Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Floomberg Sound on
Speaker 1: the recessing. Just one day after this nation inner recession,
Speaker 1: I pressed the Kremlin to accept the substantial proposals that
Speaker 1: we put forth. Floomberg Sound on politics, policy and perspective
Speaker 1: from DC's top name. Stations with deployment related lung disease
Speaker 1: represent a unique grape of group of veterans Americus heroes
Speaker 1: fought in nor Wars outside, sweating their asses off well,
Speaker 1: these mothers sit in the air conditioning. Waldolf from Annie
Speaker 1: Bloomberg sund On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. The
Speaker 1: House heads home, leaving Senate Democrats to pass their climate
Speaker 1: and tax bill as soon as next week. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the fastest hour in politics as we focus on the
Speaker 1: debate with Congressman Kevin Brady, Republican from Texas, ranking member
Speaker 1: on the House Ways and Means Committee. Later, Senate Republicans
Speaker 1: vote down the Pack Act to give healthcare to veterans
Speaker 1: exposed to toxic burn pits Well in service to the nation.
Speaker 1: Will be joined by the doctor who helped to make
Speaker 1: this an issue in his research and congressional testimony. Dr
Speaker 1: Robert Miller will be here the bill stands to see
Speaker 1: another day, likely next week, and our panel Democratic strategists
Speaker 1: John la Bombard and Republican strategist Adam Goodman with analysis
Speaker 1: for the hour and House lawmakers heading out of town,
Speaker 1: with some exceptions including Texas Congressman Kevin Brady. He's still here.
Speaker 1: The ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee,
Speaker 1: joins us from the nation's capital. Congressman, welcome back to Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much for having me. I appreciate it. Well, Gosh,
Speaker 1: I have to start by congratulating you on your twenty
Speaker 1: five and final congressional baseball game. Last night I was watching.
Speaker 1: Are you feeling sore today? I am. I am very
Speaker 1: sore today. And what I always say, during the game,
Speaker 1: you feel like you're eighteen years old, but the next
Speaker 1: morning it's eighteen. Everything in your body pretty much hurts.
Speaker 1: Some I'm a house floor. You know. Everyone that played
Speaker 1: was walking a little, a little stiffly. Today. I wouldn't
Speaker 1: be able to get out of bed some days it's
Speaker 1: like that. There's been a lot of talk about taxes
Speaker 1: this week, as the Mansion Schumer deal. This reconciliation plan,
Speaker 1: if it happens, includes a minimum corporate tax. It would
Speaker 1: also end carried interests. Chair Richard Neil seems to be
Speaker 1: on board unless he's telling you otherwise. How about you? Yeah,
Speaker 1: so no, uh, what country in the right mind raises
Speaker 1: taxes on American made manufacturers as you're heading into a
Speaker 1: recession right now? This includes three or billion dollars, but
Speaker 1: tax really on made American manufacturers. More federal funding to
Speaker 1: fuel inflation. UNLEASH is about eighty thousand new I R
Speaker 1: S agents, mainly on farmers and small businesses. It unfortunately
Speaker 1: has better health care for the jobless than for those
Speaker 1: who return to work, which is a huge problem with
Speaker 1: our workers shortage. And there are billions of a New
Speaker 1: Green New Deal subsidies for the very wealthy and biggest
Speaker 1: of businesses. I think, look at this point, you know,
Speaker 1: can you trust the same people who brought us into
Speaker 1: a recession, raging inflation and a worker short Can you
Speaker 1: really trust him now? On the ac well, I find
Speaker 1: it interesting that that Larry Summers, who has been critical
Speaker 1: of the administration over inflation, critical of the FED for
Speaker 1: starting too late, now says that this actually would lower inflation.
Speaker 1: He supported this deal and supposedly got Joe Manchin off
Speaker 1: the fence. How do you reconcile it to Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I don't see that. In fact, I think it's the
Speaker 1: joint to committing at taxations that this will actually raise
Speaker 1: inflation now, could have an effect over the long term,
Speaker 1: but the fact is right now, this is where people
Speaker 1: getting crushed in in these days and in these years,
Speaker 1: and inflations you know, is accelerating on American So again,
Speaker 1: it can't manage the worst time to fuel more of it.
Speaker 1: I think I know the answer to this question. But
Speaker 1: did either the Majority Leader or Mansion consult the Ways
Speaker 1: and Means committees in either House over this um? Not
Speaker 1: that I'm aware of what does that say about regular order.
Speaker 1: I'll get all pure on you here, but because both
Speaker 1: parties do this though, right when a bill falls out
Speaker 1: of the sky without committee hearings, Yeah, it's frustrating because
Speaker 1: especially in the tax area, every word matters and can
Speaker 1: have dramatic changes um in our economy, in our taxing system.
Speaker 1: And that's why you want a pretty slow, deliberate, sort
Speaker 1: of thoughtful process. I don't Chairman Neil feels the same
Speaker 1: way the Democrat Leader Ways Means Committee, And so when
Speaker 1: someone just drops it out of out of the sky.
Speaker 1: There can be real consequence, So it's not good. I
Speaker 1: don't think for the American public to have that type
Speaker 1: of system. The Chip Act is on its way to
Speaker 1: the President, passed with the votes of twenty four Republicans.
Speaker 1: A Congressman, you were a no vote on this legislation.
Speaker 1: How come yeah, I I didn't think these subsidies for
Speaker 1: the ship manufacturers was warranted, and I think it misses
Speaker 1: a major national security challenge, which is China has targeted
Speaker 1: publicly targeted ten of America's manufacturing and technology abilities, from
Speaker 1: artificial intelligence, for robotics, biotech, egg and energy innovation. And
Speaker 1: in this build you you are giving you know, seventy
Speaker 1: four billion dollars of subsidies to one and seeding the
Speaker 1: other nine to China. I think that was a terrible
Speaker 1: missed opportunity. And also I don't believe our our semiconductor industry,
Speaker 1: which is the best in the world, needed those subsidies
Speaker 1: because they would be investing. I mean, the point was
Speaker 1: to draw it here into the US. Do you want
Speaker 1: to see more domestic chip making? We do, which is
Speaker 1: why there's almost seventy billion dollars in new plants announced
Speaker 1: without any UH conversation about federal subsidies. And so I
Speaker 1: think this is an industry that has the financing. Frankly,
Speaker 1: UH sells half of all the chips sales in the
Speaker 1: planet products something growing in the US now for twenty years.
Speaker 1: In fact, it's one of our best exports, top exports
Speaker 1: from America. So I I thought, this is an industry
Speaker 1: that should be making these investments, has stay the art chips,
Speaker 1: has the financing to do it. So I I didn't
Speaker 1: believe these subsidies were warranted. Wow. Yeah, there's just such
Speaker 1: a different story coming from the administration obviously that this
Speaker 1: is the national security issue and that other countries were
Speaker 1: wooing the chip makers with cash, so we needed to
Speaker 1: offer the money to Yeah, I know. And you get
Speaker 1: into this type of tax subsidy war, it's it is
Speaker 1: hard to win it. Look, what I want is as
Speaker 1: much of this chip manufacturing anchored in the US as
Speaker 1: it is today. In fact, US makers UH build almost
Speaker 1: half of their chips right here in the US, very
Speaker 1: reliable supprotect but then running through reliable allies like Germany
Speaker 1: and France and and UH in South Korea, which is
Speaker 1: which is what we do. Today you had a big week, Congressman.
Speaker 1: You weren't just playing baseball. Yes, today your official portrait
Speaker 1: was unveiled at the Ways and means commit your family
Speaker 1: is in town, and I suspect this is a very
Speaker 1: special time for you. It has been a very good week.
Speaker 1: And look, I've been twenty six years and I've loved,
Speaker 1: frankly this job and still do. And so it was
Speaker 1: really moving to have family and friends and supporters both
Speaker 1: here and at home for the unofficial portraits or official
Speaker 1: portrait unveiling in the game as well. So yeah, we
Speaker 1: just it's been uh, it's been one of the best
Speaker 1: memories for weeks for me. We're happy for you, but
Speaker 1: I have to admit this game last night ten nothing
Speaker 1: Are you kidding me that that was? Is that the
Speaker 1: best outing in your twenty five years? Nothing? Yeah, actually
Speaker 1: is it is? And and we were you know, you
Speaker 1: always worry about errors, but we were flawless as a team.
Speaker 1: The Democrats have a very good team. I expected it
Speaker 1: to be nip and tuck the whole time, but we
Speaker 1: we played just very well. But the neat thing while
Speaker 1: we all play to two reasons when we race one
Speaker 1: point seven million dollars the record for local charity like
Speaker 1: boys Club, Girls Club, youth literacy, really really good things.
Speaker 1: But the other thing is sports units people, and we
Speaker 1: make great friends in the Democrat dug out of friends
Speaker 1: that that oftentimes will carry legislation with night. And I
Speaker 1: want to see more of those types of a van
Speaker 1: here in Congress. You should come up just to watch
Speaker 1: next year's game. I'm gonna, oh, there's no question about it.
Speaker 1: The pressure will be off, and of course you'll deliver
Speaker 1: the first pitch. I'm glad to know this is gonna
Speaker 1: happen Congress with Kevin Brady, Republican from Texas, ranking member
Speaker 1: House Ways and means great to have you with us
Speaker 1: on this important day on Bloomberg take care and I
Speaker 1: wasn't kidding ten nothing. Republicans. Quite the night for the
Speaker 1: congressman and his colleagues at Nats Stadium. And because you
Speaker 1: couldn't be there, we bring you the Congressional baseball game
Speaker 1: in Washington, d C. Will be fun one too, brown
Speaker 1: ball from that to shut. Then I'll get a run
Speaker 1: home the first of the night as Fluger with the
Speaker 1: RBI single on the one to count, and just like that,
Speaker 1: it's one nothing. Republicans threaded the needle right there with
Speaker 1: a nice shotween third base and shot shot a swing
Speaker 1: crown ball album short get run home, thrill across and
Speaker 1: he pulls him off the bag and couldn't keep his
Speaker 1: foot on the bag and more is safe and the
Speaker 1: run scores. It is to nothing. Republicans swinge. There is
Speaker 1: that nice shot out towards center field that might bring
Speaker 1: home too. Can salis Ice swing on it. It is
Speaker 1: gonna bring up to the Republicans leading this game for
Speaker 1: to nothing. Brady is gonna come out of the game
Speaker 1: and a nice salvation, nice classy brood there if he
Speaker 1: laves and listen to the nice lovation Kevin Brady, or
Speaker 1: he took my hands, little deserve rap crew, this ins
Speaker 1: congressional base called so I said Brady. Everybody to give
Speaker 1: his dude as well. Its grand chatty Brady the the
Speaker 1: first base dug out as he comes off and hugs
Speaker 1: from everybody. Classy moved there, Brad. The games the nice
Speaker 1: five parts ago to the senior psides, giving your nice
Speaker 1: hand come back, lots of hugs around. Doesn't believe it,
Speaker 1: can't believe it? What is it? Running um before the Republicans.
Speaker 1: It's gonna come into the doors. Canna grons on everybody's
Speaker 1: jugs that everybody's gonna move on base where and it
Speaker 1: is ten Republicans will see if the priest you turning
Speaker 1: into miss during in the ball game is over. Buber
Speaker 1: in relief of Greg Stuby comes in, hugs Rodney Davis.
Speaker 1: The Republicans out of the dug out Dude, congratulate each
Speaker 1: are as the Republicant it do the performance here to
Speaker 1: take four winning tend London. Yes. Play by play courtesy
Speaker 1: Fox Sports. They've been playing that game since nine. Will
Speaker 1: assemble the panel next on Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg So
Speaker 1: On with Joe Matthews on Bloomberg Radio. Does the Inflation
Speaker 1: Reduction Acts of actually lower inflation? We know Democrats and
Speaker 1: Republicans disagree. We've begain a lot of different answers on this,
Speaker 1: and there's a new study from Penn Wharton that takes
Speaker 1: aside from the Penn Wharton budget model. As I read
Speaker 1: on the terminal, it estimates that the act would cause
Speaker 1: inflation to very slightly rise, rise until twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: and then slide well a little after that. Overall, this
Speaker 1: is something the researchers say in the report out Friday,
Speaker 1: there's quote low confidence the legislation will have any impact
Speaker 1: on inflation unquote, which, to quote John McLoughlin, means you're
Speaker 1: all wrong, right. Democrats say it's gonna come down, Republicans
Speaker 1: say it's gonna bore more gas on the fire, or
Speaker 1: whatever the line we keep hearing. What if it does
Speaker 1: nothing for inflation, is addressing the climate and the deficit,
Speaker 1: and for scription drug pricing not enough on its own.
Speaker 1: We assemble the panel. Adam Goodman is back with US
Speaker 1: Republican strategist, senior fellow at Tufts University Fletcher School, and
Speaker 1: for the first time John la Bombard of Rock Solutions,
Speaker 1: former communications director for Senator Kirston Cinema, among other senators.
Speaker 1: It's a long resume. John, welcome, It's great to have you.
Speaker 1: I wonder if you think the White House is just
Speaker 1: over promising on this when it comes to the inflation story,
Speaker 1: or I guess that's the whole point of everything right now,
Speaker 1: every all roads lead to inflation. Yeah. Well, overpromising has
Speaker 1: unfortunately at times been a hallmark of our party leadership
Speaker 1: over the past year and a half. In this case. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, I listened to your conversation with the Congressman
Speaker 1: a few moments ago. I do think that Larry Summers
Speaker 1: has made some great points about the really good provisions
Speaker 1: in this bill that can be counter inflationary. Um. At
Speaker 1: the end of the day, this is unfortunately going to
Speaker 1: be a somewhat rushed process as a result of how
Speaker 1: these negotiations have dragged on. So legislators are going to
Speaker 1: have to take a look at all the sum total
Speaker 1: of the policies in this package and make their own
Speaker 1: determination about whether they're worthy of their support. Of course,
Speaker 1: I'm a moderate Democrat, but I'm a Democrat, and I
Speaker 1: tend to think that there's a lot in this bill
Speaker 1: worth supporting, noting the tax components. Uh. And I know
Speaker 1: you don't speak for her now, but does this strike
Speaker 1: you as something your former boss from Arizona would support. Well,
Speaker 1: it's a really strange strategy, and my personal view on
Speaker 1: the part of Senator Schumer, Um, you know this is
Speaker 1: this is an issue area that Senator Cinema has been
Speaker 1: vocal on. She's perhaps old fashioned in the way that
Speaker 1: she believes we should be quite cautious and thoughtful when
Speaker 1: it comes to the idea of raising taxes. We are
Speaker 1: emerging from a global pandemic. We've got record inflation and
Speaker 1: supply chain disruptions, so this is a really uncertain economic climate.
Speaker 1: And Senator Cinema has been crystal clear for more than
Speaker 1: a year that she's really carefully going to scrutinize this
Speaker 1: tax policy. The carried interest provision in particular, that's not
Speaker 1: something that was even included in the House past Build
Speaker 1: Back Better legislation. It's not something that was in the
Speaker 1: White House framework that she's signaled support for last year.
Speaker 1: So my guest, not having spoken to her, is that
Speaker 1: she's gonna look at this with a healthy amount of
Speaker 1: skepticis and scrutiny. And I will say it's a bit
Speaker 1: of a mystery to me why Senator Schumer added it
Speaker 1: in at the eleventh hour without having her in the
Speaker 1: room at least. This is fascinating, Adam Goodman. Are the
Speaker 1: media already too far out over their skis on this?
Speaker 1: People are writing about it like it's a done deal,
Speaker 1: but we don't know where a lot of people, including
Speaker 1: the Senator Cinema, stand on this. That's correct. I'm kind
Speaker 1: of smiling a little bit right now, Joe, Because first
Speaker 1: of all, you have to love the name game. Right
Speaker 1: this this started as the Build Back America, Build America
Speaker 1: BET or whatever it is program with twenty one and
Speaker 1: has been slimmed onto the Inflation Reduction Act. Right, It's
Speaker 1: very direct, right, But what it really is is that
Speaker 1: Joe Manchin act. That's what Yo Manchin play. This was
Speaker 1: a Joe Manchin act and it was done obviously in
Speaker 1: the dead of the night. I thought that Kevin Brady's
Speaker 1: comment was very important just a few minutes ago when
Speaker 1: he he said that when he comes to tax policy
Speaker 1: and particular, you don't play around with policies. You really
Speaker 1: have to kind of go through the numbers and make
Speaker 1: sure kind of all adds up and right and right exactly.
Speaker 1: And John just mentioned, you know that the carried interest
Speaker 1: income piece of this wasn't even on the table before.
Speaker 1: He's right, Uh, the corporate minimum tax is a debatable
Speaker 1: item at a time when we're looking at recession and
Speaker 1: then the consumers. You know, what the consumers are really
Speaker 1: gonna take out of this bill is called a Bigger,
Speaker 1: Better I R S. They're talking about putting more money
Speaker 1: and agents into play, so impact on inflation. Don't know
Speaker 1: it is the Joe Manchin Act, but I think what
Speaker 1: it really is beyond anything else, Joe and John. I
Speaker 1: think the Democrats needed some kind of a win. They
Speaker 1: feel maybe they've got a bit of a win here.
Speaker 1: I was supposed to what the Triple be was headed
Speaker 1: to certain defeat. Uh maybe that's all all that will
Speaker 1: play for this, But the ramifications of all of it
Speaker 1: are yet to be known, and they could be somewhat grim. Okay,
Speaker 1: so John, you know, in terms of negotiating, this isn't
Speaker 1: done yet. I know that the parliamentarian is scrubbing certain texts,
Speaker 1: but there is a little bit of breathing room here. Right.
Speaker 1: If there's what's three hundred and fifty or three hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy billion dollars of actual spending in more than
Speaker 1: seven hundred billion in revenue raised, hence the deficit reduction,
Speaker 1: maybe Kirsten Cinema could not that carried interest component out
Speaker 1: of the bill. Is that what you see the real possibility?
Speaker 1: You know? I expect that, as she has said, and
Speaker 1: as she has done throughout her career, Center Cinema will
Speaker 1: take the time to really carefully review this text, which
Speaker 1: seems to still be in flux center. Schumer and other
Speaker 1: will seem to be floating ideas for what to include
Speaker 1: and not, and ultimately she'll make her decision based on
Speaker 1: what she believes and will argue is best for Arizona. Um.
Speaker 1: What I hope is that Senator Schumer and other party
Speaker 1: leaders recognize that that's a real possibility that you laid out,
Speaker 1: and that she will not bend meitical pressure. I like
Speaker 1: this panel. John and Adam are with us for the hour.
Speaker 1: We turn to the Packed Act, or what's left of
Speaker 1: it next. This is Bloomberg broadcasting live from our nation's capital,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg to New York, Bloomberg eleven, Trio to Boston, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: one oh six one to San Francisco, Bloomberg nine to
Speaker 1: the country, Serious x M General one nine, and around
Speaker 1: the globe, the Bloomberg Business app and Bloomberg Radio dot Com.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew. The Pats
Speaker 1: Act was supposed to be a bipartisan win, but it
Speaker 1: failed this week. The bill to provide healthcare to veterans
Speaker 1: with health problems from toxic burn pits blocked by Republicans
Speaker 1: in the Senate could get another chance, though. That will
Speaker 1: be joined next by Dr Robert Miller of Vanderbilt Health,
Speaker 1: who testified on this before the Senate v A Committee.
Speaker 1: The Pack Act was named for Heath Robinson, a sergeant
Speaker 1: the Ohio National Guard deploy d Kosovo and Iraq. He
Speaker 1: died of lung cancer two years ago and blamed it
Speaker 1: on burn pit exposure. You've heard about burn pits? Do
Speaker 1: you know about this? They were It was common practice
Speaker 1: at military bases in the two Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: open air burn pits. They throw everything in these things,
Speaker 1: from hazardous materials to electronics, and they would they would
Speaker 1: spray it with jet fuel and set it on fire.
Speaker 1: Not good for the people who are breathing the air
Speaker 1: around it. This is why this bill was first here, uh,
Speaker 1: first written, but it failed yesterday in the Senate, blocked
Speaker 1: by Republicans twenty five of them had supported it a
Speaker 1: month ago, and we wanted to talk just to learn
Speaker 1: a bit more about it, by the doctor whose research
Speaker 1: and testimony on Capitol Hill helped to make this an
Speaker 1: issue to begin with. As I mentioned, Dr Robert Miller,
Speaker 1: pulmonologist Vanderbilt Health is with us. Doctor, Thanks for being
Speaker 1: with us on bloomber Oh, thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: There's a medical side of this story, and as it
Speaker 1: turns out, there's a political side too. But I want
Speaker 1: to start by establishing, based on your experience and your expertise,
Speaker 1: here some perspective. Do we know how many veterans have
Speaker 1: long problems, if not worse, from being exposed to burn
Speaker 1: pits and deployment since nine eleven? We know that the
Speaker 1: number is large. The exact number is a little hard
Speaker 1: to pin down, but I would say that there's a
Speaker 1: minimum of probably ten of the three and a half
Speaker 1: million people deployed who have had some type of respiratory complaint. Well,
Speaker 1: you have been talking about this for years, You've testified
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hill, you started research on this going back
Speaker 1: almost twenty years. Do you feel like people are finally
Speaker 1: hearing this? I mean, I realized the legislation stalled this
Speaker 1: week and that's why we're talking about it, and I
Speaker 1: want to understand why we need this bill. But do
Speaker 1: you have an ear on Capitol Hill? I think that's
Speaker 1: difficult to know. Actually, I've been doing this since two
Speaker 1: thousand four, and we first started seeing patients from Fort
Speaker 1: Campbell with unexplained shortness of breath and um when we
Speaker 1: learned pretty quickly that there was a real problem based
Speaker 1: on the lung biopsies that we were doing at the time.
Speaker 1: In some cases, I think they listen. In some cases,
Speaker 1: I think that they're going with another set of information.
Speaker 1: You know. For for example, you know, our first set
Speaker 1: of patients came from exposure to a sulfur fire in
Speaker 1: northern Iraq, and we were sure that those patients were affected,
Speaker 1: but the d D did some surveillance data and decided that, well,
Speaker 1: there really isn't any evidence that anybody was really hurt
Speaker 1: by this. And they've done similar things with the people
Speaker 1: who have operated the burn pits and said, well, the
Speaker 1: people operating the burn pits really have not had any
Speaker 1: worst disorders than the general deployers, so we're not sure
Speaker 1: there's a problem there. Well, you've made the point in
Speaker 1: your testimony doctor that the fact that this isn't a
Speaker 1: visible war wounds is part of the problem. Here here's
Speaker 1: how you put it in testimony. In patients with deployment
Speaker 1: related lung disease represent a unique grape of group of veterans.
Speaker 1: While this injury may not be as noticeable as loss
Speaker 1: of limb respiratory disorders are associated with lifetime limitation. It
Speaker 1: has been ten years since I presented our preliminary data
Speaker 1: to this committee. Is that the problem to begin with
Speaker 1: doctor that it's not a visible injury for for the
Speaker 1: patients that I've taken care of. I think that that's
Speaker 1: a big part of the problem. And not only is
Speaker 1: it not visible, it's it's not detectable with your usual tools,
Speaker 1: so X rays and CT scans, that pmary function tests
Speaker 1: are all normal or near normal in this population. That
Speaker 1: brings us to that same testimony the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee,
Speaker 1: you talked about the lack of care that many veterans
Speaker 1: with pulmonary disease or received. In an exchange in this
Speaker 1: case between you and Senator Shared Brown, you made the
Speaker 1: point that the d D had stopped referring these cases
Speaker 1: to you. Let's listen, we're not seeing as many direct
Speaker 1: referrals from Fort Campbell as we used to. A lot
Speaker 1: of them have seen other providers who are not familiar
Speaker 1: with this, or they stopped. They stopped referring veterans to specialists.
Speaker 1: They stopped referring to Vanderbilt and other academic institutions and
Speaker 1: chose to refer to d D facilities. Are they getting
Speaker 1: the care they should? I think that if you were
Speaker 1: to go to one of the centers that they were
Speaker 1: referring to, you would get a different evaluation than you
Speaker 1: might get with us or with other academic medical centers.
Speaker 1: So clearly the d D centers treating these patients. To
Speaker 1: your point, we're not going far enough, as you said
Speaker 1: also in their diagnoses. Is that a fair assessment? We
Speaker 1: we became involved when the d D asked to start
Speaker 1: seeing Fort Campbell patients. Once we presented our data, the
Speaker 1: d o D says, will take it from here, and
Speaker 1: they started evaluating the patients themselves. The difference is is
Speaker 1: that they didn't take this patients as far as we did,
Speaker 1: and they didn't do lung biopsies. So we would frequently
Speaker 1: do a long biopsy and demonstrate that these patients had
Speaker 1: topsic long injury. The d D facilities would typically see them,
Speaker 1: evaluate them and say, well, all your studies are normal,
Speaker 1: be on your way. So now that we've established this,
Speaker 1: how would this legislation fix that problem? The legislation would
Speaker 1: help with the patients that we've taken care of in
Speaker 1: two ways. One is that the patients that we have
Speaker 1: diagnosed would now have a service connected disability. When we
Speaker 1: identify a patient with constrictive bronchiolitis, the v A does
Speaker 1: not grant disability benefits be because their X rays and
Speaker 1: primary function tests are normal and that's the criteria that
Speaker 1: they use for disability benefits. The second thing is is
Speaker 1: that it would allow patients that we evaluate clinically and
Speaker 1: feel as if they have constricted bronchiolitis the same opportunity
Speaker 1: for benefits because we would consider it a presumptive diagnosis.
Speaker 1: Can John Stewart help you sell it? I think he
Speaker 1: has helped us sell it because what he has pushed
Speaker 1: very hard is the idea that it is incorrect to
Speaker 1: require the veteran to prove the disability that their disability
Speaker 1: is due to deployment. That's been the problem since I've
Speaker 1: been involved, and and much much before I've been involved,
Speaker 1: is that the veteran has had to prove their link
Speaker 1: to to service. Well, we'll see what we get next week.
Speaker 1: It's an important conversation. Doctor. I want to thank you
Speaker 1: for joining this with your insights. Dr Robert Miller, thanks
Speaker 1: for being with us on Bloomberg. Thank you. Majority Leader
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer is pledging to bring the bill back for
Speaker 1: another vote to break a filibuster on Monday. We'll let
Speaker 1: you know what happens and we'll reassemble the panel next
Speaker 1: on the fastest hour in politics. This is Bloomberg. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. Sound on on Bloomberg Radio. Democrats say Republicans
Speaker 1: turned on the bill to help veterans made sick from
Speaker 1: burn pits in protests over the Schumer Mansion deal on
Speaker 1: reconciliation that we were talking about before. Again, twenty five
Speaker 1: Republicans who first supported the Packed Act voted against it
Speaker 1: this week, a procedural vault that kept it from clearing
Speaker 1: the filibuster. And as I mentioned, Chuck Schumer says he'll
Speaker 1: bring it back for another culture vote on Monday, so
Speaker 1: this could still live to see another day. Next Door,
Speaker 1: in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi had nothing good to
Speaker 1: say about her colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
Speaker 1: Here she is, it's so ridiculous. Wait a minute, you're
Speaker 1: not going to help our veterans because we want to
Speaker 1: lower the cost of prescription drugs, because we want to
Speaker 1: lower the cost of of healthcare. Okay, so there's a
Speaker 1: lot of politics going on both sides of this year.
Speaker 1: We reassemble the panel for more on this having heard
Speaker 1: from the doctor and the politicians. Adam Goodman, Republican strategist,
Speaker 1: senior fellow Tufts University, Fletcher School, is here today along
Speaker 1: with John la Bombard of Rock Solutions, former communications director
Speaker 1: for Senator Kirsten Cinema. Adam, there's a lot of politics
Speaker 1: going on here. It's a little bit difficult to tell
Speaker 1: exactly where the truth is. It's frequently somewhere in the middle.
Speaker 1: Is it fair to be blaming Republicans for this? For instance,
Speaker 1: Senator Pat Toomey says, there's budget gimmicks going on in
Speaker 1: this bill, but it's it's not a good look politically
Speaker 1: to vote against it. Well, let's look at what's what's
Speaker 1: really happening here. At number one, who doesn't support helping
Speaker 1: veterans who are suffering from post nine eleven injuries, from
Speaker 1: burn pits or anything, I mean, who would be against
Speaker 1: trying to help our veterans, And so that any kind
Speaker 1: of suggestion that this is somewhat anti veteran or in
Speaker 1: sensitive veterans is ridiculous. Was it a protest over the
Speaker 1: the mansion deal. Well but but somewhat, but but the
Speaker 1: mansion deal that actually does. I'm glad you brought that
Speaker 1: into play, Joe, because the Mansion deal does has something
Speaker 1: to do with this. Because there's the other point. We
Speaker 1: have spent more money under the Biden administration than any
Speaker 1: other administration in American history. Much of it is with
Speaker 1: a kick the can down the road attitude about any
Speaker 1: fiscal responsibility. And the Republicans who are who are reticent
Speaker 1: about this Packed Act are basically all saying we're not
Speaker 1: against the idea of this. None of them are saying that.
Speaker 1: They're saying, we are objecting to another big ticket item
Speaker 1: where there is no attempt to show how we're going
Speaker 1: to pay for it, versus what if we were in
Speaker 1: the suggestion right now, Joe, is how about phasing this in.
Speaker 1: That's kind of what the sponse that's coming from a
Speaker 1: lot of Republicans who would vote for this pack that
Speaker 1: with that end play if we are not going to
Speaker 1: exercise any fiscal restraint on any front. Uh. And it's
Speaker 1: easy to feel good to say you're for mom and
Speaker 1: apple Pie, but this is a situation where it's going
Speaker 1: to cost us a lot of money, as everything else
Speaker 1: is costing us a lot of money, Like the new
Speaker 1: supposed Inflation Reduction Act is going to cost money. Where
Speaker 1: does it stop. That's where Republicans are trying to draw
Speaker 1: the line. So how do you handle this politically? John?
Speaker 1: This is this is money we we owe these veterans,
Speaker 1: isn't it? Points about fiscal restraints, some of which I
Speaker 1: would even agree on, but this particular issue is pretty
Speaker 1: cut and dry for me. I think there's a big
Speaker 1: political mistake for the center Republicans who voted against the bill.
Speaker 1: Centator to me has made some consistent points on this,
Speaker 1: but as you said, dozens of other Republicans had previously
Speaker 1: supported this legislation, and look, they felt whamboozled by the
Speaker 1: fact that there was a late eleventh hour deal between
Speaker 1: Senator Mansion and Senator Schumer. Oh, I think it is.
Speaker 1: And and look, those Republicans should take heart because that
Speaker 1: news shocked the heck out of the Senate Democrats as well.
Speaker 1: But at the end of the day, them's the breaks,
Speaker 1: and the Senate Republicans are not in the majority at
Speaker 1: this moment, and I myself am familiar with the Senate
Speaker 1: Republican who's who's very accustomed to using hard brass knuckle
Speaker 1: tactics to get their priorities done on the floor. That
Speaker 1: Senator Mitch McConnell, who runs the Republican Caucus. So I
Speaker 1: have a feeling that when this bill comes back up
Speaker 1: next week, there will be a way for many of
Speaker 1: the Senate Republicans, including in my view, some who have
Speaker 1: been champions for our veterans Senator Blunt and others, to
Speaker 1: get back around to supporting this important legislation. Do you
Speaker 1: think this loosens up on Monday if they take another
Speaker 1: round here at him? What? First of all, I would
Speaker 1: agree with what John said. I think that this is
Speaker 1: come back around, uh, and that there is going to
Speaker 1: be some moderation and how I think we bring this
Speaker 1: into play, then you will get the Republicans back again. Uh.
Speaker 1: Is this something that will reverberate politically? That was obviously
Speaker 1: you know some of the purpose of I per believe
Speaker 1: you heard coming from certain people in the House. Um.
Speaker 1: That will continue, of course, because now we're headed headlong
Speaker 1: into the midterm elections and everything is political and everything
Speaker 1: that has gotten dried apparently. So I do feel good
Speaker 1: that I think the Pack Act will eventually um with
Speaker 1: sober minds, will move forward, and it should move forward,
Speaker 1: but it can move forward with a sense of fiscal
Speaker 1: uh responsibility attached to it, as opposed to again, a
Speaker 1: headlong rush. And it's been curious to see how this
Speaker 1: evolves over the weekend as Speaker Nancy Pelosi takes off
Speaker 1: on a rather important trip, at least suddenly important. This
Speaker 1: is typically not the kind of thing that even gets
Speaker 1: in the news, you know, a congressional codel. But she's
Speaker 1: headed to uh to uh Asia, and it's been controversial lately.
Speaker 1: This is Singapore, Japan, South Korea are on this schedule.
Speaker 1: We don't know about Taiwan. That's what you know she's
Speaker 1: been questioned about. This is what supposedly Joe Biden or
Speaker 1: the Pentagon didn't want her to do, and god knows
Speaker 1: the Chinese don't. But don't ask the Speaker because she
Speaker 1: won't tell you. Here's what happened today when this came
Speaker 1: up at the briefing. I don't ever talk about my
Speaker 1: travel because, as some of you know, it's a security issue.
Speaker 1: It's a security issue for every member of Congress traveling.
Speaker 1: She floated the possibility of there was concerns she said
Speaker 1: that she might be shot down. I I don't know
Speaker 1: where that came from the other day here John, but
Speaker 1: would it not be unlike Nancy Pelosi to show up
Speaker 1: in Taiwan and unfurl a democracy flag kind of like
Speaker 1: she did in dnem and Square. How does she back down? Now?
Speaker 1: It's a good question that would not be on like
Speaker 1: Speaker Pelosi. And and look, Speaker Pelosi has a decades
Speaker 1: long history of calling out human rights abuses, including on
Speaker 1: the part of the Ajiang. But yeah, this is a
Speaker 1: deeply troubling and fraud time on the international stage. You know,
Speaker 1: we obviously smarter people than I have pointed out that
Speaker 1: China is looking at and taking lessons from Russia's belligerent
Speaker 1: actions in Ukraine. Um, there are no cut and dry
Speaker 1: answers or sound bites to solve the puzzle of America's
Speaker 1: commitments related to Taiwan. I personally have faith that Speaker
Speaker 1: Pelosi is taking all of this into account and she's
Speaker 1: going to rely heavily on our diplomatic core and military leaders.
Speaker 1: But if I had to guess, I bet Speaker Pelosi's heart,
Speaker 1: UM is doing exactly what you said, showing up in
Speaker 1: Taiwan and showing our commitment to the people there. You know,
Speaker 1: she shows deference to Joe Biden though, I mean Mark
Speaker 1: General Mark Millie Adam said, Hey, if if we're told
Speaker 1: that that the speaker's going to Taiwan, we'll get her there.
Speaker 1: There will be military uh coverage in a military escort
Speaker 1: that gets her in and out safely. But does she
Speaker 1: want to put Joe Biden in that spot? This is
Speaker 1: a high wire act at a time when we already
Speaker 1: are are on pins and needles about just how far
Speaker 1: Russia may want to go in their invasion of Ukraine
Speaker 1: and the impact that may have in China's thirst to
Speaker 1: move forward on a long time. Objectively, there is of
Speaker 1: reuniting Taiwan with the mainland to shootdown the Pelosi plane thing.
Speaker 1: By the way, Joe came from the executive editor, former
Speaker 1: executive veeditor of the commonst Party's Global Times, who suggested
Speaker 1: that may be an option. And you're playing with the
Speaker 1: country that already is claiming that Taiwan straight is there
Speaker 1: is it's not international? What is the world's largest navy.
Speaker 1: They're they're flexing with words like we will exert a
Speaker 1: great wall of steel if they come this way. I
Speaker 1: admire by the way Speaker Pelosi showing this kind of concern,
Speaker 1: but actually landing in Taiwan, I think is something that
Speaker 1: could have all sorts of ratifications. Uh. And I think
Speaker 1: at this time, with everything else, we're faced with maybe
Speaker 1: not worth doing at this Yeah. Right, It's interesting how
Speaker 1: seriously the Chinese are taking this John, you know, the
Speaker 1: Defense Secretary, Secretary of State have both been there in
Speaker 1: past years. Why not the speaker. That's a good question,
Speaker 1: you know, And I think that's probably a question that
Speaker 1: she and her team are asking themselves as well. But
Speaker 1: to Adam's point, every moment on the international stage and
Speaker 1: foreign relations is different than the last and different from
Speaker 1: the one that comes next. And the situation in the Ukraine,
Speaker 1: I think is reshaping the world stage in many ways,
Speaker 1: and it's really reshaping thinking in Beijing. The one thing
Speaker 1: I will say, and I imagine Speaker Pelos's uh sentiment
Speaker 1: is here as well. American leaders are not going to
Speaker 1: take orders from Beijing when it comes from it comes
Speaker 1: to showing our support for freedom, for democracy, and for
Speaker 1: our commitments as it relates to the people of Taiwan.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean, though, that Adam doesn't have some very
Speaker 1: fair and valid points that I'm confident her team is
Speaker 1: considering about the ramifications that could mushroom out from her
Speaker 1: landing in Taiwan. Well, it's interesting when you hear from
Speaker 1: Republicans at them, they say, well, why wouldn't we want
Speaker 1: to go visit a great ally of ours? Go ahead,
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary. But that's kind of sarcasm, isn't it. It's
Speaker 1: always about timing, Joe. You know that the timing now
Speaker 1: is really risky, and it's a great story. Will she
Speaker 1: or won't she? Will she land or won't she land?
Speaker 1: Will they let her land? Or will you all that?
Speaker 1: It's a wonderful story. Of course, the last major official
Speaker 1: from Congress to visit with new gangers twenty five years ago.
Speaker 1: I think we need to have a very solid modern
Speaker 1: policy towards Taiwan. But I think, and I admire again
Speaker 1: the grit and got some bigger Blosi to suggest this,
Speaker 1: but I think the actual act of doing it, with
Speaker 1: everything else going on, is not something in America should
Speaker 1: be cheering for. I guess your third in line for
Speaker 1: the presidency and the Chinese take interest great conversation. Great
Speaker 1: panel with Adam Goodman and John le Bombard of Rock Solutions.
Speaker 1: Fascinating insights as we walk into the weekend together. Thanks
Speaker 1: for spending time with us, and don't forget to subscribe
Speaker 1: to the sound on podcast if you haven't already. We'll
Speaker 1: meet you back here on Monday. Have a great weekend.
Speaker 1: I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg