A Bipartisan Conversation: Reps. Mike Lawler & Ro Khanna on Country Over Party & Fighting Big Pharma

Summary

The Morning Meeting on 2WAY

Episode: A Bipartisan Conversation: Reps. Mike Lawler & Ro Khanna on Country Over Party & Fighting Big Pharma

Date: December 19, 2025
Host: Mark Halperin
Guests: Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA)

---

Overview

In this lively, forward-looking episode of The Morning Meeting, host Mark Halperin is joined by two Members of Congress from opposite sides of the aisle—Rep. Mike Lawler and Rep. Ro Khanna—for a substantive conversation on healthcare, bipartisan lawmaking, transparency, big pharma, and more. With the backdrop of major Washington developments, recent presidential speeches, and upcoming legislative deadlines, the episode showcases both points of contention and common ground, highlighting moments of principle-over-party politics and candid reflections on how Congress actually operates. Listeners are treated to a deep dive on healthcare reform, the release of the Epstein files, bipartisan process reforms, and audience Q&A tackling everything from gender medicine to Congressional corruption.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

I. Reaction to the President's Speech and the State of Politics

Timestamps: [06:32] – [09:05]

• Mark reviews the President's big speech: Economy, military funding, and executive orders.
• Lawler’s take: President framed his legislative successes and set the tone for the coming election year, touting lower inflation and tax cuts.

  • "When people go to file, they're going to see a massive tax cut and that is going to spur economic activity and growth." —Lawler [06:55]

  • Gave the speech an "A" grade [07:56]
• Khanna’s counterpoint: The speech was more about "I still matter" than bold leadership, drawing a parallel to Bill Clinton after losses in the '90s.

  • “I think the president's having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he's a lame duck... Ultimately, the rents are what they are, the utility prices are what they are. People's economics are what they are. You just can't spin it.” —Khanna [08:18]

---

II. Health Care Drama: Bipartisanship, ACA Subsidies & Reform

Timestamps: [09:05] – [19:24]

• House passed GOP health care bill; ACA extension fight explained.
• Lawler, with a group of centrist Republicans, signed a discharge petition to force a House vote on Obamacare subsidies—drawing praise ("choosing the people over their party" per CNN) and condemnation (WSJ op-ed).
• Lawler outlines his bipartisan roadmap:
  • Expects a House vote on a clean three-year ACA subsidy extension in January with unexpectedly strong GOP support (estimated "over 20" Republican votes) [12:44].
  • Predicts the Senate will return it amended with reforms: income limits, insurance market reforms, PBM (pharmacy benefit manager) reform, expanded HSAs, nominal premium requirements.

  • “This is the vehicle to get a bipartisan compromise done and I think that's what will happen in January.” —Lawler [11:57]

  • Stresses separation of healthcare negotiations from government funding [13:13].
• Khanna’s response: Praises Lawler's independent streak, credits Jeffries for pushing the discharge petition, signals openness to compromise.

  • “I appreciate he has some independence. ... I'm not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we can get a bipartisan thing that's going to help people...I'm willing to vote for a legitimate compromise.” —Khanna [14:24], [15:17]

• Policy Tradeoffs: Both agree fundamental reforms are overdue; robust critique of insurance company profits from both sides [16:43], [17:06].

---

III. Congressional Process & Political Incentives

Timestamps: [17:48] – [19:51]

• Discussion of political realities: Lawler highlights fewer competitive districts driving party-line behavior.

  • "30 years ago, you had over 100 seats that were actually competitive...In 2024, 35 seats were decided by five points or less." —Lawler [18:34]

  • Argues for bipartisan governance in swing districts, requests more floor votes for all representatives.

---

IV. Epstein Files: Transparency & Oversight

Timestamps: [19:51] – [25:34]

• Khanna authored bill mandating release of Jeffrey Epstein files, now due imminently.
  • Acknowledges the awkward timing but says congressional intent was transparency.

  • "There are three federal judges who have ordered the grand jury and discovery of the Maxwell trials and the Jeffrey Epstein trials to come out." —Khanna [20:39]

• Expected revelations: Khanna cites survivor testimony about Epstein's influence over local authorities, the culture of silence around underage victims.
• Lawler supports full release and full prosecution for those involved.

---

V. Russia/Ukraine Prospects

Timestamps: [25:34] – [28:00]

• Both lawmakers express cautious pessimism about a near-term peace deal, lay out red lines (no territory handed to Russia, no caps on Ukraine's forces, NATO membership, and strong security guarantees).

  • "Vladimir Putin is the one that is responsible for this and needs to be held to account...We have to bring this to an end." —Lawler [26:28]

---

VI. Brown University Shooting Investigation

Timestamps: [28:00] – [31:24]

• Both guests blast apparent incompetence and mishandling by local authorities/university administration.

  • "This is just to me seems like gross incompetence...either the state authorities or federal authorities need to intervene immediately." —Lawler [29:24]

  • Khanna: “When I saw the Brown University president like, six hours after the horrific incident saying, yeah, I don't know what the classroom was. I don't know what happened...How do you do that?” [30:40]

---

VII. Hypothetical 2028 AOC vs. Vance Race

Timestamps: [32:31] – [33:44]

• Both hedge, but offer views on the future of MAGA vs. Democratic candidates. Khanna praises AOC's charisma; Lawler predicts Vance would win a policy debate.

---

VIII. Healthcare, Pharma, & Audience Q&A

Timestamps: [34:53] – [44:53]

• Caller Jamie’s question on pediatric gender medicine:
  • Khanna: Decisions must be between families and doctors, not politicians [36:08–36:28].
  • Lawler: Opposed surgery and chemical intervention for minors, but called for empathy and rejected criminalizing parents/doctors; voted against a GOP bill as unconstitutional [36:31–38:11].
• Caller Colleen (Long Island): Praises bipartisanship, asks if Trump's anti-pharma stance can translate to reform.
  • Khanna credits Trump for his executive order attacking price gouging, introduced matching legislation [39:49–40:24].
  • Lawler: Endorses going after prescription drug prices, breaking up insurance monopolies, and reforming PBM ownership [40:26–42:04].

  • “Americans are subsidizing Europeans' prescription drug coverage. That's bullshit. And so [Trump]’s right to go after that.” —Lawler [41:36]

• Challenge Flag Proposal: Allow minority party limited ability to force votes. Both reps support expanding opportunities for bipartisan bills and more floor votes.

  • “Every member should be able to bring at least one bill to the floor. ... Let the people vote.” —Lawler [44:32]

---

IX. Campaign Finance Reform & Big Money in Politics

Timestamps: [54:06] – [58:13]

• Walt questions: How to break the feedback loop of industry contributions corrupting healthcare policy?
  • Khanna: Bans PAC/lobbyist money, calls for super PAC restrictions, supports restrictions on bundling and committee conflicts.

  • “It's one of the things that keeps us from having sensible reforms.” —Khanna [56:43]

  • Promotes anti-corruption legislation, predicts Supreme Court would uphold limits narrowly tailored to prevent quid pro quo.

---

X. Medicare for All: Substance, Political Feasibility & Risks

Timestamps: [47:20] – [53:37]

• Multiple callers ask whether single-payer/Medicare for All would be feasible or effective.
  • Khanna: Articulates vision for universal Medicare coverage from birth, explains how costs would be lower than the current system, addresses concerns about choice and supplemental insurance.

    • “Most people believe who are on Medicare that the costs and the coverage are far better than if you're on UnitedHealth Care with the denials. ... Social Security and Medicare are two things that have worked and people have trust in them and we should be expanding them.” [48:33]

  • Highlights need for more providers, job transition for displaced insurance workers, and details on cost [53:37].

---

XI. Final Thoughts

Timestamps: [59:38] – [62:59]

• Khanna discusses his economic vision in a transformative AI-driven era, hints at presidential ambitions for 2028, and recommits to his New Economic Patriotism plan.

  • “I have ideas how we can make sure that that wealth doesn’t just stay in Silicon Valley...I am more and more convinced that the economic roadmap I’m laying out is the right roadmap for this country.” —Khanna [60:22]

• On the release of potentially damaging Epstein documents, Khanna acknowledges the trade-off between privacy and transparency but stands by the need for public disclosure [62:59].

---

Notable Quotes

• On Bipartisanship:

  “This is just a reality. You have to govern in a bipartisan way if you want to get anything done.” —Lawler [19:24]
  "I'm not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. ... I'm willing to vote for a legitimate compromise.” —Khanna [15:15]

• On Health Reform:

  “Obamacare was written by the insurance companies for the insurance companies.” —Lawler [41:14]

• On Money in Politics:

  “We need to get this big money out of politics. It's one of the things that keeps us from having sensible reforms.” —Khanna [56:43]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [06:32] – President’s speech analysis
• [09:05] – House ACA vote, bipartisanship
• [14:24] – Health reform compromise
• [19:51] – Epstein files transparency
• [25:34] – Russia/Ukraine prospects
• [28:00] – Brown University shooting
• [32:31] – AOC vs. Vance, 2028
• [34:53] – Jamie: Gender medicine
• [39:21] – Colleen: Pharma, Trump
• [42:18] – Lenny: Congressional process reform
• [48:24] – Aaron: Trusting government with healthcare
• [54:15] – Walt: Breaking pharma-political feedback loop
• [59:38] – Khanna 2028 reflections, economic roadmap

---

Tone & Style

The tone throughout is lively, direct, and collegial, reflecting both the seriousness and humor of veteran Washington hands. Both guests combine policy wonkiness with moments of candor and cross-party respect. The audience Q&A produces frank and sometimes emotional responses, especially on controversial issues like gender care and healthcare costs. Both representatives repeatedly stress their willingness to compromise and the value of process reforms for a healthier democracy.

---

Memorable Moments

• Lawler openly critiques his own party’s leadership and frames his bipartisanship as necessity, not rebellion.
• Khanna quips about ChatGPT-like predictability in Congress and argues for principled, proactive dealmaking.
• On Medicare for All, Khanna acknowledges the need for both universal coverage and supplemental options—"healthcare as a human right"—while recognizing the cost trade-offs.
• Joint, unvarnished condemnation of university and police failures at Brown University.
• Lawler and Khanna both call Congress to allow more minority input and bipartisan votes—the “challenge flag” idea gets bipartisan endorsement.
• Khanna signals he's closer to a 2028 run, describes a vision for “AI economic patriotism.”

---

Bottom Line

The Morning Meeting delivers a punchy, nuanced, and unusually hopeful view of what’s possible when representatives put their country before party—without sacrificing policy substance. Both guests call for structural reforms, acknowledge the hard tradeoffs in healthcare and money in politics, and offer concrete steps toward more transparency and bipartisanship, all while fielding tough listener questions with candor. An episode for listeners who want to see how real dialogue might move Congress forward, even in contentious times.

Transcript

[James Patterson]

I'm James Patterson. I write way too many books. Welcome to Hungry Dogs. The title comes from my maternal grandmother, Isabel Zelvis Morris. Nan used to always say, hungry dogs run faster, James. And I've been running fast ever since. Here's what will be coming your way soon. And this is a really terrific list. I think you'll hear from some incredible people like Stacey Abrams. Yay. BJ Novak. Yay. Kathy Bates, Dolly Parton, Josh Gad. And Pope Leo. Okay, maybe not Pope Leo, but who knows? Maybe he'll show up. Hungry dogs run faster. Thank you, Grandma, for turning me into a hopeless, obsessive, compulsive. Listen to Hungry Dogs with James Patterson. That'd be me on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

This is it.

[Mark (Host)]

The world as you know it is over.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Completely done.

[Mark (Host)]

It's not about to be over. It's over. Some of the scientists who helped build AI are now sounding the alarm.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

I was selling AI as a great thing for decades and I was wrong. I was wrong.

[Caller Walt]

There is a longer term existential threat.

[Mark (Host)]

That will arise when we create digital.

[Caller Walt]

Beings that are more intelligent than ourselves.

[Caller Lenny]

We have no idea whether we can stay in control.

[Mark (Host)]

While others say that AI will usher in unfathomable abundance, I've always believed that.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

It'S going to be the most important invention that humanity will ever make.

[Mark (Host)]

This really will be a world of abundance. And among these fears and these fantasies, we seek the story of our future. Listen to the last invention on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts. Everybody, big episode today. We got to get right to our news and our guests. So I'm going to do our my normal introduction in a yada, yada, yada style. If you want to raise be in the conversation, please raise your hand. Yada, yada, yada. No smack in the chat. Yada, yada, yada. Thank you for being here. Fairway and Green. Last chance. If you want to buy holiday gifts and attractive merchandise like this from our friends at Fairway and Green, go to Fairway and Green or go to Twoway tv. Fairway available to you now.

[James Patterson]

I'm James Patterson. I write way too many books. Welcome to Hungry Dogs. The title comes from my maternal grandmother, Isabel Zelvis Morris. Nan used to always say, hungry dogs run faster, James. And I've been running fast ever since. Here's what will be coming your way soon. And this is a really terrific, perfect list. I think you'll hear from some incredible people like Stacey Abrams.

[Mark (Host)]

Yay.

[James Patterson]

BJ Novak.

[Mark (Host)]

Yay.

[James Patterson]

Kathy Bates, Dolly Parton, Josh Gad, and Pope Leo. Okay, maybe not Pope Leo, but who knows? Maybe he'll show up. Hungry dogs run faster. Thank you, Grandma, for turning me into a hopeless obsessive compulsive. Listen to Hungry Dogs with James Patterson. That'd be me on Apple, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you. Thank you. Thank, thank you.

[Mark (Host)]

Our guest today, Congressman Ro Khanna. Gentleman from California, originally from Pennsylvania. Like to point that out because people don't seem to know that he's got Pennsylvania ruts. Congressman, welcome. Thank you for being here. Democrat from California. Thank you.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Always love being on. Thank you, Mark.

[Mark (Host)]

All right. Very grateful to you. And then our other guest is Congressman Mike Lawler. And it's amazing that he's not on cable TV right now. We feel blessed that somehow he's between hits.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

I just finished it.

[Mark (Host)]

Of course you did. All right. Anyway, grateful to both be here. Normally we banter we but we got a lot of topics to get to with our great guests. And this is our last program of the year. Last two the morning meeting for the year. We'll be back in the first week in January. Thank you for spending the morning with us. Here we go. The president after last night's big speech this morning, intelligence briefing, 11 o', clock, signs an executive order 1:30. Either of you guys know, is that about changing the classification for pot? Is that what it is?

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

That's my understanding.

[Mark (Host)]

All right. It's not a declaration of war against Venezuela, which is what Tucker thinks it is because Tucker thinks everything is that. Anyway, that's what he's doing at 11. It's closed. Press interesting. Executive order signing also 1:30. I'm sorry, the executive order is 1:30. The intelligence briefing's 11. 4:15. Another holiday reception closed Press I don't know why the Hanukkah one's open, but every all the Christmas ones are closed. Six o' clock he signs the NDAA pool. Press so right during two way tonight we'll be covering live the president taking questions probably. And then another closed Christmas event then. Don't know what the vice president's doing. Bobby Kennedy, R KJ News conference at 11 to announce actions to protect children from harmful medical interventions. Up on the Hill where the congressmen work, the their colleagues, Congresswoman Luna and Tim Burchett are supposed to meet with Speaker Johnson to talk about what they're going to do about the proposed ban on congressional stock trading. You do you guys trade stocks?

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

I do not.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

I Do not.

[Mark (Host)]

Okay. Missing out on a lot of money apparently, but whatever. All right. Hakeem Jeffries holds a press conference at 10. Senate is has some vote on a resolution related to HHS. At noon, 2 o', clock, these gentlemen will be voting on legislation aimed at speeding up federal permitting in Europe. There's a meeting, the European Council's meeting, to debate whether they're actually going to do something they've talked about doing forever, which is unfreeze the Russian assets that have been held in abeyance for quite some time and use it to help rebuild Ukraine. Turning Point USA annual America Fest kicks off in Arizona. A lot of big speakers there. Ben Shapiro, Erica Kirk, Michael Knowles, Tucker Carlson. And the jobless numbers came out earlier today and they were, they were, they were okay. They were okay. All right, gentlemen, here we go. President spoke last night, less than 20 minutes, blamed Joe Biden for a lot of things, said things are good, they're going to get better, said American military forces will get some free money. Congressman Lawler, I read somewhere today in Eric Erickson's com, he said people won't be talking about this speech by the weekend. I'm not sure anybody's going to be talking about it by lunchtime. But if there's an impact going forward, because we always try to be forward looking here of the speech, what would the impact of that speech be?

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

Well, I think the, the impact was to frame the coming months ahead, you know, obviously highlight the things that the president felt were important and accomplishments during the first part of this year. But now, as we head into the election year, the midterm, what's the focus going to be? And you know, I think obviously CPI numbers just came out this morning. Inflation down 2.7 below the 3.1 expectation. I think, you know, when you start looking at the fact that the tax bill is going to take effect immediately next year, when people go to file, they're going to see a massive tax cut and that is going to spur economic activity and growth. I think obviously the issue of housing, health care and energy is critical. We marked up a housing bill this week. Obviously, the issue of health care is going to be front and center coupled of course, with energy permitting. So these are the main thrust of the economic argument in the message. And I think that's what the president was framing for the months ahead.

[Mark (Host)]

What letter grade would you give his speech as a political, you know, piece of political content.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

That was great. He did it. He did a good job.

[Mark (Host)]

A plus, A plus plus plus.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

I'll give it An A.

[Mark (Host)]

Okay. Congressman Connor, were you similarly impressed?

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

I'll just say, for a Republican Party that always lectures about grade inflation, from the president to Vance, the law, they love great inflation. I mean, what happened to the woke argument that there's too much great inflation? Anyway, look, I think this was the president saying, I still matter. It reminded me of like when Bill Clinton got shellacked in 1994. He came out and gave a press conference. The president's still here. We still, I still matter. I think the president's having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he's a lame duck, that people like Susie Wilds are speculating about whether Rubio or Vance are going to succeed him. And he knows he's got a knack for things. He knows he hasn't had a great couple months ever since the November election. I'm just glad we're not going to war in Venezuela. But I really think this is him saying, you know, things aren't great, the economy is not great. I got to turn things around. The challenge for him really is he's much better as an outsider. He's a brilliant marketer. But ultimately, the rents are what they are, the utility prices are what they are. People's economics are what they are. You just can't spin it.

[Mark (Host)]

All right, yesterday in the House, two important developments on health care. First, 106, please. The House passed, with Republican votes, a Republican leadership designed health care bill. Here's the headline from our friends at CBS News. House passes GOP health care bill without the ACA extension because there was no ACA extension. Four members of Republican members of the House joined the Democrats, one of whom, Congressman Lawlor, moments after he left us yesterday, joined folks from the Northeast and now have a discharge petition. And in theory, in January now there'll be a vote on extending the Obamacare subsidies in the House. Senate will probably never pass it, so we'll see. But it's possible that it could spur some action there. How do people feel about Congressman Lawler and his colleagues who signed the discharge petition? Well, some. Some feel pretty good. For instance, the place every Republican wants to get some love from, the CNN Morning Show. Here it is.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

They're stabbing the rest of the party in the back.

[Mark (Host)]

Republican revolt. House GOP centrists go nuclear, choosing the people over their party. All right, so CNN says Congressman Lawler's gone nuclear and he's chosen the people over the party. What could be higher praise? Well, who feels less good about what the congressman did? Paul Gigot and the Wall Street Journal editorial board. Here's what they said. 107. Their lead editorial says what Congressman Lawler did was nonsensical and it says if, if, sorry, if. Well, those watching can read it. It's kind of a long quote here. But in any event, they're not happy. They think you're a Congressman. They think you're enabling the Republican or the Democrats and make it harder for the leadership to pass something good. So I'm not going to ask you to defend your vote because you've talked about it at great length. But what happens now? What happens between now and January? What happens in January? Will there be a vote that passes of Obamacare subsidy extension? Yeah.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

So after I signed the discharge, we had a meeting of the Problem Solvers Caucus with a number of senators and a bipartisan group of senators and had a very frank discussion. I think the reality is, as I rightly pointed out, I mean the clean three year extension is nothing but a messaging bill by the Democrats. Chuck Schumer put it forward in the Senate. It failed. Hakeem Jeffries refused to let his Democratic members sign on to bipartisan discharge petitions. And so in the absence of Republican leadership putting the bipartisan compromise on the floor, we had no choice but to force a vote. And so what I think will happen is when we get back in January, you will have a vote on the clean three year extension. It'll pass. And I think you'll actually have more Republican votes than people realize, but it'll pass. It'll go to the Senate. The Senate is going to have to send back a bipartisan compromise that includes the reforms that I and every Republican have been talking about. Income limits, insurance reforms, PBM reforms, HSA expansion and elimination of the zero premium plans by having a nominal $5 fee. And I think the president will be able to get some wins in this as well. This is the vehicle to get a bipartisan compromise done and I think that's what will happen in January.

[Mark (Host)]

Two follow ups for you, Congressman. And I want Congressman Khanna to comment on what you just said. First of all, you said more than people expect more Republicans would vote for. You're talking about 20.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

I think it'll be over 20.

[Mark (Host)]

Yeah, over 22nd and I don't want to get too far into weeds here, but I'm confused. Normally I think I have a pretty good feel for what Congress is going to do. Some people are saying this is going to get caught up in the discussions about avoiding a government shutdown. Some members, including I think some of the senators you met with are saying we have to keep this separate. The discussion of health care should be separate from continuing resolution to keep the government open. Will they stay separate? Should they stay separate?

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

They should stay separate. And I think what you're going to see here is a bipartisan group of, of senators inclusive of the Democrats circumvent Chuck Schumer because Chuck Schumer will try to use this as, as hostage. I don't think he and Leader Jeffries actually want this to pass. They want the issue.

[Mark (Host)]

Right.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

So I think you will have a bipartisan group of senators that will cut a deal. You'll get about, you'll get over 60 votes in the Senate. The White House will ultimately embrace it in my opinion because they'll get some wins in there and then you get it back to the House and it passes over.

[Mark (Host)]

So you think this will be a rare example of a bipartisan bicameral gang that, that ping pong something back and forth and passes, which would be unusual. Congressman Khanna, I know you just want a clean extension. That's your. I think you do. Right. You just like a three year clean extension. Some of the sort of market oriented proposals that Congressman Lawler is talking about are those things you could accept or any of the things on his list and if you need him to repeat it, I'm sure he will. Are any of those things things you're attracted to, that you think there should be reforms in the system?

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Well, first of all, let me just say that I appreciate Michael Lawler signing the discharge petition. We may disagree, but at least he's not like ChatGPT. You can can't predict exactly what he's going to do. 90% of politicians you get on I can finish their sentences before they started. So I appreciate he has some independence. Second, the issue of Hakeem Jeffries should be stated. This was a big win for him. This he stood up on having an extension. He got Republicans to bend to us. It's a big win for him with our base people who said we need effective leadership. It's a contrast frankly to some of the leadership in the Senate and I think it's going to serve him well when he becomes Speaker. The third point is, look, I believe we need Medicare for all. I think that system is broken. But I, and I think we need a clean extension. But I'm open to compromise and so we can go back and forth on Lawler specifics.

[Mark (Host)]

Let's do it. Good. I'm sorry, I'm not going to let.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

The perfect be the enemy of the good. I mean, I'm for. We can get a bipartisan thing that's going to help people. And if it's, if it means that we have to have some compromise on the eligibility or some compromise on a premium of $5, I mean, I'm not going to. It may not be exactly what I want, but I'm willing to vote for a legitimate compromise.

[Mark (Host)]

So let's run through it. And again, Congressman, kind of your position, maybe I'd need to see more detail. So just be. Yes, no, maybe on the provisions Congress law just run through, it's about half a dozen things. Just name them and then Congress kind of you just say, I'm for that, I'm against that. I need to know more.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

So the bill that I really Support is the two year extension with income limits at 700% above the poverty line.

