Ro Khanna Does NOT Back Down...Puts MAGA On The Spot

Mr. Berry, you're the co-host coauthor of project 2025, the labor section, am I correct? The lead author on that section. Correct. - Go down this list. - I want to get some facts out. There's been so much conversation about who's for working families and what we're going to do for the working class. I just want to get some facts out in that report. You call for the repeal of Davis-bacon and say that Congress should enact a law that makes it illegal to pay prevailing wage for union employees. Is that correct? I appreciate the chance to correct to correct the record. That is, that is actually not correct. The the draft, the the chapter expresses no view. There is an alternative view not attributable. So you don't think there should be a repeal of Davis-bacon? The the chapter does not take a position. Do you have a view of whether there should be? Honestly, I think it's complicated and I don't I don't. Do you in the chapter it says that you should end Project Labor agreements and project labor requirements. - Are that. - Correct? Same. Same issue. Congressman, you you don't agree with that or you say that the report doesn't call for that. The the chapter does not does not speak to the issue directly. There's a dissent that does I don't take a position. What about the rescinding of regulation prohibiting the discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status and sex characteristics? Do you believe that we should be repealing any regulations to prevent discrimination on that? I'm blanking on exactly which which regs we're talking about, but but yes, I support what is what is in there on those issues. Yes. - Would you reject Charlie Kirk's. - I don't know what his intention is. I mean. Would you commit to not going on the Charlie Kirk Show again if he's advocating the Great Replacement? What Charlie Kirk has said is that he was pleased that Vivek Ramaswamy finally talked about the great replacement theory on the campaign trail. And the great replacement theory is basically that there's some intentional Idea of replacing white Americans with brown and black Americans for additional votes, or the diluting of America you've rejected. I would have to have a discussion with Charlie Kirk and find out what he means by what he says. But you reject the theory, correct? It depends what his meaning of his theory is. What does he mean by that? I mean, I read stuff in the media every day about me. That's not true. Well, what is it that you would think is a reasonable view of it? Again, I don't think what's happening is replacing white Americans. I think it's bringing in a large group of people who who, the left thinks will be future Democratic voters or won't change them out with the census numbers going to change, you know, the seats in the House and all that stuff. But I'd have to talk to Mr. Kirk and find out what his views are and what he means by that. You believe there's an intentional effort by who to. To try to get more Democratic voters? I mean, what is it that you're your belief is. I've been asked why I think they support open borders and bringing millions of people in. And as I testified earlier, you were not here. I don't understand why anybody would want to unsecure a border. I don't see any downside in a secure border. So there has to be some sort of political. The. Last question on this is that just your speculation or do you have any. I mean, that's a very serious charge to to launch on. It's just one option out of the many. I do I have direct evidence that's happening. - And who do you. - Think is doing it. The Democratic Party operatives or other people? I mean, who's leading this in your view? You know, I think you need to ask the administration, why did you open the border and why do you want millions of people crossing the border and be released in the United States? That's a question for them. And do you believe that that constitutes a taking. Congressman, again, it's not an area that I specialize in. I just I guess I don't understand how being the assistant general counsel, you can come before the United States Congress when you're suing the United States government, saying that we are taking your property. That's a that's a very serious charge. I think it is shameful what you and the pharmaceutical companies have done in suing the United States government to protect those profits. And you are totally unprepared to answer a single question about what takings the Takings Clause is and the justification for that lawsuit. I mean, I really believe, hopefully someone in the company and these other pharmaceutical companies can provide the American people with an explanation why you consider Medicare, negotiating those drugs to lower those profits, those obscene profits, a taking when you don't consider that for the Veterans Affairs Administration or Medicaid. Two thirds of the world's cobalt production comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Hunter Biden has been heavily involved in the 2016 sale of a cobalt mine in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to a company that is a Chinese company. He was very involved, the New York Times has reported on his level of involvement. So do you mean to tell me that Joe Biden, who was then was was a former vice president of the United States, then candidate for the presidency of the United States, now president of the United States, had no idea that his son was engaged in the sale of a cobalt mine to a Chinese company. We need to show more respect across the aisle for public service, for the office of the president. We need to stop the character assassination, and we need to stop going after people's families who have nothing to do with political office. They cheapen the culture in America. When the president of the United States is out in a stretch limousine, and he tells members of Congress that not only were they protest signs, which is the First Amendment, not only are they people hurling insults at him, but that there's a ten year old boy with his middle finger up at the president of the United States. Something is wrong in this country. When the president is out to pay his respects to the Queen and people in England are chanting, let's go, Brandon, to the president of the United States, something is wrong in this country. Representative Comber says, let's make a deal. I say, let's make a deal on both the Bidens and Trump's. Don't go after family members who have nothing to do with government. I would never say that someone should go after Barron Trump. I would never say that someone should go after Donald Trump's cousins or uncles or aunts that have nothing to do, or his sister, or people who have nothing to do with government. And we should not go after President Biden's family. For people who have nothing to do in government. Just to be clear, you would repeal any regulations that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and sex Characteristics. The position is that Bostock should be read properly, narrowly. And not extended to the biological areas like bathrooms that we've been discussing. Today. But that's not what the report says. The report says. Basically, you don't want any regulations that prevent discrimination against gay people and people based on sexual orientation or gender identity. I mean, that's what you call for in the report. The chapter accepts Bostock according to its terms and but resists its extension to areas where it doesn't apply. I think I mean, I'm just quoting directly it says rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics. I mean, do you stand by that statement? I stand by what it says in the chapter. Yes. So just to be clear, I mean, that basically means you don't believe that we need to have laws to protect people from discrimination. If someone is gay or someone is transgender, you think that there should not be laws to protect them. Let me go on to one other issue. In this report. You say that we need to be scheduling civil employees as scheduled employees, which means that the president would have the authority to fire about 50,000 civilian employees if she or he wants to. - Is that correct? - Someone else said responsibility. I do support that as a policy matter that the ultimately the president and people accountable to the president should be the ones setting our executive branch policy. So I mean, under this scenario, if, for example, if President Trump returns to office, he would be able to fire about 50, 000 people who are currently civil servants and bring in people who are more consistent with his ideology. And you're recommending this as a policy, correct? Having more political accountability is a very good thing. I just want to know I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm saying for a fact. So you support the idea that Donald Trump could come in hypothetically, if he wins the election, fire 50,000 civil employees and replace them with people who support his ideology? I, I support, I support the schedule f idea. Yes. And that means that if he wants to take civil servants with the Justice Department, State Department and from the Department of Homeland Security, and he says they aren't sufficiently for MAGA, I want to fire these folks, 50,000 of them, and replace them with people more aligned with MAGA. He would have the ability to do that. Currently, there are only 4000 political appointees. You want him to have the authority if he wins the election to have 50,000 people replaced? - Correct? - It's a lesser civil service regime. It's not the same as political appointees, but political policy responsiveness is appropriate when it comes to any employee who touches on public policy, which that class would. I'm directionally correct. I mean, I think the American people should decide whether they want that or not. You're basically saying he should have the ability to fire up to 50,000 people if they're not doing what his ideology is, and replace them with people more consistent with his ideology, and reclassify these folks as schedule F, correct 100%. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Hoffman, you have said that you plan to lead the largest mass deportation operation in history. Is that your aspiration? The largest illegal immigration crisis on the border is going to have to result in the largest deportation operation, because most of them will get removed. I'm just using your words. - You stand by that? - Yes, absolutely. What is that? Does that mean that you're telling the American public. I'm just trying to understand if they're ten, 11, 12 million undocumented, I don't know how many. Do you think that any one of those folks, if you're in charge, is going to face potential deportation? I think if you're in the country illegally, you need to be concerned because you're in the country legally. So you're you're you're telling basically any American today or any undocumented person here today, 11 million that your goal, if you get power again is you're going to lead the largest mass deportation of all of them. Correct. The biggest illegal alien crisis on the southern border. Millions of people crossing. No, no. You got to put it in perspective. If you believe in due process and have the right to claim asylum. They have the right to due process and see a court when those final orders are issued if they're not executed. And what the hell are we doing? I just want to. I just want people to know what? What happens if you come into power? You've been pretty candid about it. So, you know, I think it's important for people to to understand. Now, I assume that you reject this great replacement theory. Correct. The numbers are the numbers. So this conspiracy theory of great replacement, that somehow there's an intentional effort to replace white Americans with Americans who look like me. You reject that theory? Correct? Yes. I don't think it's about replacement. Mr. Edlow, do you clearly reject the great replacement theory? Yes. That's not what this is about. Would you reject Charlie Kirk, who has said that the Great replacement theory is something that more Republicans should embrace. Would you reject his characterization? - I have. - Not. I'm not aware of his characterization. If he's advocating for the Great Replacement. I can only speak for myself. I'm not, I'm not. Would you reject any persons who advocates for the great replacement theory? I'm not. I'm not. Mr. Coleman, would you reject Charlie Kirk's. I don't know what his intention is. Do you have any sense that this administration doesn't believe in secure borders? And what would be the top three policies that you would implement to secure the border? Well, first of all, this administration is removing record numbers of people. And in fact, a higher percentage of people who cross the border than were removed in 2019 and 2020. So the idea that they have no interest in this, they don't want to remove people. I mean, if they did that, why did they have cages? Why do they have all the things that you've you've talked about? It's logistical issues. Congress has funded 34,000 beds and that's how many people arrive in in four days at the border. That's why people are being released. The the the solution to this is legal immigration. We need to resolve how we want people to come to this country. Have a conversation about that. And once we agree that people are good immigrants contribute to this country, then we can have a conversation about how should they come, what's the way, what's the mechanism? Because right now there isn't any for the people who are showing up at our border. Thank you. Thank you, Mister chairman. Miss Wayne, what drug does imbruvica. What? What does it treat, Congressman? I recognize imbruvica is one of the products that we do market. I'm not exactly sure. It's okay. I'm not trying to trick you. It treats leukemia. Do you know what the price that Johnson and Johnson has set for it? - I do not have that on. - It's. It's $484 per capsule per tablet, which works out to about $14,000 per month, which works out to about 16,000 $160,000 per year for leukemia patients. Now, do you know or I can tell you how much money gross revenue the Johnson and Johnson has made from this drug over the last ten years. Congressman, it's not something that I am an expert at, not something I'm here to testify to. $22 billion. Do you know the gross profits of Johnson and Johnson in 2023? I couldn't tell you that. $65 billion. So just to recap, you've got a pill for leukemia patients. You sell it at $484 per capsule. That's $160,000 a year. You've made $22 billion over that over the last ten years, and you're making a $65 billion in profit. Now, we have passed as a Congress, and the president has signed a bill saying, you know what? Let Medicare negotiate to try to bring that price down. And you and your department because you're assistant general counsel have filed a lawsuit saying that that negotiation would be an unjust taking. Let me ask you this. Do you believe when the Veterans Administration negotiates for drug prices with you, that that is a violation of the Takings Clause? Congressman, I appreciate the question. The bases for our litigation against HHS with respect to the Inflation Reduction Act are fully disclosed in our complaint. I'm not an expert in this area. You're here. You're the assistant general counsel for a company that is accusing the United States government of taking your property, because we're negotiating, and you can't answer a simple question about I'm just a yes or a no. Does the Veterans Affairs negotiation with Johnson and Johnson constitute a taking? Congressman, we believe that the IRA constraints. No, I. Don't I don't I'm not asking you about the IRA. I'm asking you about do you believe the Veterans Affairs when they negotiate? Does that constitute a taking. Congressman, again, that is not a litigation that I have great familiarity. Okay. So I'll just say you don't want to answer that question. Do you believe when Medicaid negotiates and gets a rebate for anything over the price of inflation, do you believe that that constitutes a taking. Congressman, again, it's not an area that I specialize in. Taking means like if I came into the government with force, took your property and you don't know whether it's a taking whether when the Veteran's Administration negotiates, you don't know whether it's a taking whether Medicaid negotiates, I assume you would say it's not a taking, because obviously it's not a taking. These these administrations have been negotiating for years, and yet you're arguing that Medicare should when they negotiate, it's a taking Medicaid. Do you know how many percent of the American population is on Medicare? Congressman. No, it's 18% about do you know how many are on Medicaid? - Congressman. - No, about 18%. So it's not like Medicare has a bigger market. Medicaid negotiates with 18%. Do you know about how much is on in how many of our people are veterans? It's about 6%. So you have already a larger population when you combine Medicaid and Veterans Affairs. Negotiating with your company so that you don't make $65 billion in profits every year. And so leukemia patients don't pay 160,000. You have filed a lawsuit. I think it is shameful what you and the pharmaceutical companies have done in suing the United States government to protect those profits. And you are totally unprepared to answer a single question about what takings the Takings Clause is and the justification for that lawsuit. Mr. Chairman, I hope someone will answer my questions on that and I yield back my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, about how many Palestinian women and children have been killed by Israel since October 7th? - It's over 25,000. - Mr. Secretary? Yes. Last week, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights warned that any transfer of weapon or ammunition to Israel violates international law. About how many precision guided munitions has the United States given Israel since the beginning of the war? I don't have that number at my fingertips, but we have endeavored to state. It's about 21,000 precision guided munitions to Israel since the start of the war. Secretary Austin, last week you spoke to Defense Minister Galant, and you said, clearly, there needs to be a plan to ensure the safety and support of those sheltering in Rafah before any military operations proceed. National Security Advisor Sullivan has said he has not seen any plan yet. John Kirby said it would be a disaster to invade Rafah if Netanyahu defies the United States and invades Rafah. Will you commit today that you will halt any future military sales to Israel? Obviously, sir, that's a that's a presidential decision. But, you know, we expect that. And by the way, I spoke to Minister Galant last night And I expect that when we provide munitions to to allies and partners, that they'll use them in a responsible way. But would you make a commitment that they've defied what we're saying? And they violate international law, by the way, which is opposed to National Security Memorandum 18 and National Security Memorandum 20, that if they don't do what we're saying, that we would halt those arms sales or transfers. Again, the bill, the decision to halt the provision of security assistance would not be mine. - It would be. - What would you recommend? Well, I certainly again, I, I really do expect that that they utilize the weapons that we provide them in a responsible way. And then if they don't, I just. Want to for time purposes, it seems to me if they're defying what you're telling them, what Kirby is telling them, what Sullivan is telling them, that wouldn't be responsible. Cindy McCain, the head of the World Food Program, has said that the Palestinian children are starving extremist settlers. Storm rich. Israel's finance minister stopped American flour, which our taxpayers paid for to get into Gaza. If Israel again ever stops American paid aid from getting into Gaza, will you commit to not sending future arms sales? Again, that's, That's not my decision. I would I would number one, do what I've been doing and engage the leadership and encourage them to, to ensure that humanitarian assistance is getting stronger. I would just say and then one more question that you we need some consequences when another country is defying you, defying the national security adviser, defying the president, defying national security Memorandum 20, there has to be some consequence. And then I was surprised. John Kirby said that Israel is taking more precautions than the US military would to protect civilian life. Mr. Austin. Secretary Austin, isn't that statement inaccurate, given Israel has used hundreds of 20 200 0 pound dumb bombs when there were no places for civilians to go? Would the US government ever target terrorists with 200 0 pound bombs in a densely populated area? Well, we I mean, it depends on the on the situation. And again. Would we have we done that put use 45% of bonds that are unguided or at 300 0 pound bomb. I mean, do you really think that the Israeli government is taking military is taking more precautions than the United States military would? I think. You know, just based upon the results in terms of the, the the significant loss of life. Gentleman's time has expired. Chair, I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Gallagher. It should be done. I will vote no today on the 17 billion aid package, which provides a blank check to Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir and the extreme right wing government in Israel. How dare Dear Ben-Gvir. Israel's national security minister have the gall to criticize America while calling for the mass expulsion of Palestinians. I will vote no because this bill includes zero humanitarian aid while children are dying and 400,000 Gazans face famine. I will vote no because this bill undermines human rights and international law, ignoring the recent ICJ decision calling on Israel to do more to protect Palestinian civilians. I will vote no because it is painfully obvious to the entire world that what is needed today is a permanent cease fire and a release of all hostages. There come moments in a nation's history when our actions reveal our values. This is such a moment. We must stand for stopping the bombing, for ending this brutal war, and for justice in the Middle East with a Palestinian state with equal rights, living side by side with Israel.