Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg's Sound On.
Speaker 1: My colleagues and I are strongly committed to bringing inflation
Speaker 1: back down. It's been tough times. It's when you need
Speaker 1: to be standing with your friends and your allies around
Speaker 1: the world. I've just tested negative for COVID nineteen after
Speaker 1: isolating for five days. Sloomberg Sound On Politics, Policy and
Speaker 1: Perspective from DC's Top Names. The yeas are sixty four,
Speaker 1: the knees are thirty three. This is a huge victory
Speaker 1: to get this CHIP back done. It's another bipartisan bill.
Speaker 1: There is a lot on the table after Chip. Sloomberg
Speaker 1: Sound On with Joe Mavew on Bloomberg Radio. The Fed
Speaker 1: hikes rates amid new accusations that China is trying to
Speaker 1: infiltrate the Central Bank. Welcome to the fastest hour in politics.
Speaker 1: As a Senate report claims China is trying to get
Speaker 1: confidential info from the Fed. We'll talk about it with
Speaker 1: New York Congressman John Katko, ranking Republican on the Household
Speaker 1: Land Security Committee, now preparing to vote on the CHIP Act.
Speaker 1: Will get into that too later. The Department of Justice
Speaker 1: now investigating Donald Trump and its criminal probe and who
Speaker 1: attempts to overturn the election. We'll discuss implications for the
Speaker 1: Republican Party later this hour with Barbara Comstock, former congresswoman
Speaker 1: from Virginia, and we'll peel back the layers on all
Speaker 1: of these stories with our signature panel Bloomberg Politics contributors
Speaker 1: Rick Davis, Jeanie Schanzano with us for analysis through the hour.
Speaker 1: Thanks for being with us, Son Bloomberg sound On. Welcome
Speaker 1: to Wednesday. Good day for Joe Biden. Before we welcome
Speaker 1: Congressman CatCo to the broadcast, I can tell you that
Speaker 1: the leader of the free world tested negative, just tested
Speaker 1: negative for COVID nineteen after isolating for five days. Mary
Speaker 1: is wearing the aviators in the sun in the rose Garden.
Speaker 1: A late scheduled little event there. They didn't even have
Speaker 1: time to put chairs out in the rose garden if
Speaker 1: you want a little behind the scenes. But he looked
Speaker 1: like he got some color. Has he been napping on
Speaker 1: the on the balcony. That's what I would do. Got
Speaker 1: the dog there. I mean, I know he's wearing the
Speaker 1: suit and the whole thing, but looked to look like
Speaker 1: he was he was back into his own here the
Speaker 1: doctor gave him the green light to end his strict isolation.
Speaker 1: But a message here as the White House tries to cast,
Speaker 1: as I read from Josh wind Grove on the terminal cast,
Speaker 1: the President's about with COVID as evidence of the strides made,
Speaker 1: there's still there's still stuff to worry about. B A
Speaker 1: five means many of us are still going to get
Speaker 1: COVID even if we take the precautions. That doesn't mean
Speaker 1: we are we're doing anything wrong. Unfortunately, this COVID is
Speaker 1: still with us as it has been for two and
Speaker 1: a half years, but our fight against COVID is making
Speaker 1: a huge difference. What's different now is our ability to
Speaker 1: protect ourselves some serious illness. And he's calling on Congress
Speaker 1: again to provide funding to keep COVID vaccines and therapeutics available. Now,
Speaker 1: the Fed the big story today, the right hike. You
Speaker 1: heard all about it. We had special programming seventy five
Speaker 1: basis points, and the Fed drives the day with this news.
Speaker 1: But there may be more to be concerned about at
Speaker 1: the Fed than just inflation. As a senior Republican Senator,
Speaker 1: Rob Portman of Ohio accuses China now of trying to
Speaker 1: obtain confidential information from the FED. This is a big deal.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg leading the way on this story. Bloomberg Fed reporter
Speaker 1: cred Touria is reporting China has in fact tried to
Speaker 1: glean insight into monetary policy and access to internal data.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine what that's worth. Senator Portman spoke with
Speaker 1: Bloomberg about the report. He appeared on Balance of Power
Speaker 1: with David Weston. I think that it's important that the
Speaker 1: FED look at our recommendations, which is to tighten up
Speaker 1: further to avoid China getting access to the FED information
Speaker 1: has been very valuable, not just to China but to
Speaker 1: investors all over the world obviously, and so this is
Speaker 1: something where it has to be protected now protected, okay,
Speaker 1: But there's also pushback inside the FED as J Powell, well,
Speaker 1: he's what's the actual statement he got here? Strong concerns
Speaker 1: about assertions and implications. He's obviously trying to protect his people.
