Sound On: Taiwan Tensions Intensify, Reconciliation Vote (Radio)

Bloomberg sund On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. The House heads home, leaving Senate Democrats to pass their climate and tax bill as soon as next week. Welcome to the fastest hour in politics as we focus on the debate with Congressman Kevin Brady, Republican from Texas, ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee. Later, Senate Republicans vote down the Pack Act to give healthcare to veterans exposed to toxic burn pits Well in service to the nation.

Will be joined by the doctor who helped to make this an issue in his research and congressional testimony. Dr Robert Miller will be here the bill stands to see another day, likely next week, and our panel Democratic strategists John la Bombard and Republican strategist Adam Goodman with analysis for the hour and House lawmakers heading out of town, with some exceptions including Texas Congressman Kevin Brady. He's still here. The ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee,

joins us from the nation's capital. Congressman, welcome back to Bloomberg. Thank you very much for having me. I appreciate it. Well, Gosh, I have to start by congratulating you on your twenty five and final congressional baseball game. Last night I was watching. Are you feeling sore today? I am. I am very sore today. And what I always say, during the game, you feel like you're eighteen years old, but the next morning it's eighteen. Everything in your body pretty much hurts.

Some I'm a house floor. You know. Everyone that played was walking a little, a little stiffly. Today. I wouldn't be able to get out of bed some days it's like that. There's been a lot of talk about taxes this week, as the Mansion Schumer deal. This reconciliation plan, if it happens, includes a minimum corporate tax. It would also end carried interests. Chair Richard Neil seems to be

on board unless he's telling you otherwise. How about you? Yeah, so no, uh, what country in the right mind raises taxes on American made manufacturers as you're heading into a recession right now? This includes three or billion dollars, but tax really on made American manufacturers. More federal funding to fuel inflation. UNLEASH is about eighty thousand new I R

S agents, mainly on farmers and small businesses. It unfortunately has better health care for the jobless than for those who return to work, which is a huge problem with our workers shortage. And there are billions of a New Green New Deal subsidies for the very wealthy and biggest of businesses. I think, look at this point, you know, can you trust the same people who brought us into a recession, raging inflation and a worker short Can you

really trust him now? On the ac well, I find it interesting that that Larry Summers, who has been critical of the administration over inflation, critical of the FED for starting too late, now says that this actually would lower inflation. He supported this deal and supposedly got Joe Manchin off the fence. How do you reconcile it to Yeah, well,

I don't see that. In fact, I think it's the joint to committing at taxations that this will actually raise inflation now, could have an effect over the long term, but the fact is right now, this is where people getting crushed in in these days and in these years, and inflations you know, is accelerating on American So again, it can't manage the worst time to fuel more of it. I think I know the answer to this question. But did either the Majority Leader or Mansion consult the Ways

and Means committees in either House over this um? Not that I'm aware of what does that say about regular order. I'll get all pure on you here, but because both parties do this though, right when a bill falls out of the sky without committee hearings, Yeah, it's frustrating because especially in the tax area, every word matters and can have dramatic changes um in our economy, in our taxing system. And that's why you want a pretty slow, deliberate, sort

of thoughtful process. I don't Chairman Neil feels the same way the Democrat Leader Ways Means Committee, And so when someone just drops it out of out of the sky. There can be real consequence, So it's not good. I don't think for the American public to have that type of system. The Chip Act is on its way to the President, passed with the votes of twenty four Republicans. A Congressman, you were a no vote on this legislation.

