This is the Washington Journal for May the 1st, a two-hour program today as the House is coming in at 9 o'clock.
President Trump encountered a possible concern in his economic plans as the gross domestic product for the first quarter of 2025 showed a shrinking of 0.3% this after other quarters of growth.
Analysis of the event point to President Trump's efforts on tariffs as the main cause of the president saying yesterday efforts on the economy would take time.
When it comes to matters of the economy, give us your thoughts this morning on if President Trump's actions are making the economy better or worse.
Here's how you can let us know this morning.
202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, and Independents, 2027-8002.
If you want to text us on whether you think the actions of the Trump administration are making the economy better or worse, you can do that too at 202-748-8003.
You can post on Facebook at facebook.com slash C-SPAN and on X at C-SPANWJ.
Here's how the major papers are taking a look at that news yesterday released about the gross domestic product for the first quarter of 2025.
The Washington Post with their headline, tariffs sapping economy already, highlighting that decline.
Also adding that imports surge as firms move up their purchases.
That's the Post.
USA Today with their headline.
On day 101 for Trump, economy hits a snag.
Markets teeter as data shows first contraction since 2022 is how they report on it.
The Wall Street Journal this morning, this is their headline.
Economy shrinks as tariffs take toll.
And they write this.
Consumer spending, the economy's main engine, rose at a 1.8% pace in the first quarter, the smallest increase since mid-2023.
Spending by the federal government fell as the Department of Government Efficiency cut jobs and contracts.
But the main driver of the first quarter contraction was President Trump's trade war.
Net exports, the difference between what the U.S. imports and exports subtracted nearly five percentage points from the headline GDP.
That was the biggest quarterly drag from net exports on record, dating back to 1947, is how the Wall Street Journal plays it out this morning.
So on the larger issues of actions on the economy, if you think that the president's actions are making things better or worse, call and let us know.
202-748-8000 for Democrats.
202-748-8001 Republicans.
Independents, 202-748-8002.
This is the headline from the Washington Times as they report on the economic matters this morning.
Trump blames, quote, overhang for recession fears.
And that subhead, economy shrinks in the first quarter, leaving blemish on the first 100 days.
That overhang statement came during back and forth with reporters during the president's cabinet meeting that you can still see on C-SPAN yesterday, but from yesterday.
But here's a portion of that in which he talks about matters of the economy.
An indicator, but what the stock market really tells you, and what you when you look at the stock market in this case is it says how bad a situation we inherited.
I took place, this is the quarter that we looked at today, and I took, we took all of us together.
We came in on January 20th.
So this is Biden, and you could even say the next quarter is sort of Biden because it doesn't just happen on a daily or an hourly basis.
But we're turning it around, it's a big shift to turn around, and we're going to have the greatest country financially in the history of the world.
I believe.
I think we're going to do things that, and we had to do it.
We reset the table.
We were being ripped off by every single country with just about without exception.
I'd have to really think hard for who hasn't taken advantage.
And I don't even blame those countries.
I blame the person that was sitting right here where I am for allowing it to happen where our country was ripped off on trade hundreds of billions of dollars.
And now we're doing better than we've done in a long time.
You know, we were losing four to five to even six billion dollars a day on trade with Biden.
And now we have it down to a very manageable number.
And the tariffs, for the most part, haven't even kicked in yet.
So that's the way stock markets to me are an indication.
But the big indication is what's happening, and the people around the table know what's happening.
The president from yesterday, you can still see that on our website at c-span.org, our free video app at C-SPAN now.
The actions of the Trump administration, if it's making the economy better or worse.
Let's hear from Mitchell in New Jersey, Democrats line.
You're first up.
Go ahead.
unidentified
Good morning, Pedro.
The economy is a disaster, and it's going to be a disaster, I should say.
And everything that the president has been saying is just ludicrous.
The whole planning makes absolutely no sense.
It isn't just the tariffs.
I mean, the tariffs are certainly going to accelerate the problems.
But the whole theory that the whole Republican theory that we need to find money to deal with the debt and then passing massive tax cuts makes no sense.
And Trump is just oblivious to the effects that the economy, although he's doing to the economy.
And then the American public is not really going to feel this for a couple of months because it's going to take a while for the supply line to catch up with this policy.
But, you know, I watched a lot of the Sunday shows this past week and his cabinet was all over the place describing what was going on.
And then we have a potential cut, gigantic cut coming in Medicaid.
This country is going to be reeling, reeling by Labor Day.
A lot of the tariffs, because he's going back and forth on electronics, and our whole economy has shifted to almost an app-based economy where it's all digital information.
Joel there in Arkansas, several of you already giving us on the phones.
If you want to make your phone and thoughts known on the phones, 202748-8000 for Democrats, Republicans, 202-748-8001, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
It was in the Senate yesterday where the Senate took a vote when it came to President Trump's tariffs policies.
Fox News reporting on it, saying that the Senate failed Wednesday to pass a resolution rejecting President Trump's Liberation Day tariff agenda.
As several Republicans signaled beforehand, they favored halting the relatively new levies.
And Vice President JD Vance was called in to break an ensuing procedural tie.
The disapproval resolution failed 49 to 49 with three Republicans joining all Democrats present in attempting to throw a wrench in Mr. Trump's tariffs plans.
After that, Senate Majority Leader John Thune put forward a motion to reconsider the resolution, then move to table or kill the initial motion, which procedurally would prevent Democrats from forcing such a vote again.
That vote also deadlocked, but after 80 minutes, Vice President Vance cast a tiebreaking vote in his dual role as president of the Senate.
Let's hear from Donna, and Donna joins us from Pennsylvania Democrats lying.
Good morning.
unidentified
Yeah, hi, Petro.
I just want to say it's horrible.
It's worse.
It doesn't make no sense how the economy's down, the stock market's down, people are losing plenty of money.
The only thing good that Donald Trump did was the border, and he half-ass did that.
You know, I went into the store the other day to get some cat food, fancy seats for my cats, and the shelves were empty, empty.
Didn't have none in it.
So I went to the bigger giant eagles that we have here in Pittsburgh, and that was empty.
And so I said, well, what's going on here?
So I went to the pet store, and I asked the lady, what's going on with the fancy feats?
She said, well, they're going to not be getting it in like they used to get it in, but they'll stock the stores, the pet stores, before they stock the main stores.
So we're in for a fall.
And yesterday, when they sat around at their cabinet meeting and praised Donald Trump as if this was his nine-year-old birthday party, and he sat there with a smile on his face because they're, and Pam Blondie, oh, you're the greatest, you're the greatest president we ever had.
I guess he is, because your pockets are full of money.
All of y'all.
You're still ripping the dag one American people off and your pockets are full of money.
And you Republicans are going to sit up here and say how great he is.
Well, before the tariffs, most households in America allegedly were two paychecks away from being homeless.
Where are they now?
I think the economy is worse.
According to Gavin Newton in the state of California, and I believe other 14 other states are joining in with California to sue the Trump administration because they had figured out their budget in May and the money that they are going to lose as a result of these tariffs.
People that experience the fires in Southern California perhaps will not be able to rebuild due to the lumber all coming out of Canada.
On an individual basis, Florida is the senior citizen capital of the world.
We're dealing with a lot of fixed incomes, and those fixed incomes end up feeding everybody else working in the state of Florida.
The homeowners' insurance has skyrocketed as a result of the hurricanes, which has increased expenses for seniors.
The losses in the stock market have affected their retirement.
And it's only been within maybe the past year that interest rates on CDs or IRAs earned 4% interest when prior to the past year they were earning 0% interest.
So how Trump can say the economy is doing better and how come he still has all of his making sneakers in whatever he's manufacturing over in other countries?
Why isn't he moving his businesses here to the United States?
And that's a viewer in Florida giving us her thoughts on matters of the economy and the president's action.
Somebody who gave her thoughts as well was the president's former challenger for the White House, Kamala Harris.
Politico writing that she returned to the national stage, it was yesterday, and issued a call to action urging Americans to fight back against what she casts as President Trump's ruinous economic policies and assault on democracy.
The former vice president, in her most extensive comments since losing to Mr. Trump, excoriated his trade policies, defiance of federal court orders, and pushed to slash spending for a host of federal programs to those trade policies and other economic matters.
Here's a portion from the former vice president Kamala Harris yesterday.
So look, some people are describing what's been happening in recent months as absolute chaos.
And of course I understand why.
And it's certainly true of those tariffs.
Tariffs that, as I predicted, are clearly inviting a recession.
But friends, please let us not be duped into thinking everything is chaos.
I know it may feel that way, but understand what we are in fact witnessing is a high-velocity event where a vessel is being used for the swift implementation of an agenda that has been decades in the making.
An agenda to slash public education.
An agenda to shrink government and then privatize its services.
All while giving tax breaks to the wealthiest among us.
By the way, an agenda that is not lowering costs, not making life more affordable, And not what they promised.
If you want to listen to the former vice president's comments on matters of the economy and other matters, you can comment on matters of the economy on the phone lines, as you see there.
The Wall Street Journal's analysis of yesterday's GDP report saying it's the first major economic scorecard for the January to March quarter, January, most of which was before Mr. Trump took office was hit by wildfires in Los Angeles and disruptive winter storms in many parts of the country.
The U.S. economy encountered the year, entered the year on strong footing.
It grew at a steady pace in 2024, and inflation continued to ease.
The labor market has continued to hold up in 2025.
So far, they're citing that still businesses and consumers are saying they are worried about the economy due to uncertainty around tariffs and worries that they will bring higher prices.
Let's go to Evelyn.
Evelyn is in Pennsylvania, Republican line.
unidentified
Yes, I hope President Trump is watching.
He's the best president we've had for a long time.
And it's bugging me about the grocery products at Walmart, giant, and a family-owned store named Fables.
Yeah, I'm a common sense Democrat, but I get on here and I hear all these Democrats bad mouthing Mr. Trump.
If everybody pays a little attention after the election on November the 5th, what did our president do from that day till his end of his term?
Absolutely nothing.
He let the country go downhill.
So this.03 decline you have now or whatever they're talking about definitely does fall back on him because what happened then will carry over for at least three months into this next term.
Now, whether or not people want to admit it or not, that's the way it works.
So you're going to have to give President Trump a little time to see what's going to happen.
If I may ask, what gives you the confidence that it will show up, as you said there?
What gives you that confidence?
unidentified
He's done God of God.
The country's already signed up to even up to pay in Phil.
I mean, that's going to be a big thing.
It ain't going to be this, said he's losing five or six billion dollars a day, but the way we had it before, and I know it's going to change because he's got people coming in wanting this change.
But one nice thing, I don't know how come y'all don't say nothing about what Biden cost the United States by getting all he was in besides murdering some of our people.
Christine in West Virginia there giving us her thoughts on matters of the economy, if the actions of the Trump administration making that better or worse related when it comes to economic deals of sorts, saying the Associated Press reporting that after months of tense negotiations, the United States and Ukraine signing a deal that's expected to give Washington access to the country's critical minerals and other natural resources, an agreement that Kyiv says will hope will secure a long-term support for defense against Russia.
According to Ukrainian officials, the version of the deal signed Wednesday is far more beneficial to Ukraine than previous versions, which they said reduced Kiev to a junior partner and gave Washington unprecedented rights to the country's resources.
The deal not being made public, but the Economy Ministry and the Prime Minister's office have offered some details saying the agreement, which the Ukrainian parliament must ratify, would establish a reconstruction fund for Ukraine that Ukrainian officials hope will be a vehicle to ensure American military assistance.
A previous agreement nearly signed, was nearly signed, before being derailed in a tense Oval Office meeting involving the President and JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volmir Zelensky.
Anne is in California.
Democrats line.
Go ahead, Your Honor.
unidentified
Yes, I'm admitted a C-SPAN junkie.
I'm calling from California.
It is now 4 o'clock in the morning.
And I'm calling because I have repeatedly requested copies of the current U.S. congressional directory published by C-SPAN.
And I have received emails from them, from Shelby at the C-SPAN shop saying that there has been a delay in delivery of the recent congressional directory.
I would hope that they would get that thing rectified.
I want to contact my representatives, not only my California representatives, but countrywide, expressing my opinion as to what is going on.
So I hope that C-SFAN shop rectifies the delay in getting delivery of the recent U.S. Congressional Directory.
Real Clear Politics does an averaging of polls when it comes to matters of the economy.
By the way, just to give you a snapshot of what that looks like when it comes to what people think of this handling of the economy.
When it comes to that disapprove-approve, 55% saying at this point of the Trump presidency, the second term saying they disapprove of that, 42% saying they approve.
And then when it comes to handling of matters of the inflation, again, high numbers in the disapproval mark, 59%.
Approval, 38%.
Again, that's an average of polling from the organization, real clear politics.
One more call on this topic from New York in Canton.
I also listened to all these people, and my one concern is, number one, polls sometimes are not clear.
When you really look at some of them, they're over polled by Democrats or over-polled by Republicans.
So I don't take a lot of stock in those.
It's only been 100 days.
And if you look at Trump's first quarter or even his first year, we were in a lot better shape before Biden took place.
And beyond that, prices are coming down.
I'm in upstate New York, and our egg prices are coming down.
Our gas prices are coming down.
And the gentleman that talked about writing the ship, this is not going to take place in 100 days.
There's so much emphasis on the first 100 days, it kind of makes me laugh a little because you have to give for whatever president's in there time to rectify things.
His goal right now is to try to get our manufacturing back to the United States.
Especially with medications, it really scared me.
My daughter has lupus.
My husband died with cancer three years ago, and then my daughter got cancer.
And the medications that we have to live on and get better with are from China.
We are in a very detrimental space in our life right now with China running everything.
I know it's going to be rough for a while, and we have to expect that, but things will turn around.
I think they will.
And there's no cuts in Medicare.
There's no cuts in Medicaid right now.
It's the fear that they might happen, which isn't going to happen.
Virginia there in New York, finishing off this half hour of calls on matters of the economy.
Thank you for all of you who participated.
The house coming in at 9 o'clock, which means a shorter show for us.
And two members of Congress joining us along the way as we go across the morning up later on in the program about 8.30 this morning.
We'll be joined by Democrat Hillary Schulton of Michigan to talk about efforts on Capitol Hill.
But next, Jeff Heard, a Republican from Colorado, freshman Republican to talk about a variety of topics, including matters of the economy.
And that conversation coming up when Washington Journal continues.
Mellon vs. Churchill00:02:19
unidentified
Book TV, every Sunday on C-SPAN 2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
At 6:45 p.m. Eastern, Dylan Mulvaney, creator of the Days of Girlhood TikTok series, speaks about her life before and post-transition in her book, Paper Doll.
Then at 8 p.m. Eastern, British author and journalist Douglas Murray shares his book on democracies and death cults, where he argues that protecting Israel is fundamental to preserving Western civilization.
And at 10 p.m. Eastern on Afterwards, journalist David Graham looks at how parts of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 document are being implemented by the Trump administration in his book, The Project.
He's interviewed by author and George Washington University professor Matthew Dalek.
Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule in your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
After a career in investment management and some time as a credit risk specialist at the U.S. Treasury Department, Jill Eicher has written her first book, title, Mellon vs. Churchill.
The Untold Story of Treasury Titans at War.
It's all about collection of war debts from World War I, which was fought between 1914 and 1918.
Andrew Mellon, a wealthy industrialist, served as Secretary of the Treasury for Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover.
11 years total.
Mellon took on Chancellor of the Exchequer, Winston Churchill.
Jill Eicher tells a story that will be new to most readers.
unidentified
Author Jill Eicher with her book, Mellon vs. Churchill, The Untold Story of Treasury Titans at War on this episode of Book Notes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
Rural Colorado's Medicaid Challenges00:15:32
unidentified
BookNotes Plus is available on the C-SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Well, I felt like rural Colorado is being left behind.
We say our greatest export are kids.
They grow up and they leave and they don't come back.
And my fundamental running, fundamental why for running for Congress is to create economic opportunities so that families in rural America can grow and thrive and stay.
What would you say then when it comes not only to your district but the larger matter of economics?
What are your concerns in the current day of where the economy's at?
unidentified
Sure, the economic climate is something that's really important.
I think that's why people elected me.
Making sure that we grow our energy economy, keep prices low at the gas pump, grocery store, and in our electric utility bills, create opportunities so that businesses, particularly small businesses, can grow and thrive.
President Trump ran on those issues of improving the economy.
Where do you think he's at 100 plus days in?
unidentified
Well, I'll tell you what, we've taken more than 100 votes in the House and we're moving in the right direction.
I see a lot of progress when it comes to energy dominance, growing our energy economy, lowering those prices.
There's always going to be some bumps along the way, but fundamentally, directionally, I think we're in the right direction and we need to work hard to keep pressing forward and advancing that agenda.
Is tariff policy something that impacts those you represent?
unidentified
Yes, it's something I've heard from the people that I represent and I've actually introduced legislation in the House that would restore Congress's authority under Article 1, Section 8 to have a say when it comes to tariffs.
I support the President's goals of onshore and critical manufacturing, growing American jobs, making sure that we can sell American products in other economies overseas, but we need to make sure that we do it the right way, the way that the Constitution contemplates, and that's Article 1, Section 8.
So I've got some legislation that would give Congress review authority with respect to tariffs, and I think that's the right thing both constitutionally and also it's what I promise the people of my district.
When you say that you want Congress to take more of a role, are you suggesting that Congress isn't stepping up to the plate and asserting itself when it comes to tariff policy?
unidentified
I think Congress should have a say in what happens with respect to tariffs.
The legislation that we've introduced would give Congress a 60-day window within which it could review tariffs that were imposed by the executive branch and see whether or not they make sense and whether or not they're the right thing for our country.
Again, just as the Constitution would contemplate.
Aside from legislation, one of the things that you've signed on to, a letter talking about the larger aspects of concerns for Medicaid.
Can you explain that to our audience?
unidentified
Sure.
So Medicaid is an important issue for my district.
About a third of the citizens in Colorado's third congressional district rely on Medicaid.
We need to make sure that we preserve and protect this critical support system for those who are most needy, most vulnerable.
And so I and a number of my Republican colleagues signed a letter that we sent to House leadership and leadership of the Energy and Commerce Committee, letting them know that it's important to preserve and protect this critical safety net for the most vulnerable Americans, pregnant women, children, single moms, the disabled, and so on.
Look in rural Colorado, hospitals are few and far between.
It's difficult to get access to critical care.
Folks here on the East Coast, everything's crunched up and close together.
It's not that way in the West and in my district in rural Colorado.
Traveling to a hospital, it's oftentimes dozens of miles, if not 100 miles, to deliver a baby.
So making sure that we protect those who need it the most in rural Colorado and we support those critical access hospitals, those federally qualified health centers.
It's been reported, I think Punchbowl reported it, that members are set to meet with the head of the Energy and Commerce Committee about specifically possible cuts to Medicaid.
Are you in on that meeting?
unidentified
I am not in on that meeting, at least that I know of.
One other thing I've learned as a freshman, sometimes I don't know what my schedule is until the last minute, so I may be in that meeting.
I don't believe I'm in that meeting, but the message that leadership has and that the chairman of that committee has is we want to preserve and strengthen Medicaid for those who need it most, and it's important that we do that as part of this reconciliation.
One of the big discussions concerning Medicaid and those types of services is finding cuts in order to establish other things to pay for in the matters of the economy, the president's efforts and legislative efforts.
What do you think of that goal of using those cuts to pay for other things?
unidentified
Well, I think that we can realize efficiencies within the system right now.
We are not spending our health care dollars wisely.
We can do a better job of allocating those resources in the right way, protecting the people that rely on that safety net, while at the same time realizing the goals of efficiency and saving money.
So I think we can thread the needle.
I think it's possible.
And I know that the Energy and Commerce Committee is working hard on doing just that.
Freshman Republican Jeff Heard joining us for this conversation.
And if you want to ask him questions, you could do so on the phone lines: 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, and Independents, 202-748-8002 for independents.
You can also text us questions or comments at 202-748-80003.
You said thread the needle.
Where's the place to start in making those efficiencies, do you think?
unidentified
Well, I think one of the important things to look at is making sure that those who need the services the most have the ability to do so, and that those who don't necessarily need Medicaid, who are not interested in working, I mean, those are the folks that we need to make sure that or not eligible.
We need to make sure that those folks are not utilizing the resources that are most worthy of being used for those that need it the most.
There's already, I think, CBO calculated about $50 billion with the B dollars in Medicaid spending that should be directed in other places that's not being spent properly.
unidentified
I think there are efficiencies that we can gain.
I think we can make sure that the people that are on the system are the ones that really truly need it.
And we can make sure that hospitals like the ones I represent in Colorado have the critical resources that they need and make sure that those resources aren't being diverted away from those who need it most.
I know I've heard some concerns from folks that it doesn't work, but I think fundamentally individuals who are able to work should be working or trying to work.
unidentified
One of the things that I would say, though, that I've heard that makes Medicaid a little bit tricky, and this is maybe something we can talk about going down the road, is what's called the benefits, Cliff, where you get a job and you're working, and then all of a sudden your benefits immediately decrease and then you have to pay for private insurance.
Sometimes that creates perverse incentives in the system.
So we need to fix our health care system in a way, including with Medicaid, to make sure that that benefits, Cliff, isn't something that disincentivizes people from trying to find good paying jobs and that will allow them to get off of this support system as I think it is contemplated.
Maybe aligning other benefits like TANF and SNAP and the eligibility requirements for these different programs vary.
It can make things really confusing.
And the result is people oftentimes just want to give up and they say it's not worth getting a job because I'm going to lose these benefits.
Let's find a way that we can maybe gradually decrease, incentivize people to get good paying jobs, better paying jobs, to work hard without having to face the prospect of completely losing their health insurance immediately.
We have calls lined up for you and our first call is from Christina.
Christina joins us from Michigan.
Independent Line, you're on with Jeff Heard, representative of Colorado.
Christina, go ahead.
unidentified
Thank you so much for taking my call and it's a pleasure to talk to you, Representative Heard.
I'm a retired RN, so I work in the medical field in a major city.
As I see it, the problems between the rural areas and the city areas is that the expensive equipment hospitals have to pay for are paid for by the patient youth.
And in rural areas, there aren't enough patients using the equipment for it to be paid for by that hospital.
Therefore, there's a long way to go and you don't have that many hospitals and a lot of them are closing.
I don't know how you solve the problem other than, you know, living in a metropolitan area, we put up with traffic and a lot of other things.
And living in a rural area, you don't have those problems.
But the rural areas want the benefits and none of the resentment things of living in a metropolitan area.
And as I see it, it greatly affects the medical system for the rural areas because there's not enough people to pay for the equipment.
You make a great point, which is we don't have as many people utilizing health care in a lot of these rural parts of the country, and it's harder to make the economics work.
We don't need to make the perfect the enemy of the good, though.
Healthcare doesn't have to be perfect in every aspect in rural Colorado.
We just need it to be good and reliable and quality.
And so I think that there's a line that we can draw that makes sure that folks have the care and access to care that they need, even though it may not be necessarily what they have in the big city with the most expansive, sophisticated equipment.
We can allocate those health care resources in a more effective way, in a way that makes sense for rural Colorado, but also that doesn't harm our health care system overall.
And I don't understand why you guys say that they're actually a liberal organization with programs like Cliffhanger, which was about how Barack Obama and Voehaner was discussing the budget or the president or God in America or any of these other things.
unidentified
What's your stance on public broadcasting since it serves rural areas?
Well, thanks a lot, Steve, for that question.
And hello to California.
Listen, that's a great question.
First of all, diversity of thought when it comes to public broadcasting is important.
We need to make sure that there's a variety of perspectives, that the news that we get across the country through publicly funded stations or partially publicly funded stations has a diversity of opinions, diversity of thought.
I think it's important for us as Republicans and just as Americans to make sure that when the federal dollars are spent on these sorts of broadcasting systems that we have that diversity of thought and we make sure that we're not advancing one particular line of views to the detriment of others.
And, you know, I will tell you as a Republican, I do have some concerns about some of the things I've seen with public broadcasting.
I have not seen this cliffhanger that you mentioned.
I'll have to check that out.
But it's definitely something that making sure that we have that balance is something that's important for me as a member of Congress, particularly when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars.
My comment is, as you know, Medicare does not pay for nursing homes.
Medicaid pays for nursing homes.
We've recently had to put my mother there for advanced Alzheimer's because she was getting dangerous to herself and others.
And I hated to do it.
But these already are not very nice places to be.
And I worry with cuts to Medicaid, which pays for the nursing homes, is going to worsen that condition.
And as the baby boomers are getting older, I think you need more nursing homes, better nursing homes.
This $50 billion a year cut, instead of just putting a number on a cut, why don't you write legislation that says to all the states, if you are single and childless, you do not get Medicaid.
And then let the states implement that and find out what the real number is.
In my own state of Maryland, it's already against the law to get Medicaid if you are single and childless.
That's pretty much, I believe, the law in all states.
So this $50 billion number, it's a farce.
And it's going to hurt old people like my mother in nursing homes.
I'm sorry to hear about your mom, and she's the type of person that needs Medicaid the most.
I understand that Medicare does not pay for that long-term care.
That's the sort of individual that I think should be able to rely on Medicaid.
We need to also just make sure that those dollars are being spent well and that we're utilizing them in the best way that takes care of your mom and others that are vulnerable just like her as well.
I think there's a way that we can make this work.
And you touched on a couple of interesting things.
It's something that we're looking at as Republicans to make sure that ultimately in the end, we're taking care of the most vulnerable populations.
Those who are dual eligible like your mom, but who don't have long-term care.
And I know she has to spend down her money to even get into Medicaid.
The system just, we can do better than that.
And I'm sure that you agree.
And I'm certainly one of those Republicans that when it comes to dual eligible folks like your mom, I'm committed to making a solution that will work and to protecting the most vulnerable populations like your mom, but also making sure that those who are able to work and should be working can work and they're not using Medicaid as a crutch that takes resources away from people like your mom.
The letter that you sent to the House Speaker on Medicaid, what response did you receive from the speaker?
unidentified
The response from leadership was, thank you very much, understood.
We're working hard.
Let's see what Energy and Commerce does.
I'm not on the Energy and Commerce Committee, so I don't have the sort of inside lane to what they're working on.
But it was important for me to let the Speaker and let leadership know that this is something that's important to me in my district.
And fundamentally, the most important, well, I say when I ran for office, the most important priorities for me were the Constitution of the United States in the interests of the 3rd Congressional District of Colorado.
And I think that this letter is certainly consistent with that commitment to the people that I represent.
Well, I think in my case, my Democratic opponent raised over $18 million in hard dollars in a House race, which is unprecedented for most races.
I think it's the third highest fundraising total from anyone in the country other than the Speaker and the minority leader.
And so I had a lot of money spent against me and my race.
It was a tough race.
I ended up winning, but we were part of what ended up being a very thin majority.
And so I think just making sure that when we talk about if we want to advance our agenda, we need to make sure that we have all of the parts of the Republican coalition together and moving in the same direction.
And I think that was an important part of that message to the leadership.
Colorado Representative Jeff Hurd joining us for this discussion.
We'll hear next from Brett.
Brett joins us from Des Moines, Iowa Republican line.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning, gentlemen, and God bless you both.
I'm a 67-year-old retiree.
Now I'm going back to work.
I started working when I was 11.
Anyway, I'd like to tell you that it's unfortunate that we have a fake president, a fake president, and it's unfortunate that we don't look back at the January 6th.
Please answer the question on January 6th.
Goodbye.
First, Brett, greetings to Iowa.
My family, my dad's side of the family was actually originally from Dallas County, just west of Des Moines, so lots of family there and lots of great memories in Iowa.
You know, one of the things I did say on the January 6th issue was I had concerns.
I disagree with the President, the blanket pardon of those individuals that assaulted law enforcement officers at the Capitol.
That was something that I've been clear about.
I've said in the press before, and I've spoken on that issue previously.
You have a background in law and some work when it comes to rural electric cooperatives and the like.
You also serve on the Natural Resources Committee.
What do you think about the President's approach so far to natural resources and energy matters?
unidentified
I think it's a great approach.
Energy dominance.
I know we export more oil than anyone in the world, I know, but energy dominance means making sure that we are not just the most compared to others, but that we're using it in a way that strategically advantages our country.
I think the president's bought in on that agenda, and I'm with him 100%.
We have so much wealth.
We can harness the natural resources in my state and in our country in a way that benefit not only Americans, but peace and prosperity and security around the world as well.
Let's get more natural gas out of our country, helping our allies overseas so that they don't have to rely on countries like China and Iran and Russia for their energy resources.
I think we're off to a great start.
There's a lot of work yet to be done.
But on natural resources, energy and commerce, we're going to do great things for Americans, for our national security, for economic security, and to lower, again, the cost of those groceries that you pay for, the cost when you fill up your tank of gas, and also on your electric utility bill.
We need to do that through abundant, responsible, reliable energy, and we're on the path to do that.
The minerals deal that was signed by the United States and Ukraine.
It benefits Ukraine, but what does it do for the United States minerals-wise?
unidentified
Well, certainly we need to make sure that we are not relying on countries that are our enemies, like China and Russia, when it comes to critical minerals.
I think making sure that allied countries like Ukraine are able to help us with those resources is important.
But I will tell you fundamentally, Pedro, I think we need to onshore some of our critical manufacturing.
I think it's a good thing that we diversify that, that we're working with countries like Ukraine, like others in South America and Asia that are allied with us to develop those critical minerals.
But fundamentally, we need to do that work here in the United States, at least in North America, but preferably in the United States.
My district is one of those natural resource-rich districts.
And look, I love the environment.
I want clean air, clean land, clean water.
We have one of the largest uranium deposits in North America in my district, uranium and vanadium deposits.
We can responsibly mine those resources in a way that protects our environment and also protects national security.
How do you balance expanding energy production in the United States with environmental concerns, especially what it does for land or what it does for climate, et cetera?
unidentified
Well, that's a great question.
I think we can balance it.
If you genuinely care about reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, global greenhouse gas emissions, you ought to support getting as much energy out of Colorado and out of America as possible because we do it better and more responsibly than anyone in the world.
The natural gas that we have, for example, in western Colorado is high quality.
We can offset some of the more carbon-intense generation that's happening in China by exporting gas from western Colorado.
The coal that we have in Western Colorado is high BTU, low mercury, low sulfur coal.
It's the type of resources that we need that will power our economy, that will responsibly let us be responsible stewards of the environment and make life better for Americans and safer for people around the world as well.
I will tell you, as a new candidate, I'd never run for anything in my life before, not even Doug Catcher.
And so being a new candidate, having to fundraise, it's definitely kind of a weird world.
There are probably some improvements that we can make on the campaign finance front, and I'm definitely open to seeing what some of those things would be.
I will tell you, I know it's not campaign finance related, but I will tell you that I'm one of those members of Congress that does not believe members should be buying and selling individual securities.
That's something that I don't do.
I actually sold all of my individual stocks before entering Congress.
I think that's part of that public trust and public responsibility that we have as elected officials to the people that entrust us with these positions of authority and power.
And so just know that when it comes to that issue, I know it's not campaign finance, but when it comes to that integrity in government and doing the right thing by the people that we represent and by our country, I'm committed to taking actions that show that I'm serious about that.
I'd like to ask a question to Representative Heard.
While he's on C-SPAN, which everybody watch, can he guarantee that the cuts that the Republican Party is trying to make will not affect any person that's in older person that's in the nursing home?
What I would say is I have a commitment to the most vulnerable populations, the single moms, pregnant moms, children, the elderly, the disabled, that we need to do everything we can to grow and strengthen our health care system and that the folks that need it most have the resources that they need to take care of themselves.
That's a commitment that I've made to the people that I represent, and I'm committed to good public policy that moves us in that direction.
When it comes to the Emoluments Clause, I think we'll have to see how that process works out.
I don't know specifically what you're referring to, and I trust that there would be a legal process that would be associated with that.
I'd need to know more of the details of exactly what you're referring to before I could intelligently comment on that.
Republicans, on one of the fronts they're making, or at least trying to make, is this idea of extending the tax cuts and possibly incorporating more.
We have a viewer who calls, who texts us from California saying and asking if explain why Republicans want to make permanent the Trump tax cuts when the Congressional Budget Office said it would add billions to the current debt of $37 trillion.
unidentified
Well, I think the reality, Pedro, is that we're facing a huge tax increase, including on middle-class families in my district, if we don't extend these tax cuts.
And if we want to grow and stimulate our economy, I don't think the right thing to do is to take more money out of the pockets of hardworking Americans.
And so fundamentally, for me, this calculus is how is this going to benefit the people of my district?
And I think keeping these tax cuts in place, avoiding that huge tax increase, making sure that families can afford groceries, afford a mortgage payment is fundamentally the right thing to do.
And that's why I'm in support of extending those tax cuts.
The president's tariff policy changes on a regular basis in some cases.
We saw a contraction of the Gross Domestic Party yesterday.
Do those factors about the current state of the economy complicate matters, especially when trying to pass tax cuts?
unidentified
I think we'll have to see.
The other thing I would say is the Congressional Budget Office has been wrong when it comes to their scoring of these things in the past.
That's the other thing I would say, too.
And so I would tell the gentleman from California, the independent voter, to take some of these things with a grain of salt.
And I think the growth that we'll see in our economy is something that is, I think, will be very good, and it's also good fundamentally for Americans.
When it comes to the tariffs, I will acknowledge the uncertainty of the tariffs business.
It's harder to operate businesses, especially big businesses in an uncertain economic climate.
And I say this is somebody that supports the President's goals of onshore and critical manufacturing, of growing American jobs, of making sure that we have more markets to export American goods to.
We just need to make sure that we do it in the right way.
And I do think businesses, when it comes to uncertainty, they restrict their investments or they hesitate to make investments.
And so the sooner we can get to more clarity, I think the better for growing and making sure that we have a prosperous economic climate.
I would like to, first of all, the lady with the mother or mother-in-law in the nursing home, and the woman that called saying the state that doesn't allow single childless men to be on Medicaid.
I am on Medicaid myself.
I'm 77 years old.
And what I wanted to say in Massachusetts is called MassHealth, and it's great for me.
And because I have a very, I am limited to income from Social Security.
But I also feel that I know people that are on it here in this state that should not be on it, free, getting everything free, that are eligible to work and stuff like that.
If they were, I'm fortunate, my Medicare amount of $177 a month is paid for through my Medicaid, and I appreciate that.
But if I had to pay $25 a month or $50 a month, I would think that that would be I was getting away with so much more than most people that I know.
You put your finger on something really important.
It sounds like you're dual enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare.
You're one of the people that I think we need to make sure that we protect and that gets the quality health care that she deserves.
And what I would tell you is we need to make sure that the resources from the able-bodied, otherwise capable of working individuals are allocated.
Those resources are allocated to people just like you.
Not only people like you, but also the single mom who's struggling to get by or the children who are in a situation where it's tough for them to have even food security.
Let's make sure that those resources are used in the right spot.
So I appreciate what you had to say about making sure that those who shouldn't be on Medicaid aren't on Medicaid and that we're strengthening the system of Medicaid and preserving it for the people that need it the most.
What's the most significant thing you've learned since being in Congress?
unidentified
How, let's see, oh, that's a good question.
There's a lot.
I would say how much you have to do in any given day.
When I was a lawyer practicing law, I felt like I was always prepared.
I went into meetings where I knew what was going on in the situation.
Now, oftentimes, I'm talking about water infrastructure on one meeting, and then I'm talking about Medicaid, and then I'm talking about transportation, and then national defense in another meeting.
And the variety of things that you have to do, and how oftentimes you have to rely on a great staff, but also how much of it you're doing just kind of on the fly and learning as you go.
I'm just a small-town country lawyer, is what I say.
Representative Jeff Heard Discusses00:11:27
unidentified
And so, the depth and breadth of what I'm having to do in Washington is a challenge, and that can be a little bit overwhelming sometimes, but it's also exciting.
And I want to do a good job for the people I represent in western and southern Colorado and also for our country.
Coming up at the bottom of the hour, we will hear from Democrat Hillary Schulton of Michigan to take her, get her take on the president's first 100 days and policies going on within the House of Representatives.
But first, it's open forum.
And if you want to participate, go ahead and call 202-748-8000 for Democrats, Republicans, 202-748-8001, and Independents 202-748-8002.
Go ahead and make those calls.
We'll take on Open Forum when Washington Journal continues.
unidentified
Sunday night on C-SPAN's Q&A.
Education Design Lab founder Kathleen Dulaski, author of Who Needs College Anymore?
Questions if the U.S. higher education system with its skyrocketing costs and declining enrollment is currently suited to meet the needs of future generations of students.
The four-year degree college model has been seen for the last hundred years at least as the surefire ticket to better jobs, to the corner office, being a doctor or a lawyer.
And so that's been the aspiration, particularly in the last 50 years, right, for families for their children to be successful.
And I think that's beginning to break down to the point where even the haves, if you think about the haves and the have-nots, even the haves are recognizing that the degree, the four-year degree, is not necessarily achieving the American dream for them or their children.
And it's becoming, you know, the affordability issue, has kind of reached a fever pitch.
And we're kind of looking at how jobs are changing and how quickly skills become obsolete.
unidentified
Kathleen Dulaski with her book, Who Needs College Anymore, Sunday night at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN's QA.
You can listen to Q&A and all of our podcasts on the C-SPAN Now app or wherever you get your podcasts.
As Mike said before, I happened to listen to him.
He was on C-SPAN 1.
That's a big upgrade, right?
But I've read about it in the history books.
I've seen the C-SPAN footage.
If it's a really good idea, present it in public view on C-SPAN.
This is open forum, and if you want to comment on matters of politics, we'll spend an hour or so doing so, an hour doing so until the House of Representatives comes in at 9 o'clock.
202-748-8000 for Democrats.
202-748-8001 for Republicans.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
Mary is in Massachusetts, Independent Line.
First call on this open forum.
Go ahead.
unidentified
Hi, this is Mary.
Have a nice day today, you.
I would just like to say, I did vote for President Trump, but I am concerned about a lot of the issues such as Social Security, Medicare, and his deportations of a lot of the people.
I just want to say one thing.
Congress should be stepping up a little bit on this situation.
John in Illinois there, and this is Clifford in Alabama, Democrats line.
unidentified
Yes, good morning.
I'm listening to these guys that are talking about this Donald Trump hill.
And by mine, this is a godless, immoral man.
And we should stop saying that this is a Christian nation.
This is, you can say it's a conservative nation, but don't say that it's a Christian nation because these people who go along with this cruelty, it seems to be more cruel this guy is.
There are some people that's loving that.
And that's not Christ-like.
But the point that I'm making right now is that this guy bankrupted six times.
What in the world would make you think that he is a smart businessman?
Axios has excerpts of an interview done by Elon Musk with several other reporters, a wide-ranging amount of topics you can read on the Axios website.
One of those topics was Doge.
They highlight that Doge was set up to terminate on July the 4th, but Musk now says his controversial group could help oversee slashing of federal spending through the end of 2028.
Quote, I think so, he said of Doge being extended.
It's up to the president.
It was an hour-long Q ⁇ A session for Mr. Musk, who's planning to scale back his time in Washington.
The top takeaways when it comes to Doge's shortcomings, he said that so far, Doge had cut $160 billion in federal spending, far short of the $2 trillion goal he set last year.
Also saying, in the grand scheme of things, I think we've been effective, not as effective as I like, but we've made progress.
And then he also says under the category of he hasn't always liked his job, the interview saying Musk recounted the backlash he faced for leading Doge and protest and vandalism targeting Tesla dealerships.
Quote, being attacked relentlessly is not super fun.
Seeing cars on fire is not fun.
And it also highlights the fact that he spent time in the Lincoln bedroom, saying that he's been tight-lipped about where he spends his time, but he says he's been there more than once.
He was like, quote, he was quote, he was like, where are you staying?
This is the president.
I was like, I don't know.
At a friend's house, I guess.
And then he was like, well, why don't you stay here?
I was like, sure, close quote.
And saying that Mr. Trump, according to Mr. Musk, once called him late at night and encouraged him to get ice cream from the White House kitchen, quote, don't tell RFK, Musk joked.
Again, there's more there in that interview if you want to read excerpts of it from Axios.
Let's hear from Quentin in Wisconsin, Independent line.
Expand Medicare Coverage00:03:39
unidentified
Hi, Pedro.
I was calling.
I think that a lot of people don't understand that we should not be cutting any part of Medicaid or any part of Medicare.
What we need to do is to expand.
I understand that everybody is saying expand their tax base.
Why don't we then raise the minimum wage to a high enough so that most of these poor working people can have a decent amount of income and they can pay into taxes instead of getting all the income tax credit and all these extra credits that they get.
Why don't we just make sure that they are able to pay to taxes so that we can fund Medicare, Medicaid, and a lot of more people can afford to pay to Social Security without having to go into debt to have their basic needs met?
And I'm 67 and I found the advertising that I have to sign up for Medicare A. Wouldn't we save money if we just didn't make it that you, because Medicare A is free, that you should sign up for it?
I'm covered by my husband's insurance.
And so therefore, I did sign up for Medicare A, not B, but I did that because they said it's free.
Instead of advertising that it's free, why don't they encourage people to postpone if they have insurance covered by, you know, that's my comment.
And I'm wondering exactly how short everyone's memories are because five years ago, we pretty much proved that in order for our society to run, the people who are working minimum wage jobs are the ones we need for our society to work.
unidentified
We need the people who are pumping gas.
We need the people who are stocking shelves.
We need the people who are running registers.
And these people are basically making minimum wage.
And these people need benefits too.
These people need to pay rent.
And I don't understand why we would say, okay, you make minimum, you work, but you're not going to make enough to pay your rent.
You're not going to make enough to do this.
And by the way, you don't get health insurance either because why?
And we already know we need those people.
And should we be discouraging these people from working?
Lynn there in Massachusetts, again, 202748-8000 for Democrats, Republicans, 202748-8001.
And Independents, 202748-8002.
We'll be taking calls up until 9 o'clock when the House of Representatives comes in, a short visit with a representative at the bottom of the hour.
One of the things that the Supreme Court yesterday was a case taking a look at charter schools, particularly of a religious nature, saying that it was a divided Supreme Court.
This is the Washington Post, on Wednesday, appearing to open to allow the creation of the nation's first public religious charter school in Oklahoma, a blockbuster move that could reshape American education and redraw the boundary between church and state.
A ruling for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School would for the first time allow direct and complete taxpayer funding to establish a faith-based school sanctioning government sponsorship of a curriculum that calls for students to adhere to Catholic beliefs and the church's religious mission.
It would be a giant use step for the court's conservative majority in boosting the role of the religion in public life, building on a series of rulings over the last decade affecting schools, the workplace, and the display of faith-based symbols on public property.
Again, if you want to see more of that case that took place at the Supreme Court yesterday, you can go to our website at c-span.org for that.
Also, should highlight the fact that when it came to that religious case, USA Today follows up with a story saying that it was Justice Amy Coney Barrett recusing herself from hearing this case, saying that it was she didn't give a reason, although she didn't give a reason, USA Today reports.
Barrett is close friends with the Notre Dame law school professor who was an early legal advisor to the Catholic Church in Oklahoma.
Her absence means the court could deadlock on a 4-4 decision if they do that would leave in place the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision that religious charter schools are not allowed.
In the same vein of religion, it's the National Day of Prayer that the White House is going to recognize today at a ceremony starting at 11 o'clock.
And if you're interested in seeing this National Day of Prayer ceremony at the White House, you can do that on C-SPAN 3.
You can also follow along on our app, C-SPANNOW and C-SPAN.org.
Let's go to John.
John in North Carolina, Republican line.
Hey, Pedro.
unidentified
Hello.
Interested in hearing more about the case in Oklahoma.
A couple of rules of the road, so to speak, when you call in viewers.
If you've called in the last 30 days, if you can hold off from doing so today, we really would appreciate it.
Also, if you are waiting on to make your comment and your television is on, you're going to hear a delay between what is said here to what you'll hear there.
And sometimes that pauses the conversation.
So if you could just turn that down while you're waiting, we do appreciate it.
Rodney in Louisiana, Democrats line.
unidentified
Hello.
Yeah.
Sister is the day of prayer and a miracle.
What purpose do the day oppress their poor people in this country today?
Rodney there in Louisiana giving us a call on this open forum.
By the way, it was yesterday at the White House that the trade advisor, Peter Navarro, went before cameras to talk about the news that came out yesterday about the first quarter gross domestic product, a slight shrinking of 0.3% there.
Richard, Men, Illinois, Richard, up next in Chicago, Independent Line.
Hi.
unidentified
Yeah, the President Trump needs to take advantage of Republican control of the House and Senate and repeal and rewr Democratic-authored civil rights legislation, equal opportunity laws, and fair housing laws.
This is the time to do this while the Democrats are in the minority and these laws favor Democrats and need to be repealed and rewritten.
Kim is joining us on this open forum as well in Massachusetts Democrats line.
unidentified
Hi.
Hi, Pedro.
U.S. taxpayers have bailed out banks, have bailed out the airline industry, have bailed out the auto industry.
Trump's first term, they gave him, fortunately, a temporary, massive tax cut for the billionaires in this country.
Finally, during COVID, we get a president who helps us bail out each other.
The Republicans have laid down and they've become a welcome mat for everything this president says.
They do not represent us.
The Democrats have partially done the same thing.
And I am so frustrated with them.
If they will not get up and fight every fight, and I'm not saying go back to the status quo, we have serious problems in this country that need to be fixed.
I don't see a Democrat out there raising his voice and creating good trouble.
All right, let's go to Larry, also in Chicago, Independent Line.
unidentified
Yes, good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
At a time like this, when we have so much confusion and misinformation, wouldn't you dream of a place where you can live without being in a constant state of dissension where you have lasting joy?
Here's my prayer for America.
With a firm reliance on divine providence, we humbly beseech thee, oh Lord, restore unto us the joy of thy salvation.
We'll continue on until the House comes in at 9 o'clock.
And if you want to get in on it and give us a call and tell us your thoughts on matters of politics, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans.
Independents, 202-748-8002.
And you can always text us your thoughts at 202-748-8003.
As promised, we're going to have a short chat with Representative Hillary Schulton, a Democrat from Michigan.
She serves the third district, joining us from Capitol Hill, serves on the Small Business and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees.
I don't know if you heard the call, but we had a call in our Democrats line about Democrats not being forceful enough and pushing back against the Trump administration.
I wonder what you think about that sentiment.
unidentified
You know, we just had a Transportation and Infrastructure Markup Committee hearing yesterday about budget reconciliation, and I can tell you we were pushing back pretty forcefully against drastic cuts that are going to harm everyday Americans by undercutting investments in our critical infrastructure.
You know, I hear those concerns and I take them seriously.
I've been doing town halls across my district, you know, once Republican stronghold.
I'm actually the first Democrat in a century to hold this seat.
And I'm hearing from people in my district, you know, that they still don't feel like it's enough.
And what's telling about that is, well, certainly people are frustrated with Democrats, they're frustrated with Democrats because they're not doing enough to stop actions by Republicans that they so strongly disagree with.
And Pedro, that's coming from Republicans in my district, some of whom even voted for Donald Trump.
And so as far as a strategy is concerned, particularly as negotiations go on legislative efforts by the House, Republicans, and the Senate Republicans, what's the strategy then?
unidentified
Do not grow weary in doing good.
Continue to push back and continue to fight back.
You know, the Republicans in the House and in the Senate and the President of the United States won an election, free and fair, right?
That means that we're in the minority.
It's going to take more and all of us, frankly, to continue to push back and to stop their efforts.
You know, one of the things that is so challenging about this moment in particular is that Democrats are committed to using the tools of democracy to defend our democracy.
You know, short of staging our own January 6th, which we are not going to do, you know, we have to commit to the democratic process and using that process to stop Republican action that we feel is harming the American people.
That means, you know, pushing back in our committees.
Next week, we're going to have an opportunity.
The Energy and Commerce Committee is having a hearing on the budget about these proposed cuts that are making headlines everywhere.
$880 billion proposed in Medicaid cuts, and we're going to have an opportunity.
And it's up to Democrats in Congress to continue to push back, to use our critical oversight, but we also can't let Republicans off the hook as well, who seem to have almost completely forgotten that they have an oversight role to play as well against this president who continues to try to show that he's above the law.
And another thing, we need, we need engaged citizens across the country.
moment.
People who feel upset, who feel intimidated, who feel scared and vulnerable, we need them to find their voice.
If we find ourselves in these silos of silence, it enables the majority to continue doing what they're doing.
So it's up to the American people as well to make their voices heard.
You're from Michigan, you are on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
I wonder what you thought about the president's tariff policy, particularly to auto tariffs, somewhat of a softening on some aspect of them, but overall, how does it affect not only those who may depend on the auto industry in your state, but also where you serve on the Transportation Committee?
unidentified
Well, I mean, these tariffs, the way that Trump has rolled them out, right, which is an important caveat, right?
Because not all tariffs are bad.
All presidents have used tariffs.
There is a use for tariffs, but the Trump tariffs have absolutely devastated the economy, and Michigan is in an incredibly vulnerable position because of our auto industry, you know, poised to be one of the worst and most detrimentally impacted.
It's no coincidence that Trump chose to go to Michigan on the anniversary of his 100 days, the commemoration of his first 100 days in office, as we get news that the GDP actually shrank.
The economy contracted during his first 100 days.
He was doing damage control in Michigan because his policies have harmed our economy so much.
And we're doing everything we can within the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to push back and as the Congress as a whole.
But again, it's going to take our Republicans who are in the majority to say, hey, wait a second, these tariffs, this is something that Congress, because Congress represents the American people, that the American people vis-a-vis Congress should have a say in, not one president.
And this, you know, Pedro, is really one area where I have continued to hear from constituents who might say, hey, I voted for Trump because I wanted big, bold action on the economy, but not like this, right?
We didn't want this type of unilateral action on tariffs that is going to throw our economy into turmoil.
These tariffs are poised to add between $2,000 and $3,000 annually to the average American family budget.
I know in a place like my district, that is way more than any family can afford.
You have a background in law, specifically in dealing and defending immigrants' rights.
I was wondering what your assessment is of the Trump administration when it comes to its current actions on immigration and deportation policy.
unidentified
You know, I've worked on immigration for close to 20 years in my career, both as you said, defending and protecting immigrants' rights, but also notably working at the Department of Justice, our nation's top law enforcement agency, enforcing our laws.
So not only do I know a lot about those rights and what needs to be defended, but I've also seen firsthand how you can legally and with justice and a core connection to our identity as a nation of immigrants, enforce our immigration laws in a just, fair, and humane way.
You know, I actually was working at the administration, at the Justice Department when the first Trump administration came in.
And I am not an overly partisan person.
In a place like West Michigan, I am a deeply bipartisan individual and as an attorney, deeply nonpartisan.
I would have worked for a Republican or a Democrat, but when the Trump administration came in the first time, I saw firsthand how they did not have fidelity to the rule of law.
And we're seeing this on repeat in the second term as well.
You know, deporting U.S. citizens, children with cancer.
It's the type of cruelty, frankly, that caused so many people back home in West Michigan to say, enough is enough.
You were one of many Democrats who supported the Lake and Riley Act.
What led you to make that decision?
unidentified
Well, again, you know, my background in enforcement, I think a lot of people don't understand.
You know, you can enforce our immigration laws in a just, fair, and humane way.
And one of the things about Lake and Riley, you know, our district was impacted by a situation just like this, an individual who came to the attention of law enforcement and then was released and later went on to kill a wonderful young woman in our community, Ruby Garcia.
And, you know, I think that there has to be a common sense approach to the way that we enforce our immigration laws.
And I think the American people spoke pretty loud and clear in the election that they wanted more done on immigration enforcement.
But many people are speaking up very loudly saying that Trump has gone too far.
It's up to leaders right now in this moment to step up and push back and say, enough is enough.
We can have enforcement, but we can do it in a just, fair, and humane way.
This is Representative Hillary Schulton joining us.
Democrat from Michigan, she serves the third district on the Transportation and Information Infrastructure Committees and the small business.
One small aspect on that small business front, the president's tax policy, notwithstanding, Republicans want to extend it.
Would you say there's a case for extending that, or to what degree is there a case for extending those tax cuts?
unidentified
Some of those tax cuts absolutely should be extended.
If you put the tax cuts and the tax incentives that help small businesses, that help middle-class Americans on the floor today, I'm standing right across the Capitol.
You put that on the House floor today, I guarantee it would pass perhaps 435 to zero.
There is broad bipartisan support for extending tax cuts that help the middle class and that help small businesses.
But the problem with the Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is that it gave 99% of the benefits to the top 1% and added $7 trillion to the debt in the process.
And we just can't continue to say, you know, we're going to fund these tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy at the expense of the middle class, hardworking families, individuals who wind up needing Medicaid at a tough time in their lives, or as we saw yesterday in the Infrastructure Committee markup, underfunding critical infrastructure in our Coast Guard, our roads, our bridges, and our Great Lakes.
Thanks to those of you who have been waiting on the lines, including Jimmy in Missouri, Independent Line.
Thank you for waiting.
unidentified
Go ahead.
Yes, Pedro.
I'm a pastor, been preaching for 40 years now, and I disagree with them trying to put the government and religion together.
Which denomination is going to run the prayers?
Which denomination is going to run the schools?
What are we going to teach the kids?
Prayer and religion about Jesus Christ starts at home.
If you don't have it in your house, you can't teach your kids at the school.
People used to ask me when I teach your kids, because I preached to kids for 25 years, why does my kids listen to you better than they do with me at home?
I said, because I show them I love them and I show them that I will respect them, but I will show them that I discipline them also.
Prayer in school didn't work when I grew up.
They prayed and then they had run and beat the dark-headed, dark-skinned, kinky-headed kid up in playgrounds.
So if it didn't work then, it ain't going to work now because our society has got a whole lot worse than it was back in the 60s and 70s.
That National Day of Prayer event that we told you about earlier, hosted by President Trump at the White House.
If you're interested in seeing what takes place, 11 o'clock is where you can see that on C-SPAN 3.
Our app is C-SPAN now, and you can always go to c-span.org if you want to see it.
Let's go to Michael.
Michael in Washington, D.C., Independent Line.
unidentified
Hi.
Hey, Pedro, thanks for taking my call.
I would like for everybody to understand that this two-party system, this duopoly, Republicans and Democrats, those are just teams that are playing us against one another.
As long as you pick one of these teams, you're ultimately going to lose unless you're one of the oligarchs.
And one of the things I wanted to point out, too, is like these on the religion seem to think that somebody who is a pathological liar, an adulterer, a sex offender, convicted sex offender, a fraudster, is somehow a moral, ethical, religious person.
That man is telling you who he is and what he is every time he opens his mouth.
And people continue to support this guy and think that he's going to make the country better.
Please, if you are somebody of good will in believing God, God will guide you away from that which is destroying you.
Jackson in New York, it was yesterday that Democrats offered their own assessment of the president's first 100 days.
Appearing before the Capitol building, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer holding a press conference, not only talking about the 100 days, but the president's handling of the economy.
I just want to start off by saying Trump is a liar, a hypocrite, and a cheat.
And you know why?
Because his daddy raised him that way.
You know, I always said you never go wrong by voting for a good man or a good woman.
You know, and it should be obvious to everyone that Trump is not a good man.
He's a divider-in-chief.
There's too much division in this country.
I mean, Christians against not anyone who's not a Christian, rich against poor.
You know, if they want to give tax breaks, and it looks like they got the power to do so, they shouldn't give them to the rich people.
They should only give them to corporations and corporations that are going to guarantee what they promised, the trickle-down theory, which means give them profit sharing and raise their wages.
So now everyone wins.
They get their tax break, and we get the trickle-down theory that they've always been promising us.
So I don't know where I can go from there.
You know, I just feel like Trump has spit in the face of everyone who likes Obama, Hillary, or Biden, or any other Democrat.
Let's hear from Deb in South Dakota, Republican line.
unidentified
Good morning.
I just wanted to say that I think Congress should step up to the plate and pass all of the executive orders that Donald Trump has passed and get them codified into laws.
You know, I was a Democrat for 38 years, and this party better wake up.
Listen to what's going to happen.
This is coming soon.
When Biden opened our sovereign borders to all, it's time to refer to the Democratic Party as the Confederacy 2.0.
Their reckless behavior has endangered all innocent, peace-loving American citizens in an attempt to gain perpetual control of our constitutional republic.
Susan is in Alabama, Independent Line on this open forum.
Hello, Susan.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
I want to say something I probably shouldn't say.
But Trump's having a prayer breakfast.
And, you know, I think 1 Chronicles 14:33 should tell everybody everything they need to know about Donald Trump.
But I'm not going to give you what it says.
I want you to look it up because everybody's screaming, I'm a Christian.
And when you get through with that one, why don't you try Galatians 5, 22?
But mostly in my heart of hearts, I think that Donald Trump does not spell when he says, if he says, let us pray, I'm quite sure he does not spell pray like a Christian spells pray.
Mark there in New York joining us for this open forum, a regular part of this program.
We're about to go to the House in just a few minutes from now, but we'll keep taking calls until the House of Representatives comes in.
So if you want to call the lines and try to get in, you're more than welcome to do so.
As always, you can follow the actions of the House of Representatives on our main channel, C-SPAN 1.
C-SPAN 2 follows the actions of the Senate if you want to view what they're working on.
And then you can always view C-SPAN 3 for any other events that we take in during the course of the day.
You can always go to our app, too.
It's free, and it offers video of events that we take in.
And recent events, too, are stayed there for a short time.
You can download it to the device of your choice and follow along on C-SPAN when you can't watch television in the typical way of watching television.
Let's hear from Trish in Seattle, Washington, Democrats line.
unidentified
Hi, good morning.
Well, it looks like a nice day on Moscow and the Potomac.
So enjoy that weather.
I have a couple comments.
You know, whatever happened to Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, the last one, he's got criminal cases in Arizona going on.
So I think that'd be interesting to follow up with that is.
Also, one of my huge big pet peeves is when I call the senators or congressmen and ask them a question, the interns are like, well, no, I haven't had a chance to speak to the representative or senator about it.
I said, well, they have, I don't do social media.
I said, have they put out any policy statements about it?
Well, no.
But I just, I don't talk to the senator.
I haven't talked to them yet.
I mean, like, what do they do if they don't even have a few talking points on things that come out every day?
It's pretty, I don't know, lame and disappointing.
And then, but that's if you get somebody.
Most of the time, you have to leave a message, and they want your first name, and last name, and mailing address, and telephone number.
I'm like, and send them an email, do their work for them.
And I'm just not willing to give all that information out.
So that's just really frustrating when you want to try to get an answer.
They have none.
It's just such a waste of time.
And on top of that, senators will have some of them up to 10 offices.
And you can call one after the other.
And none of those offices will answer the phone.
Pete Rickett never answers his phone.
Patty Murray never answers her phone.
So I think it'd be, you know, since we're paying these people to do this job, it'd be nice if they answered the phone.
Alex in St. Paul, Minnesota, Republican Mine, the House just about to come in.
Alex, so jump on in with your comment.
unidentified
Yeah, thanks.
So I want to talk a little bit about money and morality.
I think there's a really interesting connection to be made to pre-Civil War America.
Pre-Civil War America, the fight was essentially over tariffs.
It was whether we were going to have tariffs, which the North wanted to protect its industry or low tariffs, which the South wanted so that it could forward its export economy based on slave labor in the South.
And the interesting thing is that when the war started, it was about the South being able to nullify tariffs that were coming out of the North.
And only later was the issue of morality and slavery layered over top of that.