You might be one of the very few people left, uh, in the rotunda after the house

went home for the July 4th recess. A bit early.

Mr. chairman, it's good to have you back on

Bloomberg TV and radio. I hope you find yourself in a well air

conditioned space, as it is very hot, uh, here in the Capitol.

I'm sure you heard some of what our colleague Mike was just describing.

The weakness we have seen in consumer confidence, uh, data.

Some weakness in hiring, uh, specifically economic data that does not

paint a picture of an economy that has reaped massive benefit from the one big,

beautiful bill that was signed almost a year ago.

Should we not be seeing that show up more materially in the economy by now?

You know, I think the bigger question is, is to look at all these reports and

the data because they've been all over the place.

Um, and so there's a reason why they've been all over the place.

And then whenever they go back and revise the prior month's reports being

so far off that that shouldn't be the case, we need to do a better job on

that. But in regards to what I'm hearing from

people on the ground of what they've experienced, from the working families,

tax cuts, the big beautiful bill, um, a lot of people's very happy.

I had a I, I always point to this, this young lady two months ago who who

stopped me in Fredericktown, Missouri. And she's like, Congressman, I want to

say thank you. I just did my taxes.

I got a refund of over $10,000. This was a single mom of three kids who

benefited from the expanded child tax credit of $2,200 made permanent.

Plus, she was a waitress. No tax on tips.

Plus, she works overtime, no tax and overtime.

And because of that, she said, I'm going to be able to pay for my rent for an

entire year. I had a waiter that came up to me and

said, because of the no tax on tips, a loan provision, it's going to allow them

to pay for their utility bills for the whole year.

Those are those are pretty big things for just everyday average Americans.

Yeah. And I know that you're celebrating, uh,

one year since, uh, the bill crossed, and we'll be talking about that more.

I just. Chairman, I want to go back to the your

answer initially on the jobs report today.

Are you concerned that there's bad data in the system, that these anomalies, uh,

are because of a poor response rate, that we're not actually seeing a

reflection of the economy in these reports?

I absolutely have concerns with the data, and that we need to make sure that

the data gets better, because consistently the reports are revised

every month. Let's get it right.

And I think that's because the data is just not been proper.

Well, I guess we'll look to see if the data becomes more clear, uh, as the

months go on. Obviously, as we talk about the one big

beautiful bill, one year on that was budget reconciliation.

1.0, we just saw, uh, recently 2.0 across to fund Ice and CBP.

Now there is an active conversation, as I'm sure you're well aware, Mr.

Chairman, about reconciliation 3.0. How quickly is there a real chance of

that getting done when currently nothing is able to get across the House floor to

do to certain colleagues of yours who want to see the Save America Act passed

by both chambers first. You know, I'm focused on legislating.

I'm focused on accomplishing, um, great pieces of legislation, putting them on

the president's desk. We did that in the one big, beautiful

bill, which was a partisan approach. It was a reconciliation bill.

Now, on the Ways and Means Committee, we're working on a lot of bipartisan

things. For example, the First lady's Fostering

the Future initiative to help foster kids who are aging out of the system.

It passed out of the Ways and Means Committee and the House of

Representatives, with every single Republican and every single Democrat

voting for it. We're also working on some bipartisan

tax issues and bipartisan trade and bipartisan health care.

That is what we need to deliver to the president's desk.

That's what we can accomplish over the next very few legislative days that are.

So is the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. chairman, not currently looking at any

possible tax provisions that could be folded into a third reconciliation bill.

Oh, we absolutely are looking at every vehicle that could be used for

reconciliation, though, is only a tool of the United States Senate.

It allows them to overcome the 60 vote filibuster rule and to just pass with 51

in the House of Representatives. We just need to pass the good tax

policies, the good legislation, and that's done with the simple majority,

whether you do it in reconciliation or not.

And that's what we're focused on, is trying to deliver legislative means.

But let me tell you, I have a list of ideas that I would love in, um, any

piece of tax legislation moving forward. I'm curious your thought on this idea by

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Morano to see a deal and and recombine on this is

is interesting a proposal to eliminate the Social Security tax cap, which would

mean a pretty big increase in you can, I'm sure, quantify this more on top

earners. The idea to prevent cuts to benefits as

soon as 2032. Is that an idea you would support?

You know, it's a big concern about the insolvency of Social Security, which is

expected at 2032, also with Medicare. And it's something that Republicans and

Democrats have to come to the table, figure out something, and it has to be

bipartisan. It cannot just be with one party fixing

this. And I think we're going to have to look

at every every idea that's out there, both Republicans and Democrats, because

we ultimately cannot fail with the American people because too many people,

including my mother, relies on Social Security.

Uh, well, I'll tell you what. You know, you can you can, of course,

pass a lot of bills, but you need the president to sign them.

And I'm just curious if you know anything about the bipartisan housing

bill. We've had so many Republicans and

Democrats join us, Mr. chairman, uh, most recently last

evening, Mike flood, uh, trumping the benefits of this bill that the president

calls a big yawn. Do you know if he plans to sign it?

I don't know what the president's intentions are in regards to the housing

bill. The housing bills within the Financial

Services Committee. So I'm truly just focused on tax, trade

and health care. The president keeps me fairly busy

whenever we we're looking at those three different areas.

But, um, I couldn't predict what what happens in regards to the housing bill.

Oh, okay. So I'll pick one of those three areas.

Trade. The U.S.

announced yesterday it doesn't intend to renew the Usmca, uh, trade agreement.

What will that mean for our economy if we move from a trilateral deal to

potentially two bilateral deals or pull ourselves out of this altogether?

You know, when I look at the Usmca, the trading relationship with Canada,

Mexico, it's super important. It's important to all three countries.

But have they been fulfilling and honoring the parameters of the original

Usmca? Absolutely not.

We've been raising concerns. We're, for example, the Canadians.

And when it comes to dairy, the issues that they've been doing there.

We also had issues with Mexico when it came to corn.

I represent a very rural congressional district, and these issues are very,

very important to my people. And I appreciate the the

administration's not just going to sign off on it.

They want to continue negotiations. They're not saying we don't need a

trading relationship with Canada and Mexico.

They're saying that we need a better trading relationship with Canada,

Mexico, and I'm 100% behind them. Mr.

chairman, we've only got a couple of minutes left.

I'd love to get your take on this story about the government potentially taking

stake in another company, or maybe several companies, as OpenAI has

reportedly opened discussions about giving the government a 5% stake and

might include other firms as well, like anthropic or alphabet.

Is there a national interest in doing so, or does that run counter to your

conservative values as a lawmaker? Well, I don't know much about, um, what

the proposal is that you're you're referring to.

But what I will say, just in concept, just just what I will say in concept is,

is that AI is extremely important. It's transformational.

We need to make sure that the United States is the leader in AI and not

China. That's what we're seeing a battle out.

And so many different different items playing out.

I don't know all the details of what's necessary to make sure that the United

States is the is the continuous leader of the world when it comes to AI, but I

definitely don't want it allow allow it to be countries such as China.

Yeah, some would call it socialism though.

The government taking stakes in private companies.

Do you worry about that becoming a trend?

Yeah, I. Let me tell you I'm about the

government's less involvement in everything.

Um, so across the board I'm worried about that.

I think government's too big and it needs to be limited.