How come yeah, I I didn't think these subsidies for the ship manufacturers was warranted, and I think it misses a major national security challenge, which is China has targeted publicly targeted ten of America's manufacturing and technology abilities, from artificial intelligence, for robotics, biotech, egg and energy innovation. And in this build you you are giving you know, seventy four billion dollars of subsidies to one and seeding the other nine to China. I think that was a terrible

missed opportunity. And also I don't believe our our semiconductor industry, which is the best in the world, needed those subsidies because they would be investing. I mean, the point was to draw it here into the US. Do you want to see more domestic chip making? We do, which is why there's almost seventy billion dollars in new plants announced without any UH conversation about federal subsidies. And so I

think this is an industry that has the financing. Frankly, UH sells half of all the chips sales in the planet products something growing in the US now for twenty years. In fact, it's one of our best exports, top exports from America. So I I thought, this is an industry that should be making these investments, has stay the art chips, has the financing to do it. So I I didn't

believe these subsidies were warranted. Wow. Yeah, there's just such a different story coming from the administration obviously that this is the national security issue and that other countries were wooing the chip makers with cash, so we needed to offer the money to Yeah, I know. And you get into this type of tax subsidy war, it's it is hard to win it. Look, what I want is as much of this chip manufacturing anchored in the US as

it is today. In fact, US makers UH build almost half of their chips right here in the US, very reliable supprotect but then running through reliable allies like Germany and France and and UH in South Korea, which is which is what we do. Today you had a big week, Congressman. You weren't just playing baseball. Yes, today your official portrait was unveiled at the Ways and means commit your family is in town, and I suspect this is a very special time for you. It has been a very good week.

And look, I've been twenty six years and I've loved, frankly this job and still do. And so it was really moving to have family and friends and supporters both here and at home for the unofficial portraits or official portrait unveiling in the game as well. So yeah, we just it's been uh, it's been one of the best memories for weeks for me. We're happy for you, but I have to admit this game last night ten nothing Are you kidding me that that was? Is that the

best outing in your twenty five years? Nothing? Yeah, actually is it is? And and we were you know, you always worry about errors, but we were flawless as a team. The Democrats have a very good team. I expected it to be nip and tuck the whole time, but we we played just very well. But the neat thing while we all play to two reasons when we race one point seven million dollars the record for local charity like boys Club, Girls Club, youth literacy, really really good things.

But the other thing is sports units people, and we make great friends in the Democrat dug out of friends that that oftentimes will carry legislation with night. And I want to see more of those types of a van here in Congress. You should come up just to watch next year's game. I'm gonna, oh, there's no question about it. The pressure will be off, and of course you'll deliver

the first pitch. I'm glad to know this is gonna happen Congress with Kevin Brady, Republican from Texas, ranking member House Ways and means great to have you with us on this important day on Bloomberg take care and I wasn't kidding ten nothing. Republicans. Quite the night for the congressman and his colleagues at Nats Stadium. And because you couldn't be there, we bring you the Congressional baseball game in Washington, d C. Will be fun one too, brown

ball from that to shut. Then I'll get a run home the first of the night as Fluger with the RBI single on the one to count, and just like that, it's one nothing. Republicans threaded the needle right there with a nice shotween third base and shot shot a swing crown ball album short get run home, thrill across and he pulls him off the bag and couldn't keep his foot on the bag and more is safe and the

run scores. It is to nothing. Republicans swinge. There is that nice shot out towards center field that might bring home too. Can salis Ice swing on it. It is gonna bring up to the Republicans leading this game for to nothing. Brady is gonna come out of the game and a nice salvation, nice classy brood there if he laves and listen to the nice lovation Kevin Brady, or he took my hands, little deserve rap crew, this ins congressional base called so I said Brady. Everybody to give

his dude as well. Its grand chatty Brady the the first base dug out as he comes off and hugs from everybody. Classy moved there, Brad. The games the nice five parts ago to the senior psides, giving your nice hand come back, lots of hugs around. Doesn't believe it, can't believe it? What is it? Running um before the Republicans. It's gonna come into the doors. Canna grons on everybody's jugs that everybody's gonna move on base where and it is ten Republicans will see if the priest you turning

into miss during in the ball game is over. Buber in relief of Greg Stuby comes in, hugs Rodney Davis. The Republicans out of the dug out Dude, congratulate each are as the Republicant it do the performance here to take four winning tend London. Yes. Play by play courtesy Fox Sports. They've been playing that game since nine. Will assemble the panel next on Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg So On with Joe Matthews on Bloomberg Radio. Does the Inflation

Reduction Acts of actually lower inflation? We know Democrats and Republicans disagree. We've begain a lot of different answers on this, and there's a new study from Penn Wharton that takes aside from the Penn Wharton budget model. As I read on the terminal, it estimates that the act would cause inflation to very slightly rise, rise until twenty twenty four,

and then slide well a little after that. Overall, this is something the researchers say in the report out Friday, there's quote low confidence the legislation will have any impact on inflation unquote, which, to quote John McLoughlin, means you're all wrong, right. Democrats say it's gonna come down, Republicans say it's gonna bore more gas on the fire, or

whatever the line we keep hearing. What if it does nothing for inflation, is addressing the climate and the deficit, and for scription drug pricing not enough on its own. We assemble the panel. Adam Goodman is back with US Republican strategist, senior fellow at Tufts University Fletcher School, and for the first time John la Bombard of Rock Solutions, former communications director for Senator Kirston Cinema, among other senators. It's a long resume. John, welcome, It's great to have you.

I wonder if you think the White House is just over promising on this when it comes to the inflation story, or I guess that's the whole point of everything right now, every all roads lead to inflation. Yeah. Well, overpromising has unfortunately at times been a hallmark of our party leadership over the past year and a half. In this case. Um. You know, I listened to your conversation with the Congressman

a few moments ago. I do think that Larry Summers has made some great points about the really good provisions in this bill that can be counter inflationary. Um. At the end of the day, this is unfortunately going to be a somewhat rushed process as a result of how these negotiations have dragged on. So legislators are going to have to take a look at all the sum total of the policies in this package and make their own

determination about whether they're worthy of their support. Of course, I'm a moderate Democrat, but I'm a Democrat, and I tend to think that there's a lot in this bill worth supporting, noting the tax components. Uh. And I know you don't speak for her now, but does this strike

you as something your former boss from Arizona would support. Well, it's a really strange strategy, and my personal view on the part of Senator Schumer, Um, you know this is this is an issue area that Senator Cinema has been vocal on. She's perhaps old fashioned in the way that she believes we should be quite cautious and thoughtful when it comes to the idea of raising taxes. We are

emerging from a global pandemic. We've got record inflation and supply chain disruptions, so this is a really uncertain economic climate. And Senator Cinema has been crystal clear for more than a year that she's really carefully going to scrutinize this tax policy. The carried interest provision in particular, that's not something that was even included in the House past Build

Back Better legislation. It's not something that was in the White House framework that she's signaled support for last year. So my guest, not having spoken to her, is that she's gonna look at this with a healthy amount of skepticis and scrutiny. And I will say it's a bit of a mystery to me why Senator Schumer added it in at the eleventh hour without having her in the room at least. This is fascinating, Adam Goodman. Are the media already too far out over their skis on this?

People are writing about it like it's a done deal, but we don't know where a lot of people, including the Senator Cinema, stand on this. That's correct. I'm kind of smiling a little bit right now, Joe, Because first of all, you have to love the name game. Right this this started as the Build Back America, Build America BET or whatever it is program with twenty one and has been slimmed onto the Inflation Reduction Act. Right, It's very direct, right, But what it really is is that

Joe Manchin act. That's what Yo Manchin play. This was a Joe Manchin act and it was done obviously in the dead of the night. I thought that Kevin Brady's comment was very important just a few minutes ago when he he said that when he comes to tax policy and particular, you don't play around with policies. You really have to kind of go through the numbers and make sure kind of all adds up and right and right exactly.

And John just mentioned, you know that the carried interest income piece of this wasn't even on the table before. He's right, Uh, the corporate minimum tax is a debatable item at a time when we're looking at recession and then the consumers. You know, what the consumers are really gonna take out of this bill is called a Bigger, Better I R S. They're talking about putting more money and agents into play, so impact on inflation. Don't know it is the Joe Manchin Act, but I think what

it really is beyond anything else, Joe and John. I think the Democrats needed some kind of a win. They feel maybe they've got a bit of a win here. I was supposed to what the Triple be was headed to certain defeat. Uh maybe that's all all that will play for this, But the ramifications of all of it are yet to be known, and they could be somewhat grim. Okay, so John, you know, in terms of negotiating, this isn't done yet. I know that the parliamentarian is scrubbing certain texts,

but there is a little bit of breathing room here. Right. If there's what's three hundred and fifty or three hundred and seventy billion dollars of actual spending in more than seven hundred billion in revenue raised, hence the deficit reduction, maybe Kirsten Cinema could not that carried interest component out of the bill. Is that what you see the real possibility?

You know? I expect that, as she has said, and as she has done throughout her career, Center Cinema will take the time to really carefully review this text, which seems to still be in flux center. Schumer and other will seem to be floating ideas for what to include and not, and ultimately she'll make her decision based on what she believes and will argue is best for Arizona. Um. What I hope is that Senator Schumer and other party leaders recognize that that's a real possibility that you laid out,

and that she will not bend meitical pressure. I like this panel. John and Adam are with us for the hour. We turn to the Packed Act, or what's left of it next. This is Bloomberg broadcasting live from our nation's capital, Bloomberg to New York, Bloomberg eleven, Trio to Boston, Bloomberg one oh six one to San Francisco, Bloomberg nine to the country, Serious x M General one nine, and around the globe, the Bloomberg Business app and Bloomberg Radio dot Com.

This is Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew. The Pats Act was supposed to be a bipartisan win, but it failed this week. The bill to provide healthcare to veterans with health problems from toxic burn pits blocked by Republicans in the Senate could get another chance, though. That will be joined next by Dr Robert Miller of Vanderbilt Health, who testified on this before the Senate v A Committee. The Pack Act was named for Heath Robinson, a sergeant

the Ohio National Guard deploy d Kosovo and Iraq. He died of lung cancer two years ago and blamed it on burn pit exposure. You've heard about burn pits? Do you know about this? They were It was common practice at military bases in the two Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, open air burn pits. They throw everything in these things, from hazardous materials to electronics, and they would they would spray it with jet fuel and set it on fire. Not good for the people who are breathing the air

around it. This is why this bill was first here, uh, first written, but it failed yesterday in the Senate, blocked by Republicans twenty five of them had supported it a month ago, and we wanted to talk just to learn a bit more about it, by the doctor whose research and testimony on Capitol Hill helped to make this an issue to begin with. As I mentioned, Dr Robert Miller, pulmonologist Vanderbilt Health is with us. Doctor, Thanks for being with us on bloomber Oh, thank you for having me.

There's a medical side of this story, and as it turns out, there's a political side too. But I want to start by establishing, based on your experience and your expertise, here some perspective. Do we know how many veterans have long problems, if not worse, from being exposed to burn pits and deployment since nine eleven? We know that the number is large. The exact number is a little hard to pin down, but I would say that there's a minimum of probably ten of the three and a half

million people deployed who have had some type of respiratory complaint. Well, you have been talking about this for years, You've testified on Capitol Hill, you started research on this going back almost twenty years. Do you feel like people are finally hearing this? I mean, I realized the legislation stalled this week and that's why we're talking about it, and I want to understand why we need this bill. But do you have an ear on Capitol Hill? I think that's

difficult to know. Actually, I've been doing this since two thousand four, and we first started seeing patients from Fort Campbell with unexplained shortness of breath and um when we learned pretty quickly that there was a real problem based on the lung biopsies that we were doing at the time. In some cases, I think they listen. In some cases, I think that they're going with another set of information.

You know. For for example, you know, our first set of patients came from exposure to a sulfur fire in northern Iraq, and we were sure that those patients were affected, but the d D did some surveillance data and decided that, well, there really isn't any evidence that anybody was really hurt

by this. And they've done similar things with the people who have operated the burn pits and said, well, the people operating the burn pits really have not had any worst disorders than the general deployers, so we're not sure there's a problem there. Well, you've made the point in your testimony doctor that the fact that this isn't a visible war wounds is part of the problem. Here here's

how you put it in testimony. In patients with deployment related lung disease represent a unique grape of group of veterans. While this injury may not be as noticeable as loss of limb respiratory disorders are associated with lifetime limitation. It has been ten years since I presented our preliminary data to this committee. Is that the problem to begin with doctor that it's not a visible injury for for the patients that I've taken care of. I think that that's

a big part of the problem. And not only is it not visible, it's it's not detectable with your usual tools, so X rays and CT scans, that pmary function tests are all normal or near normal in this population. That brings us to that same testimony the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, you talked about the lack of care that many veterans

with pulmonary disease or received. In an exchange in this case between you and Senator Shared Brown, you made the point that the d D had stopped referring these cases to you. Let's listen, we're not seeing as many direct referrals from Fort Campbell as we used to. A lot of them have seen other providers who are not familiar with this, or they stopped. They stopped referring veterans to specialists. They stopped referring to Vanderbilt and other academic institutions and

chose to refer to d D facilities. Are they getting the care they should? I think that if you were to go to one of the centers that they were referring to, you would get a different evaluation than you might get with us or with other academic medical centers. So clearly the d D centers treating these patients. To your point, we're not going far enough, as you said also in their diagnoses. Is that a fair assessment? We we became involved when the d D asked to start

seeing Fort Campbell patients. Once we presented our data, the d o D says, will take it from here, and they started evaluating the patients themselves. The difference is is that they didn't take this patients as far as we did, and they didn't do lung biopsies. So we would frequently do a long biopsy and demonstrate that these patients had topsic long injury. The d D facilities would typically see them, evaluate them and say, well, all your studies are normal,

be on your way. So now that we've established this, how would this legislation fix that problem? The legislation would help with the patients that we've taken care of in two ways. One is that the patients that we have diagnosed would now have a service connected disability. When we identify a patient with constrictive bronchiolitis, the v A does not grant disability benefits be because their X rays and primary function tests are normal and that's the criteria that

they use for disability benefits. The second thing is is that it would allow patients that we evaluate clinically and feel as if they have constricted bronchiolitis the same opportunity for benefits because we would consider it a presumptive diagnosis. Can John Stewart help you sell it? I think he has helped us sell it because what he has pushed very hard is the idea that it is incorrect to require the veteran to prove the disability that their disability

is due to deployment. That's been the problem since I've been involved, and and much much before I've been involved, is that the veteran has had to prove their link to to service. Well, we'll see what we get next week. It's an important conversation. Doctor. I want to thank you for joining this with your insights. Dr Robert Miller, thanks for being with us on Bloomberg. Thank you. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is pledging to bring the bill back for

another vote to break a filibuster on Monday. We'll let you know what happens and we'll reassemble the panel next on the fastest hour in politics. This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg. Sound on on Bloomberg Radio. Democrats say Republicans turned on the bill to help veterans made sick from burn pits in protests over the Schumer Mansion deal on

reconciliation that we were talking about before. Again, twenty five Republicans who first supported the Packed Act voted against it this week, a procedural vault that kept it from clearing the filibuster. And as I mentioned, Chuck Schumer says he'll bring it back for another culture vote on Monday, so this could still live to see another day. Next Door, in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi had nothing good to say about her colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Here she is, it's so ridiculous. Wait a minute, you're not going to help our veterans because we want to lower the cost of prescription drugs, because we want to lower the cost of of healthcare. Okay, so there's a lot of politics going on both sides of this year. We reassemble the panel for more on this having heard

from the doctor and the politicians. Adam Goodman, Republican strategist, senior fellow Tufts University, Fletcher School, is here today along with John la Bombard of Rock Solutions, former communications director for Senator Kirsten Cinema. Adam, there's a lot of politics going on here. It's a little bit difficult to tell exactly where the truth is. It's frequently somewhere in the middle.

Is it fair to be blaming Republicans for this? For instance, Senator Pat Toomey says, there's budget gimmicks going on in this bill, but it's it's not a good look politically to vote against it. Well, let's look at what's what's

really happening here. At number one, who doesn't support helping veterans who are suffering from post nine eleven injuries, from burn pits or anything, I mean, who would be against trying to help our veterans, And so that any kind of suggestion that this is somewhat anti veteran or in sensitive veterans is ridiculous. Was it a protest over the the mansion deal. Well but but somewhat, but but the

mansion deal that actually does. I'm glad you brought that into play, Joe, because the Mansion deal does has something to do with this. Because there's the other point. We have spent more money under the Biden administration than any other administration in American history. Much of it is with a kick the can down the road attitude about any fiscal responsibility. And the Republicans who are who are reticent about this Packed Act are basically all saying we're not

against the idea of this. None of them are saying that. They're saying, we are objecting to another big ticket item where there is no attempt to show how we're going to pay for it, versus what if we were in the suggestion right now, Joe, is how about phasing this in. That's kind of what the sponse that's coming from a lot of Republicans who would vote for this pack that with that end play if we are not going to

exercise any fiscal restraint on any front. Uh. And it's easy to feel good to say you're for mom and apple Pie, but this is a situation where it's going to cost us a lot of money, as everything else is costing us a lot of money, Like the new supposed Inflation Reduction Act is going to cost money. Where does it stop. That's where Republicans are trying to draw the line. So how do you handle this politically? John? This is this is money we we owe these veterans,

isn't it? Points about fiscal restraints, some of which I would even agree on, but this particular issue is pretty cut and dry for me. I think there's a big political mistake for the center Republicans who voted against the bill. Centator to me has made some consistent points on this, but as you said, dozens of other Republicans had previously supported this legislation, and look, they felt whamboozled by the fact that there was a late eleventh hour deal between

Senator Mansion and Senator Schumer. Oh, I think it is. And and look, those Republicans should take heart because that news shocked the heck out of the Senate Democrats as well. But at the end of the day, them's the breaks, and the Senate Republicans are not in the majority at this moment, and I myself am familiar with the Senate Republican who's who's very accustomed to using hard brass knuckle tactics to get their priorities done on the floor. That

Senator Mitch McConnell, who runs the Republican Caucus. So I have a feeling that when this bill comes back up next week, there will be a way for many of the Senate Republicans, including in my view, some who have been champions for our veterans Senator Blunt and others, to get back around to supporting this important legislation. Do you think this loosens up on Monday if they take another round here at him? What? First of all, I would

agree with what John said. I think that this is come back around, uh, and that there is going to be some moderation and how I think we bring this into play, then you will get the Republicans back again. Uh. Is this something that will reverberate politically? That was obviously you know some of the purpose of I per believe

you heard coming from certain people in the House. Um. That will continue, of course, because now we're headed headlong into the midterm elections and everything is political and everything that has gotten dried apparently. So I do feel good that I think the Pack Act will eventually um with sober minds, will move forward, and it should move forward, but it can move forward with a sense of fiscal uh responsibility attached to it, as opposed to again, a

headlong rush. And it's been curious to see how this evolves over the weekend as Speaker Nancy Pelosi takes off on a rather important trip, at least suddenly important. This is typically not the kind of thing that even gets in the news, you know, a congressional codel. But she's headed to uh to uh Asia, and it's been controversial lately. This is Singapore, Japan, South Korea are on this schedule. We don't know about Taiwan. That's what you know she's

been questioned about. This is what supposedly Joe Biden or the Pentagon didn't want her to do, and god knows the Chinese don't. But don't ask the Speaker because she won't tell you. Here's what happened today when this came up at the briefing. I don't ever talk about my travel because, as some of you know, it's a security issue. It's a security issue for every member of Congress traveling. She floated the possibility of there was concerns she said

