Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast.
Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appo, CarPlay and then Droun Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
We also have to bring you an important conversation live from Capitol Hill. Joining us now on both Bloomberg Television and radio is Democratic Congressman Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee and also just returned from a visit to Ukraine where she met with President
Vladimir's Eelinsky. Congresswoman, thank you so much for being with us today as we question now the fate of this supplemental package that would provide sixty billion dollars in ad to Ukraine in the House, can you tell us first what you saw and heard what happens if Ukraine does not get this aid.
The provision of this aid through this national security this national security supplemental is of the utmost importance. It is dire importance to our national security. And on the ground when we were in Kiev, what we kept hearing from Ukrainian military officials, from President Zelenski himself, but importantly also
from US officials at the US embassy. Is how incredibly vital this aid is to Ukraine's ability to defend itself, to defeat Putin, to regain more of its territory, to protect its citizens, and ultimately to defeat Russian aggression and Vladimir Putin's army.
Well, reality seems to be biting pretty hard here, a congresswoman. I appreciate the message that you're delivering today, but your speaker says, this is doa that this funding will not even get a vote in the House of Representatives, and the calendar looks pretty challenging right now. Even if this money does get past, it's going to take a long time. Do we need to be honest with ourselves or honest with Ukraine about what's happening in your House of Representatives?
The reality is that one person, the Speaker of the House, has the ability to bring this bill for a vote. If he were to bring the bill for a vote today, it would pass with.
An overwhelming majority.
This bill would deliver vital support to our Ukrainian allies. It would deliver vital support to our Israeli allies. This bill would deliver vital humanitarian aid to stabilize a region that is currently destabilized. And this bill would support our partners and our.
Allies in Taiwan.
Because make no mistake, right now, China is watching, Iran is watching, and Vladimir Putin is watching as the world is questioning, will the United States continue you to be a global leader for democracy, in support of freedom and American values? Will the United States actually take steps and work in its own our own best national security interests and pass this bill?
And that decision comes down to one man.
Is he going to choose the national security priorities of the United States?
Bring this bill forward.
I don't even care if the Speaker votes for it himself. He just needs to bring the bill because the reality is failure to bring this bill is an abdication of our responsibility.
It is an.
Absolute capitulation to Vladimir Putin, and it endangers our country.
So there's no other option but starts to bring it.
But Congresswoman, theoretically there is another legislative option that could go around the speaker, a discharged petition. Are you effectively telling us today that you don't think that stands a real chance of working.
Oh.
I think all options are on the table. But I think it's tragically sad that we are trying to come up with procedural avenues around.
The most simple and straightforward manner. We're the House of Representatives. We're supposed to take votes up or down.
This bill represents a major priority for our security, and so yes, I am happy to look at all of the other contingencies we could put in place if we are dealing with the reality that the Speaker of the House doesn't want to protect our country and our national security interests. But the fact that we're actually having to plan for these sorts of contingencies is, in my mind tragic. I'll continue working with my colleagues to make those plans
because we need this bill to pass. But the bottom line is it could pass today if only the Speaker would bring it.
Well, you wonder what's going on here.
Some have suggested it's a bit of gas lighting going on at the hand of Donald Trump, And as long as the speaker's on the phone with mar Alango, this is never going to happen.
Congresswoman, you know what, I that's one step even further. The idea that a former president and you know now candidate for president, would want to stand in the way of the United States Congress protecting our own national security interests. The United States Congress House of Representatives passing a bill that passed with the support of seventy senators, Democrats and Republicans.
It is absolutely just ridiculous that Donald Trump would be on the phone with the Speaker and encouraging him to do anything other than bringing a bill forward that protects our interests, that protects our values, and that ensures our national security interests are prioritized.
And you mentioned that you think Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, is watching this very closely. I do have a question pertaining to Russia for you, Congresswoman, given your seat on the Intel Committee. The chair of that committee, Mike Turner, posted put out a statement today saying he was asking the president to declassify all information related to a serious national security threat. Congresswoman, we've seen reporting that this is about Russia.
Can you confirm that.
I respect you answer for asking that question, but as a former intelligence officer and current member of the Intelligence Committee, I'm going to just defer to the statement that the Chairman has made and not provide any additional comment on that.
