Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at
Speaker 1: noon Eastern on Appocarplay and then Proudoro with the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts,
Speaker 1: or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2: They're calling this happy hour now in the newsroom, this
Speaker 2: hour just with those of us here on Bloomberg get
Speaker 2: to talk before we unleash this program on our global
Speaker 2: television audience at one pm. And this is where we
Speaker 2: think the big thoughts. How would you like to be
Speaker 2: Mike Johnson today? You thought you were stressed out this morning.
Speaker 2: Maybe you woke up in the middle of the night.
Speaker 2: You didn't know what was going to happen at work
Speaker 2: on Tuesday. Imagine being Mike Johnson. No path forward on Ukraine,
Speaker 2: big questions about Israel, a motion to vacate hanging over
Speaker 2: your head and all that after you handle Faiza, the
Speaker 2: warrantless spying program that has been controversial since the day
Speaker 2: it appeared. So this is the day the traffic jams
Speaker 2: are back. They're back in town and they have two
Speaker 2: weeks to get something done. Can anything happen. I wonder
Speaker 2: what Terry Hayes thinks about it. I'm glad to say
Speaker 2: Terry's with us on this important day. Back Pangee, a
Speaker 2: policy founder on Bloomberg. Terry, it's good to see you.
Speaker 2: You'll look happy and ready as they're hope in the air.
Speaker 2: Something gets done. And I'm asking you that with a
Speaker 2: pretty long laundry list, we have this great story on
Speaker 2: the terminal right now, trains, planes and TikTok. Where do
Speaker 2: you want to begin? How about file.
Speaker 3: Goodness for the next two weeks? Well, yeah, I'll begin
Speaker 3: with happiness. Why not, I'll begin with happiness? Okay, you
Speaker 3: know the answer is the answer is probably no. You know,
Speaker 3: it's to borrow a Churchill phrase, it's not the beginning
Speaker 3: of the end, but it's probably the end of the beginning. Yeah.
Speaker 3: One of the things I've learned and been a part
Speaker 3: of in many years is that when Congress comes back
Speaker 3: on Monday, nobody ever begins to grapple with anything until Wednesday.
Speaker 3: That's just generally what happens, right, And you've got you know,
Speaker 3: you've got party conferences and all the rest. You know,
Speaker 3: this is probably a good reminder that the best politics
Speaker 3: takes place in a personal space, and you know, so
Speaker 3: they haven't begun to solve any of this stuff. Johnson's
Speaker 3: got a problem, and there's really two problems in Washington,
Speaker 3: and then I'll stop. One is that Johnson's got a
Speaker 3: very fractious Republican conference he has to deal with, and
Speaker 3: he's trying to figure out ways to provide Ukraine aid
Speaker 3: and you know, and trying pretty much everything he can
Speaker 3: think of from from poop pooing straight aid but talking
Speaker 3: about loans and loan guarantees, and the Biden administration are
Speaker 3: talking about bonds and the like with the rest of
Speaker 3: the G seven and NATO, you know, all the way
Speaker 3: down to a kind of a lend lease program the
Speaker 3: people haven't heard of since Franklin Roosevelt. But the other
Speaker 3: problem is, and I'm not being partisan by saying so,
Speaker 3: but the other partisan the problem here is is that
Speaker 3: I think President Biden is not doing enough, not doing
Speaker 3: anything really to impose a view of what is in
Speaker 3: the United States best interest and kind of a unifying
Speaker 3: foreign policy vision in the way that past presidents of
Speaker 3: both parties have done. And he very much needs to
Speaker 3: come to the table on this and really push instead
Speaker 3: of just saying that the Congress needs to do something.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, so here's my big question on that, Terry, because
Speaker 2: we've got a couple of competing discharge petitions as another
Speaker 2: way maybe to get to Ukraine funding competing versions. One
Speaker 2: is more Democratic and the other is Republican, and they
Speaker 2: actually have folks signing on here. So I guess my
Speaker 2: question is what's more likely now? And I don't mean
Speaker 2: to sneak up on you, but I'm curious how you'd
Speaker 2: answer this. What's more likely a motion to vacate is
Speaker 2: by Marjorie Taylor Green, or a discharge petition actually sees
Speaker 2: the light of day and saves the speaker from having
Speaker 2: to act.
Speaker 3: I'll go non consensus. You know, most Washington people, I think,
Speaker 3: would say that it's going to be the Green motion
Speaker 3: to vacate. I think the discharge petition is much more likely.
Speaker 3: You know what you've got in Washington, you know, you
Speaker 3: and I have talked many times on this in the past,
Speaker 3: is you don't have two political parties. You've got four fashions.
Speaker 3: And right now you've got the vast majority of the Congress,
Speaker 3: which are Republican centrists and Democratic centrists. Really pushing hard
Speaker 3: to do something on Ukraine, aid, on Israel aid on
Speaker 3: Indo Pacific aid, and you know that I think that
Speaker 3: kind of starts to overwhelm things pretty soon. Folks have
Speaker 3: been pretty patient about understanding the travails of Republican leadership,
Speaker 3: but we're getting to the point now where something has
Speaker 3: to happen, and that pressure, I think, frankly, is more
Speaker 3: meaningful in the in the House, uh than what what
Speaker 3: Miss Green is doing.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, a discharge petition is one of these
Speaker 2: things that journalists love to talk about and you know,
Speaker 2: act like this happens all the time, and for it
Speaker 2: never had kind of like a contested convention. Yeah, good
Speaker 2: luck with that in four years. But in this case,
Speaker 2: what would that say about this Congress? Arry, if it
Speaker 2: actually did happen, if it was required to get something done.
Speaker 3: Oh well, it would it would confirm that they're really
Speaker 3: excuse me. It would confirm that there really aren't majorities
Speaker 3: and there's really not control. Uh. You know, one of
Speaker 3: the things I say to you and others a lot
Speaker 3: is that don't don't assume majorities mean control. And that's
Speaker 3: you know, very true, and I think coming very more,
Speaker 3: very much obvious UH in the UH, in the in
Speaker 3: the House currently, it would be the same Frankly, if
Speaker 3: there was a five vote Democratic majority or a one
Speaker 3: vote Democratic majority, there wouldn't really be control. But what
Speaker 3: you've got is you've got kind of the mass of
Speaker 3: rank and file pushing back against leaders Franklin both parties
Speaker 3: to say, look, you know, this is much more This
Speaker 3: issue is much more important than party discipline, which is
Speaker 3: already very much attenuated anyway. So you know, we need
Speaker 3: to be doing something about this sooner rather than later.
Speaker 3: And so the threat of a discharge position, you know,
Speaker 3: they don't generally don't happen, but the threat of them
Speaker 3: is a very real one that compels leaders to act
Speaker 3: and figure out different ways to do things. That I
Speaker 3: think that's what's happening to Johnson right now.
Speaker 2: It's really fascinated by comments from Dusty Johnson, the South
Speaker 2: Dakota Republican is chair of the Main Street Republican Caucus,
Speaker 2: and he was asked about this idea of a motion
Speaker 2: to vacate talking to Politico, says there's a one hundred
Speaker 2: percent chance this is a direct quote that after the
Speaker 2: motion to vacate, which by the way, he does not support,
Speaker 2: we will be left for the speaker that is less
Speaker 2: conservative than Mike Johnson, and for people like me who
Speaker 2: want to secure conservative ties, that would be a tragedy.
Speaker 2: Does Mike Johnson, with this in mind, need to spend
Speaker 2: more time with the Freedom Caucus right now or more
Speaker 2: time with Democrats who could potentially protect him and help
Speaker 2: him save his job.
Speaker 3: I think he needs this. I'm going to take neither
Speaker 3: in that. I think he needs to spend more time
Speaker 3: with his Republican centrists in the kind of the basket
Speaker 3: Dusty Johnson, Well, yeah, like Dusty Johnson, because what you've
Speaker 3: got is you've got let's call him. I think of
Speaker 3: Johnson as kind of a centrist, but let's just call
Speaker 3: him a pragmatic conservative, because pragmatism is where I want
Speaker 3: to go here. Is that, you know, is that there's
Speaker 3: a there's a there are bigger issues involved here than
Speaker 3: just the back and forth about whether somebody's gonna you know,
Speaker 3: land in the chair after after the game of you know,
Speaker 3: mixing up and jumping on the jumping on the last
Speaker 3: chair available, and you know, it's to say it's going
Speaker 3: to be a bad look for Republicans. Should a discharge
Speaker 3: petition succeed doesn't doesn't really describe the half of it.
Speaker 3: These people are fighting for a majority. They're going to
Speaker 3: prove for a continued majority in the fall elections. They're
Speaker 3: going to prove they don't deserve one. And not only that,
Speaker 3: they're going to squander advantages that they have somewhat incredibly
Speaker 3: on economic issues and a bunch of other things. It's
Speaker 3: going to occur to it'll be a spice in the
Speaker 3: fall elections in individual member Congress and Senate races that
Speaker 3: these folks aren't up to it and shouldn't be put
Speaker 3: back in charge, you know. And that's the kind of
Speaker 3: fire and miss Green is really playing with. But then again,
Speaker 3: she'd probably prefer to be in the minority anyway where
Speaker 3: she could raise money from purists.
Speaker 2: Isn't that interesting, Terry. It's good to see you. Great
Speaker 2: to catch up. Congress back in town. Had to have
Speaker 2: Terry Haynes from Pangaea Policy a regular voice of reliability
Speaker 2: and rational thought here on Bloomberg. I'm Joe, Matthew and
Speaker 2: Washington with this in mind, the idea of Ukraine funding specifically,
Speaker 2: but also to an extent, Israel funding, and they will
Speaker 2: get a vote at some point, likely combined on the
Speaker 2: House floor. Or we hear so much about the DIB
Speaker 2: the defense industrial base, that this bill would help to
Speaker 2: fund the majority of the money staying here in the US.
Speaker 2: The vast majority of the sixty billion for Ukraine would
Speaker 2: go to defense contractors here in the States, American jobs.
Speaker 2: That's the idea Terry's talking about. Why haven't we heard
Speaker 2: from the President on this at least to the extent
Speaker 2: that we thought we would when it comes to the
Speaker 2: domestic investment, and we're not alone here in the US.
Speaker 2: I will point you to a fascinating story today on
Speaker 2: the terminal and at Bloomberg dot com. Our colleague Enda Current,
Speaker 2: who we talked to a lot here, and a great
Speaker 2: group of reporters at Bloomberg put this together about the
Speaker 2: global need. In fact, the Western world has a need
Speaker 2: to invest in its domestic defense industrial base. US and
Speaker 2: allies face a ten trillion dollar reckoning in the race
Speaker 2: to rearm is the headline, and I'm happy to say
Speaker 2: that Enda is with us right now, Bloomberg Global Economy reporter.
Speaker 2: Nice to see you, sir. Great work here. It really
Speaker 2: gives you a sense where the money is going to
Speaker 2: be going in the next couple of years, to the
Speaker 2: extent that it might put some Western nations into some
Speaker 2: very difficult positions when they have to decide on how
Speaker 2: to allocate funding. You're talking about a new era of
Speaker 2: global rearmament. This is the Western world as I put
Speaker 2: it right, this is NATO and beyond.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's the old guns and butter argument has come
Speaker 4: back to life. So to be clear, the national security
Speaker 4: people will tell you have to spend on defense, but
Speaker 4: that means you're going to spend a lot of money.
Speaker 4: You're gonna have to find that money from somewhere. And
Speaker 4: our economists, to Bloomberg economics, how to look at let's
Speaker 4: just say the G seven, including the US, if they
Speaker 4: were to include or increase their spending up to four
Speaker 4: percent of GDP, which is where Poland is at the
Speaker 4: moment on defense spending, you're then that's where you get
Speaker 4: into this tentrallion dollar figure. It's a lot of money.
Speaker 4: And remember hitting that two percent figure is very pertinent
Speaker 4: in Western Europe. Now those NATO allies that are racing
Speaker 4: to hit that, and of course the US presidency changed
Speaker 4: later this year, it would be even sharper focused. So
Speaker 4: defense costs money.
Speaker 2: It's really interesting that that's become like a household thing.
Speaker 2: People know about two percent now in many ways because
Speaker 2: of Donald Trump having beat the drum on this for
Speaker 2: so long now it's become part of the sort of
Speaker 2: daily conversation in Washington. Let's keep it to the G
Speaker 2: seven for a minute. To your point, which nations will
Speaker 2: suffer the most in terms of domestic obligations that they're
Speaker 2: already making.
Speaker 4: So it depends ultimately how to do do they fund
Speaker 4: this defense procurement through increasing taxes, do they fund it
Speaker 4: through faster economic growth, growing their revenue pole or of
Speaker 4: course you have to go and borrow on the markets. Right,
Speaker 4: So it does depend how to do it. But you'd
Speaker 4: have to say a lot of analysts point towards the
Speaker 4: old reliables of Italy and Spain, for example, among the
Speaker 4: sovereigns in Western Europe, who already have some challenges there
Speaker 4: that they would come under further pressure under a kind
Speaker 4: of debt profile if they were to go down the
Speaker 4: road of funding this through borrowing. So delects of Germany
Speaker 4: and UK could maybe absorb it a bit better. But
Speaker 4: let's not forget even the US. Some analysts here make
Speaker 4: the point that the US spending is nowhere near where
Speaker 4: it needs to be for the challenges that the world is,
Speaker 4: both in Europe and Asia. So it's going to cost
Speaker 4: a lot of money.
Speaker 2: It's going to cost a lot of money. Great line
Speaker 2: from Jenny Welch, or colleague at Bloomberg Economics geoeconomics analysts,
Speaker 2: the post Cold War peace dividend is coming to an end?
Speaker 2: Is this a new arms race?
Speaker 4: It is because it's not just Western Europe, by the way,
Speaker 4: or even the US. Yeah, China increasing spending this year
Speaker 4: by seven percent, most in five years. Others an Asian
Speaker 4: like the Philippines and Malaysia racing head Australia investing in
Speaker 4: this navy, likewise Japan. So a lot of countries around
Speaker 4: the world are turning their focus to where to put
Speaker 4: their money into defense. The question this is where the hull,
Speaker 4: guns and butter question comes into it. Will they be
Speaker 4: making painful decisions elsewhere? You know there are those who
Speaker 4: say you can't balance the budget on defence, So will
Speaker 4: they find cuts elsewhere or will they have both guns
Speaker 4: and the butter and that make the hard choices. That's
Speaker 4: where the economic angle comes into all of this.
Speaker 1: You mentioned China.
Speaker 2: This is because of China, right and Russia a to
Speaker 2: mention the chaos in the Middle East quite.
Speaker 4: Right, the Russia's invasion of Ukraine, China's aggression in the
Speaker 4: South China Sea, and of course in the Middle East.
Speaker 4: All of this is stoking as you know, well, this
Speaker 4: kind of renewed focus, this new renewed thinking and protecting borders.
Speaker 4: What do we need to do? How much kit do
Speaker 4: we need to buy? And how do we buy it?
Speaker 2: I mentioned in the US here we have our own reckoning.
Speaker 2: At some point we can't even seem to get Ukraine
Speaker 2: funding through the door, and a lot of that would
Speaker 2: help us domestically. Is it time to take a new
Speaker 2: look at defense spending levels here or is it about
Speaker 2: the rest of the world's catching up to us.
Speaker 4: There's certainly an element of catchup, and that's very true
Speaker 4: Western Europe in terms of NATO obligations. That's something that
Speaker 4: came through in these reporting reporting lines. So there is that.
Speaker 4: For sure. The US has been carrying its load. But
Speaker 4: when it comes to US budget writ large, there are
Speaker 4: plenty of warnings that it's on an unsustainable trajectory. That's
Speaker 4: your starting point. Now, where you want to start making
Speaker 4: your cutback to finding savings is a whole other story.
Speaker 4: The people who say you shouldn't be finding those savings
Speaker 4: in defense, he shouldn't be finding an education whatever. But yes,
Speaker 4: there are plenty of people saying the US needs to
Speaker 4: keep an eye on the public person at the moment.
Speaker 4: You know your Larry Swimmers, is your CBOs whatever. So
Speaker 4: it comes down to the debate of where you want
Speaker 4: to make those probly.
Speaker 2: Something because I keep waking up the stories every day
Speaker 2: telling me about cheap drones, that this is less expensive
Speaker 2: than ever, that they're telling us that we don't need
Speaker 2: all this expensive stuff.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well so have to. I can't claim to be
Speaker 4: in military hardware. I came just for the public, the
Speaker 4: public spending view. But again it's a come up in conversations.
Speaker 4: You can spend a ton of money on heavy equipment
Speaker 4: these days, and I want to take some cheap drones
Speaker 4: to cause havoc and mayhem as we see in the
Speaker 4: red seat.
Speaker 2: Sometimes you wonder if we're going back to the nineteen
Speaker 2: eighties here a little bit. You're not old enough to
Speaker 2: remember that. I know, I know you are. It's great
Speaker 2: to see you back. I have to try to make
Speaker 2: him feel better and occurrent it's old like I am,
Speaker 2: and great to have him with us as always on
Speaker 2: the set here in Washington, Bloomberg Global Economy Reporter. Find
Speaker 2: that story. It's a fascinating read and a lot more
Speaker 2: than we even had a chance to scratch here on
Speaker 2: our conversation.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Bella Some Power podcast Ken
Speaker 1: Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then
Speaker 1: roud Oto with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also
Speaker 1: listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station,
Speaker 1: Just Say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven.
Speaker 2: Thirty, Kaylee, Drama, I guess is what we.
Speaker 5: Haven't come Yes, there's always drama here in Washington. You
Speaker 5: know what reminds me of more drama that we haven't
Speaker 5: even mentioned yet. Tomorrow is when the House is going
Speaker 5: to send the articles of impeachment against the Department of
Speaker 5: Homeland Security Secretary Alan Hondra Maiorkis to the Senate, where
Speaker 5: it likely will go nowhere, it might quickly die. And
Speaker 5: yet that just speaks to the powers that be in
Speaker 5: Washington and how much they disagree with each other.
Speaker 2: Yeah, most things, he's going to be up there to
Speaker 2: borrow testifying right while the art but that is you're right,
Speaker 2: the stagecraft as they walk the mahogany box with the
Speaker 2: articles across the rotunda. We'll actually see that tomorrow and
Speaker 2: then they will, I guess fall into a hole somewhere
Speaker 2: because we're not expecting a trial in the Senate.
Speaker 5: No, it seems like Schumer is going to try to
Speaker 5: put this thing to bed very quickly. We'll see whether
Speaker 5: or not he ultimately has success in doing so. But
Speaker 5: that's what we'll learn more immediately this week and maybe
Speaker 5: sometime weeks even before we understand what exactly Ukraine Aid
Speaker 5: might be in the House, what form it will take,
Speaker 5: when it could be put to the floor, and of
Speaker 5: course what could happen as a consequence. And here to
Speaker 5: keep track of all of that is Eric Wasson. He
Speaker 5: is a congressional reporter for US here at Bloomberg, joining
Speaker 5: us live from Capitol Hill today. So, Eric, the lawmakers
Speaker 5: are back where you are at least starting to trickle
Speaker 5: into town. What's going to be the first order of business.
Speaker 6: Well in the House that really focus on this Faiza
Speaker 6: warrantless surveillance bill. This is very divisive bill both among
Speaker 6: Republicans and Democrats, this balance of privacy and security, and
Speaker 6: the Speaker has decided to focus on this and put
Speaker 6: off Ukraine at least for another week. We're told that
Speaker 6: there won't be a Ukraine proposal put forward this week
Speaker 6: as he works to generate at least to more than
Speaker 6: half of his conference behind a Ukraine proposal, and we
Speaker 6: may say it next week, but then the House goes
Speaker 6: on recess again, continuing.
Speaker 2: To push this off.
Speaker 6: But it is the issue that could trigger his ouster.
Speaker 6: We're on full alert for Marjorie Taylor Green to introduce
Speaker 6: the resolution, and that's the main drama in the House
Speaker 6: right now. And as you mentioned, in the Senate, it
Speaker 6: will be Alejandro Majorcis, you know, being triggered as far
Speaker 6: as an impeachment trial tomorrow late in the day, and
Speaker 6: we're expecting the Democrats to bring a motion to dismiss
Speaker 6: that as soon as Thursday. So that's really the focus
Speaker 6: in the Senate. There had been some thought before Tax
Speaker 6: Day of bringing this big seventy eight billion dollar business
Speaker 6: tax and trial tax break bill, but all my sources
Speaker 6: are saying that is on hold, it's on ice until
Speaker 6: they can find some way to overcome a Senate Republican
Speaker 6: blockade of that.
Speaker 2: Boy, is anyone eric questioning the calendar here? The extent
Speaker 2: to which this looks ridiculous that after just coming back
Speaker 2: from it a two week easter recess, this massive to
Speaker 2: do list, that lawmakers could potentially go back on recess
Speaker 2: before anything is done.
Speaker 6: I mean, certainly, but this is an election year, so
Speaker 6: that we've come to expect that to a certain degree
Speaker 6: in Congress, as members want to be back campaigning. But
Speaker 6: I think also, you know, the Speaker is treading on
Speaker 6: a landmine, you know, minefield of problems here, so perhaps
Speaker 6: these breaks just gather him, give him a little bit
Speaker 6: more time in there to adjust this learning curve which
Speaker 6: has been very steep for Speaker Johnson.
Speaker 5: Well, and speaking of Speaker Johnson, as you mentioned, Derek,
Speaker 5: and we have talked about, Marjorie Taylor Green clearly unhappy
Speaker 5: with the Speaker in some of the choices that he
Speaker 5: has made. She outlined everything she feels Johnson has done
Speaker 5: wrong in a letter to her colleagues yesterday, and in
Speaker 5: part she said in the letter that Johnson has presided
Speaker 5: over what she calls a complete and total surrender to
Speaker 5: Democrats and President Biden and needs to change course or
Speaker 5: be unseeded. But isn't the fact of the matter, Eric
Speaker 5: that the Democrats will still hold the Senate, Democrats will
Speaker 5: still hold the White House. So any future Republican Speaker,
Speaker 5: whether or not it's Mike Johnson or someone else, is
Speaker 5: going to have the exact same problem.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think that's right. I think Margor Taller Green
Speaker 6: and others are very unhappy with the outcome of these
Speaker 6: two mini buses. This was to fund the federal government
Speaker 6: a void to shut down. You know, Speaker touted some
Speaker 6: conservative wins, but they clearly wanted much more. Margine Taylor
Speaker 6: Green in particularly wanted all the Trump investigations by Jacksonmith's
Speaker 6: to be defunded. That's something that would never pass the Senate,
Speaker 6: would possibly cause even cause a shutdown, and the Speaker
Speaker 6: and other Republican leaders made the calculation of a shutdown
Speaker 6: election year by Republicans is not good politics, would not
Speaker 6: help them keep the House. So that those requests fell
Speaker 6: on deaf ears that prompted her to bring this attempt
Speaker 6: to oust him. So, I mean, she's unhappy but you
Speaker 6: know we have Democrats, you know Tom Swazi, the newly
Speaker 6: returned to New York Representative Jared Moskowitz of Florida, saying
Speaker 6: that they would vote to stop her from ousting to
Speaker 6: the Speaker, there are probably others in there, especially if
Speaker 6: a Ukraine bill comes forward that something Democrats can support.
Speaker 6: So it's not really clear she'll have the ability to
Speaker 6: even carry out this threat.
Speaker 2: Fascinating. We don't have any idea when a Ukraine bill
Speaker 2: might emerge, do we, eric never mind, actually get a
Speaker 2: vote on the floor.
Speaker 6: Yeah, not that I'm told, not this week, So don't
Speaker 6: don't be, you know, on full alert for it this week.
Speaker 6: We know that the contents the repel Wagers's idea of
Speaker 6: seizing Russian assets, Democrats and Republicans like that that could
Speaker 6: be added in. So I have an idea of loans
Speaker 6: that President former Resident Trump is talking about, loans that
Speaker 6: may never be repaid. Incidentally from Ukraine is something that's
Speaker 6: going to be part of it. And this is pushed
Speaker 6: for LNG exports. And my Callie Alredy Natter had a
Speaker 6: nice piece. It's not just lifting a pause on current
Speaker 6: energy export projects, but specifically approving certain projects, including by
Speaker 6: certain companies in Louisiana. So you know that's that's in
Speaker 6: the mix as well.
Speaker 2: He's back on the hill. Eric Watson Bloomberg Congressional Reporter.
Speaker 2: It's like the first day of school up there, Kailey,
Speaker 2: do I keep going out of order for you? You were
Speaker 2: about to speak? Forgive me if I am.
Speaker 5: It's okay, you know, we finish each other's sentences. It's
Speaker 5: kind of it is a jazz band. We're all just riffing.
Speaker 5: But it's an excellent point, as we discussed with Eric,
Speaker 5: the idea that there is going to be a lot
Speaker 5: of question around four and AID. It's not just the
Speaker 5: questions around AID for Ukraine, but Israel as well, especially
Speaker 5: in light of growing criticism of the Israeli governments here
Speaker 5: at home domestically. President Biden certainly is included in the
Speaker 5: group that is growing more critical. But other international pressures
Speaker 5: are abounding for Israel, including the latest today Turkey, after
Speaker 5: Israel opposed its proposal to drop aid over the Gaza Strip,
Speaker 5: decided to restrict exports to Israel of fifty four different
Speaker 5: items until there is a ceasefire.
Speaker 2: Well, you know it's something as well to consider this
Speaker 2: idea of a date on a RAFA invasion, which we
Speaker 2: don't have Benjamin Etniel, who says one exists, while we
Speaker 2: also talk about a potential ceasefire. Is this all the
Speaker 2: same conversation? Is this all public negotiating for a lack
Speaker 2: of negotiating at the table. You kind of wonder what
Speaker 2: to believe at this point.
Speaker 5: Well, especially when we're hearing different levels of optimism from
Speaker 5: the Israelis over the prospect of a ceasefire deal being
Speaker 5: reached versus Hamas, which suggested yesterday that we're not getting
Speaker 5: as close as the Israelis might suggest. So this is
Speaker 5: where we want to begin with Mark Ginsberg. He is
Speaker 5: the former US Ambassador to Morocco and the founder and
Speaker 5: president of Coalition for a Safer Web. Ambassador Ginsburg, it's
Speaker 5: always great to have you here on Bloomberg Television and Radio.
Speaker 5: Let's focus on this idea of a ceasefire deal. Clearly
Speaker 5: there is growing international pressure for this to happen. It
Speaker 5: seems the Israelis are becoming more optimistic. But how optimistic
Speaker 5: would you be that this can happen soon?
Speaker 7: Well, I'm not optimistic. I'm not optimistic because it's not done.
Speaker 7: Until it's done. And Hamas leadership thinks that they have
Speaker 7: more balls in their court than the Israelis do because
Speaker 7: they see the pressure growing by the Biden administration and
Speaker 7: Democratic progress is to restrictate to military assistance to Israel,
Speaker 7: and Hamas is saying, hey, this is terrific. We can
Speaker 7: get the Biden administration completely tied up against Israel and
Speaker 7: that means that we'll be able to lift the fight
Speaker 7: another day. Because of the israelities, we'll have a harder
Speaker 7: time to fighting Gaza.
Speaker 2: So is that who Benjamin Ettie, who was talking to yesterday,
Speaker 2: was Hamas the audience to say publicly that there was
Speaker 2: a date established for the invasion of Rafa without actually
Speaker 2: saying what it was, knowing how much pressure the US
Speaker 2: is putting on him right now to keep that from happening.
Speaker 7: Well, it's not only pressure from Netaniell on Hamas. It's
Speaker 7: also pressure by the Netaell far right extremist government on
Speaker 7: the Biden administration to say, look, we haven't completed the
Speaker 7: task of what Netael defines euphemistically as complete victory, even
Speaker 7: though I don't believe there's such a thing as complete victory.
Speaker 7: And so you've got a lot of chess plays that
Speaker 7: are going on here between the administration, the talks in Cairo,
Speaker 7: Hamas and Iran and the Israelis, and each one at
Speaker 7: this point in time is pointing fingers at the other
Speaker 7: over why there's no agreement on a ceasefire.
Speaker 5: Well, and there's other mediators involved in these negotiations as well,
Speaker 5: Ambassador Egypt and cutter How should we be thinking about
Speaker 5: them as factors here when officials from the Israeli government
Speaker 5: have suggested to Bloomberg within the last week that they
Speaker 5: don't view the Cutteries as reliable or trustworthy.
Speaker 7: The Cutteries are not reliable. The Cutteries are doing what's
Speaker 7: best for the Cutteries. The Egyptians have another have one
Speaker 7: major dog in this fight. If the Israelis invade Rafa
Speaker 7: and they're almost what close to a million refuge Palestine
Speaker 7: refugees in a sub section part of that area, and
Speaker 7: if the Israeli attack, what are the Israelis going to do?
Speaker 7: They claim they're going to set up a ten camp
Speaker 7: for those refugees in northern Gaza, So that means that
Speaker 7: they're going to have to move them, and that means
Speaker 7: in the end also that the Rafa crossing for humanitarian
Speaker 7: aid is going to be subjected to all sorts of
Speaker 7: military restrictions that we've seen have hampered AID already. So
Speaker 7: the Egyptians at this point in time don't want to
Speaker 7: see a refugee flow into the Sinai and so they
Speaker 7: want to see a ceasfire. So they have a much
Speaker 7: bigger dog in this fight than cut our hats M.
Speaker 2: What's the next visit ambassador to Tel Aviv? We've seen
Speaker 2: this continued shuttle diplomacy from Anthony Blincoln. We saw Joe
Speaker 2: Biden make a visit as well. If the administration starts
Speaker 2: to see what it's asking for from Benjamin NETANYAHUO could
Speaker 2: we see another.
Speaker 7: Well, I'm not very convinced that the Biden administration is
Speaker 7: going to be satisfied by the Netta administration. The fact
Speaker 7: is is it took the President reading a riot Act
Speaker 7: and I'm exaggerating the word riot Act in Netanyal to
Speaker 7: get him to agree, after the merciless killing of the
Speaker 7: World Food Kitchen aid workers to open up eight And
Speaker 7: you know, I asked the same question I've asked for months.
Speaker 7: There's a major port less than twenty five miles from
Speaker 7: Gaza known as Ashdot. It is Israel's major port. Why
Speaker 7: are the Israelis refusing to permit humanitarian aid to be
Speaker 7: offloaded in Ashdot? Instead of the administration happened to build
Speaker 7: a port. The Biden administration happened to build a port
Speaker 7: in Gaza. I think that, and I'm singling now the
Speaker 7: Netanyell government and not the Israelis or the Israeli defense forces.
Speaker 7: The Netaal government cannot be trusted, cannot be trusted to
Speaker 7: play essentially with what is necessary for Israel to accomplish
Speaker 7: in order to gain a sees fire and order to
Speaker 7: get international support in order to avoid restrictions on military aid.
Speaker 7: Netanial would love to go to war against the best
Speaker 7: friend that Israel has right now in order to supplement
Speaker 7: his political campaign to stay in power.
Speaker 5: Well, as you speak about the Netanyahu government, obviously, Ambassador,
Speaker 5: you know, well this is the farthest right government we
Speaker 5: have seen farthest right coalition in Israel. And on that pressure,
Speaker 5: the National Security Minister, who's a member of a far
Speaker 5: right party, said that the Prime minister decides to end
Speaker 5: the war without an extensive attack on Rafa in order
Speaker 5: to defeat Hamas he will not have a mandate to
Speaker 5: continue serving as Prime Minister. Is this really all it's
Speaker 5: about for Natanya Hum?
Speaker 7: Yeah, that he is the Marjorie Taylor Green of the
Speaker 7: Israeli government. If you understand what I'm saying. He wants
Speaker 7: to play the game of pulling the plug on Netaniell's
Speaker 7: coalition went in the end, He's off to Siberia if
Speaker 7: there's an end to this coalition. So this is all
Speaker 7: pressure on Antoniell, who has every incentive to keep his
Speaker 7: far right coalition intact. Look, in so far as military
Speaker 7: the military situation in Rafa, there's no doubt that the
Speaker 7: vestiges of the of the Hamas leadership are buried underneath
Speaker 7: tunnels below Rafa. The Israelis want to go in, they
Speaker 7: can't really do it without jeopardizing the lives of more Palestinians.
Speaker 7: There's the there's a questionable whether or not an alternative
Speaker 7: strategy is necessary, because look, the problem is Netall is
Speaker 7: prolonging this war, in my judgment, by demanding what he
Speaker 7: calls complete victory, which is the utter defeat of Hamas
Speaker 7: militarily and politically. I do not consider that attainable. Despite
Speaker 7: my fact that I'm the first one who would want
Speaker 7: to see that the Israeli military cannot achieve that objective
Speaker 7: without first and foremost in Hamas never politically is able
Speaker 7: to restore itself to power in the rest of Gaza,
Speaker 7: and that requires a peacekeeping force and support of the
Speaker 7: Arab States.
Speaker 2: Mark Ginsberg. He's the founder and president of the Coalition
Speaker 2: for a Safer Web. He's also the former US Ambassador
Speaker 2: to Morocco. Mister ambassador, thank you for being with us.
Speaker 2: It certainly is a conversation worth remembering when we have
Speaker 2: the debate in Washington about Israeli funding, once seen as
Speaker 2: a layup and now potentially a vote that could prohibit
Speaker 2: Ukraine funding from moving forward as progressives throw red flags
Speaker 2: on what they're seeing in Gaza.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast can
Speaker 1: Just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apocarplay and then
Speaker 1: Rouno with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 5: Lawmakers are back on Capitol Hill after a two week
Speaker 5: recess district work period, and now they are walking the
Speaker 5: halls once again with a long to do list in
Speaker 5: front of them. So joining us now is one of
Speaker 5: those members of Congress. The Republican from Oklahoma, Congressman Frank
Speaker 5: Lucas is with us now live from the Hill. Congressman,
Speaker 5: thank you so much for joining us, and welcome back
Speaker 5: to Washington. There is a lot that could be done.
Speaker 5: The question is will a lot actually be done? What
Speaker 5: is your understanding of the first order of business? What
Speaker 5: do you think you'll be voting on first?
Speaker 8: I think the Faisei issue has to be addressed. I
Speaker 8: think we have to have a supplemental appropriation to address
Speaker 8: our allies around the world. That's going to include issues
Speaker 8: like the bridge collapse in Baltimore. One of my colleagues
Speaker 8: implies that she might want to give the leadership in
Speaker 8: the House Republican side to stir. So there's all manner
Speaker 8: of things going on, and that doesn't even include committee
Speaker 8: work like financial services efforts, dealing with the Security Exchange
Speaker 8: Commission's climate rules, lots of stuff.
Speaker 2: Guys, Lea, you must be so excited to be back. Congressman.
Speaker 2: We're excited to have you with us here in a
Speaker 2: little honest talk about what might or might not happen.
Speaker 2: That's an interesting thing. You just said, if in fact,
Speaker 2: we do see action on funding for our allies in
Speaker 2: hot wars Ukraine, Israel, and then you've also got Taiwan,
Speaker 2: there will that also be the vehicle for emergency funding
Speaker 2: to replace that bridge in Baltimore.
Speaker 8: I have to believe that we'll pass one big package.
Speaker 8: Now I'm not an appropriator, I'm not in leadership, but
Speaker 8: I have to believe, based on my experience, we'll have
Speaker 8: one big package. But who would have ever guessed that
Speaker 8: the Israeli component of it would cause such ranker amongst
Speaker 8: the Democrat members.
Speaker 1: Of the House.
Speaker 8: Who would have guessed we would have such a discussion
Speaker 8: on the Republican side about trying to still slow down
Speaker 8: putin the dictator in Russia from taking over his neighbors
Speaker 8: when we'd have a debate about a major infrastructure piece
Speaker 8: like the bridge in Baltimore going down. This is just
Speaker 8: a complicated set of times. We're in, guys, but we
Speaker 8: have to get our work done. And I'm an eternal optimist.
Speaker 8: I wouldn't be here.
Speaker 5: Right. And you do have a vote even if you
Speaker 5: aren't an appropriator or in leadership Congressman. So it raises
Speaker 5: the question of what it is exactly you would be
Speaker 5: willing to use that vote for. Mike Johnson has suggested
Speaker 5: Ukraine Aid could come to the floor in potentially a
Speaker 5: different form than what we saw in the Senate, for
Speaker 5: perhaps alone instead of just outright aid, or perhaps using
Speaker 5: frozen Russian assets. What is it that you would support?
Speaker 5: What would Ukraine aid need to look like for you
Speaker 5: for it to get your vote?
Speaker 8: Well, I won't make the final decision, but whether it's
Speaker 8: a loan or outright money, as long as it addresses
Speaker 8: all our allies around the world, as long as we
Speaker 8: make sure our friends in Taiwan can purchase purchase the
Speaker 8: resources they need, as long as we make sure the
Speaker 8: infrastructure in this country's function. You can't have a port
Speaker 8: of the magnitude of importance as Baltimore stay down for
Speaker 8: an extended period. That just creates chaos throughout the system.
Speaker 8: Whatever we come up with, but it has to factor
Speaker 8: all those pieces in much legislative session left in the
Speaker 8: twenty twenty four legislative calendar. This is reelection season, this
Speaker 8: is presidential campaign here. So I would think that management
Speaker 8: on both sides of the building and both sides of
Speaker 8: the room will put all this together in whatever the
Speaker 8: ultimate form is, and you'll come to the floor. And
Speaker 8: remember we may organize by Republican caucus and Democrat caucus.
Speaker 8: But as you noted a moment ago, every member has
Speaker 8: her own vote to cast on behalf of their constituents.
Speaker 2: Well, that's right, and you referred to one of your colleagues.
Speaker 2: I think you might have been referring to the gentlewoman
Speaker 2: from Georgia earlier. If the Speaker of the House pursues
Speaker 2: the path that you just outlined, including funding for Ukraine,
Speaker 2: will it get him fired?
Speaker 8: I think that's an issue that we'll have to decide
Speaker 8: when we get there. Will the trigger be pulled? Will
Speaker 8: the trigger be pulled? And assuming we can pass the bill,
Speaker 8: what will the Democrats on the other side do. They
Speaker 8: had a lot of fun by supporting a handful of
Speaker 8: my colleagues in pitching out a speaker McCarthy, but we're
Speaker 8: now at a point in time where having fun political
Speaker 8: gain is not in the best interest of our sales
Speaker 8: or allies. They're going to have to be responsible too.
Speaker 8: The whole body elects the speaker, the whole body has
Speaker 8: to make a decision about removing a speaker.
Speaker 5: But as you point out Congressman. Eight of your Republican
Speaker 5: Conference colleagues did vote to aust McCarthy back in the fall.
Speaker 5: Do you think there would be eight or even any
Speaker 5: more than just one single vote? Marjorie Taylor Green? Who
Speaker 5: would be willing to cast a vote like that? Again,
Speaker 5: have you heard of anyone who is on her side
Speaker 5: when it comes to this question around emotion to vacate?
Speaker 8: I have not heard of anyone out there rattling the
Speaker 8: saber to bring his speakership to an end besides one member.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's interesting because we're hearing from a few Democratic
Speaker 2: members who have said that they might move to help
Speaker 2: protect the Speaker and not have to go through this
Speaker 2: whole ordeal Again, is that the way this ends, he
Speaker 2: brings Ukraine funding to the floor, supported by Republicans like
Speaker 2: yourself and Democrats in an effort to keep his job.
Speaker 2: If Democrats are standing.
Speaker 8: By, speaker has a responsibility to bring the best possible
Speaker 8: packages to the floor in the interest of the country,
Speaker 8: in the interest of our allies, we have a responsibility
Speaker 8: to step up and vote on that. Farm bills always
Speaker 8: are bipartisan. Indaa's are always bipartisan. The appropriation bills in
Speaker 8: normal times are always bipartisan. We just have to let
Speaker 8: the body work its will. I have faith in the body.
Speaker 5: Well, and of course, Congressmen, the body doesn't always necessarily
Speaker 5: agree with itself, or at least the different parties within
Speaker 5: the body on certain issues. In FISA is an example.
Speaker 5: You mentioned at the top that that is on your
Speaker 5: to do list. There are really bipartisan members who have
Speaker 5: concerns on either end, one being the more intelligence oriented
Speaker 5: you want to make sure that warrant less surveilists can continue.
Speaker 5: On the other side, you have those looking for more
Speaker 5: privacy protections for Americans. You may be caught up in
Speaker 5: this kind of surveillance. Where do you fall on this issue, sir?
Speaker 5: Will you vote either way or is there one that
Speaker 5: you would prefer to see the speaker put forward.
Speaker 8: The first key element in PHISIA is it is a
Speaker 8: temporary authorization. It's not permanent law. So it reflects the
Speaker 8: times we live in. Maybe we're not being attacked every
Speaker 8: day on the shores of the United States, but our allies,
Speaker 8: our friends around the world are under assault, both economically
Speaker 8: and militarily. We have an obligation to use the resources
Speaker 8: that are necessary to protect ourselves and to protect our
Speaker 8: allies when we have a common mutual interest voting for
Speaker 8: language that continues that security. Because if anyone thinks that
Speaker 8: the Chinese Communist Party, if anyone thinks that mister Putin's
Speaker 8: dictatorship is trying is not trying to use every available
Speaker 8: resource to disrupt democracies in the West, you're pretty damn naive.
Speaker 2: Interesting scenario to see a bill that, of course Joe
Speaker 2: Biden is pushing, and I know Republicans like yourself are
Speaker 2: pushing as well. Mike Pompeo has been briefing members in
Speaker 2: the House to underscore the urgency and the need for
Speaker 2: funding in Ukraine. Whose argument is resonating with your caucus?
Speaker 8: I don't know that I can answer that question at
Speaker 8: this moment. I believe that when my colleagues sit down
Speaker 8: and look at the intelligence, when they look at the
Speaker 8: information coming from the appropriate committees, when they look at
Speaker 8: the world situation, they realize you cannot let mister Putin
Speaker 8: prevail in the Ukraine. Why else would his neighbors in
Speaker 8: Finland and Sweden, after being neutral for decades or centuries,
Speaker 8: so frantically joined a NATO. They fear that this is
Speaker 8: the beginning of another nineteen thirties, and they don't want
Speaker 8: to be occupied as their grandparents' generation was in the
Speaker 8: nineteen thirties and forties.
Speaker 5: It's a very fair point, Congressman, and that is one
Speaker 5: that we've heard a lot of national security minded folks make,
Speaker 5: but of course to Joe's point that it's not everyone
Speaker 5: singing the same tune. Obviously, in maybe weeks before you
Speaker 5: actually have a chance to vote on this issue, but
Speaker 5: more immediately tomorrow, as you alluded to at the beginning
Speaker 5: of this interview, you will be sitting in a Financial
Speaker 5: Services Committee hearing looking specifically at the SEC's new climate
Speaker 5: disclosure rules. And it's worth noting, Congressmen that just last
Speaker 5: week the SEC announced that it was pausing implementation to
Speaker 5: allow the legal fights surrounding these disclosures play out. What
Speaker 5: role do you see Congress playing that the courts wouldn't
Speaker 5: be playing here? Should you not just be waiting for
Speaker 5: the courts to decide either way?
Speaker 8: We provide oversight, we provide focus, We make sure people
Speaker 8: understand what Chairman gensl Are and the SEC's up to.
Speaker 8: They started this rulemaking process two years ago. This was
Speaker 8: all about putting the federal government in a control position
Speaker 8: over environmental issues that they could not get Congress when
Speaker 8: they controlled the House. In the Senate Joe Biden was
Speaker 8: the president, couldn't get it passed into laws. So they
Speaker 8: won't intend to use the rule making process. Now we
Speaker 8: put enough spotlight over the course of the last two
Speaker 8: years on what the sec was up to that they
Speaker 8: had to back off. Supposed that they stepped away from
Speaker 8: some scope. Three, they've delayed implementation of this and that
Speaker 8: and the other. I would suggest to you, if they're
Speaker 8: rule in its present form, even with the delays that
Speaker 8: they've implied they'll make or is in place, it'll still
Speaker 8: cause corporate boards, corporations and entities who do business with
Speaker 8: them to have to report all this stuff. Anyway, that's
Speaker 8: not something that should be done by FIAT from a
Speaker 8: rule making bureaucracy in the federal government. If we're going
Speaker 8: to do this, it needs to be a peace of legislation.
Speaker 8: But clearly Congress, Republican or Democrat, doesn't want to go
Speaker 8: the way that Chairman Gisler wants to go. Thank goodness,
Speaker 8: we're here standing in front of.
Speaker 2: Him, so there will be a legislative answer.
Speaker 8: I would say there will be the necessary oversight and
Speaker 8: focus so that everyone understands what's going on. I don't
Speaker 8: know that you'll have a quote legislative fix. But if
Speaker 8: we hadn't raised the attention, if we had not made
Speaker 8: clear to people what the chairman was up to at
Speaker 8: the Security Exchange Commission, we would have not had the
Speaker 8: dropping a part of his scope free rule. We would
Speaker 8: have not had the delays and implementation of other things.
Speaker 8: If we had been quiet, they would have done it
Speaker 8: to us by rule making FIAT, and it would not
Speaker 8: have been good for the American economy or of the
Speaker 8: American business.
Speaker 5: Well, of course, it's not just the Financial Services Committee
Speaker 5: you sit on. You sit on the Agriculture Committee as well.
Speaker 5: And another issue that the SEC is heavily involved in
Speaker 5: that really straddles both of those committees on which you
Speaker 5: sit is crypto. Given that it's very unclear what is
Speaker 5: the security and what is a commodity, perhaps like in
Speaker 5: the case of bitcoin, or at least bitcoin not being
Speaker 5: a security, it does get a bit complicated, Congressman, and
Speaker 5: it does so because there has been no clear delineation
Speaker 5: at this point between what the SEC should have control
Speaker 5: over in what the CFTC should have control over and
Speaker 5: your two committees did attempt to address that in a
Speaker 5: market structure bill that passed last year in the summer.
Speaker 5: Do you have an understanding of whether or not that's
Speaker 5: going to be able to move forward in this Congress?
Speaker 5: What are each of your committees up to on that.
Speaker 8: We're not seeing a lot of action now at this stage.
Speaker 8: And remember, in financial Services, we've had an incredible number
Speaker 8: of crypto related hearings at full Committee, at subcommittee down
Speaker 8: through the years, and crypto matters because there's already something
Speaker 8: like eighty billion dollars in securities being pledged as the
Speaker 8: backup for various crypto coins out there in the market.
Speaker 8: The Chairman has been very focused of Patrick McHenry on
Speaker 8: this subject matter, but creating the necessary consensus to move
Speaker 8: forward hasn't hasn't happened yet, And you've got a wide
Speaker 8: variation of opinion between Republicans and Democrats and within our
Speaker 8: caucuses over whether this is the future of transactions where
Speaker 8: it's a con game, and people like Sam Bankman Freed
Speaker 8: don't reassure sure by their actions members of Congress.
Speaker 2: Jane Harmon, a former congresswoman, was on with US yesterday.
Speaker 2: Congressman and she talked about a special moment, a couple
Speaker 2: of moments that took place yesterday where Americans from all
Speaker 2: walks of life came together unity around the eclipse. As
Speaker 2: someone who serves not only serves on the Science and
Speaker 2: Space Committee, but shairs it, I wonder your thoughts on
Speaker 2: the eclipse yesterday and how we might see more moments
Speaker 2: like that. How did you watch it?
Speaker 8: I was in southeastern Oklahoma in the path of totality
Speaker 8: on a state representatives farm, and I will confess I've
Speaker 8: never had that experience before. It was incredible. So in
Speaker 8: the coming years, my fellow citizens who didn't have a
Speaker 8: chance at this one or the previous one, when there
Speaker 8: are opportunities, we all need to experience this. It is
Speaker 8: just the most amazing thing when the night lights come
Speaker 8: on and the wildlife gets quiet, when everything hushes down
Speaker 8: for that few moments, that few minutes when it's totally dark,
Speaker 8: it really gives you an appreciation for the awe and
Speaker 8: magnificence of the universe and the amazing nature of science.
Speaker 2: So what did you learn about yourself in that moment?
Speaker 8: I learned that the money we spend on scientific research.
Speaker 8: The money we spend on NASA, the money we spend
Speaker 8: to expand knowledge, is money well spent. And over the
Speaker 8: course of centuries, major scientific discoveries have been made watching
Speaker 8: the totality of the eclipses of the Sun, principles of astrophysics,
Speaker 8: and all those amazing things. We'll see what comes out
Speaker 8: of our experiences in North America just yesterday. But it's
Speaker 8: something everyone should do at least one time. If it's possible,
Speaker 8: be there for a totality.
Speaker 2: That we could talk to you about this. Congressman, come
Speaker 2: back next conversation. I want to ask you about going
Speaker 2: to the moon with Japan. That's another story that's emerging today.
Speaker 2: That's real stuff. Great to have. Frank Lucas, the Republican
Speaker 2: from Oklahoma's the third District.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ken
Speaker 1: just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then
Speaker 1: ron Oto with a Bloomberg Business app. You can also
Speaker 1: listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station,
Speaker 1: Just Say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven.
Speaker 5: Thirty Here in Washington, where we are just now dealing
Speaker 5: with some breaking news. Not from here in the district,
Speaker 5: but actually from the state of Arizona, a critical swing
Speaker 5: state in this election cycle. In the state Supreme Court
Speaker 5: has just ruled that a sweeping abortion ban can take effect.
Speaker 5: This is a rule or a law from eighteen sixty four,
Speaker 5: about one hundred and sixty years old, near total ban
Speaker 5: on abortion. It criminalizes abortion by making it a felony
Speaker 5: punishable by two to five years in prison for anyone
Speaker 5: who performs or helps a woman obtain one. So Joe
Speaker 5: taking what is we know a hot button issue, one
Speaker 5: that has shown the ability to galvanize turnout in recent
Speaker 5: election cycles, including in the midterms in twenty twenty two
Speaker 5: and now here it is potentially igniting in a crucial
Speaker 5: swing state.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Interesting, there is an exception here that's the life
Speaker 2: of a woman in this case codified in nineteen oh
Speaker 2: one and again in nineteen thirteen after Arizona became a state. Look,
Speaker 2: this is just another reminder from voters that this is
Speaker 2: going to be an issue that they will have to
Speaker 2: factor into their decisions in November. And it's where we
Speaker 2: start our conversation with our panel today. Rick Davis is
Speaker 2: with us Bloomberg Politics contributor. Of course, longtime Republican strategist,
Speaker 2: joined by Brad Howard, Democratic strategist. Now the Corcoran Street
Speaker 2: Group is great to have both of you with us. Rick, you,
Speaker 2: of course are a veteran of Arizona politics. How much
Speaker 2: of a concern should this be for Republicans running in
Speaker 2: that state.
Speaker 9: This is a major concern for all the players in
Speaker 9: the state. You know, it's not necessarily been a battleground
Speaker 9: for abortion in the past. This law that you were describing,
Speaker 9: a Civil War era law hasn't been on the books
Speaker 9: really since Roe v. Wade. But once it was overturned
Speaker 9: by the Dobbs decision, the state had to reconcile its laws,
Speaker 9: and as the Supreme Court indicated today in Arizona, this
Speaker 9: law still is on the books and now takes precedent.
Speaker 9: Arizona had a fifteen week ban on abortion prior to that.
Speaker 9: And the other thing that's happening that actually, this just
Speaker 9: adds incredible amount of fuel to the fire. This decision
Speaker 9: by the Supreme Court in Arizona is that there's a
Speaker 9: referendum that looks like it's going to wind up on
Speaker 9: the ballot. They're collecting signatures. They have over one hundred
Speaker 9: and twenty thousand more signatures than they need today and
Speaker 9: they keep going until July. But the group of abortion
Speaker 9: reproductive right advocates are going to put on a twenty
Speaker 9: four week ban on the ballot. Now, this is going
Speaker 9: to be a huge fight in Arizona, and the fact
Speaker 9: that the law has now retreated to a civil war
Speaker 9: air law is going to make it even more dynamic
Speaker 9: in this regard. And this is a state that Joe
Speaker 9: Biden only won by three tenths of a percent last
Speaker 9: time around. So, Yeah, anybody who tells you abortion isn't
Speaker 9: going to be a hot button issue in Arizona this
Speaker 9: year and may even determine the outcome of the presidential
Speaker 9: election in that state, doesn't understand how tied to margins
Speaker 9: Arizona has.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's an excellent point, Brick. And of course it's
Speaker 5: not just presidential candidates that will be on the ballot.
Speaker 5: There's a critical Senate race as well in Arizona. Brad
Speaker 5: it's Kerry Lake the Republican, versus Rubin Gego the Democrat,
Speaker 5: and Guyago right on. Que puts out a statement reacting
Speaker 5: to the Supreme Court ruling, saying here in Arizona. We
Speaker 5: support a woman's right to an abortion, which is why
Speaker 5: I'm going to defeat Carry Lake and fight like hell
Speaker 5: to protect abortion rights once and for all. Does this
Speaker 5: decision from the court make it more likely that he
Speaker 5: will do so? He will defeat carry Lake, or at
Speaker 5: least it's a lot harder for Carry Lake now.
Speaker 10: Absolutely, and in full transparency, I'm a friend of Ruben
Speaker 10: Geago with the congressman and you know him well, And
Speaker 10: absolutely he's going to take full advantage of this. He's
Speaker 10: going to bludgeon his opponent time and again with this position.
Speaker 10: Is smart for him, It's going to consolidate his base.
Speaker 10: He's been consistent on this issue and he's been a
Speaker 10: fighter in the House for reproductive freedoms. He will be
Speaker 10: in the Senate. There is no equivocation with Ruben Diego.
Speaker 10: But also take a step back to the presidential as well.
Speaker 10: Keep in mind what just happened yesterday. Trump came out
Speaker 10: and endorsed leaving this up to the states. Thereby, Trump
Speaker 10: is okay with this policy, he thinks Arizona should decide. Therefore,
Speaker 10: Arizona now has this as the law of the land,
Speaker 10: which Trump supports. So it's a reminder that Trump is
Speaker 10: the reason we are having these draconian laws back to
Speaker 10: the pre before the Civil War put in in place
Speaker 10: because of Trump's efforts to overturn successfulge to overturn roby wave,
Speaker 10: and now his position that each state should decide. So
Speaker 10: Trump owns this, and absolutely you're going to see President
Speaker 10: Biden take advantage of this as well, and the remind
Speaker 10: voters time and again that Republicans' position on this is
Speaker 10: way out of touch with modern era and most swing voters.
Speaker 2: Brad makes a great point, Rick, I know that you
Speaker 2: questioned Donald Trump's strategy in making that announcement yesterday, a
Speaker 2: lot of people pointing to Florida. He didn't even weigh
Speaker 2: in on his own state. But you could also look
Speaker 2: at this as a tacit endorsement of every state's abortion policy,
Speaker 2: couldn't you sure?
Speaker 9: I mean, this is the kind of thing that just
Speaker 9: gives a campaign manager fits and starts. You know, they
Speaker 9: do what they think is right by releasing that, and
Speaker 9: then literally the next day one of the key swing
Speaker 9: states has a supreme court state Supreme court that throws
Speaker 9: this kind of thing over the transom. I mean, it's
Speaker 9: a disaster everybody who can get a microphone in front
Speaker 9: of Trump's going to ask him, so, does this mean
Speaker 9: you endorse the state of Arizona's civil war ban and
Speaker 9: criminalization of abortion? I mean, what does he say? Right,
Speaker 9: He's like, well, I thought I'd left it up to
Speaker 9: the states. It's a mess in Florida too, another very
Speaker 9: key state that Democrats are put pumping a lot of
Speaker 9: money into right now because they have an abortion referendum
Speaker 9: that has come up on their state election cycle this year.
Speaker 3: So you know it's going.
Speaker 9: To be, at least in those two states a very
Speaker 9: very big issue. Whether it Trump's things like immigration of
Speaker 9: the economy, I don't know, but it gives Democrats something
Speaker 9: to talk about and helps them push their turnout mechanisms
Speaker 9: on this issue. So I'd say this week advantage Democrats
Speaker 9: when it comes to Donald Trump's you know, sort of
Speaker 9: non position states rights thing on abortion. I mean, it
Speaker 9: looks like.
Speaker 10: If I can jump into Florida ballot initiative, it is
Speaker 10: interesting because Trump can no longer just say states rights.
Speaker 10: Trump is going to have to vote as a private
Speaker 10: citizen in the ballot box on Florida's abortion question. So
Speaker 10: at some point he's going to have to express that opinion.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's a very good point. This was the conversation
Speaker 5: we were having yesterday was has he basically avoided having
Speaker 5: to address a national a federal abortion ban policy by
Speaker 5: releasing the video he did yesterday or could this also
Speaker 5: be something that changes as time goes on, which is
Speaker 5: definitely a question that the former president will have to
Speaker 5: grapple with at the same time, of course, that he's
Speaker 5: running a reelection to campaign. So it's great to have
Speaker 5: both of you reacting to this breaking news out of Arizona.
Speaker 5: That's not actually what we intended to talk with you
Speaker 5: about today, Brad and Rick, because today is the day
Speaker 5: Congress comes back and there's much to discuss there as well. Rick,
Speaker 5: how optimistic are you that this will be a productive
Speaker 5: week or even next week before they go back into
Speaker 5: recess again? For the House? What actually can be accomplished
Speaker 5: in a short period of time when they've proven time
Speaker 5: and again that they have a lot of difficulty getting
Speaker 5: anything over the finish line.
Speaker 9: Well, the one thing I'm learning is not to read
Speaker 9: tea leaves and the House are representatives anymore. And I'd
Speaker 9: say that this is sort of in the cake week right,
Speaker 9: they're going to have to figure out what they're going
Speaker 9: to do, how they're going to tee up some of
Speaker 9: these initiatives. We've talked about the fies A law needing
Speaker 9: to be reauthorized, we talked about the Ukraine supplemental. These
Speaker 9: are really hot button issues, but there are half a
Speaker 9: dozen other really important issues that need to get dealt with,
Speaker 9: including new initiatives like online privacy acts that actually have
Speaker 9: a lot of political saliency out there. So they got
Speaker 9: to go to work. I mean, this has been the
Speaker 9: biggest do nothing Congress in history. They don't have a
Speaker 9: history of being able to enact laws, and I think
Speaker 9: that's going to be The real trick is what can
Speaker 9: they get done in these two weeks to at least
Speaker 9: take something off the table before they take another break.
Speaker 2: Well, there's an important committee meeting Rules Committee later on today, Brad,
Speaker 2: where they're going to start marking up apparently a FISA
Speaker 2: renewal bill. Can this actually get done in the next
Speaker 2: two weeks? Could Mike Johnson say, see, I've got something
Speaker 2: to show for the fact that we came back to Washington.
Speaker 10: Look, the one good thing about the House is the
Speaker 10: majority treading rule. The Speaker commits to something and his
Speaker 10: caucuses behind him. Absolutely, you can fly through things in minutes.
Speaker 10: So there's still time to get this done. And I
Speaker 10: think Rules is going to probably put together the structure
Speaker 10: of what this debate would be and they'll insert the text,
Speaker 10: you know, when they reach that agreement, which is a
Speaker 10: typical way of moving the process forward even if you
Speaker 10: don't have text, which is to the rank and file
Speaker 10: very frustrating because you want to read these bills and
Speaker 10: have put in time to consider them beforehand. But keep
Speaker 10: in mind that you've also got the motion to vacate
Speaker 10: the chair that in any minute could disrupt the chamber.
Speaker 10: There are ways that Speaker Johnson could punt this to
Speaker 10: when they come back, but he's going to have to
Speaker 10: address it at some point if Marjorie Taylor Green does
Speaker 10: move forward with the motion to vacate. So that's going
Speaker 10: to impact things. But you know, usually on issues of
Speaker 10: national security, it's fairly easy. On these issues. He's got
Speaker 10: the history of the fact that usually speakers cobble together
Speaker 10: coalition from both parties. You don't need all your caucus
Speaker 10: to support you. Look at the NDAA, that's the moderates
Speaker 10: of both parties and the extremes on both sides vote
Speaker 10: no similar thing here with fiasas he's got some you
Speaker 10: know his precedent here to not have to have full
Speaker 10: Republican support here. He can move forward as long as
Speaker 10: he's got to eighteen among the Democrats, I mean among
Speaker 10: the moderates on both parties. So I think this could
Speaker 10: get done.
Speaker 5: Rad just quickly. We only have thirty seconds left. But
Speaker 5: should Democrats ask for anything in exchange from Johnson if
Speaker 5: they were to save him. Should this motion to vacate
Speaker 5: actually happen other than ukraineate or is that in and
Speaker 5: of itself enough for the party here?
Speaker 10: This is my concern with deals like that is were
Speaker 10: you were giving up a one time thing or an
Speaker 10: ongoing speakership.
Speaker 9: Right.
Speaker 10: So if I'm going to I want to trade apples
Speaker 10: and apples, right, I want it to be even trade,
Speaker 10: not a one time give for eight more months of governing.
Speaker 10: If they're going to do that, they need to have
Speaker 10: structural reforms to the House, so a power sharing agreement.
Speaker 10: Maybe they get control of the agenda for some key committees.
Speaker 10: Maybe they expand the number of Democrats on rules or
Speaker 10: E and C or ways and means that would be
Speaker 10: a fair trade in my opinion, If you give us
Speaker 10: the chance to participate in governing, maybe will save you.
Speaker 10: But if you're not going to give us any say
Speaker 10: whatsoever and the agenda or the priorities of the House,
Speaker 10: why would we save you. So I think there's gonna happen.
Speaker 10: That's a fair conversation to happen, all right.
Speaker 5: Brad Howard, Democratic strategist and Rick Davis are Republican strategist today.
Speaker 5: Thank you both so much.
Speaker 10: For joining us.
Speaker 2: Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make
Speaker 2: sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 2: or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
Speaker 2: us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern
Speaker 2: at Bloomberg dot com.