what you read in the newspapers. We're
Speaker 1: giving them strategic intelligence with regard to Russian troop movements,
Speaker 1: UH and possible cruise missile strikes, and we're providing them
Speaker 1: tactical intelligence in terms of what's happening on the ground
Speaker 1: right before the opposing forces. So I think all it
Speaker 1: is very important to give them that, that type of
Speaker 1: intelligence about what's happening, what the Russians may be thinking
Speaker 1: and doing, and then understanding the broader strategic situation as well.
Speaker 1: Is there such thing as a surge here? That's something
Speaker 1: that could be done. I mentioned hardware, but with regard
Speaker 1: to the way the Ukrainian army is using forces, is
Speaker 1: there something they could do to break line, something they
Speaker 1: could do to really put Russia on its heels before
Speaker 1: winter hits? That window is closing quickly. Yeah, I do
Speaker 1: think it's key that they gain as much territory back
Speaker 1: as they can before winter hits, before it slows down
Speaker 1: the momentum any of any type of offensive. It will
Speaker 1: be important tactically, not just in terms of what happens
Speaker 1: on the ground with their forces and reclaiming Ukrainian cities,
Speaker 1: but it will send an important message to the Western
Speaker 1: alliance that Ukrank can win this war. We need to
Speaker 1: stand behind them, particularly as Germany and other country space
Speaker 1: a tough winner with reduced energy supplies coming from Russia.
Speaker 1: We want them to feel good about their decision to
Speaker 1: support Ukraine and if we can make it through the winter,
Speaker 1: then maybe the Ukraines can pick the offensive back up
Speaker 1: and continue to push the Russians out. That's why I
Speaker 1: think providing them UH maneuver assets like helicopters, hanks fighting
Speaker 1: vehicles is important, and again, we should have anticipated this weeks,
Speaker 1: if not months ago. We've provided billions of dollars in
Speaker 1: weapons to Ukraine, much of it from our own arsenal.
Speaker 1: How much of a challenge will it be to replenish
Speaker 1: our stockpiles? I am concerned about our stockpiles. I don't
Speaker 1: think the issue is money as much as the ability
Speaker 1: to quickly rebuild those stockpiles. Looking War, you expend a
Speaker 1: lot of ammunition material and and and platforms, and it's
Speaker 1: it's important that we support the Ukrainians because they are
Speaker 1: fighting the fight that we didn't want to fight. And
Speaker 1: this is not just a combat between two countries, but
Speaker 1: this is autocracy versus democracy, and so it's important to
Speaker 1: support them. But the challenges. Our defense industrial basis is
Speaker 1: built for efficiency, not for a long drawn out fight,
Speaker 1: and so we have to get our heads around the
Speaker 1: fact that we have to build stockpiles of arms equipment,
Speaker 1: ammunition material, all those things. That's important, just not support,
Speaker 1: not just for supporting our allies, but supporting our own
Speaker 1: fight if we get into some tussle with the Russians
Speaker 1: or Chinese ourselves. How long do you have a sense,
Speaker 1: having held the job here as defense secretary, how long
Speaker 1: it might take to do so? Well, look, not just
Speaker 1: my job as sect up and secretary the army before them,
Speaker 1: but you know, I spent eight years or so in
Speaker 1: the defense industry. It takes months, if not years, to
Speaker 1: rebuild these stockpiles and that's gonna mean quick confusions of
Speaker 1: money now by Congress to get these defense companies to
Speaker 1: spin up lines, higher workers, train workers, build plant and factories.
Speaker 1: Need be do all these things to make sure we
Speaker 1: have sufficient stockpiles for the United States and its allies
Speaker 1: when it comes to things like stingers and javelins and
Speaker 1: High Mars and and all those, you know one munitions
Speaker 1: that we have been expended on the battlefield of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Do we have the chips to do it? We stockpiled
Speaker 1: enough for that purpose? Well, I want, I want to
Speaker 1: believe so. But that's why it was very important that
Speaker 1: several weeks ago, UH congress past the chip sacked as
Speaker 1: to bring that capacity back here home to the United States.
Speaker 1: Not It'll take a few years, of course, to build
Speaker 1: that capacity, but that was an important strategic move that
Speaker 1: supports not just our national security when it comes to
Speaker 1: defense and defense industry, but also our commercial uh robustness
Speaker 1: and the health of our economy well. As debate starts
Speaker 1: over this next N D A A. We've got a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff to buy, secretary. We do, and it's
Speaker 1: not cheap, and Congress has to be willing to open
Speaker 1: up its pocketbooks and think strategically about what we need
Speaker 1: to win in the twenty one century. I'm far less
Speaker 1: concerned about Russia today than what I might have been
Speaker 1: two years ago, because they've proven themselves to be incompetent
Speaker 1: in many ways on the battle. But China is still
Speaker 1: out there lurking and they have ambitions about surpassing us
Speaker 1: when it comes to leading the global order. Mark Asper,
Speaker 1: former Secretary of defense, former secretary of the army, we
Speaker 1: thank you, as always, for the insights today on Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: Good luck at the UN. Thank you very much. WELLT's say,
Speaker 1: I'm well the panel next, with Rick and Jennie here
Speaker 1: on sound on. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloom Berg. You sound on with Joe
Speaker 1: Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. What a night to be arriving
Speaker 1: in New York. What a week right, I mean just
Speaker 1: to get into town, catch a cab, cross the street,
Speaker 1: go out to a restaurant. Ask Rick Davis. He's already
Speaker 1: in the middle of it up there. In fact, we
Speaker 1: assemble our panel with Rick Davis in New York, Genie
Speaker 1: Schanzano here in Washington, D C, Bloomberg politics contributors, with
Speaker 1: an eye, of course, on not only the UN General
Speaker 1: Assembly but everything we just discussed involving Ukraine with Mark Esper.
Speaker 1: Of course, Vladimir Putin is not at the U N.
Speaker 1: he's busy planning votes in Russian occupied areas of Ukraine
Speaker 1: where Russia has lost ground to the counter offensive by
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian military. The Biden Administration already calling these sham votes.
Speaker 1: The idea would be to annex them before they get
Speaker 1: forced out altogether. Against Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, speaking earlier
Speaker 1: today with bloom, such sham votes referendums do not have
Speaker 1: any legitimates and therefore they don't change the nature of
Speaker 1: the conflict. This remains a war of aggression by or
Speaker 1: Shan against the Independence Sovereign Nation in Europe, Ukraine. Uh
Speaker 1: and UH. This will only uh further, uh worse in
Speaker 1: the situation and therefore we need to provide more support
Speaker 1: to Ukraine. For further worse in the situation, more support
Speaker 1: for Ukraine. These are not the kind of things we
Speaker 1: want to hear at the stage of the game. Seven
Speaker 1: months in. Rick Davis, what do you think about this
Speaker 1: idea of holding votes in these areas of Ukraine? Does
Speaker 1: it make the situation more dangerous if they are in
Speaker 1: fact annex Dmitry Medvedev, who's now head of the deputy
Speaker 1: head of the Security Council, says the annexation would be
Speaker 1: irreversible and enable Russia to use all possible force in
Speaker 1: self defense. Yeah, I think this is the threat right
Speaker 1: in the sense that what the NATO secretary general was
Speaker 1: just saying about how it doesn't change the battlefield, but
Speaker 1: it may actually change the battlefield. I mean, there is
Speaker 1: a sense that this is an escalation strategy by Vladimir
Speaker 1: Putin to be able to not only use a heightened
Speaker 1: level of of weaponry against the people of the Ukraine,
Speaker 1: because he will claim it's an attack on Russia, but
Speaker 1: he needs this for his politics at home. I mean
Speaker 1: one of the reasons we see this happening is because
Speaker 1: he has had a counter attack at home, domestically, about
Speaker 1: the fact that the war is not going the way
Speaker 1: he said it was going to, and both hardliners are
Speaker 1: saying we need to do more to defeat these Ukrainians,
Speaker 1: we need to, you know, escalate, while others in his
Speaker 1: own party are saying, wow, this is like not going
Speaker 1: the way we thought it was going to go, and
Speaker 1: so he's going to call our cards and say this
Speaker 1: is now an attack on Russia and and this is
