TV ratings were huge for the
four day battle
for House speaker
that resulted in
Kevin McCarthy's election.
Part of the attraction
was the unfettered access
given to C-SPAN cameras
to televise the proceedings
and provide its feed to outlets
including CNN.
Last week,
I argued here
that the American
people deserve
continued unfiltered access
to the House chamber.
But as soon as Kevin McCarthy
actually took the gavel
back, went the camera
to its standard fixed position
aimed at the lectern.
Those rules are set by the party
that controls the House,
except for special events
like the election of a House speaker.
Well, Tuesday
the co-CEO of C-SPAN
sent a letter to McCarthy
seeking permission
to operate its own
independent cameras in the chamber,
citing the positive public reaction
and the transparency themes
in McCarthy's own rules package.
Among the congressmen
who have voiced their agreement,
my next guest, Matt Gates,
you'll remember during the speaker battle
the camera captured Gates
having private conversations
with a frustrated McCarthy,
chatting with Democrats,
including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
We even saw as
he was almost physically attacked
by fellow
Congressman Mike Rogers,
who later apologized.
So much lies ahead
for the 118th Congress.
I want these cameras to show it all
be it
the looming debt limit standoff,
the debates
over investigations of the FBI
and Hunter Biden, the battles over China
and the origin of COVID 19,
the blame game of the never ending
border crisis.
Florida Congressman Matt
Gaetz joins me now.
Congressman, thank you for coming back
without C-SPAN.
It occurs to me
that without C-SPAN cameras
we would not have seen
you nearly attacked by Mike Rogers.
Do you think that incident
is an example of why
some of your colleagues,
they don't want full camera access?
No, I think that the reason people
have opposed our effort
to democratize
viewing of the House floor
is because in many of the debates,
no one's present
and they want to maintain the fiction
that that's actual legislating.
And whenever
there is sharp disagreement or discord
or fiery debate on the floor
or in committee
the camera always catches those moments.
But there are also moments
of great interpersonal warmth
and collaboration
and the forming of alliances
that you might not normally see.
Whether it's myself
talking to Ilhan Omar about war powers
or Pramila Jayapal,
about big tech regulation
or discussing floor strategy with AOC
I think the American people
would be able to humanize Congress
more if they saw
more of our human interactions,
and not just the theater
that's on display during much
of the debate.
With regard to
Rogers and
the incident
which I'm showing now in slo mo.
What went on from your perspective?
How much did you see of him
coming at you?
Well, Mike
Rogers and I have worked together
for six years
on some of the most
tense national security issues
on the Armed Services Committee.
So it's not the first time
we've been frustrated with one another
or worked together.
Matter of fact,
that wasn't a remarkably unique incident.
There are times
when the pressure cooker is on
when we do yell and get heated
and that's okay.
Among colleagues,
what was different about this
was just that it was caught on camera.
So, you know, Mike and I are fine
we've worked together before.
We will again in the future.
But if we had more dynamic camera angles,
then I think you'd see these flare ups
and then the back
slapping afterwards in the agreement.
And the American people
could see alliances
form and dissolve in real time
rather than just getting a
more curated rendition of what happens
as much as I
want those
cameras, the camera work in that instance
was a little shoddy
because it followed
Kevin McCarthy
back into the well of the house,
and we never saw you.
Did you get on your feet?
Did you get ready for blows?
I mean, how close did it come?
Oh, no.
I think that it was overblown a bit.
I mean, Mike
was expressing his frustration with me,
and I totally understand different
people had different perspectives
in that moment.
And, you know, the argument
against these cameras
was actually made
on your network by Paul Ryan
this last week when he said, well,
we already have enough
performance in Congress.
We don't want people
playing to the cameras in these moments.
I think that the
public value
of being able
to see the human interactions
in frustration and warmth
and all of those things far outweighs
the risk that people
will play to the cameras.
I mean,
we have that during debate
one way or the other.
I think some of the old guard in Congress
opposes this
because they want to continue
to maintain the fiction
that when four or five
people are on the floor
spending millions of dollars,
that that is actually the action
of the whole legislator.
Of body
when the reality is far different.
And if we had cameras on the floor,
my suspicion is we would have far better
attendance
during the debates
that impact the lives
of our fellow Americans.
Every Saturday, I have a poll question.
As I think you know, during the course
of the program last Saturday,
we set a record more
than 46,000 people voted on this issue,
and it could not have been more decisive.
Put up the result of that.
I think it was 90% of people who said,
yeah, 93.91%
they want the camera access today.
Congressman, the Washington Post
lead editorial is on this issue
and agrees with your perspective.
Quick final question. On this.
What's the likelihood that you can sway
Kevin McCarthy?
Well, I'm encouraged that there's
actually a lot of bipartisan support
for this measure.
Some Democrats have put force
their own proposal.
And so I hope that
if we got
218 people to agree,
whether they were Republicans
or Democrats,
that Speaker McCarthy would
would be very persuaded by that.
And so we're working right now
to build that bipartisan coalition
to go to the speaker.
And it is in line with a lot of the goals
the speaker laid out in the Rules
Committee to have more transparency
to have more open votes,
to have more open rules.
So if we're going to have open
votes in open
rules, let's have an open chamber
for all the American people to observe.
On another matter,
that pertains to video,
you apparently were able
to earn a concession from him
that all of the security video
from Capitol Hill on
January six is going to enter
the public domain.
First of all,
correct me
if I'm wrong,
I believe that was something
that you were able
to get him to agree to.
Secondly, what is it you want to see?
What do you expect to see in that video?
Well, I think that you likely
will see
a lot of exculpatory evidence
where people may have been
in some sort of technical violation
of federal criminal law,
but never intended to harm anyone
and never intended
to breach any type of security barrier.
A lot of those barriers
may have been taken down.
I'm a believer that transparency answers
a lot of questions
and whether there's
higher criminal acuity
for some lower criminal acuity
for others.
Releasing that video will be important.
Also,
we already know
from whistleblower interviews
we've done that.
There were federal assets and agents
that were on the ground that day
to be able to observe their conduct.
Their potential coordination with one
another would be of great interest
to many of us on the Judiciary Committee
and I think many people throughout
the country.
So prosecutors have
said, and
I'm thinking
in the context of the case
of Eric Torrance,
he from Tennessee
It shouldn't be released
because it's
going to jeopardize security.
That too much will enter
the public domain
about the nooks and crannies, my words,
not theirs, of the Capitol.
Are you
worried that you're going to jeopardize
the security of yourself
and your colleagues
if all of this video
comes into the public space?
No.
Almost every inch of the Capitol
is subject to video surveillance.
If you don't believe that,
go into any casino in America
and you see the extent to which the zooms
and pans and tilts
inform on how people see these things.
So if the security of members of Congress
is dependent on shielding
the perspectives of these cameras,
that it's
not a very good security regime,
I think that's a red herring.
And I think it's a
it's an argument
made by the Department of Justice
because they don't want to expose
the extent
to which
there might have been federal assets
or agents enhancing criminal acuity.
We don't know that.
That's why we want to see the footage.
But I think we'll all be safe
and sound
even following the release
of that information.
Treasury Secretary Janet
Yellen said that on
I think Thursday,
we're going to hit the debt ceiling
limit of $31 trillion.
Are we headed for a standoff
where you and your colleagues
are demanding of cuts,
including
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid?
We did include in our negotiations
a reversion to 20, 22 spending levels
that would require changes in
some of the mandatory
spending, which, of course,
is driven by Medicare,
Medicaid, Social Security.
I think work requirements or something
we could get
a lot of bipartisan agreement
on, particularly in states
that had Medicaid expansion
under Obamacare.
But remember, just as I teamed up
with Democrats
for the floor action
last week,
you also may see some Republicans
in the middle team up with Democrats
to discharge a clean debt limit.
There's something called
a discharge petition
where you get 218
signatures on something.
It comes right to the floor.
So some of my conservative colleagues
and I may be disappointed
if you see moderate Republicans
working with Democrats
to get a clean vote on the debt limit.
We would probably like to use
that as an opportunity to analyze
some of the mandatory spending that's
given us the $32 trillion debt.
You know
that economists say
if we get close to default,
then what's going to happen?
Interest rates are going to rise.
People are going to feel it
in their mortgages, in their auto loans,
in their credit card bills.
Yeah, that's why we need to start now.
We should not engage in brinksmanship.
We're already having the discussions
with Jody Arrington,
the new chairman of the Budget Committee,
about how to create a budget resolution
to inform on policy choices.
We have an obligation
as the Republicans in the majority,
to sell to the American people
work requirements
or other spending reductions
to get buy in on that.
I don't believe we should
push this to the very end.
I think we need to
be laying out a plan now
to get our fiscal house in order.
But as you know, Michael,
with interest rates rising.
That changes the debt
service obligations of the country.
And it's one of the major drivers
of our spending now
is servicing that debt.
So we have to be able
to get it under control.
And the math is undeniable
that as more baby boomers
continue to utilize
more of the programs
that drive mandatory spending,
we are going to have that
take a greater and greater share of
the federal budget.