Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Manchin: Senate Likely To Vote Soon on House Bill; Fate Of Shutdown In Senate After Last Minute Bill Clears House; Trump Mocks Violent Hammer Attack On Paul Pelosi In Speech; Ukraine Aid Stripped From Bill To Avoid Government Shutdown; Senate Leaders Trying To Resolve Objection From Sen. Bennet To Get To Final Vote On Stop-Gap Bill. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired September 30, 2023 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[18:01:04]
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington. Good evening.
At any minute, the United States Senate could vote on a stop gap measure to prevent a government shutdown that was going to take place just after midnight. This afternoon, the House passed an 11th our short-term spending bill. Now it has to be passed by the Senate and then signed by the president, all within the next six hours.
Let's go straight to Capitol Hill. CNN's Manu Raju is up on Capitol Hill for us.
Manu, I guess it's on the Senate's side now. That's where you are, it looks like if my memory serves me correct and you're tracking the latest. What do we know at this point?
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I've been talking to Senate Democrats and Republicans since the passage of this House bill this afternoon, and it is very clear, the Senate will accept and will vote to give final approval in this House bill that would keep the government open past midnight for another 45 days, it would include money to help deal with natural disasters, but does not include what many senators on both sides of the aisle had wanted, $6.2 billion in aid to Ukraine.
The Senate was moving on its own plan as the House was dealing with its own drama, but at the moment, the Senate is putting its own plan aside and is expected to accept the House bill, pass it, send it to the president's desk, will sign this into law. Before the midnight deadline.
This is all supposed to happen, Jim, within a matter of hours. It could even happen within the hour. Sometimes in the Senate, things happen very quickly.
It requires all 100 senators essentially to sign off and agree to schedule a time for a vote. One senator can object and drag things out. We are not expecting that to happen here because of the fact that we're right up against the deadline, and this is the only game in town, the only bill that can avoid a government shutdown.
So at the moment, after weeks of drama, internal Republican tension, divisions within the House GOP and the fight between the House GOP and Senate GOP about how to proceed, Kevin McCarthy was able to get it over the finish line with Democratic support. That is one reason why it's going to cause some issues for the speaker going forward with members of his hard right, has relied on Democrats and his own party to get this to the House just earlier this afternoon -- Jim.
ACOSTA: And Manu what happens to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. You know, for weeks, we were hearing all of these threats coming from the hard right members of his caucus, if he cuts a deal with Democrats, that's going to be it for Kevin McCarthy.
I'm not seeing a whole lot of statements flooding my e-mail inbox saying that they're calling a vote on Monday and McCarthy is out. Maybe, it's just because it's Saturday evening, and they all want to go out to dinner in Washington. But what what's your sense of it, Manu? Do we -- is that the scenario that we might see emerge early next week?
RAJU: Yes, it is very possible, still.
Look, Matt Gates has been the ringleader on this effort. He's the Florida conservative. He's here said that if Kevin McCarthy even puts a stopgap measure on the floor, that will be enough to oust him. And he said to me very clearly, if you relies on Democratic votes to pass this stopgap measure, he said, the moving trucks will be outside the Speaker's Office to get him out of there. He says he won't be speaker for much longer.
But Matt Gaetz has yet to file what's called a Motion to Vacate, something that would kick the speaker out of the speakership if all Democrats voted to kick him out, and just five Republicans did so as well. And there's still an open question how Democrats may handle it and whether Gates has the votes himself.
I spent the afternoon tracking down some of those critics, some of the ones who voted against that stopgap measure to ask them if they would side with Matt Gaetz, and they indicated they are frustrated with the speaker's handling of this, but they will not go as far as saying they're ready to kick him out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. RALPH NORMAN (R-SC): Very disappointing. Spinning as usual, up here. No border control. Very disappointing. But we'll live to fight another day.
RAJU: So if there's a vote to vacate, would you vote for it?
NORMAN: Look, we've gotten our hands full. We'll see. We'll see what he does. We'll see how -- I'm disappointed. I wish we had fought, we just didn't fight. [18:05:10]
REP. WESLEY HUNT (R-TX): Look, this is a done deal, Okay, let's move on. And let's make sure that next year, we talk about being fiscally conservative so we could save our future and save our children and our children's children.
RAJU: Would you vote to vacate the chair?
HUNT: That's the conversation that I might want to have right now.
REP. TROY NEHLS (R-TX): I think it's shameful in many, many ways. The idea that we continue funding the government for 45 days, is just saying that we, in my opinion, this is just my opinion, that everything that this administration is doing to try to destroy this country, you know, the DOJ, the FBI, border, all of it. We just -- we just said, hey, let's continue out for another 45 days, until we can figure it out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: So Troy Nehls there, despite his criticism of this bill would not say -- he said that he didn't support kicking out McCarthy from the speakership.
So at the moment, Jim, we'll see where the votes ultimately line up. If Matt Gaetz does file a motion to kick out the speaker from the speakership, it would just take two legislative days for it to come up on the House floor. So it can happen pretty quickly. But the question is, will he still do it? Does he have the votes to do it, and if he does have the votes to do it, the speaker is saying, bring it on. He's ready to fight this out, Jim.
So we could see something we've never seen in the history of this country, him getting kicked out of the speakership and then a speaker's race happening until someone gets a majority vote. The speaker says he's ready for it -- Jim.
ACOSTA: Very interesting. All right, not a whole lot of takers there on pushing the speaker out at this point based on what you just heard, and we talked to Tim Burchett earlier this afternoon, and I asked him basically the same question and he wasn't biting just yet, either.
So that's an interesting development.
All right, Manu Raju, thank you very much.
Joining us with more, CNN political commentator, S.E. Cupp, and "Vanity Fair" special correspondent, Molly Jong-Fast.
Guys, let's talk about what we just heard from Manu Raju, just a few moments ago, after all of the weeks of bluster and threats that Kevin McCarthy is going to get hauled out and his days as speaker over if he cuts this deal with Democrats.
And then Manu talked to two or three House Republicans who were not saying, You know what? That's it. Kevin McCarthy, you're out. And I talked to Tim Burchett earlier this afternoon. He didn't really go up to that line, either.
So I mean, Molly, was this just a lot of bluster?
MOLLY JONG-FAST, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, "VANITY FAIR": I mean, they don't have the votes, right? This is -- Matt Gaetz, doesn't have the votes for a new speaker. First of all, nobody wants to be speaker. This is the world's worst job. And with this tiny, tiny, tiny, four- seat majority, it's impossible to govern and you have this completely ungovernable MAGA caucus, which truly does want to burn it all down.
ACOSTA: S.E., what do you think?
S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think it's easy to feel like the adults in the room as Kevin McCarthy has been posturing and presenting himself when you invited the kids in. He is the one that invited the children to the table and allowed people like Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene to hold him hostage both to become speaker.
And then over the course of the past few weeks, negotiating essentially with terrorists on the far right side of his caucus over what to do, and that includes, you know, Joe Biden's impeachment and, and shutting down the government.
And finally, Kevin McCarthy said, I can't -- you know, I can't work with the kids anymore, so I'll work with Democrats, something he promised Republicans he wouldn't do, but that's how far he was pushed.
I think it's great that he finally did get a deal done. It only lasts for 45 days, but we're here because of Kevin McCarthy, let's be honest.
ACOSTA: Yes, Molly, I mean, Kevin McCarthy said earlier today, as S.E. just mentioned that he is the -- he was the adult in the room.
JONG-FAST: Yes. I mean, he can say whatever he wants, but he's the weakest speaker we've ever had, and I think it's really worth wonder -- you know, Republicans saw the writing in the wall. They knew this shutdown after the impeachment, which was such a fiasco for them, which ended up showcasing all of these Democratic Congress people, these young Democratic Congress people.
I think they were really -- they saw the writing on the wall and they knew that they would very likely lose the House, which I still think they will. But think about people like Mike Lawler who's in a D+3 district, these people were desperate not to shut down the government because they knew it would be them losing their seats would be a fait accompli.
ACOSTA: Right and S.E. I mean, Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader, he was calling this a victory for the Democrats earlier today. Let's listen to that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): The American people have won, the extreme
MAGA Republicans have lost. It was a victory for the American people, and a complete and total surrender by right-wing extremists who throughout the year have tried to hijack the Congress.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[18:10:10]
ACOSTA: S.E., what do you think of that? I mean, it's kind of hard to argue with what the minority leader is saying there. Kevin McCarthy had to work with Democrats to get this done.
CUPP: Listen, he's not wrong. I think -- I'd rather leave punditry to people like us. I think politicians and elected officials shouldn't put things in those kinds of terms, surrender and a loss for a political party.
The American people don't care about that. And, you know, I don't love framing it that way. And I think that's why people hate Washington, frankly, but we can talk like that.
And he is right. This was a total surrender by Kevin McCarthy on behalf of you know, MAGA Republicans who didn't want him to do that, but they gave him no choice.
He wanted to solve a problem. He wanted to avoid a government shutdown. He knew that would look bad for Republicans, and they would shoulder that blame. So he did what he had to do.
ACOSTA: And Molly, I mean, I guess one thing that you could say about Hakeem Jeffries comments is that, you know, there are some misgivings on the Democratic side about funding for Ukraine being excluded from this stopgap spending measure this continuing resolution, which I guess it has to get passed in order to keep the government running.
But Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley was saying earlier this afternoon that Putin is celebrating the fact that this Ukraine aid was cut out of the compromise and that the Reagan Doctrine is dead in the Republican Party.
I mean, we were talking to Jake Auchincloss, Seth Moulton earlier on in this program. They're not happy about this, and they're all but insisting that this get done before they vote one more time on this kind of continuing resolution.
So I mean, there are some grumbling on the Democratic side about this.
JONG-FAST: Yes, and you know, there's even more grumbling from super mega liberal Mitch McConnell, right? He is not actually, I am being sarcastic. But you know, he's quite furious about this, too, and said he would vote it down.
So yes, I think that this is -- you know, this is -- I don't know how they fix this. It seems like there might be -- I saw Sheldon Whitehouse tweeting about how there may be some other way to thread this needle. I would just say, I'm glad that Democrats are taking this as a win because it is a win, right? They were the ones who kept the government open.
And so seeing Hakeem Jeffries, even though people don't necessarily like the politicizing, Democrats have been -- you know, we have -- we, all of us have pushed Democrats to be more forceful on their messaging and this is a clear example of Democrats saving Republicans and keeping the government open.
So I'm actually really glad that Hakeem Jeffries did that.
ACOSTA: Yes, and S.E., I mean, you know, Liz Cheney, came out earlier today with a tweet reminding people that today is the anniversary of Neville Chamberlain's Peace in Our Time speech 85 five years ago.
She says in this tweet earlier today: "Appeasement didn't work then, it won't work now." I mean, I don't know if it's a fait accompli that this Ukraine aid sails through the Congress in the coming weeks. It sounds like this might be a tough vote in both houses of Congress.
CUPP: It is going to be a tough vote and there is decreasing support among the American public. I think both parties are acutely aware of that. Joe Biden is aware of that.
And so you see an urgency from folks in the Republican Senate who want more aid for Ukraine, and certainly Democrats and the president and urgency to get this done before that support diminishes even further.
But yes, I think the sense on the Hill from people I've talked to is that they'll have to attach Ukraine aid to some other kind of bill that it's not going to happen, clearly in this CR, or maybe even in another effort to fund the government. They're going to have to find something else to attach it to.
So we'll see -- we'll see if they can do that, but time is ticking on support for Ukraine aid.
ACOSTA: Yes, just like that aid got pulled out of the legislation in a must pass kind of spending bill, perhaps the aid goes back in, in another piece of must pass legislation.
All right, well, S.E. and Molly, stay with us. In just a few moments, we're going to come back after a quick break. I want to talk about some other stuff, but in addition to what's also happening in the political realm, I do want to get into just who pulled the fire alarm in the House of Representatives earlier today.
Literally, that happened earlier today. There's a picture of it right there. We're talking about that on other side of the break.
Stay with us. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:18:49]
ACOSTA: And we're back again with "Vanity Fair" special correspondent, Molly Jong-Fast and political commentator, S.E. Cupp.
Ladies, in addition to all the antics we saw up on Capitol Hill earlier today, I guess somebody pulled a fire alarm. Democratic Congressman Jamaal Bowman is under investigation for pulling a fire alarm in the House Cannon Office Building.
Bowman was identified by security footage and his office as this was just an accident. You know, I don't know how you accidentally pull in a fire alarm, S.E., but I mean, in all kidding aside, they are taking this somewhat seriously. This is no joking matter up on Capitol Hill, as juveniles it sounds.
CUPP: Yes, at best. It's childish. At worst, this is obstruction of Congress or obstruction of an official proceeding. Those are real things. And I don't know if he did this intentionally and we'll have to wait to see and we certainly shouldn't impugn him before we know more.
We no he pulled it, he admits that. Why is the question. If it was intentional, that's real serious, and frankly, reeks of the sort of stunts that you know Republicans try to pull sometimes and don't be like Republicans, don't be like Republicans.
I know things are tense and you know the stakes are high, but don't be like Republicans.
[18:20:08]
ACOSTA: Well, and at the end of the day, Molly, the bill passed. I mean, you were just saying before the commercial break, this was a win for Democrats.
So, I mean, Congressman Bowman almost prevented a win for Democrats from occurring. So I suppose he has to, you know, do some self- analysis on that, but we have a statement from his office. And we should note that Congressman Bowman, this is according to the statement from his office says: "Congressman Bowman did not realize he would trigger a building alarm as he was rushing to make an urgent vote. The Congressman regrets any confusion."
