Housing Policy: Guest promotes the Streamlining Rural Housing Act to align HUD and USDA standards, reduce duplicative rules, and accelerate permitting and inspections.
Affordable Housing: Advocates increasing supply via private developers and market-driven solutions rather than direct government intervention or rent freezes.
Homebuilding Dynamics: Notes rising construction costs, labor shortages, and financing constraints; emphasizes skills training to support housing construction viability.
Regulatory Burden: Cites slow approvals and overlapping agencies as cost drivers that delay projects and dampen investment, arguing for faster, clearer processes.
Crypto Regulation: Supports guardrails to curb pump-and-dump risks while preserving innovation; stresses U.S. leadership in setting crypto policy and measured oversight of stablecoins.
Macro Outlook: Despite shutdown disruptions, expects stronger 2026 growth aided by tax/trade policies and easing rates, acknowledging some permanent GDP loss per CBO.
Fiscal Priorities: Prefers applying potential tariff-related surpluses to debt reduction given $37T debt and high interest costs, which could influence broader risk sentiment.
Companies/Tickers: No specific public companies or tickers were pitched or discussed in depth.
Transcript
very pleased to be welcoming to the show the honorable Marlon Stzman. He is a US representative for Indiana's third congressional district. We're going to be talking about the government shutdown that just ended. What's next? And uh and uh Representative Stzman has a new housing bill that he wants to talk to us about. Welcome to the show. Very honored to be hosting you, Representative Stutzman. Thank you. >> Thank you, David. Great to be with you. Appreciate you having me on today. >> Let's talk about this government shutdown, 43-day disruption, the longest in American history. The legislation uh that um was reached today was a result of eight senators who broke ranks with the Democrats after reaching the conclusion that Republicans would not bend on using a government funding bill to extend the healthc care tax credits. The package includes a $23.5 million uh package to boost security for lawmakers and an additional $28 million for the security of Supreme Court justices. Before we get into the details of the package that President Trump signed earlier this week, just tell us uh Representative Stman, why did this shutdown take so long this time? >> Yeah, you know, a great a great question. It was one of the most unnecessary shutdowns that ever needed to happen in US history. And of course, Senate Democrats decided that they're going to just simply call a timeout. um they're going to play politics with the American people uh in the economy. Um you know, the fact is is that House Republicans, we don't have a filibuster rule in the House of Representatives. We just simply have to have, you know, 50% plus one to be able to pass a bill. We had a simple majority. We passed the clean CR, which has been done many times by both Republicans and Democrats. And so it goes over to the Senate and Senate uh the Senate has a different rule that allows for the Democrats to hold up or any, you know, a minority of of senators to hold up a a bill from going to the floor. And that's the filibuster rule. And you know, many of us think of the filibuster rule as Mr. Smith goes to Washington, he goes to the floor, he reads out of the phone book, he reads out of the Bible or whatever. You know, he he reads uh he keeps the uh talking on the floor. Well, this has been this rule has been around for good purposes actually uh when it first started and it was simply to make sure that the debate was done that every senator had the ability to speak on an on an issue and then they would vote and say, "Okay, are we all done?" And then they would go to final passage. Uh it started out at 75 at one point historically, then it got reduced down to 60. So you have to have 60 senators that say, "Okay, we're all done discussing the bill. Let's go to final passage." Well, now what they're doing is instead of going to the floor and filibustering, they're just simply saying, "We're not going to give you 60 votes to go to final passage." And that's how Democrats can control the floor of the Senate rather than the majority party, which is the Republicans now because we only have 53 senators. Uh, and we were getting three Democrats um on the on the other side, couple of Democrats and independent that were voting with Republicans. So, we had 56 senators voting to get to the final bill and we needed uh of course four more. We finally got over that that threshold, but it was 43 days of a shutdown that didn't need to take place. You know, all of the disruptions on air traffic or air travel, of course, uh small business loans. H you had food stamps and um the SNAP program was was not funded. uh you know for my area we produce a lot of medical devices, orthopedics uh those 510ks were all sitting on desks in Washington. Tax returns or tax refunds were sitting on desks in Washington and so it completely unnecessary but Democrats wanted to hold out for uh funding for illegals uh healthc care benefits and then also for the subsidies for Obamacare uh which we're still subsidizing and it's just shown again that Obamacare has been a failure. So, a lot of things going on here, but uh you know what what's just remarkable, David, is that the American that the Democrat party was willing to put the American people through this and use us as leverage to try to accomplish their agenda uh in the Senate, which just wasn't going to happen. >> Uh according to this PBS article, 1.25 million federal workers were affected u in the shutdown in the last 40ome days. About $16 billion in wages were missed. Do we have a guarantee that there will be back pay for these 1.25 million people affected? >> Uh, as far as I know, and that was the one thing that Democrats did get in the uh the bill that did pass was that even the the uh federal employees that were rifted uh by the Trump administration, got their jobs back and with back pain. And so again, I mean, it just to me it's ironic that the Democrat party fights for the bureaucrats in Washington DC, but they don't fight for the teacher and the farmer out in in the heartland across America by making sure that uh we find a solution to keep health care costs low. And and you know, they want to subsidize the big insurance companies. I think we should send any sort of subsidy or assistance for these skyrocketing premiums to go straight to the American people. So, um I you know the Trump administration even gave uh bonuses to uh the uh the the uh folks at you know u the the airports that are doing security. They're making sure that those who showed up for work uh were getting a bonus because they really were uh that the TSA agents that uh were really put under a lot of pressure and those government officials that showed up uh deserve our our thanks because they were at least willing toh to do the job in spite of the fact that Senate Democrats uh shut the government down and they didn't get their paychecks. >> Representative Sman, we have here an an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office as to the effects of the shutdown on the economy. So the CBA was asked for information about the effects of the on the economy of the lapse in discretionary appropriations often called a government shutdown. Importantly it says here after the shutdown real GDP will be temporarily higher than it would have been otherwise although most of the decline in real GDP will be recovered eventually. CBO estimates that between 7 billion and 14 billion in 2025 terms will not be. Can you just comment on the effects cited here? They seem like pretty big numbers and ultimately what can be done to offset some of these losses here. >> Yeah. You know, I mean it's it's uh it's unfortunate. I mean it's it's really a snag that was forced on the economy that didn't need to happen. Um you know, and I'm sure you know what Democrats want more than anything else is they just want to be sure that the the there's some sort of glitch for President Trump. Uh you know, the fact is they Trump derangement syndrome is real. This is something that needs to stop. There needs to be bipartisan work uh together. You know, we've, like I said, in the past, there have been CRs that both Republicans and Democrats have supported to move the ball forward so they could we could negotiate um different differences rather than just shutting the government down. And so, you know, I I my hope is is that um you know, with the policies that have been put in place on tax that the trade policies that President Trump has been working on so hard and resetting the table on um our trade policy and of course, you know, filing interest rates are are coming down a bit uh will help create some velocity in the economy. As I talked to a lot of business owners, I actually had a round a round table this morning with the Lraange Chamber of Commerce in my home county and you know heard from a lot of folks in agriculture, manufacturing, logistics, and transportation and and many of them are saying that you know it's it's been a solid year. uh but uh they're really hoping that to you know grow out of what happened over the past several years of inflationary cost rising and of course uh the the regulatory uh burden that a lot of people have had to deal with. So they're all optimistic that 2026 can be a strong economic year and and my hope is is that uh you know we've done all those pieces on policy now moving forward into fiscal year 26 that we'll see a very strong economy and there are good signals that that that's happening. >> It's been speculated that some of the furled employees from the government may seek employment in the private sector. Do you think that the opp the government is taking this as an opportune time to evaluate whether or not everybody in the federal government needs to have a job? In other words, we evaluate the workforce size as was the initial uh proposal laid out by Doge, the Department of Government Efficiency. >> Yeah. Well, I mean, you know, I'm a business uh owner. uh have done you know mergers and acquisitions, turnaround startups and you know at any point uh it's good for business is it's good for businesses to look at you know are we efficient are do we have employees that uh are you know maybe outdated aren't aren't fulfilling the role of the the mission of the company and and that's where I think that all of us as people have a responsibility to be productive and to be honest and make sure that we're maximized to our our fullest capability. Uh and it's easy in government. you know, government, it's very different than the private sector because, you know, it's basically you open up the purse and tell the taxpayer how much money you need to be able to to pay the bills and then all of a sudden u you know, you keep taxing and taxing and you know, this agency's in place and there's overlap between agencies and you know, we're seeing this even with this housing bill that we're going to be talking about that there's there's multiple agencies that uh uh do the same thing uh in maybe just a different way. And so I think you know having a businessman like President Trump and Scott Mass and you know the leadership that we have with of course Vice President JD Vance uh with those same uh principles and what Doge did is making sure that our our federal government is efficient. Uh there were so many findings that um you know we should all be shaking our head at that the federal government is just simply taking our tax dollars and you know sending it into uh to contracts or to sending it to vendors that were weren't even uh applicable anymore that they that those contracts should have expired a long time ago or shouldn't have been renewed. Uh but the government's pretty big and so it's going to take a lot of work. >> Can you comment on SNAP? So, uh, 42 million, uh, Americans currently are on food assistance. Uh, as of a couple weeks ago, there was rumors or speculation or worries that that may end. Uh, so the, uh, supplemental nutrition assistance program known as SNAP, uh, is set to end in November due to the shutdown. Obviously, the shutdown is no longer applicable. Is this coming back? >> Oh, yeah, absolutely. I mean, it's it's it's that's what you know, a CR is a continuing resolution. It is. it continues all of the funding that has already been in place prior to uh the shutdown and so uh these programs are going to you know restart. It's going to take some time of course because of the glitch of the shutdown. >> What do you think of uh Trump's uh $2,000 tariff dividend plan? >> Um you know you know I'm open to listening to what his ideas are. Uh I know that uh there has been volatility from the tariff negotiations. Of course uh I know the American farmers have seen that. Uh whether it's on beef prices or whether it's on soybean prices. Uh there's been uh some issues. But honestly, David, we have $37 trillion of debt. Uh we're paying a trillion dollars in debt service on that debt annually. Um I I want I would like to see any sort of surpluses used towards debt reduction. it'll actually, you know, benefit us as the American people in the long run. Uh, you know, a lot of folks and I get it. I understand and sympathize because I come from a farm family and part of a farm family in Indiana and it has been difficult uh because of the the commodity prices. But at the same time, balance sheets on uh on on farmers balance sheets uh those have been pushed up because of inflation. Uh so cash is tight this year. But, you know, as we always said on on the farm, we're always uh assetrich, cash flow poor. Uh we want to make sure that, you know, farmers don't have to to go out of business for the the circumstances uh that have happened. But I I think that, you know, if there's any way that we can put uh money towards our debt, that's what we should do. >> And also money towards making housing more affordable is uh the slogan of both the Democrats and the Republicans. They have different ways of going about it. You recently introduced a uh rural housing act. So, I'm just going to read a couple sentences from this um uh this this uh proposal here. Uh Congresswoman Marlon Stutzman, uh Congresswoman Bernie Peterson, Congresswoman Lisa Mlan, and Congresswoman David Scott introduced the streamlining rural housing act which directs the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and the US Department of Agriculture to enter a memorandum of understanding to align housing standards. Tell us about this. Yeah. Well, I mean, it's pretty straightforward, David. Again, it's one of those situations where you have two different federal agencies with rules and uh, you know, as I talk to home builders and uh, folks that work in rural housing where there's a real need. I mean, there's a real need for housing across the country. But, uh, the fact that you have two different standards by two different agencies can cause disruptions and people are saying, well, which one should we follow? And so what our bill does is it just simply streamlines that and makes sure that there's uniform standards between those agencies and that there's some sort of communication uh between those agencies for so that this doesn't happen again. And and that way we're not delaying a building project. We're not delaying those who are uh wanting to build a housing project and that uh there's a more of a one-stop shop rather than having to bounce around to the different agencies. says here, "This bill requires the uh HUD and USDA to evaluate the feasibility of a joint environmental review and inspection process for these projects, making affordable rural housing easier to build and cutting burdersome government red tape." >> Uh can you just elaborate on that? So what what what is this red tape that needs to be um streamlined here? >> Exactly. Well, I mean whether it's uh permitting processes, whether it's environmental, uh you know, of course, you know, here in the heartland, we have a lot of lakes and rivers and uh of course with agriculture and zoning issues, you want to make sure that uh you know, we put our building projects in the right place and it's it's going to be a solid foundation for those. And so we want to make sure that those rules are all followed. But when you have rules at HUD, then you have rules at USDA um and you're trying to match those up, sometimes they don't work together. And that's simply what we're trying to get to is that the permits that our building departments in our counties have to follow, uh the rules and guidelines that they have to follow, typically environmental laws is usually what affects them the most. Uh but that there's a streamlining between those agencies and that we're we're singing off of one song sheet rather than multiple song sheets. says here a statement from uh Representative Scott Roousing construction has been facing a significant drop due to rising construction costs, labor shortages, and limited access to financing. What have been the consequences of of these uh developments if that's true? >> Yeah. No, I mean it is true. I mean I I've seen it, you know, where uh of course it's a tough business. I mean, you know, whether that's where a lot of jobs I mean we're not seeing the skilled labor uh coming out of our high schools like we used to. We really need to focus in our education system on the skilled labor, the welders, the builders, uh the, you know, the truck drivers. We're seeing this real problem now, uh, that even the truckers are having, you know, that that there's states that are pushing licenses, CDLs to drivers who aren't qualified. And so instead of just focusing strictly on, you know, four-year degrees, we should also be focusing on uh certifications and and skills training in our high schools and colleges, uh to to make sure we have that skilled labor. Uh and you know, those guys out there, I mean, you know, my nephews, they're they're plumbing and drilling wells. My boys are working on the farm. I mean, that's that's hard work, but there is some skill training that needs to be done. So that's what we're trying to drive at is reduce that uh the the red tape that can drive cost up because if you want to pay more in wages to those construction workers, you got to make it an affordable project so that way the home buyer can afford the home and then the home builder can actually pay wages to the to the hardworking people that actually build the home. So I correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like your overall agenda here is to make it easier for developers to build in these areas thereby increasing the supply. The other approach or ideology I guess is to have the governments directly fund uh affordable housing projects which is a different approach altogether. Can you evaluate the differences here ultimately which one you align with more? >> I mean I always align with free markets. Uh you know I think that you know home ownership is a it's a beautiful thing. I mean, you know, the American dream is to own your own home, you know, to own your own car, uh, to be able to take your family on vacation. Um but what we're seeing because of of more regulation uh throughout the federal government and we see certain state governments California of course is a high regulatory state and businesses are leaving uh you know whether they're going to Texas they're coming to Indiana from the Chicago area they're they're going to states like Tennessee and Florida places that they have less regulation because regulation is that hidden tax it uh it's a blanket on the economy uh when people have to constantly I mean I'm I'm in the food industry and uh there's we had a a a within our food products we had a label that we were just simply trying to get approved by the USDA. It took us 9 months to get a beef stick USDA a label approved by the USDA. Think of that. That's 9 months of delay of of projects that could be working where we could be paying people and producing products that could be sold. I'm not saying that all regulations should be thrown out, but it's the speed at which the federal government works at that often delays uh our economy and our businesses and time is money. And that's why it's important for us to have an efficient government that works as quickly as possible making sure that the the regulations don't stand in the way of progress. >> Well, what do you think of government efforts to make housing more affordable through direct government intervention? Rent freezes, for example. Are you in support of rent freezes? >> No, sir. >> No, they don't work. Why not? >> Again, you're manipulating the market. Uh, you know, whether it's a >> I mean, I' I've opposed farm subsidies for a long time. I mean, when the government gives us farmers a direct subsidy, uh, it's supposed to go to the producer, but often times the land owner says, "Hey, you know what? Uh, I know you're getting an increase in subsidies from the federal government. Therefore, my rent is going to go up." and uh and so you're just driving the the prices up. When people know there's money, free money uh that they like to say that it is coming from the government, uh somebody's going to have to pay for that. >> We have a few minutes left. Uh Representative Stman, let's talk about crypto legislation. As you're aware, over the summer, a few landmark pieces of legislations were passed. I'm talking about the Genius Act and then later the Clarity Act for market structure. Where is the current environment for legislation around crypto heading from here? >> Well, I mean the the Congress is very interested of course with cryptocurrency. Uh I remember our very first hearing back in 2014 in our subcommittee on financial services where we were trying to get our heads wrapped around on what this is and how it works and you know what role should the government play and but uh over time this has become of course mainstream. uh it can be very volatile and I think that you know my big concern with cryptocurrency and uh coin productions is just a pump and dump schemes. I think that that's where people can really be taken advantage of. And so I think it's important for us to have some parameters disclosures. I mean, we don't want to to drive the the industry into more red tape and almost so difficult to do anything, but uh it's going to be interesting to see how crypto plays out uh over the next several years. And uh but it it's a very effective tool. It's a useful tool, but uh obviously we want to make sure that you know those uh those people who invest or or utilize cryptocurrency, there are some protection and guide rails to that. One of the things too we also feel that it's important is that that America lead on cryptocurrency policy and not the Chinese government or the Russian government. Uh we want to make sure that America is leading. Uh that way there's you know character and integrity built into those guidelines as well as protections on both sides for for individuals as they utilize it. >> The issuance of stable coins, can that be used to fix our debt problem that you alluded to earlier? The Russians accuse the US of using the Genius Act as a pathway to issue stable coins to erase government debt. Anyway, how do you respond to that? >> Um, you know, I I think that uh as we we look to those who utilize cryptocurrency, um it's there's still a very free market um trait to that and I think if people feel like it's being abused for by a particular government, there's going to be a reaction to that. So, uh, I like cryptocurrency. I mean, it's a it is a free market. It's one of those, uh, it's it's something that could be utilized quickly on transactions. It's it's all also can be seen as an investment. But I think the more that government does get involved, and that's why we wanted to make sure that the US federal government maintained a distance uh, and didn't get too heavily involved to where it's going to suffocate a a very useful tool. >> Okay. Uh, we'll end it here. Thank you very much. We'll be happy to have you back on and talk more about all of these issues as they develop and um the uh the the funding for uh the new the new bill. You know, we have a new shutdown apparently in the works uh potentially in January. So much much has to happen between now and January. We'll follow up then. Thank you very much. Um Representative Stzman, where can we follow you and your work right now? >> Yeah, I mean we're on all the platforms and we kept the name uniform across all platforms. It's repstman uh and uh of course love people to to follow along and uh see what we're up to and of course always engage in the conversation. >> Follow uh the links down below. Thank you very much Representative Stzman. We'll speak again soon. Take care for now. >> Thank you David. >> Thank you for watching. Don't forget to like and subscribe.
Government Shutdown Cost Economy Billions, Congressman Explains Impacts | Rep. Stutzman
Summary
Transcript
very pleased to be welcoming to the show the honorable Marlon Stzman. He is a US representative for Indiana's third congressional district. We're going to be talking about the government shutdown that just ended. What's next? And uh and uh Representative Stzman has a new housing bill that he wants to talk to us about. Welcome to the show. Very honored to be hosting you, Representative Stutzman. Thank you. >> Thank you, David. Great to be with you. Appreciate you having me on today. >> Let's talk about this government shutdown, 43-day disruption, the longest in American history. The legislation uh that um was reached today was a result of eight senators who broke ranks with the Democrats after reaching the conclusion that Republicans would not bend on using a government funding bill to extend the healthc care tax credits. The package includes a $23.5 million uh package to boost security for lawmakers and an additional $28 million for the security of Supreme Court justices. Before we get into the details of the package that President Trump signed earlier this week, just tell us uh Representative Stman, why did this shutdown take so long this time? >> Yeah, you know, a great a great question. It was one of the most unnecessary shutdowns that ever needed to happen in US history. And of course, Senate Democrats decided that they're going to just simply call a timeout. um they're going to play politics with the American people uh in the economy. Um you know, the fact is is that House Republicans, we don't have a filibuster rule in the House of Representatives. We just simply have to have, you know, 50% plus one to be able to pass a bill. We had a simple majority. We passed the clean CR, which has been done many times by both Republicans and Democrats. And so it goes over to the Senate and Senate uh the Senate has a different rule that allows for the Democrats to hold up or any, you know, a minority of of senators to hold up a a bill from going to the floor. And that's the filibuster rule. And you know, many of us think of the filibuster rule as Mr. Smith goes to Washington, he goes to the floor, he reads out of the phone book, he reads out of the Bible or whatever. You know, he he reads uh he keeps the uh talking on the floor. Well, this has been this rule has been around for good purposes actually uh when it first started and it was simply to make sure that the debate was done that every senator had the ability to speak on an on an issue and then they would vote and say, "Okay, are we all done?" And then they would go to final passage. Uh it started out at 75 at one point historically, then it got reduced down to 60. So you have to have 60 senators that say, "Okay, we're all done discussing the bill. Let's go to final passage." Well, now what they're doing is instead of going to the floor and filibustering, they're just simply saying, "We're not going to give you 60 votes to go to final passage." And that's how Democrats can control the floor of the Senate rather than the majority party, which is the Republicans now because we only have 53 senators. Uh, and we were getting three Democrats um on the on the other side, couple of Democrats and independent that were voting with Republicans. So, we had 56 senators voting to get to the final bill and we needed uh of course four more. We finally got over that that threshold, but it was 43 days of a shutdown that didn't need to take place. You know, all of the disruptions on air traffic or air travel, of course, uh small business loans. H you had food stamps and um the SNAP program was was not funded. uh you know for my area we produce a lot of medical devices, orthopedics uh those 510ks were all sitting on desks in Washington. Tax returns or tax refunds were sitting on desks in Washington and so it completely unnecessary but Democrats wanted to hold out for uh funding for illegals uh healthc care benefits and then also for the subsidies for Obamacare uh which we're still subsidizing and it's just shown again that Obamacare has been a failure. So, a lot of things going on here, but uh you know what what's just remarkable, David, is that the American that the Democrat party was willing to put the American people through this and use us as leverage to try to accomplish their agenda uh in the Senate, which just wasn't going to happen. >> Uh according to this PBS article, 1.25 million federal workers were affected u in the shutdown in the last 40ome days. About $16 billion in wages were missed. Do we have a guarantee that there will be back pay for these 1.25 million people affected? >> Uh, as far as I know, and that was the one thing that Democrats did get in the uh the bill that did pass was that even the the uh federal employees that were rifted uh by the Trump administration, got their jobs back and with back pain. And so again, I mean, it just to me it's ironic that the Democrat party fights for the bureaucrats in Washington DC, but they don't fight for the teacher and the farmer out in in the heartland across America by making sure that uh we find a solution to keep health care costs low. And and you know, they want to subsidize the big insurance companies. I think we should send any sort of subsidy or assistance for these skyrocketing premiums to go straight to the American people. So, um I you know the Trump administration even gave uh bonuses to uh the uh the the uh folks at you know u the the airports that are doing security. They're making sure that those who showed up for work uh were getting a bonus because they really were uh that the TSA agents that uh were really put under a lot of pressure and those government officials that showed up uh deserve our our thanks because they were at least willing toh to do the job in spite of the fact that Senate Democrats uh shut the government down and they didn't get their paychecks. >> Representative Sman, we have here an an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office as to the effects of the shutdown on the economy. So the CBA was asked for information about the effects of the on the economy of the lapse in discretionary appropriations often called a government shutdown. Importantly it says here after the shutdown real GDP will be temporarily higher than it would have been otherwise although most of the decline in real GDP will be recovered eventually. CBO estimates that between 7 billion and 14 billion in 2025 terms will not be. Can you just comment on the effects cited here? They seem like pretty big numbers and ultimately what can be done to offset some of these losses here. >> Yeah. You know, I mean it's it's uh it's unfortunate. I mean it's it's really a snag that was forced on the economy that didn't need to happen. Um you know, and I'm sure you know what Democrats want more than anything else is they just want to be sure that the the there's some sort of glitch for President Trump. Uh you know, the fact is they Trump derangement syndrome is real. This is something that needs to stop. There needs to be bipartisan work uh together. You know, we've, like I said, in the past, there have been CRs that both Republicans and Democrats have supported to move the ball forward so they could we could negotiate um different differences rather than just shutting the government down. And so, you know, I I my hope is is that um you know, with the policies that have been put in place on tax that the trade policies that President Trump has been working on so hard and resetting the table on um our trade policy and of course, you know, filing interest rates are are coming down a bit uh will help create some velocity in the economy. As I talked to a lot of business owners, I actually had a round a round table this morning with the Lraange Chamber of Commerce in my home county and you know heard from a lot of folks in agriculture, manufacturing, logistics, and transportation and and many of them are saying that you know it's it's been a solid year. uh but uh they're really hoping that to you know grow out of what happened over the past several years of inflationary cost rising and of course uh the the regulatory uh burden that a lot of people have had to deal with. So they're all optimistic that 2026 can be a strong economic year and and my hope is is that uh you know we've done all those pieces on policy now moving forward into fiscal year 26 that we'll see a very strong economy and there are good signals that that that's happening. >> It's been speculated that some of the furled employees from the government may seek employment in the private sector. Do you think that the opp the government is taking this as an opportune time to evaluate whether or not everybody in the federal government needs to have a job? In other words, we evaluate the workforce size as was the initial uh proposal laid out by Doge, the Department of Government Efficiency. >> Yeah. Well, I mean, you know, I'm a business uh owner. uh have done you know mergers and acquisitions, turnaround startups and you know at any point uh it's good for business is it's good for businesses to look at you know are we efficient are do we have employees that uh are you know maybe outdated aren't aren't fulfilling the role of the the mission of the company and and that's where I think that all of us as people have a responsibility to be productive and to be honest and make sure that we're maximized to our our fullest capability. Uh and it's easy in government. you know, government, it's very different than the private sector because, you know, it's basically you open up the purse and tell the taxpayer how much money you need to be able to to pay the bills and then all of a sudden u you know, you keep taxing and taxing and you know, this agency's in place and there's overlap between agencies and you know, we're seeing this even with this housing bill that we're going to be talking about that there's there's multiple agencies that uh uh do the same thing uh in maybe just a different way. And so I think you know having a businessman like President Trump and Scott Mass and you know the leadership that we have with of course Vice President JD Vance uh with those same uh principles and what Doge did is making sure that our our federal government is efficient. Uh there were so many findings that um you know we should all be shaking our head at that the federal government is just simply taking our tax dollars and you know sending it into uh to contracts or to sending it to vendors that were weren't even uh applicable anymore that they that those contracts should have expired a long time ago or shouldn't have been renewed. Uh but the government's pretty big and so it's going to take a lot of work. >> Can you comment on SNAP? So, uh, 42 million, uh, Americans currently are on food assistance. Uh, as of a couple weeks ago, there was rumors or speculation or worries that that may end. Uh, so the, uh, supplemental nutrition assistance program known as SNAP, uh, is set to end in November due to the shutdown. Obviously, the shutdown is no longer applicable. Is this coming back? >> Oh, yeah, absolutely. I mean, it's it's it's that's what you know, a CR is a continuing resolution. It is. it continues all of the funding that has already been in place prior to uh the shutdown and so uh these programs are going to you know restart. It's going to take some time of course because of the glitch of the shutdown. >> What do you think of uh Trump's uh $2,000 tariff dividend plan? >> Um you know you know I'm open to listening to what his ideas are. Uh I know that uh there has been volatility from the tariff negotiations. Of course uh I know the American farmers have seen that. Uh whether it's on beef prices or whether it's on soybean prices. Uh there's been uh some issues. But honestly, David, we have $37 trillion of debt. Uh we're paying a trillion dollars in debt service on that debt annually. Um I I want I would like to see any sort of surpluses used towards debt reduction. it'll actually, you know, benefit us as the American people in the long run. Uh, you know, a lot of folks and I get it. I understand and sympathize because I come from a farm family and part of a farm family in Indiana and it has been difficult uh because of the the commodity prices. But at the same time, balance sheets on uh on on farmers balance sheets uh those have been pushed up because of inflation. Uh so cash is tight this year. But, you know, as we always said on on the farm, we're always uh assetrich, cash flow poor. Uh we want to make sure that, you know, farmers don't have to to go out of business for the the circumstances uh that have happened. But I I think that, you know, if there's any way that we can put uh money towards our debt, that's what we should do. >> And also money towards making housing more affordable is uh the slogan of both the Democrats and the Republicans. They have different ways of going about it. You recently introduced a uh rural housing act. So, I'm just going to read a couple sentences from this um uh this this uh proposal here. Uh Congresswoman Marlon Stutzman, uh Congresswoman Bernie Peterson, Congresswoman Lisa Mlan, and Congresswoman David Scott introduced the streamlining rural housing act which directs the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and the US Department of Agriculture to enter a memorandum of understanding to align housing standards. Tell us about this. Yeah. Well, I mean, it's pretty straightforward, David. Again, it's one of those situations where you have two different federal agencies with rules and uh, you know, as I talk to home builders and uh, folks that work in rural housing where there's a real need. I mean, there's a real need for housing across the country. But, uh, the fact that you have two different standards by two different agencies can cause disruptions and people are saying, well, which one should we follow? And so what our bill does is it just simply streamlines that and makes sure that there's uniform standards between those agencies and that there's some sort of communication uh between those agencies for so that this doesn't happen again. And and that way we're not delaying a building project. We're not delaying those who are uh wanting to build a housing project and that uh there's a more of a one-stop shop rather than having to bounce around to the different agencies. says here, "This bill requires the uh HUD and USDA to evaluate the feasibility of a joint environmental review and inspection process for these projects, making affordable rural housing easier to build and cutting burdersome government red tape." >> Uh can you just elaborate on that? So what what what is this red tape that needs to be um streamlined here? >> Exactly. Well, I mean whether it's uh permitting processes, whether it's environmental, uh you know, of course, you know, here in the heartland, we have a lot of lakes and rivers and uh of course with agriculture and zoning issues, you want to make sure that uh you know, we put our building projects in the right place and it's it's going to be a solid foundation for those. And so we want to make sure that those rules are all followed. But when you have rules at HUD, then you have rules at USDA um and you're trying to match those up, sometimes they don't work together. And that's simply what we're trying to get to is that the permits that our building departments in our counties have to follow, uh the rules and guidelines that they have to follow, typically environmental laws is usually what affects them the most. Uh but that there's a streamlining between those agencies and that we're we're singing off of one song sheet rather than multiple song sheets. says here a statement from uh Representative Scott Roousing construction has been facing a significant drop due to rising construction costs, labor shortages, and limited access to financing. What have been the consequences of of these uh developments if that's true? >> Yeah. No, I mean it is true. I mean I I've seen it, you know, where uh of course it's a tough business. I mean, you know, whether that's where a lot of jobs I mean we're not seeing the skilled labor uh coming out of our high schools like we used to. We really need to focus in our education system on the skilled labor, the welders, the builders, uh the, you know, the truck drivers. We're seeing this real problem now, uh, that even the truckers are having, you know, that that there's states that are pushing licenses, CDLs to drivers who aren't qualified. And so instead of just focusing strictly on, you know, four-year degrees, we should also be focusing on uh certifications and and skills training in our high schools and colleges, uh to to make sure we have that skilled labor. Uh and you know, those guys out there, I mean, you know, my nephews, they're they're plumbing and drilling wells. My boys are working on the farm. I mean, that's that's hard work, but there is some skill training that needs to be done. So that's what we're trying to drive at is reduce that uh the the red tape that can drive cost up because if you want to pay more in wages to those construction workers, you got to make it an affordable project so that way the home buyer can afford the home and then the home builder can actually pay wages to the to the hardworking people that actually build the home. So I correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like your overall agenda here is to make it easier for developers to build in these areas thereby increasing the supply. The other approach or ideology I guess is to have the governments directly fund uh affordable housing projects which is a different approach altogether. Can you evaluate the differences here ultimately which one you align with more? >> I mean I always align with free markets. Uh you know I think that you know home ownership is a it's a beautiful thing. I mean, you know, the American dream is to own your own home, you know, to own your own car, uh, to be able to take your family on vacation. Um but what we're seeing because of of more regulation uh throughout the federal government and we see certain state governments California of course is a high regulatory state and businesses are leaving uh you know whether they're going to Texas they're coming to Indiana from the Chicago area they're they're going to states like Tennessee and Florida places that they have less regulation because regulation is that hidden tax it uh it's a blanket on the economy uh when people have to constantly I mean I'm I'm in the food industry and uh there's we had a a a within our food products we had a label that we were just simply trying to get approved by the USDA. It took us 9 months to get a beef stick USDA a label approved by the USDA. Think of that. That's 9 months of delay of of projects that could be working where we could be paying people and producing products that could be sold. I'm not saying that all regulations should be thrown out, but it's the speed at which the federal government works at that often delays uh our economy and our businesses and time is money. And that's why it's important for us to have an efficient government that works as quickly as possible making sure that the the regulations don't stand in the way of progress. >> Well, what do you think of government efforts to make housing more affordable through direct government intervention? Rent freezes, for example. Are you in support of rent freezes? >> No, sir. >> No, they don't work. Why not? >> Again, you're manipulating the market. Uh, you know, whether it's a >> I mean, I' I've opposed farm subsidies for a long time. I mean, when the government gives us farmers a direct subsidy, uh, it's supposed to go to the producer, but often times the land owner says, "Hey, you know what? Uh, I know you're getting an increase in subsidies from the federal government. Therefore, my rent is going to go up." and uh and so you're just driving the the prices up. When people know there's money, free money uh that they like to say that it is coming from the government, uh somebody's going to have to pay for that. >> We have a few minutes left. Uh Representative Stman, let's talk about crypto legislation. As you're aware, over the summer, a few landmark pieces of legislations were passed. I'm talking about the Genius Act and then later the Clarity Act for market structure. Where is the current environment for legislation around crypto heading from here? >> Well, I mean the the Congress is very interested of course with cryptocurrency. Uh I remember our very first hearing back in 2014 in our subcommittee on financial services where we were trying to get our heads wrapped around on what this is and how it works and you know what role should the government play and but uh over time this has become of course mainstream. uh it can be very volatile and I think that you know my big concern with cryptocurrency and uh coin productions is just a pump and dump schemes. I think that that's where people can really be taken advantage of. And so I think it's important for us to have some parameters disclosures. I mean, we don't want to to drive the the industry into more red tape and almost so difficult to do anything, but uh it's going to be interesting to see how crypto plays out uh over the next several years. And uh but it it's a very effective tool. It's a useful tool, but uh obviously we want to make sure that you know those uh those people who invest or or utilize cryptocurrency, there are some protection and guide rails to that. One of the things too we also feel that it's important is that that America lead on cryptocurrency policy and not the Chinese government or the Russian government. Uh we want to make sure that America is leading. Uh that way there's you know character and integrity built into those guidelines as well as protections on both sides for for individuals as they utilize it. >> The issuance of stable coins, can that be used to fix our debt problem that you alluded to earlier? The Russians accuse the US of using the Genius Act as a pathway to issue stable coins to erase government debt. Anyway, how do you respond to that? >> Um, you know, I I think that uh as we we look to those who utilize cryptocurrency, um it's there's still a very free market um trait to that and I think if people feel like it's being abused for by a particular government, there's going to be a reaction to that. So, uh, I like cryptocurrency. I mean, it's a it is a free market. It's one of those, uh, it's it's something that could be utilized quickly on transactions. It's it's all also can be seen as an investment. But I think the more that government does get involved, and that's why we wanted to make sure that the US federal government maintained a distance uh, and didn't get too heavily involved to where it's going to suffocate a a very useful tool. >> Okay. Uh, we'll end it here. Thank you very much. We'll be happy to have you back on and talk more about all of these issues as they develop and um the uh the the funding for uh the new the new bill. You know, we have a new shutdown apparently in the works uh potentially in January. So much much has to happen between now and January. We'll follow up then. Thank you very much. Um Representative Stzman, where can we follow you and your work right now? >> Yeah, I mean we're on all the platforms and we kept the name uniform across all platforms. It's repstman uh and uh of course love people to to follow along and uh see what we're up to and of course always engage in the conversation. >> Follow uh the links down below. Thank you very much Representative Stzman. We'll speak again soon. Take care for now. >> Thank you David. >> Thank you for watching. Don't forget to like and subscribe.