i mean, you referred to lopez and morrison, and nfib. to my knowledge, those are the only three cases the supreme court has decided since its ruling in 1937 on nlrb vs. jones, which essentially created the modern substantial effects case, the modern substantial effects standard. those are the only three instances in which the supreme court identified, as outside the commerce clause authority, something that congress had enacted. are these meaningful constraints in your view, or are they examples of congress just getting reckless and sloppy in the way it drafted things? some have argued, for instance, that as long as congress doesn't get reckless and sloppy, it can do whatever it wants under those. do you have any view on that? >> well, these cases come through the courts, so i'll be general. the fact that congress is limited in its authority under the commerce clause is established law. it is a fundamental principle of our constitutional order, and those limits that the supreme court has recognized do carve out categories of activity tha

bill dunkelberg, nfib, chief economist. we will be back with our final take next. bloomberg. ♪ ♪ ♪ romaine: time for our final take. you're looking at what jay powell had to say today. he seems to think the economy is strong enough to ask -- withstand rate hikes. taylor: we talked about was a dovish or hawkish? it calmed the market. we are going to move forward. rates are moving higher. economic uncertainty is manageable. that was the key takeaway away for the equity markets. caroline: the bond market sees the rates going ever higher. we are going to see that as global movement as well. will we see tones coming from the ecb, the bank of canada, more hawkish than many anticipated? romaine: do know what else is interesting? you always get that wrong. taylor: do we have a new show? caroline: is this going to be a transitory change? romaine: it will be immediate starting monday. caroline: come monday. look at this. we thank you very much indeed. taylor: two-year yields over there, you guys. look at those lines. romaine: 4:30, new york times. we have these issues every

made clear in the lopez case and in morrison that noneconomic activities are not covered and in the nfib case the aca case, the supreme court made clear that inactivity is also not covered and not authorized under the commerce clause. >> right. in most of the items i identified in my question, in fact, all of them, i believe, would fall under the category of interstate commerce, airwaves, waterways, networks, things like that. things that depend on their operation interstate such that they couldn't no one could regulate them and preserve their core function unless that was federal. with the third item, the interstate commerce, is there much of a limiting principle there? you referred to lopez and morrison and to my knowledge those are the only three cases the supreme court has decided since its ruling which created a case, the modern effects standard. the only three instances as outside the commerce clause authority something that congress had enacted. are these meaningful constraints in your view or congress getting reckless in drafting of things? some have argued that as long as congre

the new price methodology and risk rating 2.0 implemented by fema and nfib would help decrease confused insurance premiums because it is based on risk and property than zones. in my district, 76% of policy holdser peoplious would decrease or remain stable under the new risk rating 2.0 n ranking member graves's district the information we have is that 29.5% of policy holdser premiums would decrease or remain nabl under 2.0 with estimated decreases in premiums totaling $13 million for single family households. the source the fema nfid -- >> will the gentlewoman yield? >> for a second. >> thank you. i want to be clear. a preferred risk policy right now, between 5 and $00 a year. as of october 1st, new purchases or new policies, if you have a home right now paying 560, and it is sold, the new purchasers will go to the numbers i cited. you are correct that as of april 1st under the second phase of the program, that is when existing policy increases begin moving up. and yes, there is a rate cap of 18% a year. you are going to continue moving toward that higher number. just to be clear, my sta