LaLota fields questions during hour-long telephone town hall Wednesday: transcript

NY-01 Rep. Nick LaLota (R-Amityville) held a tele town hall Wednesday evening. He fielded eight questions from callers over the course of approximately one hour. He also conducted several polls during the session related to a question he’d just answered, asking people on the call to indicate if they agree or disagree with his stated position on the issue. LaLota said he’d post the poll results on his social media pages.

The first question of the night was a written question read by a man LaLota referred to as the operator, who introduced each subsequent live caller. LaLota said the first question was submitted by the Long Island Network for Change and associated groups like the Suffolk Progressives, which organized a protest outside the congress member’s district office in Hauppauge on Feb. 17.

Here’s how LaLota opened the Q&A with the question from the protest organizers, followed by a transcript of the entire session, prepared with the assistance of Otter, an AI recording and transcription app.

LaLota:

My hope is that we find common ground on the challenges that we as an island, we as a country face.

There were some criticisms that this forum, this tele town hall, might be too scripted, that somehow some folks were asserting that I only take calls from my friends and their pre-scripted questions. Those of you who have been on these calls before know that’s not what this is. We often take calls on anything abortion, guns, Trump, whatever it is folks want to talk about, I want to talk about too.

I said to them, hey, listen, I want you guys to agree on a question and send that question in, and I promise you we will read your question. We won’t edit it. We will read it in entirety, and I’ll address it. So Operator, can you please tee up the question from the Long Island Network for Change and the associated groups like the Suffolk Progressives.

Question One

Congressman, the question is, in the past month, President Trump has implemented a number of actions that clearly and explicitly goes against the Constitution and powers granted to Congress, including signing an executive order to end birthright citizenship, illegally firing inspector generals without congressional approval, and illegally dismantling agencies developed by congressional legislation. Congress is a co-equal branch of government, and if the President desires to do these things, he should and must go through the proper channels, which is Congress. Why have you been absolutely silent as the President engaged in this overreach?

LaLota:

First, I think you can tell I’m not screening my questions. We’ll take even the most pointed ones from folks with whom I may not agree. So let me try to break down that question to a couple of parts. The first is the birthright citizenship, and in about  60 or 90 seconds, I’m going to give a poll question and ask you guys what you think about birthright citizenship and the concept thereof. 

But let’s frame this the right way. Trump, we all know, is a disrupter. Trump campaigned on changing the status quo. Never before have we had an election where there was a president who served for four terms, and a different president who served, excuse me, for four years, and a different president who served for four years afterwards. And then we had an election between the same exact ideology. Kamala Harris, I don’t think I’m editorializing too much, generally, ran under Joe Biden’s policies. We had Trump run against Biden and Trump said, I’m going to shake things up if I get back into office. So with that, I am not surprised that he’s taken a shot at birthright citizenship. And I went to law school. I learned there at Hofstra Law the Fourth Amendment,, part of it says all persons born or nationalized the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state where they reside. So the concept is, if you’re a baby born here, no matter what the circumstances, you’re a United States citizen and Trump has criticized that and poked some holes in that concept. One of them is, if you’re a say, You’re European tourist, and you’re here on a tourist visa, and you’re shopping in Manhattan for a couple of weeks under your under your tourist visa, and you’re six months pregnant, and you give birth early, you go into labor early, you give birth. That’s by that interpretation of the 14th Amendment, that that baby is a United States citizen. Similarly, if you’re a migrant coming from Central America or South America across our southern border, regardless if you cheated when you came across the border, that maybe you came in between ports of entry and you scooted across the border, or maybe you feigned asylum at a port of entry, and you got in that way, and then later on, you give birth to your baby a day later, a week later, or whatnot. But that baby, too, is a United States citizen, so Trump is challenging the status quo on that and it’s something that has been contemplated a little bit recently. 

POLL

So I want to ask you this: press one, if you think that that status quo is worthy of being questioned, if you think that the concept that every baby born in the United States, no matter what the circumstances is a U.S. citizen, press 1. Conversely, if you disagree If you think the status quo is just fine, that no matter what the circumstance, if you are a baby born in the United States, regardless if the parent came here illegally, if the parent was here on a tourist visa, and whatever else, if you think the status quo is okay, press 2.

On firing inspectors general: I think that my progressive friends would agree that inspectors general play a critical role in government oversight, ensuring agencies operate efficiently and ethically. That’s what we should do. We should have watchdogs within our agencies, however, and this has been tested multiple times, presidents absolutely have the authority to remove them if they believe they’re not fulfilling their duties effectively. And in fact Barack Obama dismissed Gerald Walpin the Inspector General for the Corporation for National Community Service, citing a lack of confidence. So there is some historical precedent on that. I’m going to keep my eye on it, because I want to make sure these IGs serve the purpose that taxpayers  are paying their salaries for. I think it’s an important way to protect your taxpayer money and ensure that you get the best return on investment. 

I also want to go down the part of the question looking at here, the assertion that the Congressman has been silent in these issues. Well, I’m not really sure if that’s the case. I have very active social media accounts, multiple posts a day, where I engage in things that are important. Things are timely. Things are relevant. I’ve made a commitment that I’ll go on CNN an equal number of times that I go on the Fox News Channel. I don’t want to just speak in echo chambers and hear the same ideology and be asked, you know, one one type of question and promote one kind of narrative. So I’m not sure if the criticism or accusation that has been found really comports with the facts. I’ve been out there a number of things, and I don’t really think that’s the case.  We have these town halls, fellow town halls, regularly, we get over 10,000 participants in them, and I’m fully accessible to you, call my office, email me. I’m here for you. If we can schedule a meeting, we’ll get that done as often as our schedules will allow.

Congressional authority and presidential actions. I think we’re going to probably get into an executive order question later on, so maybe we’ll hold off on that. I definitely want to talk about the number and type of Trump EOS that have come down the pike.

Question Two

From Lindsey of Long Island

How does the Congress plan on cutting $880 billion from the Energy and Commerce Committee, if it’s not cutting social programs, Medicare? How do you cut the agricultural budget, $230 billion without getting rid of SNAP? I know that a lot of the party line, from what I’ve heard so far, is about Doge and fraud or whatever, but from what I see, Doge has walked back a number of the things that they’ve claimed is fraud. They said, Oh, actually, they didn’t find that much or whatever. So where are you getting this money to make these cuts if we’re not going to eliminate important social programs?

LaLota: 

Great question. Lizzie, appreciate it. Let’s get into it. Because I think that the budget resolution vote from, I think, was February 25 was the most important, unimportant vote that I’ve taken recently.On one hand, the budget resolution vote unlocks a process to amend the United States budget and not require 60 votes in the Senate to require a mere 51 if it passes the House, ultimately only requires 51 the Senate. But  the substance of that is not until budget reconciliation months from now. So the reason I tell you the February 25 vote is inconsequential, on one hand, is that it actually changes no laws. It changes no spending. It changes no taxes. It merely gives permission for House committees to do their work so that ultimately they can propose, like I said, weeks or probably more likely, months later, us to vote on something that amends the budget. So I hope I haven’t really lawyered that up too much, but it’s a two-step process. 

We’re in this position because for 25 years, regardless of party, Washington screwed it up. They haven’t balanced the budget here [in Washington]  in 25 years.

And that’s a Democrat and Republican problem. Regardless of which party has had the White House, the Congress or whatever, neither party has balanced the budget. And it’s not hyperbolic. Recently with respect to debts and deficits, last year, we had $2 trillion deficit. We spent $2 trillion more than we took in, and that’s the cause for the inflation crushing so many families who are living paycheck to paycheck. So the mission is decrease the deficit, to decrease the inflation, to help hard work and working family. That’s the mission.

How we do it is by growing the economy and cutting wasteful spending. I’ll tell you this with respect, I think you asked about Medicaid. We can’t cut Medicaid to the point we’re hurting people. And what unites the House Republican Conference is cutting in three areas. One, getting everybody who is not in this country legally off of the Medicaid roll. Two, requiring work for able bodied adults, and three, rooting out the waste fraud and abuse that is rampant in systems like New York.

I don’t want to go further than that. We’re going to have to see what the Energy and Commerce Committee put together that comports with those three criteria. If it goes too far, I’ll vote no. I’ll vote against my own party. I’m ranked the ninth most independent House Republican here, I vote against my party more than 95% of my colleagues, because I’m here honestly, for Long Island, for the country. I’m a Republican with conservative values. I believe in a smaller government, more accountability, a strong military. These are things that make me Republican, but hell, I’m a long Islander and an American way before I’m any member of any party. So I’m going to stick up for long island that respect

 I’ll say another thing too. SALT is what we got to fix as well in this budget, this budget reconciliation that’ll come up in a couple of months. I am wholly committed. And I’ve got to give credit to some of my House Republican colleagues: Andrew Garbarino, also from Long Island, Tom Kean from New Jersey, Young Kim from California, and Mike Lawson from the Westchester area, all Republican colleagues and I. We’ve banded together, and we said, hey, listen, we’re not going to vote with our party on ultimately budget reconciliation unless there is a reasonable increase in the state and local tax deduction that can assuage the financial concerns of so many of us in Suffolk County, if they must have in budget reconciliation, that we have a higher state and local tax cap.

I believe that a nation that’s $36 trillion in debt with a $2 trillion deficit requires the difficult conversation about where we are on spending. I don’t think we have a revenue problem. I think we have a spending problem. But I want you to give me some feedback

POLL

I want you to give me some feedback. I want you to press one if you agree with me that we have to look — by the way, while protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and other very important programs, while you protect those important programs— I want you to press 1 if you agree with me that we have to find some spending cuts elsewhere. But I respect you if you think otherwise, if you think that the status quo is just okay and that we shouldn’t cut anywhere, then go ahead and press two.

Question Three:

From Ed of Manorville

Thank you for all the efforts you’re doing in Washington. I just designed a valve, and I’m going to start manufacturing. This is an industrial product for buried steam pipes in the city of New York and Pennsylvania, we’re going to expand into liquid natural gas shortly after. And my concern is, I’m so grateful for the tariffs, because I am taking the business away from China and Mexico. But these companies, if they move into America to avoid that 25% tariff, that puts me in a tight spot. I’d like to know that homegrown companies like mine still have an edge over them, because, after all, their profits are going to be leaving the country. They’re just going to be using our labor, and it’s going to make it hard for new American companies to grow if they don’t have some kind of edge over foreign companies that are manufacturing in America. If you’re going to bring in companies from other countries, great, but they still got to, there’s still got to be some kind of charge. And I don’t think they should be allowed to own the properties they build on. They should be leased from the Americans, and even the buildings, just like the way the Port Authority in New York, you know, an airline comes, they build on their land, they build the hangars, but they don’t own the hangers. They lease them from the Port Authority. I’m thinking on those lines, I want to protect the homegrown American companies that are going to fill all our needs, and we won’t need foreign companies moving in. 

LaLota:

I think that, when used properly, and that’s a large caveat, when used properly, tariffs ensure that American workers, our manufacturers, our farmers, are able to compete on a level playing field. I’ve known a ton of folks, both manufacturers and farmers in our district, you know, somebody who grows tomatoes, I was talking with a couple of days ago, she can’t compete with Mexican produce because of the disparity on tariffs there.

And I think that the parties have screwed this up for years too. You know, we have entered the numerous trade deals internationally where the concept was that America was going to be able to buy cheap products from overseas, and somehow all of our sons and daughters would have a nice white collar job and would make a lot of money, and that whole dynamic would work great and send them to college, and they’d have a great white collar job, and everything would be easy and fair after that. That hasn’t panned out for many of our families. Too many times we’re sending our kids to college, racking up a ton of debt just for them to graduate and not have a job or a viable enough job to pay off all that debt. And then likewise, we can buy a lot of cheap crap off Amazon and elsewhere that undermine the things that we want to buy in our country.

But I’ll repeat the initial caveat that I have, like, there is precision that has to come with how the President uses tariffs, and we know him to be a strong negotiator, to understand leverage. And I think, like like few other presidents, he’s willing to exert leverage in situations like this, and I get it, — and maybe we’re going to talk about the Oval Office from a couple of days ago with Zelensky — but he is not shy about both acknowledging leverage and using it when he thinks it’s to America’s benefit. So when we have a trade deficit with Mexico and a trade deficit with Canada, which is to say we buy way more from them than they buy from us and yet they’re placing tariffs on our stuff, but not them. He is using reciprocal tariffs to level that playing field, with the goal of ensuring that manufacturers and farmers have a level playing field to play on. So there’s still a lot that’s going to happen on this topic, not just with our closest trading partners to the north and to the south, bu with those overseas. I’m going to continue to monitor it. I’m in touch with folks in the White House. I realize that there’s a large impact on specific industries, not just on Long Island, but elsewhere in the country. But I do want America to exert its leverage for the benefit of our manufacturers and our farmers when we can, but I’m going to keep an eye on it.

POLL 

Press one, if you think that Trump should endeavor to engage in some tariffs, because you think they do create some leverage here and there. Or press two, if you’re absolutely a no-go, if you don’t think he should endeavor to do whatsoever, the status quo is working for you. So again, one, if you want the President to use precision and tactically employ tariffs with the goal of advantaging manufacturers and farmers, but press two, if you don’t believe in that concept, if you think and other economists think that you know that that’s not a good business for the United States to engage in, okay, one if you agree, two if you disagree. But operator, let’s go to the next question,

Question Four

From Jennifer  

I’d like to know what kind of pushback they’re giving the DOGE efforts as they seem to be, nothing’s been going through Congress. A lot of these jobs are protected by the money that was already approved by Congress. Congress. So what are you doing to push back on that? 

LaLota:

Let me start with the same threshold issue that I offered a couple of questions ago. We need to reduce spending. I am firmly convinced that we are at a moment in time in our nation’s history where if we don’t get this right, that the runaway spending will exacerbate the interest rate situation, exacerbate the inflation situation, things will be more and more expensive from us. Those of us who are living paycheck to paycheck will have tougher times and will deny our kids the opportunity that we’ve had.

So I come to this DOGE issue with generally that in mind, that we have to find ways in our $7 trillion annual spending where we have a $2 trillion deficit, we have to find ways to find and create efficiencies, which, by the way, while at the same time protecting Social Security, protecting Medicare, protecting Medicaid. I’m a Navy man. I want us to have a robust military system where we can deter conflict with adversaries. I’d rather not send our young men and young women into war. I’d rather our adversaries fear us enough that they don’t think they should mess with us. But if we do have to engage in one of those conflicts, to fight in that conflict, to win that conflict and bring our folks home safely.

So these are the priorities that I hold dear with respect to federal spending, but I want help finding out where there is waste, fraud and abuse in our system, and I think there’s an unfair focus on the individual behind DOGE. A lot of folks like to demonize Elon Musk. I don’t really like to engage in personalities with respect to who is advising things. And by the way, the President is the one with the executive order pen, the Congress is the one who passes things, and Elon Musk makes recommendations. But that said his group that has found many problems in the way that our nations spend money,  I welcome that additional oversight. I want people in government to root out things that don’t make sense. And you heard, probably, if you watched the President’s Joint Address last night, you probably heard him rattle off 15 or 20 different areas where we’re wasting a lot of money. Couple of them were like, $45 million for DEI scholarships in Burma, $10 million for male circumcisions in Mozambique, $42 million for social and behavior change in Uganda, $101 million for DEI contracts in Department of Education. Like these are things that I don’t think that we ought to be spending money on. I am okay with DOGE unearthing them in order to advise Congress on how to permanently remove spending items from our budget, because I think that time is of the essence that we have to pare back, by the way, while protecting the important program. And the crazy thing in Washington is, you would think that Republicans and Democrats would agree that we have to protect some of these key programs. But the problem is, with respect to Social Security, other ones, if we don’t change course on something, these opportunities, these entitlements, these things that many of us have earned throughout our time paying into taxes and expect to get later on. If we don’t change course, we won’t get them later on. But what frustrates me in this town is how there’s such a partisan view on everything, on how folks can’t engage in a discussion that we have to change course. So I hope I have to answer your question, I do want to specifically, as somebody on the Appropriations Committee, I do want this authority to come back to the Congress. I do want Congress to exert its Article One preference and be the ones to actually make permanent, lasting budgetary decisions. But I will welcome folks from Article Two and the executive branch at the same time ensuring that your taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently

POLL

If you think that DOGE is on the right path of unearthing the waste fraud and abuse that’s in our system, and should recommend to the President and the Congress has to pare it back. Press one. Conversely, and it sounds like our caller has different opinions, that DOGE is not a good idea, that only Congress, with some other aspects in the executive branch, ought to deal with that. If you disagree with DOGE, go ahead and press two. So one, if you agree that DOGE has unearthed some of these inefficiencies. Wait for an abuse. Press one, if you agree with that. Press two, if you think that, if you think otherwise.

Question Five

From Sherry of Huntington

I want to ask you what you have to say about the withholding of military aid and intelligence from Ukraine and what if anything Russia is offering in the deal, and I don’t agree with you on DOGE.

LaLota:

From my perspective, as someone with several years in the Navy, brother 20 years in the Marines and somebody who voted for the Ukraine supplemental a couple of years agI think the status quo is not working, and the status quo for three years has been this that America spends a couple of ten billion every quarter and 5,000 innocent Ukrainians die every quarter. That’s been the general status quo for three years. That has produced a stalemate where we have no leverage over Putin and we get no agreement from Zelensky on where he’s going with this as well. I think— I’m confident, I would almost guarantee, Zelensky wants this war to end, wants it to end tomorrow, but we have to get there, because the status quo has led to 50,000 dead, innocent Ukrainians, 10,000 of whom were brave Ukrainian soldiers. I think we should all want the fighting to end. We should want it to end right away.

Likewise, United States has spent $175 billion there for effectively a stalemate that’s a human meat grinder where young, brave, innocent people keep on dying. I think the President is on the right track to want to stop the dying over there, and something needs to change. And what we saw on TV in the Oval Office a couple of days ago is not what you usually see in the Oval Office. You don’t usually see the United States and an ally who’s worthy of our help have it out like that, but I do want something to change.

I’m pleased that the President last night announced that Zelensky would agree with a minerals deal. I think the minerals deal is important. One, it starts to make taxpayers from the United States a little more whole on how much we’ve invested over there. But two, it’s more it better connects our nation, and it links us more, so that when Zelensky wants a security guarantee for Russia not to do this again. And by the way, I don’t trust Russia, and I’ll say quite clearly Russia, Putin, evil dictator, who illegally invaded, can’t trust him, will never trust him. But I think we’re at a point where we need to get Zelensky and Putin into a room to agree first with cease fire, and two, to a long-term peace deal. I think that Donald Trump is the only human on the face of the earth who could possibly get that done. In my opinion, this is not Iraq and Kuwait. This is not just where we’re going to send a bunch of ground troops in there and liberate a country from a hostile aggressor. This isn’t Israel and Iran and her proxies. This is a nuclear-armed Russia with tremendous national security implications, that if something goes terribly wrong, it’s World War Three and worse, nuclear war. So I want this thing to end. I’m eager to see how it plays out, to ensure that there’s less dying, there’s less taxpayer money, because this has gone on way too long, the status quo isn’t enough.

I also want the NATO countries to invest more money in their own defense. Half of them are below the 2% commitment they’re supposed to have by being a part of NATO. Our country is a part of NATO. We always will be a part of NATO. We better be a part of NATO, but we need our NATO countries to do more. It’s not right. The US spends about three and a half percent of its GDP on defense, making sure that we strategically deter conflict or adversary, and half the day donations do less than 2%. That’s not right. We need better. If we had better, Putin might not have invaded if he thought that Europe was stronger, would move more quickly and actually come to Ukraine’s descent. Likewise, I want a commander in chief who our adversaries fear. Our adversaries didn’t fear Biden, and they didn’t fear Biden, because before Russia invaded Ukraine, Biden relieved the sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The United States was not serious about causing economic pain for Russia. I think those sanctions should have been kept on. Likewise, his disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan showed weakness. His treatment of our ally Israel also showed weakness. I think these were all indicators on how we failed to project the right amount of American strength to protect an ally. I’m eager that this war comes to an end. I want it to, to save more lives and to save more taxpayer dollars. Operator, please put through another question. 

Question Six

From Judith

Oh, yes, my question —he’s already answered part of it, but I know SALT is due to sunset, and I’m wondering if he would be in favor of that. Why not do that? Which would be the best thing for New York?

LaLota:

If we allow the Trump tax cuts and Jobs Act to expire, yes, we get unlimited salt back. But unfortunately, at the same time through this, we get back to higher individual rates, and we lose the fix on AMT. So net-net, you’re probably going to lose a lot of money if the whole bill expires. And actually the one demographic that and you can go to like the New York Times tax calculator, not exactly a publication that gives the most favorable results to Republican tax plans, but go to the New York Times tax calculator and the one demographic that has gotten hurt, actually, on Long Island from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is the unmarried folks who make more than a million dollars. So letting it expire is only really productive financially for that demographic. On balance, yes, you get all your SALT back, but then you lose the AMT fix, you lose the lower individual rate. So I’m motivated to negotiate with my colleagues in the Ways and Means Committee, the tax committee and my party’s leadership. I want to keep lower tax rates  for middle class individuals. I want to keep that AMT fix— the alternative minimum tax fix — but I need a higher cap on the state and local tax deduction. I got some pretty smart folks here in my Washington office who run through the spreadsheets and all the variables. Folks have likened this to a Rubik’s cube that when you change one side, by necessity, another side changes. So we’ve been negotiating with our party here on what sort of higher cap looks like, but I don’t want to, at the same time, lose the AMT fix, nor do I want to lose the lower individual rates for middle class folks.  So letting it expire is not a desired solution for most of us. 

POLL

Let me ask you. Press one if you agree with my approach that I should negotiate like hell for a higher SALT cap while at the same time keep the AMC fix and keep lower individual rates for middle class folks, or press two, if you think the hell with it, just let the whole darn thing expire and start over from scratch. One, if you think I should continue on the path I’m on. Two, if you think I should just remove myself from the negotiating room and just let the darn thing expire. 

Question Seven

From Dennis of Huntington 

I’m a disabled vet who served in the Navy as well. My kids in our district go to school as a minority, which there’s nothing wrong with that, as I’m a son of an immigrant. We have corners here where there are a lot of men of military age. I’ve gone, I’ve talked to them. I haven’t met one that has come here legally. When are we going to do something? When can we see something practical here on the island? And I know it’s a democratic place, but when are we going to see something here, some sort of force where things can change? It’s not fair. I’m not a rich man. I served my country. I got hurt serving during COVID. I was a nurse, and I’m on the disabled list. When are we going to get some relief here? Thank you, sir.

LaLota:

Would you describe the relief you’re looking for, I didn’t quite understand it. 

Dennis:

Something like something, you know, we have a president right now who’s doing something, and I hate that it is something, but it’s got to be a disruption. The status quo doesn’t work. I pay. We all pay, and my kids are the ones who are, who are paying for it.

LaLota:

I think we probably have the same world view and perspective of how we got here. Four years of an open border, canceling remain in Mexico, weakening the asylum rule, got us to a point where our country was flooded with migrants. By the way, most of them,  awesome people, most of them just looking for economic opportunity in our great country. I think, by the way, we should have an orderly process and that it should comport with our immigration laws, to comport with our economic needs, specifically our labor needs, that all hell went crazy in the last couple of years with respect to how Biden treated the border and abandoned some, well, recent principles that, by the way, Trump and Obama had on on things to keep our borders safe.

So we got to where we got to based upon those policies, what compounded the problem was jurisdictions like New York City with their sanctuary laws —and I think this is going to be the essence of my answer to your question — New York City has some sanctuary laws which specifically bar city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration force. I think that’s wrong, by the way. I think that we should all be able to pitch in and enforce the laws, especially when the feds are giving the city a bunch of money. I don’t think it’s right. The city says, no, we’re not going to enforce your federal laws. I don’t think  that’s right.

And by the way, I have a bill called the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act, which, in some sense, you can thank and they create the crisis that you’re feeding it, feeding the migrants. You give them hotels, you give them health care that you can’t give. That bill on the hotels, the health care, whatnot to the federal government. If you’re choosing these sanctuary policies, that’s the choice that you, your elected officials made, that you can’t stick the federal government with the bill afterwards.

More specific to Huntington and Suffolk County. I’ll tell you that last night, during this President’s joint address, my guest in the gallery was Lou Civello, the president of the Suffolk County Police Union. He represents 1,845 brave, hard working, fine police officers in Suffolk County, who, fortunately have a lot of the politicians’ support, both sides, thankfully, in Suffolk County, but I think that more cooperation is part of our future in Suffolk County. I want my local law enforcement when the federal government says, hey, listen, do you have some intel on this one or that one? Or can you facilitate this or facilitate that? I want there to be cooperation between the fed and the local law enforcement. So I think that’s probably going to be a bigger part of our future. Certainly I support that.

I get to, on the Appropriations Committee, and just as a regular member, I get to appropriate funds for certain things. I’m eager to find opportunities to help defray the cost of law enforcement on Long Island, because I think that your safety is important. We pay a hell of a lot of taxes on Long Island, simple middle class home and middle class families, you’re probably saying 16,18, 20k in taxes, and that’s a lot, and you should be afforded the reasonable expectation of safety, and the federal government should play a part in that. So I hope that I’ve answered your question. Operator, let’s go with the last question of the night, and then we’ll wrap it up after that. 

Question Eight 

From Greg of Middle Island.

Speaking about taxes, which you had just mentioned, we’re seeing proposed $800 billion and more, right in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, other social saving, social service nets, veterans, affair, IRS, transportation, even Lee Zeldin with the EPA, just the Supreme Court just slashed to allow water pollution make it harder to protect that. If we’re talking about how we’re going to actually save money for Americans then why aren’t we taxing the richest people in our country, who is probably like, I think under 10,000, you know, billionaires and millionaires that would be out there. Why are we not taxing them their fair share, people like Donald Trump, people like Elon Musk. Why are we not doing that? We’re cozying up with them and people like Putin, instead of actually proposing tax cuts for the middle class, hard working people. And instead of answering these questions, all I’ve been hearing is skirting around that issue by talking about culture wars that no one in the real world is talking about, like who’s using a bathroom, or all of this immigration stuff. I don’t know anyone who’s been impacted by that, but I know everyone who’s been impacted by not being able to pay for things like their healthcare. Thank you. 

LaLota:

Thanks so much. I think if you look back to some polling from last November-ish, you probably find that some of the issues that you mentioned, which may not be important to you, about men and women’s sports, who’s using what bathroom, or certainly border security or immigration were quite important to a lot of our neighbors. I know they were important to me. On the men in girls sports. I have three daughters. They all play sports. I don’t want men playing their sports. I think the President was right to sign the executive order to ban the men in girls sports. I think he’s on the right track and some of those other issues. I don’t want to spend my time here in Washington engaged on the culture wars, but we took a radical shift to the left in the last four years, and I think we got to get back towards the center and just have normal opportunity for future generations. To your point about where to get revenue. I’ll tell you this. If you look at the federal government revenue as the percentage of GDP, I think it’s like 17 and a half. And it’s pretty much where it’s been historically. I would offer to you, sir, the federal government does not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem, and the politicians in this town can’t say no to spending. They just spend and spend and spend. I think it’s a problem. The President, at his joint address, last night, ran through a bunch of different types of spending that were totally in excess of what we should be able to afford as a society, they don’t go to outcomes that benefit us. I do want to protect Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. I will protect those. I do want to protect my fellow veterans and the investments we make in the VA. I do want to have a good, strong, robust military to protect our national strategic interests and keep us safe for decades to come. I think those are things that ought to be focused on as a country. But I would disagree with them that we have a revenue problem. I think that just merely whacking every rich person over the head with a larger tax probably just forces them to move their money offshore, and doesn’t actually close the gap in our deficit. What will help close the gap better is if we cut a lot of this wasteful spending. So, sounds like we may not agree, but God bless. I hope that I’ve answered your question. 

Conclusion

It’s 56 minutes into the town hall. We’re going to wrap it up here, but I want to say that, thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to serve you in this great country in Washington. Just started my third year here in Washington, I appreciate the district’s confidence in sending me here on this second term. I’m eagerly fighting for you to make sure that your lives are more affordable, you’re safer, that we remain the greatest country the world’s ever known. I’m blessed to serve on some great committees here. I have some good colleagues from both sides of the aisle who are trying to cut through the noise that you see in your social media, your TV and all the hate and discontent that’s out there. We’re trying to get some good things done, part of some very good caucuses, bipartisan caucuses. I’ve been rated one of the more bipartisan, independent members of Congress here, because I think solutions ought to drive the way we do things, not crazy personalities. So appreciate our time together tonight. I hope that you found it productive. Please feel free to call my district office or visit my website with anything you need. I’m so sorry if we couldn’t get to your questions. You know, the nature of these things is we have about an hour together. We usually get to five to 10. I think that’s about what we got to today, but we’re going to do one of these again in another month or two, and your feedback is very much appreciated. Love you. God bless. See you around the island. Take care. 

---

Editor’s note: The AI-generated transcript has been edited to add punctuation, paragraph breaks and headings, to remove repeated words or filler words, such as “you know.” There were a few instances where the audio was slightly garbled; words that made sense in the context of the sentence were inserted in those brief gaps.