Sound On: McCarthy Subpoena, Ukraine Aid Vote Delayed

along with four other Republican members. Welcome to the fastest hour in politics, with breaking news and extraordinary development that brings constitutional questions to the table and more partisanship likely to Washington. We'll get the latest from Bloomberg Government's Emily Wilkins on Capitol Hill and insights from national security lawyer Brad Moss, partner at Mark's Aid. The US Senate passes

tens of billions of dollars in weapons for Ukraine. Not yet actually, Jack Fitzpatrick will join us later with more as we count the votes heading into next week. As it follows, the House in the US is marking one million COVID deaths. Democrats pushing for more money to respond. Our panel today, Bloomberg Politics contributor Democratic analyst Genie Chanzano along with Lester months in principle at government relations firm b g R Group. The story broke midday here in Washington.

Five more subpoenas from the January six commission, but to actual lawmakers, to Republican members of Congress, including the minority leader in the House himself, Kevin McCarthy, who was of course heard on recordings leaked recently from The New York Times suggesting after January six that Donald Trump resigned. A scrum of reporters caught up with McCarthy today in the hallway after the news broken. I have not seen the subpoena. I guess they sent it to you guys before they

send it to me. Look, my view on the committee has not changed. They're not conducting legitimate investigation. Seems as though they just want to go after their political opponents. So it's unclear how exactly he's going to respond. The others apparently receiving subpoenas today as well, Jim Jordan of Ohio, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Brooks of Alabama, Andy Bigs of Arizona.

Let's get into this for a moment with Bloomberg Government's Emily Wilkins, who covers the leadership in the House for us, Emily, do we expect more of a response from McCarthy. Is there going to be a news conference or something tomorrow? Well, McCarthy usually has a weekly news conference, although that's not always a guarantee. UM. I think the the answer that he gave to reporters there is something we're going to

hear repeated though. I mean, he and Republicans have repeatedly tried to downplay the legitimacy of this committee looking into January six, Um, you know, just sort of saying that it's partisans, saying that you know, they're not that doesn't just going after their political enemies. UM, certainly, we're all

keeping our eyes on this committee. They have interviewed hundreds of witnesses at this point, UM, gotten hours of documentation, including from people like Ivanka and Jared Trump, and so you know, certainly it seems like their investigation has been really comprehensive. But I think what you heard from McCarthy there is what you're going to continue to kind of hear that drumbeat of downplaying the legitimacy of this panel.

Any word from the other members, Emily, Yeah, I mean we've heard a little bit, and it's kind of been in that same mold of saying you know that that you know they don't think that it's legitimate, and that you know this, they're not planning to appear in front of the committee at this point. I mean, really, this is a huge break though imprecedent, to actually have a congressional panel issue subpoenas for sitting members of Congress, one of them who has a very real possibility of becoming

Speaker of the House next year. I mean, this is just sort of goes to show exactly how divided things are right now in Washington and just how tense everything is. A lot of it is because of this fallout from January six. Incredible stuff. Emily, thank you for being with us, and thank you for helping us get that sound of Kevin McCarthy. That's what Emily does all day, stalking the

halls of Congress. Billy House writes on the terminal, the subpoenas are certain to lead to extended court clashes, potentially rooted, he writes in the constitutions speech or debate clause that shields lawmakers. Let's dive deeper into this with an expert Brad Moss, partner at Mark's Aid, specializes in national security and joins US. Now, Brad, welcome. We know the January six Committee is an uncharted territory here, the idea of

lawmakers sending subpoenas to lawmakers, this is a new level. Now, yeah, I mean this very much crossed, sort of an unwritten line about the idea of Congress going after one of their own with the legislative subpoena to appear before panel. We're in a bit of uncharted territory. We don't quite know how this will play out. I mean, we certainly know, and I think you know you heard the intro you just did kind of lads out. We're gonna see some

refusals to cooperate. I'm sure McCarthy, you'll do a press conference, one of those usual ones where's gonna indicate that they have no intention of complying and they're going to try to quash the subpoenas. There's going to be some interesting constitutional issues here in terms of not only speech and bait, but also the idea of executive privilege because of the fact that some of these individuals were interacting with executive branch official UM and so it's going to be a

very dragged out process. The question is will there be any real stomach to try to drag it out into litigation. Will there be a move to quashia subpoenas or will they define simply defy them. How do you quash the subpoena? If if he's your client, Brad, what do you do next? So? Yeah,

so the congressmen will will file in federal court. They'll move to quashia subpoena, claiming it's overbroad, claiming it implicates First Amendment right, it's any number of issues that justify shutting it down, which the federal courts have jurisdiction to do. When there's already court cases such as Mark Meadows case, where they're trying to do something like that. Um, that's what I would expect these They also heard though, that Meadows was cooperating with the committee for a while, and

we don't expect that to come from McCarthy. No. I have no anticipation, no reason to believe any of these members will cooperate, even Moe Brooks, who you know kind of got you know, shift a bit by the former then and shoved to the side. I still don't see him cooperating if he wants to have any political career going forward. Um, it'll be interesting to see if they

dare the Justice Department to indict them for contempt. Well, that's where this would go, right if they if they refuse the subpoena, as the courts uphold them, then this goes to Merrick Garland to make the next move. Yeah, and that is the one area where there's some potential exposure and some risk for these members, and that would go beyond whatever happens in the midterms, because if the midterms go the way we expect and Republicans take back the House, the panel is going to shut down and

there would be no civil litigation. But if this is if this gets the point where it gets a criminal referral to the Justice Department, that goes beyond the authority of the Republicans at that point to shut down, and that would be up to d o J. That's the one thing they don't want. How much chance do they have to slow things down? To your point, they get through the midterms and the story is going to change a lot. Know, the committee is said to hold hearings

next month. Can they delay this for the better part of the summer or longer. They can absolutely delay it if they handled civil litigation properly and just move too quations that are outright refusing to comply. That will ensure that the litigation goes past the mid terms and that there's never ever any resolution. So this is why, and you know this, brother, this is why everyone said today when it came out, Wow, big deal, unprecedented, but probably

nothing's going to happen. Is that how you feel? I think it was a bit of a political move to see how these republicants would respond, because let's remember, if, assuming they take back the House and possibly the Senate, they're going to have any number of hearings they're gonna want to hold on the Biden family and Hunter Biden. There's gonna be any number of subpoenas. They're gonna want

to be respected. So anything they do to undermine, whether simply politically or not to mention potentially legally, the authority of congressional subpoenas could come back to bite them in the public public view going forward. Interesting. But then again, what happened today at the committee, crossing that line just open the floodgates, most likely for Republicans when they take

the majority. I think it assuming that happens. And I think if you're if you're especially if you're a Democrat on the committee, you're pretty much assuming that they were going to kind of cross that line anyway. I mean they wanted to. That's absolutely right. As we spend time with Brad Moss partner at Mark's Aid and get a better sense of the legal aspects here, the speech or

Debate clause is interesting. This came up today that would shield lawmakers from essentially being arrested in their own house, right, Brad, correct? I mean the Speech and Debate clause, though, is not all encompassing and universal. It's designed to shield what they do in their official capacity and particularly on the floor of the House or in their offices. It's not meant

to shield them, um, from other actions they take. I mean, there's certainly been members of Congress who've gotten into criminal trouble, which to debate clause had nothing to do with it. I don't see that, given what you know already about these actions by these various members, I don't see that as some grand defense for them. Um. I see more of a executive privilege and more of a constitutional separation of powers problem in terms of trying to enforce this

against incumbent members. Yeah, you mentioned Meadows. Steve Bannon was the other. Have we learned anything from their experiences that would give us a sense of what comes here? Or this really is unprecedented because they're sitting members. You've got a member of the leadership. Yeah, I mean those those are very certainly different. You know, Steve Bannon was just the former bureacratic official. Mark Meadows was the you know, chief of staff. He wasn't the member of Congress at

the time of relevance for his subpoena. And even with them, you saw it with Steve Bannon's case, that's getting dragged on and dragged on and tied up in pre trial motions. It's you know, it's still no resolution to it. It's not clear that Steve Bannon really cares. If you spend six months of jail over it, he'll still never testifying. This speaks to some of the weakness of the power of Congress to compel compliance. You don't think you're gonna

see Kevin McCarthy in handcuffs. It sounds like I have zero reason at all to believe that would happen from this case now, and will this committee subpoena Donald Trump? Is that the next big move they're at most. I think they would offer the voluntary, you know, cooperation idea. They're not gonna spend their water political capital subpoena and him he would refuse it anyways, and there's gonna be no resolution to that before the midterms. They've got what

they need. The last person you really want to waste your time on in this kind of situation is Donald Trump, because he'll just talk your ear off. Okay, fine, is the committee? Lastly, Brad, we only have thirty seconds slowing itself down with these subpoenas. Why not get on TV with the information you have? I think I think I think they're ready to do that. I think it sounds like next month they're gonna have these big blockbuster hearing.

I think this is just a final political shot across the bow to see if they can put some pressure on these members, potentially make one break and provide some cooperations. I love to talk to again when we learn more. At Moss, thanks for the insights partner. At Mark's eight, He's been through this and well, no one's been through this, but a true expert on this style of law in Washington with national security and security clearances in his portfolio.

We're gonna turn it over to the panel next. Genie Chanzano is with us today along with Lester Munson. The fastest hour in politics this he's Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg. You sound on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio New Levels today in Washington. You thought you'd seen it all as the January six Committee sends subpoenas to five sitting members,

all Republicans, including the minority leader Kevin McCarthy. If you were with us at the top of the hour, you heard him say he hasn't seen the subpoena yet, and he doesn't sound like he's taken it very seriously. As we assemble our panel with Bloomberg Politics contributor to Democratic analyst Genie Chanzano and Lester Munson's with us today, principle at government relations firm b g R Group, former staff director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Great to have

both of you with us here. We didn't know we're gonna be talking about this tonight. Genie or their Democrats helping themselves or slowing the process. That is really starting to bump up against the deadline here if the majority becomes Republican. This committee has gone Yeah, I mean, the calendar is a big problem for the Democrats. It's been a big problem for this committee. They're obviously going to

have hearings in June. In terms of these subpoenas, I can't imagine that they expect there is going to be compliance. But I do think and we hear from the members that they thought important after they refused to testify, uh, you know, when they were asked that they be subject to subpoenas as Emily and you and everyone was talking about this is really really unprecedented. I mean, the idea that the future likely Speaker of the House is going

to be entered subpoena by his own houses. You know, in some ways people have described as a tsunami, and I think that is absolutely true. But does it feel like overreached you or do you like hearing this that you know what Democrats are going for it? Given the moment, I think it is important. You know, this is an

incredibly important moment in American history. Accountability is required five people killed, the attempt to halt the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in history, millions of dollars worth of damage at the people's house. I mean, for all of these reasons, in Kevin McCarthy's own words, he's considering usingendment. These are all reasons that is important that the Congress get accountability. That doesn't change the fact that

Republicans will likely see this as a witch hunt. And that's not going to change what's the move for Kevin McCarthy. Never mind the others here a lester, but we'll deal with the minority leader right now. Just continue kind of outrunning reporters in the hallways. There's nothing to see here? Or does he need to hold a news conference and look into the camera and tell people what's going on? From his perspective, I have to say, I think this

subpoena works to Kevin McCarthy's advantage, his real potential. And this is this is incredibly cynical, but boy, this is uh, this is the world we live in today. Um Uh. I don't want to take anything away from it was really awful, but uh, in the crazy politics we have today, the subpoena helps Kevin McCarthy because he's going to raise money on it, he's gonna fight it, He's gonna look like he's beleaguered, like the same people who are coming

after Trump are coming after him. And frankly, his potential political vulnerability is not necessarily with the moderates to the extent there's any elect in the party, it's with the

most trumpy parts of the party. Uh. And so this, if anything, helps him solidify that report, if he fights it, that this subpoena helps him fight, helps him give the image of someone who is fighting the same by trumpet, that's going to help him lock in the speakership and Republicans, as folks expect when when the election and so does that conversely bounce back on the committee and look like overreach, Well, I think you know, so the committee is doing, is

doing the work that congressional oversight committees do. It became very political, more political that had to when Speaker Pelosi decided not to see two of Kevin McCarthy's choices, and that and we're you know, this is the fruit of that vine um. Not to say again that the events of January six weren't horrific. They were, but this this

oversight process has been fraught from the beginning. Doesn't mean they can't come up with good recommendations and a good solid report and show us some things that we didn't know before. But I think the perception, certainly on the Republican side, it's largely going to be this is a

continuation of a political process. How about in terms of communicating this for the committee, Genie, do you stick with the schedule for for hearings, get in front of the American people and say, look, these are the people who refuse to talk to us, but here's what we know so far. You do? I mean, I agree with Lester

actually on the politics of this. You know, uh, in the times we are in, this does work to Kevin McCarthy's advantage in the short term, in the long term and for history's sake, we do need accounting of this. Oversight is a critical role that Congress plays. And let's not forget Kevin McCarthy likely to be speaker, he too will want to engage in oversight and can you imagine

what this is going to look like. They'll be retaliating with subpoena's, Yes, They'll also be trying to investigate other aspects of the Biden administration say, and they will run into a jugger not there as they attempt to do that. So this is gonna work both ways. It's going to work to his short term advantage, but long term it's bad for the American public and it is bad for you know, Republicans as they take control of Congress, if indeed they do, when this thing spirals out of control

like this is Donald Trump next, Lester? Is that the next subpoena? I'm sure he would love to be subpoena. Okay, Uh, you know, I apologize for laughing. It's a serious topic. Um, I think he wouldn't. He would enjoy being part of the limelight again. He would have something to talk about in public, which he doesn't really have now except for these Republican primaries that are popping up every week or so. Uh So they'd be doing him a favor. Lester Bunsen

is with us along with Jennie Schanzano our panel. For gosh, it's already Thursday, Thursday edition of Sound On. Uh, this is going to be dragged out, Genie. Does Kevin McCarthy just fight it until he runs out the clock? Is that to get back to where we started the strategy here. Yeah, I think the strategy as you try to squash the subpoena, you don't refuse, you try to quash it, and that will drag out. As we've all you know, unfortunately watched

this go on. It's going to drag out a long time, well beyond the time that this uh, they're gonna the committee comes forward. Genie and Lester's day with us our panel for the hour. They'll be back in a bit. As we turned to aid for Ukraine, I thought this was bipartisan, non controversial, but then Rand Paul showed up. No vote today in the Senate. You'll have to wait till next week. We'll speak with Jack Fitzpatrick from Bloomberg

Government Ahead on sound On, Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg broadcasting live from our nation's capital, Bloomberg to New York, Bloomberg eleven Frio to Boston, Bloomberg one oh six one to San Francisco, Bloomberg nine sixty to the country, Serious XM Channel one nine and around the globe, the Bloomberg Business app and Bloomberg Radio dot Com. This is Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew. The headline on the terminal Ukraine aide delayed after GOP Senator Hall objects to vote.

That would be Rand Paul who refused to allow the vote on forty billion dollars in aid for Ukraine unless language he demanded was added. And so we wait, we'll talk about that language coming up with Bloomberg Government's Jack Fitzpatrick. The President's waiting to sign this. So this was supposed to be pretty easy, right to Democrats stripped the COVID money, the COVID aid from the Ukraine bill, the Ukraine aid

that was supposed to sail through with bipartisan support. The President asked for the money thirty three billion dollars a couple of weeks ago. Democratic leadership kicked it up to forty. Even Mitch McConnell was on board. After the House passed it, we thought the Senate would do so today. Your crime is not asking anybody else to do their fighting for them. They ask only for the resources they need to defend

themselves against this lawless aggression. I strongly support the next package of LEASA military assistance, which the House has passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. Mitch McConnell on the floor this morning, thought, my goodness, it's a matter of just to tell me what time is the vote, and we'll let you know the outcome. Enter Rand Paul. If this gift of Ukraine passes are, total aid to Ukraine will almost equal the entire military budget of Russia. And it's

not as if we have that money lying around. We will have to borrow that money from China to send it to Ukraine. So there was no vote. That's the special thing about the Senate where I believe it was President Biden said, everyone's president when it's so this will probably take place next week. By the way, the language that he wanted was to give oversight powers to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan reconstruction, special oversight powers for

the Ukraine assistance. They want to know where the money is going. And Jack Fitzpatrick has been following this, of course with Bloomberg government and of course Bloomberg sound on, uh, Jack, I don't know if you saw this coming, but I guess Ukraine is gonna have to wait. How long does this slow things down for? It's gonna put it into next week at some point. Exactly how long it will take really depends on how many steps Senator Paul tries

to disrupt. If he really went for a full filibuster of this, you know, it could take a week or so. We haven't gotten an indication that that's what he's gonna do. But Senator Schumer has just filed for cloture this afternoon to go through the usual procedural steps. So it's not happening today. The senators essentially all seemed to have left for the weekend. Uh, and it's on next week's docket, and there's bipartisan support. It is just something that they

couldn't get done in a single day. Well, it will ran Paul get that language, or it's just a matter of taking another swing at this and having a few meetings with the other senator from Kentucky. It sounds like he's not likely to get his exact language. They actually offered him an amendment vote at a sixty vote threshold. He did not accept to that offer. He wanted the

unanimous consent agreement to consider his amendment adopted. Given that that he didn't accept the sixty vote offer, it seems that he doesn't have sixty votes in favor, but there is some interest in getting at this and and trying to give some special oversight powers to someone, whether it's the Afghan Afghanistan Reconstruction Special Inspector General or some other solution. Because this is a really huge amount of money. I mean, Ukraine's defense budget in a normal year tends to be

somewhere around six billion or so. Uh, this is a forty billion dollar bill. So there are other members, you know. John Kennedy, the Republican from Louisiana, said he can work on a standalone bill. Maybe it's not attached to this, but there could be future legislation trying to ramp up oversight of this money. I think that's that's an actual

substantive issue rather than just a procedure. Well, this so this I wonder how much of a conversation this will become as as Senator Paul points out, Ukraine will have received about sixty billion dollars from the US since last year that exceeds the budget for the State Department and could in fact start contributing to inflation. Is that a and Paul liners that become a Republican line later in the year. The inflation line on this is more of

a Rampaul line. Obviously, Republicans are campaigning on the issue of inflation and Democrats feel the need to risk respond to that. If you're talking tens of billions of dollars in foreign aid, that pales in comparison to the larger stimulus issues that we've seen. But it gets at the question of you know, Ukraine's GDP in recent years has been like a hundred sixty billion. We're talking about a

very significant infusion of resources into a politically unstable area. Obviously, a lot of support for President Zelinsky, but you when when the US does this kind of thing, they want to make sure there's their anti corruption measures, they're tracking the money, and so that will be a broader discussion that is not going away. That's not just a Ran

Paul issue. That's a real issue. This just tripped it up because Paul was demanding we need to adopt this on this bill right now or we're not going to have a vote. But I would expect lawmakers to continue having that conversation about how do they really thoroughly track the money? Jack. It was an important development when the President and Democratic leadership agreed to drop this uh this

attachment of COVID response funding. There was going to be another ten billion dollars for testing and for treatments, as we discussed. The President issued a statement on this saying he realizes that this is gonna bog things down. What happens to that COVID money though I know that Speaker Pelosi was talking about it today, doesn't even like the sounds of the deal for ten billion. With Mitt Romney, she says, they want the full twenty two that the

President asked for. Is that even possible? Uh, it's getting more and more difficult to see what the path is going forward for COVID AID. The knees are increasing, but it's just getting more complicated for them to negotiate this. Uh, you're right to mention. Yeah, it was a twenty two and a half billion dollar request for domestic and in ter national needs. They initially had a deal for ten

billion just focused on domestic needs. Then that Title forty two immigration issue and Biden's decision to end that policy trip that up. As that has stalled just the domestic portion. There is a recognition that the international stuff needs to be addressed. If you talk to Republican lawmakers like Lindsey Graham or Roy Blunt. They say, yes, we do need to add more. But obviously the question of how do you upset that, how do you address the immigration issues,

that's very, very complicated. I point out the U. S a i v. Administrator just cold lawmakers yesterday they're going to run out of money as soon as July thirty four on vaccinations globally. Alright, Jack, when they're playing us out. Jack Fitzpatrick, Bloomberg, Government Congress reporter. Thanks for the insights. I guess we checked back next week. You know, if it happens, we'll hear about it on sound on. We'll talk to Jack, then we reassemble the panel next. This

is Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg you sound on with Joe Mathew on Boomberg Radio Ukraine. Will wait, and apparently so will the leadership in the Senate. Wait for Rand Paul and get around this. They'll send them legislation, likely to President Biden's desk next week. As we discussed with Jack Fitzpatrick, we want to talk about this with the panel.

Also want to talk about the COVID summit happening today at the White House and a very scary and sad milestone that we're talking about today with a million deaths in the United States. Gini Schanzano is here Bloomberg Politics contributor, Democratic analyst today spending time with Lester Monthson's back with us on Sound on Principle at government relations firm b g R Group. So let me have it, Lester, what would you tell Rand Paul if you were on the

Senate Floriday hearing all this happened. I would tell Senator Paul that, hey, you know, we have Inspector's General at the Defense Department, at the State Department, at the US Agency for International Development. It is their job to track exactly this kind of spending. Uh So, this this little show that we're doing where he wants to focus on the special Inspector General I believe from Afghanistan as as the vehicle here is a little bit of a distraction.

Rand Paul is gonna Rand Paul, everyone knows this. He's got his little moment here. It's going to delay things by a few days. I guess there is a lesson here for congressional leadership. They could have anticipated this and built something into the bill earlier. Doesn't mean he wouldn't have done a little show piece on some other aspect of the issue. But you know, I have I have a feeling in the end, Uh, we're going to get what we need. It's going to be delayed by a

couple of days. I'm not sure that's real material, but it's it's a nice little show for Rand Paul. It is an odd time to bring this up, Genie Democrats out. They've cleared the decks by stripping the COVID funding and now this, Yeah, you never cleared the decks when you're talking about the Senate these days. And you know, and and and Rand Paul, when when Jack was talking he might potentially do a filibuster. You know I am. I am a fan of the old talking filibuster. We remember

his on the drones. I want to bring it back. I want him out there. If he's going to do it, I think he should really do a talking filibuster. Um. You know Till Lester's point, the idea that there isn't oversight already with forty billion dollars going out the door. Um, this is something that you know, when the American public hears about this, they'd be scratching their heads. You know, where is this money going there's no overse and of

course there's oversight. So this is a tactic. But this is a tactic that has worked for Paul in the past. He's not as sort of non interventionist as his father, but this is something he is committed to and it's helped increase his name recognition his last go at. This was why he ended up running for president in so it's something that will work for him personally. Well, there's two different issues here, Lester. There's the there's the oversight,

which you've spoken to. There's also as he's bringing up the matter of inflation. If you if you drop sixty billion on Ukraine and Republicans are helping to pass this legislation, Uh, is that in fact the driver of inflation? When when we're talking about the trillions that have been spent to get us out of COVID, well we've already got inflation.

Well yeah, Does that make it worse though? Or is that just a joke after spending the trillions that Republicans are blaming the Biden administration, you know, for pouring kerosene on the fire. I suppose, I think generally, no, I suppose if you were in the market to buy a howitzer, you would notice that prices may have bumped bumped up a little bit because there's a war on and and we're buying howitzer's for for Ukraine. If you're buying armed drones,

maybe the prices will go up a little bit. But I think that's really not a very good argument on the Ukraine package overall wouldn't have flown, uh, I think in World War Two. I mean, we're talking about len Lease two days ago here, Genie. This is a very different feeling conversation. It is, And you know, I think if Rand Paul is opposed to the funding, he should be very clear on that and let others who are

as well step up. But the reality is there is a super majority that supports this for all the reasons that we've talked about, and so let it get out the door. At this point, he's free to vote against it, but to sort of hide, which I think is what this is under this idea that it's going to increase inflation doesn't seem to be an honest response. If he's opposed to the funding, he should stand up and say it. Yeah,

so you guys both agree on that. How does this end Lester just put with a no vote from Rampaul. I expect so he may even let it go on a voice vote next week. He's had his moment in the sun. This is this is not a serious legislative proposal. Uh. He wanted he wanted to get some perform You want to get a little performance out there. He's done that. I suspect this will this will be pretty flicked next week and there should be no further bums. Well, I

mentioned COVID eight a couple of times. We talked about this just for a moment with Jack there. There was supposed to be originally, well, the request from the White House was twenty two billion dollars that got whittled down to ten in a deal with Mitt Romney, and then the whole thing had to be excised because it just wouldn't have gotten enough votes enough Republicans to make this happen. As as the Democrats were attaching this to the Ukraine

aid bill. Uh, it's unclear where we're going here. Nancy Pelosi was asked about it today. Here's what she said. Since the ten billion was discussed, the threat has increased, as some of the Republican senators said, well, if it the threat increases, then let's talk about it further. So I think that we should start with what we need. And by the way, that didn't mean it was the end of it. It just depends on the variance and

what else happens. So she doesn't even want this ten billion dollar deal, Genie, she wants the full twenty two. And that just doesn't feel like a realistic conversation right now, doesn't It doesn't, And you know, they are the frustration I think of watching the Democrats at a certain point over the several months is this. You know, we will only go for everything, and we won't settle for half a loaf. We need the funding for COVID, that is clear, and take the ten twelve if you can up it.

But to fight for all or nothing puts us in a position as we look at increasing numbers they're threatening. In the fall, we could see a big increase and leaves the government without an ability to fight back, and that doesn't help anybody. Well, I mean, even the ten billion would be difficult to pass from what we're hearing Lester. And this comes on a pretty important day, the Biden

administration opening its second summit. It's COVID summit aimed at bringing this to an end at some point, as COVID deaths in the United States hit a new milestone. Here's the president from earlier today, we mark a tragic milestone here in the United States. One million COVID deaths. I mean we knew, I guess this was going to happen, Lester, but just to see to read and hear that number.

One million. By the way, the e you two million, and you can't get enough votes for ten billion dollars to keep the testing and the therapeutics going, if not now when well it's a it is certainly a notable number. Uh and and it has been a long, long two years plus that we've been living with COVID. I think you pair that up with the fact that most Americans don't really feel like COVID is the threat that it used to be. Plus the fact that we spent a lot of money on COVID before, some of which is

still around. Republicans are not wrong to make the point that we can redirect some of that spending that hasn't gone out already. I do I do want to make one quick point here, Joe good for the Democrats, for not tying that that kind of benighted COVID money to the Ukraineviille, that was a good move on their part. They knew that was the bipartisan package. They let that go through that way. It's going to get a little confused here on on the COVID package. I don't think

it's going anywhere. We all knew that is true. And good for the Democrats for separating the Ukraine money from that. I think that was a smart vote. You agree with that, Genie, because it could mean it's never going to happen. I think it was important to get the Ukraine money well, hopefully get it out next week. And I do think it's important to go clean on that this also has

to pass. And as we listen to this milestone, I think we can all remember when they were saying, you know, a hundred thousand deaths or two hundred thousands of people were stunned by those to imagine we are sitting here today with one million in the United States alone, and it is a stunning number. And the idea that if we don't get at least ten out and that we haven't learned the lesson that we need to prepare to combat something like this. That is also says a lot

about Congress. I agree people want this behind them, but the reality is it's not going to be, and it isn't unless we have the resources to fight it, and that requires money, and that requires funding from Congress. Well just wait for the next variant, Lester. You can see this already. It happened with oh Macron coming out of Delta. Remember the White House got crushed because people couldn't get their hands on tests. We're gonna do this all over again. Well,

I still think there's funds available to do this. I think there's a lot of politics inside the Democratic Party on money that's been given to the States that they don't want to claw back. I think that's a real thing. And let me make the other point that the real need here is global. We we don't have vaccines for other countries, particularly the developing world. That is a real urgent need. I'd much rather see that be the priority

right now. Worth noting, by the way, the summit, the COVID summit I mentioned, garnered a total of three billion dollars in new pledges with the world at a major crossroads here, and it's COVID response and We're always watching to see what is going on in China. Genie and Lester many thanks, great panel today, great conversation here on sound On, where we throw some of the best minds in politics together and just air it out here on

the Fastest Hour in Politics. Before we wrap it up here, I want to turn to what happened a couple of days ago at the Washington National Cathedral. Today is the day with one million, but they held a special prayer service on the ninth, sounding the funeral bell one thousand times to mark one million dead. It was followed by one additional toll as a reminder of the ongoing dangers presented by the virus. According to a news release from the cathedral, this is what it sounded like on Wisconsin

Avenue since the pandemic began. The Cathedral of scheduled a bell tolling every time another one hundred thousand Americans have died after contracting the virus one million today. I'll meet you back here tomorrow on the Fastest Hour in Politics. Sound On. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg