May 31, 2023 - Bannon's War Room
48:54
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | ||
| Pray for our enemies, because we're going medieval on these people. | ||
| I got a free shot of all these networks lying about the people. | ||
| The people had a belly full of it. | ||
| I know you don't like hearing that. | ||
| I know you try to do everything in the world to stop that, but you're not going to stop it. | ||
| It's going to happen. | ||
| And where do people like that go to share the big line? | ||
| Mega Media. I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people had a conscience. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose? | |
| If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved! | ||
| Do you have any concerns that this won't make it through the Rules Committee? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, look, we always expected that there would be certain pockets of opposition to this deal, but overall, it's a good deal, it's a fair deal, and we're confident that it will get to the president's desk. | |
| I want to emphasize that it accomplishes three main things. | ||
| Number one, it takes the possibility of a default off the table, which means we avoid an almost certain recession because of a first-ever debt default. | ||
| Number two, it protects All of the key pieces of legislation that the president signed into law in the last two years, new investments in clean energy, new investments in semiconductor manufacturing, new infrastructure investments that are being seen across the country, and third of all, it protects Social Security, it protects Medicare, it protects Medicaid, all these important programs that Americans rely on. | ||
| We think it's a good, fair deal, and we expect it to get to the president's desk. | ||
| Hearing you list that out is, I think, important because I heard the director of the National Economic Council say today that there is something in this bill for everyone, is how she put it. | ||
| Yet, I want to play for you how one of the Republicans who negotiated this deal, how he describes this. | ||
| This is Dusty Johnson. He was on CNN this weekend. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That is kind of the amazing part to me. | |
| There were no wins for Democrats. | ||
| There is nothing after the passage of this bill that will be more liberal or more progressive than it is today. | ||
| It's a remarkable conservative accomplishment. | ||
| What do you say to that, Bob? | ||
| I can't take it anymore. People in South Dakota should be absolutely humiliated that Dusty Johnson is your congressman. | ||
| It's Tuesday, 30 May, Year of the Lord, 2023. | ||
| We have two Westerners here. | ||
| Congressman Boebert from Colorado is in the house. | ||
| We have Congressman Andy Biggs from the great state of Arizona is with us from his office. | ||
| Congressman Biggs, and Boebert can stay a little longer, so I've got to get Biggs for you. | ||
| Walk us through right there. | ||
| The White House is laughing at us. | ||
| They just said every piece of legislation of the eight trillion dollars he passed that caused the inflation in the first place, none of it is touched. | ||
| Yes, they didn't want the Inflation Reduction Act to be touched. | ||
| That is their holy grail, and that's what you and I talked about just a few short days ago. | ||
| And it's all in there, all the Green New Deal subsidies, even what seems like a good piece of legislation that we got in there, some NEPA reforms, which, okay, great. | ||
| I'm all for that. I'm for the pipeline, even though I think this pipeline was inserted just to buy Senator Joe Manchin's vote. | ||
| So, I mean, just the timing of that is a little awkward. | ||
| But All it does is fast-track these Green New Deal subsidies. | ||
| So we are incentivizing all of this unreliable energy and further harming our energy security here in America with good legislation tied to a bad piece of legislation that doesn't do anything to rescind that IRA money. | ||
| Congressman Biggs, walk us through the strategy here. | ||
| You're in rules right now. We heard Congressman Massey may vote yes on this. | ||
| Congressman Bover is going to go over and testify close to six o'clock. | ||
| We will pick that up on our six o'clock show live. | ||
| Walk us through. You're the master strategist. | ||
| Where are we on this? Well, we're hanging over the cliff trying to grab onto something, right? | ||
| Because that's the box we've been put into here. | ||
| So the key thing that we have to do is we have to, in my opinion, try to get as many Republicans to vote no on this as we possibly can. | ||
| And to get them to vote no, we have to expose what's in this horrific bill. | ||
| And if you get over half the Republicans to vote no, I'm talking you get to about 115, that's where we really would need to get. | ||
| Then you demonstrate Kevin's fecklessness and the need for a change to be made, in my humble opinion. | ||
| But the other side of it is, you have to understand, Steve, and Lauren knows this, I'm predicting between 100 and 150 Democrats will vote for this bill. | ||
| And that should tell you everything you need to know. | ||
| When you get the White House economic advisor saying today that this bill, this deal with Kevin McCarthy, protects every progressive program. | ||
| That's what it is. | ||
| I mean, you actually protect everything that Biden has done, and you further it along. | ||
| So for our strategy, we have to make sure Republicans know that, and we need the help of your supporters, the people who follow you, to let their congressmen and women know, especially if they're Republicans, that they need to be voting no on this because that's how we do it. | ||
| This is going to have to take a grassroots push Because we are fighting now the Uniparty, the swamp, and that's the way I view this. | ||
| This is an absolute product to support and sustain the Uniparty. | ||
| What possessed them to give them the second year uncapped? | ||
| This thing could go to $6 trillion. | ||
| First off, it takes it out of the conversation in the general election, which is what we want. | ||
| We know the American people are more knowledgeable about this. | ||
| CNN's polling shows us they come our way. | ||
| Also, they're going to lead an economic catastrophe for a Republican president, Congressman Boebert. | ||
| Yes, so it was very Washington D.C. to extend this even further. | ||
| And then to put false caps, no caps, and an unlimited debt ceiling. | ||
| There's not even a number associated with this. | ||
| It's a date. And it does put any Republican presidential candidate, you know, at risk here because Joe Biden's completely off the hook and he gets a blank check to spend whatever he wants. | ||
| This deal is so terribly bad. | ||
| Chairman Biggs, he said that this was like a train wreck, you know, and I feel like we've just been taking advice and tips from Mayor Pete and man, we nailed it. | ||
| Congressman Biggs, your thoughts? | ||
| Yeah, I'm with Lauren on this. | ||
| This is about as bad a bill as you can get. | ||
| And it's all smoke and mirrors. | ||
| I mean, it's all ephemeral. Steve, this blows away with the wind. | ||
| So when CBO scores $2.1 trillion in savings, everybody needs to know that that is false, that the $1.5 trillion in savings is based on this administrative pay-go thing that can be, first of all, that sunsets after one year. | ||
| Second of all, The director of OMB, who is a Biden appointee, hard lefty attorney, she can come in and say, no, we're going to do it anyway. | ||
| So that $1.5 trillion won't happen. | ||
| Then the other $600 billion of that $2.1 trillion, that's coming on the caps on spending, which, by the way, there's six years of these caps, supposedly, with small growth. | ||
| Four years of those are optional. | ||
| And they're still going ahead and scoring it. | ||
| That means it's in the tank. | ||
| It was in the tank. | ||
| It was coordinated here, in my opinion, by the White House, OMB, CBO, and our leadership. | ||
| And all of this is going to come away and leave us with a massive national debt, growth in our national debt, with no structural reforms really at all. | ||
| Oh, don't bury the lead. | ||
| You just said you thought there was coordination over the weekend because people were kind of surprised how CBO, which normally doesn't turn on a dime, all of a sudden came out with the scoring that was so into the White House. | ||
| I mean, it was basically the White House dictated the assumptions you make. | ||
| Are you saying you think leadership coordinated with the White House and with the Democrat leadership to get this phony CBO scoring? | ||
| I think the whole thing's kind of coordinated. | ||
| Think about it. And what I'm talking about is I believe that they had a deal a week ago And that they were just delaying releasing it until they had wrapped their bow around it, you know? | ||
| And so they delayed it. | ||
| And what happened? White House let Kevin McCarthy go out and try to sell this to the Republican conference first and go on. | ||
| And then what happened is Biden's team goes in and talking to Democrats. | ||
| Democrats are being called and told, hey, you can't bash this deal too much because we're getting a good deal and we don't want to drive Republicans off. | ||
| So yeah, I think it's important. | ||
| Don't gloat that you've got wins. | ||
| Go ahead and cry your crocodile tears and then vote yes. | ||
| And people that came out at first and said, the Democrats hate this. | ||
| I go, where's the hate? When they hate, they know how to hate. | ||
| They know how to... Congressman Biggs, one last thing. | ||
| People are saying, oh, we're going to take the appropriations process and that's going to get it. | ||
| I want to walk through why that is nonsense. | ||
| The appropriation process is not going to make up for this catastrophe, sir. | ||
| Just walk through why that's not going to happen. | ||
| Well, so what you would have happen is you'd have 12 bills that would go through the process and we'd set How we're going to spend our money. | ||
| But what happens now is there's a disincentive to do that because we're going to go to an automatic continuing resolution. | ||
| In other words, going to keep the spending levels. | ||
| However, the spending levels, we actually have a slight growth in spending and we're going at higher post or COVID relief levels. | ||
| And so when we when we get three months into the next year, it's supposed to trigger a percent reduction. | ||
| However, I don't believe that reduction is going to take place. | ||
| So when we start talking about the 12 appropriations bills, I just don't see us actually delivering on that. | ||
| And we're going to the CR. And let me just tell you the other thing. | ||
| Even if you go to those 12 appropriations bills and they were to pass, they will reflect A growth in spending and not a reduction in spending according to my reading of what we have here. | ||
| So it doesn't benefit us at all. | ||
| Neither does the automatic CR because the CR is going to take up. | ||
| It won't even kick in until a year. | ||
| I don't mean a year. I mean three months into the next. | ||
| Chairman Biggs, let me ask you about the automatic CR. Now, if it was, in fact, the way Congressman Massey had already presented it originally, and if it was automatic when it was supposed to be, there wasn't this three-month delay and there was a 1 % decrease, then would that be okay? | ||
| That would be better. | ||
| That would be better because what would happen is... | ||
| Yeah, what would happen is you would actually take your spending number, your high number, and you'd be reducing it by 1%. | ||
| But remember, that's just discretionary side. | ||
| Don't forget that they've moved money off the discretionary side into the mandatory side to try to avoid some of this as well. | ||
| But the whole thing, Representative Boebert and Steve, that I look at is, what's the incentive? | ||
| The incentive, we want We want to make sure that we can get this thing done on time. | ||
| It would be significantly better for one other reason, and I think you're probably alluding to this, and that is when we are in the election cycle, and you're going to see an omnibus come in December again because they delayed it three months. | ||
| And that's the key, is because the reason that Thomas Massey did what he did is because he's trying to say, let's take away the incentive to just Push it up to December and do this omnibus. | ||
| Let's get our spending bill done when we're supposed to do it the way we're supposed to do it. | ||
| And I think it would have been significantly better now that I walked through that a little bit. | ||
| But don't forget, by delaying that impact for three months, you're going to get an omnibus, a cromnibus spending bill in December of this year instead of taking care of it the appropriate way. | ||
| We got two minutes. | ||
| What is your word? When people call 202-225-3121, the House switchboard number, what is the message they should be giving their representatives, sir? | ||
| Vote no. | ||
| I mean, it can be that simple. | ||
| Look, we can all ramble on. | ||
| Believe me, I could ramble on about how bad it is. | ||
| But vote no. | ||
| That's what has to happen. | ||
| Congressman Biggs, how do people track you? | ||
| What's the social media and what's your website? | ||
| Yeah, biggs.house.gov or at RepAndyBiggsAZ. | ||
|
unidentified
|
RepAndyBiggsAZ. Okay. We're in rules right now. | |
| You're going to testify. Congressman Weber is going to testify. | ||
| Then later you go to votes and then you're going to have conference tonight about 730. | ||
| Right. How intense, real quickly, Congressman Biggs, how intense is the arm twisting going to be, the whip going to be on this because they don't have the votes? | ||
| Well, it won't be hard on people like Lauren and me because Boebert and I have made our opinion known and we're pretty good at sticking to where we are. | ||
| But they're going to go to people who they think that they can pick off first and they're going to remind them of all the benefits that they've given to them and the benefits that they're going to forego if they turn their back on people. | ||
| There will be some. They're going to try to cut deals with some. | ||
| There will be deals promised, I guarantee you. | ||
| Congressman Biggs, thank you. | ||
| Honored to have you on here, sir. | ||
| Thanks. It's always good to be with you, but always better to be with Reverend Boebert. | ||
| See you soon, Chairman. | ||
| We'll see you. Congressman Boebert's in the house. | ||
| We're going to get into the down and dirty, how amendments are going to be voted. | ||
| This thing is wild right now, and trust me, people are pouring into the Speaker's office either looking for deals or absolution. | ||
| Okay, short break. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Back in the warm in a moment. Okay, welcome back. | |
| We have Congressman Boebert. | ||
| First off, you're going to leave here and go testify at rules. | ||
| What does that mean? Because we've been streaming the rules thing even before we came on live for the afternoon show. | ||
| It's a little confusing. You've got some guys pitching the deal, but aren't they supposed to walk us through what rules is doing and why are you going here and testifying? | ||
| Yeah, so we've been meeting ever since we heard about this deal. | ||
| I flew into Washington, D.C. Sunday night, left my family early. | ||
| Didn't do the Memorial Day in Colorado? | ||
| No, didn't do that. You know, I was supposed to go on a Memorial Day bike ride, so my trike is left parked. | ||
| And I came out here. | ||
| I did go to Arlington, pay my respects to our fallen heroes. | ||
| But, you know, while we're supposed to be remembering those heroes and everything that they fought for, that they sacrificed, the ultimate sacrifice was given for our freedoms, our country. | ||
| You know, we have backhanded deals being made here in Washington, D.C., undercutting everything that those great men and women fought for. | ||
| And so here we are now, right after Memorial Day, and we're hearing all of this anti-deal nonsense. | ||
| And, you know, I get it to some degree. | ||
| Speaker McCarthy went in with one hand behind his back trying to negotiate this thing. | ||
| The Senate has sat on the sidelines. | ||
| Why does McConnell get a pass in this? | ||
| I mean, he did nothing. | ||
| He should have taken up our Limit Save Grow bill. | ||
| This bill... We did the job. | ||
| We've discussed this. | ||
| Nobody wanted to increase the debt ceiling, but we did it. | ||
| And we wanted fiscal responsibility. | ||
| And we debated it. We amended it. | ||
| We passed it. And the Senate should have taken that bill up, amended it if necessary, sent it back to us for final passage, sent it to Joe Biden. | ||
| And instead, we have this horrible, pitiful, anti-deal that we are presented with. | ||
| And so what I'm going to do in the Rules Committee I have been making some demands to have an open rule. | ||
| This is something that we fought for during the speakers race. | ||
| So members of Congress could actually go to the House floor and offer amendments to legislation so we can have a voice on the bills that we're passing, that we're voting on. | ||
| So I want an open rule here so we could go to the floor and that's currently being discussed. | ||
| I have sent in multiple amendments as have my colleagues. | ||
| Excuse me, correct me if I'm wrong. | ||
| I thought we won that in the whole deal that was to make McCarthy. | ||
| You were one of the Magnificent Six. | ||
| Didn't on that Friday night or Saturday, isn't that part of the deal? | ||
| Why does Lauren Bobin have to go back and testify on something I thought was a hard and firm part of that deal? | ||
| So the whole point of the Speaker's race and having a motion to vacate, a check and balance, was because we know at any given time those rules can be suspended. | ||
| And the House does not have to operate by those rules, that there are ways around those rules. | ||
| And so this, at the Speaker's request is what I've heard, this was to be a closed rule with no amendments allowed. | ||
| At his request. That's what I'm told. | ||
| The Speaker's not told me that directly. | ||
| But now we have members who are working in the Rules Committee, who sit on that committee, saying, let's look at these amendments and consider opening it up. | ||
| That's the way it should be. | ||
| I think that this is a violation of the rules that were made. | ||
| If it doesn't... Become an open rule and we get these amendments to the House floor. | ||
| But I mean, some of the things that I'm looking for is, you know, I want to rescind the unobligated COVID funds that we passed in the last Congress. | ||
| That's $29.5 billion. | ||
| Now, some of this COVID fund that they're, COVID money that they're wanting to claw back, they're currently sending that over to Commerce and they're just waiting to spend it on something else. | ||
| To another pool, another pool of capital. | ||
| Yes, it's not going to lower our debt. | ||
| There's no cut. Right. It's just going to be spent on something different. | ||
| You caught them with an unspent thing, so they're just going to shift the economy and say, well, wait strategically until we see something. | ||
| Absolutely. I want to put the RAINS Act back in there. | ||
| The RAINS Act, this is something that is really great. | ||
| Any major regulations that are made over $100 million, we have a say in that. | ||
| And currently, they don't have the RAINS Act like we had in the Limit Save Grow. | ||
| They have this administrative pay-go. | ||
| And this administrative pay-go, this is something that was offered under the Trump administration. | ||
| But when you have a good, diligent administration, then it can work. | ||
| But unfortunately, we have the director of OMB who is... | ||
| At any time can say, we suspend that and the executive order is going to be paid for it. | ||
| That's exactly right. They do not have to adhere to a PAYGO. People should know the CBO, the 2.1, I think over a trillion dollars was actually in these PAYGO savings, which is not going to happen. | ||
| It's all ephemeral. Right, right. It is. | ||
| That's exactly right. Because you're depending upon Biden's OMP director to tell Biden, no, we don't have any money for that. | ||
| Yes, we have the fox guard in the hen house. That's what we have here. | ||
| And then, you know, there's talk right now about the student loan bailout, like, oh, look, we have that in the bill. | ||
| No, that's a darn lie. | ||
| What you have is what Biden was going to do anyway. | ||
| All he's doing, he's saying September 1, We're not going to suspend those payments anymore and we're going to get that back so we just stop losing five billion dollars a month. | ||
| It's not ending his executive order for the student loan bailout and so I'm putting that back in there so that's back on the table and we can say no we are not paying for your student loans. | ||
| If you were to convince them to do open, you'll have a thousand amendments to this, correct? | ||
| Well, so again, that's up to the Rules Committee. | ||
| It's my understanding the Rules Committee can limit how many amendments actually go to the floor. | ||
| And so that's why I'm going to the Rules Committee to debate all of mine. | ||
| And I hope that my colleagues who are offering amendments will debate theirs as well. | ||
| So we can show just the importance and the efficacy of them, because ultimately we can make this a bill worth passing again if we can't amend this legislation. | ||
| But if it's not amendable, then this is junk. | ||
| This is garbage. I'm not voting for it. | ||
| In fact, you came out and tweeted that you didn't like it beforehand, but after you read it, you just said, I'm a hard no. | ||
| Yes. In reading it, were you shocked when you flew back here and actually got the copy of it? | ||
| Tell me about tell me what your first impression is. | ||
| You started to read through this. Yes, well, I mean, there's pilot programs that we don't know how much these are going to cost. | ||
| I mean, there was so much there. | ||
| It's almost like every section is a new exclamation point and a question mark. | ||
| You know, say, what the heck are we doing here? | ||
| Even seeing Garrett Graves' bill that is in there about the NEPA reforms. | ||
| You know, this is something that I supported in H.R. 1. | ||
| But I don't support it when we're not rescinding the IRA subsidies. | ||
| And that's another amendment that I have. | ||
| Put that back on the table. | ||
| We are going to take those subsidies back. | ||
| And so, my gosh, we even messed up a good bill here by putting it in. | ||
| Nancy May says that that bill's not even germane. | ||
| And you know, that's something that we have to debate out in the Rules Committee to see. | ||
| But, I mean, there's so much there. | ||
| And then, you know, there are members who clearly did not read the legislation. | ||
| They went on the news and they were saying the talking points given by leadership or what they heard on the conference call. | ||
| Why would leadership give... | ||
| These talking points they gave were just factually... | ||
| I mean, not even close. | ||
| People can make mistakes all the time. | ||
| But these were just absolutely... | ||
| Straight gaslighting. Straight gas, these are lies. | ||
| Yes, absolutely. | ||
| I saw one of my colleagues go on the news and say, hey, but we got the 87,000 IRS agents defunded. | ||
| The heck we did! | ||
| There was $80 billion pre-appropriated to them. | ||
| They already have this money, and we're taking back $1.4 billion. | ||
| That just means at the end of 10 years, they have $1.4 billion less. | ||
| So instead of $87,000, I hire, what, $85,000? | ||
| The central beating heart of the, of what House Freedom Caucus bill that we got through that we weren't in love with, but the beating heart was $1.5 trillion or one year. | ||
| And we'll let them, you're going to give them a debt increase, get through this crisis, get on top of better management, but the whole world will see how mismanaged. | ||
| We'll have this discussion either in October, November, or no later than May at the railhead of the presidential. | ||
| And we know the more information we get the American people, They say, no, you can't increase debt unless you have cuts in spending. | ||
| 60%. Another 15 said, just let default. | ||
| That's 75. Of that 45, this is CNN, 45 % of the Democrats agree with this. | ||
| When did you first get an inkling that the second year with no caps, which is pure insanity, because you could have 16. | ||
| What was the first indication that that was going to happen? | ||
| I mean, in the legislation, when there's not an actual dollar amount to this debt ceiling increase, and it's simply just a date, you know? | ||
| I mean, we all started throwing around numbers together, and we're seeing four to six trillion dollars. | ||
| You know, we have Heritage and Club and all of these other groups scoring against it and diving into it and looking at these numbers, and it is... | ||
| It's astronomically worse than $1.5 trillion. | ||
| $1.5 trillion that we didn't want to spend but thought, in this scenario, that seems fiscally responsible. | ||
| With the cuts that we're doing, we wanted to cut so much that we didn't have to raise the debt ceiling. | ||
| That would have been ideal. | ||
| But this is Washington, D.C., so a little too easy there. | ||
| And now, you know, there's... | ||
| There's no limit. It's an unlimited debt ceiling increase. | ||
| As the economy slows down, less tax revenue is going to come in. | ||
| This thing could blow five, six. | ||
| And if you have an emergency, you could get another seven or eight trillion by January 2025. | ||
| Yes. Is that a red line for you? | ||
| Just impossible to have an uncapped? | ||
| Absolutely. That should be a red line for everyone. | ||
| That is an easy thing. | ||
| That is not radical. That is not extreme. | ||
| Everyone understands tightening the belt and not spending more than you have and living within your means and just have this unlimited charge card. | ||
| I'm here that we're using on the taxpayers behalf. | ||
| Dan Bishop outlined it pretty great. | ||
| You know how much is a trillion dollars? | ||
| He said a trillion dollars is eight thousand dollars for every man, woman and child in America right now. | ||
| And and that's some two hundred and seventy five thousand dollars right now that currently every man, woman and child in America owes. | ||
| And we're going to add another thirty two thirty two billion dollars or thirty two thousand dollars onto that. | ||
| Unbelievable. Can you hang with us for another? | ||
| I can, yes. Okay, we're going to take a short break. | ||
| We've got Dr. Peter Navarro. | ||
| He's also going to be with us. | ||
| 202-225. | ||
| In fact, when our audience calls a congressional office, what should be their message today? | ||
| They need to be telling every Republican to vote no. | ||
| I don't think that you're going to sway the Democrats, but certainly call these Republican members, particularly your member, because I know firsthand that those Republicans That has an impact when your office gets a call. | ||
| It does. It's really easy for staff to disregard someone who their member does not represent, and they say, well, call your member of Congress. | ||
| So be sure you're calling them, but tell them to vote no. | ||
| I still call other offices. | ||
| People call mine all day long. | ||
| Sometimes I answer the phones. | ||
| Some of those are positive, and maybe some of those are Democratic. | ||
| I kind of get sad when it's the positive ones. | ||
| I was like, man, I was looking forward to a fight here. | ||
| And, you know, like, oh, this is a real one. | ||
| You like fighting. You're from Colorado. | ||
| You like fighting. And, man, we got to fight. | ||
| Okay, we're gonna take a short commercial break. | ||
| Continue. Congressman Boebert is about to head over to testify in front of the Rules Committee. | ||
| That's going to go late. Then they're going to have votes. | ||
| 730, a conference. | ||
| And I'm sure that conference is going to be some arm twisting. | ||
| All day long, people have been going out of the Speaker's House. | ||
| And it looks like more no votes are coming, uh, coming to Christian. | ||
| People say maybe as much as some of the media reporting, maybe as much as 80 right now. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| Dr. Peter Navarro is also with us. | ||
| Stick around in the war room. | ||
| Be back in a moment. | ||
| So we've gone from, you know, 4 trillion ish to 6 trillion ish or something along those And In a post-COVID environment, we're now going to say we're freezing spending. | ||
| So we're, as some articles have said, bending, you know, the curve down. | ||
| So we're bending the curve down off of the higher COVID levels of spending in order to extract an agreement to push the debt ceiling all the way to January 1st, 2025 in the middle of a lame duck, which by most accounts would amount to maybe $4 trillion-ish of increase. | ||
| And I'm trying to figure out how that's good for the American people. | ||
| That's what I'm trying to figure out. | ||
| That's not exactly ratcheting back our spending. | ||
| This is like watching the Indy 500 on Sunday and like you're going 240 down the stretch and you're going, oh, the curve's coming up and I'm just going to let my foot a little bit off the gas. | ||
| You could go barreling right through the curve right into the wall and that's what we're doing. | ||
| We're not making the substantive transformative changes necessary. | ||
| We already acknowledged here, I think on a bipartisan basis, we're not touching mandatory spending in any significant way. | ||
| Actually, I'm fine with that in the current circumstances of this political environment, but I think we ought to be on a bipartisan basis actually sitting down to roll our sleeves up and address mandatory spending. | ||
| Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, their only response ever to that is taxes. | ||
| Literally, that's the response. | ||
| Say, okay, well, let's talk about all that. | ||
| Let's talk about overall revenue to the Treasury and then talk about what we're going to do to reform mandatory spending. | ||
| But we don't ever do that. But put that aside. | ||
| Indiscretionary, we're talking about a freeze. | ||
| A freeze in spending post-COVID. And I think that, I think, is what a lot of the American people are concerned about. | ||
| To the extent that I'm trying to put any meat on the bone of what my friend from South Carolina said about smoke and mirrors. | ||
| Is, oh, these cuts, we're going to save $2 trillion over 10 years. | ||
| Well, when the CBO says that, And I think this is correct, right? | ||
| They are assuming that we're going to spend at those levels that are capped and the targets, which are not, of course, in law. | ||
| They're just targets. So the $2 trillion is, you know, like most things in this town, a fiction. | ||
| It's just saying, well, if you guys do something remotely responsible like this, you'll save $2 trillion. | ||
| If I heard one of my colleagues correctly earlier about the defense spending, the defense spending, it was critical of increasing defense while decreasing non-defense. | ||
| Okay. I mean, my personal view was that we should have a top line number here and then go duke it out in appropriations. | ||
| Why isn't that better for us? | ||
| I would ask everybody here. | ||
| Why isn't it better to do like a normal family does and say, here's your number. | ||
| Now go figure it out in appropriations. | ||
| Because I think one of the fundamental problems we have in this town is we keep playing games with these bifurcated caps. | ||
| And we go, okay, we're going to have 704 for... | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay, that is Chip Roy over at Rules. | |
| Congressman Bober is going to leave here in a second. | ||
| Very powerful, Chip Roy and Ralph Norman fighting the good fight there. | ||
| Tell the audience what we just saw. | ||
| Yes, so Chip right now is in the Rules Committee. | ||
| They would love to kill this bill entirely. | ||
| Speaker McCarthy still has an opportunity to pull the bill. | ||
| But right now we're seeing Congressman Chip Roy and Ralph Norman, they're banded together, being the only ones trying to take this down. | ||
| And that's not enough to kill it, to prevent it from actually going to the floor. | ||
| So I have been working with them and our colleagues in the House Freedom Caucus and those in the 20 who stood up during the Speaker's fight. | ||
| And I've said, well, since you're going to fail at preventing that bill from going to the floor, Then open the rule up and allow us to add amendments to the bill so we could go to the House floor, we could debate them. | ||
| I would like to not see that limited. | ||
| I'm okay with there being 100 amendments. | ||
| I'll be here all week. Could you stay all night every night and just work it? | ||
| Imagine if we were just here and did our jobs. | ||
| Talk to me about just breaking right now. | ||
| Congressman Diana Harshbarger is a no. | ||
| And she's got a very powerful tweet. | ||
| Tell us about that. Why is that important? | ||
| That is so important. So I believe that Harshbarger was definitely one of these bellwether votes. | ||
| And for her to come out as a no today... | ||
| is very powerful. | ||
| Her message is powerful. | ||
| I've retweeted her. This is somebody that we had actually discussed and said, where is she? | ||
| We don't know. And I'm very proud of her for coming out against this. | ||
| But we're seeing all sorts of members like that. | ||
| Wesley Hunt. Yes. Corey Mills. | ||
| Corey Mills. Byron Donalds. | ||
| Waltz. These are also ambitious people. | ||
| These are people that see downrange, correct? | ||
| Yeah. These are not the wallflowers. | ||
| Right, exactly. I mean, even Nancy Mace has come out as a hard no, and she's got plenty of tweets to defend her no. | ||
| She's going to be here tomorrow in the war room. | ||
| Yes, we have Kat Kammack who came out as a no today. | ||
| Kat Kammack's big. Tell us why Kat's big. | ||
| Because these are people close to McCarthy. | ||
| That's exactly why. That's why that's a big deal, because these are people who are close to McCarthy, and some of them have made excuses to vote kind of the wrong way before, because that's what leadership told them to do. | ||
| And there are those of us that Americans know we didn't go here to get along, and we are going to stand our ground. | ||
| There are other members. You never really know what game they're trying to play, what seniority they're trying to get, what chairman seat that they're trying to achieve. | ||
| And for these people to come out, that's really, really powerful. | ||
| The cynical people in town are saying, listen, McCarthy's telling those guys you can go ahead and do it because I can make it with Democrats. | ||
| Is that true? | ||
| And is it a possibility for him to continue to govern if he needs 80 to 100 Democrat votes? | ||
| If this bill passes with the majority of Democrats voting in favor of it, then I'm sorry, that's the end of Kevin McCarthy's speakership. | ||
| That is a bad, bad look to pass a bill of this magnitude without the support of the majority. | ||
| Is that forgivable? | ||
| I don't know. I mean, I don't know how the people who vote against it forgive that, even those who weren't involved in the Speaker's race to the extent that I was. | ||
| Isn't that the important thing you've seen in the last 24 hours, and they're saying over McCarthy's home, but you're seeing some of the most high visibility, people who are not part of the 20, who I know a lot of people are saying behind the scenes, hey, we want to support you guys, we just can't. | ||
| They're coming forward because this bill's so bad. | ||
| Right, they are coming forward. | ||
| And really, there are so many parts of the deal that have been broken in this. | ||
| And my priority is not a motion to vacate right now because I don't think that we have the numbers for that, so why entertain it at this point? | ||
| I mean, we'll see what comes out of this anti-deal and if it passes, how it passes, who's involved in it. | ||
| But, I mean, one of the baseline parts of our negotiation was to get spending back to fiscal 2022 levels. | ||
| I mean, that was... | ||
| That was number one. | ||
| Like, this is where we want our spending debate. | ||
| And a one-year deal with a cap. Yes. | ||
| And that's not- The people in Colorado did not send you here to uncap two years, which could be five, six, seven, eight trillion dollars. | ||
| I was not sent to Congress to govern this way. | ||
| And if Republicans governed how they campaigned, we would not be in this mess. | ||
| What do you mean by that? Every Republican is fiscally responsible, and they want to take care of the debt. | ||
| On the campaign trail. | ||
| Absolutely. But then when it comes down to it, they make excuses. | ||
| I've heard our appropriators, who are my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, saying, oh, we can't do this because it's just going to be too many programs cut, and Democrats are going to come after us, and how are we going to win an election? | ||
| Like, well, if we're not going to cut spending now, then when are we going to? | ||
| And actually, that's something that you've alluded to a lot since I've been here, the appropriations fight. | ||
| This is setting us up for failure in the appropriations fight. | ||
| I'm not believing the argument that you could kick the can down the road to appropriations and somehow get a victory out of that. | ||
| It's not going to happen. Certain people are trying to sell that right now. | ||
| That's absolutely 180 from the truth, correct? | ||
| Absolutely. Appropriations is a great place to fight, but if we're losing this, if we're surrendering this fight, then we have no hope in appropriations. | ||
| You've got to go. We've got two minutes with you before you've got a punch. | ||
| Talk to our audience. | ||
| When they call, What should they be telling their representative? | ||
| Yes, call your representatives and tell them that this is a bad deal for Americans, that you did not send them to Washington, D.C. to sell out your children and your children's children's future. | ||
| This is astronomical. | ||
| I mean, $4 to $6 trillion we're hearing in an increase, an unlimited debt ceiling increase with no caps, no No end dollar amount, just a date. | ||
| And then it also puts our presidential candidacy for a Republican nominee on the line. | ||
| We are giving Joe Biden a pass. | ||
| We are promoting Biden's radical agenda. | ||
| Democrats are gleefully supporting this bill, and that should cause you some pause. | ||
| At least pause enough to dial that phone number and call your representative and tell them to vote no. | ||
| They need to hear from you. | ||
| They represent you. They are your voice in Congress. | ||
| And I hope tonight that I'm able to get some amendments to the floor so I can represent the people in Colorado's 3rd District well and fight for them. | ||
| The next 48 hours is going to be some of the most intense arm-twisting in this city in many years, right? | ||
| It's going to get ugly? Oh, absolutely. | ||
| You know, but that's what's so frustrating about this place. | ||
| People are promised things, and they have ambitions to get somewhere and be somewhere. | ||
| I came here to serve my constituents, and that should be the top priority for every member of Congress. | ||
| And instead, they're saying, you won't get on this committee. | ||
| You're not going to get this gavel and chairman of this committee. | ||
| That is so frustrating because all of these members get strong armed and unfortunately some of them listen to them. | ||
| But I think we're seeing already with the amount of Republicans who have come out against this legislation that there are people saying enough is enough. | ||
| The debt is out of control. | ||
| This is one of the greatest threats to our country is out of control federal spending. | ||
| And our national debt, and this is doing nothing to save that. | ||
| And we have the same radical Democrat policies still intact, and we aren't taking any of those out in this deal. | ||
| How do people follow Lauren Boebert in the next 48 hours? | ||
| Yeah, on Twitter, I'm at Lauren Boebert or at RepLaurenBoebert, and then Facebook, Lauren Boebert for Congress. | ||
| And, you know, I'm trying to get as much information out as possible. | ||
| And actually, another great tip, these members who have come out and publicly stated that they're voting no... | ||
| Supportable. Support them. Retweet them and make sure your comments are there. | ||
| Call their office and thank them. | ||
| Very intense. Thank you very much. | ||
| You're a fighter. We're going to follow it closely. | ||
| We're going to go to your testimony when you're over at Rules. | ||
| All right. Sounds good. Thanks so much, Steve. | ||
| Dr. Peter Navarro, give us your assessment right now. | ||
| We're going to hold you through also the D-block. | ||
| Give me your assessment of where we stand right now, sir. | ||
| Steve, everything Congressman Bober said is right. | ||
| Everything Chip Royce said, all that's right. | ||
| But the buried lead here, Steve, is that the Biden-McCarthy Memorial Day surrender institutionalizes the biggest problem we're facing for the next ten years, which is friggin' stagflation. | ||
| I want to urge every member of Congress right now to read the piece today in the Washington Times I wrote. | ||
| It's from the Substack. | ||
| And it lays out exactly why we needed to hit two marks. | ||
| McCarthy needed to hit two marks. | ||
| He needed to reduce the spending, to cut the demand-pull inflation, And he needed to reestablish our strategic energy dominance by rolling back all these on our fossil fuels industry to deal with the cost-push inflation. | ||
| He didn't do either one of those. | ||
| And that deal, Steve, that is the worst negotiation I've ever seen. | ||
| I feared when he'd left everybody behind and decided to sit down with Feckless Joe by himself in his tennis shoes. | ||
| I mean, friggin', I'm no fashion plate, but that guy looked like a friggin' dork going in there who couldn't find the men's room in the West Wing. | ||
| And he walked out of there with his pockets picked Gee, it's just like, come on, brother. | ||
| Your hair's toned beautifully, Kevin, but you don't know crap about anything. | ||
| Okay, here's the question I'm going to ask you. | ||
| I don't want the answer until we come back after the break. | ||
| But in doing this, they've taken this out of the national conversation because they took off a cap, added a second year. | ||
| It's uncapped for two years. | ||
| I want Dr. Peter Navarro is going to tell me when President Trump returns in January 2025, what is going to be the smoking cinder, the smoking hole that is the American economy? | ||
| We're going to take a short commercial break. | ||
| Dr. Peter Navarro... | ||
| from Harvard University is going to join us on the other side to talk about this. | ||
| This is a fight, and I'm telling you, you're seeing some folks that are natural allies of Kevin McCarthy are coming up and saying, not no, but hard no. | ||
| Now, the Senators are saying, hey, he's just given enough out, he knows he has the votes, but those votes are Democrat votes. | ||
| And he's gonna have to be accountable for that. | ||
| And the accountability is, a Speaker of the House, a Republican Speaker of the House, following Nancy Pelosi's reign of terror, cannot govern with Democrats on massively important bills like that. | ||
| It doesn't work that way. | ||
| This is, it doesn't wash, as they say in prep school. | ||
| Okay, back with Dr. | ||
| Peter Navarro in a moment. | ||
| CEO of Flagshirt.com, a third-generation veteran-owned small business. | ||
| I believe that the American way of life is for all of us. | ||
| I'm asking you today to visit Flagshirt.com. | ||
| Help keep the American dream alive. | ||
| Be a flag waver. Carry a nation's heritage. | ||
| Use coupon code ACTION10 for 10 % off site-wide and buy a flag shirt today. | ||
| Action, action, action. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Trump vs. DeSantis on taxes. | |
| In Congress, Ron DeSantis pushed a 23 % national sales tax, where the middle class pays more. | ||
| 90 % of families would get a tax hike if DeSantis replaced the current system. | ||
| President Trump cut taxes. | ||
| A lot. Lowering tax rates for everyone. | ||
| Trump cut taxes. | ||
| DeSantis tried to raise them. | ||
| Ron DeSantis, wrong on tax hikes, just not ready. | ||
| Make America Great Again, Inc. | ||
| is responsible for the content of this advertising. | ||
| Okay, welcome back. | ||
| Kat Kamek has put out a tweet. | ||
| She's a no. And not just you have gates in these, the hardcore Trump people. | ||
| You've got Kat Kamek, you have Byron Donalds, you got Michael Walls, you got Corey Mills. | ||
| Hey, and you got some of the, those are some of the strongest offense guys also, but hey, they're all no's. | ||
| Those are four, you know, rising stars. | ||
| And known as kind of in McCarthy camp. | ||
| We got Wesley Hunt. These are some big names. | ||
| I know this thing saying they're just because their districts are so red. | ||
| They've got to do this. Hey, there's something going on here. | ||
| Also, Matt Gaetz has been very kind of close to the vest on this quote. | ||
| This is from CNN breaking. | ||
| If a majority of Republicans are against a piece of legislation and you use Democrats to pass it, that would immediately be a black letter violation of the deal we had with McCarthy and would likely trigger an immediate motion. | ||
| Dr. Peter Navarro, by uncapping this deal and giving two years in January 2025, when you come back in as either Senior Economic Advisor or over at Treasury, you're going to have a smoking hole as an economy. | ||
| Sir, am I incorrect? You're exactly correct. | ||
| See, this is the turning point. | ||
| Every person needs to read this Washington Times article. | ||
| Kevin McCarthy had a chance to make history. | ||
| Instead, he's just another footnote to history. | ||
| And what I mean by that is he cut the typical uniparty deal, and it was a really bad negotiation because there's nothing in there. | ||
| I think that the poster child in that was what Lauren Boebert mentioned, where It's like, hey, they're going to double the size of the IRS and McCarthy clawed back like two IRS agents? | ||
| I mean, come on! But the big problem we're facing, Steve, is stagflation. | ||
| I'm old enough to have gone through all 12 years of that. | ||
| You know, it started in 68, didn't end until a deep recession. | ||
| In 1981, that was triggered by Volcker, just taken us into a horrible recession. | ||
| And it was a series of political miscues all along the way by footnotes to history that took us through that. | ||
| McCarthy, I mean, look, he's like the Boston Celtics now of politics. | ||
| It's like the Celtics fight back beautifully. | ||
| Like McCarthy gets this really strong deal that Russ Vogt But basically engineered that would have solved at least some of the stagflation problem because it had a way to reduce the spending. | ||
| Yeah, but hang on. | ||
| I want to talk to something. | ||
| I want to talk to something very close to your heart. | ||
| Kat Kamek on hers has said, since she worked on the RAINS Act, She said this whole thing on the EOs is all ephemeral. | ||
| It's all a joke. The OMB can come in at any time and back his EO. That's over a trillion dollars in the CBO. How big a deal is that? | ||
| Because you worked on that with the Rains Act was a big deal with his regulatory reform. | ||
| Kat Kamek's on to something here. | ||
| And she's saying, hey, I'm a no, because this thing's a joke. | ||
| Peter Navarro. Well, I can tell you that there were all sorts of shenanigans constantly being played. | ||
| In the words of the infamous Deborah Burke, there's workarounds that the deep administrative state uses basically to thwart the will of the American people. | ||
| See, this deal effectively is a blank check. | ||
| I mean, look, it was a stupid deal for McCarthy to cut, but I also think it was selfish. | ||
| This needs to be put out on the table. | ||
| Biden didn't want this thing to come up again. | ||
| In an election, he didn't want to have to be responsible for that, right? | ||
| But McCarthy didn't either. | ||
| It's a threat to his leadership, just like it is right now. | ||
| He didn't want that battle, so he caved on that. | ||
| I mean, if we want to take back the House and the Senate... | ||
| It's just, Steve, I can't tell you. | ||
| You were in business school. | ||
| You went through a course where they had the negotiating box, two people on either side of the table. | ||
| And the place you wound up in the box that was based on your relative bargaining power, McCarthy should have got everything that Russ Vogt had because he was holding all the cards and he got nothing. | ||
| Nothing. And the American people are going to get screwed. | ||
| Yeah. Hang on for a second. | ||
| This is Mary Miller. | ||
| I will vote no on increasing the debt on our children and grandchildren by $4 trillion because this deal does not contain anywhere near the cuts and policy changes we need in order to stop Joe Biden's war on the American people. | ||
| That's Mary Miller, Illinois. Peter, your article is amazing. | ||
| You lay it all out. How do people get to all your writings? | ||
| How are they following you on social media, brother? | ||
| Steve, it's all about the Substack. | ||
| PeterNavarro.Substack.com. | ||
| PeterNavarro.Substack.com. | ||
| The Washington Times... He's doing a great job in terms of putting once a week my best substack of the week up. | ||
| This one It's about why McCarthy surrender or sacrilege on Memorial Day weekend, a surrender, is going to institutionalize stakeflation for the next 10 years. | ||
| And that's all on Kevin McCarthy. | ||
| So peternavaro.substack.com. | ||
| Brother, you keep doing what you're doing. | ||
| We got to get that well over 100 Republicans to just say no on this. | ||
| And that's going to trigger what Matt Gaetz rose when he's... | ||
| He's playing this like a chess master because he didn't immediately jump to that. | ||
| He's just laying out the scenario. | ||
| Matt Gaetz is the master. | ||
| He's the master strategist. | ||
| I even tip my hat to him. One last thing. | ||
| This whole two-year uncapped, it's going to cause a major economic downturn. | ||
| We've got to stop it. Peter Navarro, honored to have you on here, brother. | ||
| I know you're fighting the good fight every second of every day. | ||
| Thank you very much. You're officially going to the mattresses on this, and you're in the trenches. | ||
| This is like in the South China Sea with a thousand Chinese missiles pointing at you. | ||
| Oh, man. We have just begun to fight, brother. | ||
| Thank you. We've only just begun to fight. | ||
| John Paul Jones. Okay, folks. | ||
| Stick around. We've got another hour. | ||
| It's going to be intense. We're going to go to the Rules Committee. | ||
| We are going to be all over this. | ||
| Matt Gaetz, the master chess master. | ||
| The chess master. By the way, his ratings last night on Newsmax topped CNN. Chris Reddy, don't be making an offer to Gates. | ||
| We need him exactly where he is. | ||
| Maybe a future speaker. | ||
| You never know. Maybe Chip Roy. | ||
| Maybe a combo platter. | ||
| Short commercial break. We're going to be back in a moment. | ||
| The second hour of the War Room on fire. |
Export Selection