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.
As we all try to recover from whatever that was last night, and Marie calls it a candidate forum, I'm pretty sure it was a debate. Of course, didn't include the front runner, and it seemed to be a pretty good night for Nicki Haley. Now, as usual, we're watching so you don't have to. And as I see the headline on the terminal, kind of the conventional wisdom here across Town Wall Street, Darling Haley draws rivals fire as bid gains steam. You know you're doing well when everyone's triangulating.
And we'll get Rick and Jennie's take on this ahead. We're also going to talk to Alan Abramowitz up front from Emory in just a moment, but just to give you a sense of what it was like when the knives came out, many of them aimed at Nicki Haley. Enter vivek Ramaswami, complete with prop.
We're talking about that transition and Nikki Heally's campaign launch video sounded like a woke Dylan Mulvany bud lightad talking about how she would kick in heels. At the first debate, she said that only a woman can get this job done.
That's what she said.
After the third debate, when I criticized Ron McDaniel after five failed years of leadership of this party and criticized Nicki for her corrupt foreign dealings as a military contractor, she said that I have a woman problem, Nikki.
I don't have a woman problem. You have a corruption problem. And I think that that's where people need to know. Nicki is corrupt.
This is a woman who will send your kids to die so she can buy.
A bigger house, who would send your kids to die so she can buy a bigger house. If you couldn't hear him over the applause, it was at that moment that the vague Ramaswami held up a piece of paper that he scribbled with a sharpie. Nicki equals corrupt. That's where we start our conversation with Alan Abramowitz, Professor Emeritis at Emory University, in a voice we turn to at times like this, professor, it's great to see you I suspect you endured this exercise for the better part of
two hours as well. I just have to start there. What do you think of props in a debate?
Well, I don't think it's going to be very effective, let's put it that way. You know, I think vi Ramaswami is just sort of reinforcing the impression that most viewers would have already had of him, that he's extremely annoying, uh and you know, and and that he tends to uh put forth at a lot of conspiracy theories and so.
But it's understandable that he's attacking Nicki Haley, and it's understandable that the other candidates would be attacking her because she's the one who's been rising in the polls.
M hm, yeah, So that is probably a pretty good feeling, right, She said, you guys are jealous when they asked her about big money donors turning in her direction. Chris Christie called Vivike Ramaswami and a notious blowhard. Among other things last night, was that the last stand for Viveke. Where does he make it through the early States?
You know, I don't know. It's hard for me to imagine that he's going to be able to continue raising money given that he's you know, he's stuck in the low single digits in the polls both nationally and in the early States. So you know, wouldn't surprise me too much to see him dropping out of the race fairly soon.
Chris Christi, it's been suggested, might be considering the same. He certainly came loaded for bear last night. He was the only candidate I think who mentioned Donald Trump at least more than once, and it took about twenty minutes to get into the debate, which I'll ask you about.
He was going after vivike Ramaswami, though it was suggested earlier, and I believe it was Lauren Tomlinson who said on this program, amongst some others, that he may have actually had a bit of an agreement or a deal with nickcki Haley to try to have her back during this debate. That seemed to emerge a couple of times.
Here.
He is, though, going after a vivid.
Okay, you say you.
Can get every debate.
You go out on the stuff and you say something, all of us see it on video, we confront you on the debate stage, you say you didn't say it, and then you back away, and I want to send you I'm.
Not done yet. Well this look.
Say something, This is just the fourth debate, the fourth debate that you would be voted in the first twenty minutes as the most ub notxious blow hard in America.
Shut up for her life.
There it is, Professor of Bramowitz. Was he running defense for Nicky Haley last night?
Well, it certainly isn't her interest, I think because Ramaswami is going after Nicki Haley. So you're seeing Chris Christy taking on Ramaswami. Chris Christy isn't going anywhere, uh, you know, in this in this nomination race. So it's a question of, you know, whether Nikki Haley can consolidate the non Trump anti Trump, non Trump whatever you want to call it, vote quickly enough to make a respectable showing in the early states that would allow her then you know, to continue.
I mean, so she's made some gains, but the reality is that, you know, she's still far far behind Donald Trump. Everyone is far far behind Donald Trump. And I don't think anything that happened in that debate is going to you know, change that fundamentally.
I haven't even mentioned a guy named Ronda Santis at one time the presumptive front runner, and Professor, we know that he's been struggling. Although a lot of folks said it was his best performance last night. I found this curious as they got to matters of the economy and personal finance, the issue of inflation, which she hung around the neck of Republicans. Here's the governor from Florida.
These Republicans in Washington have spent. It's driven your prices higher, and it's driven your interest rates to the point where you can't afford.
Does that argue with the greater message from the GOP.
Well, I think he's trying to make is that he's not part of the Republican establishment, that he's challenging the Washington establishment, you know, and so by trying to blame Republicans as well as Democrats for excessive spending and foreignflation. I think that's that's the argument that he's trying to make. But whether that goes over, well, I don't know, all.
Right, Professor, how many of these for if not all of them, will be in the race when we go to Iowa next month.
So the question to me is whether Chris Christie is going to drop out fairly soon and endorse Nicky Haley. What we've already seen, there's been a movement of the sort of non Trump kind of establishment wing of the Republican Party to try to get behind Nicky Haley. With with the inability of Ron DeSantis to really connect with Republican primary voters, I think Nicki Haley is now seen
as the most viable alternative to Donald Trump. And we've seen that with the with the Coke money now coming in with their organization backing Nicki Haley, and so Chris Christy does have some support, especially in New Hampshire. So I think if he would drop out and endorse Nicki Haley in campaign for her, that could help her somewhat get at least closer to Donald Trump. And she desperately needs at least a strong second place finish in Iowa
and or New Hampshire. I think New Hampshire is a probably a little bit better bet, but one of those two states in order to continue her campaign, you know, beyond those early states.
It's good to see you, professor. Let's stay close as we make our way through the cycle. Sure it joins us from Emory University Professor Emeritus, Alan Abramowitz with a son Bloomberg sound on. I'm Joe Matthew at Washington as we assemble our panel. Die, I don't know what Rick and Genie think. We'll let this breathe a little bit here, because we've got a few more moments from the debate, and we've also learned that there are going to be a couple of more debates, which is something that I
believe Rick predicted here. We're gonna have one just before Iowa, We're gonna have one the night before New Hampshire. Let's bring him in now. Bloomberg Politics contributors Genie Shanzano, Rick Davis, we were watching, so you didn't have to. Guys. I'll start with sort of the obligatory question here, Rick, the guy who was not in the room and was barely mentioned last night other than Chris Christy, Was it another win for Donald Trump?
Yeah, I have to say, I mean, I don't think it's a win for Donald Trump anymore one because I don't think anything arrested Nikki Haley's climb, and that climb could threaten Donald Trump, especially in a place like New Hampshire. So you know, when these debates started, he had no threats legitimately, now he's actually got a potential threat. And when you look back, if anything happens in New Hampshire, like Nikki Haley's surprise victory, we know something about those
kind of things. People will analyze that his lack of attendance at these debates opened the gate for her to move up. So yeah, I mean, sure he didn't get any of the mess on him last night. He was out raising money having a good time, But I'm not exactly sure the history is going to prove that to be a good thing.
Before I bring in Genie Rick, we've just learned CNN's going to host two presidential primary debates, one at Drake and des Moines January tenth, the other will be at Saint Anselm in New Hampshire January twenty one. You've suggested he may actually show up to one of the do you.
Think, yeah, I mean, obviously he's going to have the benefit of a last minute drop in. Everybody wants him to participate. He's going to take a look at how his caucus is going an eye and make that decision right beforehand. And clearly, if there's anything that threatens him in New Hampshire, they'd be crazy not to have him debate, especially Nicki Haley. If that's what the stage looks like then so yeah, this could be a really crazy January, which is exactly what this election needed.
Yeah, well that's what we're in this for. I suppose Geenie, I guess I'll ask it a little bit differently than to Donald Trump or Nicky Haley went it last night. What's your thought?
You know?
For those on the stage, I think it was really hard if this was a one off. I think DeSantis did pretty well, but it's not a one off. You know. Nicky Haley won on the stage because she did no harm to herself, you know. But the reality is is that nobody is still able to compete with Donald Trump, and that is the reality. Nor has he suffered yet, and that's a question. Does he suffer in the future, But he hasn't suffered yet by his decision not to
be there. So, you know, I think the reality is this debate changed very very little as we think about where primary voters are. And so sure, if Nicky Hayley does better than expected in New Hampshire and Donald Trump shows up at one of these future debates, that's going to be important if he implodes going forward, people may look at the fact he didn't participate, But up to this moment, his lack of participation has done nothing to
dampen him and the polls. And that's quite frankly, where we stand at this point.
It remarkable he's back in court today. He's talking about being a dictator, joking about this two nights ago, and his numbers are pretty much the best that we've seen yet.
Rick.
I want to compare and contrast a couple of moments. Last night. Chris Christy was booed and he's getting used to that as he went after Donald Trump. Vivek Ramaswami was cheered when he went down the nine to eleven conspiracy road. Look out of these play against each other. Here's Chris Christy last night.
I want you all to kind of picture in your mind's election day. You'll all be heading to the polls to vote. And that's something that Donald Trump will not be able to do because he will be convicted of felonies before then and his right to vote will be taken away. You know, Look, there you go, here's the bottom line. You could go about it all you like. And continue to deny reality. But if we deny reality as a party, we're gonna have four more years at Joe Biden.
It wasn't much later when Vivek Ramaswami went for it with a multitude of conspiracies. Here, We're not just talking January sixth, We're talking nine to eleven.
Why am I the only person on the stage at least who can say that January sixth now does look like it was an inside up that the government lied to us for twenty years about Saudi Araga's involvement in nine to eleven, That the Great Replacement theory is not some grand right wing conspiracy theory, but a basic statement of the Democratic Party's platform, that the twenty twenty election was indeed stolen by big tech, that the twenty sixteen election,
the one that Trump won for sure, was also there's more went from him by the national security establishment that actually can't the Trump Russia.
Collusion hopes that they knew was false. So clearly he could have kept going there. Rick Chris Christie Boode for what he said. Vik Ramaswami cheered for what he said. We'll have more time for this. I know we're down to our last minute here, What does that say about the people who were in the room last night?
Magabama? That's what you got in that Tuscaloosa auditorium. It's well represented in Alabama, MAGA, and that's what they like. That is like red meat to the Magabam.
It's not even QAnon. But really fascinating is you know? As I mentioned, this isn't just jan six we're talking about, or all the elections that we can remember. It's nine to eleven and a lot more. Where that came from Rick Davis and Genie Shanzano just getting warmed up on the fastest show in politics.
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.
I learned early in my career from one of my mentors, Frank Barnaco, to beware the dear colleague letter and beware writing them, because that means something and it's usually not good When you get the email or the memo, dear colleague, as opposed to dear Joe. And that's exactly what the President got today from the Speaker of the House. Dear colleague, not dear Joe. Quote. I do not intend to have the House consider any further short term extensions, Mike Johnson writes.
The Fiscal Responsibility Act, he says, is the law of the land, supported by over two thirds of our conference, and it provides the framework from which we are negotiating final outcomes. Down a little bit further here, while we understand the very real security threats in theaters around the world, i e. Ukraine and Israel, yesterday's failed Senate vote is demonstrated there is no path forward on Ukraine funding without
meaningful transformative change in policy at our southern border. Recalling around this time yesterday, President Biden sent the shot across the bout from the White House urging the Senate to pass his supplemental funding requests, and it went down as expected. Failing Democratic Senator Dick Durbin called it disgraceful.
People are dying, fighting and dying in Ukraine for their freedom. We've stood behind them every step of the way, and to allow Congress to step away from this obligation, I think is disgraceful.
So picking up the pieces from here is going to be interesting. Senator Tom tillis Republican, of course, making clear that this is not a Republican problem when it comes to Ukraine.
Anybody who thinks that this is some game to prevent Ukraine funding needs to speak with more Republican members. We support a super majority of our conference supports Ukraine.
As re assemble the panel, Rick Davis and Genie Shanzano with us for the hour. Okay, it's Joe Biden's move. I guess here, Genie, As they're trading dear colleague letters and messages from across town, what should be the response from the White House. No more crs are coming?
Yeah.
I mean, first of all, I have to agree with Dick Durbin. It is not particularly stunning, but really really shameful. And you know, there we thought maybe the toughest thing would be reconciling between the House and the Senate or getting things past the House, and now it is the Senate that is standing in its own way. So I agree with him completely. It is shameful. I do hope there is a path forward, but as usual, time is running very short. Sometimes in Congress that helps, so maybe
that will help move things forward. But you know, the idea that they are stuck on this is incredibly problematic, and so I think the President and his team have to do. What they've been doing is to make the case that is in the United States best interest strategically, security wise, and economically and so forth, to move forward on this and to pass the supplemental bill that was submitted, and you know, any changes they want to make too,
that go ahead. But they have got to get this passed before the end end of the year because we all know what's going to happen when they come back.
So where's you gut here?
Rick.
The two senators at the center of these border negotiations, the Democrat Chris Murphy says talks installed because Republicans are making unreasonable demands that cannot pass the Senate in the end. Senator James Langford, speaking for Republicans, says counter proposals coming from Democrats wouldn't make any difference. It wouldn't lower the number of illegal border crossings. Are you feeling like we're getting closer or moving further away?
You never can tell in the Senate until something pops out. I would say, the best thing they got going for us is the Christmas holidays is coming up, and that's usually the backstop to getting things done. Look, I got to remind everybody that Biden put into this supplemental a border security component. So it just goes with saying that you were going to discuss border security as a component of funding the Ukraine, the Israel, and the Taiwan components
of that. It's a four component bill and one of them is border security. So the fact that there is a debate on border security shouldn't shock anybody. But like, let's get over that debate. Let's get something that we can agree to. Our border is porous and it's only getting worse. And I would think Democrats, I know that there's a limit to what they want to do, but this is cutting against them in this election cycle, and so they got to do something that shows more leg on border security.
Is Chris Murphy the one who's the Democrat who should be leading this genie. I know that he's typically involved in negotiations. He's a prominent member of the Democratic Conference in the Senate, but he's from Connecticut. I mean, should the party be putting forth someone else to generate a breakthrough?
You know, I think Chris Murphy has proven it self time and again to be a very sober thinking, reasonable guy. We saw that on gun control, for instance, So I do think to your point, he's respected. He is not from a border state, so you know, somebody could raise the question of whether, in fact he is the right person to lead this, but as we all know, it's not just border states who are suffering from this issue. So I have no problem with Chris Murphy leading this.
I do think he has proven again to be a good negotiator with Republicans. But I you know, and I agree that Democrats and they have said that they will move on that you know fourth point, which is a border security, but the idea that they're going to move as far as Republicans are insisting, I mean just moving to the House for them a minute hr two is simply a non starter for most Democrats. So they've got to come to a middle ground. It is to all
of our benefit that they do. But you know, let's just step back for minute to hold up Ukraine Israel for a debate and movement on something that we need but that has not been done for decades. Really is really really difficult when you're looking at a few days to go. So yeah, the President put it in there, move forward as they can, but we've got to get Ukraine done and Israel done this year. Border security we desperately need. But again, we've been talking about this for years.
So to jump this in and to think it's going to move forward this quickly, I think it's a high hurdle. And you know, sure they can negotiate it out, but in this short period of time, it's really tough, and we are moments away from a presidential election year.
Rick, did this dear colleague letter from the Speaker of the House just make a government shut down a lot more likely next year?
You know, it's hard to tell. I mean you can tell from the tone of the letter he's getting some pushback from his own caucus whether or not they're going to have another cr and so I think this was a shot across his own bow to say, look, you know, we're all going to deliver or die by these appropriations bills, and we need to get to work and pass some of these appropriations bills because I'm just not going to give a green light to another cr I mean, that's
not a message for the Democrats, that's a message for Republicans, and it's concerning that he had to send that publicly to them.
That's fascinating. New polling numbers out as we consider this idea of funding Israel, which is held up in all of this Genie from the Associated Press NARC. It shows Joe Biden's approval on specifically the handling of the Israel Hamas crisis, conflict, war, whatever you want to call it, is back to where it was before this all started. On October seventh, fifty nine percent of Democrats approve of
his approach to the conflict. It fell to fifty in November when he was being criticized heavily for civilian casualties, and it's back to where we were in August in this poll, in fact, it's a couple points higher. Does the revised messaging on this have to do with the numbers in our final moment here, Genie, or do people just forget?
I think it's not only the messaging. I think it's what we've seen on the ground. I mean, the pause was a very important aspect of this, as was the fact that they were able to get some, not all, of the prisoners released. So it is the action I think that people are responding to, not just the messaging, but certainly the messaging helps, and so this is what the President and his team were feeling good about. They
wanted that extended. Of course that didn't happen, but I do think in this case people are looking at what they were able to accomplish, and that is meaningful to people. And if they are able to get another pause, I think it will also be meaningful, but obviously much more important for what the fate of these hostages than anything pull wise for the President.
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.
As we join hands with Kaylee Lines each day at this time. Great to see you, Kayley. I know you've been busy all day here, but you're the one actually who brought to us the Dear Colleague letter. I was lamenting last hour. I don't know what the Congressman thinks about this, but I learned early to beware the dear colleague letter. It's typically not followed by anything good, as opposed to the dear Kayley letter that you might enjoy reading when you see dear colleague. I don't know, and
in this case, you know it wasn't dear Joe. It did show up at the White House earlier today, and the message is clear, right, no more crs.
Yeah, I mean the message is number of things. First, he talks about the deal they reached with the NDAA and the extension of Faiza until April. It looks like that's going to head to the floor next week. Then he goes on to talk about, you know, we have a lot of other negotiations on appropriations that we need to get through, and the quote Joe is I do not intend to have the House consider any further short term extension.
So no more crs, no more crs. And he's said that before, yes, you and I flipped through the archive for a minute. This is the fourteenth of November. Speaker Mike Johnson's innovation that.
We've created this new vehicle that the Democrats initially said was so frightening, actually turns out to be something that will change the way we do this, and so this is a very different situation. We're taking this into the new year to finish the process and get back to the original way that this is supposed to work. And by the way, the House Republican Conference has committed to never being in this situation again. I've done with short
term crs. We are We're resolved. So what that means is you're going to see in the beginning of this next year we'll be walking into and gum. At the same time, we're going to get the appropriations process running on times it's supposed to be under law.
Okay, pretty consistent, I think, right. No more crs. Yeah, And the idea was that there might be enough time to get spending bills together and move maybe some minibus legislation to get things funded in time for this staggered Sierra to run it.
Yeah, in time being either January nineteenth or February second. I thought what was interesting that Joe is that after in this letter he writes that there will be no more short term extensions, he goes on to say the fiscal Responsibility Act is the law of the land, supported by over two thirds of the Conference conference, and the framework from which we are negotiating that would be the debt sealing deal from months ago. Yes, that it seemed
everyone didn't want to stick to. But now maybe we're back to sticking to it.
I get so confused. This is part of the conversation. I shouldn't even be here, but Congressman french Hill is joining live from Capitol Hill in the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Arkansas. It's good to see you. Congressman boy. We could have avoided a lot of trouble if we had just done what was hammered out in the debt sealing deal. Do you still think that on a daily basis.
More than a daily basis, maybe an hour week all day, we burned through six months arguing that the Fiscal Responsibility Act levels negotiated by Kevin McCarthy then Speaker and Joe Biden President somehow weren't good enough. They cut a trillion dollars of spending, lower the baseline year over year, and have all these other reforms that we've talked about many times this year. So it's frustrating to suddenly see that
that's quote unquote the law of the land. But I'm glad to see the Speaker say that in his letter because that means that is the top line number for completing the f y twenty four appropriations bills before January nineteenth and February second.
Okay, So does reading that it is the law of the land reduce the odds in your mind that part of the government will shut down after that date? Congressman, I think it.
Reduces the odds if the Senate steps up and starts some informal negotiations on two, three or four minibuses as you described, because that's where the House is. We don't want one big omni. We've made that clear. We have two different dates. We broke the two sets of appropriations bills into two different dates to help the Senate out, to give them a little direction. But they could break
it down further if they wanted to. And I hope that speeds the process to a conclusion because the biggest issue, of course, is spending. But now the House is in a position to argue with our Senate colleagues. We want these policies versus those policies, and that work takes time, so they need to get after it.
Woin.
It's been suggested on the program today Congressman that the Speaker had to send that letter as a message to his own conference because he's got a lot of worried members on his hands. Think he might work with Democrats do another cr got everybody all worked up and angry again at the beginning of the new year, that it was more for his own confrince, your conference than it was for the White House. What do you think will this calm some minds?
Well, certainly give some clarity. You know, just a little over a week ago, the House Freedom Caucus, led by Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, voted or announced that they as a group supported those Physical Responsibility Act levels. This is what we've had trouble with all year. It's what calls Kevin McCarthy his loss of his Speaker's chair. So the bottom line is we've known this for several days now, but this is the first time that the Speaker has said that those FRA levels are in fact the level
for the Appropriations bill. So, you know, let's get going. It's what I would say, we've debated this for six months now. Fully, we know every intimate detail in these appropriations bills, let's bring them to a conclusion.
Well, Congressman, speaking of conclusions, it's not just the appropriations bills that were addressed in Speaker Johnson's letter. There is also the matter of supplemental Secure Already funding. We of course saw that quote unquote test vote failing in the Senate today. The Speaker pointed to that, saying it demonstrated there is no path forward on Ukraine funding without meaningful
transformative change in policy at our southern border. Congressman, how do you think this gets solved, that these two issues ultimately are reconciled, and is there any chance that it happens next week?
Well, in my personal view, I think it's possible, but a low probability event that it gets done next week. But I want to emphasize that it is possible. That test vote in the Senate was important. House Republicans, under both Speaker McCarthy and Speaker Johnson, have made clear since September that we think serious policy reform on the border is critical. The President's supplemental appropriation only supported more money
for things related to the border. House Republicans, and now you see Senate Republicans want actually policy reforms in addition to kind of any kind of spending now, and I
think it will be linked to the Ukraine supplemental. In the meantime, the Committee's Intelligence Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee, House Armed Services Committees and others have been parsing and meeting with the Office of Management and Budget and their colleagues on the President's request, so that work has continued to pace,
and both have spen it in the House. But as in my view, I think it's not a high probability event next week, but could be possible if leadership on both sides of the capital gets serious.
That'd be a big deal. Kaylee emerged, Congressman. We've had a bit of a conversation going with you in the past few weeks about Faiza seven two and the renewal of this warrantless spying program that is focused on bad actors abroad but frequently scoops up communications with Americans, which is what makes it controversial. You've been pushing for its renewal. It appears there isn't agree now and you can tell
us about it. I'm sure, because I think you were part of it for a short term extension to bring it to April. It would be part of You've got a vehicle. Now the NDAA will it move forward in its current form or will there be privacy protections added to it? Congressman, what does it look like?
Well, in the NDAA, the only provision is to not let section seven oh two, which is the surveillance of foreign nationals using data from big data companies like our telecommunications companies. That's what I did not want to see expire at twelve thirty one. With that said, the important work that's being done in the House Judiciary Committee and House Intelligence Committee is a complete reform of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and the
process used by the FBI. All this as being I would use the word radically improved and formed in light of the catastrophic behavior by the FBI in and around Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's campaign, the Carter Page matter, and everything that people really are very well aware of, including FBI agents querying members of Congress and using seven oh two surveillance authority on Americans without following the existing rules. So, Joe, this is a major change. I want to see these
reforms passed as well. If we can do that next week, which we're going to try to in the House. That would be good to get both the reforms and the extension of seven oh two. I think that would please members of Congress mightily and would be better than a simple extension of seven oh two until April. That's contained in the National Defense Authorization Bill.
Yeah, until April nineteenth. So if the reforms don't happen by that date, Congressman, would we then be looking at a FISA expiration that actually happens, if not December thirty first, but then in April.
Yeah.
Look, Kaylee, this is so important. I don't think you want to be debating something this technical and this important during a presidential election year. I mean, this is why I've been urging the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to get with the Speaker and get a plan to get these reforms approved by Congress. We have by cameraal that means the House and Senate bipartisan Democrats and Republicans support the House Intelligence version of these reforms, which contains the
Judiciary Committee input. But we actually have a by cameral bill and a bipartisan bill that if it gets put on the floor, I think it will pass, and it has all the protections that we've talked about, plus the continued use of seven oh two against foreigners who are trying to traffic people or drugs across the Southwest border, or hide hostages in Gaza, or attack military operation or American interest around the world. So it's an important surveillance tool.
I think it's possible we'd get this done next week and then we wouldn't have to worry about the April nineteenth date in the NDAA.
Spending time with Congressman french Hill, the Republican from Arkansas, with us on Bloomberg sound on headline just crossed from Politico Congressman House Panel. This would be education to launch a probe into Harvard mit Penn after those three school presidents were I guess well, it was testimony, but one that outraged people around the country. We were talking about it a bit earlier. When it comes to anti Semitism on campus, is that a probe that you support?
Look, I support tolerance on college campuses. When I was in college, we had on our campus people from Omar Bradley, the famous World War two general, to Stokely Carmichael, and we didn't have problems people treated different voices on campus with a reception. There might be protesters, but they were heard, they were heard, and there was balance in that. And that's what we need on campus. That we don't need people supporting radical philosophies on campus and have the cover
of the campus administration. That makes no sense. I love the approach that the University of Chicago has and my alma mater, Vanderbilt have. There is no safe space. We support the First Amendment on our campuses, and we tolerate different viewpoints on our campuses. This has just become a mob scene on some campuses and it's alarming to people, in addition to the hate speech that it contains.
Yeah. Well, while that hearing with those presidents, as Joe was referring to, got a lot of attention earlier this week, so too did a hearing yesterday Congressman of all the big bank CEOs, and I will want to call attention in particular to one interaction that happened between Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and JP Morgan's CEO, Jamie Dimond. It was on the subject of crypto, which I know I was the chair of the Digital Asset Subcommittee you
care very much about. Here's that exchange.
I've always been deeply opposed to crypto, bitcoin, et cetera. You pointed out the going true use case for it is criminals, drug traffickers, anti money learning, tax avoidance, and that is a use case because it is somewhat anonymous, not fully, and because you can move money instantaneously because it doesn't go through As you mentioned, all these systems are built up over many years. You know your customer sanctions.
O fact, it didn't get bypassed all of that. If I was the government's I close it down.
Congressman, we only have thirty seconds left, but I have to get your response to mister Diamond's words.
Well, I welcome Jamie visiting with me so that I can inform him about how Congress has created a regulatory framework that resolves every issue he raised, both in the stable coin legislation offered by Patrick McHenry and the bill
that Gt. Thompson of Pennsylvania and I have written that directs the SEC, the Bank Regular and the CFTC, the Commodities Future Trading Commission exactly how to regulate and protect consumers, investors, and innovators in and around digital assets, including bitcoin and crypto.
Good to be with you than to help.
Yeah.
Thanks nicely done, Congressman. If we could attend that meeting, we'd love to. We'll follow up with your office after that. 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