that she might be shot down. I I don't know where that came from the other day here John, but would it not be unlike Nancy Pelosi to show up in Taiwan and unfurl a democracy flag kind of like she did in dnem and Square. How does she back down? Now? It's a good question that would not be on like Speaker Pelosi. And and look, Speaker Pelosi has a decades long history of calling out human rights abuses, including on the part of the Ajiang. But yeah, this is a

deeply troubling and fraud time on the international stage. You know, we obviously smarter people than I have pointed out that China is looking at and taking lessons from Russia's belligerent actions in Ukraine. Um, there are no cut and dry answers or sound bites to solve the puzzle of America's commitments related to Taiwan. I personally have faith that Speaker Pelosi is taking all of this into account and she's going to rely heavily on our diplomatic core and military leaders.

But if I had to guess, I bet Speaker Pelosi's heart, UM is doing exactly what you said, showing up in Taiwan and showing our commitment to the people there. You know, she shows deference to Joe Biden though, I mean Mark General Mark Millie Adam said, Hey, if if we're told that that the speaker's going to Taiwan, we'll get her there. There will be military uh coverage in a military escort that gets her in and out safely. But does she

want to put Joe Biden in that spot? This is a high wire act at a time when we already are are on pins and needles about just how far Russia may want to go in their invasion of Ukraine and the impact that may have in China's thirst to move forward on a long time. Objectively, there is of reuniting Taiwan with the mainland to shootdown the Pelosi plane thing. By the way, Joe came from the executive editor, former executive veeditor of the commonst Party's Global Times, who suggested

that may be an option. And you're playing with the country that already is claiming that Taiwan straight is there is it's not international? What is the world's largest navy. They're they're flexing with words like we will exert a great wall of steel if they come this way. I admire by the way Speaker Pelosi showing this kind of concern, but actually landing in Taiwan, I think is something that

could have all sorts of ratifications. Uh. And I think at this time, with everything else, we're faced with maybe not worth doing at this Yeah. Right, It's interesting how seriously the Chinese are taking this John, you know, the Defense Secretary, Secretary of State have both been there in past years. Why not the speaker. That's a good question, you know, And I think that's probably a question that

she and her team are asking themselves as well. But to Adam's point, every moment on the international stage and foreign relations is different than the last and different from the one that comes next. And the situation in the Ukraine, I think is reshaping the world stage in many ways, and it's really reshaping thinking in Beijing. The one thing I will say, and I imagine Speaker Pelos's uh sentiment

is here as well. American leaders are not going to take orders from Beijing when it comes from it comes to showing our support for freedom, for democracy, and for our commitments as it relates to the people of Taiwan. That doesn't mean, though, that Adam doesn't have some very fair and valid points that I'm confident her team is considering about the ramifications that could mushroom out from her

landing in Taiwan. Well, it's interesting when you hear from Republicans at them, they say, well, why wouldn't we want to go visit a great ally of ours? Go ahead, Madam Secretary. But that's kind of sarcasm, isn't it. It's always about timing, Joe. You know that the timing now is really risky, and it's a great story. Will she or won't she? Will she land or won't she land? Will they let her land? Or will you all that?

It's a wonderful story. Of course, the last major official from Congress to visit with new gangers twenty five years ago. I think we need to have a very solid modern policy towards Taiwan. But I think, and I admire again the grit and got some bigger Blosi to suggest this, but I think the actual act of doing it, with everything else going on, is not something in America should be cheering for. I guess your third in line for

the presidency and the Chinese take interest great conversation. Great panel with Adam Goodman and John le Bombard of Rock Solutions. Fascinating insights as we walk into the weekend together. Thanks for spending time with us, and don't forget to subscribe to the sound on podcast if you haven't already. We'll meet you back here on Monday. Have a great weekend. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg