Now from our nation's capital. This is Floomberg's sound on. The people I have are hard working people that are getting hurt at the grocery store. They getting hit hard at the gas stations. In Oberga Fell. The court said, no, we know better than you guys do, and now every state must sanction than and permit gay marriage. Floomberg Sound on Politics, Policy and Perspective from DC's Top Names. We are working to protect women's right to control their lives.
It's clear to me that when it comes to this congressional district, people are looking for another option. Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. It is hot, hot, hot outside, but is it hot enough for the President of the United States to declare a climate crisis. We're going to preview the announcement that President Biden is expected to make tomorrow, as well as the upcoming January six hearing and the latest on Steve Bannon's trial, which is
ongoing today. Plus a look at what Congress is doing trying to move two major pieces of legislation, one of them that would give billions of dollars to the semiconductor industry and another that could help millions of Americans with healthcare, but doesn't nearly go as far as Democrats were initially hoping for. I'm Emily Wilkins. Hopefully Joe Matthew is off keeping cool somewhere. I'm super excited today because we've got
a really great guest joining us. Um is someone who I constantly bug all day every day to try and keep me up to date with what exactly is going on with Congress. My Bloomberg Government, Bloomberg Government colleague, Zach Cohen's joining us today. Zach, thank you so much for
being here. UM. I know that for the last week that you and I particularly you have really been following a lot of this debate around the semiconductor bill, and we're expecting a procedural vote in the Senate on that one today, right right, I mean that vote could come literally any minute. I've got the Senate floor pulled up here on the computer. Uh, it's been chips, chips all the time over in the Senate. This week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is trying to get a procedural vote
through for a really major semiconductor manufacturing incentives bill. Key to this is the fifty two billion dollars in direct subsidies for those chips, as well as a tax investment UH tax credit that could be included as well. But there's some last minute wrangling over some of the provisions in there. Um, so we could see an initial vote on that um and potentially more votes in the days to come. Lots of drama here trying to figure out if they can actually wind up getting a vote today. Zach.
I did want to check though, because I remember Republican Senator John Cornyn last week he kind of seemed a little bit sour on this. He's you know, he and McConnell were kind of saying, well, if Democrats are working on reconciliation, we're not really sure about moving ahead with this bill. What's changed, right, So, the Reconciliation Bill, or formerly known as Bill Back Better, has sort of been
hanging out in the background. Both Senator Joe Mansion Senator Chuck Schumer had been engaged in sort of private negotiations over some form of bill that can pass on a party line vote through the Senate and avoid a Republican filibuster um. That bill has basically come down to at this point, some legislation on drug pricing and on Affordable Care Act or Obamacare subsidies, and that's basically all they've
been able to agree to. And while Republicans have said, look, we're not going to negotiate on a bipartisan bill while you're having this partisan negotiation on the side, they've basically said that bill is probably small enough, we can go ahead and move forward on this chip's funding, which they see not only as important but really as a national security concern. Yeah, talk a little bit more about that, because I know Commerce Commerce Secretary Gina Romundo was in
the Capitol last week. She talked to senator, she talked to House members, and her message really seemed to be that this is incredibly urgent not just for manufacturers, producers,
car producers, but also for national security. Right basically right now that you've got companies like Intel and other semiconductor manufacturers that are weighing basically which countries to start building these semiconductor manufacturing plants in in the United States, would obviously like to have a piece of that action, not just for the economic benefits, which is something that lawmakers like to talk about, but also for the fact that without a sort of steady supply of these chips, not
only can US manufacturers not count on them for sort of domestic goods, but also for key military equipment drones, planes, you name it that they really needed in order to build, uh, that particular machinery. And so Jina Mundo has been sort of pressing the case on a national security front in private classified briefings, first with the Senators, then with members
of the House. UM. And that seems to have gotten the ball rolling on getting Democrats and Republicans alike to recognize that while there's been a broader effort to try to get a China competitiveness bill known as the Innovation and Competition Act, the American Competes Act, it goes by a couple of different names, they're really moving on the front Endless Frontiers was always the best name. The Bi Parson Innovation Act is also a new one they've thrown
in there. Uh. And they basically said, look, let's move just the chips funding, just the semiconductor funding. We can back to all these other issues later. Um. Are they going to come back to any of these issues later? That's a good question and something we've been trying to figure out this week. But without this chips funding, which has kind of been the engine underneath this this bill this entire time, that's been bogged down and sort of
bicameral House and Senate negotiations for months now. You remember that the first version of this bill, uh, the Innovation Competition Act, passed the Senate in June um and so they have they have really sort of dragged their feet on this bill and have not been able to reach some really key decisions, not just on um say, the Trade Title and sort of changing you know, trade policy in this country, but also on things like how to
manage diplomacy with China and other major competitors. And so whether lawmakers can sort of have the the impetus and the priority to get to an agreement on some other provisions seems unlikely if they don't have sort of the ticking clock of trying to get the semiconductor funding done. I mean, speaking of large bills that have been slimmed down, I mean you mentioned reconciliation. We have to touch on the bill that is formerly known as Build Back Better,
was called build Back Mansion. I think I mentioned walked away from a good chunk of it at this point. I mean, Zack when I talked to folks in the House. There's there's a frustration with what has gone on. Congressman Andy Levin was on yesterday. He described it as kind of like Lucy taken away the football at the last moment before Charlie Brown kicks it. And I'm wondering what you are hearing too in the Senate, because it seems like for the House, you know, you can usually rally
enough folks together. The Senate is where things get really sticky. Are we going to have enough to pass a reconciliation package with just the two healthcare provisions? And when can
you see that going? You could see a reconciliation bill as soon as next week if they sort of get the final details done, Like I said, on this drug pricing provision, they're going before the Senate's top rulemaker, the Senate Parliamentary Elizabeth McDonough on Thursday, just to make sure that it's sort of follows all the budget rules that they have to meet in order to avoid a Republican filibuster. And I won't bother getting in too much into the
weeds on that. And then they've also got these A C A subsidies that they want to get included, that all could get done before Congress leaves for the recess. I think the House is talking about actually staying in an extra week, although I think I saw that you don't want that. The House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer apparently has vacation plans down in North Carolina the third week of August, so we you know, don't want to mess
with that at all. But certainly they could get something done before that August recess, which is kind of sacrosanct here in Washington. Whether they can come back and do the rest on maybe taxes or climate after Joe Manchin gets those inflation numbers he's been looking for, that's an entirely different story. I mean, it is wild to think, though, because we know that for the Senate process, they do have to go through a lot, right, They've got to go through those all night vote ramas. This is not
something that's going to be done quickly. If we don't see an actual reconciliation bill next week. Is there any way that this actually gets done before they leave for August? It could? It could. Yeah, that will be the sort of vote a rama that they'll have to do, um where normally for bills to come to the floor. There's an agreement reached between Democrats and Republicans to say we're going to go vote on X number of amendments just
to sort of speed things along. But the Senate, you know, also known as the world's greatest deliberative body, UM, in this case, it does sort of allow any Senator to offer as many amendments for votes as they want with limited debate. UM. And I think you know, we've seen dozens of votes on reconciliation packages in the past and during this Congress where Democrats, you know, not just on this bill where they had one initially to sort of set up this process, but also recall for the one
point nine trillion dollar COVID rescue plan, the American Rescue Plan. UM. And so senators are are no stranger to these late nights, but certainly they left to budget some time for them, for sure. And Zach, I also want to touch on a slightly different topic because you and I got to do a really interesting ed board panel UM with the Chair of the House Democratic Caucus, King Jeffrey's Um also sometimes referred to as the air apparent, to be the
leader of the Democratic Caucus. If when Pelosi decides to go. It's a really interesting person um and we talked with him a little bit just about different priorities, how those needed to get done, and he had something really interesting
to say about how Democrats get their agenda through. Yeah, we only have even two options, change Joe Mansion's mind or gain at least two Senate seats to add too affity, uh seat majority with individuals you know, who are willing to act decisively on the issues of the day in areas like defending reproductive freedom, enacting some form of comprehensive immigration reform, protecting the rights to vote, and certainly addressing decline the crisis. Democrats have two options, change Joe Mansion's
mind or gain two Senate seats. Zach, I know you've been following a lot of the Senate races across the country. What is the likelihood now that Democrats are actually going to be able to pick up two seats in the Senate next year? They're certainly better than the chances of Democrats actually holding the majority in the House. Where became Jefferies, you know, lives in breeds. You know, you've got places like Arizona and Nevada and Georgia, where you've got Democrats
facing really tough re election races. But then you've got other states like Pennsylvania or North Carolina where you've got open seats where Republicans are retiring, where Democrats feel decent about their chances, or maybe Wisconsin or Senator Ron Johnson is up for re election, maybe they can flip that seat. New Hampshire also on the board. UM, while Senator Maggie Hassan there one reelection by our one her first term, rather by a very narrow margin a couple hundred votes.
Remember correctly, Um, the Republican field hasn't exactly stacked up against expectations. So UM, the Senate does typically um buck historical trends. It's not like the House where you can expect the majority party to lose seats UM in the Senate because each senator has you know, a sort of a bigger name recognition and is able to sort of build their own uh name I D and and their own fundraise for sure, and Democrats are particularly good on
that front. You could see Democrats you know, even pick up seats if they're able to sort of hold off these Republican challenges. But in a national environment like this. I think you've got to give the early edge to Republicans. Zack. I'm gonna give you ten seconds for this one. What is the Senate race to watch this year? Oh, definitely Nevada. Um, and not just because of Nevada, but they've also got three house races that are really interesting out of the
out of Las Vegas and the suburbs there. Um. It's got some of the highest inflation in the country. You got center Cathin Cortes Masto is running for a second term. It'll be a really good one. So what I'm hearing you say, Zach, is that Bloomberg government needs to send us to Vegas. That sounds like a jackpot idea. Zack Cohen, Bloomberg, Government's congressional reporter. Stick around. We're assembling the panel next to continue talking about Biden's potential climate crisis. This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to Bloomberg You sound on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. Emily Wilkins, I'm filling in for Jine today on sound On. Well, we are still waiting to see if the Senate is going to be taking a procedural vote today on pieces of legislation that would give more than fifty billion dollars to semiconductors and chips. Uh and here to discuss really the scope and importance of this bill, we're going to assemble the all star panel.
Limbrick Politics contributors Genie Chienzano and Rick Davis, thank you both so much for joining us today. Um, I wanted to just begin with the idea of what happens if this bill does not get done. It seems like it's pretty close right now, but we always know that things can go wrong at the last minute. And Rick, I'm wondering, if this doesn't wind up happening, are the American people
going to see Congress as having failed in this arena? Yeah, I think this is a difficult one to really communicate to the American people. I mean, that concept that we're attracting and trying to hold and spur um you know, microchip manufacturing the United States. I mean, it's just, you know, the public hasn't really been brought in on this debate, right, It's not some urgent thing that has been in the
top of the news for a long time. And in fact, if you look at the newspapers, it is hard to even see coverage on this, so it may or may not resonate, certainly not with voters in the upcoming election. We haven't seen these kinds of things in any of the current polling. But look, I mean, I haven't seen much happening. Congress has got this much initiative behind it right now, and and and a bipartisan approach to it that um, you know, usually indicates are going to get
somewhere across the finish line. I mean, Rick, though, isn't there something to be said about some of the supply cheam shortages that we've seen at this point and the need to make sure that you know, even if Americans aren't aware that this chip spill is being worked on, they do understand what it's like to wait six months to get a car, or that their assembly line shut down for a number of weeks. I mean, could those in wind up having some sort of impact? Sure, I
think you see that already, right. That's been going on really since uh the uh full impact of the pandemic hit in. We've had these kinds of supply chain shortages. I mean, you know, also in the meat industry and also in you know, other non chip related businesses. But
I do think people are frustrated. I think it's come out of the government hide uh and unfortunately for this administration has come out of their hide uh to where their ability to actually create change and improve the current condition of those kinds of backlogs have been really limited. Um and and and I think that's the concern a
lot of politicians I talked to. They don't want to make this sound like all of a sudden, you know, they're gonna unleash this torrent of chips into the market and you're you're gonna get your car in time, and that refrigerator you've been waiting for, you know, you didn't
even know you had a chip in your refrigerator. But I think that's part of the caution, is that this is really a mid term strategy to try and sustain and attract those chip manufacturers into the country, a lot of which is already happening, but that, um, you know, you have to spur the industry to continue there. And
that's where these subsidies come in for sure. And you know, even sort of mentioning that this is something that Democrats have used as messaging, I mean often when you talked to Democrats about what they're going to do about inflation. This is a bill that they often bring up. I mean, you asked the sort of if they think it's going to have any immediate impact. Most of them admit it's going to take a while, but this is certainly something that Democrats at least seem poised to use as part
of their larger messaging. Um. The other interesting aspect of this though, I mean, for so long we've heard about this chip shortage, chip shortage, chip shortage. The Wall Street Journal had this really interesting op ed today, uh saying that you know this bill, it started about it more than a year ago at this point, and things have changed, that supply has increased, and they actually say that this bill would be corporate welfare. Genie. I just wanted to
get your your take on that. Do you think that that's something that that could wind a plane into this larger debate? It could, and it was a really fascinating editorial.
I two read it, and it creates some strange bedfellows because of course, you have a combination of free market you know, opposition on the Republican side on the right, and this idea you hear from people like Bernie sandals Sanders about a bailout for big business, And while I don't personally abide by this idea, there is some truth
to that. You look at the tax credits alone, it's double R and D for all other industries through, leading some people to say this is a enormous pork bill for one single industry, and imagine if other industries start to ask for it. And to the point that the
Wall Street Journal editorial was making. While this may have made sense in the midst of COVID, now that interest rates are up and inflation is up and the demand is down, there's not as much of a need for it potentially, So I do think this is what leads us to the reality of this. And Rick is right, it needs bipartisan support if it gets through the Senate. Pelosi is not going to be able to push it
through the House with just Democrats alone. They're gonna they're gonna have some fallout and see this of the bailout, and so she's going to have to get bipartisan support in the House to push this through as well. So it is a really interesting conundrum. And I would just give kudos to Romando you mentioned and also to Chuck Schumer for hammering home the case that this is a
security threat both economically and nationally. If it doesn't get done, Romando said, if it doesn't get done this week, China wins. So that's how seriously they're taking us. Genie, I'm gonna put you on the spot here with a with a quick twenty second answer, what are the odds that Democrats and Republicans can get the other portions of the bill they're leaving on the cutting room floor done before the end of the year. Oh, at the tough one really quickly.
I'm never very optimistic, so I don't think so. I think if they get this, they're gonna just get this straight bill. I don't think they're going to get more. Genie, rick Um, I know that we will be chatting with you guys in just a little bit of but next up next we're gonna be previewing that January six prime time hearing on Thursday and the Steve Bannon trial going on today with Mark said, I'm Emily Wilkins. This is Bloomberg. Well now excited to welcome to the show. Brad Moss.
He is a lawyer specializing in national security, federal employment and security clearance law as well as the deputy executive director of the James Madison Project. And I know that he's been following so many of the ins and outs of not just the January six panel, but also many of the things that are going on around the wider investigation. Brad, thank you so much for joining us today. Wondering if we can just sort of start at the thirty foot view here, Why is Steve Bannon on trial and what
did we learn today from that trial? Sure? So, Steve Bannon is on trial for the simple fact that he received the congressional subpoena from the January six Committee to testify about what he observed and knew about the events leading up to and then on January six, as well to provide a whole mess of documents. He straight up
refused to do any of it. He didn't testify, he didn't come in to testify, he did produce any documents, He didn't produce a privilege privilege log about documents he might have produced if they weren't covered by privileged nothing. He simply said, I'm covered by executive privilege by the former president. I'm not coming in. You can't make me, you know, for lack of a better phrase, and he was referred for criminal contempt by Congress to the Department
of Justice, and Department of Justice indicted him. So how is that argument going for him, that he has executive privilege because he did work as strategist for some time. Correct, It's gone nowhere for him. So mind you all the events that took place leading up to January six, Steve Bannon was a civilian, he was no longer working for
the government. He's no longer a White House aid. He filed a bunch of motions at the beginning of this criminal proceeding, trying to argue that he was covered by privilege, that his actions were authorized by the former president, that he was relying on guidance from legal counsel. The arguments were all thrown out. The judge rejected them all. He tried to push off the trial a couple of times.
The argument was rejected. The judge said, no, We're going to trial, and today we started at the jury was seated opening arguments, and the first witnesses began, this thing is going to be done by the end of the week. Oh wow, that quickly, I mean, is it looking good? For it doesn't sound like that it's looking good for
him at this point in time. I mean, what what could this mean, the outcome of this trial mean for others who have gotten a subpoena from the January six Committee and also not bothered to then appear in front of the committee. Sure, so, for the most part, almost an overwhelming number of people who have been subpoenaed by the committee or have been asked to cooperate have come forward and provide a testament. You've certainly seen a lot
of that in the January six hearings. The people who haven't are Trump's most by and large, Trump's inner certainly think of Peter Navarro, who was already indicted. You think of Mark Meadows and Dance Gavino, the White House aids who were referred for contempt but d o J declined to prosecute them. Uh, those individuals are the are the small select few who have declined. They will likely at this point just play it out the way they already had.
Mark Meadows and Dance Gavino. No, they're not going to be indicted at this point, so they don't care. But it does go forward from purposes of this prosecution assuming there is a conviction. It goes forward to the point that Congress does have some power here. They can compel people to testify. If the people refuse, there are punishments, there is criminal liability. I also want to take a minute and just spin this forward to their sesday night, when we are going to be hearing the next public
hearing from the January six panel. We're going to be hearing from former Trump Deputy White House Press Secretary Sarah Matthews, as well as former Deputy National Security Advisor Matthew Pottinger. Both of them are expected to testify. We heard today from House Democratic Caucus vicee chair pe Aguilar, who told reporters the testimony will show how former how former President Trump did not stop, did not act to stop the
attack on the Capitol. Will continue to detail, specifically this hearing that failed leadership, how Donald Trump failed to take that. Oh seriously, Brad, I'm wondering what you're going to be looking for from this hearing on Thursday night. Yeah. My plan with this hearing is I want to see how
much more they flesh out. And this is that that personal knowledge that these two witnesses can provide of once Trump was back in the White House and the breach had occurred at the Capitol leading up for those several wor as well, we all watched on TV live as the mob, you know, infiltery of the Capital put members of Congress and the Vice president at risk. What was
actually going on at the White House. We've heard some testimony both live from Cassidy Hutchinson as well some tape that positions of various White House staff about what they were called the President doing, but few have been close enough to have actually observed him directly, as opposed to having heard it from other people, like hearing it from
Mark Meadows. So it'll be interesting with these two individuals who were very close to the president, part of his inner circle, what they can elaborate on, what they can flesh out in terms of how much the president knew about truly what was going on there, What was he actually doing, what actions was he taking to stop the riot? I can I ask why it's so important that we look at what Trump did and did not do to stop that riot. Is there some sort of criminal charge
that's related to that? Could this lead to some sort of criminal charge down the road. So so it's too part one is obviously political and historical, and it's the idea of outlining exactly what after all these hearings we've seen, all the things that he did leading up to January six, the plans he put in place trying to prevent the certification of Joe Biden as president, all those steps he took to try to influence the campaign and the o J and all that that. The actual date of January six,
he gives a speech and then the breach occurs. Whether or not he was deliberately, whether he was knowingly letting it continue without regard for the safety of the members of Congress, for the Vice president, and for the certification process, and if he was doing it because he wanted things to be halted, he wanted to be able to have another way to prevent the certification. That's both political and historical in terms of making sure the public understands what occurred.
But it's also a potential criminal issue, whether it comes down to conspiracy to obstruct official proceedings and any number of potential criminal angles that we've seen with the boat Keepers and the Proud Boy. That's what we're gonna look to see if this flash out a lot to unpack. There certainly will be a interesting blockbuster hearing Brad, thank you so much for joining us. That was Brad Moss,
partner at mark Zaide. Stick around. We're about to dive into President Biden's announcement tomorrow on an executive order on climate. This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg Sound on on Bloomberg Radio. The UK has reached a record high heatwave today, and while we are not in the United Kingdom, it feels pretty awful outside in d C. I believe it also feels pretty awful outside in New York. Now. Not many people are are being spared with this very hot summer weather.
And when it talks about the heat, I mean, we're we're kind of joking a little bit here, but being very serious. There is a lot of discussion right now about what needs to happen wind terms of climate, and it's gotten so intense that Jeff Merkley, Senator from Oregon, has asked President Biden to declare a climate emergency, stating that it's very unlikely at this point that the Senate
is going to be able to do anything more. They had that climate package, but Senator Joe Mansion, he's walked away from it, at least for now, and even though he's under pressure from his colleagues, Mansion's kind of really staked out his position here. This is what he said the other day. I don't represent the states they represent, and the people I have are hard working people that are getting hurt hard at the grocery store, They getting hit hard at the gas station and everything they pay for.
So now the ball is in President Joe Biden's court and we'll be watching tomorrow when he gives a speech at a shuttered coal fire power plant in Massachusetts where he's going to lay out the next steps here. Uh. Senator Merkley's called called for a climate emergency. We still are learning exactly how far this is going to go. To discuss this more, we're bringing back are all all star panel, Genie she In, Zano, Rick Davis, Jennie. What
can Biden actually do here? And is this climate emergency any different from any other executive order the President might put out. Yeah, he's getting a lot of push. You mentioned Jeff Merkley leading that charge from the Senate that essentially this legislation is dead. We're going to be facing a divided Congress potentially in a matter of months, and so now is the time to act via executive order. And he's certainly pushing for this climate emergency, and there
are powers available to the president to execute that. Some of them though, require Congress to authorize, which is not going to happen. And um, you know, we still don't know, at least the last I checked, whether in fact Biden is going to go ahead and do that. What I'm hearing is he's going to notuce that he's going to take steps on climate change, but stop short tomorrow in Somerset,
Massachusetts of declaring a national emergency. So we have to sort of wait and see how they're going to respond.
But certainly they're frustrated and they're getting a lot of push And of course it is a perfect situation of sort of a perfect storm, if you will, for the president, because on the one hand, he's got inflation, high oil prices, and the heat in the United States and you've been talking about around the world people are really focused on climate change right now, and looking at a US Congress that can act and a president who, by many estimations,
seems unwilling to do what his powers allow him to do, and that's a real challenge for this White House. Absolutely, And another thing for Biden to try and keep in mind here is that if he goes too far with what he is proposing, he does risk isolating Senator Joe Manchin. I mean, he's walked away from some of these climate proposals, but there is some hope that maybe he'd come back after September, and there's still that major healthcare bill that
Democrats are interested in moving through. I mean, Rick Davis, what's kind of the balance that Biden has to walk here on this announcement tomorrow? Yeah, I family, I think you've really figured out that the dynamic is much more complicated than just having, you know, a right to be able to administratively do these these things on climate. Joe Mansion is the key to future activity in the Senate for the next two years. I mean, this is not
something that potentially could change tomorrow. I mean we've been talking about the elections. They could be right back in a fifty fifties Senate and potentially a House that's Republican, and so they need Joe Mansion is stop the Senate from doing things that Republicans want them to do. And so you know this is this is a political dynamic that has great implications with policy. And and you've got to believe Mansion when he says, I'm willing to negotiate
on climate. I'm just not willing to negotiate on on this reconciliation bill, which by the way, has been pretty consistent throughout the court of the last year and a half. Biden's got some options, you know, that he could do administratively, and he should do those things. Uh, he didn't need
to have a emergency declaration. You know, there are many things he can do around pollution from cars, and and and and and to put a little uh pressure on Joe Mansion by you know, talking about doing some things around coal and gas fired power plant regulation. So I think he could bring him along to the negotiating table if he wants to put some heat on Mansion and Genie.
I'm wondering as well for some of these Democratic voters who were expecting this big climate package, they're now not getting that they saw that Supreme Court ruling and limiting the powers of the e p A. How is it How important is it for Biden with his actions to show voters that he still is that the Democrats really
are still the party that's pushing the climate agenda. As we see in all the polls, voters on both sides really frustrated by the lack of action on on these and many other issues in Washington, d C. And of course Biden bears the brunt of that. Being the president, the buck really does stop with him. But his challenge is great because while people voice concern about climate change, it doesn't nearly rise in the polls to the level of something they express like inflation, jobs, those kinds of
issues the economy. Those are the issues they really vote on, they really get out on. So he's got to walk a really fine line here of showing that he is taking this seriously and he's moving forward as best he can with some kind of agenda. To Rick's point, working with Joe Manchin on the other hand, pole wise, politically, it's most important that he focuses on inflation in gas prices, because that's what people say still is the number one issue for them going to the polls. So we've obviously
got that announcement tomorrow. We did just get noticed that the Senate will be taking that first procedural motion on the big Semiconductor spending bill. But there are also two smaller bills that are going through the House. They're really interesting because after the Supreme Court overturned ro versus Wade, Democrats are now rushing to codify other Supreme Court rulings recently. UH. These include the right to contraception as well as a
marriage equality the right for same sex marriage. Now, the House is expected to vote Thursday on the Right to Contraception Act, which would codify access for birth control. North Carolina Democrat Kathy Manning sponsored the bill, and she told reporters today that Republicans are trying to limit the accessibility of contraception. We are working to protect women's right to control their lives. Our opponents are working to take women's rights away. So that's the bill that's going on Thursday.
And then today lawmakers in the House voted on the bill for same sex marriage equality UH and Senator Ted Cruz became the latest Republican to voices opposition to the Supreme Courts ruling to legalize gay marriage. He said on an episode of his podcast The Cloak Room that the ruling was quote clearly wrong. You know burger Fell. The court said no, we know better than you eyes do, and now every state must, uh must sanction and permit
gay marriage. Um. I think that decision was clearly wrong when it was decided, UM, it was the court overreaching. Whether the Court will reverse it, I will say so in Dobbs, what the Supreme Court said is Row is different because it's the only one of the cases that involves the taking of a human life, and that's qualitatively different.
I agree with that proposition. So for these bills, Rick, are they really just messaging bills or is there a real actual concern that the Supreme Court is going to overturn some of its other uh big cases that granted
these rights to same sex marriage and contraception. Yeah, I have no doubt that the Democratic sponsors of these bills have a fear that the Supreme Court is going to, um, you know, pursue this line into other privacy related matters like same sex marriage and contraception and and so I I don't doubt their genuineness of it, But the reality is that they're not likely to have success around it, and so are they just kind of bills to position
the party uh and create challenges for Republicans who might have to walk down the plank and vote against these things, which they really don't want to do. So, um, you know, I think I think it goes both ways. I think there's a lot of genuineness in the efforts of these sponsors, but I also think at the end of the day,
it's just a messaging exercise. Jimmy, do you think that these issues, I mean, we know that abortion is certainly going to be a big one, but I'm wondering when it comes to things like seeing sex marriage, like access to contraception, I mean, are those really going to be key issues in a mid term especially one where the
economy is still dominating everything? The economy is dominating. But it was fascinating today looking at some polling results, and the one area where the majority of Americans said either party was extreme was Republicans on this issue of abortion. And so I think what we're seeing here to Rick's point, you know, the Democrats and some Republicans obviously want to
codify these things, but we're also mid term season. They want to paint the GOP as this extreme party, and so they're gonna keep trying to get them on the record to say that they are going to oppose access to contraception. They're going to oppose same sex marriage because too many Americans that does. You know, wherever you stand on some of these issues, this party is starting to
sound extreme. You know, this often discussed issue of a ten year old girl being forced to go over lines state lines to get an abortion when she becomes pregnant by rapist. Those are the things that many Americans see is extreme. The Democrats want to talk about that in a mid term year, they feel the party being extreme and Donald Trump potentially running for president are the best two ways to get Democrats in a really tough midterm yere for them out to the polls. And they're going
to keep pushing on these things for that reason. And I mean speaking of that, Genie, uh, Congressman Hudkim Jeffreys agrees with you. His interview with the ed Board is now up on the terminal. Would encourage you to give it a read. Has some interesting things to say about what's going to go for it in the midterms. Genie Rick, thank you so much for joining us today. We've got more sound on through the rest of this week. Joe Matthew is coming back. This is Bloomberg