Speaker 1: Is that a deportment was asked about that this report
Speaker 1: is based on the Federal Reserve's own study, their own
Speaker 1: counterintelligence five year study. It's also based on some FBI
Speaker 1: reporting that that we've had access to so um to
Speaker 1: the extent it's being questioned. I guess I would say
Speaker 1: that the FED is questioning its own report. There's a
Speaker 1: lot in this report we wanted to ask Congressman John
Speaker 1: Katko about it, among other risks. Who sees the ranking
Speaker 1: member on the House Homeland Security Committee. Congressman, welcome, it's
Speaker 1: great to have you back on Bloomberg Radio. Do we
Speaker 1: need to take a closer look at what China is
Speaker 1: doing or not? With the FED? Oh? Absolutely, we need
Speaker 1: to take closer look what China's doing with everything, and
Speaker 1: we cannot let our guard down. And any time there's
Speaker 1: even a little bit as smoke and pretty much bet
Speaker 1: there's going to be a fire. So any time that
Speaker 1: we have any indications or concerns, we need to we
Speaker 1: need to evaluate them and look into them. And even
Speaker 1: if there's not, we've got to keep our guard up
Speaker 1: and make sure we're doing everything we possibly can, like
Speaker 1: with chip manufacturing and everything else. Yeah, this is quite
Speaker 1: a list of concerns here, including the FED identifying this
Speaker 1: is based on the FED zone findings over a dozen
Speaker 1: persons of interest with connections to Chinese talent recruiters. Congress
Speaker 1: when they've been dubbed the P network, Why would the
Speaker 1: FED chairman say there's nothing to see here? Essentially, Well,
Speaker 1: you should never say there's nothing to see at the beginning.
Speaker 1: If there's, if there's even an allogation that should be
Speaker 1: fully looked into inbed it. For example, we I saw
Speaker 1: a report this week that the Chinese were infiltrate and
Speaker 1: police departments across the country trying to get intelligence. It's
Speaker 1: all about gathering intelligence and gathering access, and we gotta
Speaker 1: we've got to keep our guard with a office subject
Speaker 1: matters and never discount the ability that Chinese to infiltrate
Speaker 1: organizations in our country. Well, the how Homeland Security Committee
Speaker 1: look into this um but most likely many different agencies
Speaker 1: well or committees, Well until Foreign Affairs at all, Well,
Speaker 1: we'll probably have a hand in taking a look at this,
Speaker 1: and we should. Well, apparently this Senator Apportman's report came
Speaker 1: from a combination of of the fed's own internal investigation
Speaker 1: and work by the FBI. So somebody's investigating this now.
Speaker 1: I would just wonder if this should be a matter
Speaker 1: of business in the US Congress. Well, listen, if if
Speaker 1: if that's already FBA is already investigating, that's that's a
Speaker 1: good sign. At that there. Abi is very adept to
Speaker 1: what's going on with China, but we always, we always
Speaker 1: have a role with respect to oversight, and we need
Speaker 1: to exercise that role and any time that China is involved.
Speaker 1: Was today's chips bill passing the Senate, and I understand
Speaker 1: it's going to move quickly through the House. The first
Speaker 1: step in fighting back against China. No, I'll tell you
Speaker 1: what it's a it's a very very big step because, uh,
Speaker 1: you know that could hard reality is that of China
Speaker 1: decide to go into Taiwan tomorrow. Uh, they will have
Speaker 1: control the high end chip market in the world. And
Speaker 1: so what does that mean. That means that our missile
Speaker 1: defense systems are missile systems are are high high tech
Speaker 1: vehicles all across countin, from tractors to cars to all
Speaker 1: kinds of odd items would be beholding to the Chinese.
Speaker 1: So we have to get this bill passed from a
Speaker 1: strategic standpoint, and it's a very very important stuff. I'm
Speaker 1: sure you're looking at this as a national security issue
Speaker 1: as much as anything else. The White House has been
Speaker 1: talking a lot about that side of it lately, not
Speaker 1: just bringing consumer prices lower, even though that's apparently a
Speaker 1: pretty long term story here. But what do you hearing,
Speaker 1: Congressman about. Is the House prepared to vote on this
Speaker 1: in the next two days? Oh yeah, I think we're
Speaker 1: gonna be having a vote on it tomorrow, and I'm
Speaker 1: excited to cast a vote enthusiastically. Yes. Um, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of nonsense going on about this bill that's just
Speaker 1: not true. One of them, for example, is the the
Speaker 1: whole question about it got larded up with a bunch
Speaker 1: of other things. Well, actually it didn't. The Chips Act
Speaker 1: is fifty two billion dollars or so for computer chip manufacturing,
Speaker 1: incentivizing the United States, plus an additional component for income
Speaker 1: tax credits over a period of five years that pals
Speaker 1: in comparison to the investment that will be made in
Speaker 1: the bill going forward. There's other parts of the bill
Speaker 1: to have nothing to do with chips. That has to
Speaker 1: do with reauthorizing National Science Foundation and incentivizing high tech
Speaker 1: manufacturing another field. So, um, the chip side of it
Speaker 1: is is lean, meaning it's going to be great. Fifty
Speaker 1: two billion dollars here, do you need guardrails or are
Speaker 1: there guardrails on that money so they don't go back
Speaker 1: to other countries? There's definitely guardrails in there, and that
Speaker 1: that's another misnomer, that a lot of guard rails making
Speaker 1: sure that stuff doesn't go back to China. But if
Speaker 1: you think about it this way, that's fifty two billion
Speaker 1: dollars that that passes. It will spawn easily by any
Speaker 1: any has to know whatsoever, easily three billion dollars and
Speaker 1: probably exponentially more in investments by chip manufacturers in the US.
Speaker 1: So you get a six fold return on your money,
Speaker 1: and imediately before your factor in all the spinoff businesses,
Speaker 1: before you factor in the salaries of the employees and
Speaker 1: everything else. In the average salary these jobs are about
Speaker 1: hundred sixty thousand, and you're talking about hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: of jobs across the country. So this is something from
Speaker 1: an economic standpoint it makes sense. But from a nationals
Speaker 1: UH security standpoint, it's an imperative. As I talked to
Speaker 1: you from your perch as ranking member of Homeland Security,
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about this matter involving secret Service.
Speaker 1: Tex Senator Gary Peters, who chairs Homeland in his chamber, UH,
Speaker 1: tells Bloomberg today he's aggressively seeking answers on missing texts
Speaker 1: from January six and may hold hearings. Would you support
Speaker 1: a move like that in the House Committee? Yeah? Absolutely. Look,
Speaker 1: don't forget I'm an old time prosecutor as a federal
Speaker 1: prosecutor for twenty years and organized crime cases, and so
Speaker 1: for me, when evidence disappears after an investigation has commenced,
Speaker 1: that is highly, highly suspicious, and highly troubling. It's either
Speaker 1: a massive mistake on on Secret Services part or there's
Speaker 1: something else going on. But either way, we have a
Speaker 1: duty from an oversight perspective to look into this, and
Speaker 1: I'm glad we are going to do that. Are you
Speaker 1: heartened by news that the d J is looking into
Speaker 1: Donald Trump as part of its criminal investigation? Now they
Speaker 1: suddenly seem to be talking to everybody. Look at I mean,
Speaker 1: the allegations that propped up. They have to look and
Speaker 1: they have to chase them down. Whatever comes to them.
Speaker 1: We'll see. Um. You know, don't forget that the January
Speaker 1: six Commission is not balanced with Democrats and Republicans. So
Speaker 1: are we hearing all the bad stuff? Is there? Exculpatory stuff?
Speaker 1: We're not aware of that type of stuff. We need
Speaker 1: to find out, and I think an investigation by the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice would at least give us some more
Speaker 1: balanced view what's going on, and I think that's important.
Speaker 1: Congressman John Khako, Republican from New York the twenty district
Speaker 1: readings to Syracuse, and thank you for being with us.
Speaker 1: Representative Katko back on the program, ranking member on householdmland security,
Speaker 1: and some interesting insights on all of these stories that
Speaker 1: will throw to the panel. Max Rick and Genie are
Speaker 1: with us for the hour Bloomberg Politics contributors with much
Speaker 1: more on chips and China and what's going on at
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve. We did get an interest rate high
Speaker 1: today and the White House is sending big messaging ahead
Speaker 1: of g d P tomorrow. More ahead on the fastest
Speaker 1: hour in politics. This is Bloomberg, This is Bloomberg. So
Speaker 1: long with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. We've been talking
Speaker 1: about the Chip Act now for eighteen months. I've been
Speaker 1: saying over a year. I actually looked at that today,
Speaker 1: eighteen months in the making, So I guess we can
Speaker 1: call it a history being made. The yay's are sixty four,
Speaker 1: the nays are thirty three, and the motion to concur
Speaker 1: with an amendment is agreed to there it goes to
Speaker 1: the House, a big day for Senator Chuck Hill. We
Speaker 1: could say, let corporate America do it on its own,
Speaker 1: but it's a brand new world with nation states trying
Speaker 1: to overcome US, and many of them are authoritarian, and
Speaker 1: we'll set the rules if they become the leaders in
Speaker 1: in science, technology, innovation, and advanced manufacturing. Bloomberg Reporting legislation
Speaker 1: heads to the House for passage likely this week. You
Speaker 1: just heard from Congressman Katko. He says tomorrow fifty two
Speaker 1: billion dollars grants incentives for U S semiconductor manufacturing. Three
Speaker 1: the vote, as we heard there from Congressman Don Buyer,
Speaker 1: no stranger to this program. Let's assemble the panel because
Speaker 1: this is just one of the issues we talked about
Speaker 1: there with the Congressman. And we have news as well.
Speaker 1: Dare I say it on reconciliation? Rick Davis and Genie
Speaker 1: Chanzano Bloomberg Politics contributors are with us. Uh, Genie, so
Speaker 1: big Win. I guess everyone agrees. We talked about it.
Speaker 1: You know, we have been since we're blue in the face.
Speaker 1: I feel like I should send flowers to Gina Romando.
Speaker 1: She must be having a party tonight. Now she can
Speaker 1: get onto something else. But there's news that Joe Mansion
Speaker 1: is on board and has reached a deal with Senate
Speaker 1: Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on a bill that includes this
Speaker 1: is that stripped down, build back better thing. There's a
Speaker 1: new name for it. Now, what was it here? I
Speaker 1: have to go back and find this. Here we go, ready,
Speaker 1: the Inflation Reduction Act of two. Does it get Doneene? Wow,
Speaker 1: you're just blowing my mind. First of all, constant name changes.
Speaker 1: Imagine if you change your child's name this much. And
Speaker 1: and now Joe Mansion on board? You know, you know,
Speaker 1: I I think it would have been hard for you know,
Speaker 1: and again I'll believe it when I see the vote.
Speaker 1: But I do think it would have been hard for
Speaker 1: Joe Mansion to vote against this very very stripped down
Speaker 1: reconciliation bill because it is deflationary and and that's one
Speaker 1: of the arguments that have been made. So I in one,
Speaker 1: on the one hand, I'm not surprised that he's going
Speaker 1: on board, And on the other hand, it's Joe Mansion.