Of course, if Congressman Bowman wants to come on, you know, on the NEWSROOM here, we can talk to him about it about why he did this. But Molly, they almost -- if this was a win for Democrats that would be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, or however that cliche goes.
JONG-FAST: So I've interviewed Congressman Bowman a couple of times, and he's -- you know, I know him and I would say this, if you're a person, a pundit, the internet is actually losing its mind about this right now.
ACOSTA: Yes.
JONG-FAST: And conservative pundits are furious, and the people who were completely silent about Trump's 91 criminal indictments are ready to just lock the Congressman up for pulling a fire alarm. So I'm just going to say this here, which is, look, it's not good to
pull a fire alarm, especially during a vote. And you know, that is not okay and this should not happen, but if you have been completely silent, I mean, there was a congressman who was -- who said it was nothing wrong with how -- a MAGA congressman who he said, there was nothing wrong with what happened on January 6.
He posted a photo holding handcuffs and said: "We're coming for you, Congressman." So, I'm going to say these people are in no position to try to lock someone up for pulling a fire alarm.
ACOSTA: S.E.?
CUPP: You're right. I mean, they have no leg to stand on and I make this point all the time. Right? If you weren't outraged about all the stuff that Trump was alleged to have done, the stuff we know Trump has done, you really don't have any business being outraged by anything, frankly, that the Democrats do.
But, we, as good actors and intellectually consistent and honest people, we can say that was wrong and especially if it was intentional, it was bad, and he shouldn't be sort of left off the hook because he's a Democrat or didn't do something worse.
ACOSTA: Yes, don't pull the fire alarm. That's never a good thing.
Let's talk a little bit about what took place last night. You know, Donald Trump, he had this speech before the California Republican Party. I think arguably making much more alarming comments. Let's listen to what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I will stand up to crazy Nancy Pelosi who ruined San Francisco.
[BOOING]
TRUMP: How's her husband doing by the way? Anybody know?
What they've done is they've gone after opponents so that if you become president or some other job, but if you become president, and you don't like somebody, or if somebody is beating you by 10, 15 or 20 points like we're doing with Crooked Joe Biden, let's indict the [bleep].
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ACOSTA: Yes, I mean, Molly, I mean, just as the special counsel is going to the judge in the January 6 case, the federal January 6 case and saying that something has to be done about Trump making all of these kinds of incendiary comments, for example, the other day suggesting that Mark Milley, the outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should be executed.
I mean, you can't really minimize what Trump is saying about Paul Pelosi is some kind of a joke, because after all, this was an attack that was intended to be against Nancy Pelosi, one of Trump's political opponents. And so yet again, Trump is getting himself involved in riling people up with this sort of incendiary rhetoric that can lead to violence.
JONG-FAST: And that has historically led to violence, right? On January 6th, that happened because they had that -- you know, they said -- and you had a lot of these defendants saying, you know, I went there because Trump told me to go there. So this is something we've already seen happen.
Look, I am always shocked by some of the stuff Trump says even after almost a decade of doing this. The stuff he says, I mean, Nancy Pelosi's husband is in his 80s. He was attacked with a hammer. Like there's no world in which anything to make light of and especially when you're a person for whom you have actually caused your supporters to do this before.
I think it's really scary, and I think that, you know, it falls on us in the mainstream media to cover this, but not -- but to cover it in a way that is clear that this is wrong, and that this is bad.
ACOSTA: And S.E., is Trump -- is he just trying to tempt the judge to muzzle him so he'll have more red meat to throw to his base or as it is often the case with Trump, there is no plan. He is just -- he's just doing this and he'll keep doing it to egg people on.
[18:25:08]
CUPP: Yes. It felt desperate. I think he's coming from a place of weakness now and desperation, and getting people as angry as he can get them.
He also said, to great applause at this rally, that he would make sure that shoplifters were shot on site.
ACOSTA: Right.
CUPP: In a Trump administration -- really ugly stuff. But this is what has happened. Trump fostered a politics of revenge and punishment, and that meant of his opponents, anyone who would get in his way, even Republicans who weren't a hundred percent loyal, and that's not what politics is for, right?
Politics is supposed to solve problems. Politicians are supposed to govern but he's made politics like the justice system and law enforcement and the you know, politics is going to go after your enemies.
And no surprise, he's conditioned his voters to think that way, and of course, they want more and more and more of it.
And so when he says things like this about Paul Pelosi or about shoplifters, or Hillary Clinton or name it, his voters get rabid and frothy and excited and agitated and angry at all the right people for Donald Trump's purposes. I think if he went out and said at a rally, let's round up all the
nuns. I think he'd get applause because these people really are just there to be angry on behalf of Donald Trump.
ACOSTA: Yes, it is normalizing and sanitizing calls for political violence, excusing acts of political violence. It is -- it's again, a new low for him.
All right, S.E. and Molly, thank you very much. Really appreciate it.
As we've been mentioning throughout the program, the Senate is on the clock to vote on a bill to avert a government shutdown. We're told that vote could come very soon.
Our Manu Raju is tracking all the developments, all of our correspondents and producers and reporters up on Capitol Hill. Lauren Fox and others are tracking this as well. Stay with us. We'll check in with them.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:31:11]
ACOSTA: As we've been reporting all afternoon, a stop-gap funding bill has passed the House. It's now in the hands of the Senate and we're waiting to see what the Senate does. We're told a vote in the Senate to avoid a government shutdown could happen in the next hour or so. That, of course, has to happen before midnight or the government will shut down. And if it does get through the Senate, then presumably that legislation will go over to the White House for the President's signature.
One key sticking point for Democrats is that the stop-gap measure that passed earlier today does not include aid and assistance for Ukraine. On Friday, the White House said failure to approve funding for Ukraine will have serious consequences for that war. And it was why one House Democrat says he voted against the bill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE QUIGLEY (D-IL): Putin is celebrating. Two things happened this week of historic qualities. Number one, the Reagan doctrine is officially dead in the Republican Party. They voted against, in their caucus, funding for Ukraine.
Today we saw the second part of that. We got 45 days to fix it. I don't see how the dynamics change in 45 days. Like, oh, well, I'm more worried about Americans than Ukrainians. It's a false choice. This is all about - if you want to be America first, you better support Ukraine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ACOSTA: And CNN Military Analyst, Cedric Leighton joins us as well as Kayla Tausche over at the White House.
Kayla, I just want to note, we do have a little bit of news coming through into CNN that we're going to be talking about, I think, in the coming minutes, and that is Democratic senator, Michael Bennet has apparently raised some concerns about the lack of Ukraine in this legislation, so we're going to wait and see how that plays out in the coming minutes and hours as it's changing minute by minute. There have been lots of expectations that this was going to get passed tonight and get through the Senate.
And I supposed, we're not out of the woods just yet, but Kayla any reaction from White House on the exclusion of this Ukraine aid.
KAYLA TAUSCHE, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, certainly, Jim, it's a disappointment, it had been something that the White House had been pushing for and even as recently as just a few ago. The White House had been saying they don't have assurances from bipartisan, bicameral leadership that there was support for Ukraine funding.
That being said, there's also an acknowledgment it should not be a situation where the government shuts down because of aid that's provided to another country and there is still an expectation by the White House that Kevin McCarthy, the Speaker of the house who has said that he wants to see a plan for victory, he wants to see a full accounting of funds, but that he would if he got that information still be - in support of providing some of those additional funds.
And so the White House expects that he will hold true to that word and that there will be some vehicle going forward for Ukraine funding. But the question is what that vehicle is and how soon it can be passed and signed into law. Because just yesterday, top Pentagon officials told congressional leaders that essentially there's only $1.6 billion left in funding for Ukraine and without that, there would be serious disruptions to Ukraine's ability to fight on the battlefield.
In that letter, the Undersecretary of Defense wrote to congressional leaders that an inability to ensure timely procurement and deliveries could undermine essential Ukrainian operations to retake additional territory or defend against future potential Russian offensives. So sounding a very grave warning if they don't get that money, but certainly it's the White House's expectation that it will come in some future package, Jim.
ACOSTA: All right, Kayla.
And Col. Leighton, if you can stand by for just a moment because I do want to go to our Manu Raju up on Capitol Hill who's following all these twists and turns.
Col. Leighton, I am going to get to you.
[18:35:02]
But Manu, this reporting that you just sent along about Sen. Bennet, the Democratic senator from Colorado, apparently he's concerned about this exclusion of Ukraine aid in this legislation that came out of the House. What can you tell us?
RAJU: Yes. He is the one who is objecting to getting to a final vote. This is according to multiple sources that I've spoken to, Dana Bash also spoke to a source about this as well.
There is - any one senator who can object at this moment and use that objection as leverage. And what I've been told is that Sen. Bennet is concerned about the lack of funding in here for Ukraine. There was $6.2 billion in the Senate's plan. This House moved forward with a different proposal that did not include aid to Ukraine amid those divisions within the GOP.
And there was a closed door meeting that happened just moments ago when Senate Democrats, this issue dominated the discussion behind closed doors. Lots of concern about the lack of Ukraine aid.
Now, Bennet, I'm told, wants to get some sort of statement put out by Senate leaders to express their support, how the bipartisan support and commitment for funding to Ukraine. That seems to be where things are at the moment. There's not a concern that there could be a government shutdown, at least not at this point. There's still an expectation that this bill will get approved sometime tonight, but not as fast as perhaps a lot of senators thought as they were leaving this afternoon meeting. They thought they'd have voted by now so they can go home, catch their flights back home tonight.
But perhaps it could take a little bit longer as they try to iron out this objection, put out a statement to show the bipartisan support for Ukraine here in the Senate because of the objection being waged right now by Sen. Michael Bennet. They're trying to resolve behind the scenes right now, Jim.
ACOSTA: Yes. And Manu, just to button it up before I go to Col. Leighton, so it sounds as though from what you're saying and you were reporting this about an hour and a half ago that that perhaps we might see a vote in the Senate pretty quickly because of what Sen. Manchin was indicating that it looked like they were going to be okay with this stop-gap measure that came out of the House.
And so, Sen. Bennet, I guess, as they all started talking to one other, Sen. Bennet said, hold on a second, I have a problem with this, but it's not to the point where he's going to grind everything to a halt and we're going to have a government shutdown. Is that essentially it?
RAJU: That would be shocking if that actually happened, Jim.
ACOSTA: Okay.
RAJU: At this point, the expectation is that Bennet will essentially once they deal with his concern, he will drop his objection. So we have not heard from Bennet directly on this yet, but we have talked to my sources who have been in contact with this and are aware of what's going on. The expectation is that objection will be resolved. They'll get to a final vote, but it just may take a little bit longer, Jim.
ACOSTA: Okay. All right. Manu Raju, thanks a lot.
Sorry, it's going to be a little bit of a longer night for you. We appreciate it.
But Col. Leighton, let me go to you. This issue of Ukraine aid, it was a little shocking, I suppose, to see Kevin McCarthy go out there and join forces with Democrats to get this continuing resolution out of the House of Representatives. But the one, I guess, piece of all of this that I guess lured some Republicans to get on board with it was the exclusion of this Ukraine aid.
And we heard from a number of lawmakers throughout the afternoon, Democratic lawmakers, who are quite upset about this and upset that this was a part of this. And they seem to be pitting their hopes on the possibility that, oh, no, there will be some kind of piece of legislation that must pass before the end of the year (inaudible) you'll get the aid.
But if you could, Col. Leighton, if you can give us your wisdom, your analysis, your expertise in all this, as you do every week, what would that mean if the United States were to just stop funding aid to Ukraine, assistance to Ukraine?
COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yes, Jim, in one word, it would be a disaster. And the reason it would be a disaster is that Ukraine is really dependent on the kind of aid that we're providing it. We are, in terms of sheer dollar numbers, the biggest donor to the Ukrainians.
In terms of GDP per capita, there are other countries like some of the Baltic States that are actually donating more than we are. But in terms of raw numbers, we are the biggest single donor to the Ukrainians and we also have the weaponry. So, from a military standpoint, what you're looking at, Jim, is a situation where all of the ammunition that gets to Ukraine or at least a large portion of it would be stopped in the pipeline at some point.
They would not be getting Abrams tanks any more than what they already have. They wouldn't be getting the F-16s that they've asked for. They wouldn't be getting any of the HIMARS systems that they've gotten and that they would need to replace some of the parts that would get worn out.
So, all of that would stop. And, in essence, what you'd be seeing is the counteroffensive. If we think it's stalled now, it would really get stalled.
[18:40:01]
And the risk would be that the Russians could then come in and mount their own counteroffensive, and the Ukrainians would have a lot less hardware to stop them with. And that is an extremely dangerous situation and would really reverse all of the gains that the Ukrainians have made so far.
ACOSTA: And, Col. Leighton, I mean, beyond that just the mechanics of supporting the Ukrainians and arming them as they mount this counteroffensive, I guess, what kind of statement would it send to the world if the United States were to all of a sudden pull the rug out from under the Ukrainians? And what message would be received in the Kremlin by Vladimir Putin? Because it sounds like, from what you're saying, is that maybe Vladimir Putin might see a bit of a green light here, an opening, to ramp things up and see if he could crush the Ukrainians while he maybe had a window of opportunity if the United States is starting to go wobbly.
LEIGHTON: Yes, that's exactly what it is. And, Jim, when the Kremlin looks at this, they are looking for any sign of weakness. And the kind of weaknesses that they'd be looking for would be a thing like a stopping in funding, a stopping in the supply line, whether it's due to funding or some operational issue. They are really focused on those kinds of things.
And as far as the signal to the rest of the world is concerned, what you'd be dealing with there is also a signal of weakness, lack of resolve on the part of the United States. You kind of look at it in the lens, perhaps, from the 1970s and 1980s, compare what the United States, how the United States was perceived in the 1970s, in Europe and in the Soviet Union, and then how the United States was perceived in the 1980s. It was a world of difference.
And it's that, in essence, that peace through strength doctrine that becomes important. And in that - the corollary to that would be you have to supply the people that are doing your fighting for you. And in this particular case, the Ukrainians are definitely doing the fighting for us, because the Russians look at this as just one chapter in a war that they already say they're fighting with the West and especially with the United States.
ACOSTA: All right. Col. Leighton, Kayla Tausche - Kayla, thank you for standing by. I know it's been a very long day for you. I apologize for that. We'll get you back just as soon as you have developments. I suspect you will over at the White House. We appreciate both of you very much.
We'll have a U.S. senator, we believe, on the line with us next. He's going to join us live next as we wait for the final vote in the United States Senate to avoid a government shutdown. The clock is ticking down to midnight. There were some anticipations earlier this evening that perhaps there would be a vote on this House bill that came out of the House of Representatives earlier today, sooner rather than later.
Sen. Bennet from Colorado objecting to Ukraine aid being pulled out of that legislation in the House, saying not so fast. He wants to talk about this. We're going to talk about it on the other side. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:46:58]
ACOSTA: All right. We're following the breaking news up on Capitol Hill. We're awaiting a Senate vote on a deal passed by the House of Representatives to avert a government shutdown. Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Democrat from that state, joins us now.
Sen. Reed, we very much appreciate your time. Perhaps you can help us out here. Are we going to see the Senate pass this spending bill later on this evening? And what's going on, we understand that Sen. Bennet, your colleague from Colorado, has raised an objection. I'm sure there are others in the Senate who are raising this objection about this exclusion of Ukraine aid money from that House bill. What can you tell us?
SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): Well, I am confident that we will get a vote this evening to avoid a shutdown. I think it was thoughtful and finally the only option that the Speaker turned to the Democratic Caucus and sent over a bipartisan bill.
The one significant gap is aid to Ukraine, but we are committed on both sides of the aisle here in the Senate to providing uninterrupted aid to Ukraine. Their fight is really our fight. I believe our leaders, both Sen. Schumer and Sen. McConnell communicate that very clearly to the public that we are going to move quickly so that there's no disruption of aid to Ukraine.
ACOSTA: And just to follow up on that, has anybody reached out to President Zelenskyy to - or the Ukrainians to assure them that, okay, you might be watching some stuff on TV today over there in Kyiv, but don't be alarmed, we're going to get this aid to you. Have any of those kinds of conversations been going on? Perhaps that's a question for the White House to reassure the Ukrainians that they're not going to be left in the lurch.
REED: You're right. That is - my sense is that there's constant communication between our embassy in Ukraine and the Ukrainian government. There's constant discussions back and forth between Secretary Blinken and his counterparts and President Zelenskyy.
Part of this is explaining the technicalities of our budget process, et cetera, and the fact that this vote tonight does not exclude aid to Ukraine, but in fact has given us even more resolve to get it clearly established that we will not abandon Ukraine, that aid will be uninterrupted.
ACOSTA: And I'm not sure how sausage-making gets translated into Ukrainian, but I suspect maybe there'll be a glossary of terms or something that we could pass along to them. But I guess I was asking Cedric Leighton about this in the previous segment. And Senator, perhaps you can weigh on this as well, what this would mean if it were to come to a situation where it is difficult to pass aid to Ukraine and it's not able to pass the Congress and get out to the Ukrainians, what would that mean for that fight over there?
[18:50:00]
REED: Well, that would be extremely detrimental to the fight and to the interests of the United States, certainly the interests of Ukraine, but the United States. We are standing with them. We are providing resources, and we're not
alone. NATO is with us. Many countries globally are supporting extensively Ukraine because they see their fight as a struggle between democracy and autocracy. And if Putin prevails, he will not stop there. And there's always a danger because of the Baltics, the members of Ukraine, Poland - excuse me - NATO, Poland is - there's always a danger that he presumes we would not respond if they attack the NATO country, and I don't think that's the case at all.
So ultimately, in many respects, this comes down to, do we want to support Ukraine as they risk their lives and give their lives or are we going to sit back and wait until we have to send U.S. personnel? I don't want to wait. I want to support the Ukrainian people so that their sacrifice is triumphant ultimately.
ACOSTA: Sen. Reed, thank you very much for your time. We appreciate it. I understand that we also have one of your Democratic colleagues, Sen. Tim Kaine, available to us right now. My thanks to Sen. Reed, if he has to go, I understand. Things are moving quickly over on the Senate side.
Sen. Kaine, if I could just pick up on that conversation I was having with your colleague from Rhode Island there just a few moments ago, are you confident that at the end of the day, once the United States Congress gets through this, I guess, funding crisis that it's going through tonight, that you will get this aid to the Ukrainians in short order?
SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA): Jim, I am confident. I mean, the United States has been the key hub of the global coalition to support Ukraine, both in military, economic and humanitarian aid. And we are going to make sure that this funding is continuous.
The House GOP was flirting with shutdown and eventually did what was rational. They turned to Democrats to keep government open. But the House GOP and some in the Senate GOP are questioning Ukraine aid. But we know that there are bipartisan votes in both houses sufficient to make this happen.
So as we work over the next few weeks to get to the year-end spending deals, we're going to push on the supplemental that President Biden has requested. Remember, the supplemental request was not originally proposed by the administration to be part of this continuing resolution. It is live and on the floor in the Senate right now and we're going to take it up as early as next week to start to move to Ukraine aid. And we know that we've got the votes on the floor in both bodies.
Frankly, the only kind of wild card is whether Speaker McCarthy will allow a vote on the House. But there is a bipartisan majority in both Houses that want to continue to support Ukraine as it defends itself against this illegal invasion by Russia.
ACOSTA: Well, and that leads me to, I guess, maybe a painfully obvious question and that is, given what we've seen so far in getting this piece of spending legislation out of the House of Representatives, this continuing resolution, I suppose there are no guarantees that the Speaker of the House, if it is Kevin McCarthy, when it comes to pass, will bring up legislation that continues to fund the effort in Ukraine. I suppose there aren't any guarantees at this point, but you're, I guess, banking on a little bit of hope here that cooler heads will prevail when that fight comes around.
KAINE: Jim, I am - at the beginning of the 118th Congress, I told my wife, we're not defaulting and we're not shutting down. It's going to be tough because of this House majority that's so narrow and a new Speaker who doesn't have an iron grip on his caucus and some nutty folks who propose shutdown and who are isolationists.
But I felt confident we would avert a shutdown, and we have. And I feel confident in the vote counting on Ukraine. And Kevin McCarthy has got a very tough job over there. But he has said, after the visit by President Zelenskyy last week, he has said that we want to stand behind Ukraine.
ACOSTA: Yes.
KAINE: So when you have all four leaders in both Houses saying we're going to be strong for Ukraine, are there some loud voices? Yes, but they're in a minority and we're going to figure out a way to make this happen. Because the global coalition that wouldn't have been assembled without Joe Biden and America's leadership, we've got to keep them with linked arms, backing democracies against authoritarians and I feel confident that we'll do that.
[18:55:04]
There'll be some twists and turns. This is Congress, but I ...
ACOSTA: Yes.
KAINE: ... I feel confident we're going to get there.
ACOSTA: Well, and it's a centerpiece of what the President has been talking about, which is that the fight in the Ukraine-Russia conflict is essentially the fight for democracy globally. And if the Ukrainians are left in the lurch, if they get thrown under the bus as part of this congressional debate over spending and so on, that's not going to be good for that fight on behalf of democratic principles that Americans hold dear.
KAINE: You're absolutely right.
ACOSTA: Yes.
KAINE: Look, the U.S. didn't throw anybody under the bus. Look at how much we have spent for military and economic and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. But it is, you're right, to connect the Russian invasion of Ukraine to a global battle for democracy, who is the chief person in the United States now rooting against Ukraine aid? Donald J. Trump.
And Donald Trump and his mouthpieces and minions are advocating against Ukraine aid. Trump has been pro-Putin since before he ran for president in 2016, and it's only gotten more obvious. And so, look, he's going to continue to push the pro-authoritarian line. And those of us who care about small-D democracy, we've got to tell people this is no time to be a sunshine soldier or a summer patriot. Those who believe in democracy, we've got to be firm in challenging times.
I'm convinced that we might get close to a deadline like we did with shutdown, but I think we're going to stand strong for Ukraine as we have ever since February 2022 when the invasion began.
ACOSTA: All right. Sen. Tim Kaine, I suspect the Ukrainians, they're hoping they can hold you to that. Senator, thank you very much for your time. We appreciate it.
KAINE: You bet.
ACOSTA: Thanks for coming in this evening. We'll stay on top of it as this develops. We appreciate it. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