Speaker 1: something that he'll try to use in a public domain,
Speaker 1: but it's just not gonna fly. The rest of the
Speaker 1: world knows this for what it is. It's just a
Speaker 1: naked grab and it's not going to be a democratic process,
Speaker 1: and so he'll be the only one talking about this
Speaker 1: as being legitimate. But at the end of the day
Speaker 1: they also did this in Crimea years ago and the
Speaker 1: world let him get away with it. So I'm sure
Speaker 1: he's thinking, wow, it's just what's the difference? Yeah, he's
Speaker 1: obviously used this playbook before here. I wonder how concerned
Speaker 1: you are about this genie, with with the sort of
Speaker 1: climax that we've been seeing, at least in that part
Speaker 1: of Ukraine, the counter offensive that was gaining momentum. Is
Speaker 1: it time? I asked Mark Esper about this. I realized
Speaker 1: there are complications. That's not going to happen this week,
Speaker 1: but should Joe Biden at least be calling publicly for
Speaker 1: Russia to be kicked out of the UN Security Council? Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: we are here in grumblings more than grumblings, about that,
Speaker 1: and we have for some time, and you just put
Speaker 1: it out in the air. Yeah, well, Thomas Greenfield, the
Speaker 1: US ambassador to the U, N Linda Thomas Greenfield, she
Speaker 1: has been talking about invoicing support for sensible reform to
Speaker 1: the Security Council. Some of that proposal includes an increasing
Speaker 1: the number of members. Obviously they don't have the support
Speaker 1: for that at this point, but we're hearing more than,
Speaker 1: I said, grumblings. It's more than grumblings. We're hearing a
Speaker 1: lot more talk about that publicly than we have and
Speaker 1: I do think that this referendum. To Urine Rick's point,
Speaker 1: we've seen Russia do this before with Crimea, and it
Speaker 1: worked for them then. We knew, because the Kremlin said
Speaker 1: earlier they were going to do this. I think the
Speaker 1: fact they're doing it now is a sign of desperation.
Speaker 1: is how badly things have gone for them. They can't
Speaker 1: sustain this war at home. As they try to increase
Speaker 1: the number of ground troops, they need to increase that support.
Speaker 1: This is one way to do that, to show they
Speaker 1: are victims, they're under attack and they're defending themselves, and
Speaker 1: that's precisely what this is about. Called a sham or
Speaker 1: not they go forward with this, they will use this
Speaker 1: defensive posture to justify the war at home. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: things get more dangerous when they get desperate. Rick. Is
Speaker 1: this the prelude, then? Is it's the setup by Vladimir
Speaker 1: Putin to potentially use a tactical nuclear weapon? Well, I
Speaker 1: do think that is one of the reasons why you
Speaker 1: don't hear a lot about kicking them out of the
Speaker 1: Security Council, because that is one forum to try and
Speaker 1: keep their feet to the fires in nuclear power. Uh and,
Speaker 1: and more needs to be done around that. But sure,
Speaker 1: I mean he'll claim that there's this is an attack
Speaker 1: by NATO with their weapons on homeland Russia. Uh and,
Speaker 1: and so you can see him building the concept around
Speaker 1: this argument that he can do whatever he wants to
Speaker 1: do because he's actually, you know, having an invading force. Again,
Speaker 1: he'll be the only one in the world who believes it,
Speaker 1: I would say to it just keeps him deeper and
Speaker 1: deeper into this hole that he's digging for himself. I mean,
Speaker 1: he already thought he could use this war to divide
Speaker 1: the world right, and all of these people who are
Speaker 1: going to be uh, you know, supporters of the Americas
Speaker 1: are gonna be put on the defense because we're gonna
Speaker 1: go right into Kiev and and and all my autocratic
Speaker 1: friends are gonna be, you know, uplifted by this. That's
Speaker 1: not at all what has happened here. And there's a
Speaker 1: reason he can get invited to the queen's funeral. There's
Speaker 1: a reason he didn't come to the UN General Assembly.
Speaker 1: I would not be surprised that, if he goes through
Speaker 1: with this, he pulls a no show at the g twenty.
Speaker 1: I mean, this guy is becoming a global pariah. He
Speaker 1: does no good for his quote allies like China, who
Speaker 1: have been like perplexed by the fact that they couldn't
Speaker 1: execute on a plan. So I do worry about the
Speaker 1: limits to what he is going to be held accountable for.
Speaker 1: So why not just give him the MiGs genie if
Speaker 1: he's going to keep escalating? What's our worry? Well, I
Speaker 1: think we're going to be pushed to do that pretty soon,
Speaker 1: and I think that is absolutely what we may be
Speaker 1: seeing in the in the near future. What a thought.
Speaker 1: Rick Davis and Jennie Chanzano, our signature panel, together once
Speaker 1: again on the Tuesday edition of sound on the fastest
Speaker 1: hour in politics, bringing a Capitol Hill next. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: It's called the Presidential Elections Reform Act and the idea
Speaker 1: here is to prevent some of the confusion, if I
Speaker 1: can use that word, that we saw surrounding the events
Speaker 1: of January six. Reaffirming the vice president can only count
Speaker 1: the votes, not overturned them. At a president trump had
Speaker 1: claimed it would make it harder for lawmakers to object,
Speaker 1: requiring at least a third of the members in each
Speaker 1: chamber to support the objection. So it raises the bar
Speaker 1: here and right now it takes just one house member
Speaker 1: and a single senator. Congressman Pete Aghilar of California, is
Speaker 1: Vice Chair of the House Democratic Caucus. This is more
Speaker 1: than a quick fix. This is about strengthening our democracy.
Speaker 1: To craft this legislation, they pulled directly from testimony and
Speaker 1: evidence that was gathered during the select committee's work in
Speaker 1: the investigation to the of the reforms that will prevent
Speaker 1: another January six. And, of course, a member of the committee,
Speaker 1: we're joined to talk about that and a few other
Speaker 1: gyrations today on Capitol Hill by Billy House Bloomberg, Congress reporter.
Speaker 1: It's great to have you back, billy. Does this pass?
Speaker 1: Does this have bipartisan support. It does not. I mean
Speaker 1: the in the house. The bill will get a few
Speaker 1: Republican votes, obviously lives Cheney and some of the other
Speaker 1: Republicans who may have voted for trump's and each mint,
Speaker 1: but general would be along party lines. House geop leaders
Speaker 1: have already sent a notice to their rank and file
Speaker 1: members to vote against it. UH, they don't have to
Speaker 1: follow that directive, but that's basically where the Republicans are
Speaker 1: on that. That's where we're going here. Does it how
Speaker 1: much does it have to do with the fact that
Speaker 1: Liz Cheney's name is on this bill right, she co
Speaker 1: Co sponsored it with with Sol an? That's a good question,
Speaker 1: or or the fact that it came out of the
Speaker 1: January six committee? More generally, is that galvanize the GOP
Speaker 1: resentment or objection to this? Uh, it's a very good question.
Speaker 1: You know, it's interesting because a few months ago, Gosh,
Speaker 1: a year ago at this point, we were talking about
Speaker 1: much more comprehensive electoral reform. Right even Joe Biden went
Speaker 1: to Capitol Hill to help lobby for it. They couldn't
Speaker 1: get it past the finish line. This was considered a
Speaker 1: much more modest thing that that. Maybe both parties could
Speaker 1: get their heads around what changed. Uh. Well, I think
Speaker 1: they realized. The Democrats, who can roll of course, both chambers,
Speaker 1: realized that clock is ticking. The buzzer will perhaps uh
Speaker 1: sound off on December thirty one and they could find
Speaker 1: one of their chambers uh, uh in control after the
Speaker 1: November eighth election and starting in January, uh in control
Speaker 1: of the Republicans. So time is running out on what
Speaker 1: they think they want to do. But to be clear
Speaker 1: for our listeners here, you don't. You don't see a
Speaker 1: path for this legislation. If I if I see a path,
Speaker 1: it's clearly after the November eighth election in the lane
Speaker 1: duck session, because there are differences between this house bill
Speaker 1: and the Senate bill. Now sponsors seem to indicate they
Speaker 1: think they can resolve those differences, but there's certainly no
Speaker 1: way it can be done before members leave Washington, until
Speaker 1: until after the elections, and many articulate the sticking points there.
Speaker 1: What's holding them up? Well, for instance, in the House,
Speaker 1: the House bill, as you I think, mentioned that uh
Speaker 1: one third of the members would have to vote to
Speaker 1: uh oppose uh a states elector electoral slate, while in
Speaker 1: the Senate it's only one fifth and that seems very
Speaker 1: minor and seems like it could be resolved right now.
Speaker 1: They haven't resolved it. Okay, check back in November with
Speaker 1: Billy House. Um, I want to ask you about Joe
Speaker 1: Manchin as well. Billy Interesting Day as he's accusing his
Speaker 1: republican colleagues of retribution, even while asking for their support
Speaker 1: to help pass this energy permitting legislation. Chuck Schumer today
Speaker 1: says it's going into the CR, the continuing resolution that
Speaker 1: will fund the government past September. There's been a lot
Speaker 1: of confusion about this. This is part of the deal
Speaker 1: surrounding the inflation reduction act, of course, which angered people
Speaker 1: on both sides of the aisle. Here's Chuck Schumer. Permitting
Speaker 1: reform is part of the I R A and I
Speaker 1: intend to add it to the CR and get it done. Yes,
Speaker 1: are there any circumstances whatsoever that that could be taken
Speaker 1: out of the series? But you said that for two weeks.
Speaker 1: I'm just getting saying. I'll say it for two weeks
Speaker 1: in one day. Next they keep trump. The Republicans are
Speaker 1: saying they're not going to support the CR if they
Speaker 1: had a mansion energy many proposals. What do you say
Speaker 1: to that? There's no reason Republicans shouldn't support it and
Speaker 1: I hope they do. Literally. Okay, so that's the back
Speaker 1: and forth today. Billy has you're probably standing right there
Speaker 1: when he said it. Um What does that mean here?
Speaker 1: Is Is he working Republicans on this, or or is
Speaker 1: he kind of stretching the truth for reporters? The first
Speaker 1: thing to note is that nobody's seen the mansion proposal
Speaker 1: actually yet. He's unveiling it tomorrow, but he's calling it
Speaker 1: revenge politics. Certainly if the Republicans are out to get
Speaker 1: him for supporting the spending plan and the climate plan.
Speaker 1: He h he joined Democrats with last a couple of
Speaker 1: months ago. So what we have here is kind of
Speaker 1: a showdown. Whether you know, uh, Democrats are really facing
Speaker 1: a potential shutdown over this, we'll see in the next
Speaker 1: few days. But it is complicated, if not overly broad
Speaker 1: an issue. Yeah, so we'll get some details, some text tomorrow.
Speaker 1: The senator says he needs as many as twenty Republican
Speaker 1: votes in the Senate to overcome democratic defections. This is
Speaker 1: what he was saying today in the Senate Radio TV gallery.
Speaker 1: If they're willing to say we're going to close down
Speaker 1: the government because the personal attack on me or basically
Speaker 1: not looking at the good of the country. This is
Speaker 1: what makes people sick about politics. Makes me sick about it.
Speaker 1: It sounds like he's stressing out a little bit, billy. Well,
Speaker 1: he is, but what he's also not mentioning is that
Speaker 1: some of the junctions point to UH. This would benefit
Speaker 1: equatron's a company about Equatron's Ministream Corps, uh, which, of
Speaker 1: course uh mansion is it wants to see go through.
Speaker 1: So he has a kind of personal stake beyond just
Speaker 1: the broader permitting philosophy. That's the multibillion Dollar Mountain Valley
Speaker 1: Natural Gas Pipeline, UH in West Virginia. Yeah, that's that's
Speaker 1: a pretty big deal, and it would be. It would
Speaker 1: help to speed approval of this, along with a lot
Speaker 1: of other permits. Billy, thank you. We'd love to stay
Speaker 1: in touch with you on all of these. It's it's
Speaker 1: been quite the merry go around lately and, Gosh, lawmakers
Speaker 1: just got back, or at least it seems like it.
Speaker 1: Billy House with us, Bloomberg, Congress reporter. We're gonna put
Speaker 1: this to the panel next Jeanie Chanzano and Rick Davis
Speaker 1: are with us on the fastest hour in politics. We'll
Speaker 1: check traffic and markets for you on the way as well.
Speaker 1: I'm Joe Matthew and Washington. This is Bloomberg. You're listening
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg. You sound on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Senator Joe Manchon, of course, not only upset with Republicans
Speaker 1: right now for not supporting his energy permitting legislation, but well,
Speaker 1: he's up with Progressive Democrats to in fact, when you
Speaker 1: listen to them today on Capitol Hill, it's smacks almost
Speaker 1: of a conspiracy. I got to be honest with I've
Speaker 1: been around for a long time and state politics and
Speaker 1: federal politics. I've never seen stranger bed founds than Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders and the the extreme liberal left signing up with
Speaker 1: the Republican leadership in the caucus. I've never seen this happen. Uh.
Speaker 1: So it's uh, it's come to me. What I'm hearing
Speaker 1: is it's like a revenge politics, uh, and basically revenge
Speaker 1: towards one person. Need and I'm thinking this is not
Speaker 1: about me. Can you reassemble the panel now with Rick
Speaker 1: Davis and Jeanie Schanzano Bloomberg politics contributors. Is this revenge politics, genie,
Speaker 1: and I asked you that because we could go all
Speaker 1: the way back through B B B and all the
Speaker 1: rest of it and the the the extended debate that
Speaker 1: went on for over a year between Joe Manch and
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer. That upset Progressive Democrats very much. He ended
Speaker 1: up getting this together with the inflation reduction act, but
Speaker 1: the they have long memories, they do. You know, it's
Speaker 1: interesting to hear Joe, Joe Manchin talk about this because
Speaker 1: of course Republicans feel that they he threw them under
Speaker 1: the bus with the I r. A payback is what
Speaker 1: he seems to be feeling there, you know, taking revenge
Speaker 1: on him for that. But of course his own fellow
Speaker 1: West Virginia senator, Shelley Moore capital. She has a permitting
Speaker 1: package out there. It has the supportive about forty five
Speaker 1: Republican senators. They're backing it. So he's going to have
Speaker 1: to try potentially to deal with her and of course
Speaker 1: that bill that she put out that they are supporting.
Speaker 1: It really does put a lot of pressure on mansion
Speaker 1: because much of what it does is codify what happened
Speaker 1: in the trump administration. So he's in a bit of
Speaker 1: a pickle here. He wants them on his side and
Speaker 1: he can't get either the Democrats or the Republicans. He's
Speaker 1: gonna have to probably play ball with her if he
Speaker 1: wants anything, but it doesn't sound like he's prepared to
Speaker 1: do that. Well, if you've been with us here on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg sound on, you know that dozens of lawmakers are
Speaker 1: threatening to shut down the government over this, including more
Speaker 1: than Seventy House Democrats. Uh, Ed Markey in the Senate,
Speaker 1: now Bernie Sanders, of course, in the Senate. This is
Speaker 1: a problem for Joe Manchion Rick. Is releasing the actual
Speaker 1: text tomorrow make any difference? Probably not. I mean usually
Speaker 1: the text will divide the room even more. Right there'll
Speaker 1: be some things in there that, uh, people who have
Speaker 1: already supported him want, and then there'll be things in
Speaker 1: there that even some of the people who might have
Speaker 1: been supporters are gonna say no way. So usually the
Speaker 1: more detail, the worst year year after. And Look, at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, there's a way to do
Speaker 1: this right. Just give him a vote on his amendment
Speaker 1: to a clean cr he's not going to pass and
Speaker 1: you know, you move on with a clean cr so, uh,
Speaker 1: the appropriate he's and Schumer's gonna be right. Notice what
Speaker 1: he says. You know, he says he's gonna include it. Well,
Speaker 1: including IT and having it stripped out of an amendment
Speaker 1: is not gonna, you know, mess up the Schumer commitment.
Speaker 1: But Schumer can't deliver the votes for him and and
Speaker 1: yet he was the vote that delivered the R A.
Speaker 1: I'm glad he did the IRA. I think this climate
Speaker 1: stuff that's going to really help our country reposition ourselves
Speaker 1: in the world and domestically. But it's gonna cost him
Speaker 1: and the idea that Somehow, oh my God, you know,
Speaker 1: this is a surprise to him that politics is like this.
Speaker 1: He's been a legislative terrorists for the last two years,
Speaker 1: the most important guy in Washington, and this is the
Speaker 1: price you past. He did seem pretty stressed out. Like
Speaker 1: I said, he seemed, uh, he seems spooked almost at
Speaker 1: the podiums, at a gene. He's not used to being
Speaker 1: on this side of the thing. He's not, and Rick,
Speaker 1: that is a great phrase. A legislative terrorist, which he
Speaker 1: has been for a couple of years, and it's coming
Speaker 1: right back to him and he see pretty stunned by that.
Speaker 1: Otherwise he's a very good actor to place done the
Speaker 1: way he so what does this mean, genie, if this
Speaker 1: isn't going to end up in the CR Democrats already
Speaker 1: told us that same sex marriage had to wait until
Speaker 1: after the mid terms, right. So this is gonna be
Speaker 1: a clean bill. That's what it sounded most to be
Speaker 1: loaded up a couple of weeks ago. Yeah, they're gonna be,
Speaker 1: you know, lucky to get this thing passed clean and
Speaker 1: get back onto the campaign trail, which is what everybody
Speaker 1: there knows that they need to do at this point.
Speaker 1: So I think they're gonna end up doing it clean.
Speaker 1: I think Rick's right. They may put this up for
Speaker 1: a vote, but he doesn't have the votes to get
Speaker 1: it through. Rick and Jan her with us our signature
Speaker 1: panel on sound on. I've got to ask you both
Speaker 1: about the immigration debate, crisis, whatever we're going to call
Speaker 1: it here, because it goes on now. The latest reports
Speaker 1: this morning were that Rhonda Santis, the Governor of Florida,
Speaker 1: was sending a planeload and by way of Texas. Again,
Speaker 1: I still I get confused with this, but the planeload
Speaker 1: was headed toward Delaware. He had been promising to do this.
Speaker 1: Of course, that is the home state of President Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: They were going to send him up to a home
Speaker 1: with beach or something. Uh. The press secretary, Karine John Pierre,
Speaker 1: in fact acknowledge these reports today in the briefing room.
Speaker 1: We have received a word of the flights. Uh. And yes,
Speaker 1: we are coordinating close with state officials, uh, and local
Speaker 1: service providers who are prepared to welcome these families in
Speaker 1: orderly manner as they pursue their asylum claims. But no
Speaker 1: plane ever showed up. Apparently, this is interesting. We're playing
Speaker 1: games now. There's no plane, according to reports, left Texas
Speaker 1: as of nine thirty am. That had been scheduled. Reporters
Speaker 1: and photographers looked for signs of the plane in Texas
Speaker 1: and Florida. No one ever took off, no one ever landed.
Speaker 1: Officials now say no plane is expected. So you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know if they show up on Saturday night here,
Speaker 1: when the Biden's at least expecting it, but Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: was asked about it today. This, of course, is very
Speaker 1: much top of mind here in the nation's capital. The
Speaker 1: minority leader in the Senate was all for it. I
Speaker 1: personally thought it was a good idea, but if you
Speaker 1: add it up, all of the illegals have been taken
Speaker 1: to Chicago or Washington or Martha's Vineyard. It would be
Speaker 1: fewer and people down in Texas have to deal with
Speaker 1: on a daily basis. When the vice president says the
Speaker 1: border secure, it's absurdly incorrect. The president of the United
Speaker 1: States asked directly about it today as he talked about
Speaker 1: a completely different topic at the White House before he
Speaker 1: left for the U. N you can hear reporters shouting
Speaker 1: questions at under your because there are three countries that
Speaker 1: are never had. Way Out the floor. He comes back
Speaker 1: coming from Central America, Mexico. This is a totally different circumstances.
Speaker 1: What's on my watch now is Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua,
Speaker 1: and the ability to send them back to those states
Speaker 1: is not rational. You could send them back and have
Speaker 1: them way. We're working with Mexico and other countries to
Speaker 1: see if we can stop the flow, but that's the difference.
Speaker 1: Thank you, and that's it. He took off left the room.
