thank you for joining us.

many of you have been here. i'm rye barcott, the ceo of w ith honor, fighting polarization in the united states congress. we do that by supporting veterans and servant leaders that are focused on being bipartisan and a time that is very difficult to do. what we found in the past seven years of this organization is

one of the key fertile areas to work across lines, and one of the ones that is most significant is in national security. we have been pleased to work alongside the four country caucus that you will hear more about and help pass over 250 laws over the past six years. we plan to continue to stay focused in that. that is why we are here today. thanks to jamil and politico for hosting this panel. i will see a quick word about each of the members of congress why am pleased to call friends. all have been around since the beginning of this organization. congressman seth moulton was maybe the first person, right up there with one of the first calls i made. we served in school many years ago. we overlap in the marine corps over the same period of time. he pulled more combat tours than i did, than most pulled, four, in the marines. he has been a member of congress and a real leader within the four country caucus. delighted to have him here.

congresswoman chrissy houlahan joined the caucus and became the founding vice chair. she's the only member of congress to have the distinction of serving in two particular forms, one in the military as an air force officer and the other as as teach for america alumnus. one of the areas we like to focus on is extending service opportunities for americans. it is an area where the parties come together. congressman brian fitzpatrick, served in ukraine, cochair of the problem solvers caucus. he's also the cochair of the ukraine caucus. it was so moving to hear from our front lines. i believe that him and congressman dan crenshaw where the first two members of congress i am aware of who went to ukraine after the illegal russian invasion. they went in their own capacity. i don't know how much they informed the embassy or not, but they were there. they got into ukraine and have been stalwarts for this fight

for freedom. we will hear more about that. in the case of congressman dan crenshaw, i remember him running for congress the first time. he literally ran. i believe he ran the entire way across his district in texas and is still running and getting good stuff done. i commend his podcasts which unpacks a lot of issues and i believed i shared with our moderator one of those. over to you, sir. [laughter] >> how could i forget? congressman jason crow is the reason why i am here. he introduced me to benedict, the msc ceo. it was the former cochair of the four country caucus. he's been around since the beginning and the only member of congress to have had a perfect attendance in four country caucus meetings. [laughter] >> something. >> new have not given me an award yet. >> we can make one up.

>> taking you for granted. so, thank you so much, rye. i want to say one more quick thing. the thing i love about his organization is that it stands for bipartisanship for fighting against polarization. we at politico are totally bipartisan. in the united states and here in europe, despite what some people might say. we are genuinely committed to bipartisanship and to covering politics through a nonideological lens. we, i think, do a very good job of that almost all the time. with honor works very well with us and we are committed to the same ideas. the military side of it, the fact that all of you have fought to defend democracy and defend freedom and our way of life, i think it is really admirable. something that my ancestors from

the united states and new zealand both did in world war i and world war ii. even though i have not fought in any wars, i did live in china for 22 years as a journalist and it felt like i was fighting in the trenches some of the time. i want to ask you as a panel what your reaction was to the speech. it was a momentous speech, new could say, genuinely that the vice president just gave. i'm assuming you all watched it. i would love to hear from each of you a quick reaction. i have heard a lot of european reaction, as i am based in brussels and i live in this part of the world, but i would love to hear from you how you see what the vice president just said. rep. crenshaw: i can imagine with the european reaction is. he had some strong words on european domestic politics. i'm not sure i disagree with anything he said on the issues

of censorship. i want to take a broader view what the trump administration's view is of european security as it pertains to ukraine because that is obviously the hottest topic at the moment. i think president trump has been very clear, he's been very clear in multiple interviews. we cannot have leverage over putin if we take things off the table. we are taking nothing off the table. we cannot have leverage over putin in a negotiation if we abandon ukraine. he was asked what does that mean? that means we don't abandon ukraine. so, there's a lot of things said, a lot of things that can be parsed out. the overall actual policy objectives of this administration, and when it is all said and done, they are not that different from the last administration. the difference is there's a clear-cut goal of achieving some kind of peace deal which i think

is in our -- especially american interests. what do americans want more? we want putin to regret what he's done. that has a lot of implications. the implication that especially american deterrence prevails for the next 50 years. wars of conquest are a thing that happened pretty often before world war ii. wars of conquest meaning a bigger guy can take a smaller guy's stuff because he likes it. we all know what world history was like before world war ii. it was not good. that is the american interests in this. the ukrainian interest of survival. they are fighting valiantly to do that and their support continues to be unwavering, i think. jamil: congressman fitzpatrick? rep. fitzpatrick: my day started off reading in article from the wall street journal where i think vice president vance used courageous language. the strongest i have seen yet

leading into these negotiations where he said he will fight and will not tolerate anything but ukrainian independent sovereignty and the administration is willing to go to the mat on sanctions and even troops in ukraine. that is the strongest linkage we've heard from anybody and i applaud vice president vance for using such strong language. to dance point, the question is what does victory look like? dan said it best, the goal has to be for vladimir putin to regret his decision to invade ukraine. that has to be the message because if the message is you were going to be rewarded, a dictator that conveys a sovereign freedom of democracy, that will send a message to xi jinping, kim jong-un, any other aspiring dictator across the planet. victory means making these dictators regret the day they

stepped one foot over a countries border that is not theirs. jamil: well said. rep. houlahan: new guys can try to guess what side of the aisle we are all from after this question. i was enormously disappointed by the speech. it was in no way, shape or form what i would have hoped for from the vice president of the united states of america. and why was that? he spent no time talking about ukraine. he never once said the word ukraine or russia, as far as i remember. rather, he spent the time curiously enough criticizing the european continent for the very things that we in the united states struggle with ourselves. i felt like it was a pot and kettle situation where i felt like i was not really sure why that moment in our history, our

collective history needed to be about that subject. i felt like it needed to be about whatever the wall street journal article you were talking about was. i feel like that is much more appropriate than the language that was here. so, i walked away, to be honest, feeling -- i will say it out loud -- i felt like that i am sorry. i am sorry for that speech to the continent of europe and i am sorry for a significant population of america, may be the majority of america who i think will be disappointed with the tone of that speech. rep. crow: i assume you are referring to the lecture that you are got by the vice president. we are on a bipartisan panel and at think it is important to emphasize the many things we share in common. i agree with the vice president, he should respect election results. i agree with the vice president

that you should not jail your political opponents. i agree that you should not censor the media. the problem is this vice president has been unwilling to say publicly he respects the election results from 2020. donald trump said just yesterday that the members of the january 6 committee, his so-called political opponents, should be jailed. they just kicked the ap out of the pentagon. what i heard was a very hypocritical lecture. i agree with dan. there is a lot of things you could agree with in the speech but the hypocrisy was unbelievable. i don't think i've ever heard a more hypocritical speech in my life. i also think it is important what dan said about our shared values for ukraine. and we heard some of that from the vice president. we heard it yesterday. but, talk about taking leverage off the table. when you say to ukraine you will not get all of your territory back, when you say to ukraine

you will not be a part of nato before the negotiations even start, i mean, that is just unbelievably bad negotiating. it's certainly taking leverage off the table. jamil: congressman crow? rep. crow: a lot of brown has been covered here. i associate my self with the remarks of seth and chrissy. we have a bipartisan veterans association. that does not mean we agree all the time. bipartisanship means we have pretty honest and pretty tough debates, yet we still work together. i work with everybody up here and i disagree. we battle at some points. with that said, i was embarrassed by that speech, right? and for the reasons that seth articulated. i think alliances and partnerships, which are one of

our core strengths, they are the foundation which should be focused on our shared values and what we have in common, not policing or criticizing each other's domestic politics. particularly not policing each other's domestic politics when our own house is not in perfect order either for the reasons my colleagues also did a good job of articulating. but, that said, there's been a lot of things i have not liked, and i frankly been embarrassed by that happened the last six weeks. but, it could have been more damaging, right? there were no policy pronouncements and big things that locked us in or that locked the alliance in, that took things off the table. i do think a lot of things still do remain on the table and i do think there's room to maneuver. frankly, in some ways, that was a sigh of relief that nothing happened that could not be walked back and could not be

negotiated. rep. houlahan: if i could finish this by saying there's one thing that's really valuable to me about the people that sit on the stage with me. when the speech ended and i was pretty upset, dan said what did you think? i told him a little bit and he said don't feel like you have to hold back. tell me what you really think. i appreciated that and i value that, so thank you for that. jamil: this moment in history is obviously more polarized not just in the united states, but across the world in most democracies. it is a truly polarizing moment, but the fact you guys are sitting up here together and the fact you worked together through your shared service and work to bring the parties in america together, it must be tough. i want to ask how do you do it and what are the sort of main strategies you have to remain

civil and try to get legislation through that is genuinely bipartisan? and for all of you, what are the main topics where you see the most overlap between the two parties at the moment? rep. crenshaw: i had to give a talk to incoming freshmen at orientation recently. one of the rules i gave them was the elevator rule. try not to tweet something that you don't want -- try not to tweet something at someone you might share an elevator with. [laughter] jamil: like being in the military. rep. crenshaw: it is a good rule. i have learned in overtime. you know who my office neighbor is right now? aoc. i have to walk past all those post-it notes every day to get to my office. it has been a long time since we've tweeted at each other. i think a lot more bipartisanship happens in congress than people realize.

the vast majority of the bills we passed out of the house are bipartisan, suspension bills. there are things we work on. the how is a bit more complicated. sometimes it happens in a caucus setting. sometimes it happens via committee. people ask me how do you find the right democrat to work with? it depends on which committee they are on, their personality, sometimes it depends on the caucus. working on fisa reform together to target the cartels. we both had large element of her own party voting against that. it is inextricable. it happens opportunistically as well. it happens a lot more i think that many people give congress credit for. jamil: i want him to give it to you, that is more bipartisan.

>> i don't think it is complicated. the key to success in relationships in our lives, any relationship in our lives is to not allow the person to be the enemy of the good. you come to the center. you build consensus. you see the world through the other person's eyes. understand that all of our paradigms begin based on her own personal life experiences which are very different than other people's life experiences. that is the most support and thing. tone matters. your language is very important and there's never been a single business challenge that has been resolved by people screaming at each other over the table. there's never been a family crisis solved by people screaming at each other across the kitchen table. why pray tell what we take any other approach to government? i think that is very important. we're all going to disagree on different policies. we can choose to point out that which we don't like or we can

highlight the things we do. i came here last year. vice president, then-vice president kamala harris spoke. i sound that which i agreed with her speech even though we disagree on an awful lot. that which i agreed on and i compline at her over twitter. i put a tweet out much to this e chagrin of many people i know because it is important we set that tone. when we are overseas, we are one country, we are one nato, and we have to find areas where we see positive. the disagreements are going to be there. me and -- rep. houlahan: sorry, go ahead. rep. fitzpatrick: we have a lot of differences with the administration. if we want the best outcome, which i do, for ukraine -- ukraine is the hill i would die on because i think it is so

existential that we get this right. i am taking the approach that we get more bees with honey. i will try to use my persuasion with the administration, try to complement them on what they are doing right, steer them in the direction i want them to go in because we have to get this right for the sake of these people and their families who fought in the front lines, and learn from the lessons of the past. september 1, 1939 when germany invaded poland, there were a lot of people across the world -- neville chamberlain saying we don't want to provoke, we don't want to escalate regional conflicts. a problem that could have been nipped in the bud early ended up as the deadliest war in world history. the prior administration, i wanted to pull my hair out with some of the decisions made. there were silver of us, including -- there were several of us who came to the polish side of the border begging with secretary blinken, begging for

mig-29's, all soviet technology. we were told it would be too provocative. now just before january, we are giving f-16 fighter jets, starting to go into russia, and patriot battery missiles. imagine if we would have given all of that equipment on day one. we would be looking at a very different trajectory. when it comes to the topic of ukraine which i care deeply about, that is why i chose on day one to chair that caucus, i think both parties have gotten it wrong. i really have. it is never too late and we will be doing our job with this administration to have a good outcome for you all. jamil: last year, we met briefly but i listened to you speak. there was a dinner and you spoke. it was fascinating. i learned a lot about how, not just the attitudes of congress towards ukraine and the battle,

but how it works in d.c. i learned a lot from that so thank you for that. how long were you in ukraine? >> i want to key off of two things that brian said. he commented on vice president harris' speech. i listened to her speech two years ago and i walked out of that and said that was a terrible speech. so, it's ok to be a bipartisan critic. in fact, the definition of political courage is not criticizing the other party, it is being willing to criticize your own. that is hard to do in today's congress, but if you hear some of the dialogue on this panel, it is about how we are able to cross the aisle by willing to go against your own party, like the fisa bill where there were a lot of democrats and republicans opposed to that legislation. the other thing i talk about is how you develop these

relationships. i think the foundation of a relationship is trust. often times, you develop trust or you start developing trust just by identifying some shared experiences. things you can relate to. you start to get to know someone by being able to relate to them. we had a meeting with the german defense minister this morning and i was sitting next to dan. i disagreed with some of his comments, so we talked afterwards. there are a lot of members of congress that won't even bother talking to but i respect dan because of his service and his experience, some of which i shared. to me, dan is someone worth talking to and i think over the course of 30 minutes of dialogue, we came to some agreement on what -- where we agreed and disagreed, probably more where we agreed on what the german defense minister had to say. and that shared experience really anchors us in the four country caucus.

i think that is a key to why it works. jamil: ukraine, we talked about your shared military service and mutual respect for each other which is impressive to see. are there other areas where you think there can be more bipartisan -- what are the other key areas where bipartisan views -- rep. houlahan: topics or subjects? jamil: i am thinking of china. rep. houlahan: there still a pretty strong bipartisan agreement about china. i will give this to you because i am already mic'ed up. what i wanted to contribute to the original question about how you get things done, and i think there are several different ways. many of them have been touched on. one is you have relationships with people. two is you develop trust with people. similar to what you guys were saying, when president biden was president, i was pushing back on him not doing enough fast enough. i pushed back on afghanistan. i did all the things i could

uncomfortably from my side. i hope that earned respect and trust from my community as well as from this stage. i would also say the way things get done is two ways. randomly, like a lightning bolt moment. it's because you have relationships. and also with really hard, very focused work over years of time. one thing we are working on bipartisanly is paid family leave and paid medical leave. this is something that has been vexing the united states for its entire history and for the last 30 years we haven't really moved the needle on this. this is an opportunity, especially in an environment such as this where it is a very fragile majority-minority kind of thing where both parties are profamily. both parties want to support the economy and people to have children and be able to be successful. representative stephanie bice and i have worked together for now coming up on three years to

try to create the legislative solutions for that. that is the deliberate method, and i am sorry to hear people say this is something that may have traction. the random one is we care about paid leave. i put a bill forward on the ndaa that sold a bunch of our tungsten out of our strategic reserves and it created money. with that pay-for, the idea was brought forward to use that for paid leave for federal employees. it turned out ivanka trump really likes paid leave. so, she was instrument ellen helping get that tungsten to pay for to be able to help the beginnings of paid leave for 2.1 million federal employees. that is just magic. that is critical minerals meet paid leave. it's crazy. jamil: love it. congressman crow? rep. crow: i am playing cleanup so there's not more i cannot say that has not already been addressed by the other panelists.

maybe the only additional piece is an understanding, the common understanding about the environment in which we are operating. i think that is may be a shared view. i think we understand there is a convergence of forces at play and that we are swimming upstream of those forces and having to address them together. substantively, there's a convergence of mass migration pressures in all of our societies. this is something everybody in this room can share in the implications of that politically. we are all still dealing with the fallout from the pandemic which has had cultural and societal implications on our politics and societies. and economic stagnation, which we are all still dealing with as well. all of those things are happening and they are happening within a political environment of desegregated media, of social media, of extremism coming from

multiple forms. all of those things coming together and what it requires is we be willing to take heat from every direction. to be someone who's willing to work in a bipartisan way means at any given moment, by the way that i speak, i communicate and the way i legislate, i will be taking heat from my left and my right and for my back and from my front. because i either won't be going far enough for my base or i will be going too far for the folks who disagree with me, and you just have to be willing to do that. i think that is the definition of leadership that we learned in our service. leaders don't just follow and follow public sentiment and will and put their finger up to see where the wind is blowing. you help shape sentiment and will and create coalition around issues. and that's what i think we're trying to. do. >> i'm going -- trying to do. >> i'm going to ask you who decides that you have to -- you

don't have to that you get to work in the office next to a.o.c.? is that like -- is that something -- is it random? >> my neighbor is nancy mace. >> speak ass a -- as a person who hasn't worked in washington, is that meant to make you more nonpartisan. >> it's random. there's more to it. but it's boring. i could tell you how we get to our offices -- but since i have a -- the microphone, i could talk about bipartisanship and that's something and i have work on with chrissy. in america, there's a lot of bipartisanship and realization from your populist right who is like don't deploy anyone else,

isolationist from your left who is your moderate democrat and moderate republican. everybody agrees there's a problem in our southern border. it's a problem for the mexicans. it is a problem for us. and we've done a lot of work with the cartel task force. chrissy was a part of. that we passed legislation that allows fisa to target them. there's a lot more that can be done there. and there's a lot more that will be done because there's a lot of agreement as long as we go the right way and that means beinginess collusive of others. there's a difference between pro-klamathic an idea, getting it -- pro-cha mating an idea and there's a difference between that and a law-making experience. exercise. they're just too important not to be a law-making exercise. the way our systems works, it's very different from the parliamentary systems of all the countries that are represented

here. but you need 60 votes in the senate if you want to target the car tells. that so needs to be a law making exercise. you need to have buy-in from the other side. we plan on doing that. the cartels are one of the most dangerous insurgeon sys slash paramilitaries in the world. >> dan referenced isolationist on the left and isolationist on the right. probably the vast majority at the munich security conference agree where democrats and republicans are. and that's where the consensus tends to be a committee like the armed services committee, the foreign affairs committee, the moderates where whether they be in the republican party or the democratic party are not the ascendency right now. we're not the cool guys. we're not the people that are raising a lot of people

>> you're cool, seth. >> i've been trying all my life, jason. >> should have been a seal. you could have been a seal. >> ooh. >> shots fired. [laughter] >> and so in some way that is highlights why this caucus and the work that we do together as fellow veterans is all the important because we need to build political capital in the center because it's not where there's naturally a lot of political capital right now. you asked about offices. i was on a cnn interview with a republican colleague because we were working on gun reform together. very, very contentious issue. in the commercial break before the interview, the host said what's the deal? are you high school buddies? do you have lockers in the gym? and the answer is yeah, our lockers are next to each other in the gym.

that's how we got started. some of this is vin dip us to and it would be -- serendipitous and it would be wise for the members of congress to figure out more ways to have these serendipitous moments. i often find that washington is so polarized. you can't do anything in washington that's really bipartisan. very, very few exceptions every month let alone every day oftentimes it's like this. you find -- you know, common purpose in advancing america's national security interest. it's often environments like this where you have the conversations across the isle that are the seeds of working together. >> that's great >> congressman, i would like to start with you to reverse the cleanup operation. what about doge? really we in -- [laughter] we can revert back that way. [laughter]

rep crow: i'm good with it. >> for us it's fascinating for outsiders watching from europe like -- i mean, i've experienced -- i'm an american citizen. the first time i had to get my social security number and had to get a driver's license. i lived in america, the last time 20 years ago. and i'm registered in this place in colorado. rep crow: colorado is not going to let you go. >> it's a wonderful place. the thing that i observe as an outside ser the american government and governments in many democracies frankly it does need a really serious overhaul. and i'm just fascinated to hear from the democrats where you think doge can make a real difference and then may hear from the republicans your

criticism of doge? but let's start with the democrats. praise doge for me and tell me why -- >> well, i'm not going to do that. listen, doge -- you're not wrong in that doge is responding to -- it's responding to a real problem. and that problem being that there are -- there are many functions of government that are not working the way they should that are not delivering in the way that they should in an efficient way, in a way that -- that is being good stewardess of the taxpayer dollar. and people see it. right? they see it in their every day lives. it takes sometimes 10 years to complete a bridge project. give me a break. you drive past and you see a bridge under construction for 10 years. and the government says this is funded by our taxpayer dollars and it makes people pissed off and they should be pissed off. there's a lot of things like that. that is what it's in response.

to i think it's the wrong remedy and i think sit largely a theatrical and perform active response to that that -- that's picking small little examples out of the air and then pretending that those examples are -- are policy at large and our illustrative of the larger response in government and how government works. that's not largely true. right? and pick on the small people like usaid and say we're going to make across the board cuts to usaid and the humanitarian when that is bad for our moral standing. it's bad for american leadership. it's not the right way to do it. now there are good things to focus on. and if doge wants to focus on for example, defense and procurement and contracting reform which actually is one of the most bipartisan issues in congress and i think everybody on this stage would be yes, our

contracting system is broken in the way that we buy and develop big systems. it's inefficient. it's slow. it's buying the wrong stuff at the wrong time. and it's wasting tense of billions of taxpayer dollars. i would be perfectly willing to do that. and there's bipartisan efforts and working group that many people on this -- this platform have served in and led actually to focus on that. so recognizing that the angst is real, that the need for reform and efficiency is real within certain areas but then figure out what is the tailored focused, surgical rem do i that that can get bipartisan support that is not theatrical and will not do damage to us is the task before us. >> yes, everybody knows government is inefficient. and to take another perspective on exactly what jason just said, i think a big problem for democrats is that we are supposedly the party of

defending government. and yet we've done nothing to really reform government. and to make it more efficient. but i think the question about doge is whether the approach that they are taking as jason said will be effective or actually might be just utterly detrimental because it seems to me what they're doing is not just making government more efficient but just eviscerating it, making it go away. there's this common -- you know, conservative view, you know, that the conservative american who doesn't want government involved in his life in my way and says, you know, get the government to take their hands off any social security check. ok. well, this is the government program, right? and so there's a degree to which, you know, the average american doesn't understand the role that government has in their lives. i think it's very difficult to explain the role that usaid plays for our national security. and yet, when we had some brief on the armed services committee

this past week and we asked some of the commanders is usaid important? they said absolutely. will doge be effective and what is the democratic alternative because there doesn't exist a democratic alternative today. when doge says we're going to make government efficient by cutting out a bunch of government employees and they offer this buyout offer. let me just ask this this question. who takes the buyout offer? it's all the people with better options. i had two friends call an ask my personal advice. do you think i should take this or not? and both of them are pairing offers on wall street. we want the old, tired government employee who is super lazy and -- you know, that's a little bit of a trove but there's probably some truth to that. we all know that. that test person we want to retire. that's not the person that elon musk is going to get to retire. and so i think that the danger here is that tend result of doge

is a government that's actually less efficient, less effective and doesn't deliver the things that we need for the american people. but shame on democrats for not having an alternative. >> totally ignored my instructions but that's ok -- [laughter] >> i don't know what your instructions were because i wasn't listening. exactly. this is how -- this is how congress works. ok? >> polarization gets -- >> actually what i want to seize these guys are accurate doge is answering a problem that exists. there is inefficient sys. there's definite something that need be done and question be better than we are. all large systems are like that. i'm an engineer. i was a procurement officer and contract engineer in the military. what i would say the methodology that we're using by having elon musk in 19-year-olds sweep in

and do what it wants to a scan of all the data, control f looking for things that are provocative that will ping on everybody's nerves so they can hold it up and say here's the waste. here's the fraud. here's the problem. and then at the same time have just total chaos in all different aspects of our -- of our country, all different organizations. not to mention the fact that these are people who have literally no training in these systems. they have -- no background or security check clearances. they've been given them. but they have no background or security check clearances. this is not how it's supposed to work. how it should work is congress. how it should work is the constitution. that i think is what i'm most concerned about and what i will end by saying is because i have relationships with people who are -- who are here on this stage and also some who are at home in washington, i think it's important that we have these conversations and try to hear what each other is saying. i know that my colleagues have different opinions. but that's why i value their

opinions because they clearly see a need and a solution that i don't see >> just to be fakes there are a lot of democrats who womb say everybody's final. we're not saying that at all. we're saying there is a problem that need to be fixed. >> i'll give you both sides of it, how's that? i think the good thing is we're having conversations in a much more serious way on a topic that we have not had in my lifetime of politics that need to be had. if getting back to my earlier comment about partisanship, businesses and families, if our businesses and our families management the budget the way our government does, every single families would be beggars. that's a fact. we're having serious conversation about things that should have been had a long time ago. that's a good thing. and by the way, think a big driver of that is 49-50 states in america have a balanced budget amendment. we do not have that at the federal level. so we could be santa claus and

give everything away and never have to answer that tough question like families doing businesses. that needs to change. we have to pass a balanced budget amendment. it's common sense. makes sense at the states. it's certainly the case in our state of pennsylvania and so many states across the country i think we've got to be careful about overgeneralizing this or anything when we still are not clear on what the facts are. and the laws is untested both of which are true here. i'm a former f.b.i. agent. i've been working closely with a lot of my former colleagues in the bureau to get my arms around what exactly going on there to get the facts, because that's the first thing you need. and we have an area of untested law specifically a bill that was passed in 1962. it's title 18 section 220. it created this brand-new class of government employees called s.g.'s or special government employees. it's been used by every single president to the tune of thousands of people every

administration. but it's never been used in this manner by someone with the, you know, the wealth and the -- and the popularity i gets you would say not necessarily good or bad. but he's a very known figure, elon. who had gone about that way of using that position, right? it's sort of the shock and awe approach to government auditing. we need to get the factsle we need to get clarity on this law. and if the facts are being done in compliance with the law and the law is not being used in the way that was the -- consistent with the intent who ever wrote that bill in 2002, then we revisit the raw if the facts use that the law is being violated then we get to enforce it. that's the cleanest and more intellegetn way to approach this. what you don't hear from doge is what they're findings right? they're complaining about, you know, the fixes that we need

from what they're finding because they're finding some pretty damning things. and i the public should -- i think the public should learn about that. >> doge was originally envisioned -- i mean my skepticism stemmed from the notion that -- that -- that -- that a businessman can fix a bureaucracy because these are necessarily apples and organizations. a business is more efficient because it's profit-driven which means you can control for bias very easily. the mission of a bureaucracy is to help people, and of course, we have very different ideas of what it means to help people even on this panel. therefore you have to control for the bias. some would call it the deep state. the way you control for that is by wrapping those bureaucrats in red tape. so that tension is always there. i was secures you what doge was going to do. were they going to rehash a bunch of report that is old think tanks had already done

that led -- thrice had already been had to make government more efficient or shrink it or shrink the role of it. there's a difference between shrinking size and the role. i've been impressed with the niche they've found which is data analytics. you find these young software engineers. why are you bringing in young software engineers. they don't know anything about the usai d'or social security as a program. but what east been interesting is watching what they've done which is exactly scrape data and ask some very basic questions. these are vastly different categories. but it should be said that elon musk is doing all of this -- at -- at the pleasure of the president. president trump can take anybody he wants to -- to manage this particular program within the executive branch. i'm a firm believer that the head of the executive branch can manage the executive branch. they cannot fire any of our employees.

it should also be said that we can fire our employees today without asking any questions. the federal government, the executive branch cannot do that. i don't like that. i think that's kind of crazy. i think it should be easier to fire people who are -- who are not doing their jobs well. and usaid, secretary rubio has made it clear, we're not getting rid of usaid and there are programs that are indeed crucial for our national security and interest. they're going line by line. they should be going line by line whether it's elon musk doing it in this public manner or some staffers at the white house who would be doing it anyway. and then they're going through things like social security. but they're finding some pretty common sense -- and this is where i've been impressed on this niche that has been found which can only be done by data analytics. if you're 150 years old, why are you getting a social security checks?

this is a data problem it seems where, look, we've all been in the military. we all know very well how poorly records can be kept, how outdated these systems are. and fit takes some -- some -- some tech nerds to figure it out, i'm not so sure i see that as a bad thing in the end, the policy that comes out of that is not from elon musk. that's what's been saidnd popularized. elon musk is doing. this no, no, no, he works for president trump. he's part of the executive branch and president trump is head of the executive branch. the poll says that come out of that will be the policies that come out of that. it won't be elon musks policies it will be president trump's policies. indeed, they are the president's. >> we're running out of time. i just want to thank you guys. i mean, i really think it's impressive to see that people with obviously different political view points and different simp went city that is you represent, different, you know, political perspectives can

get together through your service and through your mutual respect which i can feel and i can -- and i admire. soy just wanted to thank you really for coming and for joining us at politico pub. you're welcome to use this space. tomorrow from 9:to 11:00 you can have beers, wipes whatever you want -- [laughter] you can come through. there's food. you can do meetings here. >> you want to get us drunk and then ask us questions. >> every third person -- we'll be playing boardgames later tonight. >> wait for one second. i think svetlana would like to say a quick thank you. i will give you the microphone. >> sasha -- i just wanted to thanking every one of you from the ukrainian people from the parliament because i know how much each one of you have done. i remember it was like three or four days of war and you explained to me how the politics

work and what i have to say i remember jason asking me like 30 times. and every time you would take me in even if it was 15 minutes a day. what do you sneed cut it short. i've never heard the word "escalation" from any one of you. he was the first person that said it was not going to go down birth happened, before the invasion because everybody was saying 24 hours, and didn't believe that. ukrainian roots because i remember coming to you. and you said i have ukrainian roots. i couldn't believe. that thank you is much for standing out for us and fighting for that. i just wanted to thank every one of you because you're heroes for us. fighting there, that war together, the staff together. air defense and everything. and i know that if not your group, we would not be where we are right now honestly. so thank you.

[applause] seat