Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
CNN's Town Hall "America Asks Congress" Aired 9-10p ET
Aired April 10, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Doris Kearns Goodwin, I love having you on. I love you. Thank you so much.
CNN's town hall "America Asks Congress" moderated by Jake Tapper and Kaitlan Collins starts right now.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN MODERATOR: Tonight, four U.S. representatives face the concerns of their constituents.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN MODERATOR: "America Asks Congress", a CNN town hall, starts right now.
(MUSIC)
COLLINS: Good evening.
At a time of extreme economic uncertainty, we're about to get an idea of how President Donald Trump's policies are playing out across the country. And if local town halls are any indication, voters have very strong feelings.
I'm Kaitlan Collins.
TAPPER: And I'm Jake Tapper.
The leaders on stage tonight represent four of the most competitive congressional districts in the entire nation. They will answer questions tonight from their constituents, Democrats, Republicans, independents, and some voters here in the nation's capital.
The voters will ask their own questions. You may see them holding a piece of paper that has their question on it. That's a question they've come up with. It has not been edited or changed in any way by CNN.
We found these questioners by reaching out to political and business groups, universities and other civic organizations.
COLLINS: Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the Democrats this evening, Congressman Derek Tran of Orange County, California, south of Los Angeles, and Congresswoman Jahana Hayes of northwestern Connecticut.
TAPPER: And the Republicans, Congressman Mike Lawler of New York, just north of New York City, and Congressman Ryan Mackenzie of the Allentown area of Pennsylvania.
So, Congressman Mackenzie, let's go to you first.
We have Eric Watson here standing right next to me. He's from Bath, Pennsylvania. He's the director of operations for a local car dealership. He is a Republican -- Eric.
ERIC WATSON, CAR DEALERSHIP DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS: Congresswoman Mackenzie, as local new car dealers, we collectively represent the fifth largest and one of the fastest growing employment sectors in the Lehigh Valley. However, we're increasingly impacted by the effects of tariffs, the related economic pressures that disrupt both our customers buying cars, and for us -- excuse me -- for us to conduct operations.
In light of your bipartisan, real-world solutions, and your call for that, how do you propose to support dealerships like ours, and further stabilize the auto industry itself?
REP. RYAN MACKENZIE (R-PA): Absolutely.
Well, first of all, thank you for joining us, coming down from Pennsylvania to be here and appreciate the question.
We have a great, vibrant economy in the Lehigh Valley. We're so fortunate to have that, with small businesses like yours providing great services for all, everybody in our community. So, thank you for the work that you do.
We do have a challenge right now. As a country, we are facing significant trade barriers all around the world. And so, when our automakers try to go out and send their cars overseas, they're facing barriers that are not being faced when foreign companies are shipping their cars into our -- our community. And so, we need to adjust that balance.
And so, as we face this challenge of actually imposing barriers around the world and suggesting for the first time since probably World War II that we would have tariffs on something like an auto going out or coming into our country, I think it's only fair to ask that question.
And as American industry has been hollowed out for decades because of unfair trade practices from places like China, I think we are actually in a position right now as a country to finally address this challenge.
And Donald Trump has been leading on this issue ever since he ran for office back in 2016. He addressed things that nobody, Republican or Democrat, wanted to address, things like controlling the southern border and tackling the challenge of a rising China.
So, at this point, I think we are faced with a challenge that we have to meet. As an American country and as Americans who are so innovative, I know that we can compete on that global stage. And together, I think we're going to address this challenge.
TAPPER: Let me -- let me bring in somebody else who is on stage there, Congressman Tran.
What do you think? What's your take on this?
REP. DEREK TRAN (D-CA): Thank you, Jake.
Appreciate the question from you, Eric.
You know, I believe that tariffs can be a good thing that we can use to balance trade. But when we're seeing tariffs used haphazardly, recklessly, and causing our market to freefall, that's an issue for me.
So, I think, you know, there are a lot of things we can do. But tariffs on our good neighbors like Canada and Mexico, where we do so much trade with will impact the working-class families. And we see that now with people's savings, 401(k)s just lost. And that's scary and that's dangerous.
And they have to have a better plan on how they want to implement tariffs.
Thank you.
TAPPER: Let me bring in Congressman Lawler. Congressman Lawler, President Trump acknowledged in his cabinet meeting today that there will be, quote, "a transition cost and transition problems", unquote, because of the tariffs. One recent analysis said the tariffs currently in effect will end up costing the average U.S. household $4,400 every year. Are you OK with that?
REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): No, of course not. We don't want Americans to pay higher prices. The whole focus for me is on reducing the cost of living. That is the number one issue impacting Americans. And we saw over the last four years, record inflation. We saw grocery prices skyrocket, energy prices skyrocket, housing costs skyrocket. In my district alone, the average mortgage cost went up $1,000 a month because of Joe Biden's reckless spending and policies.
Tariffs are one piece of the equation here, actually ensuring we have fair trade with our partners when Japan, Vietnam, India and the EU have tariffs against U.S. products, barriers to entry against ag and auto workers, cars not being able to get in, price controls on prescription drugs, that makes everything more expensive for us. So, this is about leveling the playing field, bringing tariffs down across the globe, but also then obviously other parts that we're focused on, a tax bill, deregulation, increasing domestic production of energy. All of that is going to reduce the overall cost of living in the United States.
TAPPER: Let me bring in Congresswoman Hayes. Congresswoman, some lawmakers want to force a vote to curb President Trump's assertion of tariff authority. Do you think that's a good idea?
REP. JAHANA HAYES (D-CT): Absolutely. It is our role as members of Congress to have oversight authority over the President. And back to your question, if this was a tariff specifically at one industry in order to boost jobs and increase sales in this country, that would be one thing. But, we've seen tariffs across the board that have been unpredictable and chaotic, where the President, on one day, says he is going to have across-the-board tariffs in places that are not even inhabited. So, this shows that this has not been a coordinated effort. It's not well thought out.
And then, when we talk about the economy, we saw $11 trillion in just free fall from our global marketplace. That is not how you apply tariffs. I agree with my colleagues that tariffs could be a good thing. I sit on the Committee of Education and Workforce. My colleague Frank Mrvan is always trying to support steel workers, but that's not what we're talking about. These are across-the-board tariffs that are hurting people, and Republicans refuse to even ask the question of the President, where are you trying to go, and how are we supposed to get there?
COLLINS: Congressman Tran, let me switch subjects, because this next question is for you. This is Johnny Nguyen, who is from Garden Grove, California. It's great to have you here, Johnny. He is an energy engineer and also a Democrat. What's your question for the congressman?
JOHNNY NGUYEN, ENERGY ENGINEER: Hey, congressman. So, with Trump's immigration policy and mass deportations, I'm getting really concerned about legislation like the Laken Riley Act, which begs the question of whether due process exists still in America. So, given your background, both as an attorney and also the son of immigrants like myself, what made you vote yes on that?
TRAN: Yeah. Thanks, Johnny, for the question. And I did vote with my Republican colleagues on the Laken Riley Act, because I draw the line when it comes to crime. This is an instance where -- I came from a very humble background. My parents were Vietnamese refugees who came to this country with nothing. After the fall of Saigon, they had to get away from the communist regime. And we grew up extremely poor. I mean, I was on all kinds of subsidies, WIC, Section 8 housing, food stamps, that was my childhood, and I understand what it's like to be an immigrant, right? And I know how hard it is, and I know how we have to treat people with humanity and have empathy.
But, for the Laken Riley Act, I believe that when you commit a crime, you should be deported. That made sense to me. As a lawyer, I believe in law and order as well. So, thanks for your question, Johnny.
COLLINS: Congresswoman, can I ask you, because you also supported that law? So, I'm glad that you want to weigh in, because the question was about due process, and since it's for people who are accused and charged with crimes but not necessarily convicted of them, what do you make of the concerns about due process?
HAYES: So, I understand your concerns, and I understand how immigrants across this country who are here legally and have followed the law are being terrorized right now because they are unsure of what happens next. I voted for that piece of legislation because of a very specific provision, and it was if it caused injury or death to a police officer, which was one small piece of it. There were other things about, to your point, Kaitlan, someone who was charged but hadn't been convicted.
As I have thought about it over the last couple months, I probably would have voted differently. It's a vote that I regret. But, coming into this Congress, I trusted that this administration, we would have some -- that they wanted to have border security, they wanted to work with Democrats, that we could actually move forward.
I'm not really sure of that, because I have seen the rhetoric that has come out and the attacks that have been targeted towards immigrants. So I am very cautious and careful when I'm negotiating my votes moving forward.
COLLINS: It's notable, Congresswoman, to hear you say you regret that vote.
Congressman Mackenzie, what's your response and thoughts on all of this?
MACKENZIE: I would say this. Actions that we have seen from illegal immigrants coming into our country committing these heinous crimes are a serious challenge that are long overdue to be addressed.
And so I was happy that this was the first piece of legislation that the new Congress addressed. And it was passed in a bipartisan fashion through the House and Senate and became law. And there are more things that we need to do in a bipartisan way to actually get these solutions that 80 percent of Americans agree with.
And so, in instances like this, I think this was the right thing to do. It was a positive step, but there's a lot more to be done to protect our communities.
COLLINS: Congressman Lawler, let me get you to weigh in here, because also tonight, we just heard from the Supreme Court on the concerns about deporting people from the United States, who said the Trump administration must -- quote -- "facilitate" the return of the Maryland man who the administration acknowledged was mistakenly deported to El Salvador.
Do you agree with the Supreme Court's ruling on that?
LAWLER: Yes. And he should be returned. And, obviously, they should follow the law there.
But I would say, when we're dealing with this crisis, we saw over 10.5 million migrants come into the United States during Joe Biden's presidency. They were released into the U.S. through a program called catch and release. And, as a result, you saw across the country municipalities struggling under the weight of it, in my home state in New York, spending billions of dollars of taxpayer money to provide free housing, clothing, food, education, and health care to illegal immigrants.
In a situation like the Laken Riley Act coming forward, that is to respond to a situation where you have criminal aliens committing violent offenses. And no one should be in defense of that. The fact is, since President Trump came into office, border crossings are down from 189,000 in the month of February 2024 to just over 8,000 in the month of February 2025.
That is a significant decline, because people understand, if they cross the border illegally, they're not going to be detained and released. They're going to be detained and deported. And that is a significant difference. That is why we have seen the decline in the number of border crossings.
But if somebody commits a violent offense in this country, if they commit a crime, they should be deported, period. My wife is an immigrant. I have been through this system. It is a fundamentally broken system that we have to fix long-term. But if we can't agree that criminal aliens do not belong in this country, we have a problem.
TAPPER: So, Congress...
HAYES: I have to weigh in.
TAPPER: Please do.
HAYES: I have to weigh in, because when we're talking about the people, immigrants who entered this country, they entered through the law as it is written.
So we need comprehensive immigration reform that supports our farmers, our families, our dreamers. Everyone who came to this country did not come here as a criminal. And my challenge with this administration is, even when they have been found to have made a mistake, have admitted it, and the court has ordered it, they refuse to just take corrective action.
So this is -- this is all punitive. It is not about border security. We can have border security and immigration reform. Democrats want border security as well. The two can go together, where we fix our broken immigration system. We had a bill, a bipartisan bill, to start to work on immigration that Trump said, do not bring to the floor. Do not vote on this bill.
So I question if there's a level of seriousness to even working on this problem. But we have to address and support farmers, families, dreamers. And people who have committed crimes and don't belong here, you're absolutely right, should be deported. But that's not what we're talking about.
LAWLER: Respect -- respectfully, 10.5 million people crossed into this country illegally. The Biden administration created a program called catch and release, reinstated the Obama era program, releasing people into the country, saying, everybody is claiming asylum and parole.
The reality is, when asylum cases are heard, 70 percent of them are rejected, because they're not valid. And this never should have happened. And you talk about Democrats want to secure the border. Donald Trump and his first administration offered Democrats a deal on DACA in exchange for border security. They rejected it. They rejected it and as a result, you saw an explosion under Joe Biden.
The fact is, we need an immigration system that works. That's why I introduced the Dignity Act. A, to secure the border, B, to deal with the undocumented, and C, to have a legal immigration system that addresses our economic needs as a country. We need a system that works, but you can't get there unless you secure the border.
And so the fact that none of you, frankly, opposed what Joe Biden did, none of you stood up and said, this is wrong. And with respect to the bipartisan immigration deal, the problem was it wasn't bipartisan. No Republican voted for it. And in fact, six Democrats voted against it in the Senate. And it would have codified Catch and Release into law. That is the fundamental problem with that bill. It was not going to work.
REP. JAHANA HAYES (D-CT): Can you fact-check this? Because it was negotiated by a Republican Senate --
LAWLER: Did anybody vote for it? I said nobody --
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Obviously, obviously, Senator Lankford was one of the lead negotiators.
LAWLER: But he did not vote for it.
HAYES: Is he a Republican?
TAPPER: He is a Republican from Oklahoma.
HAYES: Thank you.
TAPPER: I want to bring voters back into this. It's a town hall, although a debate among you four would be a great idea also as another future programing idea.
Congressman Lawler, you can stay standing. The question is for you. I want to bring in Robert O'Connell, who is from Yorktown Heights, New York. He's an emergency medicine pharmacist who recently moved to your district. He's a Democrat. And he has a question on a different topic. Robert?
ROBERT O'CONNELL, EMERGENCY MEDICINE PHARMACIST: Thank you. Congressman Lawler, RFK Jr.'s positions on vaccine and public health infrastructure are dangerously out of touch with the realities we face every day in emergency departments across this country. Today, young children are dying from diseases that are preventable. Local officials are trying to pull fluoride out of our water.
I would like to know what steps you and your colleagues in the Republican Party are taking to ensure that figures like Mr. Kennedy are not given unilateral power that could further erode trust in our health care and endanger the lives of your constituents in New York 17 and across this country?
LAWLER: I appreciate the question and appreciate the work that you do. Health care is obviously one of the most important issues we're dealing with as a country, both in terms of access, affordability and obviously care. We have major challenges, including workforce shortages of doctors, nurses, home health aides, pharmacists. So there are real issues that we have to grapple with.
I'm proud of the fact that in my district, I have Regeneron headquartered there. I have Pfizer, their vaccine research facility is a minute from my house. And that's where they developed the COVID-19 vaccine in that facility.
I have always believed that broadly speaking, in the efficacy of vaccines, I think they are vital to ensuring the health and well-being of our communities, our families, our children. And I disagree with some of the comments of Secretary Kennedy. I've said that previously with respect to his stance on vaccines.
I do believe in the right of people to make medical decisions for themselves. I do believe obviously, I'm against mandating, you know, every type of vaccine. I do believe in religious exemption. But at the end of the day, you know, when you're talking about something like the measles, that vaccine has saved lives, period.
I have also disagreed with the decision to cut funding for HIV programs. The fact is that those programs are vital to saving lives. We can eradicate HIV, and we need to continue down that path and that's why I've sent a letter to the secretary and the administration to push back on that decision to cut funding for HIV.
TAPPER: Congressman Tran, let me let me bring you in. What do you think of the question from Robert O'Connell?
REP. DEREK TRAN (D-CA): Yes, thank you for that question. And this hits home because I own a small pharmacy with my wife in Orange County. And we believe fundamentally that health care is so important. But when you have a conspiracy theorist that's running our health agency, that is very dangerous times. And when you have outbreaks of measles going on in Texas, that is very dangerous times.
And I think we need to do more to make sure this administration understands that the American people do not want a conspiracy theorist like Secretary Kennedy running our health department. And I hope my colleagues on this stage will agree with me on that. Thank you.
TAPPER: Let me bring in Congressman McKenzie, and Congressman McKenzie, as you likely know, there are nearly 600 verified cases of measles, probably many, many more in actuality linked to this outbreak that began in Texas, and two children have died. And measles, you know, it was ended in the United States 25 years ago, but now it's back and it's killing kids. There are a lot of public health officials regardless of party who have serious concerns about Secretary Kennedy. Do you?
REP. RYAN MACKENZIE (R-PA): Well, let me say this. So, as a father of a one-year-old who is going through his vaccine regimen right now, that's something that I'm choosing for my son, that we are getting him vaccinated just like I was vaccinated. In the case of the measles vaccine, that's something that's been long established and I think we have a fairly good track record of evidence to prove that that is safe and effective. So, I would encourage others if that is their choice to actually go out and do that.
But we do have a couple other things that we need to address. First of all, many of these instances that are coming into our country are from illegal immigrants who have crossed the border with no checks, no actual health records, and they are bringing these diseases into our country. There is a reason why measles has started to spread in our country after decades of being almost eradicated, as you pointed out. And so I think we need to recognize that point.
The second thing is when we talk about Americans' health, I think we should be talking about holistically the health that is going on in this country. We have some of the worst health outcomes, but yet we pay some of the highest prices for healthcare. And so what we need to do is we actually need to talk about what people are ingesting in their bodies.
That make America Healthy Again movement is something that is very real and I think people should be talking about the type of food and the type of water that they're drinking to make sure it's safe and healthy for everybody.
TAPPER: Congresswoman, I wanted to bring her in. You're a former teacher, right?
REP. JOHANA HAYES (D-CT): Yes.
TAPPER: I assume that the kids and vaccinations are something you've thought about more than theoretically.
HAYES: Absolutely, more than theoretically, and we have a secretary of Health and Human Services that is dangerous right now, and kids are dying. We have, like you said, haven't had a case, a documented case of a child dying from measles in decades.
But as members of Congress, we can do more than just disagree or do an interview or send out a tweet. We can demand that the funding that we appropriated for these departments should be spent in the way that it was intended. We could demand that the secretary come before Congress and answer questions about what is the plan moving forward. We have actions that our first constitutional rights, according to Article 1, where we can call the secretary in, but no Republican will do that right now.
This is not partisan. We have a role. It is a system of checks and balances. If our constituents are concerned about this very fundamental issue of public health, we should be calling the secretary in to answer these very basic questions and ensuring that programs like PEPFAR are not defunded and we can eradicate the AIDS epidemic, ensuring that we are making sure that we have clean water going into our cities. That's money that Congress has already voted on, already appropriated.
So, for that to be reversed by the actions of one person and the secretary to defy science and, really, on his own, play in conspiracy theories at the expense of our children is incredibly dangerous. And as members of Congress, we have the ability to stop that.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you, Congresswoman. Much more to discuss and many more topics ahead. We'll be right back with more of our town hall, America Asks Congress.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN MODERATOR: Welcome back to our town hall, "America Asks Congress".
We've got our four lawmakers here.
President Trump signed an executive order last month directing the education secretary to begin dismantling the Department of Education.
And on that topic, this next question is for you, Congresswoman.
It comes from Lindsey Stoffa. She is a teacher as well from New Preston, Connecticut. She submitted her question by video. She's an unaffiliated voter who wrote in a candidate in 2024.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LINDSEY STOFFA, TEACHER: Good evening. My name is Lindsey.
As a public school teacher, I'm curious to know your thoughts about public education being sent back to the states. Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAHANA HAYES (D-CT): Well, I appreciate that question and the opportunity to address it because people ask that all the time.
Public education is already handled by the states. Curriculum, instruction, instructional materials are decided by your local boards of education, by your state boards of education.
The Department of Education protects the civil rights of students, and one of the most important and fundamental things they do is ensure that students with special needs are special education students, their rights are protected, and they have what they need.
Seven-point-five million children in this country receive special education services, and our secretary of education, Linda McMahon, didn't even know what IDEA was. The most basic law that covers students with disabilities.
I believe in public education. Forty-nine million children in this country rely on public education. Title I funding comes from the Department of Education. And the kids who will be the most hurt are kids in poor and low income communities, kids in tribal communities.
And this narrative that everything is being taken away from the states is just wrong. It's flawed.
The Department of Education protects the civil rights of students, teacher preparation. They can handle student loans and our Pell grant programs. But they do not govern curriculum and instruction in states. That already belongs to the states.
So, when people say that something was taken away, I don't know if they're asking for states to be able to discriminate, for states to be able to deny civil rights protections, for poor students not to have adequate funding and teachers to serve them.
So, I don't think it's any surprise to anyone here that I believe in public education.
The secretary did an interview, I think it was today, where she conflated A.I. and A1.
This is a person who has no idea what happens in our school, who hasn't had to rely on a public education for her children.
My children and the kids in my community, that's the only school they have. And I'm going to work and do everything I can, make every legislative effort to protect that -- those educational opportunities for them.
COLLINS: Well, Congressman, can I follow up on that with you?
TRAN: Sure.
COLLINS: Because I think there are some people who look at this and they hear that argument that you just made about what the Department of Education actually does and what states are in charge of here, but they look at the numbers that we're seeing with students across the United States, and a third of American eighth graders have below basic reading skills. That is a record low. Nearly four in 10 eighth graders have below basic math skills. So, they may look at that and say, well, the Department of Education isn't even playing a role in any of that. So, maybe this is the right way. What do you say to that?
HAYES: But, they too left that data.
TRAN: Yeah.
HAYES: It's the states, and many of those states have underfunded or not invested in education for decades.
TRAN: 100 percent. And my kids are public school. I was public school. I believe in that system. My sister-in-law is a teacher. Go teachers. Thank you so much for your hard work that you put out there. And we need to do more to fund our school system, not take away. So President Trump and the Secretary taking away, that does not work for our education system.
COLLINS: Congressman Mackenzie.
MACKENZIE: Well, I'll join with the congresswoman. We both serve on the Education and Workforce Committee. So, it's an issue that's near and dear to our hearts. My mom was a teacher, both in public and private schools. I went all the way through the public school system and got a great education. But, as you rightly pointed out, so many students are not receiving the educational opportunities that they need. And so, we need to make sure that that choice and those options are out there.
And when we talk about reform at the federal level, really we're just talking about who is administering certain programs. No funding is going away. It's talking about, does a certain program reside at the Education Department or at another agency? That's all that we're talking about. That is a reasonable question when we're looking at the overall spectrum of what's going on in our education. That is the least of the questions that we should be asking. We have much bigger issues that should be addressed, but they're going to be addressed at the state and local level.
COLLINS: Well, Congressman Mackenzie --
HAYES: Those questions are being answered because the Secretary hasn't even laid out a plan for how services will be delivered. When there was a press conference at this -- when this executive order was signed, what the President said was, don't worry, our students with special needs will be taken care of. As a teacher, I can't walk into an IEP meeting and say that. It is a legal meeting, and the school district has to lay out their plans for how this happens.
So, the fact that the Secretary has not come before Congress and said HHS is going to handle this program, this is how we're going to administer student loans. This is who is going to take over for students with special needs and disabilities. No plan has been laid out. So, I don't know about the American people, but just saying to me, everything is going to be OK is not enough.
COLLINS: Congressman Lawler, is there a plan?
LAWLER: Well, to shut down the Department of Education, it would need to take an act of Congress, and until there is actually a plan to discuss, it's not happening. Now, with respect to what they're talking about, about downsizing, or looking at areas of reform, the fact is, the bigger issue here is education, results and performance. We need an education system that is creating the workforce of tomorrow. We have a shortage of doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, construction workers. We need to have a K through 12 system that gives students options, which means we need vocational schools. We need school choice.
I'm a product of public schools. I believe in public schools. I fought to fully fund public schools in New York. My sister-in-law is a special education teacher in New York. They -- our teachers do a phenomenal job, but we need to re-imagine how we are going to create an education system that educates the students and gives them --
COLLINS: Yeah.
LAWLER: -- the path to a career. That is the fundamental issue. And so, when they talk about the Department of Education, yes, when you're talking about special needs services, when you're talking about civil rights, that is paramount. When you're talking about Pell Grants, that's important. When you're talking about enforcing Title 6 with respect to antisemitism on college campuses, that is critical. But, we need to have a system that is actually focused on delivering results and focused on educating our children. That is the most important part of this.
COLLINS: Well, actually Congressman Mackenzie --
MACKENZIE: Well, let me just close by saying this, though. I think this is the clear difference between our two parties on this educational issue, is those that want the status quo and they don't want any changes, and those of us that are saying our students are in really difficult situations in so many school districts, they're not getting the educational opportunities that they need. We want more choice. We want more options. We want change, and there are people that continue to stand in the way of that, and openly say at Committee hearings in front of the Education Committee that they know better than parents. That is wrong, and we want change. We're demanding it.
HAYES: We have a WIOA workforce authorization bill ready to go. It's been ready to go. Ask the Speaker to bring it to the floor. That's where you talk about choice when you want to talk about job opportunities and preparing the next-generation work force, the bill is there. We could get it passed this time next week.
COLLINS: We will see what Speaker Johnson says about that. It's a great debate between -- between all of you.
Congressman Mackenzie, I'm glad you're standing because I actually have a question for you. This is -- or our town hall has a question for you.
This is Leslie Adams, who is a recently retired energy manager from Orefield, Pennsylvania.
It's great to have you here. You are a Republican who voted for Vice President Kamala Harris last year. What's your question for the congressman.
LESLIE ADAMS, RETIRED ENERGY MANAGER: Congressman Mackenzie, what are you doing to control Elon Musk? He was not elected by the voters and is running completely unchecked. His actions and specifically his treatment of federal workers are heinous.
MACKENZIE: Well, let me say, thank you again for joining us. I know right where Orefield is. I grew up and went to the Parkland school system, so know it well.
And want to say this. Every administration is staffed with unelected individuals who are tasked to carry out the wishes of the president. That is every single administration. That is nothing new in the case of Elon Musk.
And so what is happening right now is, Democrats want to demonize the person that created and popularized the electric car, that created and popularity so many other great inventions, because he wants to come in and look at waste, fraud and abuse. Again, they are fighting against change. They are fighting against cutting waste, fraud and abuse in our government.
That's what people are fighting against when they're fighting against Elon Musk and the DOGE initiative, the Department of Government Efficiency. We spend more than $2 trillion of deficit spending every single year in this country, simply unsustainable.
So the fact that we want to go in and look for efficiencies is actually a good thing that the majority of people support. Now, do I support everything that DOGE and Elon Musk have done? Absolutely not. There are things that have gone too fast, too quickly. And, hopefully, we can rein them in on certain things. That's our job as Congress, that we have a deliberative body.
And we are going to look at the recommendations that DOGE puts forward. And, ultimately, the things that we agree with, we're going to get passed into law.
COLLINS: What have they done that you don't support?
MACKENZIE: Again, there are many instances where they...
(LAUGHTER)
MACKENZIE: I'm happy to answer the question. There are many instances -- and I have already spoken out publicly about this.
When they move too fast and too quick on certain things -- you have to be very careful in government when you're making reforms. I saw it as a Pennsylvania state legislator. We went line by line through that individual budget, and there are a lot of things that look amiss. And you say, all right, well, maybe we should make a change through this, maybe we should rein in that spending.
But, ultimately, when you actually talk to the stakeholders, when you actually get out there and talk to all these individuals, you actually make changes. One thing that I talked about publicly was what they were doing at the Social Security Administration. They were making individuals not be able to use certain services that were already there to adjust their cases.
I actually spoke about that, said that's not correct. Thankfully, the administration corrected course and they're now allowing seniors to go about the normal routines to make sure that their benefits are going to be received.
COLLINS: And, Congressman Lawler, I know you have heard a lot from constituents about Social Security as well when you have been at home for some other town halls.
Today, Elon Musk told the president's Cabinet at a Cabinet meeting that, instead of $1 trillion in savings, they expect to get about $150 billion in savings. What would you say to Americans or your constituents who might be worried that he gave them false hope of what he could achieve?
LAWLER: Well, the question is over the course of a 10-year window, right?
Over the next 10 years...
COLLINS: That was for the next year.
LAWLER: Over the next 10 years, we're projected to spend $86 trillion in spending. The budget resolution that was passed talks about potentially $1.5 trillion in savings. Over 10 years, that amounts to about $150 billion on an annual basis.
Now, he's talking about the work that he is doing and the Department of Government Efficiency is doing, which is basically a turbocharged forensic audit through every department and agency, which hasn't been done in years. And the fact is that we have a federal government that spends $7 trillion on an annual basis, including $1 trillion to pay our interest on our debt.
We have $36 trillion in debt. This is not sustainable, folks. It's not sustainable. Yes, we need to dot I's, we need to cross T's, we need to make sure that, when decisions are made, they are made with all the information necessary and available.
And I have already pushed back on decisions that were made that would have an impact. For instance, the World Trade Center health fund, decisions were made to cut certain staff. I, Andrew Garbarino, Nick LaLota, Nicole Malliotakis, we immediately reached out to the administration. And they fixed the issue.
[21:40:08]
And we make sure that our 9/11 first responders are protected.
But this is a much broader conversation. And I'll just, I know you want to have Derek come in, but Congress has a role and the role is in two forms. Number one is to provide oversight and have committees do hearings. I'm on the Foreign Affairs Committee. We've already done multiple hearings with respect to USAID.
Secondarily, Congress will play a role with a rescissions package. We will decide based on the recommendations from Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency, and all of the secretaries, whether or not the recommendations they're making should be restored.
COLLINS: Congressman Tran, do you want to respond to that?
TRAN: You know, oversight. I heard that a lot. So let's call in Elon. Let's conduct some oversight 100 percent. And here's the thing. I don't like waste. I don't like inefficiency. The American people doesn't like waste or inefficiencies. We're all about that. But how do we go about making sure that we respect those government workers who've dedicated their lives and their careers to working for us?
These are dedicated public servants that they came in and just fired. And I was proud a month ago to introduce my very first bill, Protect Veteran Jobs Act, to force the administration to rehire all of the veterans that were fired without cause, without cause. And I welcome any of my Republican colleagues to sign on to that bill with me because these are people who don the uniform like me.
I enlisted when I was 18 years old to serve this country. You know, they had our backs, and it's now our turn to have their backs. Thank you.
HAYES: I just want to say you have, you're right to be concerned about Elon Musk because he's an unelected billionaire who has a tremendous amount of influence. And it's not the same as a civilian employees that other agencies have had. When he was asked about it, they said he wasn't even in charge of DOGE. They tried to hide the ball.
If he is finding all of this waste, fraud and abuse, come before Congress, lay it out. Not through a series of tweets, not through these unverified reports that he's putting out. And it's very peculiar how at the same time, 7,000 Social Security employees are fired, 6,000 from the Veterans Administration are fired, his company is getting more contracts and making more money off the federal government every day.
And not one word is saying about the level of efficiency through must run agency, through must run federal contracts. He now has Starlink at the White House as a server. What is this? He's aggrandizing himself and no one is even calling him to account and holding him accountable. Everyone should be concerned about that. This is not normal. This is not regular for one person to have that kind of access over every agency, over people's data, over security systems.
When you are elected after the election, you are everybody's president. I am everybody's congresswoman. And the fact that so many Americans, Republicans, Democrats, independents are concerned by this should be enough for us to have some kind of action to help to ease people's level of discomfort and explain to them this is what is happening.
If he has found all of this waste, fraud and abuse, we don't want that either. But what we're talking about is burning down the house instead of taking -- I'm still talking, please.
LAWLER: Is there one thing you agree with?
HAYES: What we're talking about -- what we're talking about is burning down the house instead of taking out the garbage. There is waste in the federal government. All of us would like to see that go so that we can help the people.
LAWLER: So can you identify one thing of waste that you --
HAYES: Mr. Lawler, can you please let me finish my --
LAWLER: Can you identify one thing of waste? You've been talking for three minutes.
HAYES: Can you please let me finish my -- can you let me finish my conversation? And I'm going to finish.
LAWLER: OK. HAYES: And I'm going to finish.
LAWLER: Can you find one thing of waste that you disagree with?
HAYES: So when we -- what is your question?
LAWLER: Can you identify one thing of waste that they have found that you actually agree with that it should be -- it should be eliminated?
HAYES: Well, today, I don't know if it was verified or not, but they said that people took advantage of the unemployment system. Anyone who breaks the law and steals federal dollars should be prosecuted.
LAWLER: And the only way to get that information is to actually analyze the data.
HAYES: Anyone who does that should be prosecuted. And we have processes and policies to do that. But for one person to make those decisions, everyone should have a level of concern by that.
LAWLER: Respectfully, in order to actually uncover that, you need to analyze the data. They have people that are career employees of each department.
HAYES: Who are they?
LAWLER: But each department --
HAYES: Who are they?
LAWLER: -- that are working as part of --
HAYES: Who are they?
LAWLER: -- this entire Department of Government Efficiency.
HAYES: Who are they?
LAWLER: And the bottom line --
HAYES: Who are they?
LAWLER: You're talking about uncovering the fraud.
HAYES: Who are they?
LAWLER: What exactly has been uncovered under the Biden administration?
HAYES: Who are they?
LAWLER: They're career employees.
HAYES: Who are they?
LAWLER: I know you think this is like some big stunt, but the fact is --
HAYES: Who are they?
LAWLER: You're talking about career employees that are part of each department, that are working with the Department of Government Efficiency to uncover the information.
So, you say you support the uncovering of the unemployment fraud. Well, how do you think they got that information?
HAYES: Do you have a list?
LAWLER: Do you know how they got the information?
HAYES: I'm not sure if the Republican Conference got a list of the employees at DOGE because we didn't. So, that information has not been availed to us. So, if there are employees, career federal employees who are working within the system to find this information, we'd love for you to share that with us.
LAWLER: Well, there's a list. But the bottom line is you should be more concerned about the amount of fraud that has already been uncovered. When you're talking about Small Business Administration giving out $300 million of loans that have not been paid back using Social Security numbers that are fraudulent, that is a problem. And if you don't think that's a problem, please, let everybody know.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: So, we are going to squeeze in a quick break and we'll be right back with more of our town hall, America Asks Congress.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: And we are back with more of our town hall, America asks Congress, and, Congressman Tran, this one's for you. Kevin Barrios is from Fullerton, California. He submitted his question by video. He is a server and union representative and he is an independent voter who went for President Trump.
Let's roll that tape.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN BARRIOS, SERVE AND UNION REPRESENTATIVE: Recently, the state of Wisconsin voted for voter ID. Is this the direction the nation will be headed to? If not, what would it take for securing our elections?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DEREK TRAN (D-CA): Look, I -- I appreciate the question from him.
And, you know, our election system in California is very secure. Across this nation, there's a reason why we have the individual states running our election. You know, just last night, the Republicans passed a bill, the SAVE
Act, which makes it more difficult for women and military personnel to cast their votes.
You know, I believe in enfranchising folks, so then they can vote and have access to -- the ability to -- to register and exercise their right.
But, you know, when we're playing with conspiracy theories about elections being rigged, that's a dangerous path that we're going down. And that's the Trump path.
And unfortunately, you know, that's where this nation's at.
But we got to move away from that and start looking at each of these state elections and -- that's run by hardworking county officials as an integral part of our election process.
So, I appreciate that question. Thank you.
TAPPER: Let me bring in Congressman Mackenzie, just to -- for clarification. The SAVE Act requires that you prove your citizenship when you register to vote. And there are people out there, married women, who are concerned because 50 percent of Americans don't have a passport, so they can't prove their citizenship with anything other than their birth certificate. And these married women have a different name now than they did when they were born.
So how do you address that concern?
REP. RYAN MACKENZIE (R-PA): Well, I think it's very clear that we do want voter ID. Over 80 percent of the public wants voter ID. Whether they're Republican, Democrat, independent, every single category has a majority of individuals that want people to verify their citizenship and their legal, eligible status to vote.
We use ID for almost everything in today's society. I don't need to go through the litany of places that you have to present an ID.
But one thing that has already happened is the federal government has passed requirements for real ID, very similar to what is in the SAVE Act. We didn't hear those complaints about real ID, and people are going through that process right now in Pennsylvania.
And when you see people going through that process, nobody is being disenfranchised. Our office in a very small number of instances is helping people get the proper documentation so that they can comply with real ID.
Again, these inferences that people in certain categories are going to struggle to get documents, I think is a disservice to those individuals. They're fully capable of doing it. And if they need proper government documentation that is already out there, and they're legal citizens, we're happy to help them get that from the federal or state government. KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN MODERATOR: Speaking of what Republicans are
doing on Capitol Hill, Congressman Lawler, today, your party voted to advance a budget blueprint after agreeing to -- to large spending cuts. There have been concerns from voters that that will result in cuts to their benefits. I know this has been a big thing that you've been discussing with House Speaker Mike Johnson, and we're seeing doing so today.
Can you assure voters that there won't be cuts to Medicaid as a result of that?
REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): Just on the issue of the SAVE Act, the fact is, in New York City, Democrats tried to allow non-citizens the right to vote in New York City elections. We took them to court. The New York State Court of Appeals ruled in our favor that it is unconstitutional. The SAVE Act ensures that everyone proves their citizenship.
Now, with respect to the budget blueprint, this is a document that allows us to begin the process of negotiating a reconciliation bill. There is not one identifiable cut in the budget resolution. This is all going to be negotiated.
I've been very clear. I will not support cuts to eligible beneficiaries on Medicaid, whether it's within the IDD community, our seniors, our children, single mothers.
The fact is that they need these benefits. They are entitled to them, and we want to make sure that they are protected.
At the same token, you have in New York state, $1.2 billion of taxpayer money being spent on illegal immigrants with respect to Medicaid. You have a situation where you have able-bodied adults who are not working.
So, what we're talking about is work requirements for able-bodied adults. We're talking about citizenship verification. We're talking about speeding up the process for eligibility verification.
Joe Biden lessened it to a year. We want to speed it up to every quarter to make sure that somebody who is on Medicaid is actually eligible for it.
Why would we leave somebody on the system who's not eligible for an entire year collecting benefits? That takes away from the very people who need it.
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: So, Congressman, you're talking about --
LAWLER: That is what we're talking about. And we've been very clear that we are not taking away benefits from individuals who are eligible.
COLLINS: So, if it cuts any benefits to Medicaid, will you vote no on that?
LAWLER: I'm a no, I've made that abundantly clear. This is not, by the way --
COLLINS: Congressman Hayes can I get you to respond to that as well.
LAWLER: -- this is not a Medicaid bill, by the way, this is a primarily a tax bill. And what I am focused on, one of the biggest things I'm focused on is lifting the cap on SALT and providing immediate tax relief to hardworking Americans --
COLLINS: Thank you, Congressman.
LAWLER: -- and by the way, if we don't pass the tax bill, it will be the single largest tax increase in American history, including cutting the standard deduction, which was doubled under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, that would impact every single American across the board.
COLLINS: Congresswoman, can you respond to that please?
REP. JAHANA HAYES (D-CT): Thank you. I would like to just on the SAVE Act, a real ID does not prove citizenship. So that would not be enough for a person to vote, and you would have to register in-person. So, our service members who are overseas would not be able to mail in. You have to register and re-register in-person. With respect to the budget that was voted on. Congressman Lawler is correct. It doesn't say anything specifically about Medicaid, but if you understand congressional budgets with this framework, the Energy and Commerce Committee was asked to cut $880 billion, there is no way to make those cuts without making cuts to Medicaid. That's just facts.
When you look at the committee on agriculture, we were asked to cut $230 billion there's no way to make those cuts without cuts to snap --
COLLINS: Congressman (inaudible) what is your response to that? Because that is the debate that is playing out on Capitol Hill --
HAYES: Even these programs are not -- are not spelled out explicitly. There's no other way to get there.
REP. RYAN MACKENZIE (R-PA): Well, I'm glad she's recognizing that they aren't spelled out, because Democrats have been fear-mongering for months telling people that $880 billion was going to be cut out of Medicaid, simply untrue. So, I'm glad you acknowledge that tonight that those cuts are not spelled out in the legislation. But what we should recognize is that we, I've been in these meetings with Representative Lawler, we have made it explicitly clear to the Speaker and our leadership that we want to protect Medicaid for the vulnerable individuals, low-income seniors, people with disabilities, children, those that actually need Medicaid. We want to protect those benefits just like we want to protect benefits for Social Security and Medicare. So we're going to make sure that those benefits are protected.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want to ask --
HAYES: Explicitly clear in a meeting is different than voting for a framework where there's no other way to get there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want to bring in --
HAYES: And what I would like for people to do is just pay attention, because as we go into negotiations for how we make these cuts, we have to go before Committee. It has to come back. Today's vote was just the first step. There's no other way to make these cuts.
MACKENZIE: I'll just wrap up by saying this, I appreciate that statement. You are correct that we actually do need to wait until legislation is voted. I reserve my right to vote yes or no on those final policy changes, and until I see that, I'm not going to commit my vote one way or the other.
LAWLER: And that's the whole point when you're negotiating legislation, you actually have to sit down in meetings and talk, and that's what we're doing. And we've made it expressly clear to the Speaker, to the President, to our colleagues, we are not cutting Medicaid benefits from eligible recipients, period. Illegal immigrants. No, they should not be getting Medicaid benefits. People who are able bodied, they should be trying to work. Medicaid is a means tested program that is there to support people in their time of need. We don't want to have a lifelong dependency on it if somebody doesn't need that, if somebody is requires long-term care, of course, we want to protect those people and make sure that the services are there.
REP. DEREK TRAN (D-CA): I just want to point out that it's simple math, 1.5 trillion in cuts. Where is that going to come from? They have not been able to stand up here to tell you where that's coming from. It's Medicaid, it's SNAP programs. They're talking about negotiations on, but they're sitting at 1.5 --
LAWLER: Respectfully, Derek, we're talking about over 10 years, $86 trillion in federal spending. And over that 10-year window, potentially, if we can agree to what the savings would be 1.5 trillion over 10 years, that's 1.7 percent of the overall federal spend. Your position is what there should be no savings at all. Spend all 86 trillion with nothing.
HAYES: You're leaving out something very important in this bill. It also includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and $7 trillion in deficit spending. It raises the debt limit. So all of this talk about efficiency and making sure that we are paying down the debt, if we're finding all of these savings from all of these federal programs, why are we coupling it with additional tax cuts and deficit spending. So there isn't a balance. Every Republican president since Nixon, turned over an economy where that had a worse deficit than they inherited. Every Democratic president since Kennedy turned over an economy that --
