CNN "The Lead" - TRANSCRIPT McCarthy Appears To Suffer Defeat On Third Speaker Ballot; Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) Is Interviewed About House Speaker Election; Sources: GOP Hard-Liners Discussing Making Motion To Adjourn; Now: House Adjourns After McCarthy Rebuked On Third Ballot; Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) Is Interviewed About House Speaker Election. Aired 5-6p ET
Interview
[BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT]
Congressman Roy, thanks for joining us. You have been pretty vocal about your opposition to McCarthy to be speaker. You nominated Jim Jordan this third round. You voted for Byron Donalds on the first run. You do seem a little different from some of your other rebels, though, and that you seem actually focused on a set of principles and rule changes that you want to see enacted as opposed to having a personal animus against Kevin McCarthy. Do you agree with that assessment or no?
REP. CHIP ROY (R-TX): Yes, first of all, thanks for having me on. I think that's pretty close to correct. I would take some issue with saying that I've been in constant opposition to McCarthy as much as trying to offer changes that I think are paramount to make the House work again. That is, by the way, bipartisan criticism. We haven't had an amendment offered an open debate on the floor of the House since May of 2016.
We cannot keep spending money we don't have. We cannot continue to allow our border to be wide open, endangering Americans and immigrants. We cannot keep business as usual going, it's failing the country. And everybody agrees, frankly, both sides of the aisle.
So, I've got differences of opinion with colleagues across both sides of the aisle. But the one thing we need to do is change. We need the leadership and the tools to stop the swamp from running over and stepping all over the American people who want change in this town. So that's what I've been pushing for. There's still some things that might change that I could get there. But right now I'm holding the line because I think we need this place to operate differently. And that's not a partisan statement. It's just something that I believe.
TAPPER: So you want an open amendment process, which has happened in the past, but obviously, leaders of Congress, especially in the majority partner don't like it because they don't like to -- it's losing control of what's going to happen and what's going to be in the legislation. You want an open amendment process. What else would you want to see happen in order for you to get to yes for Kevin McCarthy or whoever -- well, let's just say Kevin McCarthy.
ROY: Yes, sure. We're putting aside personalities. Just take that out of it and just say what would get me to yes is I need to make sure that the Rules Committee is structured in such a way that those of us who are, what I would call fiscal conservatives who want to stop the train of the swamp, right, the power brokers, the defense industrial complex, if you will, plus the nondefense discretionary, you know, folks on the other side of the aisle who want to spend more money, they all come together as you know, you follow this town closely.
We just saw it happen with a $1.7 trillion omnibus bill. Without debating the merits of any particular substance in the bill, we can't keep doing that. It was a 10percent increase in defense, a 6percent increase in non-defense discretionary, 45 billion for Ukraine, 41 billion for emergency spending. None of that extra spending was paid for.
So, when are we going to stop that? So, we can't stop that if we don't have the tools in the Rules Committee to stop it. I'd love to have open debate. I'd love to have more amendments. The 72 hours rule you were just talking about, that's all good stuff.
But I got to take issue with one thing that Jamie (ph) talked about just a minute ago, which she was still on, because I don't want to talk about her in the third person, but she said that were asking for things for personal handouts, spots on committees.
TAPPER: But she wasn't talking about you. She wasn't -- we were very clear to distinguish you from others. We talked about how your opposition was based in principle, having to do with rules. We're talking more about the meeting between McCarthy and Gaetz, Boebert and Perry.
ROY: But if I might offer a defense of them, what was offered or at least meant to be offered was a response to the request from Kevin, hey, we need actual names to know what you want on certain committees. So, for example, we put my name on the Rules Committee. Jake, I don't want to be on the Rules Committee if I don't have to because you got to fly up on Sunday and I want to be with my family on Sunday night in Texas, but I offered to do it in order to try to advance the ball.
Andy Biggs didn't want to be on Appropriations, but we put his name on the list. My point is that was offered in good faith. It's unfair for Jamie to say that and then to say, oh, they want their goodies. These other guys have worked so hard.
Jake, how do you think people get committees in this town? How about NRCC contributions? How about how they play in terms of fundraising? Everybody says, oh, we can't talk about how fundraising is connected to power, but you know and I know how this town works, and it is. We're trying to break the back of that. We're trying to say that we need -- they say, oh, it's a meritocracy.
Where's the meritocracy with all due respect to Jamie? I disagree with that. We're trying to fundamentally change the institution and importantly have the tools and the leader ownership to stop the D.C. complex from jamming through a big bill like we saw just happen in December.
[17:05:07]
TAPPER: So, how does this end? Because where we have last landed was Kevin McCarthy has actually lost a vote. He was at 203 for the first ballot in the second ballot, now he's at 202. The rebels, you included, were at 19, 19, and now you're at 20. What do you think is going to happen in the fourth? Do you sense that there is momentum towards Jim Jordan away from Kevin McCarthy? Because the Republicans we've spoken to with the exception of Congressman Donalds, who are supporting Kevin McCarthy, they say they're not going to blink either.
ROY: Well, I don't know and I can't predict it. I know what I'm hearing from a lot of folks who are interested in breaking and increasing the ranks of people who are willing to think about a different path. I hope what will happen is that we will demonstrate that we're all convicted, that we need a different approach, and then maybe we'll have an adjournment and then go step aside and let's go talk about it. That's the way things ought to operate.
I've been having conversations with friends on both sides of the aisle about if we do a fourth round, do we then break and adjourn and then go have a discussion? You've been studying the history, you and I were talking about it offline. I've looked at the history. This isn't actually new. It has been 100 years.
But you know what's important about that, Jake? It has -- it's been 100 years because the two party system is so entrenched in this town that we don't actually -- we're not able to actually use our power as a single member of Congress to go to the House floor and have debate.
I opened my speech a minute ago saying, so this is what a full chamber looks like in debate, right, because we never do that anymore. And I think that's what needs to change. That's one of the things that needs to change.
TAPPER: One thing I wonder about is, you know, some of the things you talk about wanting not just rules changes, including an open amendment process, and not just having committees just jam things full of goodies from lobbyists and the rest, but some of the other things you talk about in terms of the military, industrial complex, et cetera, like, I am quite sure that there are Democrats you could get to vote for some of those provisions if you were willing to sit down and offer a bipartisan legislation. Now, you're a very hard line conservative, is that something you would be willing to do in the majority? Because I bet you would be able to find votes there that you are not able to get from other House Republicans.
ROY: Well, as you know, I've not been afraid to reach across the aisle. I passed the PPP Flexibility Act a few years ago and have joined with Abigail Spanberger to offer legislation on stock trading. I've done a couple of others that, did a bill with Hakeem Jeffries, believe it or not. And so, I'm always happy to have that conversation, but I'm always going to start with principle, right?
Are we increasing spending? Are we going to be passing more laws that I think constrict freedom and powering bureaucrats down in Washington? And I don't want to do that. I think that, you know, to your point, there is a path for us to be able to sit down. But it begins and ends for me with being able to say no to the powers that be in this town, deciding everything for us.
Take Ukraine, for example. Why didn't we just have a separate vote on Ukraine? I support supporting Ukraine, but I want to actually have accountability, know it's paid for, know where it's going, and I want it to be separate from the $1.7 trillion monster spending bill. We should do that. That's the way it's supposed to work from the old school -- you know, Schoolhouse Rocks video. We're supposed to get down, debate it, let's vote on Ukraine, then let's vote on emergency spending, then let's vote on appropriations bills for defense, then let's vote on some other spending.
And, oh, by the way, how about we pay for it? Crazy idea. And I think we should put everything on the table, roller sleeves up and do that.
TAPPER: So, what you're saying all sounds reasonable to many of our viewers, I'm sure. But the problem is that the 19, 20 rebels are not all Chip Roy. And some of them, at least in the views of some of your fellow conservatives, like Jonah Goldberg right to my left here are just nihilists and maybe individuals who seem more interested in social media or Fox News clicks than actual governance. Again, I'm not talking about you.
And in fact, one of the reasons, as you know, that the $1.7 trillion massive omnibus spending bill passed and why so many Republicans in the Senate were willing to vote for that is because they were afraid that House Republicans are unable to govern, which is something that, I don't know if I were Mitch McConnell right now, that you guys have changed anyone's mind today on that.
ROY: Yes, but here's the actual dirty little secret, right? It was never about the speaker's vote. Everybody in town knows what was being said in the Senate meeting rooms, right? Mitch McConnell was saying, hey, when they have a debate about spending in February or March, we think that there'll be pushback on the spending bills. He's correct.
But at the end of the day, that was what the fight was over. And that's what I want all of conservative America out there to understand, we were trying to say, hey, we should have a separate vote on Ukraine, we should have a separate vote on the emergency spending, we should then have an appropriations process and be able to have a debate in February or March.
It wasn't about whether or not McCarthy was going to be speaker on January 3. It was a different point altogether. And McConnell basically laughed and said, look, we know the deal, McCarthy actually wants a nine month bill, an extension to September 30, but he's going to vote no and hope yes. That's what everybody in town has been saying and knowing, and I think you guys know that.
[17:10:11]
TAPPER: Yes, but just last point, I don't think Kevin McCarthy is alone among the House Republican caucus in wanting to vote no but hope yes.
ROY: No, he's not alone, and that's part of the problem. And, look, I'm trying to be a voice to say the party -- I'm here to represent the constituents in Texas that I represent, and people disaffected across this country looking at the swamp going, what the hell is going on while we rack up debt and destroy our country. I'm not here to choose party over the people I represent. I'm here to stand up for the people I represent.
Even those -- I've got a whole lot of people texting me saying, hey, keep going. I've got a few going, oh, my God, you got to go cut a deal, get behind McCarthy. Look, this is how the sausage is made. It's happening in, you know, real time. We're actually having a real debate with 435 people on the floor of the House. Oh, my gosh.
TAPPER: All right, Congressman Chip Roy, Republican of Texas, one of the now 20 rebels voting against Kevin McCarthy for speaker. Thanks for joining us today.
ROY: Thanks, Jake.
[BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT]
Source