Well, Congressman, could you at least tell us if this should concern us, Should we be eminently worried about a threat here wherever it's coming from.
I think we should always be concerned of the threats that are targeting the United States. There will always be foes the world round. We know them economically and militarily, China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and that is why we must pass this national security supplement, And particularly at a time when we do see a statement coming out from the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee noting that there are specific threats at this time that there have been specific briefings about.
No, there's no time like the present for us.
To actually focus on our national security and push this bill forward.
I realized you don't want to talk about this, Congresswoman.
As a former CIA officer, I wonder if you think this is irresponsible for the Chairman to put something out like that without telling people what the heck it means.
So it's not an issue of want, It's an issue of what I legally can do, and so I can't disclose any information related to what I've been briefed on and I am aware that the all statements, there's been significant, you know, discussion within the intelligence community about what can be made public or not. And so I'll defer to the Chairman for what regarding what he put out, but I you know, in legally and with my responsibility to protect classified information, we'll not comment beyond what it.
Is that he put out in his very brief statement.
All right, Congressman will certainly we respect that. We appreciate you answering what you can. On a different related matter, Joe was mentioning the legislative calendar how it may not favor passage of emergency aid, and in part that's because we're just a few legislative days away from potentially a partial government shutdown. The deadline is March first. You're going to be out of session for a few weeks between now and then. Can it be averted?
If so?
How this is another question where, you know, when Speaker Johnson stepped forward and said he wanted to be speaker, that puts him and his leadership team in.
Charge of the calendar.
Certainly, I think it's totally appropriate if Speaker Johnson wants to say, you know what, not only do we have this supplemental, this National Security supplemental to do, but we also must fund the government. We also need to do fis A seven oh two reauthorization.
We also need to focus on FAA reauthorization. Let's cancel that district time.
Everybody come back to Washington, stay in Washington until we get this done. I would be wholly supportive of a Republican leadership choosing to do that, because you're right, there's limited time, and there is much to do, and particularly when we do see you know, floor time being spent impeaching Secretary of majorcists rather than actually putting forth the government funding that will ensure border patrol has the dollars they need to actually enforce the current laws broken or
in need of improvement. Though they may be the idea that we're spending time on that and not funding vital agencies like border patrol, like you know, our military et cetera. Is is you know, I think it speaks to the sorts of priorities that are currently being put forward. But the limited calendar that is of the majorities doing and it is fixable if they want to keep us here, and I would be wholly supportive of.
That, We'll let you get back to your day in just a moment. Here, we only have a minute left. Congresswoman, if Mike Johnson passes a cr to keep the government open, will he be fired?
You know, I can't imagine the reality that. Well, I can't predict what my Republican colleagues would do. I would say the fact that we live in a world where a speaker is routinely choosing not to govern because that might lead to his ouser by his right wing flank. You know, that is everything that is wrong with the United States Congress.
I wish that he would.
Say, I'm a Speaker of the House. My job is to ensure that governance is occurring. Therefore I will bring bills, vote for them, vote against them.
That's the prerogative of each individual member.
But to actually keep us from governing because he might lose his job. It's a sad reality and one I wish that he you would push through and not be fearful of.
We're glad you could talk to us today, Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger live from Capitol Hill only here on Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast.
Kens Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and Enroid Oro 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.
With News Today from The New York Times.
Kayley, that's very concerning about what we're hearing from Ukraine. You've heard of a hypersonic missile that Russia has this technology. Kiev is claiming that it's been used, has evidence for the first time. The State Department Pentagon trying to confirm this.
But this is a government run Kiev Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Expertise that we're hearing from here concluding that a three twenty two to Zircon missile was used in an attack on February seventh that targeted cities across Ukraine. This is a big deal, Kelly, because these missiles could evade our own patriot defense missile systems that we're providing Ukraine.
Yeah, that's exactly the concern here is that hypersonic missiles would be essentially impossible or just extremely difficult to actually shoot down. And as we're having a live conversation about what additional lethal aid the US could be providing Ukraine going forward. Is there actually anything we could provide that would help them counter this specific threat?