Speaker 1: So we've got to wait until we actually get a vote.
Speaker 1: And I think we've been talking about this today. Rick,
Speaker 1: we know that we knew Joe Mansion had COVID. I
Speaker 1: guess has been on the phone or been on zoom
Speaker 1: with Chuck Schumer for a while. He just issued a
Speaker 1: statement saying, the Inflation Reduction Act, how do they come
Speaker 1: up with it? We'll address record inflation by paying down
Speaker 1: our national debt, the three of them here, lowering energy
Speaker 1: costs and lowering healthcare costs. Are they actually going to
Speaker 1: do this in the next week and a half. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they've got the ability to do it. It's a party
Speaker 1: line vote. You don't expect any Republicans to sort of
Speaker 1: bail on this or get on this. But look, they
Speaker 1: took the title right off the top of the polls.
Speaker 1: I mean, like most people are concerned about inflation, so
Speaker 1: they're gonna call it that. And uh and and I'm
Speaker 1: not exactly sure what impact is going to have on inflation.
Speaker 1: But the fact that they can get a deal with
Speaker 1: with Joe Manchin in the eleventh hour, right before summer recess. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, kudos to Schumer for you know, sort of
Speaker 1: standing up. You know, his his leadership of the Senate
Speaker 1: has been really in question. Um. And and you know,
Speaker 1: if he can pull this off, it would be an
Speaker 1: eleventh hour home run. Well, John Cornyan is not impressed.
Speaker 1: We just got a statement from the Republican from Texas
Speaker 1: who actually he was sell lebrating the chip back passing. Genie.
Speaker 1: He's he name checks Joe Mansion, says he flip flopped.
Speaker 1: Senate Democrats can change the name of build back Broke
Speaker 1: as many times as they want. It won't be any
Speaker 1: less devastating to American families and small businesses. That doesn't
Speaker 1: sound like something that lowers prices, Genie, No, it doesn't
Speaker 1: sound like it. I'm not surprised. But to Rick's point,
Speaker 1: this is a win for Chuck Schumer. It's a good
Speaker 1: day to be Chuck Schumer. It's a good day for
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer. Um. You know, he's had a rough time,
Speaker 1: but if he's able to get both of these. And again,
Speaker 1: this is very very paired down from what it was.
Speaker 1: And so I do think it is accurately named. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I ra A might not be the
Speaker 1: best acronym, but definationary is, you know, And I don't
Speaker 1: know what the exact name is, but you said inflation
Speaker 1: reduction acts already burned into your brain. It is. I
Speaker 1: got it. I got it, Joe. But I do think
Speaker 1: the deflationary aspect of this is critically important at this time,
Speaker 1: and it makes sense for the Democrats. And if they
Speaker 1: get it through the Parliamentarian which is sounds like they will,
Speaker 1: they can move this to the House. I think they
Speaker 1: can get it done before break. This is a long
Speaker 1: statement from I'm still scrolling here. How many paragraphs do
Speaker 1: we have here the last graph Rick. From here forward,
Speaker 1: the debate over a future reconciliation bill or any targeted
Speaker 1: legislation must focus on supporting the everyday, hard working Americans
Speaker 1: we've been elected as service. He is he worried about
Speaker 1: blowback here on, at least here in Washington, if not
Speaker 1: at home. Yeah, there might be some blowback. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, he's really staked out this position of being
Speaker 1: sort of the conscience of the Senate. He's not gonna
Speaker 1: let anything bad go through. Um, you know, he's gonna
Speaker 1: have this uh revenue raiser. Uh, He's gonna go you know,
Speaker 1: raise taxes on billionaires and and and that could be
Speaker 1: an interesting cell back home about you know, raising taxes
Speaker 1: in an election year. But um, you know, look he's
Speaker 1: riding high. I mean, he'll be able to sell this
Speaker 1: pretty hard. He's gonna walk out of the Senate for
Speaker 1: recess with a couple of big victories. The chip ACKed
Speaker 1: is something he was backing too, I do think at
Speaker 1: the time of this, I mean, like, within the hour
Speaker 1: after the chip back passed, isn't that something McConnell was
Speaker 1: gonna hold it up to stop reconciliation, bangman out to
Speaker 1: deal on reconciliation. So it's uh, there's gonna be a
Speaker 1: lot of sort of twisting of the gears this week
Speaker 1: in Capitol Hill. You know, Schumer maybe have gotten one
Speaker 1: up on Mitch McConnell this week. The fascinating turn of
Speaker 1: events here. I didn't think we'd be talking about it today,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna have to talk about it with Barbara
Speaker 1: Comstock coming up as well. Our panel stays in place.
Speaker 1: Rick and Jennie are here. Barbara Compstock, former Virginia congresswoman,
Speaker 1: will join us next with a lot to cover here.
Speaker 1: Uh Now, reconciliation apparently back on track, and an enormous
Speaker 1: amount of news should I say leaking from the d
Speaker 1: o J. Will have more on that on the January
Speaker 1: six investigation. This is Bloomberger. It's getting bigger the d
Speaker 1: o j's probe into January six, as we already knew
Speaker 1: Mark Shorts had testified. He confirmed that to ABC News
Speaker 1: just the other day. Of course, Mike Pence's former chief
Speaker 1: of staff, I was subpoenaed by a grand jury, and
Speaker 1: I complied with that subpoena. But upon the advice my
Speaker 1: legal counsel, I really can't comment further than that. We
Speaker 1: learn as well today Cassidy Hutchinson, of course, the former
Speaker 1: top advisor to Mark Meadows, also recently cooperated with the
Speaker 1: d j's investigation into the events of January six. And
Speaker 1: we wake up two news this morning from Page News
Speaker 1: Washington Posts Justice Department investigating Trump's actions in jan six
Speaker 1: criminal probe that'll be looking specifically at his actions that
Speaker 1: day as prosecutors question witnesses before a grand jury. And
Speaker 1: it's very interesting to consider where this all might be going.
Speaker 1: We have a lot to talk about, starting with this issue,
Speaker 1: as we're joined by Barbara Comstock, former Virginia congresswoman Republican.
Speaker 1: It's great to have you back with us. It's been
Speaker 1: a long time, Barbara. What do you make of this? Initially,
Speaker 1: this news that d o J is not only quietly
Speaker 1: working behind the scenes year as the committee gets a
Speaker 1: lot of attention, but it's actually looking at the former
Speaker 1: president himself in his actions that day. Well, I think
Speaker 1: it's very significant, and it's not surprising given the very
Speaker 1: significant information that has already been public, but also the
Speaker 1: expected investigation that they've been doing and all of the
Speaker 1: information we've we know about, uh, you know, the public
Speaker 1: testament that Donald Trump's own um justice said about how
Speaker 1: he was trying to them to say that there was
Speaker 1: fraud in the election when they of course knew there
Speaker 1: wasn't and they told him there wasn't. He was trying
Speaker 1: to get them to overturn an election when they said
Speaker 1: they couldn't. Now we know there were all these efforts
Speaker 1: to uh, you know, say that you have these fake electors,
Speaker 1: and now we have this memo that says, you know, well,
Speaker 1: let's just say there are fake electors and try and
Speaker 1: get Mike Pence to do them. All the pressure on
Speaker 1: Mike Pence, which is why who have Mike Pence's staff
Speaker 1: testified injury? And then that's eight seven minutes on January six,
Speaker 1: where we know, um, really see the criminal intent of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, where not only did he fail to act.
Speaker 1: But he chose not to act very intentionally. And now
Speaker 1: we know his claims that he said he you know,
Speaker 1: he sent the National Guard. We know those claims are false. Well,
Speaker 1: so are you actually thinking that we're in a world here,
Speaker 1: sorry to interrupt, Barbara, where Merrick Garland says, no, we're
Speaker 1: going to criminally charge a former president, this is actually
Speaker 1: gonna happen. Well, I think he's made very clear that
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter who it is, if there is criminal conduct,
Speaker 1: that he is going to take it to its logical attention.
Speaker 1: So what charge do you have in your minds? Charges
Speaker 1: that have been mentioned by the prosecutors who have looked
Speaker 1: at this very seriously. You know, are things like conspiracy
Speaker 1: to defraud the US as well as we're struct proceedings,
Speaker 1: So conspiracy to the US by you know, putting out
Speaker 1: their fraudulent electors, you know, sending fraudental electors um out there,
Speaker 1: trying to get Mike to you know, put fraudulent electors forward,
Speaker 1: and having that conspiracy to do that where he was
Speaker 1: very directly involved from what we can tell. And then
Speaker 1: conspiracy to obstruct the proceedings by setting people who he
Speaker 1: knew were armed up to the Capitol that he himself
Speaker 1: wanted to go but was stopped. But then also not
Speaker 1: stopping that mob, because we now know that it was
Speaker 1: Pence and General Milly who stopped it. And you know,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump only made that statement to go home after
Speaker 1: he knew that Pence and Milly were sending the gulf,
Speaker 1: you know, make them go home, whether they wanted or not. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we've had a lot of revelations over the past couple
Speaker 1: of weeks. Uh. As we spend time with Barbara Comstock,
Speaker 1: former Virginia congress Will I want to pull you back
Speaker 1: to an event yesterday while you're still with us, Barbara,
Speaker 1: and that was I won't say the dueling speeches in
Speaker 1: this case, but Mike Pence's speech and his choice of
Speaker 1: language as he spoke to a conservative youth crowd here
Speaker 1: in Washington, d C. And was asked about his division
Speaker 1: with Donald Trump. Here's what he said. I don't I
Speaker 1: don't know that the President and I differ on issues,
Speaker 1: but we may differ on focus. I truly do believe
Speaker 1: that elections are about the future, and that it's absolutely
Speaker 1: essential at a time when so many Americans are hurting,
Speaker 1: so many families are struggling that we don't give way
Speaker 1: to the temptation to look back. We differ on focus.
Speaker 1: Was his choice of words. I was fascinated by that.
Speaker 1: I'm assuming that was a line that tested well. Barbara,
Speaker 1: did we see the two alternatives, the two pass for
Speaker 1: the Republican Party on display yesterday? Well, the problem is
Speaker 1: is they differ on democracy. You know, on January six,
Speaker 1: Mike Pence did stand up for democracy and wouldn't do
Speaker 1: take illegal action. So him for not you know, for
Speaker 1: doing his job and not doing something illegal that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump did very much press for him to do and
Speaker 1: send a mob to try and get him to do. Um.
Speaker 1: So I think, uh, Mike Pence may well be asked
Speaker 1: to testify before a grand jury himself because there are
Speaker 1: actions like you know, the phone call that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: made to him that morning, you know, the numerous threats
Speaker 1: that he was making to him, both publicly and privately,
Speaker 1: and asking him to do you know, Hey, wouldn't it
Speaker 1: be cool if you could do this? That's by yourself.
Speaker 1: You should do it. Let's do it. Um, I think
Speaker 1: he may need to test what's more than a difference
Speaker 1: of opinion, It's not Hey, what should the tax rate
Speaker 1: be Donald Trump was asking him to do illegal things.
Speaker 1: So I don't think it's about the future of the party.
Speaker 1: You cannot be pro democracy and pro Trump and pro insurrection.
Speaker 1: It's it's h It's just quoted the president right there. Barbara,
Speaker 1: thank you, come back and see us. Yes, go ahead.
Speaker 1: Last last word with one other yet to be reported
Speaker 1: umpach that was made yesterday by Bill Barr at the
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill Club. I don't know. Oh yeah, but he
Speaker 1: spoke at the Capitol Hill Club in front of fifty people.
Speaker 1: I think couple members of Congress were there where he
Speaker 1: very much said we cannot Donald Trump as our nominee.
Speaker 1: Well we've heard that from him saying that, and he
Speaker 1: re emphasized, and I think Barbara compt come back and
Speaker 1: see us. We'll call the phone company between now and then.
Speaker 1: Former Virginia congresswoman. Great to share insights with Barbara when
Speaker 1: we can here on the fastest hour in politics. We've
Speaker 1: got new headlines on Joe Mansion and reconciliation. Will reassemble
Speaker 1: the panel next. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. So long with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Brought to you by the letter R. Reconciliation is back
Speaker 1: on the table, almost like that last year never happened.
Speaker 1: With the headline on the terminal, Mansion pivots back to
Speaker 1: climate tax provisions sought by Biden. If you were with
Speaker 1: us earlier in the hour, you already know that Joe
Speaker 1: Mansion has agreed to a deal with Chuck Schumer. And
Speaker 1: we've got a number now here, three hundred sixty nine
Speaker 1: billion dollars. This was build back better Light. There's a
Speaker 1: new name for it, as we discussed earlier with the panel,
Speaker 1: the Inflation Reduction Act of two. Eric Wasson is with
Speaker 1: this Bloomberg Congress reporter who's sharing the byline on the story. Eric,
Speaker 1: I don't know if you saw this coming, but things
Speaker 1: seem to be happening awfully quickly at this point. Give
Speaker 1: us some of the fine print inside this deal as
Speaker 1: we run a couple of headlines here that are awfully important, uh,
Speaker 1: including closing the carried interest loophole. Right, so yes, it
Speaker 1: looks like it's about seven nine billion dollars in revenu
Speaker 1: It was the main piece here, Corporate minimum tax on
Speaker 1: corporate rations over one billion dollars in value. That's a
Speaker 1: tweak from earlier proposal. We're also looking at mclary interest loophole,
Speaker 1: which about fourteen billion, and a lot of tax enforcement.
Speaker 1: This is a informal westmate hunter twenty four billion dollars
Speaker 1: that you could get by boosting the I R. S
Speaker 1: budget by eighty billion dollars. Those are the you know,
Speaker 1: the main revenue pieces and the main spending as you
Speaker 1: mentioned as three sixty nine billion dollars on climate and
Speaker 1: energy provisions, you know, and then looking at three hundred
Speaker 1: billion dollars in davosity reduction. So this is a pivot
Speaker 1: from from it. I have to say it's really a
Speaker 1: master stroke for Chuck Schumer because if you guys remember
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell, the Minori leader, said he would not allow
Speaker 1: this Chips bill to go forward to get a final
Speaker 1: vote as long as they're talking about reversing the Trump
Speaker 1: tax cuts or doing you know, any kind of tax
Speaker 1: increases moment. I mean we're talking about there's a matter
Speaker 1: of hours after the Chips bill pass outcomes this deal
Speaker 1: between Mansion and Schumer to do just that. So they
Speaker 1: really have rolled the McConnell and normally McConnell's alone credit
Speaker 1: as being the legislative unions. I suspect he'll be in
Speaker 1: a really good mood when he speaks tomorrow morning. So
Speaker 1: you're you're reporting that this actually could be could get
Speaker 1: done before the August recess. They could vote on this
Speaker 1: as soon as next week in the Senate. That's right now.
Speaker 1: There's a couple of things that here. The one they have,
Speaker 1: they have to scrub it to make sure it complies
Speaker 1: to the Senate rules. Has got to be a kosher
Speaker 1: with the Buget budget rules at best. And also they've
Speaker 1: had a slew of illness, and Mansion in fact is
Speaker 1: ill with COVID this week he's negotiating as a big deal.
Speaker 1: Uh you know, lahy uh, you know is Vermont centers
Speaker 1: in hospital with hip hip surgery. So you know there
Speaker 1: are variables here, but this is a major turning point.
Speaker 1: We're trying to nail down that everyone's on board, carried addressed.
Speaker 1: Christian Cinema has been opposing that as a tax increased before.
Speaker 1: So I'm not sure the expect status of all these
Speaker 1: with all the members. Were we making too much of
Speaker 1: this without knowing where she is on this? Eric? No,
Speaker 1: because Mansion has always been the major hold up. So
Speaker 1: I think I think we're not making too much of it. Uh.
Speaker 1: And I think, you know, that's only fourteen billion dollars
Speaker 1: that they could take it out and the whole thing
Speaker 1: doesn't collapse. I think, you know, So we're working on
Speaker 1: but I think this is a this is a major
Speaker 1: step for for Biden's agenda, presumably. I was talking to
Speaker 1: somebody in the House who's close to the Democratic leadership,
Speaker 1: said they might come back just for a day. Uh,
Speaker 1: to get this done. Is that necessary? O, Well, the
Speaker 1: House will have to come back. I think they're gonna
Speaker 1: come back as opposed to waiting until September or whatever.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, that they do want to do that.
Speaker 1: They also really want to try to pass the sault
Speaker 1: weapons span uh, and the math gets harder for them
Speaker 1: after a Minnesota special election. So I think that they're
Speaker 1: gonna they're they're really planning to come back the eight
Speaker 1: or ninth of August. You know. Again, for them, the
Speaker 1: hope of the Senate will be we'll be done with
Speaker 1: that for that plan to work. Of course, you know Republicans,
Speaker 1: which none of this will happen. So we'll see how
Speaker 1: it plays out. When does this go public in terms of,
Speaker 1: you know, an event where we've got the plodium and
Speaker 1: they'll what are they going to set up outside on
Speaker 1: the steps and hold a rally tomorrow? How does how
Speaker 1: does Chuck Schumer get some energy under this? Well, you know,
Speaker 1: I think there's still a lot to do with it,
Speaker 1: with it behind the scenes, with send a prolemtary and
Speaker 1: so they announce they're going to bring the text out
Speaker 1: with a more fulsome summary. We'll be the key questions
Speaker 1: like where the electric vehicle tax credit is in or not.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of details we don't have right now.
Speaker 1: When do we see a billit? Uh? Well, you know
Speaker 1: the text is supposed to go to the to the
Speaker 1: rules official tonight. We're hoping they'll be made public tonight
Speaker 1: as well. Wow, man, I hope you're not up all night,
Speaker 1: but we really appreciate your reporting and jumping on with
Speaker 1: us as this breaks. Eric Wasson, thanks for the insights
Speaker 1: today Bloomberg Sound On. As we reassembled our panel, Rick
Speaker 1: and Jennie, we're talking about this with us earlier, but
Speaker 1: we've learned a lot since then. As this comes to
Speaker 1: life this hour here before our eyes on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: What do you think of some of these details here, Rick,
Speaker 1: corporate minimum tax that was not part of the Republican agenda,
Speaker 1: Certainly it could be undone. Then through reconciliation as well,
Speaker 1: it can be undone. And this is the problem with reconciliation, right,
Speaker 1: it's not a budget authority. It goes to the next majority.
Speaker 1: You can just undo all of this and that includes
Speaker 1: you know, not just the revenue raisers, but spending, you know,
Speaker 1: for things like the subsidies for the A C a
Speaker 1: UM payments. But I would say, you know, this has
Speaker 1: got a glide path. I mean, even though the parliamentarian
Speaker 1: has a rule, it's likely the only thing in this
Speaker 1: package that I can tell that would be vulnerable to
Speaker 1: her rule, you know, would be the drug price reductions,
Speaker 1: and that's just if they exceed inflation. So, uh, there's
Speaker 1: there's probably a work around on all of this to
Speaker 1: make it uh kosher for the parliamentarian to get a vote.
Speaker 1: Right quick boy, We started talking earlier about a win
Speaker 1: on the Chip Act, Genie, what would you call this
Speaker 1: for Joe Biden? This would be an enormous win, and
Speaker 1: not just for Joe Biden. It's a big victory for
Speaker 1: what I call the Purple Dems. Those Democrats who have
Speaker 1: to go to these moderate districts with the President with
Speaker 1: approval ratings in the thirties, have been looking for something
Speaker 1: to take home. I don't think they ever suspected they
Speaker 1: would get both chips and reconciliation. And let's be be clear,
Speaker 1: lowering prescription drug prices is critical for Americans and particularly
Speaker 1: has been really a boon for Democrat if you look
Speaker 1: back at the last mid term. That said, I think
Speaker 1: we have to be clear. I agree with Rick. This
Speaker 1: probably moves through to parliamentary and probably moves through the Senate.
Speaker 1: But I have to tell you, living in New York,
Speaker 1: the fact that Joe Mansion has said he won't go
Speaker 1: along with the salt cap expansion, and the House Dems
Speaker 1: only have three vote majority there, it's gonna be tight
Speaker 1: in the House. I don't know if Democrats will, you know,
Speaker 1: peel off from my area and Menendez and others who
Speaker 1: really really need that for these areas of New Jersey,
Speaker 1: New York, California. But that's a big question in my mind.
Speaker 1: As you moved to the House, it's pretty interesting, So
Speaker 1: who do you offend more in this case? If you're
Speaker 1: Joe Biden Rick, you canna, you're gonna offend the progresses
Speaker 1: because this is this is just a shadow of the
Speaker 1: original Build Back Better agenda? Or is it the moderates
Speaker 1: you're going to blow out with without the salt component. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think you know, this is all about the Green
Speaker 1: Party the money. I don't think it really has much
Speaker 1: to do with the Progressives in their priorities versus the Moderates.
Speaker 1: I think they want to spend a trillion dollars, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's pretty much all they talk about
Speaker 1: is how do we spend another trillion dollars and we'll
Speaker 1: we'll let the policy sort of work its way out
Speaker 1: and ensure they're going to be unhappy Democrats. But could
Speaker 1: you imagine the scenario where this passes in the Senate
Speaker 1: and you know, everybody's got this energy around these high
Speaker 1: priorities for Democratic voters especially and in the House of Representatives,
Speaker 1: pitches a fit and says, no, we're not gonna do this.
Speaker 1: We're gonna deny this administration a trillion dollar spending bill,
Speaker 1: you know, three or four months before the election. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, all I think we've seen some pretty strange
Speaker 1: stuff in the last year. That would certainly take the gig.
Speaker 1: But your your to your point, though the timing here
Speaker 1: has a lot to do with the success on the
Speaker 1: verge of the August recess gives members a chance to
Speaker 1: go home, take credit for it, take the victory lap,
Speaker 1: do town halls, and then once they come back, this
Speaker 1: is all codified and it's time to to really campaign
Speaker 1: for midterm elections. This might not have happened the same
Speaker 1: way at a different time, Genie, would you agree, Oh, definitely.
Speaker 1: And you know what a blow to Mitch McConnell the
Speaker 1: fact that he said, you know, if you try to
Speaker 1: go with both chips and reconciliation, it's a no go
Speaker 1: for Mansion and Schumer to pull this off. And Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell is a master of the Senate. For them to
Speaker 1: pull this off if they indeed do, which it looks
Speaker 1: like they will, I think Mitch McConnell is going to
Speaker 1: be steaming mad. But I would say, looking at mansion statement,
Speaker 1: you know where he says about the tax coach in't
Speaker 1: favor of red state blue state elites with loopholes like salt.
Speaker 1: That is going to rub very, very hard against some
Speaker 1: of the Dems in these blue states. I have to say,
Speaker 1: that's a tough statement, like a New Yorker. Sorry, it
Speaker 1: kills me this, I get it. But so what do
Speaker 1: we make of the of the Can I call it
Speaker 1: a flip flop? Should I? Rick? Remember it was seeing
Speaker 1: September we need another inflation report. So on the same day,
Speaker 1: the Fed hikes another seventy five basis points. All of
Speaker 1: a sudden, Joe Mansion is good with this? What what changed?
Speaker 1: It was widely reported Joe, as you point out that
Speaker 1: Joe Mansion said he wasn't going to be doing before this,
Speaker 1: and and a lot of reporting said that he told
Speaker 1: that directly to Mitch McConnell, which allowed the chip back
Speaker 1: to move forward. And so I mean, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: there was something lost in translation. You know, these guys
Speaker 1: from West Virginia talk funny. Every now really understood it? Yes?
Speaker 1: From it now? Now your satellite guy from Alabama. All right,
Speaker 1: so tomorrow we've got a tough one. At eight thirty
Speaker 1: tomorrow morning, um G d P. We talked about this
Speaker 1: at the beginning of the week. The White House accused
Speaker 1: of trying to redefine recession because it looks like we're
Speaker 1: gonna have two negative numbers in a row here, two
Speaker 1: consecutive quarters. We we look, we heard from Mike McKee
Speaker 1: this week, we heard from Mark Zandy. They said, no, Joe,
Speaker 1: it's more complicated than that. And Karine Jean Pierre was
Speaker 1: defending herself again on this issue today in the briefing.
Speaker 1: The textbook definition of recession is not is not two
Speaker 1: negative quarters of GDP. We have a strong labor market,
Speaker 1: we have business that's investing. We have consumers uh that
Speaker 1: are also very much uh, you know, in investing and purchasing.
Speaker 1: That is incredibly important. We have three point six unemployment.
Speaker 1: You do not see that in a prerecession, and you
Speaker 1: do not see that in a recession. President Gosh, forget
Speaker 1: the President. J. Powell today said he doesn't think we're
Speaker 1: in a recession. How hard is this going to hit
Speaker 1: tomorrow morning? Rick? Oh, I think, uh, everybody's talking about
Speaker 1: why this is not a recession. I think that voters,
Speaker 1: the only thing you're hearing is we're going into a recession.
Speaker 1: So whether it's uh declared a recession because of these
Speaker 1: GDP numbers or not, I think most people in America
Speaker 1: have been listening to this debate they care about the
Speaker 1: future of the economy, and all they're really hearing is
Speaker 1: that we're likely going to a recession. Is that the
Speaker 1: takeaway to Margine. It might be, but imagine, Joe Matthew,
Speaker 1: if the GDP is positive tomorrow on the face of
Speaker 1: this news with Chips in reconciliation. What a day for
Speaker 1: Biden and the Democrats if that happens. Listen to you,
Speaker 1: somebody is buying a lottery ticket tonight. Genie and Rick
Speaker 1: will do it again tomorrow on the fastest hour in politics.
Speaker 1: Great conversation with breaking news to boot I, Joe Matthew
Speaker 1: and this is Bloomberg.