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