That's right, because we don't have this technology, and I know that we are working on it, but it's something that we wanted to talk to Kelly Grico about from the Stimpson Center, a senior fellow with the Reimagining US Grand Strategy Program. It's great to see Kelly. You're an expert in asymmetrical warfare. You understand the stakes on the ground here in Ukraine. This sounds like a game changer, is it.
Yes, Well, Fars, thank you for having me. I will say that I was skeptical of this reporting that the Russians had actually used what is a true hypersonic cruise missile. But I'm a little taken aback that the United Kingdom's intelligence put out a statement today essentially confirming that they believe this was in fact a true hypersonic missile that the Russians used.
And if that's the case, how do you counter that, if this is going to be a live, potential force being used against Ukraine in this ongoing conflict.
Well, I think the good news is that these are going to be very expensive weapons, so they if this is really the case, indeed the case that it was used, I don't think Russia will have large stockpiles of these weapons, and they're choosing a very expensive way, frankly, to go about destroying Ukrainian infrastructure by using these kinds of weapons. It will be extremely difficult for the Ukrainians to defend against this because this kind of weapon is moved so quickly.
Because it moves so quickly, it means that Ukrainian air defenders have very little time to identify this and intercept it.
Kelly, we've spent a bit of time talking about F sixteen's and whether they could help Ukraine close the skies. As President Selenski likes to say, you've had contrarian views on this. I wonder if there are any other means to help Ukraine close the skies considering a new threat like this.
No, I mean, I think in terms of this specific weapon, this hypersonic weapon, I think it will be very difficult, given in existing systems, to be able to defend that. And it's not as though we're keeping something back stateside from the Ukrainian in that regards. This doesn't really exist. I do think though, there's a broader question here instead of focusing just on this particular missile, which is that I'm quite concerned about Ukraine's and air defenses at this point.
We're seeing regularly that they're intercepting missiles, and and I am concerned about what the stockpiles on their air defense systems look like at this point, particularly given we're no longer sending more missiles and other countries have limited supplies.
So as we have Congress now grappling with the question specifically the House, as to whether or not they are going to provide any more a to Ukraine, it is now in the hands of Speaker Johnson and the Republican majority in large part, how soon do you think Ukraine is at risk of full depletion of the ammunition of the lethal aid the US was providing.
Yes, I mean this is a closely guarded secret in terms of exactly what they have left in terms of
their stockpiles of air defenses and ammunition. I think the ammunition story, it's a little bit easier to tell because we can, based on reports with soldiers on the ground are talking about how much they're rationing their ammunition you know, I think one thing I just say is that my colleague Emma Ashford and I recently wrote an article in Foreign Affairs talking about Ukraine's need to really adopt a
defensive strategy. And I think as we're thinking about supplementals and if we are potentially going to continue some kind of funding, I think we need to be really targeted and kinds of systems were providing to Ukraine. And so I would really focus this on air defense. I would focus it on artillery, and I would focus it on defensive works, fortifications, concrete fortifications that are making very difficult for Russia to try to take more territory.
We've heard the extent to which, and this is from intelligence in Estonia, the extent to which Russia is lapping Ukraine when it comes to munitions, specifically old fashioned shells, the stuff that we just can't make fast enough, never mind get money to produce for Ukraine. We started our conversation talking about hypersonic missiles. How about the most old fashioned mortar rounds that Ukraine needs.
Kelly, You're absolutely right. This is actually the most important thing. Are these old fashion is expensive Canada hybrisonics, but it's really this is an artillery war, very much in artillery war, and I think this is the lack of artillery right now for Ukraine, and also it's lack of band power.
We're seeing a lot of reports I think that are very concerning coming out of Ukraine but not being able to get the recruits it needs for demand its front lines and debates they're having about recruiting, you know, having another call up, and so it's partly about getting them more ammunition, but Ukraine actually is also having some real difficulties I think internally about the future direction of the war.
And I do think this is a place again where we do have some leverage, particularly if we decide to provide more aid, that we should be making it clear that we would like this to be about doubling down on a defensive military strategy. Well, of course, Kelly, in this supplemental aid package, it's not just about providing aid for Ukraine, but providing aid for Israel as well, and there's an ongoing conflict as we know, between Israel and Hamas.
We actually just were getting headline out from Prime Minister bb Net Yahus who said Israel will fight until victory, including in Rafa, that they will operate in Rafa after civilians are allowed to leave. As we are now moving to the kind of to new.
Stages of this conflict between Israel and Hamas, what is it that Israel needs from the United States in terms of aid?
Yeah, so, you know, I think in terms of issue, it's probably more going to be about munitions replaced munitions. Some are artillery because they are using a considerable mount but my guess is it's probably more high end missiles because they're doing a lot. They're conducting a lot of strikes, so I think they're looking for for more of those kinds of systems. They're not necessarily there's not necessarily a competition as much between what Israel needs and what Ukraine
needs in terms of these supplementals. So I guess that's that's the one piece of good news for the US industrial base.
Boy, well, I guess we could use that in the meantime. What is in store for Ukraine? We only have a minute left, Kelly, in the next month, when will we know if this was real?
Yeah, I mean, I think what we need is for US intelligence to come out and confirm it, and I'd like to see that and more information about this particular, how they confirmed it. You know what evidence was used to confirm that this was actually truly a hypersonic missile.
All right, Kelly Greco, thank you so much as always for joining us. We really appreciate your time. Kelly Greco joining us from the Dimpson Center. She's a senior fellow there with the reimagining a US Grand Strategy program and interesting to contrast the conversations we're having about the military reality on the ground in Ukraine versus the reality on the ground and Capitol Hill and a reluctance to get this across the line.
Yeah, they're two different worlds right now, but we're getting used to that scenario here in Washington.
Kyley, we'll have a lot more straight ahead on Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Bellain. It's some power podcast. Catch just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car Play and then Roun Auto with the Bloomberg Business app.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
We want to head out back up to New York, where a very own David Weston, host of Wall Street Week, is joined for a conversation with Gary Gensler, the chair of the sec David.
Cally somebody you know well. Actually Gary Gensler is the chair of the Securities in Exchange coquestion. Thanks so much for being here with us in New York.
No, it's so terrific to be here Valentine's Day.
Now, about that heavy Valentine's Day, I hope you're taking care of that.
I hope, well, but you are with that great wife.
Of Yeah, I did the first thing in the morning. So let's first talk about the news of the day, this typographical era, apparently from Lyft. It's too soon, I assume for you to know what happened, and you don't talk about any difer cases. But I want to ask a more general question about fat fingers. Is it part of your jurisdiction to make sure the public traded companies have certain mechanisms in place to minimize We can never eliminate mistakes, but to minimize them.
Well, so it's really part of their responsibility.
You use the term fat finger.
It could be a trading shop that sends a flood of orders to an exchange. In the old days, they called it a fat finger because somebody's finger hit. Now it could be in an algorithm, or even that your filings, your press releases, and your annual reports are accurate.
So that's really up to them. But yes, we have a role.
With the Security is an exchange commission to oversee to make sure that people don't defraud the public and that they publish accurate financials.
So when something like this happens, you call somebody up and say, are we're looking into this to just make sure there wasn't something efficient.
I can't. I can't speak of individual things. Let me step back.
So I'm chair of a five thousand person agency. A quarter of our agency does enforcement, another quarter does examination.
They don't call me up. I don't call them up on a.
Daily basis, say look at this really talented David. They figure out what to We literally get something like forty to fifty thousand tips, complaints and referrals a year, and they have to figure out which ones to pursue, which ones not to. And so occasionally I read about things in the press and I go, oh, I didn't know we were investigating that's a really that's great. Our Boston office is on that.
Another subject, very much in the press has been for some time now. Obviously is bitcoin. The ETF Spot Bitcoin that you approved, and as I understand that, part of the reason you did it, the explanation for it was you felt that the CMA futures Bitcoin situation would be good enough to indicate if there's any market manipulation going on, are you far enough into it to know whether that theory holds true than in fact, you can tell from that CME futures trading what might be going on with Spot.
So it's a little bit more nuanced than that. But several years ago, back in twenty twenty one, there was a product that went live, so to speak, an exchange traded fund wrapped around these bitcoin futures at the Chicago Mercantil Exchange. And then a different set of products came to us and asked a list on the stock exchanges. And while we had denied like two dozen of these over about five years, a court in Washington said no, they thought we had not gotten that right, and they
remanded it back to us. And I thought, really the most sustainable thing forward was.
To approve these. Given the court ruling.
In terms of the statistics, we really do look out and sure as best we can there's not fraud manipulation. But one of the challenges on the bitcoin markets, David, is so much of its traded on trading platforms that are non compliant with our laws. Now, bitcoin's not a security, but they're trading on those platforms a lot of other crypto tokens. Without prejudging anyone that'd be careful that with hundreds of other crypto tokens on there, likely there's other securities.
And we are in court in a number of these cases in front of various judges and panels, and so the American public when you're investing in something like bitcoin, to be aware one it's a highly speculative asset. Number two, it's generally trading on some platform that is not fully compliant with the securities loss for other things they're doing. And number three I had meant sin is think about what use case?
What is the actual use case?
When you buy one hundred shares of XYZ stock, you kind of know what's behind that company, what that they are there is.
You said you're not going to pre judge. I wouldn't expect you to prejudge, So let me ask you to prejudge.
Yeah, David, I figured.
That a big question people are asking is ethereum. Is there a principal difference, a reasonable difference between bitcoin and ethereum. Now I understand you'll have to have an application to look at all the details and stuff, but just in a general sense, is there a distinction between the two for this purpose?
So you help the American public understand why. I'm not going to answer that because I am in just one member of a five member commission, but two there's various applications in front of our commission, and just as you wouldn't want to know a judge to prejudge, a commissioner shouldn't prejudge those applications are in front of us right now.
Okay, let's talk about the disclosure of climate issues, which has been pending before the Commission and it has not come out yet.
It's not clear.
Why can you give us as the timetable and when you may have those regulations?
So let me just step back.
So the Securities and Exchange Commission is not a climate regulator. We are not a regulator of climate risk. But we oversee companies raising money in the public and they disclose their material risks to you, or they're supposed to disclose some material risk of rules that have been around for decades, and many of those companies that are already making significant disclosures.
I think something like ninety percent of the top thousand companies in the US by market cap disclose something about climate. Over half to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. So there we have a role to bring some consistency, some comparability.
You can compare and contrast. That's our role.
It's a securities market role, not a climate role. You asked about timing, Ah, they're the great question. We proposed that rule back in March of twenty twenty two. We tend to take somewhere in the order of year and a half to two years to adopt rules if if we adopt them. Can't prejudge, but I would say, here's the one wrinkled of this, my friend, sixteen thousand public comments. We got four four hundred of them, unique different comments. We not only have to read them, we have to
consider them. We have to think about what adjustments we make. That's the biggest docket of comments we've ever received on a rule. So that's part of why it's you know, we do our work carefully.
Well, I'm curious about behind the scenes what you take into account. And one thing's very specifically. We have an election year this year. You might have noticed there may be changes in the Congress in the presidency. There's a Congression Review Act that says, basically, if you don't get some of these rules out before something like six months before the election, they can be reversed by the next Congress.
Do you even take that into account and thinking about the timing and bringing regulations out.
I try not to have this managed by the clock. And you know, everybody says, oh, no, come on, no, it's really about getting it right and allowing that's they have.
To work their part, the.
Economists, the lawyers, the policy folks, the five Commissioners to weigh in. But we're certainly aware. I mean, Congress is a really important part of you know, they ask a lot of questions about every one of our important initiatives, but this climate risk disclosure. But again, we want to get it right and not against the clock.
You also have just brought out a regulation involving hedge funds and trading in US treasuries. A lot of complaints about it, a lot of gnashing of teeth, if I can call it that, on part of some of the hedge funds. Do you take into account the possibility of challenges in court and putting together regulation because you're going to get challenged, do you shape the regulation try to minimize the chance of being overturned by the Court of appial.
It's going to be a yes. But let me just answer something. What we've done is the US treasury market is the base of the rest of our capital markets. It's also how when you talked to or Pow or sometimes you talk to former Secretary of Summers about monetary policy. It's how we do our monetary policy. So the treasury market is so critical. It's how we also maintain our
dollar dominance around the globe. So what we've had is a series of four or five rules around the US treasury market, central clearing, and yes, something about the dealers. And by the way, it's mostly about something called principal
trading firms, not hedge funds, not hedge funds. But to your question, we live within the law, and we live within how the courts interpret the law, and ultimately the Supreme Court rights the law of the land, as the Great Chief Justice Marshall once wrote two hundred years ago.
So we do take that into consideration, and we're appropriate, we pivot, we moderate, taking into consideration, and it's critical the American public have confidence in their sec but it's also critical that a rule will be stained in court because then it can actually help investors and issue us for hopefully years to come.
Gary, thank you so much for being with us. Really appreciate that's Gary Genster, Chair of the Securities and Exchange. Thank to you, Kaylee and Joe David Weston.
We thank you, of course.
David the host of Bloomberg's Wall Street Week in a fascinating conversation there that we're glad we could bring to our TV and radio audiences worldwide. They covered a lot of ground, Kaylee, and this this is your wheelhouse when it comes to climate rules and timeline. No concern by the chairman about a potential change in administration with a lot of work left this.
Year, Yeah, no concern expressed saying he's operating in the absence of a timeline and mind though, the Congressional Review Act that David asked about is a very real thing. With it a certain amount of legislative days, you could have a future in Congress in which there potentially could be an overturning of some of these rules that the SEC as a regulator has proposed. He was right to
point out that this is just a proposal. They wereved a ton of feedback on it, thousands of comments, because there has been a great deal of pushback, specifically on Scope three emissions, concern about what it would mean for the supply chain, for even things like small farms to be able to report these kind of disclosures. And it's kind of that level of disclosure that really has received a lot of the pushback and what we're waiting to see if it ends up in the final rule, if
and when we get it. We didn't really get a lot of clues there from the chairman as to when that will come.
He plays it pretty close to the vest, just as a rule wouldn't budge on ether and ether ATF.
Does that mean we're getting close to.
A decision potentially?
He hasn't actually said whether he thinks it's a security or commodity. And there are more filings for spot ether ATFS. We got another one from Franklin Templeton just this week, and that's what a lot of crypto markets are looking ahead to.
They've got a lot to clear through the end of this year.
He's a busy man.
Yeah, fascinating conversation with Kaylee Lines. I'm Joe Matthew. Stay with us on the fastest show in politics. This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast.
Can 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.
Welcome to the Valentine's Day edition of Balance of Power. We are now down to two I was told there'd be no math, but we have to do a little bit today, a two vote margin essentially for Speaker Mike Johnson. If you put this together, follow me what happened in New York three last night, Democrats flipped the seat that once belonged to George Santos. We are now at a two nineteen two thirteen majority with three vacancies. That means Mike Johnson can only lose two to get anything done here.
So the walls may be closing in as for that race, and we're going to talk about that with Don Levy. Aren't we glad Don Levy's back today? From Siena College poll, they called it Tom Swazi wins, but it was by a wider margin, about eight points. The poll showed him up by four. Either way, it changes the math here in Washington, in a Congress and a House that was already having trouble getting anything done, or maybe we haven't
gotten anything done. That's where we start with Billy House, who might be the last person left on Capitol Hill today. Billy is great to see a Bloomberg Congress reporter. If my math is right here, Mike Johnson's job just got a lot more difficult, right, Billy.
That's correct because although to nineteen versus two thirteen is six votes, tie, boats go to defeat. In other words, you got to get more than a tie if you're going to pass a bill, there you go.
And so we actually saw a tie almost last week when they tried to impeach Alejandro Majorcis and Al Green showed up and things started to get a little more complex. Republicans had to take the fun on that bill so they could do it again, Billy, and it happened last night. This says everything to me, we've had an historic impeachment of a cabinet secretary, the Homeland Security Secretary. He was impeached by one that says to me following the election
that vote could not be duplicated. Tonight, they actually managed to thread the needle on this, Billy.
You're absolutely correct. I mean there were two votes on both sides of the aisle that weren't so a total of four that weren't cast. Two Democrats couldn't make it to town, and two Republicans apparently didn't want to cast that vote. But you're correct. A margin of one is not a big margin.
And now that they've flipped New York three to Democrats, that would be a tie again if they held the vote tonight. So good time, I guess on the part of Mike Johnson, Billy. The conventional wisdom here in Washington is that the impeachment goes to die in the Senate, that we don't even see a trial, you.
Hearing, well, what we do know from the Senate and Senator majority leader of Schumer's office is that they do not expect the articles to be and there's a solemn sort of Masonic march of the articles over from the House to the Senate. If you might remember the Trump impeachments, this won't occur untill after the Senate returns on January. I'm in February twenty seventh, and then the Senate would be sworn in as jurors in a tribal start. Ironically,
House Republicans's varies. This impeachment efforts are going to run into each other because Hunter Biden's supposed to test by in the House on February twenty eighth, So you've had both of those happening at the same time.
Well, we've got a calendar problem again here, Billy, because it's recess time now, and by the looks of things, there's something like six legislative days left to avoid a government shutdown, and by the time they come back from recess there will be only three. Do we need to start having a more serious conversation about this. I've been asking people every day and I keep hearing, oh, no, they'll figure this out. But what three weeks from tomorrow we start shutting down?
Absolutely? In fact, I asked last night Senior Appropriator Tom Cole, the Rules chairman, are we gonna have a shutdown? He said emphatically, no, but what you are seeing when you see the calendar is an impeachment in the Senate Hunter Biden questioning over here in the House, and just a couple of days before a shutdown. They do have a lot of things going on when they return later this month, a lot of them self imposed deadlines, and of course
the government shutdown ones are kind of self imposed. They're just you know, pick the can deadlines that were supposed to be resolved earlier this year.
Well, so, speaking of kicking the can, is that what members think? Is that why everyone's convinced that we will not have a shutdown because the Speaker will have to cave do another can hinuing resolution, which you vowed not to do.
Hey, that's a good question. There does seem to be a malaise or a lack of concern, and perhaps now we've just gotten into a feeling that, well, well we can always do another CEDR. Now that's what House conservatives get really irate over. But despite all their stomping and fist pounding, they haven't really taken that out on the new Speaker Johnson yet.
Yeah.
Well, we'll stay tuned.
Billy.
I can't figure out how they're going to avoid this at some point in the next several weeks, and we'll remind our viewers and listeners that the State of the Union would only be a couple of days after that. So these all overlap along with Super Tuesday. Billy House, great to see you reporting live from the Capitol. Bloomberg News congressional reporter with Love in the air today in Washington on this Valentine's Day. Too bad, it's not helping
the bipartisanship. Don Levy told us what was going to happen last week in the race in New York three. He runs the Sienna College Poll. He's the director of the Sienna College Research Institute.
And Donn, it's great to see.
I'm glad you came back because we do have questions about the way this all came down. You were inundated with a big snowstorm up there yesterday. And I'll remind everybody that this is the seat once held by George Santos. We were told that George Santos may have ruined the district for Republicans for some time, and it seemed to not be a great factor in this race.
Donn.
It came down to a lot of national issues, like the border, like spending, and it's been interesting Israel as well to watch this whole thing shake out.
He won by more than you thought, didn't.
He He did. Tom Swazi ended up winning by just a little bit under eight points. We had him at about four points, and he overperformed really relative to our poll in both the Queen's component of the district, which is about twenty percent, actually showed up at the rate of only about fifteen percent last night, and Nasau County eighty percent of the district voted at the rate of about eighty five percent. And Tom SWASEI is a known quantity within that district. He's been active in Nascau County
politics now going back twenty years. So the voters there, most especially in Nasau, but also in that small section of Queens certainly knew him. He served three terms in Congress, so they were prepared last night to send Tom swase back to Washington.
Well, Sienna did the work there, and I hope you're taking a victory lap today. Don I wonder to what extent turnout factored into this. That's all we heard about all day was the weather.
Well, I think the weather did have some effect, as you know, Democrats turned out very strongly in the early voting, and when the early vote came out last night, you saw the Democrats and Tom Swase take it enormously. Republicans do quite well in same day voting, but certainly there was just not enough same day Republican vote. There's a couple of sections district, the southern section district Massapequa Levittown, where the Republicans were a little unhappy with the degree
to which they got turned out. In fact, they went out and hired private snowplows to try to clear the roads to encourage that turnout, but they were a little bit deflated with the same day turnout. And as a result, whereas we had Tom Swase in our poll carrying Nassau by about a point, he ended up carrying Nassau by about five points, and to some effect, that was turnout.
But I think there was more to it than that. Actually, I think that this closing week of the election and the build up to this special election, Tom Swazi did a fantastic job closing. He took the immigration issue on head on. What was seen as a weakness for Tom Swazi, he ended up turning into a strength, perhaps in part aided by the bill in the Senate, actually dying the bipartisan bill, which he said he was a strong supporter of.
Mazi Phillips said that she was opposed to that that didn't play well this bipartisan spirit that exists in New York three.
Well, Donald Trump says it was all about him. Don I'm guessing you've seen the post by now referring to Mazi Pillup as foolish. And he's of course making the case that she didn't use him enough ro lean into Maga, he says, running in a race where she did not endorse me, tried to straddle the fence when she could have easily won if she understood anything about modern day politics in America. So what extent was there a Trump factor or a lack thereof?
In New York three?
Our poll and continued to show that Donald Trump was unpopular in the district, about as equally unpopular as Joe Biden. I think that's a bit of Monday Morning quarterbacking. Mazie Pillup did straddle defense, though, and really I think didn't close strongly because of that. You know, her position on a national abortion band, you know, and previously in New York abortion, while an important issue, didn't seem quite as salient, because in New York most people feel as though a
woman's right to choose is sacra sank. But to the degree that Mazi Phillop was identified as potentially being a vote for a national abortion band and not really taking a razor clear position on that, that hurt her in
the final week. Santos on the other side, you see the Swazi, on the other hand, took a very strong position on abortion, and so between that classic Democratic position of support for abortion rights as well as Swazi taking the immigration issue on head on allowed him to close very strongly in the race.
Well, he's got some people calling this the recipe to win for Democrats here in November. Down I wonder your thoughts on that, because he called out Republicans on that border plan that collapsed, the compromise that never got a vote in the House.
Is that going to be the model going forward?
Well, certainly, I think in swing districts, and we've got about five of them here in New York. This idea of getting something done, whether it's getting something done on the border, which is paramount right now, but getting something done across the board the issue could be Ukraine, it could be Israel, it could be keeping the government open. Tom Swazi did a great job saying I am a bipartisan, hard working representative and getting something done is what has
to happen. So when you look to a couple of the other districts in Long Island, a couple of the districts in the Hudson Valley, certainly the Republicans who occupy those seats right now are taking notice and are going to have to pay attention to how Tom Swase closed against Mazi pibliup, including saying immigration, I'm for a bipartisan agreement. Let's get something done that worked for him.
I'm talking with Don Levy of the Siena College Research Institute as we look ahead to fall, and this is going to be a quick turnaround here. Donald Trump said something else in his post, give us a real candidate in the district for November. Swase, I know him well,
can be easily beaten. And I wonder your thoughts on what Republicans might do as an answer to what happened here for the full blown election, but also the extent to which redistricting could play into this, because it's supposed to go back to making this an easier fight for a Tom Swazi or any Democrat, isn't.
It it is? Redistricting is still a little bit up in the air here in New York. There's talk that there's a compromise. I think that this particular district will end up being, if not safe, I think this will be a lean Democratic district, and Tom Swase is going to look pretty secure more than likely New York State Democrats.
The excuse me, Republicans are interested in holding some of these other seats are going to look through the other couple of districts on Long Island as well as the hut In Valley districts to try to hold those, and probably you're going to end up conceding districtor Mazi Pillip has said she's going to run. There could be a couple of other Republicans who are going to throw their hat in, But right now New York three looks like it's Tom Swazi's to hold.
I've only got a minute left on I don't want to set you up here, but I wonder if you buy the Bellweather talk this morning, the extent to which New York three is unique or something we can read into nationally.
Again, I don't think we can help ourselves we're going to read into it. But it was a special election, had a slightly more than twenty five percent turnout. These are the most engaged voters. Democrats have been doing well in these special elections. But as far as a bell Weather,
it's something to look at. It doesn't necessarily foreshadow exactly what's going to happen, because as you know, there's going to be one thousand and one things that are going to happen between now and November, and Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be on the ballot, then not only Tom swat Now.
Keep that in mind when you hear TALKO Bellweather throughout the day, because Don knows what he's talking about.
Really glad you can come back and talk to his.
Don Levy is director of the Siena College Research Institute, the man who called the race for us last week. 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.