September 29, 2023 • 24 mins
In this episode, Tudor discusses the United Auto Workers strike and its impact on Ford's plans for a battery plant. Congressman Mike Gallagher joins the podcast to share his perspective on the situation, highlighting the connection to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Gallagher explains how China has used aggressive practices like intellectual property theft and subsidies to dominate critical industries, including the global battery market. He expresses concern about the potential weaponization of China's dominant position and the human rights abuses in China. The discussion also touches on the risks and consequences of a conflict between China and Taiwan, the need for a deterrence by denial posture, and concerns about President Biden's approach to China. The Tudor Dixon Podcast is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Monday, Wednesday, & Friday. For more information visit TudorDixonPodcast.com
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, this is Buck Sexton and you're listening to the
Tutor Dixon Podcast, part of the Clay Travers and Buck
Sexton podcast network.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. You may have heard
about this United Auto Workers strike. Well, now Ford has
decided to halt moving forward with their battery plant. And
my guest today would tell you this is a good
thing because of the connection to the Chinese Communist Party.
Congressman Mike Gallagher, who represents Wisconsin's eighth district and serves
(00:29):
as chairman of the Select Committee. I'm the Chinese Communist Party,
joins me today. Welcome Congressman.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
It's great to be with you.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
It's great to have you here in the midst of this.
I mean, we've been talking about this for a while.
This is called cattle. It came to Michigan. Even Governor
Youngkin said I won't have this in Virginia because I
don't want the connection to the Chinese Communist Party. But
Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan, said no, no, we
welcome them here. We want Ford to be able to
partner with them. But now this snafu with the auto
(00:58):
workers strikings, it seems to have cost forward a little
pause on moving forward with plants in the state of Michigan.
But you would say this is a good thing. Can
you explain to us what your concern is with cattle?
Speaker 4 (01:11):
Well quickly.
Speaker 5 (01:12):
I think it's important to understand where cattle emerged from,
because I think it kind of provides a microcosm into
our entire fraud.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
Economic relationship with the Chinese Communist Party.
Speaker 4 (01:23):
The original technology.
Speaker 5 (01:25):
Was actually developed in America at the University of Texas
and then at MIT, and it was a company called
A one two three that received massive state and federal subsidies.
The Obama administration gave it millions and millions of dollars,
and yet it still found its way into bankruptcy.
Speaker 4 (01:42):
You're talking about battery technology, Yeah.
Speaker 5 (01:44):
Battery technology company A one two three, and then Cattle
purchased the company, and then Cattle, because it has even
more generous subsidies from the state from the Chinese Communist
Party about four hundred million dollars in twenty twenty two,
was able to survive and become really a dominant battery
company globally. So this kind of tells you everything you
(02:06):
need to know about what China has done to our economy,
specifically the industrial Midwest, like states like yours and mine
over the last two decades, which is because of a
mix of aggressive practices like intellectual property theft, because of
subsidies from the state, it's able to compete on an
unlevel playing field with American companies, steal our best technology
(02:30):
and then dominate critical.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
Supply chains and critical industries.
Speaker 5 (02:33):
So now fast forward to the present day and the risk,
and I went to Detroit and I met with Ford,
and I met with a variety of automakers there to
express my concern. The risk, in my opinion, is taking
Cattle's dominant position in the global battery market and making
it even more dominant. And you have to understand that
with that dominance, the Chinese Communist Party could weaponize it
(02:55):
going forward. Imagine if we found ourselves in a confrontation
with China over Taiwan threatened to cut off the export
of batteries or shut down certain facilities, it could bring
us to our knees. They've threatened to do that in
the early parts of the pandemic with advanced pharmaceutical ingredients.
So for that and many other reasons, I thought the
deal was very risky.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
I think that was our big shock when we hit
the pandemic. All of the things that we are reliant
on from China, but I think pharmaceuticals were the biggest
eye opener for people because I come from the manufacturing world,
so I had seen even US building military vehicles that
were waiting on a few pieces to come in from China,
you know, and we're going I mean, eighty percent by
(03:34):
America is still you can't get one hundred percent of
a vehicle, you know, this is still pretty scary. But
then when you actually threaten people's healthcare, everybody takes that
a little differently. But it seems us as we've gotten
away from the pandemic, it's sort of the fear of
not having these capabilities in the United States solely for
the United States has sort of worn off. But we
(03:56):
had this happened, this came to Michigan. We had people
saying that this is a Chinese company. Ford came out
and said, no, no, we're going to take care of this.
It's going to be us. I think something you said
to me was fascinating just now. You said that we
developed this technology and it went to China. So are
you saying that the technology of batteries for this type
(04:17):
of electric vehicle was developed in the United States. But
we look at this and we see that China has
complete control over these rare earth minerals, over the process.
How did we lose that control?
Speaker 5 (04:30):
Well, the story about rare earths is I think really
a story about stupid regulation in.
Speaker 3 (04:38):
The United States and self defeating regulation.
Speaker 5 (04:41):
Because the rare earths, if you studied the deposits internationally,
they're not rare. We have enormous deposits of critical minerals
rare earths. The problem is we've effectively made it illegal
to mine those deposits.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
And process those deposits.
Speaker 5 (04:54):
We have basically one national champion, a company called MP
Materials that sits on the California about a border that
was grandfathered in and thus able to continue to mind.
They're trying to build a processing facility in Texas, but
it's extraordinarily difficult.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
In Minnesota.
Speaker 5 (05:10):
We have enormous deposits for a lot of the critical
minerals we need, but over time we just we built
an ossified, onerous regulatory environment. There are environmental concerns with
the processes involved. I get that But the thing I
think you're even your center Left America needs to understand
is that we would do it much cleaner in the
(05:30):
United States than almost anywhere else in the world, and
certainly in China.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Well, are aren't they really getting these out of Africa
using children for labor there? I mean, because that's what
we're hearing. So maybe I'm telling tales out of school.
But if that's the case, I feel like this is
something we should talk about.
Speaker 5 (05:45):
Yeah, well, they're also using If you sort of examine
the supply chain for solar panel subcomponents and battery subcomponents,
a lot of it goes back to the Shinjang Autonomous
Region where there is an ongoing genocide. And that's not
just my determination, that's the determination of both the Trump
administration and the Biden administration. And I think at a minimum,
(06:05):
if a company like Ford is going to do a
deal using Inflation Reduction Act dollars taxpayer dollars with a
company like Cattle, they should be forced to answer hard
questions about Cattle's problematic history when it comes to its
connection to Shinjang and forced labor in Shinjang Autonomous Region.
So this is really the irony and tragedy of our
entire the entire energy policy under the Biden administration, we're
(06:29):
surrendering what should be one of our greatest advantages relative
to China right now, which is our energy abundance, and
we're going to make ourselves more dependent on China for batteries,
battery subcomponents, and in the process implicate ourselves in egregious
human rights a bass. This is actually why John Kerry
was lobbying against the Wiger Force Labor Prevention Act because
(06:50):
he was afraid that the Weiger Force Labor Prevention Act
would compromise our ability to get solar paneled subcomponents out
of Shinjang in China. The whole thing is absurd in
its self defeating and it's a set of massive geopolitical advantage.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
How actually advantageous are solar panels because suddenly we're hearing
that there are there's a lot of energy that goes
into producing them. They actually have chemicals that are running
off the panels into seeping into the ground. Are any
of these risks true? Are we just finding this out?
And are we creating what we're calling clean energy that
(07:23):
actually once we get into it and we have usage
for several years, we find out maybe not so clean.
Speaker 4 (07:28):
I think that's a great point.
Speaker 5 (07:29):
I've seen compelling analysis to suggest that if you examine
the entire sort of life cycle what it takes to
build not just a battery, but an entire or a
solar panel, or a battery, an entire electric vehicle, on balance,
it's not much better, if.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
Better at all, for the environment.
Speaker 5 (07:46):
Took me when you take into account the mining processes
and some of the other negative externalities. The other question
I always ask myself, though, let's just consider it a
fully formed electric vehicle. For example, where does the electric
city come from? It's largely yeah, exactly, So listen, honestly,
(08:08):
if someone wants to buy an electric vehicle, that's cool.
Speaker 4 (08:11):
I drove a Tesla once. It was very fun.
Speaker 5 (08:15):
But I just don't think I, as a taxpayer or
my constituents in Northeast Wisconsin, should be forced to subsidize
that decision, particularly if there's not clear and convincing evidence
that it's better for the environment. When it comes to
the environment, when it comes to climate change, the path
forward to me is obvious.
Speaker 4 (08:33):
It's to invest in all of the above.
Speaker 5 (08:34):
Policy that has to include nuclear technology. And the fact
is the left currently will not discuss nuclear technology. But
right now the Chinese are investing in advanced nuclear microreactor technology.
Speaker 4 (08:46):
And if we don't wake up, we're going to find
ourselves on the wrong.
Speaker 5 (08:49):
End of that supply chain as well, in the same
way on the wrong end of the battery supply chain.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon Podcast. We look at what's happening with
China right now. I think that there are a lot
of folks who are sounding the alarm. We've heard this
for several years now that China is really looking to
take over the world.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
That would start with invading Taiwan.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
What does a war between the US and China over
an invasion of Taiwan look like?
Speaker 1 (09:21):
Because we've heard people.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
On both sides say, oh, they're not actually going to
do that, they want at risk that. But I've talked
to generals who say, you're dealing with a person who
is truly a dictator. This is someone who will do anything.
So what are the risks, What are the risks? What
does it look like?
Speaker 5 (09:36):
Well, first on the tendency for particularly financial elites to
discount the likelihood of an invasion.
Speaker 4 (09:42):
I think one of the things.
Speaker 5 (09:43):
We learned in Ukraine is that when dictators or are
people in systems that are different than ours, tell you
they're going to do somethings, you should probably take it seriously.
And we just tend to do something called mirror imaging,
where we graft our own value structure onto other regimes,
and therefore it seems unthinkable. Oh, of course US in
Ping would never invade Taiwan. It would be incredibly difficult
(10:05):
and incredibly costly. But particularly when you're dealing with a
Marxist Leninist regime where there's just not a lot of
robust feedback loops, he could decide to do something for
reasons that seemed irrational to us, but could seem entirely
rational for his primary goal, which is regime and party preservation.
What it would look like, in short, it would be horrific.
(10:26):
We fought wars in Afghanistan in Iraq for two decades.
One aircraft carrier is sunk in a war with China
over Taiwan, and it would almost equal the casualties.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
Over twenty years of war in Iraq.
Speaker 5 (10:38):
In Afghanistan, the financial implications would be severe.
Speaker 4 (10:42):
We just did a wargame.
Speaker 5 (10:43):
I took the Select Committee on the CCP to New
York and we did a wargame with major financial elites,
and you're talking trillions of dollars lost, even in the
lowest end scenario like a blockade. So the punchline for
all of this is that given the risks, given the costs,
and given the potential that it could esc beyond conventional
war into nuclear war like we're talking World War III,
(11:04):
we should be moving heaven and earth to prevent the war.
In the first place, we need to put in place
a deterrence by denial posture such that Xi Jinping concludes
that he cannot achieve his lifelong ambition and reunifying Taiwan,
as he calls it, with the mainland is his lifelong objective.
But right now the Pentagon's moving too slow. We're just
(11:27):
not We're not even rebuilding some of the critical munitions
that we're expending in Ukraine, munitions that would be relevant
in Taiwan. And that's what really worries me. The balance
of power continues to trend less in our favor, in
more of the favor of the CCP. The final thing
I'm saying, and I'll sorry, I'm sorry to go on,
is what we're seeing in China right now with the
People's Liberation Army is really the biggest military build up
(11:50):
in peacetime military build up at least since World War Two.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
Right, The largest navy in the world.
Speaker 4 (11:55):
Is something, and not even that you're you're totally right.
Speaker 5 (11:57):
It's bigger than ours by forty one hulls, and so
the navy nerds and I'm technically naval officer marine, so
I can call them nerds, We'll say, but our ships
are more capable. Well, at some point, quantity has a
quality all of its own, and their most advanced ships
are quite capable. And it's actually they have the three
largest navies in the world if you factor in their
coastguard and their maritime militia, both of which would be
(12:19):
relevant to an invasion of Taiwan. So it's incredibly troubling,
which is why we need to We need to invest
in a more lethal and capable military before it's too late.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
Let me ask you this.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
So we were speaking to some folks in the know,
and they say that Joe Biden had committed or the
Taiwan had actually purchased jets from US. The purchase went through.
We have the money, we were supposed to deliver the jets.
Joe Biden can put them on hold without getting approval
from Congress. He can't cancel the order. But now these
(12:50):
jets have been on hold for three years. We don't
actually know what's happening. Did they go to Ukraine? Is
sending munitions and weapons over to Ukraine? Depleting us in
a way that it makes us vulnerable for China going
into Taiwan. What does all of this mean when you
see that Joe Biden is going against Congress holding jets
and nobody seems to know about this.
Speaker 5 (13:12):
Well, I think it reveals something obvious, which is our
entire foreign military sales process is broken.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
Beyond the jets.
Speaker 5 (13:19):
Look at since twenty fifteen, we've developed a nearly twenty
billion dollar backlog of items that have been approved and
purchased by Taiwan but not delivered. And quite honestly, what's
even more important than jets? I mean twenty billion dollars.
I mean some of these go back to twenty fifteen
for anti ship missiles, which I would argue are even
(13:40):
more relevant to deterring a Chinese invasion of Taiwan than
fancy jets that sit on a runway and might get
blown up in the first hours of a war. Anti
ship missiles, harpoon anti ship missiles, some of these aren't
going to arrive until twenty twenty seven. That's going to
be too late. It's crazy the backlog that has been delivered.
We have heart poons in our own stockpiles that we're
(14:02):
going to put into deep storage.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
It's called d milling.
Speaker 5 (14:05):
We pay money in order to kind of deactivate them
when we put them into a storage shed somewhere.
Speaker 3 (14:10):
I'm simplifying, but that's effectively what happens.
Speaker 5 (14:13):
We could take those, we could maguiver them for lack
of a better term, and deliver those to Taiwan. All
it takes is a little bit of creativity and leadership
from the Department of Defense. Ask for the question between
Ukraine and Taiwan. In certain systems, Yes, they're needed in
both Ukraine and Taiwan, but harpoons, for example, are more
relevant in Taiwan than Ukraine. However, if we don't, as
(14:36):
I alluded to before, learn the lesson of Ukraine in
order to rebuild our stockpiles of critical missiles, critical munitions,
then we're going to be in a very difficult situation
in both Taiwan and Ukraine, because that's the lesson. Really,
we went through so many of these munitions early in
the war in Ukraine because for years we just don't
(14:58):
These are less sexy items that not to get the
same attention as a fancy jet, and so they don't
get the budget priority. But really, for a modest investment
of money relative to the overall Pentagon budget, we're talking
ten billion dollars a year, you could rebuild our arsenal
of deterrence and in the process give us a better.
Speaker 3 (15:14):
Chance of avoiding a war in the first place.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon Podcast. We've heard a few different theories
on Ukraine. Of course, we have the folks that say
we shouldn't do anything in Ukraine at all. We should
they this is their fight, we shouldn't get involved in it.
We have folks who are saying, I mean, Nikki Haley
has come out and said I would never give money
(15:38):
to Ukraine, but I would give them weapons, and I
would give them what they need to fight a war.
And then you have other folks who are saying, just
continue to push the money through, push the money through,
push the money through. And some people feel like that's untraceable.
We don't really know what's happening. Our taxpayer dollars are
going over there. We don't really know what's happening. When
you look at the situation with Ukraine, certainly it is
(15:59):
a voll little situation. They get through Ukraine, they go
to Poland, and we know that Putin has been talking
to Jijiping, we know they've been talking to North Korea.
You get a ran China, North Korea, and Russia together.
That's a pretty dangerous combination. So how serious is the
situation in Ukraine and what should the American people be
(16:21):
thinking when it comes to supporting Ukraine.
Speaker 4 (16:24):
It's very serious.
Speaker 5 (16:25):
It could still escalate in ways that we should be
cognizant of. I understand the skepticism in the Republican Party
when it comes to Ukraine, and I don't dismiss it,
and a lot of it I think comes from the
Democratic Well two things.
Speaker 4 (16:40):
I think the absence of.
Speaker 5 (16:42):
A coherent plan from the Biden administration or the inability
of the President himself to articulate what the end state is,
which is not great, and in fact, at the same
time they're blaming Republicans for holding up Ukraine funding.
Speaker 4 (16:54):
They went to the G twenty and released a water down.
Speaker 5 (16:57):
Statement that was basically a gift to Russia's So that
doesn't do a lot to generate support for continued Ukraine funding.
So I understand that skepticism, and I would say, no
one should get a blank check, right Our own military
doesn't get a blank check.
Speaker 4 (17:12):
The Ukraine's military, it doesn't get.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
A blank check.
Speaker 5 (17:15):
My wife doesn't get a blank Well, my wife gets
a blank check. But other than that, nobody like, yeah, yeah, exactly,
scratch that for the record, yeah exactly.
Speaker 4 (17:28):
But so there needs to be robust oversight.
Speaker 5 (17:31):
We need to have a full accounting of all the
weapons we provided thus far in a sense that they're
being used well and responsibly, and then we can consider future.
Speaker 3 (17:40):
Packages of clinical assistance.
Speaker 5 (17:42):
The second thing I would say is I do think
it's fair for us to encourage, indeed demand, that certain
European countries, particularly the Western European countries, step up and
if they're uncomfortable in terms of providing weapons, they can
fill the gap when it comes to humanitarian assistance, and
you know they can pay the teacher pensions in Ukraine
while we provide the weapons. The third point is most important,
(18:05):
I think, which is what I alluded to before, which
is that this should be an opportunity for us to
fix the deficiencies in our own munitions and industrial base,
our defense industrial base, so that we are in a
better position to deter a war in other theaters. When
it comes to the connection between Taiwan and Ukraine, yes,
I do believe that we have to take this no
limits partnership between She and Putin seriously. The one thing, however,
(18:30):
that makes our our that makes it impossible for us
to execute our war plans with respect to Taiwan is
if Russia launched a simultaneous attack against NATO. And right
now I believe we've degraded the Russian military in Ukraine
such that they're conventional military threat to NATO is non existent.
So I actually believe that if we can shape the
(18:52):
outcome in Ukraine in a way that protects the integrity
of Ukraine. Obviously, I don't think Crimea is going back
to U Grane ay time soon, and also induces panic
in Beijing, we can actually enhance our geopolitical position. I
get that it's a difficult balance to strike with us
the nature of geopolitics.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Do you think that the rest of the world thinks
that a Joe Biden is capable of this? I mean,
we see him at the G twenty saying that he
needs to go to bed. We see him fumbling names constantly.
He doesn't seem to be in command. He's walking with
a Zelenski through the Rose Garden and Zelensky is dressed down.
(19:30):
It seems very much like we are being controlled by
other people. I would say most people are feeling like that.
But what is your sense on the world stage.
Speaker 5 (19:39):
I hate to be maybe rude or uncharitable to the
commander in chief, but I mean Biden he's just too old.
I mean, he's just clearly lost a step. And what
we saw in Vietnam I think further proved that point.
And so I do think it undermines the credibility of
our deterrent posture when you have a commander in chief
that says contradictory thing. For example, what he said in
(20:01):
Vietnam was troubling. I mean, he went out there and said, well,
don't worry about China. China has economic problems and therefore
it's less likely they're going to invade Taiwan.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
Okay said he'd like to see them succeed.
Speaker 5 (20:13):
I'm like, yeah, yeah, what signal does that send to
our allies? What signal does this send to our allies
in Asia in particular? But honestly, like the reverse could
be true. As China experiences domestic economic and demographic problems,
they could get more aggressive on the world stage. Rights
It's called diversionary war theory. So for the presidents go
(20:35):
out there and say that really undermines our deterrent posture.
And Biden I did the math on this recently. I
believe Biden is so old that he's not even a boomer.
I think he's a member of the silent generation. In fact,
Biden is older than the People's Republic of China itself,
which was established in nineteen forty nine, and I think
Biden was established in nineteen forty nineteen forty two.
Speaker 4 (20:58):
So I'm biased.
Speaker 5 (20:59):
I get us as a relatively younger member of Congress,
but I'd like.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
To see a generational shift.
Speaker 5 (21:04):
And one final point, I'm sorry, go on, really, maybe
A more fair criticism is that the Biden administration's revival
of diplomatic and economic engagement with China as really the
foundation of our foreign policy is naive. It's misguided, it's counterproductive.
(21:25):
We've had four Cabinet secretaries go to Beijing in the
last few months. We have nothing to show for it.
All we've done is slow the defense of action we
need to take to defend ourselves against Chinese Communist Party aggression.
And so that policy choice honestly worries me even more.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
You know, I always find it fascinating to see all
of these people come out and defend China. And obviously
we've been talking about cattle here in Michigan. We've also
been talking about Goshen in Michigan, and so we've hit
pretty hard on having CCP operatives in our state. I
do not want the Chinese Communist Party in one of
our states that has our highest resource of water, right,
(22:02):
I just don't want that. But I don't want them
in our state regardless, and so we've gotten a lot
of criticism for that. But it shocks me that we
don't have people like Lebron James and these bleeding heart
liberals coming out and saying, how could you possibly get
in bed with a country that commits the human rights
offenses that happen in China. I mean, even if you
(22:23):
were a little naive to what they do and it's ugly,
but even if you were a naive to the child
labor and everything else.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
You saw what happened in COVID.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
I mean, we all have those images in our minds
of people being stuffed on the side of the road
with the guys in the full white outfits, and.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
They're like, what happened to that person that gets thrown
in the back of a van? And you're like, I mean.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
It's not funny, it's we really don't know what they
did to people who had COVID, and no one is
willing to actually dig deep into that. So I just
think I appreciate what you do every day. I appreciate
the fact that you talk truth to what's happening with
the Chinese Communist Party and the dangers the United States
of America, and honestly that you are willing to come
(23:03):
out and speak truth about what's happening in the White House.
So I thank you, thank you for being on the
podcast here today. Congressman Gallagher. We're going to catch up
with you again because I know more is going to
happen with these Chinese plants that are coming into the country.
Speaker 4 (23:16):
Well, it was a real pleasure to be with you.
Speaker 5 (23:19):
I don't often say nice things about Michiganders, and I
have to remind you that Michigan stole the Upper Peninsula
from Wisconsin. There was a war between Michigan and Ohio
over Toledo, and Congress sold it.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
Andrew Jackson, I was going to say, well, what did
you think we wanted Toledo?
Speaker 5 (23:37):
Yeah, exactly, but we got robbed of territory that should
be Wisconsin territory. So I've made it my life's ambition
to take it back. That's my actual objective.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
But there is a bit of a war still between
Ohio and Michigan. Not sure if you've heard it, but
it continues today.
Speaker 4 (23:57):
Well, thank you so much for that.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
Might be just on football teas, but yes, thank you
and thank you all for joining us on the Tutor
Dixon Podcast. For this episode and others, check out Tutordison
podcast dot com or go to the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you get your podcasts and join us next time,
have a blessed ding
Hey, this is Buck Sexton and you're listening to the
Tutor Dixon Podcast, part of the Clay Travers and Buck
Sexton podcast network.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. You may have heard
about this United Auto Workers strike. Well, now Ford has
decided to halt moving forward with their battery plant. And
my guest today would tell you this is a good
thing because of the connection to the Chinese Communist Party.
Congressman Mike Gallagher, who represents Wisconsin's eighth district and serves
(00:29):
as chairman of the Select Committee. I'm the Chinese Communist Party,
joins me today. Welcome Congressman.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
It's great to be with you.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
It's great to have you here in the midst of this.
I mean, we've been talking about this for a while.
This is called cattle. It came to Michigan. Even Governor
Youngkin said I won't have this in Virginia because I
don't want the connection to the Chinese Communist Party. But
Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan, said no, no, we
welcome them here. We want Ford to be able to
partner with them. But now this snafu with the auto
(00:58):
workers strikings, it seems to have cost forward a little
pause on moving forward with plants in the state of Michigan.
But you would say this is a good thing. Can
you explain to us what your concern is with cattle?
Speaker 4 (01:11):
Well quickly.
Speaker 5 (01:12):
I think it's important to understand where cattle emerged from,
because I think it kind of provides a microcosm into
our entire fraud.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
Economic relationship with the Chinese Communist Party.
Speaker 4 (01:23):
The original technology.
Speaker 5 (01:25):
Was actually developed in America at the University of Texas
and then at MIT, and it was a company called
A one two three that received massive state and federal subsidies.
The Obama administration gave it millions and millions of dollars,
and yet it still found its way into bankruptcy.
Speaker 4 (01:42):
You're talking about battery technology, Yeah.
Speaker 5 (01:44):
Battery technology company A one two three, and then Cattle
purchased the company, and then Cattle, because it has even
more generous subsidies from the state from the Chinese Communist
Party about four hundred million dollars in twenty twenty two,
was able to survive and become really a dominant battery
company globally. So this kind of tells you everything you
(02:06):
need to know about what China has done to our economy,
specifically the industrial Midwest, like states like yours and mine
over the last two decades, which is because of a
mix of aggressive practices like intellectual property theft, because of
subsidies from the state, it's able to compete on an
unlevel playing field with American companies, steal our best technology
(02:30):
and then dominate critical.
Speaker 3 (02:31):
Supply chains and critical industries.
Speaker 5 (02:33):
So now fast forward to the present day and the risk,
and I went to Detroit and I met with Ford,
and I met with a variety of automakers there to
express my concern. The risk, in my opinion, is taking
Cattle's dominant position in the global battery market and making
it even more dominant. And you have to understand that
with that dominance, the Chinese Communist Party could weaponize it
(02:55):
going forward. Imagine if we found ourselves in a confrontation
with China over Taiwan threatened to cut off the export
of batteries or shut down certain facilities, it could bring
us to our knees. They've threatened to do that in
the early parts of the pandemic with advanced pharmaceutical ingredients.
So for that and many other reasons, I thought the
deal was very risky.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
I think that was our big shock when we hit
the pandemic. All of the things that we are reliant
on from China, but I think pharmaceuticals were the biggest
eye opener for people because I come from the manufacturing world,
so I had seen even US building military vehicles that
were waiting on a few pieces to come in from China,
you know, and we're going I mean, eighty percent by
(03:34):
America is still you can't get one hundred percent of
a vehicle, you know, this is still pretty scary. But
then when you actually threaten people's healthcare, everybody takes that
a little differently. But it seems us as we've gotten
away from the pandemic, it's sort of the fear of
not having these capabilities in the United States solely for
the United States has sort of worn off. But we
(03:56):
had this happened, this came to Michigan. We had people
saying that this is a Chinese company. Ford came out
and said, no, no, we're going to take care of this.
It's going to be us. I think something you said
to me was fascinating just now. You said that we
developed this technology and it went to China. So are
you saying that the technology of batteries for this type
(04:17):
of electric vehicle was developed in the United States. But
we look at this and we see that China has
complete control over these rare earth minerals, over the process.
How did we lose that control?
Speaker 5 (04:30):
Well, the story about rare earths is I think really
a story about stupid regulation in.
Speaker 3 (04:38):
The United States and self defeating regulation.
Speaker 5 (04:41):
Because the rare earths, if you studied the deposits internationally,
they're not rare. We have enormous deposits of critical minerals
rare earths. The problem is we've effectively made it illegal
to mine those deposits.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
And process those deposits.
Speaker 5 (04:54):
We have basically one national champion, a company called MP
Materials that sits on the California about a border that
was grandfathered in and thus able to continue to mind.
They're trying to build a processing facility in Texas, but
it's extraordinarily difficult.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
In Minnesota.
Speaker 5 (05:10):
We have enormous deposits for a lot of the critical
minerals we need, but over time we just we built
an ossified, onerous regulatory environment. There are environmental concerns with
the processes involved. I get that But the thing I
think you're even your center Left America needs to understand
is that we would do it much cleaner in the
(05:30):
United States than almost anywhere else in the world, and
certainly in China.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Well, are aren't they really getting these out of Africa
using children for labor there? I mean, because that's what
we're hearing. So maybe I'm telling tales out of school.
But if that's the case, I feel like this is
something we should talk about.
Speaker 5 (05:45):
Yeah, well, they're also using If you sort of examine
the supply chain for solar panel subcomponents and battery subcomponents,
a lot of it goes back to the Shinjang Autonomous
Region where there is an ongoing genocide. And that's not
just my determination, that's the determination of both the Trump
administration and the Biden administration. And I think at a minimum,
(06:05):
if a company like Ford is going to do a
deal using Inflation Reduction Act dollars taxpayer dollars with a
company like Cattle, they should be forced to answer hard
questions about Cattle's problematic history when it comes to its
connection to Shinjang and forced labor in Shinjang Autonomous Region.
So this is really the irony and tragedy of our
entire the entire energy policy under the Biden administration, we're
(06:29):
surrendering what should be one of our greatest advantages relative
to China right now, which is our energy abundance, and
we're going to make ourselves more dependent on China for batteries,
battery subcomponents, and in the process implicate ourselves in egregious
human rights a bass. This is actually why John Kerry
was lobbying against the Wiger Force Labor Prevention Act because
(06:50):
he was afraid that the Weiger Force Labor Prevention Act
would compromise our ability to get solar paneled subcomponents out
of Shinjang in China. The whole thing is absurd in
its self defeating and it's a set of massive geopolitical advantage.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
How actually advantageous are solar panels because suddenly we're hearing
that there are there's a lot of energy that goes
into producing them. They actually have chemicals that are running
off the panels into seeping into the ground. Are any
of these risks true? Are we just finding this out?
And are we creating what we're calling clean energy that
(07:23):
actually once we get into it and we have usage
for several years, we find out maybe not so clean.
Speaker 4 (07:28):
I think that's a great point.
Speaker 5 (07:29):
I've seen compelling analysis to suggest that if you examine
the entire sort of life cycle what it takes to
build not just a battery, but an entire or a
solar panel, or a battery, an entire electric vehicle, on balance,
it's not much better, if.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
Better at all, for the environment.
Speaker 5 (07:46):
Took me when you take into account the mining processes
and some of the other negative externalities. The other question
I always ask myself, though, let's just consider it a
fully formed electric vehicle. For example, where does the electric
city come from? It's largely yeah, exactly, So listen, honestly,
(08:08):
if someone wants to buy an electric vehicle, that's cool.
Speaker 4 (08:11):
I drove a Tesla once. It was very fun.
Speaker 5 (08:15):
But I just don't think I, as a taxpayer or
my constituents in Northeast Wisconsin, should be forced to subsidize
that decision, particularly if there's not clear and convincing evidence
that it's better for the environment. When it comes to
the environment, when it comes to climate change, the path
forward to me is obvious.
Speaker 4 (08:33):
It's to invest in all of the above.
Speaker 5 (08:34):
Policy that has to include nuclear technology. And the fact
is the left currently will not discuss nuclear technology. But
right now the Chinese are investing in advanced nuclear microreactor technology.
Speaker 4 (08:46):
And if we don't wake up, we're going to find
ourselves on the wrong.
Speaker 5 (08:49):
End of that supply chain as well, in the same
way on the wrong end of the battery supply chain.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon Podcast. We look at what's happening with
China right now. I think that there are a lot
of folks who are sounding the alarm. We've heard this
for several years now that China is really looking to
take over the world.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
That would start with invading Taiwan.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
What does a war between the US and China over
an invasion of Taiwan look like?
Speaker 1 (09:21):
Because we've heard people.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
On both sides say, oh, they're not actually going to
do that, they want at risk that. But I've talked
to generals who say, you're dealing with a person who
is truly a dictator. This is someone who will do anything.
So what are the risks, What are the risks? What
does it look like?
Speaker 5 (09:36):
Well, first on the tendency for particularly financial elites to
discount the likelihood of an invasion.
Speaker 4 (09:42):
I think one of the things.
Speaker 5 (09:43):
We learned in Ukraine is that when dictators or are
people in systems that are different than ours, tell you
they're going to do somethings, you should probably take it seriously.
And we just tend to do something called mirror imaging,
where we graft our own value structure onto other regimes,
and therefore it seems unthinkable. Oh, of course US in
Ping would never invade Taiwan. It would be incredibly difficult
(10:05):
and incredibly costly. But particularly when you're dealing with a
Marxist Leninist regime where there's just not a lot of
robust feedback loops, he could decide to do something for
reasons that seemed irrational to us, but could seem entirely
rational for his primary goal, which is regime and party preservation.
What it would look like, in short, it would be horrific.
(10:26):
We fought wars in Afghanistan in Iraq for two decades.
One aircraft carrier is sunk in a war with China
over Taiwan, and it would almost equal the casualties.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
Over twenty years of war in Iraq.
Speaker 5 (10:38):
In Afghanistan, the financial implications would be severe.
Speaker 4 (10:42):
We just did a wargame.
Speaker 5 (10:43):
I took the Select Committee on the CCP to New
York and we did a wargame with major financial elites,
and you're talking trillions of dollars lost, even in the
lowest end scenario like a blockade. So the punchline for
all of this is that given the risks, given the costs,
and given the potential that it could esc beyond conventional
war into nuclear war like we're talking World War III,
(11:04):
we should be moving heaven and earth to prevent the war.
In the first place, we need to put in place
a deterrence by denial posture such that Xi Jinping concludes
that he cannot achieve his lifelong ambition and reunifying Taiwan,
as he calls it, with the mainland is his lifelong objective.
But right now the Pentagon's moving too slow. We're just
(11:27):
not We're not even rebuilding some of the critical munitions
that we're expending in Ukraine, munitions that would be relevant
in Taiwan. And that's what really worries me. The balance
of power continues to trend less in our favor, in
more of the favor of the CCP. The final thing
I'm saying, and I'll sorry, I'm sorry to go on,
is what we're seeing in China right now with the
People's Liberation Army is really the biggest military build up
(11:50):
in peacetime military build up at least since World War Two.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
Right, The largest navy in the world.
Speaker 4 (11:55):
Is something, and not even that you're you're totally right.
Speaker 5 (11:57):
It's bigger than ours by forty one hulls, and so
the navy nerds and I'm technically naval officer marine, so
I can call them nerds, We'll say, but our ships
are more capable. Well, at some point, quantity has a
quality all of its own, and their most advanced ships
are quite capable. And it's actually they have the three
largest navies in the world if you factor in their
coastguard and their maritime militia, both of which would be
(12:19):
relevant to an invasion of Taiwan. So it's incredibly troubling,
which is why we need to We need to invest
in a more lethal and capable military before it's too late.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
Let me ask you this.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
So we were speaking to some folks in the know,
and they say that Joe Biden had committed or the
Taiwan had actually purchased jets from US. The purchase went through.
We have the money, we were supposed to deliver the jets.
Joe Biden can put them on hold without getting approval
from Congress. He can't cancel the order. But now these
(12:50):
jets have been on hold for three years. We don't
actually know what's happening. Did they go to Ukraine? Is
sending munitions and weapons over to Ukraine? Depleting us in
a way that it makes us vulnerable for China going
into Taiwan. What does all of this mean when you
see that Joe Biden is going against Congress holding jets
and nobody seems to know about this.
Speaker 5 (13:12):
Well, I think it reveals something obvious, which is our
entire foreign military sales process is broken.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
Beyond the jets.
Speaker 5 (13:19):
Look at since twenty fifteen, we've developed a nearly twenty
billion dollar backlog of items that have been approved and
purchased by Taiwan but not delivered. And quite honestly, what's
even more important than jets? I mean twenty billion dollars.
I mean some of these go back to twenty fifteen
for anti ship missiles, which I would argue are even
(13:40):
more relevant to deterring a Chinese invasion of Taiwan than
fancy jets that sit on a runway and might get
blown up in the first hours of a war. Anti
ship missiles, harpoon anti ship missiles, some of these aren't
going to arrive until twenty twenty seven. That's going to
be too late. It's crazy the backlog that has been delivered.
We have heart poons in our own stockpiles that we're
(14:02):
going to put into deep storage.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
It's called d milling.
Speaker 5 (14:05):
We pay money in order to kind of deactivate them
when we put them into a storage shed somewhere.
Speaker 3 (14:10):
I'm simplifying, but that's effectively what happens.
Speaker 5 (14:13):
We could take those, we could maguiver them for lack
of a better term, and deliver those to Taiwan. All
it takes is a little bit of creativity and leadership
from the Department of Defense. Ask for the question between
Ukraine and Taiwan. In certain systems, Yes, they're needed in
both Ukraine and Taiwan, but harpoons, for example, are more
relevant in Taiwan than Ukraine. However, if we don't, as
(14:36):
I alluded to before, learn the lesson of Ukraine in
order to rebuild our stockpiles of critical missiles, critical munitions,
then we're going to be in a very difficult situation
in both Taiwan and Ukraine, because that's the lesson. Really,
we went through so many of these munitions early in
the war in Ukraine because for years we just don't
(14:58):
These are less sexy items that not to get the
same attention as a fancy jet, and so they don't
get the budget priority. But really, for a modest investment
of money relative to the overall Pentagon budget, we're talking
ten billion dollars a year, you could rebuild our arsenal
of deterrence and in the process give us a better.
Speaker 3 (15:14):
Chance of avoiding a war in the first place.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon Podcast. We've heard a few different theories
on Ukraine. Of course, we have the folks that say
we shouldn't do anything in Ukraine at all. We should
they this is their fight, we shouldn't get involved in it.
We have folks who are saying, I mean, Nikki Haley
has come out and said I would never give money
(15:38):
to Ukraine, but I would give them weapons, and I
would give them what they need to fight a war.
And then you have other folks who are saying, just
continue to push the money through, push the money through,
push the money through. And some people feel like that's untraceable.
We don't really know what's happening. Our taxpayer dollars are
going over there. We don't really know what's happening. When
you look at the situation with Ukraine, certainly it is
(15:59):
a voll little situation. They get through Ukraine, they go
to Poland, and we know that Putin has been talking
to Jijiping, we know they've been talking to North Korea.
You get a ran China, North Korea, and Russia together.
That's a pretty dangerous combination. So how serious is the
situation in Ukraine and what should the American people be
(16:21):
thinking when it comes to supporting Ukraine.
Speaker 4 (16:24):
It's very serious.
Speaker 5 (16:25):
It could still escalate in ways that we should be
cognizant of. I understand the skepticism in the Republican Party
when it comes to Ukraine, and I don't dismiss it,
and a lot of it I think comes from the
Democratic Well two things.
Speaker 4 (16:40):
I think the absence of.
Speaker 5 (16:42):
A coherent plan from the Biden administration or the inability
of the President himself to articulate what the end state is,
which is not great, and in fact, at the same
time they're blaming Republicans for holding up Ukraine funding.
Speaker 4 (16:54):
They went to the G twenty and released a water down.
Speaker 5 (16:57):
Statement that was basically a gift to Russia's So that
doesn't do a lot to generate support for continued Ukraine funding.
So I understand that skepticism, and I would say, no
one should get a blank check, right Our own military
doesn't get a blank check.
Speaker 4 (17:12):
The Ukraine's military, it doesn't get.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
A blank check.
Speaker 5 (17:15):
My wife doesn't get a blank Well, my wife gets
a blank check. But other than that, nobody like, yeah, yeah, exactly,
scratch that for the record, yeah exactly.
Speaker 4 (17:28):
But so there needs to be robust oversight.
Speaker 5 (17:31):
We need to have a full accounting of all the
weapons we provided thus far in a sense that they're
being used well and responsibly, and then we can consider future.
Speaker 3 (17:40):
Packages of clinical assistance.
Speaker 5 (17:42):
The second thing I would say is I do think
it's fair for us to encourage, indeed demand, that certain
European countries, particularly the Western European countries, step up and
if they're uncomfortable in terms of providing weapons, they can
fill the gap when it comes to humanitarian assistance, and
you know they can pay the teacher pensions in Ukraine
while we provide the weapons. The third point is most important,
(18:05):
I think, which is what I alluded to before, which
is that this should be an opportunity for us to
fix the deficiencies in our own munitions and industrial base,
our defense industrial base, so that we are in a
better position to deter a war in other theaters. When
it comes to the connection between Taiwan and Ukraine, yes,
I do believe that we have to take this no
limits partnership between She and Putin seriously. The one thing, however,
(18:30):
that makes our our that makes it impossible for us
to execute our war plans with respect to Taiwan is
if Russia launched a simultaneous attack against NATO. And right
now I believe we've degraded the Russian military in Ukraine
such that they're conventional military threat to NATO is non existent.
So I actually believe that if we can shape the
(18:52):
outcome in Ukraine in a way that protects the integrity
of Ukraine. Obviously, I don't think Crimea is going back
to U Grane ay time soon, and also induces panic
in Beijing, we can actually enhance our geopolitical position. I
get that it's a difficult balance to strike with us
the nature of geopolitics.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Do you think that the rest of the world thinks
that a Joe Biden is capable of this? I mean,
we see him at the G twenty saying that he
needs to go to bed. We see him fumbling names constantly.
He doesn't seem to be in command. He's walking with
a Zelenski through the Rose Garden and Zelensky is dressed down.
(19:30):
It seems very much like we are being controlled by
other people. I would say most people are feeling like that.
But what is your sense on the world stage.
Speaker 5 (19:39):
I hate to be maybe rude or uncharitable to the
commander in chief, but I mean Biden he's just too old.
I mean, he's just clearly lost a step. And what
we saw in Vietnam I think further proved that point.
And so I do think it undermines the credibility of
our deterrent posture when you have a commander in chief
that says contradictory thing. For example, what he said in
(20:01):
Vietnam was troubling. I mean, he went out there and said, well,
don't worry about China. China has economic problems and therefore
it's less likely they're going to invade Taiwan.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
Okay said he'd like to see them succeed.
Speaker 5 (20:13):
I'm like, yeah, yeah, what signal does that send to
our allies? What signal does this send to our allies
in Asia in particular? But honestly, like the reverse could
be true. As China experiences domestic economic and demographic problems,
they could get more aggressive on the world stage. Rights
It's called diversionary war theory. So for the presidents go
(20:35):
out there and say that really undermines our deterrent posture.
And Biden I did the math on this recently. I
believe Biden is so old that he's not even a boomer.
I think he's a member of the silent generation. In fact,
Biden is older than the People's Republic of China itself,
which was established in nineteen forty nine, and I think
Biden was established in nineteen forty nineteen forty two.
Speaker 4 (20:58):
So I'm biased.
Speaker 5 (20:59):
I get us as a relatively younger member of Congress,
but I'd like.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
To see a generational shift.
Speaker 5 (21:04):
And one final point, I'm sorry, go on, really, maybe
A more fair criticism is that the Biden administration's revival
of diplomatic and economic engagement with China as really the
foundation of our foreign policy is naive. It's misguided, it's counterproductive.
(21:25):
We've had four Cabinet secretaries go to Beijing in the
last few months. We have nothing to show for it.
All we've done is slow the defense of action we
need to take to defend ourselves against Chinese Communist Party aggression.
And so that policy choice honestly worries me even more.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
You know, I always find it fascinating to see all
of these people come out and defend China. And obviously
we've been talking about cattle here in Michigan. We've also
been talking about Goshen in Michigan, and so we've hit
pretty hard on having CCP operatives in our state. I
do not want the Chinese Communist Party in one of
our states that has our highest resource of water, right,
(22:02):
I just don't want that. But I don't want them
in our state regardless, and so we've gotten a lot
of criticism for that. But it shocks me that we
don't have people like Lebron James and these bleeding heart
liberals coming out and saying, how could you possibly get
in bed with a country that commits the human rights
offenses that happen in China. I mean, even if you
(22:23):
were a little naive to what they do and it's ugly,
but even if you were a naive to the child
labor and everything else.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
You saw what happened in COVID.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
I mean, we all have those images in our minds
of people being stuffed on the side of the road
with the guys in the full white outfits, and.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
They're like, what happened to that person that gets thrown
in the back of a van? And you're like, I mean.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
It's not funny, it's we really don't know what they
did to people who had COVID, and no one is
willing to actually dig deep into that. So I just
think I appreciate what you do every day. I appreciate
the fact that you talk truth to what's happening with
the Chinese Communist Party and the dangers the United States
of America, and honestly that you are willing to come
(23:03):
out and speak truth about what's happening in the White House.
So I thank you, thank you for being on the
podcast here today. Congressman Gallagher. We're going to catch up
with you again because I know more is going to
happen with these Chinese plants that are coming into the country.
Speaker 4 (23:16):
Well, it was a real pleasure to be with you.
Speaker 5 (23:19):
I don't often say nice things about Michiganders, and I
have to remind you that Michigan stole the Upper Peninsula
from Wisconsin. There was a war between Michigan and Ohio
over Toledo, and Congress sold it.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
Andrew Jackson, I was going to say, well, what did
you think we wanted Toledo?
Speaker 5 (23:37):
Yeah, exactly, but we got robbed of territory that should
be Wisconsin territory. So I've made it my life's ambition
to take it back. That's my actual objective.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
But there is a bit of a war still between
Ohio and Michigan. Not sure if you've heard it, but
it continues today.
Speaker 4 (23:57):
Well, thank you so much for that.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
Might be just on football teas, but yes, thank you
and thank you all for joining us on the Tutor
Dixon Podcast. For this episode and others, check out Tutordison
podcast dot com or go to the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you get your podcasts and join us next time,
have a blessed ding
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.