Loading summary
Transcript97 lines
- [00:00]
Duke Energy Announcer
At Duke Energy, we're making smart investments to add enough capacity to power 10.5 million more homes over the next five years. It's all part of our commitment to deliver the reliable energy America needs. Learn more at duke-energy.com poweringamerica
- [00:18]
Podcast Host
Bloomberg Audio Studios Podcasts Radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and 5pm Eastern on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts or watch us live on YouTube.
- [00:41]
Joe Weisenthal
Look out below for a couple of these stocks, but it's a moneymaker if you're in health care. If you're looking at financials today, interesting trade. And we'll keep tabs on it through the program with our eyes, of course, on Capitol Hill. Can you feel the drama in the voterama? It's not too often we have this take place in the light of day, but this is something you want to see the sausage made. We're throwing the lights and ripping the covers off the bed on this yes, Thursday edition on Bloomberg Radio Streaming live on YouTube. Check us out now by searching Bloomberg Business News Live because you want to see Eric Watson in a seersucker suit. Now here's what's going on. A lot of the amendments here. This is the reconciliation bill. This is the money for ICE and customs and border Protection. A lot of These amendments require 60 votes, but the first one out of the shoot does not. It's a simple majority. This is the amendment from Chuck Schumer, a motion to commit, sending the bill back to committee with instructions to eliminate the president's anti weaponization fund after he said last evening, I don't know, let's ask the lawyers. There might be motivation here. And I don't even know what the vote count is right now if they're still voting. Eric joins us right now having come from the Senate chamber to the rotunda just to talk to us. Throw a tip in the jar for Mr. Watson. Eric, can you tell us where we are?
- [02:02]
Eric Watson
The vote is still ongoing. It's been by my count, 99 minutes. It's been open. There are several Republicans, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana who was ousted in his primary, John, who said is in a tough race potentially in Ohio, have not voted yet. This is potentially a negotiation going on between them and their own leadership on a potential Republican amendment to address the weaponization fund. There is a Tillis amendment that's out there. I just had a look at it in the Senate computer. It only addresses a Weaponization fund created on specific day in May, very narrowly tailored. So they could create a new weaponization fund next week and this wouldn't address it. So maybe there's some negotiating over that. As my colleague Steve Dennis also points out, you know, if the attorney general and Trump are really hell bent on paying January rioters or others, they can just continue to settle lawsuits that are brought, you know, out of court and pay from existing funds. So there could be some consternation about that. Certainly there's a feeling among moderns they don't want to have to vote for this. I see Susan Collins has voted for this Schumer motion to send it back to committee. She's also in a very tough race, perhaps the race of her life, against Graham Platner. Yeah.
- [03:11]
Joe Weisenthal
Wow. All right. So if any of these amendments do pass and this, the bill must then go back to committee to be rewritten with this language, would that end the vote Arama today and come back for more later?
- [03:24]
Eric Watson
Well, you know, the Judiciary Committee is almost like a bill atm. It could very quickly, without meeting, reissue a new version of the bill, which they did yesterday without that ballroom money. So they could go back to committee. Technically, we could see them release it and bring it back. Perhaps there'll be another motion to proceed vote. There was some technicalities, but I would expect that, you know, necessarily a lengthy delay. The real question is if the bill has language in it that really does limit the president's hands on paying allies, would he veto it? Would it threaten this bill entirely? So that's going to be a very tough negotiation for John Thune. You know, he wants to protect his members. He's got to protect his majority by giving, you know, the ability of Susan Collins and others to vote in a way that positions them for their own electorate. But he also has to be, you know, know, conscious of the fact he needs the votes to ultimately pass this bill. In the end of the day, get those $70 billion for immigration enforcement, you know, going for the next three and a half years.
- [04:19]
Joe Weisenthal
You mentioned John Thune. I just pictured him this morning getting out of bed and beating his head against the wall after hearing the president last evening. Because Todd Blanche said this was done. We dropped the fund point blank in testimony this week. The anti weaponization fund. President Trump was asked about it in the Oval Office last evening. You heard it and saw it live here on Bloomberg. And he was not quite so. He is.
- [04:41]
Joe Weisenthal (Washington Correspondent)
Excuse me, Mr. President, just to clarify on what you were asked earlier is the $1.8 billion DOJ fund dead or is it on hold?
- [04:49]
Donald Trump
It's. I'd have to ask the lawyers. I don't know. I know one thing. The weaponization. Are you talking about the weaponization? The weaponization fund, as far as I'm concerned, was a beautiful thing. It was something I was, I didn't make it, but I was. I heard that. I thought that was the greatest thing because people like you have abused our people so badly.
- [05:13]
Joe Weisenthal
I still don't get that part. Was Kaitlan Collins in the weaponization fund? Anyway, that's aside from the matter. So still a live issue just because of that one exchange. Eric Watson, which brings us to these votes. Now, if that language is put in this bill, Eric, does it actually unlock the votes for passage?
- [05:33]
Eric Watson
I think, you know, if the Tillis language got in there, it may. But, you know, Thune aides and others are pretty confident they won't get 60 votes. It needs to pass. But the question is, you know, then when the bill, it comes to two to two, final vote, you know what? Tillis and others vote no. Rand Paul, who's often a naysayer on GOP initiatives, is a yes on this all note. He is the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. He said he does believe in this kind of spending for Border Patrol. We know normally he's more skeptical of other spending measures. So they may have the votes for it. It's going to be tricky. Interestingly, the president is now planning to move forward to nominate Todd Blanche, the permanent attorney general. We asked Thune about that and he suggested that he may have some trouble doing that. We asked Thom Tillis and he said if this guy is in any way supportive of the January six riot, he's a hard no. And he had the power in the Judiciary Committee to block that.
- [06:25]
Joe Weisenthal
Thom Tillis continues to feel himself. So look, this could go all day, right, Eric, what's your expectation? And if it does pass the Senate, it goes to the House tomorrow morning.
- [06:35]
Eric Watson
Yeah, expectation will go into at least darkness around here. An old colleague of mine said things are things really happening after dusk in the Senate and darkness is even better. And then the House is poised, they're going through the motions to quickly pass it tomorrow if the Senate sends it to them.
- [06:54]
Joe Weisenthal
There's the matter of war powers to deal with as well. That was the big story as we closed the day yesterday. Eric Watson with the House actually passing a resolution to 50 to 208. Four Republicans on board, some of them not very surprising. But we saw Brian Fitzpatrick, Warren Davidson, Tom Massie, Tom Barrett, and they were called out in a truth by President Trump today expressing his extreme disappointed disappointment in what he calls a meaningless vote. If this goes to the Senate, does it pass? And if that's the case, we assume the President vetoes it and it all dies, right?
- [07:33]
Eric Watson
Yeah. I mean, the war powers that, you know, is very contested territory. The form of this was passed in the House. It doesn't can't really be forced to be brought up in the Senate. There's a different mechanism looking to all the technicalities. As you mentioned, the President can veto it, but it does signal and create an overall pressure. And we do see the President in these negotiations, even though he says he doesn't care how the negotiations go, that he's willing to go back to more active combat operations, the general sense is he doesn't really want to do that. And I think this sort of, sort of reinforces that, you know, even he has his bluster and calling these guys unpatriotic. You know, I think there is a sense that he's getting the message the public's not on board. You know, Tom Barrett was very interesting. I talked to him after the vote, very, you know, contested district there, up there in Michigan, and he said, look, the war powers access after 60 days, you've got to authorize this. We as Congress need to come forward and set parameters, set goals. We can't just let a carte blanche go forward. I thought that was a very interesting comment. Brian Fitzpatrick, talking to me, talked about the economic effects as well. This certainly isn't helping with the inflation picture and needs to be solved.
- [08:35]
Joe Weisenthal
Well, I'll tell you what, the retribution tour could come around for these individuals, Eric. The President writes four bad Republicans and all of the Democrats voted to limit my war powers right in the middle of my final negotiations to end the war with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Who would do such an unpatriotic thing? He says Democrats are fueled by Trump derangement syndrome, but the four Republicans, it's a whole other story. They're grandstanders. In our remaining moment, Eric Watson, what happens to these four?
- [09:07]
Eric Watson
You know, it's going to be a tough calculation, but it may actually help Fitzpatrick and Barrett in their races. You know, it's really going to come down to independence in Michigan 7 and the Pennsylvania district. So, you know, I think, you know, the primaries are passed and, you know, we'll see what happens.
- [09:24]
Joe Weisenthal
Fascinating. I know you've got to run back and it's really kind for you to spend some time with us. What's better than this at the Lunch Hour. We have one of the top congressional reporters in Washington, D.C. just as the sausage is being made with us with live play by play. Eric, thank you. That's great. Bloomberg News Congressional Reporter when the vote concludes, we will let you know here because we could have some cross currents today. That again, as we just heard, pulls the bill back into committee for a minute, comes back on the floor with changes. There are dozens of amendments that could be voted on by the time this is done. And I'll remind you, this is the bill the president said he wanted on his desk by the 1st of June. He may well have it on his desk by the 5th of June tomorrow. But as Eric just floated, if he doesn't like the anti weaponization language and there's no ballroom, does he veto reconciliation. That would be a whole new world. We'll consider that thought a little bit later on with our political panel. With great analysis on the way, we'll turn to Iran next. Michelle Jam Risko with the latest from the Bloomberg newsroom. Iran saying no progress has been made in talks. Stay with us on balance of Power. We'll have much more coming up after this.
- [10:35]
Duke Energy Announcer
At Duke Energy, we deliver reliable energy that powers lives, grows businesses and transforms communities. That's why we're making smart investments to add up to 14 gigawatts of new capacity over the next five years. That's enough to power 10.5 million more homes, putting customers first, advancing American progress, powering the next generation. Learn more at duke-energy.com poweringamerica.
- [11:05]
Podcast Host
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and 5pm Eastern on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station. Just say Alexa play Bloomberg 11:30.
- [11:24]
Joe Weisenthal
All right. Charlie Pellet, the voice of Wall street and you know, the voice of the New York subway. Charlie, of course, is very familiar with what happens underground in New York. And so, Charlie, I've got to ask you about these reports and the videos. You see this stuff on social media, people are going down into the sewer to hang out or look for something. Have you been down there?
- [11:43]
Charlie Pellet
You know, I've also seen those videos on Instagram reels, also on TikTok. And you know, if you want to join me some weekend, maybe you and I can do a special for Balance and see what happens. Joe, I have no idea what to do, but my hunch, I saw one report that these were people looking for valuables. But you know, it just Raises security concerns, especially with the World cup coming up. And also, too, it just. I'm gonna go there. It raises common sense concerns. You don't want to be trapped down there in a New York City sewer. Your cell phone may or may not work, and how quickly are people gonna come? And b. I mean, this isn't Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle stuff.
- [12:23]
Eric Watson
It's.
- [12:23]
Charlie Pellet
It's.
- [12:24]
Joe Weisenthal
That's exactly right. You know, this is what Charlie tells his kids.
- [12:28]
Charlie Pellet
Whatever happened to common sense, Joe? Matthew. I mean, this just does not make sense.
- [12:32]
Joe Weisenthal
Have been gone for a long time. Charlie Pellet. I love that you were ready for that. Sam was ready for that, too. You saw the picture there of AKI Auto Care in Astoria. That's where that line came from. He says these guys look like the Ninja Turtles.
- [12:46]
Charlie Pellet
Yeah.
- [12:46]
Joe Weisenthal
He spotted three men prying open a manhole cover, and then they fall into the bowels of the city, only to be reemerging later on some other video. At one point, a video saw a group of seven men climbing out of a manhole and lingering unhurriedly on a nearby sidewalk. Correct.
- [13:05]
Charlie Pellet
Maybe they're finding valuables. I mean, regardless of the sewage and the muck that's underground there, where you don't want to be, there's the issue of fumes. And then also, my heart goes out potentially, to the first responders who have got to get these idiots out of the sewer system if it goes right. Joe, it's common sense. We have lost our collective minds.
- [13:31]
Joe Weisenthal
Well, I just. I saw this wacky story. I didn't know I'd be hitting a nerve. Charlie, thank you for weighing in.
- [13:36]
Charlie Pellet
Doesn't happen in D.C. it does more
- [13:37]
Joe Weisenthal
than cover the markets. No, I don't think so. I don't want to find out.
- [13:41]
Charlie Pellet
All right.
- [13:42]
Rick Davis
Can I.
- [13:42]
Charlie Pellet
Can I put in a shame seamless plug, though, for an open invitation at some point. One of the things, we've got a couple of partially constructed subway tunnels in New York couple of times of the year. That is actually pretty cool. It is very cool. You get to go down and see these partially built subway tunnels. But that's more up my alley than. Than these random walks under Wall Street.
- [14:03]
Joe Weisenthal
So weird. Charlie, thank you. He'll be back. 20 minutes. More on the markets. That's the guy right there. Charlie Pella, the voice of the New York said, take the subway, not the sewer. Might be the moral of the story here. It's interesting. You know, the Post, Washington Post wrote this up looking at New York. And so we're wondering here in the Capitol. What the heck is happening in the big city? The string of subterranean episodes I read has baffled New Yorkers, become the stuff of group text threads, and spurred speculation online. What are they doing down there? I say they're not Ninja Turtles. They're Goonies. Right, Goonies Never say die. Let's turn to matters more important than what's happening in the sewer of New York. And that, of course, brings us to geopolitics that we've not gotten our arms around yet this hour. We've still got our eyes on what's happening in the Senate with an important vote today on reconciliation. But Iran today says there is no progress being made in talks with the United States. And Hezbollah is now rejecting the outcome of this Lebanon, Israel peace deal. So we're wondering if this is still a cease fire. The president was asked about it last evening in the Oval Office. Here he is.
- [15:12]
Eric Watson
Ceasefire with Iran still on.
- [15:14]
Donald Trump
Well, you know, there's a reason for everything, and we hit them pretty hard. That part of the world cease fires when you're shooting in a more moderate manner. The negotiation itself has gone very well, actually. It might not happen, you know, who knows? But if it happens, it could happen, like over the weekend.
- [15:31]
Joe Weisenthal
Okay. So we have no idea, it seems, what's happening. And Michelle Jam Risko joins us to try to guide us in the right direction. Direction. Bloomberg News, White House and National Security editor. I know it's difficult to connect the dots on all these, but they are certainly all connected. And you wonder if this shooting cease fire, as I've been calling it, is starting to circle the bowl or if we've just arrived at the new normal where this just keeps rolling and we have these skirmishes each day with not much progress.
- [15:56]
Michelle Jam Risco
Well, two things at the start, Joe. I mean, ceasefire is really doing a lot of heavy lifting. Well, surely straining the English language.
- [16:03]
Joe Weisenthal
Yes, it is, and it's.
- [16:04]
Michelle Jam Risco
And it's straining the English language on two fronts because we've got two supposed ceasefires and we use air quotes in some respect to talk about these deals. But first, you have the US Iran cease fire, which everyone has been debating. Obviously, US Officials are keen to keep that tag on something that they say strikes are happening from the US Side as only defensive in nature. Iran counters and they're countering via other means to, you know, in ways of retribution. So they're both disagreeing about what to call that sort of situation since early April. But in the meantime, the past few days, as you point out, we have this Lebanon potential ceasefire, which almost seems more Egregiously, you know, violating the terms of the English language, because you're talking about a fighting situation that has gone on and has gone on even after the Trump Netanyahu call earlier this week in which Trump had said there was a broader, fairly sweeping agreement for peace. And then, of course, we had Netanyahu come right after and say, well, okay, hold on, we do agree to have a ceasefire in northern Lebanon, in Beirut, but not in southern Lebanon, where operations will continue. He was very clear about that. That's what kind of punctuated the disagreement between the two leaders earlier this week. And now we have Hezbollah saying, hey, we never, we're not agreeing to this ceasefire, whatever you want to call it. Their chief saying today, it's absurd. So that's not very encouraging, especially coming the morning after overnight strikes in southern Lebanon, which kind of punctuated the idea that this isn't really a ceasefire and, you know, fighting can continue. Iran, meanwhile, looking at all this and repeating, hey, this needs to stop for us to get to a deal with the U.S. they, as you quoted, say no tangible progress right now. That's not what you're hearing from the president on this side. So it's a bit of more Groundhog Day situation.
- [18:04]
Joe Weisenthal
Again, this type of confusion can frequently do damage to the markets. We're actually seeing oil prices drop today. Brent and New York crude both down about 3% right now. WTI is down more than 3%, but $93 a barrel, Brent's at 95. There are analysts we've heard even today on Bloomberg, who are perplexed by the fact that these prices are not actually higher. The strait is still closed. Do we have anything on the books, a real round of talks that could signal a breakthrough on anything?
- [18:33]
Michelle Jam Risco
There is some insight in terms of prices, and I don't want to try to put on a hat for something that I don't, I'm not an expert in. But we do have people internally who have been tracking the sort of price movements, especially in oil, ahead of a weekend. So oil traders typically don't want to be out of position in case not unlike stock traders. Yeah, peace breaks through over the weekend. You know, as, as we all know, President Trump likes to make news in the Friday evening hours and over the weekend and kind of own the news cycle into the Monday morning Asia Open. So you just don't know. I mean, that could account for some of the kind of quirky and unexpected moves in oil today, even as we're getting all this bad news. But also wouldn't rule out you know, potential movements on the upside as the day wears on on.
- [19:18]
Joe Weisenthal
It's great to have you back as always. Michelle Jam Risko, our national security and White House editor with us here live in Washington. And the latest on Iran, of course. The next time we get a truth or a headline from overseas, we'll let you know. It all does tie into the markets today and it's been a bit confusing watching some really heavy losses after Broadcom posted earnings last evening and CrowdStrike, both are sharply lower still at this hour. But the Dow industrial average is up over 900 points and we're seeing big gains in financials and health care. And we try to rationalize this move in the markets with our eyes as well on lower interest rates and lower oil prices with our buddy Christina Kino, who's back with us at world headquarters in New York, Bloomberg's managing editor for Markets Live. Christine, it's great to see you. What are we thinking about this? Because the market has been unforgiving for companies that in many cases beat in raise in their earnings reports. Were they just coming in too hot ahead of the news?
- [20:13]
Christine Aquino
Well, Joe, I think the key there is the markets have been unforgiving to tech companies that have been coming into earnings with really high expectations and only really beating them by a smaller margin that Wall street expects. Right. And this is exactly what we're seeing at the moment. In a lot of ways, Broadcom and all these other big chip companies, tech companies are really the victim of their own success. The expectations have grown so much that even a modest beat isn't enough for analysts anymore, isn't enough for investors anymore. And this is a little bit of why we're seeing this, but of a pullback at the moment. And you know, I would like to draw attention to the divergence that you're, you're noticing there, Joe, with chip stocks leading declines on some of the tech heavy indexes. But then the Dow nearing a record here and this is exactly what we're seeing today, right. Is that rotation trade from these big tech companies that perhaps have gotten a little too big for their valuations. And now we're seeing a bit of an outflow from those companies to your more traditional companies, the defensives, financials, health care, some of the companies that have lagged the massive, massive gains that we've seen in the tech sector. That's exactly what you've seen.
- [21:25]
Joe Weisenthal
Really interesting. See that the divergence that Christine Aquino is pointing out here is critically important. And I wonder what it's going to look like next week in our remaining moment here, Christine, we've got Space X next Friday, could we see liquidation continue in stocks like these as people try to raise cash to buy SpaceX.
- [21:43]
Christine Aquino
SpaceX, you know, Joe, I mean that is the short term concern is that, you know, a lot of funds are wanting to get into the Space X ipo, needing to reallocate some of their funds. But ultimately the history of mega IPOs shows that this comes at a time when markets are flushed with cash. There's a lot of confidence. And so for a mega IPO such as Space X, potentially there might be no issues at all. For markets ultimately absorbing the supply that's coming to the market, it is could be vote of confidence ultimately in the state of funding and the state of liquidity and equity markets.
- [22:20]
Joe Weisenthal
See, I love that. Avoiding the doom scroll. Christine Aquino live from New York. She's the managing editor, Markets Live. Great to see you, Christine. Thank you so much. Something tells me we'll be talking more about this next week. With a Dow industrial average up 925 points and S&P up 24, but an Nasdaq losing 64 points. Maybe we'll get bit a little lift a bit further for tech this afternoon. Our panel's next on Bloomberg. Stay with us on Balance of Power. We'll have much more coming up after this.
- [22:48]
Public.com Advertiser
Support for the show comes from public. Lately it feels like there are two types of investing platforms. Some are traditional brokerages that haven't changed much in decades and others feel less like investing and more like a game. Public is positioned differently. It's an investing platform for people who are serious about building their wealth on public. You can build a portfolio of stocks, options, bonds, crypto without all the bugs or the confetti. Retirement accounts. Yep. High yield cash. Yes again. They even have direct indexing. Public has modern design, powerful tools and customer support that actually helps. Go to public.com market and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com market ad paid for by Public Holdings Brokerage Services by public investing member FINRA, SIPC advisory services by public advisors, SEC registered advisor crypto services by ZeroHash. All investing involves risk of loss. See complete disclosures@public.com disclosures.
- [23:48]
Podcast Host
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and 5pm Eastern on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts or watch us live on YouTube.
- [24:04]
Joe Weisenthal (Washington Correspondent)
Joe and I here in Washington are keeping an eye on the Senate floor because, yes, the vote a rama has begun this long, laborious process of trying to get the budget reconciliation bill that funds ICE and CBP for three years passed on the Senate floor and onto the House. But there's a lot of amendments that are going to come up in this voterama and we're still stuck on the first one put forward by the minority leader, Chuck Schumer. This is essentially something that only needs 50 votes, a majority, and we'll send it back to committee specifically with the purpose of having language in it, this reconciliation bill that would make sure the $1.8 billion so called anti weaponization fund is dead to the extent that it can never be resurrected as that is very much an open question. And this question is indeed just still open on the floor. It's been hours now and there's high drama, it seems, among Republican senators as to whether or not they're going to get the votes to kill Schumer's amendment. Because Senator Bill Cassidy, of course, fresh off, relatively fresh off his primary loss in part at the behest of President Trump, is now acting as somewhat of an impediment to forward progress here, not
- [25:10]
Joe Weisenthal
for the first time in recent memory either. Let's play it to our political panel. Bloomberg Politics contributor Rick Davis, Republican strategist, assistant partner at Stone Court Capital, is with us alongside Frederick Hicks, Democratic strategist, founder, CEO of the Hicks Evaluation Group. Rick, you've been through a lot of voter Ramas in your day. Should we assume that Democrats are involved in these negotiations or this is all being held inside the family?
- [25:33]
Rick Davis
Yeah, I think right now you've probably got conversations going on with family members. You've got Senator Tillis who's looking for a way out of this by not having to take the bill down and take it back to the Justice Judiciary Committee. You've got other people like Senator Cassidy who is likely a no vote on anything related to the weaponization fund. Senator Collins is probably talking to the leader about the fact that she's already issued a no vote. What will it take to get her to change her vote? I mean, so there are probably at least eight Republicans that I can count right now who would be willing to vote against the bill in order to get an amendment in or some kind of statement that prohibits the development of this anti weaponization or, you know, the weaponization fund.
- [26:28]
Joe Weisenthal (Washington Correspondent)
Well, so the question becomes, Frederick, given how we see things in Congress, a lot of times they're looking for symbolic moves more than anything else. Do you think this is about a show vote to show that they tried to block the weaponization fund from ever becoming a thing again. Or do they actually want to see that as the end result? Because that could mean different outcomes here if it's. That is the result they are actually seeking, not just something for show.
- [26:57]
Frederick Hicks
We know that's a great question, but I think they really want to see this thing dead and never, ever resurrected. Listen, the public backlash to this idea, this notion has just been pretty, pretty consistent and pretty robust. And Republicans from really the introduction of this there have been uncomfortable with. At least certain Republicans have. And so this is based on uphill battle. And I think many Republicans in the Senate are disappointed that they have to get that it's gotten to this point where they have to make this kind of a statement with their votes and with this process. But the President has persisted with this despite his unpopularity, despite his, his own vocal acknowledgment that he's not really concerned or doesn't think much about the economic plight of everyday Americans. And so here we are and this is where we are. And I think this group of Republicans, now the 2027 Senate might be something completely different, but this 2026 version that still has Cassidy, that still has Conrad and other people that the President has opposed really do not want to see him score and win with this. And I think they really are opposed to it.
- [27:58]
Joe Weisenthal
Well, before it was the weaponization fund, Rick Davis, it was the ballroom. We can continue counting the ways this president continues to drop pianos on his own Republican Party here in Washington D.C. if the anti weaponization language is struck from the bill, or I guess if the prohibitive language is added, is there a chance he vetoes this reconciliation?
- [28:21]
Rick Davis
I, I doubt it. This president has never stood his ground. I mean, part of the reason we're in this right now is he didn't stand his ground and say we're not going to have this weaponization fund. He vacillated on it. And remember, it is this. There's no language in this reconciliation bill that says anything about a weaponization fund. What Schumer's amendment is saying is we're going to put language in there that says there'll never be a weaponization fund, and that's why it's got to go back to be rewritten. If it was just an amendment, say strike the language on weaponization, we'd actually not be talking about this now because it would already be done.
- [28:57]
Joe Weisenthal
Right.
- [28:58]
Rick Davis
And that's what Senator Tillis and some of the others who actually have Reelections coming up, not Tillis, but Houston and Sullivan who have tight reelections. They're trying to find a way to not have to gut the bill, send it to the president with language that's enough that they feel like they can go back to their constituents and say there'll never be a weaponization fund.
- [29:18]
Joe Weisenthal (Washington Correspondent)
Well, you mentioned Hustad. He actually just voted with the Democrats on this one voting for the Schumer amendment. However, Bill Cassidy did not. He voted no. We're awaiting the gavel to come down, but right now it looks like this is going to fail 48 to 50. My question is what did it take to get Bill Cassidy to a no on this? What was he promised in order to
- [29:41]
Joe Weisenthal
secure they're going to hold another primary
- [29:42]
Joe Weisenthal (Washington Correspondent)
on the this particular amendment? I don't know if you have any theories of the case here, Frederick, but I would imagine that this story around the fun isn't over just because this particular amendment put forward by Schumer looks like it's going to go down.
- [29:56]
Frederick Hicks
Well, I think you're absolutely right about that. I didn't expect Republicans to give an amendment with a Democratic name to it any kind of real chance of success. I think we still might see the elements of the Schumer amendment pop up in something else throughout the day day. Again, we're just at the beginning of this boat a rama. I am curious about what was promised to Cassidy. Listen, there is a lot that's going to be decided in this reconciliation process. I'm sure there are some things that he would like for Louisiana and some things that might even help secure his own future in his exit as he exits Congress. But you know, I think to me the story is that with this being so close 50 to 48 that that that's not a good sign for, for, for Republicans going forward. I mean that shows that that there really can be a lot of movement and, and that there's really, as we were talking about, a lot of will, I think, to see this thing die and to never come back. And so it's going to be interesting to see what kind of deals are traded. You know, as Rick mentioned in our last segment, there's a lot of horse trading on the floor right now and then a lot of movement back and forth, literally running and figuratively running back and forth between between chambers and all opposition chair. But this is, listen, we're just at the beginning of this and this is a fascinating turn. I think we're just going to see even more happen throughout the day.
- [31:11]
Joe Weisenthal (Washington Correspondent)
Well, it just got A lot closer. No longer 48 to 50, 49 to 50. Is Dan Sullivan also votes with the Democrats?
- [31:19]
Joe Weisenthal
This is really interesting here.
- [31:21]
Rick Davis
I'm so glad I said Sullivan and Houston.
- [31:24]
Joe Weisenthal
That was well done. It's amazing when Rick Davis says it happens. Okay, even if this doesn't pass, though, what about Attila's version? I mean, if we keep chipping away at this, could one of these get the votes today? Rick?
- [31:36]
Rick Davis
Yeah, look, I mean, obviously Cassidy is not running for reelection. Thank you, Donald Trump, for having beat him in a primary. And, and yet the thing you got to always remember is these people all have strong relationships in the Senate. Cassie is very close to Thune. It could have been. Hey, you know, this isn't going to affect you at all at this stage. I need you to walk the line on this to save this bill. But I'll give you something in return at another point in this Votarama, and that could be what Tillis is working on, for instance, is, okay, I'm going to find a way to put this in there without having to rewrite the whole bill.
- [32:08]
Christine Aquino
Wow.
- [32:08]
Rick Davis
So those are the kinds of negotiations. Then they send it to the staff to say, is there legal language that we could actually develop that's got to go through some of the parliamentarian. And so there's, there's a mad dash to try and get this done. And in the meantime, Schumer's just dishing up one amendment after another. Other you'll have an amendment in there about this IRS settlement.
- [32:29]
Joe Weisenthal
Yeah.
- [32:29]
Rick Davis
That could actually gum up the works again. Somebody is probably going to drop down an amendment on the ballroom just because you can. It's not in the bill either. But why not? Do you know, get everybody on the record?
- [32:42]
Joe Weisenthal
Yep.
- [32:43]
Rick Davis
So it's, it's, but it's a combination of politics, real policy, but also some performance. And, and you see it all during a voterama any time. Yeah, I'd say the stakes are higher now than they've ever been.
- [32:56]
Joe Weisenthal
Eric Watson told us earlier, Kelly, that either way, this is going into the dark hours. This will be still underway tonight.
- [33:01]
Joe Weisenthal (Washington Correspondent)
Well, and how lucky are we that Eric Watson, who covers Congress for us at Bloomberg, is joining us now from Capitol Hill. Rick and Frederick, stay with us. We'll come back to you in just a minute. We just want to get the latest from Eric. So, Eric, Bill Cassidy, who seemed to be like the biggest of holdouts here, votes no to the Schumer amendment. Do we know what he got for that no vote?
- [33:20]
Eric Watson
We don't know. We're Going to try to find out almost immediately. But we did see them workshopping potential amendment on the weaponization fund with the parliamentarian. The big question here is whether such an Amendment would require 60 votes to clear the Senate because it's not germane to the bill or only 50 votes. They did remove some Justice Department funding from the bill. And so therefore I need amendment related to Justice Department. Government would require that 60 vote threshold. It'd be harder for Cassidy to get that through. They're negotiating that. But it was interesting to see how other vulnerable members like Susan Collins, like Dan Sullivan, like John, who's dead, all voting with Schumer to sort of give themselves cover and some distance from the president when, you know, this fund is so controversial and the idea of paying people who beat up cops on January6 is just anathema to many of them.
- [34:09]
Michelle Jam Risco
Wow.
- [34:09]
Joe Weisenthal
Is the Tillis amendment similar in language to the Schumer amendment? I know there might be others. Eric, will this be a replay when we see the others come up?
- [34:20]
Eric Watson
We really have to see what they're revising. You know, but the key thing I noticed when I look at the Tillis amendment and the Cassidy was that a date certain, a fund create on a certain day in May will not be funded for anti weaponization. You know, you could just create a similar fund in June. But perhaps there's a big loophole there. So we'll be looking very closely at what this amendment says, whether that gives, you know, enough satisfaction to all parties and also allows the President to, to not veto it.
- [34:48]
Joe Weisenthal (Washington Correspondent)
Well, so as we consider the President's role in this, do we know if he was involved in these conversations over the last few hours? Eric, we know he is no stranger to having to call in to votes on the floor that are being held up waiting for, for his hammer to come down.
- [35:05]
Eric Watson
I can't say whether the President himself has been talking to Jonathan, but we certainly know that Jonathan coordinates very closely with the White House Legislative affairs office and they will be trying to get a signal and a read from them on what is acceptable. They don't want to put this bill in any jeopardy. Very eager on the Republican side to fund ICE and CBP for the rest of Trump's terms, taking away any leverage Democrats might have on changing ICE tactics such as dropping masks or requiring judicial warrants.
- [35:32]
Joe Weisenthal
So Speaker Johnson's hoping to get his hands on this for a vote tomorrow morning. Eric, what are the odds that happens?
- [35:39]
Eric Watson
I mean, I still think it's more likely than not it passes. I mean, at the end of the day. The dissidents and rebels did get a concession. They got the at least a verbal acknowledgment that this fund is dead. They also got the ballroom dropped. And that was a real weakness for, for many Republicans of this bill. The idea they were, quote, ballroom Republicans in the eyes of Democrats who were caring more about a ballroom than people's ordinary lives. That's out. So those are significant concessions. I think they just want to really square this, this language and see if that can come through. But if I was a betting person, I would suspect that this is passing it by the end of the week and gets into law, you know, probably without, you know, funding language, but we'll see what they come up with. Funding language on the weaponization fund, I should be clear.
- [36:22]
Joe Weisenthal
Understood. You've been great today for us, Eric. We'll let you get back to it. Live from Capitol Hill, Eric Watson, Bloomberg News Congressional Reporter as we bring the panel back around for their take, Rick Davis and Frederick Hicks. Rick, this is going to be a long one. What is the staff doing on a day like this? You picture a room full of guys with sleeves rolled up and gals who are trying to get themselves as quickly as they can to the principal and I guess back to the leader's office. What's the exchange happening look like behind the scenes?
- [36:51]
Rick Davis
Yeah, it's pretty tense right now because there is a clock on this, right? And typically Congress hates clocks, except for that Friday afternoon when they go home, probably lots of boxes of pizza laying around the room, stinking up the offices. And these guys are really crushing it to try and find little seams in the legislative language that can be used to hook these amendments into place that would then satisfy the parliamentarian and satisfy the sponsor of the amendment and get enough votes. And, and that's a really difficult exercise because it's, it's legal language art, because remember, these are statutes in law. These are not things that are easily changed in the next administration. You got to have another 50 vote, you know, vote. And, and so they, they take it very seriously. And so you have the legal stabs with within these members offices, the committee staffers who have written the reconciliation bill to begin with and they're debating as to whether or not it fits and all that getting cleared through the parliamentarian. I mean, it's a real big struggle during a big debate like this in a voterama where you have amendment after amendment after amendment, you know, to dig through. And so, yeah, it's going to be, I couldn't agree more With Eric, late night tonight. But they always seem to get their job done right. I mean, like, how many times have we said there's just no way this is going to happen? And then, boom, agreement, everyone votes and they go home.
- [38:21]
Joe Weisenthal (Washington Correspondent)
Well, and when we consider, and Rick is doing a wonderful job, Frederick, speaking to the nuances of the policymaking here, how hard and how much legwork has to go into actual outcomes, I would imagine most of the American electorate is not really privy to that process or care very much about it. It's the outcomes that matter here. So what is the optimal outcome of this votarama for Democrats and for vulnerable Republicans trying not to lose their seats to Democrats?
- [38:49]
Frederick Hicks
Well, I think you just asked a great question, and the key word in your question really is the word vulnerable. So while we have the internal machinations of Congress, how that works, and Rick did a great job breaking that down, there's this cloud of the election hanging over everything that's happening. And while Stafford is looking for the scene to figure out how we can make this work legally, the member has to think about their own electoral prospects and leadership has to look at or do everything with an eye towards November. And looking at the trends since Donald Trump came into office, things have moved very heavily in favor of Democrats, despite what's going on with redistricting and things of that nature. And so that is also a thing here. And then the other part of this, that you have people like Cassidy, you have people like Conor, and you have people like Tillis who are, who are either not running for reelection in the case of Tillis, or the others who've been dependent on defeated in the primary, who are thinking about their own legacy and thinking about what they want to, what they want to see accomplished out here. And so they are somewhat freed from having to place for electoral politics. So you have this whole cloud of an election that's really the other part that's impacting what's going on inside the, inside the buildings there. But that being said, for Democrats, I think the optimal thing is, number one, we want to see the ballroom die, or, I'm sorry, the fund die. We want to see the ballroom die. We want to see Congress reassert its power. We want to see a system of checks and balances solidly and on the president. And then, you know, with respect to this process, we want to see some things that are solidified or codified so we don't have to deal with this this next year. The one thing we do know is that based on what's happened in the primary thus far that if the Republicans voted to the Senate, this Senate is next year's Senate is going to be more to the right than this year's Senate, and the opportunities to do something are going to be much more difficult.
- [40:27]
Joe Weisenthal (Washington Correspondent)
All right, Frederick Hay and Rick Davis, our political panel today. Thank you so much for joining us. Of course, the Schumer amendment may have gone down, but the Votorama is far from over.
- [40:39]
Joe Weisenthal
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, D.C. at Noontime eastern@bloomberg.com
- [40:55]
Genius Advertiser
Dog grooming genius Here most people see a busy dog salon, but I see operational excellence thanks to Genius. From global payments, scheduling, personalized checkouts, instant absolutely genius. From game day crowds to every groomer in this shop, Genius keeps everything flowing seamlessly. Schnauzer is styled flawless execution, big league reliability for any business, that's genius.
- [41:24]
Ryan Reynolds
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone paying big Wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop with Mint. You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying. No judgments.
- [41:38]
Joe Weisenthal
But that's weird.
- [41:39]
Ryan Reynolds
Okay, one judgment anyway, give it a try. @mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for
- [41:47]
Joe Weisenthal (Washington Correspondent)
three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full terms@mintmobile.com.