CSPAN - Washington This Week

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 2, 2025 18:38-20:03 - CSPAN

01:24:56

Washington This Week

Participants

Main

bryan steil

rep/r 34:24

tim bremel

09:39

Appearances

nicole kobie

00:50

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Is there to commemorate every moment from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the voices shaping our nation's future?
		We bring you unprecedented all-platform coverage, exploring the stories, sights, and spirit that make up America.
		Join us for remarkable coast-to-coast coverage, celebrating our nation's journey like no other network can.
		America 250.
		Over a year of historic moments.
		Only on the C-SPAN networks.
		Honor the person who first showed you democracy in action and ignite America 250, C-SPAN's 18-month ad-free celebration of our nation's story.
		Give $25 or more by August 31st at c-span.org/slash donate and add your democracy hero to our online wall to keep these vital stories alive for viewers and learners everywhere.
		As our thanks, you'll receive an exclusive democracy unfiltered decal.
		Your gift helps make C-SPAN possible.
		Visit c-span.org slash donate today and join us in keeping America's story alive.
		Thank you.
		Next, Wisconsin Republican Congressman Brian Stock hosts his first town hall since passage of the Republican tax and spending cuts law.
		He faced tough questions from constituents.
		Here's a look.
		Thank you very much.
		Thank you.
		All right.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		All right, all right.
unidentified		So, what I want to do, we got a little bit of flavor from everybody.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		That's good.
		That's exactly what the state of Wisconsin is all about.
		I want to start this right off on time, and I want to spend about 15 minutes kind of walking through some top-line issues and then give an hour for questions in the room.
		I'm going to introduce Tim Bremmel.
		I'm going to introduce Tim Bremmel in a second, who's going to coordinate the hour-long QA session.
		And I'll come back and begin and kind of give 15 minutes an overview of where we're at on this country to get ourselves back on track.
		But if you're like me, you believe, if you're like me, all right, we're going to give you two ground rules.
		If you're like me, if you're like me, you believe that we live in the greatest country in the world.
unidentified		And we have an opportunity.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		And we have an opportunity.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		And we have an opportunity to have conversations and discussions.
unidentified		All right.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		We got people on all sides.
		That's great.
		That's great.
		We're going to have this conversation today.
		But what we're going to do best is having one at a time if we can do it.
		So I think we live in the greatest country in the world.
		And so if you would join me to begin this program, I'd like to start with the Pledge of Allegiance.
		Our flag is to the left.
		And you can join up and join me.
		I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.
		One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
		Well, there's a lot of energy in the room.
unidentified		That's great.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Let me pass it over to Tim Bremmel just to lay out the rules of the road when we get to the QA.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Tim?
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Good evening, everybody.
		Thank you for attending.
		Thank you for being interested in the future of our country and expressing your views to the congressmen this evening.
		The evening, as laid out, will feature questions from you after a brief presentation from the congressman.
		If you, as you came into the building, you should have filled out a form that indicated your willingness and desire to speak this evening.
		And those will be brought up to me momentarily.
		And we'll be just selecting names at random.
		So we don't know who's going first.
		We don't know who's going second.
		But it's the fairest way to do it here.
		It's not.
unidentified		Well, good.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Then we'll do it the unfair way.
		But either way, that's how we're doing it.
		We would ask you when I call your name, I'm actually going to call two names at a time so we can keep things moving.
		I'll call.
		Initially, I'll call who's up for the first question and then who will be on deck.
		We would ask only those two people to enter the aisles and come to the staffers with the microphones.
		Otherwise, please keep the aisles clear so that people can get up and down and we can get to as many questions as possible.
		Again, you're all here as Americans, respect each other as Americans.
		We want a productive conversation, not a shouting match.
		The beautiful thing in this country is we can agree to disagree.
		And many of us will leave here not agreeing, but that's okay.
		So we will proceed with Congressman Stiles' opening remarks, and we will get the questions ready to go and hopefully have a great evening of information here this evening.
		Thank you for being here.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much.
		Thank you very much, Tim.
		Thanks again for being here.
		I just want to stage set, because I think this is helpful to understand where we're spending money in the federal government.
		And so this is last year's numbers as reported.
		And so the side of the left, that's where our money is coming from.
		That's the inbound.
		Those are your taxes.
		The biggest bucket on the left is individual income taxes hanging out at about 50% of all federal government revenue at 50%.
		Social Security and Medicare taxes, we're going to get into the difference between Medicare and Medicaid in a second, is $1.7 trillion, 35%.
		And then you have a bucket of other items where we're picking up taxes, corporate taxes, excise tax, et cetera.
		On the spending side, which is $1.8 billion more than we're bringing in, I think it's important to kind of think through where our funds are going.
		And so the biggest bucket is the blue on the bottom left.
		We're spending about $1.4 to $1.5 trillion per year on Social Security.
		Medicaid, which I know we'll have some conversations about tonight, Medicaid and health programs, bucketing those together, is about $900 billion.
		Medicare, obviously different than Medicaid, we'll get back into that, $800 billion.
		National Defense, a little over $800 billion.
		Welfare programs, a little over $600 billion.
		And then interest on the debt, which is a growing challenge that we face, is a little over $800 billion as well.
		I think that helps stage set when we think about the spending situation that we're in.
		We're bringing in about $1.8 trillion fewer than we are on the on the we're spending $1.8 trillion more than we are on the revenue side.
		So we'll come back to that probably time and again as people have thoughts and questions that play in.
		One of the things that I think we need to do as a federal government is really focus in on making things more affordable for families.
		So many families can't afford the things that they need.
		And what we have seen and what we have seen is a dramatic uptick in inflation prior post-pandemic through the end of the Biden administration where we saw a significant uptick in overall spending.
		The way that we bring the inflationary environment down is, I think, three key things listed there.
		We need to have very pro-growth tax policies.
		That was part of the reforms that were just signed into law.
		We need to have energy policies that unleash American energy rather than restrict it.
		We're seeing some progress on that.
		If you filled up your car with gas recently, you've seen car prices coming down.
		And then we have to address the broader federal spending standpoint and the challenges that we've seen over the past number of years.
		Protecting Social Security.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Could we have it quiet in the auditorium, please, so that people that do want to hear can hear?
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		You all have the questions in here that we'll get to after the presentation, please.
unidentified		Thank you.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		So as we get into, as we get into how we protect Social Security and Medicare, which should be front and center for everyone, it's front and center for me.
		What we need to do is address the broader spending challenges, the broader spending challenges that we see.
		So as we go back to those initial slides, as we think about how we're falling $1.8 trillion in debt further and further behind, we need to be looking at the broader spending picture to make sure that we're protecting Social Security in Medicare.
		Looking forward to the conversation and questions on that as well.
		There's a lot of questions, a lot of misinformation as a result of the changes on Medicaid and SNAP benefits.
		So as we know in the state of Wisconsin, the state of Wisconsin has had SNAP benefits for quite some work requirements tied to SNAP benefits for quite some time.
		Sometimes people use the term food stamps, which was the old name for the acronym SNAP.
		And so we've had work requirements since the 1990s when Tommy Thompson was governor.
		That was at that time a bipartisan approach.
		A lot of the reforms were made as it relates to work requirements in many ways mirror the reforms that Wisconsin made in the 1990s, taking those nationally and then applying them to Medicaid.
		Medicaid program, which picks up very low-income individuals, but also in particular picks up children, picks up pregnant women and disabled adults.
		For those three categories, no changes in the legislation.
		That's where a lot of the misinformation that's out there is.
		So it's important to know that there's no changes there for you.
		That's why it's really important that we have this conversation, sir.
		So I know there's a lot of misinformation out, so we're trying to get some information out for you.
		As it relates to the work requirements, this is a program that Wisconsin will ultimately administer.
		And I'm of the belief that as Wisconsin has done a reasonably good job inside the SNAP program over the past 20 plus years, we have an opportunity to make those changes and reforms to help the demographic group of able-bodied childless adults of working age as well.
		One of the biggest improvements that we have seen is the success in securing the U.S.-Mexico border.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		We have an array.
		Thank you.
		Everyone.
		If you wouldn't mind, if you want to get to your questions, we have to get through this part.
		So the longer you take, the longer, the fewer questions we'll have.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		So we've got some people that are.
		All right, everybody, I know there's some people that got different views in the room.
		That's okay.
		We just keep it all between everybody here.
		I think that'll be good.
		And so I think, based on that, based on that plus, some people like the secure border like I do, some people don't.
		That's fine.
		You can have your own opinion.
		But I think it's important to recognize the dramatic drop and decrease that we have seen in border apprehensions as shown by the federal government data.
		Making sure that we're protecting and supporting.
		There's some gentlemen that can't hear up in the front, so if we can just keep it down a little bit so people can hear, that's going to be helpful.
		And making sure that we're supporting, making sure that we're supporting, making sure that we're working and supporting our veterans is absolutely an essential piece of this.
		I look forward to some of the questions on that.
		One thing I want you to know is that a lot of people sometimes have challenges with the federal government.
		Come to my office.
		I like to be a resource to you in assisting getting people out with information.
		We're always here.
		We've got offices around, around the area.
		We've been very successful in this.
		We've helped well over a thousand people in the past time.
		And so what I want you to know is that as you have challenges with the federal government, reach out, come to me.
		We're here to help you navigate through the red tape.
		And so with that, what I'd like to do is begin with our questions.
		We're going to pass it over to Tim.
		The more civil we are to each other, I know there's people with different views in here.
		We heard it on the applause and boo on the border security issue.
		We've heard it a couple times.
		We got people on all sides.
unidentified		It's great.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		That's what makes Wisconsin great.
		And so, what we have an opportunity to do, though, is to not engage with each other.
		Just ask me any question you want.
		I'll answer it briefly.
		We'll get to the next question.
		The less we allow everybody here to kind of dialogue back and forth between ourselves, you can go afterwards, go out and grab a beer, grab a cup of coffee.
		You can talk politics all day you like.
		But here, I want to be able to answer people's questions.
		I know we got people on both sides of it.
		So, let's dive into the questions.
		Let's see how far we can go.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's pick the first two randomly out of the box.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Up first, we have Tammy Brown from Janesville, followed by, I believe it's Tom Burke, is that right, from Elkhorn, Tammy Hi, Brian, Tammy Brown from Janesville, Wisconsin.
unidentified		I am a breast cancer survivor.
		Cuts to cancer research and prevention programs mean fewer clinical trials, fewer grants to discover new treatment options, and less access to life-saving early detection services.
		What will you do to ensure that proposed cuts by the administration to vital cancer research and prevention programs are rejected when Congress begins negotiating fiscal year 2026 funding?
		And how will you protect vital funding for cancer research and prevention programs in fiscal year 2026?
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		It's a great question.
		It's a great question.
		Some of the research that our federal government has done, in particular, is cancer, and it's impacted your life, it's impacted my family's life as well.
		I think it's probably impacted almost everybody here in this audience today.
		Making sure, I just want to make sure everybody can hear, so let's get through it.
		And so, that's where the misinformation is really important here because where we're currently operating, where we're currently operating on is the previous fiscal year's cuts.
		And your question correctly identifies that.
		So, the spending program that we're under right now was approved and signed into law by President Biden.
		We're engaged in the dialogue.
		I just want to make sure everybody can hear.
		So, the current spending program that the federal government's operating under was the legislation was signed into law ultimately by President Biden.
		As you noted correctly, we're negotiating what the spending looks like going forward.
		I've been a strong proponent of making sure that we maintain research, in particular in the cancer space at NIH, National Institute of the Health that oversees much of this.
		Department of Defense does some as well.
		We'll make sure that that funding continues robustly to make sure that people like you, but many other people, receive the benefit of that cancer research going forward.
		Thank you.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Tammy.
		Tom Burke, are you there?
		Yes, you are.
		And on deck, we should have Paul Christofferson.
unidentified		My main concern is the tariffs that are coming up.
		I was always under the impression that Congress was responsible for issuing the tariff.
		I really feel that this is a terrible tax that's going to be placed upon the citizens of the United States.
		I would like to know what dire economic circumstances put Trump in a position of throwing tariffs on over 190 countries.
		You have allowed him to do that.
		And it's sad, quite frankly.
		So tell me the dire circumstances that triggered his tariff wars.
		Thank you.
		Very good.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		So, Tommy, you've got a veteran's hat, so out of the gate.
		I just want to say thank you for your service to our country.
		And as we look at the broader tariff back and forth that's going on with the administration, this really, at its core, needs to be an opportunity to make sure that other countries are treating the United States fairly.
unidentified		The United States...
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		You don't have...
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		I want to be able to get through as many of your questions as we can in the time allotted.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Ladies and gentlemen, we will never get questions if we can't keep the auditorium quiet.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		And please do the person who asked the question the respect of allowing his question to be answered.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		So as it relates to the terrorists, my broad view here is that what we need to do is make sure that we're having other countries treat the United States fairly.
		China has been an egregious abuser of U.S. trade policies over multiple administrations.
		And so, actually, putting pressure on our allies—
unidentified		We have a question on the floor, folks, that I would assume that our guests would like to hear the answer to, or he wouldn't have asked the question.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		So how do we get other countries to treat the United States fairly?
unidentified		So our farmers can export, so our workers can export.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		And so what I am of the belief is that what we need to do is work with our allies, put trade agreements in place.
		We've seen great success with this so far.
		And then ultimately, and then ultimately work collectively with our allies to address the real culprit, which is China, which will be to the benefit of American workers and American farmers.
		I think we're making progress in this regard, and I think we have room to grow.
		Take the next question.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Let me ask the gentleman who asked the question, do you feel that was adequately answered?
		I didn't ask anybody else.
		I asked the gentleman who asked the question.
		Let's be kind to this gentleman, please.
unidentified		Oh, you have an answer.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		We'll give you a chance to clarify, please.
unidentified		When we talk about our allies, it seems we're alienating them beyond belief.
		I have family in Canada.
		I have several friends in Canada.
		And I can't believe what we're not negotiating with them.
		But please explain to me what the dire emergency was that existed.
		And until I get that answer, I am going to be totally opposed to these tariffs.
		Period.
		Okay.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		So, Brian, just a minute.
		So, Congressman, We have a more pointed question, I guess, which is we went along for four years of Trump, who did a little trade policy in his first four years.
		Then we went to Biden.
		Hey, hey, hey.
		Then we went to Biden, who is relatively quiet, not a lot of action on that front.
		And all of a sudden, I think what this gentleman is saying, all of a suddenly, on April 1st, Trump says, boom, tariffs had everybody, and it's freaking us out.
		And we want to know what the answer to that is.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		It's a good question, right?
		Because you'd say, I think part of this is what gives Trump the authority to put in place the tariffs.
		And so the authority that he's operating under is as it relates to the imbalance of trade.
		He made that statement clearly.
		There's a court case that's going on right now where there'll be more clarity provided on this.
		But that's the authority that he's operating under.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		The next question.
		We will get to as many of your questions as we can, but we can't have them shouted from the floor or I'm not sure it's possible to devolve into more chaos.
		But we'll keep some order here.
		Paul Christofferson, thank you for signing in.
		You are next.
unidentified		Congressman.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		And on deck would be Gene Henderson.
unidentified		Congressman Stile.
unidentified		Congressman Stile, are you going to run for governor for the state of Wisconsin?
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		That's an easy answer.
		No, I'll be running.
		It's hard to hear.
		I said, no.
		I'm going to be running for re-election to the House.
unidentified		Could I make a statement?
		This is a listening session.
		And I came here with the understanding that maybe you could listen to me just for a question.
		Just for a statement.
		This is my opinion.
		I've been a resident of Walworth County for 13 years.
		And I have to tell you, I am so disappointed.
		I am so disappointed in how you represent us as the citizen of Walworth County.
		Southeast Wisconsin has not been represented by you.
		President Trump seems to run Southeast Wisconsin.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Screw you.
unidentified		And all I have to ask is I will be out there working hard if you choose to run for any office.
		Very good.
		Thank you.
		Thanks.
		Here you go.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Well, there is an election.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		All right.
unidentified		Am I going to shout at this point?
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Shout at this point.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Gene Henderson.
unidentified		Thank you for taking my question.
		Sure.
		I have tried many times to get an answer to this question.
		And I did go to what was to be the listening sessions at the Elkhorn Library.
		And I heard some very pleasant, polite young men tell me this will be shared with our representative.
		And I asked this question.
		It was never answered.
		But this was what I want to know.
		Sure.
		Why?
		I wear a pin.
		The pin says it's not politics, it's morality.
		As a Christian, as a mother, as a grandmother, as a teacher, as a community member giving many hours of service, I care about people.
		And what I see happening to our immigrant population embarrasses me, horrifies me.
		And you have not raised a voice to complain about it.
		Where do I see your leadership?
		I see no leadership.
		I see fouling Trump 100% of the time, and Trump's lead has very- Trump's lead has been horrible, hurting up people who were doing the right thing by going to the immigration office and using that as a trap to entrap them.
		And most all of these people have been undocumented.
		They wanted a better life for themselves and they got caught in the middle.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		So what is your question, ma'am?
unidentified		Why is this happening and why aren't you stopping it?
unidentified		And my specific question is, why are they wearing masks, and why are they unidentified?
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		We'll probably agree to disagree on some of my answer here.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		But what I view is the moral hazard created by the Biden administration by allowing the U.S.-Mexico border to remain insecure.
unidentified		And so it's completely fine that we disagree.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		There's nothing wrong with disagreeing on the topic.
		President Biden had a different view than I did on the importance of securing the U.S.-Mexico border.
		But as millions of illegal immigrants came into the United States, and there's a lack of action by the federal government, you're now seeing that action take place with the removal, particularly of individuals who are in the country illegally, who have engaged in crimes, and other people who are also being removed.
		I think we need to secure the U.S.-Mexico border.
		You may not.
		It's fine that we disagree.
unidentified		Good question.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		So I'm supportive.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Would you guys just rather the congressman go to lunch and you get a shout for the next 45 minutes?
		Because I'm okay with that.
		Why don't you get out of here, sir?
		being very obnoxious and very disrespectful to everybody else in this auditorium next up we have Kimberly And Kimberly, I apologize.
		Is it Schliff, perhaps, from Delavan on Town Line Road, Kimberly?
		How could you possibly tell over your yelling if he answered anything?
		Okay, I know the congressman tried to answer this question, and in the fervor that was here, it didn't happen.
		We'll try one more time to get you the answer if everyone will listen to the answer.
		Like it or not?
unidentified		You don't have to like it.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Let's engage in a little bit more of a productive dialogue.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Do you think it's right that unmasked people can mask people unidentified can swoop in people who are undocumented but not necessarily illegal?
		In fact, statistics show again and again the people being deported and as now just got to be swear.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		You've kind of asked a yes or no question without lecturing here.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Congressman, right or wrong on the masking of ICE.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		We just disagree.
		I think our federal agents should be enforcing law.
		We just disagree on the point.
unidentified		It's okay.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Would you like to disagree?
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Are you okay with okay with the ICE agents currently being masked, or would you rather see them unmasked?
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		The challenge, the challenge that the men and women of law enforcement are facing in this scenario is aggressive doxing and other challenges.
		And so we would all be better served if we had a much more civil dialogue and civil discourse.
		It's one of the challenges we're facing in the room tonight.
		But what I believe is our federal law enforcement officers need to be empowered to enforce the law.
		And so I'm supportive of our federal law enforcement officers.
		Please disagree.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		All right.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Kimberly, if you would take the microphone, thank you.
unidentified		I don't have so much as a question.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		I think her mic may be out.
unidentified		Testing.
unidentified		One, two, three, testing.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Shout into them, Mike Kimberly.
unidentified		think you you're the right fit for us anymore late to most of us anymore and you gotta know when step down I think it's time.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Kelly Nevins.
		Kelly Nevins, you're up next.
		And behind Kelly, we have Hugh Graceley, I believe.
		But Kelly Nevins.
unidentified		All right.
		So I do want to say I would like to hear his answer.
		And I'll give you two topics.
		So I've worked in banking for 15 years.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		You worked in what?
unidentified		I've worked in banking for 15 years.
		I currently work for one of the top 10 banks in the country.
		And I have an opinion on tariffs.
		And so we can discuss that.
		And I also am half Japanese and have family members that were interned in the Japanese internment camps.
		And so I'd like for you to listen to my perspective on that as well.
		So I'll give you the choice which one you'd like to speak to.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		I'll take either.
		I mean, I'm happy to do both.
		It's however you want to use your time.
unidentified		Okay.
		So I'll start with my family's experience in the Japanese internment camps.
		So I'm half Japanese.
		And truthfully, my entire life growing up, I've been mistaken for Hispanic.
		Like people walk up to me and speak Spanish.
		Sorry, I don't speak Spanish.
		So I honestly worry for my safety, my own safety.
		I work both in downtown Milwaukee and downtown Chicago regularly.
		And my family, my grandmother, my grandfather, my great-aunt, my great uncle, and all of their families were U.S. citizens, and they were interned during World War II.
		They were detained in the Japanese internment camps.
		My grandmother, who was an incredibly kind, loving woman who you would never know went through the trauma that she went through.
		She, in her last days of her life, I recall, was on morphine having a hallucination where she was screaming, You're treating us like animals.
		How can you do this to us?
		We're Americans, we're people.
		How can you do this to us?
		And she was reliving her experience being taken from her home and only being able to take the things that she could carry.
		And she was kept in a horse stall, a used horse stall, and she lived there for a month while the barracks were being built.
		And these barracks were just wood walls with like a pot belly stove to keep you warm.
		And she lived in Minidoka.
		My aunt, and to compare this to current events, the Alien Enemies Act that was used to deport the people to El Salvador was also used prior to the Japanese internment camps.
		And then President Trump said homegrowns are next when he was speaking to the El Salvadoran president.
		And he used that act just before the That act was enacted just before the executive order to detain anybody who is at least 116th Japanese, which would include my own children who are blonde-haired, blue-eyed.
		And we're also trying to, he's also trying to get rid of birthright citizenship.
		And again, it worries me, having known my family's history of being detained and having everything taken from them.
		My grandfather was a farmer who was put in the internment camps, and his farm was taken by the government for failure to pay back taxes because on this questionnaire, he decided, he put that he would not rescind his ties to Japan, even though he had never even been to Japan.
		He was born here.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		And can I ask you to formulate your question just so we have time for other people?
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		I appreciate the background that you're giving us.
unidentified		My worry is that we are repeating history here, and very in our history that personally, my family, I witnessed the trauma and the horrors that my family felt through their deathbeds.
		And I don't want anybody, immigrants or not, if they're not a criminal, being here without, being here illegally is a misdemeanor offense.
		Crossing our border illegally is a misdemeanor offense.
		My question here is, I'm going to Chicago for work, and I'm out to happy hour, and I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time, and some masked person without identification in plain clothes comes and tries to nab me because they're doing a raid, or even just a random person off the street who decided they're going to play ice for the day decides to come grab me and throw me in a car because they think I'm Hispanic or an immigrant.
		I'm afraid for my own safety and my children's future for losing their own mother.
		And there are countless, countless articles out there, American citizens that have been detained for months, like long periods of time.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		I think you raise a good point.
		Congressman, I think she would appreciate, and please tell me if I'm wrong because I don't want to put words here, but I think she would appreciate you also addressing this from the standpoint of Congress has the power to stop some of this stuff.
		And why aren't people in Congress working on legislation to overhaul the immigration system?
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		I appreciate the support.
		So first, thanks for sharing your familiar story.
		One of the more darker chapters of American history is U.S. citizens were deterred.
		We may agree to disagree.
		I would offer that the Japanese internment was one of the darker chapters in American history where U.S. citizens were interned for nothing other than their background.
		As we look at the engagement that law enforcement is doing now against individuals in the country illegally, I don't see the exact parallel that you're sharing.
		And the reason for that let me just answer the question for the woman.
		And the importance here is making sure that we're enforcing U.S. laws.
		And so we may disagree about the severity of whether or not it's a misdemeanor to cross the border.
		To me, we should be enforcing our immigration laws.
		And so no individuals, no U.S. citizen should be removed.
		That's 100% correct.
		You reference whether or not an individual could impersonate a law enforcement officer.
		No individual should impersonate a law enforcement officer across the board, right?
		And so what we need, what I am supportive of, though, is enforcing our immigration laws.
		And we may just disagree in that in the room.
		But appreciate the question.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		We can only really give one question per person just to spread the, just to spread, just to spread the opportunity to people, we'd like to keep it to one question per person.
		Thank you very much.
		Next up, we have it's Hugh, and is it Graceley?
unidentified		Hugh.
		Yeah, thank you very much.
		I'll hold it.
		Could I hold it?
		Okay.
		Brian, thank you very much for the opportunity.
		Earlier today, you brought up the issue of Medicaid.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
unidentified		There's 70 million people in America on Medicaid.
unidentified		Everybody in this room knows someone on Medicaid.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		For sure.
unidentified		My question is, with 70 million people on Medicaid, why do you and some of your colleagues allow others of your colleagues to insult those people by suggesting that the majority of them are sitting at home in the evening and during the day playing video games?
		67% of the people on Medicaid have jobs.
		29% are either disabled, they're taking care of elderly at home, or they're in school.
		About 2%, according to your own figures, may be able to engage in productive work and are looking for work, the majority.
		So my question is, very simple.
		What is your plan to cause the relatively small number of your colleagues who lie to the American public and malign the dignity of the 70 million people on Medicaid by suggesting that they are lazy game players?
		I'd like to know your plan.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		I'd like to lie down before I answer.
		It's a great question because in many ways, we've allowed our dialogue to denigrate.
		And so what I would do is entitled to their right to free speech.
		We can see it in this room.
		Not lost on me.
		I don't control the speech of the 434 other members of the United States House of Representatives or the 100 United States Senators.
		I control my speech.
		And I would not engage in denigrating.
		Let the gentleman have a chance to dialogue here.
		I would not engage in denigrating individuals that are on welfare programs.
unidentified		Won't do it.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		So I'm not going to restrict other individuals' right to free speech, but I do share my opinion regularly.
		I'll let you follow up.
		Yeah, that's fine.
unidentified		Follow-up then is, then, what is going to cause the House of Representatives to act in a more dignified and appropriate manner relative to the American public?
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, sir.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		I don't like, this is actually, it's a great dialogue point because I don't love where a lot of our rhetoric and dialogue is.
		I think we should be, and we've done, I've done like maybe 35 or so town halls in the past six years, and many of my, many of my town halls are much easier to hear.
		Sometimes we don't even use microphones.
		It's a much more civil conversation.
		Tonight, unfortunately, it's gotten a little more hostile, but the dialogue, the dialogue that we're seeing tonight is representative of the frustrations that exist in Washington, D.C.
		And there's people cheering on both sides.
		When we said border security, some people cheered, some people booed.
		It's okay to have differences of opinions, but the civil discourse that is a cornerstone of our democracy is challenged right now.
unidentified		It's challenged across the board.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		As indicated by an inability to answer your question.
unidentified		Brian, this will be my question.
		All right, sir.
		This will be my last point on this issue.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Sir, we have to keep you to one question, please, just to allow others.
unidentified		I'd be really interested in hearing you in the public.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Let him just finish.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Let him just finish his question.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		That's the way the court looks like.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Let him say his last thing.
		Just turn his mic.
		Just let him say his last thing.
		Let's go ahead.
		Just let him say your last thing.
		I don't want to cut you off.
		We want to get through his main answer.
unidentified		I would just be interested in how you as an individual react when your colleagues do that, because I've never heard you object to them in public.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		I do it right here to do it publicly for you.
unidentified		So super easy.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		That's a good follow-up because I can say publicly, I don't support anybody denigrating anyone else.
		People have a right of free speech, but a lot of our discourse writ large is really challenged.
		It's challenged on all sides.
		And so I think we have a real opportunity to improve our discourse.
		And a little bit, I'd say the overwhelming majority of people here want to learn and understand.
		My perspective, want to hear the questions.
		And then there's a small group of people that are challenging and are booing and yelling at each other.
		The same occurs in Washington.
		I share the frustration.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Deborah, I believe it's Stahl or Shaw from Racine.
		Deborah.
unidentified		And then the next person.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Are you here?
		Great, Deborah.
		And then on deck, we will have Chris O'Brien from Kenosha.
unidentified		Thank you for taking my question.
		My question is: we heard a lot of blame to the Biden administration about lack of rules for the immigration issue, but we have never, ever had a concentration camp in Florida.
		Could you address how we got to that point?
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Yes!
		It's a great question.
		So I wouldn't share your terminology, but I understand the facility you're discussing.
		And so what occurred was during the Biden administration was a massive influx of illegal immigrants into the United States.
		The woman deserves the right to be heard and have the conversation.
		So, it's not that everybody needs to agree or disagree with the answer.
		You can restate, it's a little hard to hear.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		That's not my question.
		We never addressed, we had due process for people who were here trying to get citizenship.
		We never had a concentration camp, and that happened on your watch.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		So there might be an opportunity for a little bit of information here.
		So a lot of the detainment facilities were built through multiple administrations.
		The Biden administration, the Obama administration.
		Dodge County is one of the facilities in the state that does ICE detainers.
		And so these facilities have existed for decades.
		The biggest challenge that we saw, the biggest challenge that we've seen, is as the influx of illegal immigrants shifted from single males into familial units, that actually caused a lot of challenges in a lot of these facilities at the border.
		As the border numbers have come down, as we showed earlier in this slide, we've seen dramatic improvement in the number of illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border.
		What we have seen now is additional people who have engaged and been picked up here in the country illegally who are in process of deportation, following due process under the law of the United States, that those individuals are being removed.
		They're going to be in facilities prior to removal.
		Oh, we keep going.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Let me just follow up for her, Brian.
		In the case of we're building more detention centers.
		Could you explain we're not building more detention centers?
		We're building more detention centers now than ever before.
		And the question is, I think for a lot of people, why did we feel the need to do that and corral these individuals that before we didn't feel the need to corral?
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		We're processing a lot more deportations now than we were prior.
		Also, the number of people in the country illegally is much greater following the four years of the Biden administration.
		And so the process of removal is faster.
		The other is the shift in the demographic of individuals that were coming across the border during the Biden administration.
		So it got a little loud.
		It's true.
		And so what we saw was a traditionally, in particular at the U.S.-Mexico border, I've been there and spent time there under both administrations.
		What historically you saw was single males coming across the border.
		So when detentions would occur, you can obviously have single men in a single facility.
		Once you started seeing a large influx of familial units, the physical facilities weren't properly designed for familial units as they were coming in.
		And so what we've seen is a big shift in this regard, and that's part of it.
		The other is the increase in the throughput and the processing of individuals in the country illegally.
		It's okay that we disagree on the role of immigration policy.
		I'm just supportive of making sure that we're enforcing our immigration laws.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		All right.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		We have Chris O'Brien, who's been waiting, Chris, and Colin Gentz is up after Chris.
unidentified		Okay.
		Thank you so much.
		This is the first time I've ever come to a political event, so it's pretty raucous, pretty crazy.
		I didn't know what I was going to get into, but I applaud you for standing up here and taking it.
		Half of the country thinks one way, half of the country thinks another way.
		So no matter if you're up here or back here.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		You're going to have to say you can't hear me.
unidentified		Can I hear it?
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Just a lot of background noise.
unidentified		All right.
		So anyway, I'm a business owner.
		I manufacture specialty coatings.
		We are struggling with once China got caught for countervailing and dumping in the USA.
		They shifted the tactic and they're going up to Canada.
		I've been writing you and Johnson and everyone else saying we need help.
		They are now taking, shipping Chinese material.
		We can see it on the eve.
		We can track it across the ocean.
		We can see it go into Canada, mainly Montreal.
		There's three or four manufacturers.
		They are selling it into the USA, claiming country of origin is Canada when we know it's not Canada.
		Canada cannot make badge.
		There's only one manufacturer left in the United States that makes epichlorohydrin.
		That's Olin.
		And these guys are lying.
		And it's either lying and putting the country of origin as Canada, which is a lie, or it's mob activity.
		They are selling epoxy for $25 a gallon.
		I can't make it for $25.
		I try to pay a good wage.
		There's not a guy in my plant that makes less than $2,250 at a starting rate, and we try to get into $35 an hour.
		You can't live on less than that as a single person anymore.
		So what's happening, China's sending it to Canada for 86 cents a pound, and I keep barking.
		And one guy that's, I'm trying to assemble American U.S. manufacturers of coatings.
		One guy said, you're wasting your time, Chris.
		He said, you're wasting your time.
		You're wasting your time because everyone's bought and paid for at the border.
		So we really need your help.
		It's killing our businesses.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so great, great question.
		You got two key points in there.
		One, I want to, before you leave, make sure I get your information because I want to follow the USTR on your behalf.
		But two, what you bring up is a really good point because countries are evading U.S. trade laws to, and in particular, the biggest culprit is the one you named.
		It's China, which is where we started some of the trade conversation.
		And working with our allies, in this case, Canada, to make sure that we're addressing abuses of trade from China is going to be absolutely essential.
		And so countries are doing this and moving it into Vietnam.
		In this case, it sounds like in your situation, they're moving it in to Canada.
		And so holding countries accountable for their trade practices is essential.
		For multiple administrations, the United States looked the other way because they viewed it as a benefit to get low-cost goods into the United States.
		It was to the detriment of U.S. manufacturers and employees that work with you at your facility.
		And so what I'm the belief is, is leveraging the trade policies, strike deals with our allies, then work with our allies to hold other countries accountable.
		And the biggest culprit is the one you identified, which is China.
		And the collective work with our allies to address the abuses of China is going to be essential.
		But as it relates to your specific issue, I want to get your contact because I'd love to reach out to the U.S. Trade Representative on your behalf, which we'll do offline.
		But appreciate the question.
unidentified		It's a huge, huge issue.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, sir.
		Colin Gentz.
		At least I think I had that right, Colin?
		From Kenosha?
		Coming.
		Okay, good.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Maybe throw somebody on deck.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		On deck would be Julie Richardson from Janesville.
unidentified		So a lot has been said about the Biden administration and open borders and whatever.
		But can you actually name any of his policies or decisions that impacted open borders or economics?
		Because what we saw was him and Jerome Powell doing a record-breaking landing after COVID.
		We had great GDP.
		Inflation was down.
		I mean, things were pretty great in America before Trump.
		So great question.
		This is actually a really, really good question.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Because if we go back a year, there was a lot of discussion about whether or not a border bill was needed.
		I was on radio shows with Tim Bremmel taking questions on the topic.
		And I always said you need to do four key things through executive action that would have real and meaningful impact on securing the U.S.-Mexico border.
		You reinstate stay in Mexico, you restart border wall construction, you end catch and release, and you stop abuse of the parole system.
		It was those four executive actions that I believe were going to be essential to re-securing the U.S.-Mexico border.
		No law was passed at the start of the year when we started to see a dramatic downtick in the number of illegal crossings.
		And what did President Biden do, President Trump do?
		President Trump comes in and on day one does four key executive actions.
		He restarts border wall construction, he reinstates stay in Mexico, he ends catch and release, and he ends abuse of the parole system.
		And by doing that, and by doing that, what we saw was a significant drop in the number of illegal crossings.
		And so I just firmly was frustrated with what the Biden administration was doing at the border.
		That's totally true.
unidentified		And I spoke in aggressively on it because it has.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Let me have it.
		We're all going to get a back and forth here, but let me.
		So the policies, maybe I'll just close it here then.
		So the policies that I think are your top four: restart border wall construction, end catch and release, reinstate stay in Mexico, and end abuse of the parole system.
		All four Biden chose not to do.
		All four Trump chose to do.
		The border is now much more secure than it was before due to those four policies.
unidentified		Great question.
		Thank you.
		Thank you.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Julie Richardson over there, and on deck we have from Milton.
		A little tough for me to read the handwriting.
		Let me get it interpreted while Julie asks her question.
unidentified		Hi, thanks for taking my question.
		Thank you for hosting the town hall.
		We've been asking for one for a while, so I'm glad you're here.
		My original question was about ICE and the funding of ICE, but I think we've definitely covered that.
		So my question to you is: can you explain to us why you support Lyndon McMahon and the defunding of the Department of Education?
		Great question.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		So again, going back there was a question earlier, is it related to cancer research?
		So a little bit is going to be the same answer, but let me dive a little bit deeper on the Department of Education.
		We're currently going through the process of analyzing what the spending will be for the upcoming fiscal year.
		So the current fiscal year that we're operating in right now, today, again, is the spending levels that were set during the Biden administration with Republicans in the House.
		And so going forward, though, is your question and some of these proposals.
		I'm of the view that education is best resolved at the local level.
		And so what we've allowed to occur what we've allowed to occur is more and more funds flowing through the federal government down to the state level.
		And so what I'm of the view is, is as those funds have flown down, what we've done is burdened a lot of our local school districts with unnecessary red tape.
		That's my view.
		And so I think what we will see as we negotiate this going forward is a way to make sure that those funds are there at the local level, which we care about, but removing a lot of that bureaucratic red tape that's in the way at a period of time where we need to look at the operations of our local schools and making sure that in particular, foremost in my mind, is making sure that the educational product we have is tied in directly to our workforce needs.
		And I think the one-size-fits-all approach that we often see coming out of Washington is not helpful in that regard.
		So as we go through this next funding process, again, while we're $1.8 trillion in deficit year over year, we're looking at all of these types of programs to make sure that we're removing bureaucracy at the federal government level.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Thank you.
		Vivian Creekmore is the name from Milton.
		Vivian.
		And on deck we have Sharda Aaron.
unidentified		Hey, who's next?
		Me.
		I'm Vivian Creekmore from Milton.
		I actually live right outside your hometown.
		I used to see your predecessor around town a lot.
		We have never seen you anywhere in Rock County.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		I sexually work in Milton.
unidentified		And I want to confirm that.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		I actually used to work in Milton at Charter.
unidentified		You are correct.
		I'm not here to listen to you, and many of us aren't, because we know what you're going to say ahead of time.
		I would also like to remind you that you're a pretty rich boy who has never missed a meal, always had a nice place to live, had great jobs, made a lot of money, and I can't relate to that.
		You know, that's not a part of my life or most of us.
		But I have one question.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Still rooting.
unidentified		You talked a lot and said not very much.
		Alligator Alcatraz is a concentration camp.
		The difference between a prison or detention facility and a concentration camp is due process.
		We have criminals roaming our streets and large numbers, large percentages of the people that they pick up and detain are mistaken identities, have committed no crimes, or are here legally.
		They are sent to those camps without ever having the ability.
		That's my question.
		Why do you support that?
		And then more specifically, the cost of it.
		Alligator Alcatraz will cost $450 million annually.
		Do you own any stock in the contractor companies?
		Because they are making a killing.
		Some of those contracts are no big.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		He can't hear the question.
unidentified		Immigration detention is big, big business.
		And I also wonder if you're looking for various money market schemes looking at that because you talk a lot about that.
		Crypto.
		There you go.
		Crypto.
		So I have some piece of advice because I've spent a lot of time working with people and facilitating groups and communication.
		You would be well served to not blame another thing on Joe Biden because you are increasing our animosity and you would be better served not to answer the questions but to let people come up one by one and say what they want to.
		We would have a higher opinion of you if you did that.
		Thank you.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Sharna, is it?
		Sharna, Aaron?
unidentified		You won't stop.
		I think it's been all.
		I'm scared of the office from Fontana.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		There's a question I'm happy to answer.
unidentified		Hello.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		It's mostly a speech.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		I have all of it in funds now.
unidentified		It's all publicly available on my website.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		So no.
unidentified		No.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		It's all publicly available on my website.
		No.
		I don't think we should.
		Yes.
unidentified		Hi, Representative Steyle.
		First of all, I want to thank you for answering all the contacts that I've made with you over the years.
		Either you or your staff have responded in a very timely manner.
		I may not agree with you.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
unidentified		I may not agree with you on the issues, but I appreciate that you respond to my voice.
unidentified		So thank you.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		I appreciate saying we've gotten, just in context, we've received about 100,000 outreaches so far this year, and I make it a priority to try to get back to everybody.
		It doesn't mean I'm perfect, but we make it a priority to try to get back to absolutely everyone that reaches out.
		And I appreciate you saying that.
unidentified		I just would also like to make a comment to the audience.
		I think it's very important to have a sense of decorum, to have respect.
		We want this country to come together.
		And unless we have some civil discourse, unless we can get together and respect what everybody says, we're not going to get there.
		Hold on, hold on, hold on.
		I have serious concerns about a lot of the issues that have been brought up today.
		I have concerns about dismantling the Department of Education.
		I have concerns about how our migrants and immigrants are being treated.
		I have concern about the rule of law and the civil rights that are being impacted by this administration.
		And some of the questions, I prepared questions today.
		I have eight questions.
		Some of them have been answered, and I'll be glad to share these with you at the end.
		But the one thing that I would like to talk about, which I think most of us can agree upon, is our environment.
		Our environment is fragile.
		Climate change is real based on scientific evidence.
		Whether one admits it or not, it is real.
		Extreme weather conditions are happening more frequently as we experience them or read about them.
		The EPA is deregulating the standards that are in place to fight climate change and to protect the citizens.
		Where do you stand on this issue?
		And how can you be an advocate for us to initiate legislation to restore our safeguards?
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		First off, I appreciate the structure of your question.
		It's okay that we can disagree, but we can do so productively.
		So I appreciate your comment in that regard.
		I'm in the belief that one of the reasons we love to call Wisconsin home is because we live in, I think, one of the most beautiful states in the country.
		And making sure that we're protecting our air and water and soil is absolutely essential.
		How do we do that?
		The gentlewoman's entitled to hear the answer.
		And so what we need to be doing is focused in on addressing that from a global perspective.
		Again, making sure other countries are doing their fair share in this.
		And so when we get into aspects.
		The gentlewoman's allowed to just allow her to hear the portion.
		You don't have to agree.
		Just allow her to hear the answer.
		So as yelled out, the Paris Accords, because that's an important topic.
		I don't think the Paris Accords properly held countries like China and India properly accountable for what's going on.
		And so what I think we need to do is make sure that we're not punishing U.S. employees of businesses that are engaged in economic activity here in southeast Wisconsin, which is heavily manufacturing-based, and we're actually holding countries like China and India accountable.
		Then you have other aspects of this where you would walk outside today and you have one of the most unhealthy air quality conditions that we've seen.
		That's coming down from Canada, and so making sure the gentleman's allowed to hear the answer.
		You don't have to agree with the answer, but allow her to hear the answer.
		That was the point of the question.
		So as we look at the air quality right now, we know it's in large part due to Canadian wildfires.
		And so this is a broader conversation than punishing U.S. employers to the detriment of U.S. workers.
		And we need to have a global perspective in holding other countries, other countries accountable.
		Thanks.
		Thanks for the question.
		And sorry, it's a little hard to hear.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Let me follow up on her behalf for just one moment.
		So in the last little bit, the President has announced a lot of executive orders to roll back climate protections that the Biden administration had in place.
		We're rolling back EPA standards on automobiles, rolling back all that kind of stuff.
		Where do you stand on the rollbacks versus the progress that were made?
		I think a lot of people would like to know.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		So what I think we saw, what I think we saw where I disagree with some, what I viewed as the overreach in the previous administration, is what we were seeing.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Maybe they don't want to know about that.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		What we saw was higher prices for American consumers and a real draconian impact by U.S. consumers.
		And so what we need to do is have a broader global approach in this regard.
		And then in other areas, what we saw was the previous administration truly picking winners and losers.
		So I didn't like the $7,500 tax credit for a new electric vehicle.
		Other people like that.
		But if you want to buy, if you want to buy, I don't have a problem with electric cars.
		So if somebody wants to go buy a brand new, brand new Tesla, there's nothing wrong with buying a brand new electric car.
		Go ahead.
		I just don't think that we should be using your hardworking taxpayer dollars to subsidize someone's choice.
		It's a broader philosophical disagreement.
unidentified		Thank you.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		All right, we have Karen Fulbright-Anderson up next, and behind her we have Barbara Isaacson.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Thank you.
		Oh, you got it?
		Oh, I don't told her.
		Okay, so my question for you is...
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		It's coming up.
unidentified		Oh, is when are you going to take as good of care of your constituents who are not uber wealthy as you do of the ones who are wealthy?
		And let me be more specific.
		So we have this big bill by all accounts, and I've been looking at different independent, nonpartisan analysis of the bill as well as reading it myself.
		And it appears that people who are earning $200,000 and less are going to pay more in taxes.
		People who are making $1 million and more are going to be paying, getting big tax cuts.
		You know, the policies around Medicare, there are going to be people who are deserving of Medicare who are going to be kicked off of Medicare because of some of these provisions that are going.
		That's going to happen.
		Those are some of the analyses.
		But there is no discussion about the health care executives who have been fraudulently taking money from Medicare.
		Why is there no discussion about that?
		At least five or six or several of whom President Trump has pardoned.
		And these people owe billions of dollars that they fraudulently stolen from Medicare and Medicaid.
		The other thing is to enable Elon Musk through Dodge to, when he was under investigation by at least 33 different agencies for fraudulent behavior, for other kinds of violations that he committed, all of those investigations have gone away.
		And yet he's walked away with all of our personal information, which none of us in this room, I'm sure, gave him permission to take our personal information and use it however he would.
		The other thing is the administration has fired most of the IRS inspectors who have been investigating fraudulent behavior among wealthy people and corporations.
		And also shutting down the divisions in the IRS thatse job it was to investigate those people.
		So again, these people are getting off with us.
		And now we're hearing that $600 million are going to be taken from FEMA and given to build these camps holding immigrants, many of whom are not criminals, as what we were told would be put into these camps.
		And then the last thing I'll say is about social, and I could go on, but I'll wrap it up because I know other people want to ask questions.
		But we also have heard conversations about wanting to privatize Social Security, which would be putting more money in the hands of private money market managers.
		But there's no discussion about raising the cap on the $168,000 cap on taxes.
		These kinds of things.
		There's no making fraudulent behavior among ultra-wealthy people, but yet you're putting all this emphasis on all these people on Medicaid and such who are supposedly gaming the system.
		So that's my question.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Is it safe to summarize your question more of what do we do?
		What do we do with the have-nots?
		What are we doing to support the have-nots?
		Because it seems like there's enough support for the have, so the people that need these programs are not really being dealt with fairly.
		Is that a fair, I'm trying to generalize this so he doesn't have to give you a half-hour answer?
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so in part, like I would disagree with the way you framed it.
		And so as I look at the tax provisions in the bill, what was in large part done was keeping the 2017 tax reforms in place.
		That's the bulk of the bill.
		Then on top of that, we built into three key areas, providing additional tax deductions for senior, effectively making Social Security tax-free.
		Then what we did is we added in tax benefits for middle-income workers, $75,000 and below as it relates to overtime and as it relates is related to taxes on tips.
		And so, let the gentleman speak.
		Say it again?
unidentified		But it sounds like from what I have heard that those tax cuts that you're talking about from Social Security and others are not permanent, but these tax cuts are resulting in this.
unidentified		So it's a good question.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		And so in there, there are sunset provisions on some of these, not on others, 100%.
		So the 2017 tax cuts were made permanent.
		So the 2017 reforms were made permanent.
		We've built on top of that additional tax cuts focused in on hardworking families that we will have an opportunity to continue to move forward down the road so that those taxes don't rise.
		And so there's sunset provisions in some.
		You're exactly right.
		There's not sunset provisions in others.
		I would work to maintain and keep those tax cuts into the future.
		And it's something that Congress is going to be working on going forward.
		Any given Congress could pass a tax law one way or the other.
		So while they're permanent, it's saying here is the steady state if no further action is taken.
		And so we took the 2017 tax bill and overall made those reforms permanent.
		And then we added on to that additional tax savings and built on to that additional tax reforms for hardworking families.
		And so it's going to be something that will continue on in this conversation.
		I think it'll actually be quite beneficial to a lot of hardworking families in the U.S.
		The other data point that I would give to that is to go back and to look at some of the empirical data offer those 2017 tax reforms.
		Those 2017 reforms, what we really saw going into the pandemic, was real wages rising, and in particular for lower income workers.
		And the reason for that is we had a lot of people in those groups that actually had the biggest room for growth.
		And so we saw real wages rising faster than the whole for women, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, veterans.
		And that is positive, and that is the reforms that are made permanent.
		No, I'm saying going into the pandemic, we saw that data.
		So prior to the pandemic, I would agree, using pandemic data would not be uniquely helpful.
		But going into the pandemic, we did see that economic growth and real wages rising.
		So we came back out of the pandemic.
		Part of the reason that we were able to continue on was the reforms that were in place from 2017.
		That's the bulk of what's made permanent, which is the steady state.
		And then we built on that for hardworking families.
		So I just disagree on your analysis.
		But I appreciate the question.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Thank you for the question.
unidentified		Go ahead.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Okay, we're coming up on the home stretch before we got to be out of the school, but let's keep going.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		All right.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Is this Barbara?
unidentified		Hello.
		I have lived in Wisconsin all my life.
		I received your newsletter.
		As you can see, people have many concerns about what's happening in Congress, zip codes not being a major concern.
		I see all of these things.
		And I'm wondering, we elected you, not your predecessor, not previous administrations.
		We elected you.
		And I would like to have two examples where you have voted on an issue representing Wisconsin and against the majority role of the Republicans, where you stood up and did not just vote.
		I'm a Republican, yes.
		I want to know two examples where you voted your ethics.
		And I also want to say, I have written to you several times, and I have never gotten a response.
		So thanks for the question.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Like I said, we're not perfect.
		I tried to get back to everybody.
		We've done about 100,000, so I want to make sure your name and number will track down why you might not have heard something.
		I work on big things and little things at the same time.
		And so the reference on the zip codes, that's a big deal to some people.
		That does not have the transformational change.
		That's not the big stuff.
		It doesn't get news.
		And so sometimes I use my newsletter to try to provide information to people about things other than just what is in news of the day.
		And that's a big deal in some communities in our district, maybe not yours.
		But then if you said, then to your point, right, give an example, I'd go back and I'd look at a sanctions vote against Russian oligarchs where I voted against the then the first term of the Trump administration.
		And so you would, there are, there are a number, there are a number of times where I don't always line up.
		You can go look at other legislation as well.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Are we good to go with another question?
unidentified		Two million people in Texas.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Just looking at the votes.
		have to say shut up.
		Can we get this gentleman under control please?
		Do we want another question?
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, let's do another.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		I know we're getting up.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Peter Gilbert from Racine.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Peter.
unidentified		Cancer.
		I don't care.
		Who steps next?
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		We're going to do more than one.
		I'm looking to the staff here.
		Peter Gilbert, are you here?
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Maybe we can walk back to Peter.
unidentified		Peter's coming to Peter.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Or we can go to you, Peter.
unidentified		Yeah.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, we'll go to you.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Don't get up.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Nancy Frank on deck.
unidentified		Yeah.
		I came all the way from the scene.
		I moved in April.
		And I want to thank you for doing all you're doing.
		There's a lot of lies going around here.
		And I know because I ran for state senate in 22, and I know what's going on.
		And I wanted to ask you, going back to the EPA.
		I had such a bad time with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation with this ridiculous emissions testing.
		They sent me to a secret testing garage and they sent me an estimate for $7,800 to fix a catalytic converter and a tailpipe.
		And I contacted the members of the state senate about having a hearing because as many people can't afford these repairs, I got it done privately and I went to the FBI in St. Francis and this is why you hear them reporting extortion and racketeering.
		And I showed them the receipt and they said, who's doing this?
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Let the gentleman finish his question.
unidentified		That's what we can hear him.
		It's the Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
		Then I took the initiative and called the EPA in Chicago.
		Even the EPA said they were going overboard.
		So I hope Lee Zeldon gets rid of this stupid test.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		Peter, you bring up a great point.
		This goes back to some of the conversation we had about a lot of the environmental rules and regulations.
		They have a real significant impact on all sorts of people in Wisconsin.
		And we have to ask ourselves and run a cost-benefit analysis.
		Is the cost that's applied to a lot of these tests, are they actually generating the benefit that they purport to?
		And I think what we have seen is often that the benefit does not justify the cost.
		And so as we look at a lot of the broader environmental, in particular as it relates to air, let Peter get an answer.
		He's waited like everybody else.
		But Peter, one of my concerns is that what we're doing is putting in place regulations that don't actually have the net benefit that they are purporting to, and then bringing these policies and regulations in line such that people can afford the things in their family that they need, where many people have been negatively impacted by the costs that are required by some of these rules and regulations.
		In particular, we have some attainment zone issues as it relates to the broader Milwaukee region right now being applied by the EPA that could have really draconian impact on jobs in the Milwaukee area.
		Good question.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		All right, we're a little bit over.
		I'm told we can take one more.
		So Nancy Frank from Elkhorn, you'll have the last question.
unidentified		I'll be very quick.
unidentified		I want to have you address the question that was shouted about the starving children in Gaza, but also the hungry children.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		We cannot hear her question.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		We cannot hear her question.
unidentified		Let the woman get her question.
unidentified		But also the hungry children in Wisconsin due to SNAP and food bank cuts.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		So there's two questions there.
		I can do them both, and I'll do them in reverse order for you, so I'll work backwards.
		So the SNAP benefits, where there's a lot of inaccurate information as to what happened.
		What we did as it relates to SNAP, which is supplemental assistance program, some people call it food stamps.
		What we did in that program was applied more or less work requirements that almost mirror the work requirements that are already in place in the state of Wisconsin.
		And again, that's for able-bodied, able-bodied adults that don't have young children.
		So, Wisconsin put in place work requirements in the welfare program in the 1990s.
		The federal government's work requirements that are now applied are actually reasonably similar to what is currently in existence in Wisconsin.
		Other states run their programs very poorly.
		Wisconsin has an error rate, for example, of a little less than 5%.
		Meaning, if you're giving out these benefits, an individual may receive the wrong amount of money on their card.
		Wisconsin, that air rate is less than 5%.
		Other states are 10% or above.
		And so, what we're really going to see if we implement this correctly in other states around the country is actually many other states coming to the Wisconsin standard.
		So, you're not going to see the reduction in some of the fear-mongering that's been out there as it relates to the state of Wisconsin.
		I think what you're actually going to see is a program strengthened for those that it was designed for.
		Your second question, which was your first question, that, so because it's yelled out, it's worth noting that that would only be if Wisconsin's error rate dramatically increased.
		Wisconsin's air rate, again, is below the 6% threshold where there would be an alteration in the flow of funds.
		And so, Wisconsin's air rate is currently below 5%.
		On the whole, Wisconsin runs our program better than other states.
		That's something we should all be proud of.
		It doesn't mean we're perfect, it means we're running our programs much better than other states.
		And the bulk of this law is trying to get other states to get their programs to run much more like the state of Wisconsin in a much more effective and productive manner.
		To the first question that you asked, which relates to the challenges that we've seen between Hamas and Israel, to me, the easy answer to address this crisis is for Hamas to surrender and release the hostages.
		Israel was unfairly, unjustly attacked.
unidentified		Their civilians were killed and kidnapped by Hamas terrorists.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Israel again, can we please let her hear her answer?
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		Israel has a right to defend itself.
unidentified		Will you please let her hear her answer.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		The gentlewoman has a right to hear the answer.
unidentified		So we may disagree with this, and that's fine.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for coming tonight.
tim bremel ▲ ● ▼		We're going to close it off here because there's no point in continuing.
unidentified		Well, let me leave it like this.
bryan steil ▲ ● ▼		I just, as it relates to your question, I'm of the view that Israel has a right to defend itself.
		And the easy and simplest way to end this horrific war is for Hamas to surrender and release their hostages.
		I appreciate everybody coming out tonight.
unidentified		Doesn't mean that everyone fully agreed with me.
		I know there's a lot of people that did agree with me.
		I thank you down here.
		I have folks in the back as well.
		And look forward to seeing everybody again soon.
		Next, former President Biden delivers a speech at the National Bar Association's 100th annual gala in Chicago.
		Then, a hearing on a proposed plan to reorganize the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and later, witness testimony from day two of the National Transportation Safety Board's investigation into the January 29th, 2025 mid-air collision between a commercial airliner and a U.S. Army helicopter.
		Technology reporter Nicole Kobe, author of The Long History of the Future, talks about how technology evolves and discusses why many predicted technologies, including driverless and flying cars, smart cities, Hyperloops, and autonomous robots, haven't become a reality.
nicole kobie ▲ ● ▼		If you've ever tried to build anything, you know, whether it's like an IKEA cabinet or, you know, something a little bit more complicated than that that doesn't come with instructions, it's very difficult to build something.
		So, engineers who are working on these kinds of problems, you know, whether it's driverless cars or flying cars or I don't know, even sillier ideas like Hyperloop, they're taking science that we know works and they're applying it to the real world, to physically, you know, to a physical object.
		And then they're trying to build that.
		And it's kind of in the details where things start to fall down a bit.
		It's kind of in, you know, how you actually make it happen, the materials you choose, the business model, all of that can just kind of take something that sort of works in the lab or works in an academic paper and just make it completely fall apart, even though people have spent maybe 80 years on an idea.
unidentified		Technology reporter Nicole Kobe, Sunday night at 8 Eastern on C-SPAN's QA.
		You can listen to QA in all of our podcasts, wherever you get your podcasts, or in our free C-SPAN Now app.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including MediaCom.
		Dear Future, we're on a mission to make small-town America bigger than anyone ever dreamed.
		That's why at Mediacom, we're always pushing the limits, increasing speeds, improving reliability, and we'll do whatever it takes to make it happen.

▲