Speaker 1: That was the end of it. Uh, what's your thought
Speaker 1: on this, Rick, the way it's being managed by the
Speaker 1: White House, because Republicans seem to be in sync. The
Speaker 1: president there told us why they could not go back
Speaker 1: to their countries, but never really followed up with a solution. Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: the idea that somehow you know he's got like a
Speaker 1: handle on this because there are fewer immigrants from Honduras
Speaker 1: but more from Venezuela, is nuts. Right. Those aren't talking
Speaker 1: points that are going to cause you to be on
Speaker 1: top of the Immigration Uh. is his point that it's
Speaker 1: different because we'd have to fly them home or fly
Speaker 1: them to a dangerous place or both. It's it's all
Speaker 1: got to do with economics and crime, right, and it
Speaker 1: vacillates in all these areas, right. I mean we all
Speaker 1: remember the first waves of immigration that we can remember
Speaker 1: in the nineteen eighties was all out of Cuba and
Speaker 1: nobody was paying any attention to Honduras or Nicaragua. So
Speaker 1: the bottom line is there's no border strategy that this
Speaker 1: administration is perfected. They don't have a worker guest worker
Speaker 1: program that's been effective, they don't have a way to
Speaker 1: facilitate asylum and and look, I think that the idea
Speaker 1: that you're importing immigrants from Texas to Florida to fly
Speaker 1: them to Delaware is a joke, right. I mean like
Speaker 1: we should all be laughing about this, not having the
Speaker 1: press secretary of the White House take it seriously. Um,
Speaker 1: the reality is it's just a political stunt, and we
Speaker 1: ought to say stunts are not, you know, useful at
Speaker 1: solving a problem. You want to solve the problem, this
Speaker 1: administration has to have a border strategy and and the
Speaker 1: fact that there are two years into this and they're
Speaker 1: going to go into the midterm election cycle with like
Speaker 1: an explanation that, oh, they all came through a different
Speaker 1: road so we weren't prepared, is not an explanation. So, Jeannie,
Speaker 1: what did you want to hear Joe Biden say today?
Speaker 1: They they set it up for him. He wasn't getting
Speaker 1: out of the room without answering this question. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: this goes back, predates a Joe Biden by many, many
Speaker 1: years and many presidents. This has been the issue that
Speaker 1: has vexed Republican and Democratic presidents alike going back decades,
Speaker 1: and he is no exception to that. Every single thinking
Speaker 1: person in this country realizes we have an immigration migration
Speaker 1: crisis that needs to be addressed. It hasn't been addressed
Speaker 1: this presidency and it wasn't addressed in the previous ones.
Speaker 1: But the reality is what we're seeing here is politics
Speaker 1: by performance. We know we have a problem. There should
Speaker 1: be policy solutions. There are everything from Dacca, which should
Speaker 1: not be that difficult to get through. None of this
Speaker 1: has been addressed and Republicans have no plan to do
Speaker 1: it either, and these stunts that they are continuing to
Speaker 1: do are simply aimed at making their opponents look bad,
Speaker 1: meaning to Santis an Abbott, rather than addressing the problem.
Speaker 1: If these guys were serious, they would be in Washington
Speaker 1: and they would be talking about how can we address
Speaker 1: this issue. None of that has happened and it's distressing
Speaker 1: and should be for all Americans. The president was asked
Speaker 1: today directly about the de Santis idea, by the way,
Speaker 1: of flying migrants to Delaware as he was trying to
Speaker 1: get out of the room. You know, it's just been
Speaker 1: their shouting questions at him, and he had what he thought,
Speaker 1: I guess, was a humorous answers. He should come visit,
Speaker 1: you should come visit. We have a beautiful shore line.
Speaker 1: Then the door said, how about the door in that room?
Speaker 1: By the way, I mean talking. That is a dramatic exit.
Speaker 1: So you do it, don't let it. Uh. So. What
Speaker 1: do you think then, Jennie? Is that the way to
Speaker 1: close the conversation? No, it's not. They had a one
Speaker 1: month old baby on that plane that arrived here and
Speaker 1: came to D c. He should be talking about the
Speaker 1: seriousness of this issue and the fact that you don't
Speaker 1: play politics and performance politics with people's lives, and he
Speaker 1: should be talking about solutions to this issue, not, you know,
Speaker 1: inviting people to visit the shore, which is beautiful. Rick,
Speaker 1: I don't think he's sagging on into Santis. He's just
Speaker 1: trying to deflect it because he's honestly getting under his
Speaker 1: uh you know, uh ire. I mean like this is
Speaker 1: actually stopping the White House from getting something productive done
Speaker 1: on it. So Do Santis, you know, is getting more
Speaker 1: credit for this than he should. It's not a solution
Speaker 1: of the problem. Compreendis Davis in New York, Genie Chanzano
Speaker 1: in D C. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg