You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern.
On Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business app.
Or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
We're going to get to the situation in Israel in a special conversation with former Ambassador Daniel Freed. Coming up. But first history is made in the House of Representatives as the gentleman from New York is expelled.
Let's listen, and.
In the Affirmative the resolution is adopted. An emotion to reconsider is laid upon the table. The Clerk will notify the Governor of the State of New York of the action of the House under Clause five D of Rule twenty. The Chair announces to the House that, in light of the expulsion of the gentleman from New York, mister Santos, the whole number of the House is now four hundred and thirty four.
You have at the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, presiding three to eleven to one fourteen to remove George Santos, fascinating one hundred and five Republicans voting yes. A majority of Republicans that means this was again three eleven to one fourteen, a majority of Republicans voting to keep George Santos in Congress. Fascinating. As we write on the terminal, the only real surprise was that it took so long. And that's where we start our conversation with Jonathan Tamari
of Bloomberg Government. He was on the hill, he was in the House when this happened, and Jonathan, it's great to have you here. What's next now for this seat and what's next for George Santos, Well.
For George Santos, I think it's anybody's guests, honestly, I mean, just based on the wild ride that he has taken us all on on these past months, I don't think we could rule anything out. As far as what he's going to do next. He did not make that clear when he was leaving. As far as the seat, I mean, this is going to be a petitive seat. It was
one when he won it. It's something it's a seat that Democrats are going to go after in any kind of special election that happens, and so it's going to be you know, and now Republicans don't have the power of incumbency to try to hang on to it. So it's going to be one of those key House seats to watch in the coming year. And for the time being, at leads Republicans short one vote with an already really narrow majority.
To your point, it sets off what will be an important and competitive race here. The governor will announce a special election. Is that right, Kathy Hochl has ten days to get the ball rolling on that.
That's my understanding, and now I have to met I'm not clear on exactly how quickly that special election will happen. It usually takes some time to just get the mechanics and the machinery of an election in place, for each party to nominate somebody, to get ballots printed, and you know, notices sent out to anybody who needs to vote. But that is my understanding of what the general next step is.
Yes, it must occur then between eighty days after the proclamation, to give you a sense of the timeline here, Jonathan. Lastly, it's important to note the breakdown here. As I mentioned three eleven, one fourteen, a majority of Republicans voting to keep George Santos in the seat. Two Democrats did as well, what did that have to do with? Was this about
the fact that he was not convicted? What are you hearing from folks like the speaker himself and the Majority leader but voted not to expel George Santos.
Yeah, I and in the entire House Republican leadership, you know, uniformly voted to keep him in Congress. The argument that you hear in public is that they're afraid of setting a precedent, that this was not a criminal conviction, that they don't want to be kicking people out of Congress for something that's less than who has not had his day in court, so to speak. Other people would point out the Ethics Committee did a full and throw investigation
and reached it their own conclusions. I think there is certainly some manner of politics involved here Republican and knowing how hard it's been for them to pass their legislation with the majority as it is much less down one person, and I think there's just frankly a bit of tribalism that comes with any of these votes that people just go to kind of shirts and skins in Congress sometimes, and you know, one hundred and twelve Republicans voted to keep him in office, and I think that is one
of the driving factors in almost every vote that happens, including this one.
So we're down back down to four thirty four, and that is the Congress and the House of Representatives that Jonathan tomorrow will be covering from Bloomberg government. Jonathan, it's great to have you back with us here. We'll get into that more with the panel with Rick and Jennie a little bit later on. As we turn our attention on a day where we have multiple stories developing before
our eyes. The situation in Israel now resuming its war against Tamas after this week long truce, the one that was extended a couple of times, it got to seven days, and within two hours of the truce coming to an end last night, air strikes resumed in Gaza. Thirty five five people were killed, according to Palestinian health officials. We want to hear from the Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln, speaking earlier about how we got to this point and
where we go from here. Israel has agreed to a clear plan to help avoid civilian casualties going forward, speaking as well to humanitarian aid. Here's the Secretary of State.
We saw Israel take steps immediately today to start to get information of people about where safe areas are, how they how they can get out of harm's way. And we're just talking about right now today, and I haven't had a chance to see exactly what what happened today.
I have seen that information start to get out. I've saw the plans that Israel has in a multiplicity of ways to do everything possible to affect civilians, including making sure that they have the information they need and there are ways to accommodate them.
And so this becomes a story of state craft more than ever. As the Secretary of State speaks there from the tarmac, and that's where we begin our conversation with Daniel Freed. Why is her family distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council? Is former Ambassador to Poland, former National Security Council Senior Director, and spend time as well as a citizen Secretary of State for Europe. Mister ambassador, it's great
to have you back here. What is the Secretary of State's role in this could be any scenario that we're talking about in dealing with an ally foreign government in trying to control their actions in a time like this when it comes to hammering out a deal that he was describing a clear plan to limit casualties to what extent can the Secretary of State drive that conversation.
Secretary Blincoln has both immediate and longer ranged tasks before him, and if he looks tired, which he does, it's because he is. This is not easy work. He needs to keep things from flying completely apart in the Middle East, to counsel the Israelis to have do and frankly better regard for the civilian casualties of their military operations against Hamas he will if he can try to negotiate I suspect a new ceasefire, to resume the exchange of Israeli
prisoners and Hamas hostages. And he hass to do all of this with his eye on the ball of an actual settlement. It will take massive amounts of time and energy, and that is the fate of US secretaries of State.
I remember that Henry Kissinger made NonStop diploy his means of trying to bring an end to the Young Kipper War in nineteen seventy three to stabilize things between Israel and its neighbors and to set the stage, as it turned out, or more progress ahead, ending ultimately in the Israel Egyptian piece that was signed at Camp David during
the administration of Jimmy Carter. So that kind of state craft Kissingerry in short term state craft that hopefully improves things in the immediate term and set the stage for sets the stage for progress in the medium and longer term, is what the US administration is faced with. And they're doing it. I mean they're trying. You can see that with CIA Director Bill Burns in the Middle East and
Tony Blinken working with the Israelis. The administration is doing what American administrations do in the world in general, and in the Middle East in particular. We, not the Chinese, not the Russians, have the ability to move things forward, and that's what we're trying to do.
Does Kissingerry, and also imply continued shuttle diplomacy, Secretary of State b Lincoln will be living on a plane. Whether it's Egypt, whether it's Cutter, whether it's Israel. He's going to have to stay in the region.
Well, I don't want to predict things in too much detail, but yeah, I would not expect Secretary Blincoln to be spending a lot of time with his children at home.
Got it that said, what do you make of the CIA director being in the middle of this ambassador he's not a diplomat, but our chief intelligence official has been in the middle of this entire deal making process in cutter Ah.
But Bill Burns was indeed a diplomat. He is not a career intelligence official. He's a foreign service officer like I was.
For sure forty years understood that's not his job now though.
No, But he was an expert on Russia and the Middle East and the Middle East. He brings a credibility and a depth of knowledge, and frankly, it's not a bad idea to use all the assets you've got. Yes, I detected in your question a bit of surprise that a CIA director would be engaged in what is, frankly diplomacy. But when you've got when you're dealing with a situation like the US is dealing with in the Middle East, you want all the assets you have to be working
full out to try to make things better. And Bill Burhams has a lot of credibility in the region. He knows it well, and I'm glad he's all in.
Ambassador free. The Wall Street Journal is reporting today pretty remarkable when you consider the worries that many have had about a second or third front opening, that Israel's intelligence services are preparing to go throughout the region, if not around the world, to kill, to assassinate Hamas leaders, setting the stage as the Journal rights for a year's long
campaign to find those responsible for the October attack. That means hunting down people in Lebanon, in Turkey and Cutter, maybe even Russia, knowing Israel's history with assassinations, particularly against Hamas leaders that have even include a remote control rifle at one point to kill a nuclear scientist in Iran. How worried does that make you about a second or third front opening.
Israel was attacked by Hamas. Hamas is not a government. Hamas is a terrorist group, and its brutality was on display. If you asked me what of my preference, I would rather have Israel engaged in targeted, discrete actions rather than wholesale bombing, which kills lots of civilians. Israel's options aren't good.
The United States has rightly been pushing the Israelis to up its game with respect to the Gaza military operations and not create so much death and destruction, So we cannot tell the Israelis at the same time to act in a precise manner and then not act in a precise manner against Amas. Amas is an enemy of all. I'd rather have the Israelis focused on a legitimate target than going after targets in Gaza which end up with a lot of innocent Palestinians dead, displaced, or injured.
How about that.
I only have a minute left, Ambassador. I don't want to rush you out here, but the New York Times meantime is reporting that Israel actually possessed Hamas's detailed attack plan yes October seven for more than a year, decided it wouldn't likely become reality. To what extent is this an intelligence failure?
Oh?
It is a big intelligence failure. I am sadly familiar with instances in which intelligence analysts have correctly discerned an adversary's intentions, only to be ignored by the system. I've seen this. I have some personal experience with this from my own career. It happens it was a failure because the intelligence assessments, according to the New York Times, and
the article felt right to me. According to that article, the intelligence assessments coming up alided with a preset series of judgments and prejudices from the Israeli establishment that Hamas was incapable of conducting such a such an operation, and that Hamas was intimidated by Israel. Yes, this was an error of judgment. I've seen these errors before, including in my own government.
Always a fascinating conversation with the Ambassador Daniel Freed. We thank you as always. Have a great weekend.
Sir.
This is sound On. I'm Joe Matthew, only on Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station. Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
George Santos expelled from Congress Earlier today. We brought you the details a bit earlier. We're going to dive into this a bit more because there are a lot of questions about what happens next to this seat, and you better believe that Bloomberg is all over that story. Santos expelled from Congress after tumultuous year of lies. I read on the terminal and Simone Foxman is taking this a
step further to understand what's going to happen next. As Kathy help Will prepares for a special election, she's with me here in New York's Moment's great to see you, Thank you for coming back, Thanks to tactors today. The story yesterday was Andrew Cuomo. Today it's another guy who's considered a troublemaker by many. George Santos, You've got a special election that you're going to be covering here. It looks like soon the governor has ten days to deliver the proclamation, yes.
And then we have seventy to eighty days from that day. So overall we're looking probably going to see a special election sometime mid to late February. Okay, but you know it's going to be an election where there's going to be a lot of national dollars rolling in. We see this is a tightly contested election, and I think it's also a first test for the Republicans, who were able to pick up quite a few seats in New York
back in twenty twenty two. That was really a surprise and that was a key bit of what propelled them to the majority in the House. So this is going to be an important election.
Well, Democrats seem awfully optimistic about this. They think this is already over, We're going to flip that seat. Did it become more difficult for them to do that having George Santos removed a year before the election, giving Republicans that much lead time to kind of reframe what happened.
You know, it's interesting because initially they have probably the candidate with the most name recognition in tom Swazi. He did represent that district before twenty twenty two. He's there, he exists, he's lowed people know who he is. He by the way, did not run for that seat in twenty twenty two in order to take on the governor and that was a failed campaign. So now he's back
on the Republican side. There just aren't as many visible challengers that are really super well known, and so I think it gives the Democrats an edge in the near chure that said, you know, do you come back in November and have a replay of this race is probably the case. So so the calculus stair is a little bit less clear.
You surprised to see the numbers on this. A majority of Republicans, including the leadership, voted to keep him in.
Well, there was there was a momentum gaining pace right ahead of this vote. We really weren't sure which way it was going to go, and it seemed very obvious earlier in the week that you know, he was going to be expelled. Then kind of the momentum shifted, but finally at the end, you know, the thing is these seats, each seat is crucial to kind of keeping the Republicans dominant in the House. And so you have a guy
who lies very loudly. He was already going to be on his way out at the end of twenty two. Maybe people were holding their nose and saying.
Okay, well we you know, were doing some speculating earlier, and you probably have done a bit yourself, maybe if only thinking quietly about what might be now for him. First of all, it's going to court, right, do we know what it looks like for George Santos with the year ahead might include in terms of seeing him in the throes of legal struggles, or will he be free to write a book, to go do reality TV or what might be next.
I mean, I can speculate here. He says he's going to be pretty loud. He's going to name names. I think we should.
Expect someone to start a Twitter show or something, you know.
But he's become the sort of counter culture figure, right.
That's why someone's got to give him money to do something.
I imagine I still.
Say Dancing with the Stars, but I mean it could be a book, it could be an expose of some sort whatever. He's not going to be sitting home alone.
I'm guessing, no, I don't. I don't think so. But he is going to have to face what looks like a pretty serious allegations and I'm sure we will hear the play by play that will be the news that Santis is involved, you know, and you never know. I think the establishment has very much written him off. They don't think he has that much to say, but sure we'll see. I guess people will.
Pay for crazy things. Plus, America loves a comeback story.
I don't do.
I mean, well, we have, you know, the comeback story in potentially Nasau County and parts of Queen's Tom Swase. So admittedly he's never really truly.
Gone away, so you included the Swazi tweet in your story. He writes, this is a much needed step in our journey to repair a broken system. We must prove beyond our petty partisan performative finger pointing and address the real problems NASA on Queen's residents face. Let's fix this to your point. He's here, he's allowed. And so there are a.
Few others, you know, there are a few others. Anna Kaplan was one a lot of people were speaking about in the party, potentially considering Austin Chang. He's a businessman, healthcare owns or CEO of a healthcare business. Robert Zimmerman
who lost to Santos. And then, you know, as I was saying, the Republican side is just a a lot less clearer because the key guy who's been thought of, as you know, possibly having enough name recognition is Jack Martin's and he's made some statements that he doesn't necessarily want to go to Congress.
All right, so we're drafting you right now. Okay, I don't know this, but you've just been drafted to come back on a regular basis and talk to us about what's going on in this race and what's happening up you're here on sound On. When we call, you'll know who we are, of course, Simon Foxman. Great to see you again, Thanks and great reporting this week. I'm Joe Matthew in New York, where I'm rubbing elbows with people
like Simon Foxman. We want to bring in the voice of Denver Riggleman, the former US Congressman from Virginia, former Republican congressman in his view, which always fascinates me, on what's happening here inside the House of Representatives. He's co author of the breach, the untold story of the investigation into January sixth, of course, an investigation and a committee that he was deeply involved in. Denver, It's great to
see you. Welcome back to Bloomberg sound On. Should George Santos have been fired today?
Sure? I mean listen, yeah, of course. I mean it's good that some Republicans came on. I know that leadership did sort of support him not being you know, summarily drummed out of Congress. But if I was there, I would have voted to get him out of there as quickly as possible. I mean, this is a liar, a grifter, somebody who's you know, mismanaged money, but really somebody who has no place actually representing the American people. So I think today was a great vote.
So what do you make of the leadership on this? It was across the board Speaker Johnson, Steve's goalie, majority leader, even Elista Phonic voted to keep him in his seat. Was that a statement on due process the fact that he was not convicted of a crime, or was that a Republican leadership trying to keep as many seats in play as possible.
That's just trying to keep seats in play. This is a it's a one in zero's calculation. And also you have individuals who are supporting somebody like the party leader and the presumptive nominee, Donald Trump, who really has a problem with the truth. Also, who's under what ninety one counts now, you know, for specific types of charges based on a multitude you know, offenses. So I think you just have a Republican party and you know, me being a part of it. It's sad to say, but it
seems like more than a majority. Even if you look at the January sixth vote to object to the electors more than the majority, or more worried about their own job, or supporting the party leader, or actually voting in a way that might protect their own self interest going forward, rather than what's best for the American people. And I think it's an indictment on where they're at with their integrity, their morality, and actually they think most of us are stupid.
And I think many many people are looking at George Santos and saying, this guy is such a sleeves ball, such an underperformer in the American dream, and such an individual that nobody wants a round, that he needs to be out of there. But these guys, they would rather vote for somebody so they can keep that some majority going forward.
Boy, well, that's quite an answer. I'm really that's why we called you. I'm just taken by you know how hard it is to be elected to Congress. You know how hard it is to join the Republican conference in the House. How does something like this happen to begin with?
I think it's a slow to scent into madness. I mean, if you look at my guess is when they're looking at polling and fundraising, right, they're looking at polling in their districts. You're looking at fundraising in their districts. They're looking at all the cross tabs, all the things that the people are worried about in their base and their districts. They are much more worried about being elected than what's
and then doing what's right. And I think I had to grapple with that, Joe, like I had to grapple with that, like taking a vote for the conference, which you know might be at the best not a great vote, or saying, hey, do I have to listen to my base on this when I think that they've gone nuts, when they actually think the election is stolen or they believe that there's a cupal of you know, globalists that are actually harvesting children in basements. I mean, do I
really want to go along with this? And they said yes. So I think the GOP is going down where they're a fantasy based party. And once that happens, it's very difficult to have any real policy discussions. And I think that's why you're saying Congress being so ineffective, is that you know, you have a lot of people in Congress now that think the Word of the Rings is a documentary. Uh, And I think that's that's going to be a problem going forward.
Well, look to that end, George Santos says he's going to take as many folks with him as he can. That he's surrounded by other members of Congress who have done things that he knows about that could get them fired. Just talk about, you know, setting precedents here. Is this going to be the new weapon? Everybody's going to get an expulsion vote when they make somebody angry?
No, I, I you know that's a good question, actually, But as far as George Santos is concerned, I don't think that all. I don't think Georg George Santo has anybody else that he can actually bring down. He's not going to have receipts. The guy's an inveterate liar, he's pathological. He doesn't even know who he is. He's a con man. So who cares what he says? Right, it's like a you know, my grandfather said it best. You know, it's like a it's like a fart blown in the wind. Right,
That's what George Santos is. So anybody who's taken this guy seriously really has an issue. Don't take him seriously. He's an idiot, and I think people need to start realizing that it's okay to call an and Edie.
We're going to find out how Denver Riggleman really feels at some point here, I mean, coming off the poop map last night in the debate. Then I don't know how to keep up with you on this, but I understand where you going here. What is Speaker Johnson with everything that you just said, have to look forward to in the new year because we're talking about another cr potentially now, if not a government shut down, is that the one that gets him fired? Will he joined Kevin McCarthy in the cafeteria.
My head here, in my head, there could be a far right revolt. I mean, listen, crazy is very hard to negotiate with. And I've always said, you know, crazy has more energy than sanity, and you know Mike doesn't actually based on what he's done in the past and what's coming out about Mike Johnson, I know him. I met Mike. He's a nice guy to talk to in person, but he's also like to flirt with the insanity of
the far right. And if he doesn't go down that line after the promises that he's made or what he's identified himself to be crazy again. It's hard to negotiate with and there's a lot of energy there. It's white hot.
Insanity does not have as much energy as crazy. So he better buck up because what I think is going to happen, you know, is that the far right individuals that are trying to satisfy their base, they're going to have to scream and yell at him for a while, and he's going to have to manage that.
We heard yesterday though that the Freedom Caucus, Andy Biggs and Scott Perry are pulling back on demands for steep discretionary spending cuts. It looks like we're going to have the same top line number if they ever do get a budget that was hammered out in the debt ceiling deal that led to Kevin McCarthy's firing. What must be going through his.
Head right now?
Well, I mean, you know, McCarthy, listen, you negotiate with terrorists that aren't that bright, that's what you get. And I think that when I talk about political terrorists, my friend and I think the Yeah. So I think the other side of that is that hypocrisy, you know, is the number one thing in politics, and integrity and being elected are sometimes morally are mutually exclusive. And really those
are phone call from Donald Trump. That's just Biggs and Scott Perry trying to keep Trump happy, making sure they're in lockstep going through twenty four. I mean, they're not doing that in the vacuum. So that's really what I think that is, is that's a political calculation because really, you know, they're crazy, but they're not crazy enough not to get paid and not to get elected and not to be in Trump's quiver.
Well, I don't know how we get a border security agreement here. I know they're working on one. Considering the environment that we're in and the Congress that you're describing, should I just stop asking people about funding for Israel and Ukraine because the clock's tick and we're getting nowhere on this.
It seems like.
We are getting nowhere on this, And I think again to go to the fundamental I think, goodness, that's pretty a strong word, but I've used some strong words, but I think I think it goes down to really the fundamental problem in Congress that it's ineffective because nobody's actually making decisions for the American people or what's best in foreign policy, and you have individuals who you know, barely graduate high school or can't tell the difference, you know,
between a conspiracy theory right in a cafeteria. I mean, that's the truth of it, that you have those kind of people making decisions. I think that's what scares me and scares a lot of the American people, is that the baseline is crazy. If that's the baseline, it's going to be difficult to do things like fund Israel or Ukraine, or to even have a reasonable debate about it.
Wow, well, okay, in that world, then you project a year out, Democrats take the House, I do.
I think the Democrats take twenty to thirty seats. I think, I really do. And by the way, I think it's gonna be one of the craziest years we've ever seen twenty twenty four. I think there's going to be violence. But I also believe that the Democrats could take the House and Trump could win the presidency at the same time. So that's that's where I think that is a real possibility.
Political violence.
Oh yeah, I think by spring of twenty twenty four and no, and people forget about Pelosi. I think Paul Pelosi. They forget about individuals stinking in the homes. I believe it, think so right. I think those types of you know, isolated incidences, we think that are isolated. I think they could become more common place. And that scares me because people think this is a battle against good and evil. If you have people who believe this is an apocalyptic battle, I think that's going to be a problem.
Glad you could join us today. Former Congressman Denver Riggleman, the Republican from Virginia, free to speak, and boy he uses the opportunity. It's good to speak with you. Story as we head into a weekend with more madness in the house, George Santos is fired and we don't know where we're going next. Only here on sound on This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one eastern.
On Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcast.
On this vote, the ya's are three hundred eleven, the nays are one hundred and fourteen, with two recorded as present. Two thirds voting in the affirmative. The resolution is adopted, an emotion to reconsider is laid upon the table. The Clerk will notify the Governor of the State of New York of the action of the House under Clause five
D of Rule twenty. The Chair announces to the House that, in light of the expulsion of the gentleman from New York, mister Santos, the whole number of the House is now four hundred and thirty four.
Four hundred thirty four, right back where we were two weeks ago. George Santos packing his bags now. And look, the Republican leadership did not vote to expel George Santos, and a number of Republican members took that same position, including the Congressman from Michigan, who we're going to talk with right now. Bill Heizenga, released the following statement after voting against the expulsion resolution. The top line says it all quote. The accusations against mister Santos are very serious
and credible. While I find his behavior appalling, the Congressman rights every American deserves their day in court. Congressman Bill Hayzenga, welcome. Glad you could join us today, Sir, what precedent was just set.
Yeah, Joe, thanks for having me, and I think a bad precedent. Frankly, as I had indicated in my release, you know, we have not in the modern era ever expelled anybody who has not been convicted of a crime, not accused, not even having a really strong trail. And let's be clear, I don't think George Santos is, let me be charitable, a high quality individual. All right, Let's
let's leave it at that. But at the end of the day, I'm afraid that this is a slippery slope to the further and deepening politicization and and and weaponization of the processes that we've seen here in Washington, d C. And so look, we know if you look at individuals like Charlie Wrangell and others who have had serious serious issues including being I mean tax fraud and Charlie wrangles circumstances,
they were not removed from office. I believe it is only when the courts had ruled that is when the House should take actions. Otherwise it's up to the voters in each of those districts.
Well, of course, these allegations were wild. When the Ethics Committee report came out it felt like more than allegations, which I know made a number of members feel like they had no choice. The last line of your statement is when we should read as well as congressmen, you write, in America, even dirt bags deserve due process. The House could have trouble with dirt bags in office. Congressman, do you also empathize with the members who wanted them gone?
Yeah, I certainly do, and I understand it. I promised one of my Ethics Committee friends that I would read through the entire report, which I did last night, made notes, made notations in the report. I think it's very credible with what they have accused him of and the evidence that they have and that they're presenting. But also they're very clear that there's FBI involvement, there's a Department of Justice, and all of this has to be turned over to
the Attorney General as well. And as distasteful as he is, and the actions, as distasteful as they are and very possibly potentially illegal, that that that needs to rise to such a level. I mean, this is the most serious thing we can do in the House of Representatives, because we have just taken three quarters of a million people's voice off the voting board. You know, they no longer have their voice being heard in Congress, and that is
a very very serious thing. And I understand. I've had extensive conversations with my with my very good friends from from New York and Long Island and in that area that are having to live with him in that space and in the media and all those things. But I also know that there has been a deepening of the weaponization of the processes and the policies of government over the last few years. And frankly, I think expulsion and
impeachment have become sort of the new censure. It used to be in the day in fact that was here and when Charlie Rangel was centered, it was serious. I mean, it was somber, it was it was really heartfelt, And now it just seems like this has become far more commonplace. And frankly, I for once, I'd like to have a boring week in Washington where we actually legislated. That would be helpful. We haven't been doing a whole lot of that lately, and it's all been more personal and vendettas
and pinched fingers and massive egos, it seems. And we got to get back to serving the American people.
I have been asking Congressman, if this leads to a new era of expulsion votes, that's going to be to your point, that's going to be the new weapon. Every time somebody says something that someone doesn't like, we go through the expulsion vote, watering things down. You could argue the way impeachment has been watered down. But it's important
to note you're down to four hundred and thirty four members. Again, you've got a very slim margin as a Republican majority, and you testified before the Budget Committee recently in support of your Fiscal Commission Act save Social Security from a massive cut in the next decade. How do you get anything like that done on a serious level when it comes to policy and spending with such a thin majority.
Yeah, well, here's the real truth of the matter is something like that is not going to happen on a partisan vote line. That has to be bipartisan. It has to be by Cameron, meaning both the House and the Senate have to agree on a direction. And that's why I'm actually very very encouraged by what happened earlier this week with our hearing in the Budget Committee, my bill, and I'm paired up with Scott Peters, a Democrat from California.
We chair something called the BFF, the Bipartisan Fiscal Forum, and we're very focused in on our debt and our spending and the deficits that have been created. There was another bill that had been introduced by Ed Case, a Democrat out of Hawaii, and Steve Womack, who is a Congressman out of Arkansas. That bill was discussed as well,
but it was really more broad themed than that. And then after us, the next panel that came in was Mitt Romney and Joe Manchin, and they have introduced language in the Senate that's modeled on the bill that Scott and I introduced, and we've been working very closely with them. And here's what I do know, in a hyperpartisan moment era right now, this is going to be maybe even harder than what it had been back in the eighties when Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill and others were working
on these issues. I also know that with our debt thirty three point eight trillion dollars with a T, and the interest on that debt now outstripping what we are spending on every program that deals with women and children, almost eclipsing every dollar that we spend on the Defense department. It is crowding out that interest payment is crowding out our other priorities. And that's what I'm hoping is going to allow Republicans and Democrats to get together and say,
you know what, enough is enough. We've got to figure out how we save this system. Because this isn't a Republican saying this or a Democrat saying this. This is the trustees of those of the Trust Fund for Social Security that says in nine years, if we do not have a solution to this, there will be an automatic twenty three percent cut to every single payment. And guess what, I might be okay, you might be okay when in our later years. I turned fifty five next month, I
got a little bit of runway here. But guess what, I went to high school with people that.
There're still a young man, congressman, and you're grabbing the third rail. I appreciate your coming on to talk to us about it, including your vote today. Bill Heisenga. I'm Joe Matthew, This is Bloomberg. Thanks for listening to the Sound on podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already at Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one pm Eastern Time at Bloomberg dot com