[Mark (Host)]

All right, so that's the first one. Right. So, Congressman, is that something you could support, you're only eligible for the, for the subsidies if up to a certain income limit.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Is that something you could support as a compromise? Yes. Look, it would hurt my district where there are high cost of living and higher incomes. But as a compromise.

[Mark (Host)]

Yeah, but, you know, but you don't, but you don't think. But, but I really don't want to say whether you'd accept. I would say is it good policy?

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

No, because a good policy in my view is expanding Medicare and not giving these private insurance companies more subsidies. I mean, actually, the Republicans are right about something which is giving subsidies to private insurance has just led to outrageous costs without coverage. And I believe the real answer is expanding Medicare to bring down health care costs.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

So that's, that's been the biggest problem with Obamacare in reality is the money goes to the insurance companies. And I mean, you're seeing 2,000% profits since Obamacare took effect. The money should not be going just to subsidize them and certainly not without reforms that actually bring down the cost of premiums.

[Mark (Host)]

Yeah. All right. I don't want to use the time to go through the whole thing, even though I'd like to just because we got so much to get to. Congressman Khanna, just want to get your view on two things quickly. First, do you agree with Congressman Lawler, your colleague, that, that this will be best handled by a bipartisan, bicameral gang outside of leadership, and that the leadership is less interested and less able to get a deal, or would you prefer the leadership of your party be more in control of it?

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

I don't know. On the Senate side. But on the House side, I think Hakeem is going to be front and center in involvement in the conversation, especially because Hakeem won a lot of praise in our caucus getting this discharge petition through.

[James Patterson]

Right.

[Mark (Host)]

Okay. Lastly, and this is kind of a philosophical thing, we won't spend a ton of time on it. The four people who signed the discharge petition are all Northeasterners from. In seats that you could lose if it's a big Democratic year. And, and, and there's a concern that the leadership isn't playing the politics of it.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

Right.

[Mark (Host)]

I could see how that would make people cynical, because, Congressman Lawler, you're, you're giving a, you're giving it both a policy analysis and a political analysis. My party's not doing the right thing. Why is it that only members in districts where you could lose your job see that? Why couldn't other members see that? You see what I'm seeing, what I'm asking. It just seems kind of depressing that your view seems to be driven by your district's politics as opposed to what's sensible, even though you also think it's sensible policy.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

I think that just speaks to the makeup of Congress. I mean, 30 years ago, you had over 100 seats that were actually competitive. In 20, 24, 35 seats were decided by five points or less. And with the redistricting fiasco that's, you know, taking shape all across the country and has been over, over many decades, you have very few seats that are actually competitive and that require members to really make sure they are listening to the entirety of their district, not just the base of their party. And so, you know, I don't think it's that people don't see it or don't realize it. I think it's, everybody has their own district specific politics that they play to. For those of us that are constantly under attack from, from all sides.

[Mark (Host)]

Right.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

This is just a reality. You have to govern in a bipartisan way if you want to get anything done. And I would just point out, if you want to pass something in the House, you need to 18. You could do it on a party line vote. But the fact is you're not going to have 218 to pass this extension on a party line vote either way. And in the senate, you need 60, which means you need a bipartisan vote. So to me, let's skip the game and just get the bipartisan vote. That's. Well, that's my point.

[Mark (Host)]

Well said, Congress. O', Connell, let's talk about the Epstein files. They're supposed to be released by tomorrow at midnight. When you all wrote the bill and set the deadline, did you consider that if one of your goals was transparency conversation about it, that setting the deadline so they could release them right before Christmas was not consistent with the goal of having maximum attention?

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Did you think that we started writing it in July? We didn't.

[Mark (Host)]

But in retrospect, in retrospect you could have made it. Since everybody assumes they're going to go to the last day, maybe you could have made it 60 days or 45 days to put it into. Jane, you see what I'm saying? Seems like now if the goal is for some people and there's suspicion that would be true of the administration is to, is to play down all of this, you've given them the deadline of their dreams, except maybe December 24th.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Well, look, in retrospect, had I known when we introduced it in July that we would actually get this passed in after November that it would take that that long or that that would be the date then yeah, sure, we would probably have this come out in January. But it is what it is. I mean the, we didn't want to amend the bill in November. That would be the last thing we had gotten.218 signatures. Look, here's the thing that should at the very least come out. There are three federal judges who have ordered the grand jury and discovery of the Maxwell trials and the Jeffrey Epstein trials to come out. The DOJ to their credit, cited my law and Massey's law saying, look, the Epstein Transparency act requires us to release this. The judges said, you're right, it does. We're going to overrule our previous orders and we're going to require the release. And so it would be mind boggling to me if the doj, having supported this, now doesn't release the information.

[Mark (Host)]

All right, here's what you told NBC earlier in the week about what you expected these documents to reveal. You put that back up first, that the information, quote, will show in a certain, in certain cases how powerful men said they had control over the local police in New York and had contacts with the FBI and other told survivors not to report things because they would not go anywhere. You also said that it's going to shed light on happenings on the island. It says it needs to come out who the other powerful men. On Epstein's rape island there were a lot of sex parties where women were trafficked for pay. I've heard allegations like some of this, but just on the first one, I don't Recall ever hearing about or reading about local police in New York being controlled. Is that something that you've heard is in the documents that's documented? Is that something you've heard from talking to the survivors and accusers? Where does that come from?

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Comes from the survivors, particularly survivors in New York who said that they were told if they call the police, if they call the FBI, that Epstein knows powerful people and it won't go anywhere. And this survivor said that's one of the reasons that she did not. The other issue here is, look, there were people in, on this Epstein island, in these parties, where many people were over the age of consent. And then there was one person, 16, 17, and there were a lot of people there, rich and powerful people who may not have engaged in rape of those underage girls, knew though, that there was someone underage there and basically didn't say anything. And what message is that sending to that underage girl if you've got powerful people there while this is going on and they don't say anything?

[Mark (Host)]

Do you have any sense of the scale of what we're going to get tomorrow? Is it going to be hundreds of thousands, millions of documents?

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

No idea. Because, you know, the Justice Department has not communicated with me or Massey. Now, in fairness, they don't owe us anything. They just have to comply with the law. They don't have to talk to the authors of the law. But we have no idea other than I do think if they just released what the three federal judges ordered them to release, we would get a fair amount of transparency. And for those people who are skeptical, who say, look this, where are the allegations? Is this just. Is this blown up? You know, my answer to them is get the files out. The American people can then decide, and if they think that there's not much smoke there, that'll come out.

[Mark (Host)]

Would you like to see the FBI and the Justice Department do a press conference and explain what they've redacted, what hasn't been released? Or is it good enough to just whatever they've decided they can release, just put it on a website and have everybody read it through it?

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Well, look, the law requires that they put it on a website that is discoverable and within 15 days that they send Congress a explanation for how they complied with the law and why they chose to redact certain things. I mean, you can redact things for national security. You can redact things if there's ongoing investigation, as long as it's minimal. You know, it was thought through. It was not just saying, okay, every single thing has to come out and the, you know, they have to by law offer an explanation whether they do it in a written form, whether they don't. You know, my, my sense is just this, look, when Susan Wilds is saying this, this was a major colossal mess up like bambondi whiff, you would think that they would just say, let's get, let's get past this, let's have this disclosure. You know, Susan Wallace basically helped the President become the President. She's singling out one cabinet member in the whole administration is incompetent. You think she would get the message?

[Mark (Host)]

Congressman Lawler, are you interested in this release? And if so, what about it interests you?

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

Look, ultimately I voted for the bill. As I've said repeatedly, anybody that was involved in the sexual exploitation of children or women or in furtherance of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes should be prosecuted. And that's been my position from the very start. Ultimately, obviously the law was passed, it was signed by the President. The Department of Justice needs to comply with the law and release all the documents by tomorrow and they should do so.

[Mark (Host)]

Okay, let's do the last few. We'll do them real quick, then we'll get to your questions. If you're here on the platform, want to ask a question? The Congressman, please raise your hand. Russia. Ukraine. At the same time that Putin is talking very tough. We expect his annual press conference tomorrow. There's reportedly going to be meetings between the Russians and the Americans in Florida over the weekend. Congressman Khanna, are you bullish or bearish on a deal, an overall deal? I'm bearish.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

I mean, look, I'm for ultimately having a deal, but not on two conditions which were in that 28 point peace plan. One, I don't think that Ukraine should be giving up territory that Russia doesn't even have. And two, as a guy who's also not the most hawkish, I don't think you should have an artificial constraint on Ukraine's number of troops. But I'm all for the President pursuing negotiation. It just has to be a just peace congress.

[Mark (Host)]

Bullish or bearish on the prospects of a deal at this point?

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

Cautiously bearish. Look, I think a deal has to get done to Rose point. I don't think there should be a limit on Ukraine troops. I don't think Russia should have any veto power of any kind over NATO. You know, in terms of who can be a member of NATO. And certainly from a territorial standpoint, you know, we definitely should not be giving any territory that they don't currently have. Control over and ultimately the security guarantees are critical. I think a lot of progress has been made since the initial plan kind of leaked out. I've been on phone calls and in meetings. I think we've made some progress here. But ultimately, to me, Vladimir Putin is the one that is responsible for this and needs to be held to account. We want to protect Ukraine's structural sovereignty, but we also have to recognize where we are as we approach the fourth year of this war. There were a lot of mistakes early on. There should have been secondary sanctions enacted. The Europeans should have stopped purchasing Russian gas. The Ukrainians should have been allowed to proactively use weapons in Russian territory. Those decisions were disastrous in terms of Ukraine's ability to prosecute this war effectively. And, you know, we have to bring this to an end. This continuing is not going to end well for Ukraine.

[Mark (Host)]

All right, two more topics. Are you guys following the investigation into the Brown. The murders at Brown University? Guys following that at all?

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

This is a disaster.

[Mark (Host)]

Yeah. So last night or yesterday, one of the many incompetent investigators, the police chief, seems to say they have not yet even spoken to the students in the room who were there. Here's his remarks from yesterday.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Explain to us five days later how many students were in that classroom? Sadly, two lost their lives.

[Mark (Host)]

Nine other than you.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

Updated today.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

But can you now say how many.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

Kids were in that classroom?

[Mark (Host)]

And did the gun come in from.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

The back so these people never knew it was coming? Or did he come in front with full view of everybody? That's all part of the interviews. And actually, we're cooperating with Brown to get the roster. That was a study hall, so we don't have the number. We're still getting information as far as who was there. I know Brown sent out an email to the students to notify us if they were present, and we're still getting that. So I can't give you an exact account.

[Mark (Host)]

Now, Congressman Lawler, is this income? Is this whole thing incompetence? There's. I could run through all the things that are arousing suspicion, and I'm more suspicious today about this whole thing than I was even a few days ago when I caused a bit of a stir by raising some of the questions. Is this incompetence, or do you suspect there could be something more here?

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

I mean, this just to me seems like gross incompetent incompetence. And, you know, frankly, either the state authorities or federal authorities need to intervene immediately. I mean, this is. This is laughable. You have multiple deaths Injuries. A mass shooting on a university. I think there's a lot of questions that Brown University needs to start answering as to cameras, as to, you know, campus security. I mean, this is one blunder after the next, and the longer this drags on, the harder it's going to be to actually get to the bottom of this. So to me, this is insane that somebody can conduct a mass shooting on a campus and get away basically undetected, and you have bumbling and stumbling by the authorities. I mean, this is very bad.

[Mark (Host)]

Congressman Khanna, who regularly tangles with the vice president on Twitter on X, shares with the vice president a love for accurate conspiracy theories. So do you have a conspiracy theory about this? One that you. That you're. That you're attracted to, or do you agree with Congressman Lawler? Just rank, rank, incompetence?

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Look, I'm a huge supporter of universities, but I've got to tell you, this is not a shining moment for Brown University. When I saw the Brown University president like, six hours after the horrific incident saying, yeah, I don't know what the classroom was. I don't know what happened. I don't know what it was for. I mean, how do you do that when you've just had an enormously awful tragedy and mass shooting on your campus? And so I think this feeds into this idea that these universities are disconnected for ordinary life. Like, you would never have a mayor or a governor of any state when there's a mass shooting six hours later, say this. And so someone at Brown needs to wake up and say, this has to be a priority.

[Mark (Host)]

Yeah. Again, if you're looking to latch on a conspiracy theory, the three things that are in my inbox and in my head right now. It is very rare for a. Not an assassination, but just a mass shooting. It's very rare for the person to get away, not killed, not kill themselves, and get away seemingly with a plan. You know, sometimes people get away, but they're caught pretty quickly after. Number two is still a ton of questions about what that meeting was. Who. Who was there? Was that a special class? What was that, and what happened in the room. And then lastly, this murder of this MIT professor, The authorities are saying it's unconnected. It's unconnected to what happened at Brown. Even though they're relatively close. I don't know how anybody could say it's unconnected if they don't have either. Crime solved. How can you say it's unconnected? How could you possibly know? So, again, I remain pretty suspicious about it. Okay, somebody put Out a poll yesterday saying AOC would beat JD Vance in 2028. Even for me, that was a bit premature. But it wasn't premature for one of the two who got asked about it last night.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

The reaction, or do you think that you'll be that you could be J.D.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

Vance in a head to head race.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

For president as polling suggests in 2028.

[Mark (Host)]

Listen, these polls like three years out.

[Caller Jamie]

Are, you know, they are what they are.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

But let the record show.

[Mark (Host)]

I would stop him. I would stop him.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Thank you, Congresswoman.

[Mark (Host)]

All right, put aside your partisan allegiances. You had to bet that the, the family mortgage, the Conor Lara family mortgages, you both got kids, so no small thing to bet the mortgage. Who would you bet it on? AOC versus versus the vice president for 2028? Congressman Connor. Connor.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Well, she certainly has a lot of charisma and anyone looking at that clip would know that she's got game. I just would bet right now on a Democrat, whoever it is, because people are upset about the economy, they're upset about the incumbency, and I think MAGA is kind of unraveling. But I would not underestimate aoc, whatever she does.

[Mark (Host)]

All right, Congressman, who would you bet.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

On the vice President? I know both of them. Alexandria has certainly a lot of personality, but I think if there was a debate on the substance of issues, that would not go well for her.

[Mark (Host)]

Yeah, okay. I wonder. I forgot to Polymarket one thing. When we were talking about healthcare, I found this pretty interesting. This is our friends from Polymarket, our partners and they looking at the question of will there be a subsidy subsidy extension? ACA subsidy extensions pass and who will win the majority of control of Congress in November. So it's interesting. 78% odds that the subsidies aren't extended and the Democrats take the majority. So over three quarters think that's the outcome. A fifth say not extend the subsidies but the Republicans maintain control and only 1% chance that the subsidies are extended and the Republicans maintain control. And nobody thinks. No odds. Zero odds on extending subsidies and the Democrats take control. Surprising to me. All right, time for your questions again. Raise your hand if you're here on the platform. Want to get in on the conversation? We'd love to have you. Questions for the Congressman and as always, peace, love and understanding. Presumption of grace to all. I don't even need to remind you that's how confident I am that this group will adhere to the normal strictures. Jamie, welcome in unmute. Tell folks again where you are and what's on your Mind for Congressman Lawlor. Congressman Khanna, good morning.

[Caller Jamie]

Thank you so much for the chance to speak. Mark Representatives I am a Democrat, a lesbian and the clinical whistleblower from inside the Pediatric Gender Medicine Institute. I was a true believer. I worked inside this system because I thought I was helping children. This is the systematic targeting of homosexual proto gay children, gender non conforming boys and girls who would almost certainly grow up to be gays or lesbians if they were not redirected into medical pathways that erase same sex attraction through irreversible physical harms. There is no high quality evidence that puberty blockers or cross sex hormones improve long term mental health. European health authorities have restricted these interventions because of that evidence gap. So my question to you this morning is this. If this were happening to any other vulnerable group, poor children, disabled children or a racial minority, would you accept this level of risk and uncertainty or is it just okay because this is happening to proto gay who would become homosexual children and any evidence would convince you to stop supporting this.

[Mark (Host)]

Congressman Khanna, do you need more information to answer the question?

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Well, look, Jamie, I appreciate your point of view. My view on this, having known parents of trans kids is these are very, very difficult, painful decisions for a family with their doctor. And as someone who believes in freedom, I believe this should be a decision between the family and and their doctor, not for politicians.

[Mark (Host)]

Tarsman Lawler Look, I think this is.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

Obviously a very complicated issue and I think both sides of the argument dismiss the complexity of it. From my vantage point, when it comes to children, there should not be surgery, there should not be chemical castration, medical intervention. I think from the standpoint of mental health support, we need to make sure that there is access. These children are clearly going through a difficult situation. So you know, my viewpoint is that if you're under the age of 18, you should not be permitted to have a medical intervention. If you're over the age of 18 and you make that choice, ultimately that's your decision. I don't think federal dollars should be used for that. And I do think people that are obviously going through this situation need access to mental health services because it is a very difficult time. And I do empathize with the parents of these children because that's got to be a very difficult situation to contend with. The reason I voted no yesterday on Marjorie Taylor's green Marjorie Taylor Greene's bill was number one, it's completely unconstitutional. Number two, to say we're going to criminalize parents and doctors, I think is a step too far and opens up a whole host of other issues moving forward on other health care decisions that I'm just not going down that road.

[Mark (Host)]

Yeah. Jamie, thank you. I appreciate the answers from both of you. Very thoughtful. Colleen, welcome in. Tell folks who don't know where you are what's on your mind. For the congressman, I'm Mark.

[Caller Colleen]

Thanks for having me. Hi, guys. I'm in Long Island, New York, and it's great to hear you two. I mean, you inspire me that we have hope for this country that you can work together. So I hope you continue to do that. But I was interested last night because Trump said, I'm very passionate about healthcare. I lived in Europe for many years, and the idea that many Americans think healthcare so bad there, we don't want socialized medicine. I don't know a single European or Canadian who would switch to our health care system. But what Trump said last night was very interesting because he said he's one of the few people that will go up against the special interests, the pharmaceuticals, the health care industry and fight them. So we have a historical chance right now if he's willing to do that. And he has done it with the pharmaceutical companies. Because here in our country, we spend more per person on health care. I think it's like 14,000 compared to 6 in safe friends.

[Mark (Host)]

Colleen, I apologize just because we're short of time. I want to get more folks in. What's your question for the congressman?

[Caller Colleen]

The question is, do you think that somehow we can use this and use Trump's passion for this? Because he was obviously passionate about it last night, saying he wants the money to go to the people, not the health insurance companies. And that's the cusp of our problem.

[Mark (Host)]

Yeah. Congressman Khanna, where's the opportunity for maybe a populist against pharmaceuticals, maybe hospitals, maybe other powerful special interests that distort the health care system?

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Well, Colleen, I give Donald Trump credit for his executive order taking on Big Pharma. I literally introduced it as is, as law, because Big Pharma is going to challenge his executive order. It's not going to go anywhere. But what he's basically saying is if you're charging Americans more than you're charging people in other Western democracies, then we are going to take away your patents or we're going to take action against you. Stop ripping off the American people. I introduced it. It's got bipartisan co sponsors, people like Marjorie Taylor Greene and others. And let's vote on it. I mean, I, and I'd give the president credit, I think, on taking on Big Pharma. He's been right.

[Caller Colleen]

He's unique qualified to do this.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

Now, Congressman Lawler, the president is 100% right to go after prescription drug prices. Most favored nation status is spot on. When you talk to the pharmaceutical industry off the record, they acknowledge one of the biggest drivers actually is the price controls put in place by Europe. Americans are subsidizing Europeans prescription drug coverage. That's bullshit. And so he's right to go after that. And that is something Congress should codify immediately. And go after. I also believe we need to go after the insurance companies. UnitedHealthcare is the largest owner of a provider in the country. An insurance company should not be owning a primary care practice and a provider. You look at Aetna and CVS Caremark, that needs to be broken up. Insurance companies should not be owning PBMs. So there needs to be real reforms here. I think we can get there if people would actually look at how we reduce health care costs. Remember, Obamacare was written by the insurance companies for the insurance companies. That's why you've seen their, their profits spike over 2000% in this 15 year span while people cannot afford health care. And the only thing I'd say, Colleen, Canada and Europe, there's a reason many folks come to the United States for treatments when they have serious medical issues. I would not trade our healthcare system. I think we need to fix our healthcare system. Yeah.

[Mark (Host)]

Colleen, thank you. Congressman Lawler, do you still need to go right now?

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

I need to go in about five minutes.

[Mark (Host)]

Five minutes. All right, Lenny, if you could do real. Thank you for staying a little more. Lenny, if you could quickly ask your question so both congressmen can respond and we'll continue on with Congressman Khanna. Go ahead, Lenny.

[Caller Lenny]

Okay. I've got a very simple idea to propose to both of them. And thank you very much, Mark, for calling me. I call it the challenge flag. I think a huge number of our problems in this country, and particularly in the Congress, are caused by the refusal of the majority to allow votes to take place on issues where there is massive common ground, for example, immigration. So the challenge flag would be this. The minority leader in either the House or the Senate, three times in a Congress, just like in an NFL game, would be allowed to throw a challenge flag and demand a vote on a specific piece of legislation without hearings or anything. Just three times in a Congress, you throw the challenge flag and you say, okay, I have a comprehensive immigration bill here. Up or down?

[Mark (Host)]

Yeah, three times. Yeah, Lenny. It's an interesting idea.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

Congressman Lawler, I can tell you, having served in the permanent minority of the New York State Assembly, I think all of our legislative bodies need reform. You should be able to bring bills to the floor as the minority party. Not everything you you want, but you should be able to bring a designated number of bills. I would support that. I think that's fair. And it allows. It allows for the House, the majority of the House to do its will. And if there is bipartisan cooperation and support, have an up or down vote. This was my whole point about the ACA extension. We worked to get a bipartisan bill, put it on the floor. Leadership was worried that it would pass. I said, yeah, it will pass because that's the reality. People want to see this extended with reforms. Let the body do its work.

[Mark (Host)]

Lenny, hold on.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Congressman Connor, Look, I totally agree with the proposal. I think the biggest thing that people have a misperception about Congress and don't understand is how many things simply don't come to the floor for a vote. And the American people just don't understand it because it wasn't part of the Constitution. This is just a quirk of Congress and this is how most things get killed in Washington.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

By the way, I'll just add a little addendum. Every member should be able to bring at least one bill to the floor. Every Congress, every member should be able to pick a bill that matters to their district that they care about and bring it to the floor for an up or down vote. Most of them will fail because there won't be bipartisan agreement. But let the people. Let the people vote.

[Mark (Host)]

All right, Congressman, we'll let you go. I will continue with Congressman Connor saying Congress. Lawler, very grateful to you for being.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

Part of touring for coming on everyone.

[Mark (Host)]

Merry Christmas. We look to forward. Forward to your discharge petitions and your toasted Marjorie Taylor Greene's farewell party.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

Oh, thank. Thank God. She's leaving. One of the worst people ever service. I'm gonna miss her.

[Mark (Host)]

Congressman Khan is big ally.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

Sure, I'm sure. Partners in crime.

[Mark (Host)]

Thank you. Thank you, Congressman. Good to see you. Okay, again. Raise your hand if you want in on the conversation. Congressman, I actually muted you. If you unmute. Quick word from a sponsor and then we're going to go back to your questions for Congressman Khanna and sponsor is that no one needs to tell me. It's our friends at Chef iq. If you want to cook this holiday season and you want to not spend all your time hovering over the oven, get yourself the opportunity of a lifetime. 30% off for tomboy community members on chefiq.com promo code 2 WMM it is the chef IQ sense. It's a wireless cooking thermometer. Download the app, shove the thermometer and whatever you're cooking, beef, chicken, fish, whatever it is or people, whenever I leave out vegetables, yes, you can do it with a vegetable to a giant, a giant eggplant, whatever you're cooking. And it tells you how long to leave it in, when to turn it after you take it out, how long to leave it so that you can spend time with your family and friends and not hovering over every decision you need to make. Perfectly cooked meals with Chef IQ. Go to Chef IQ.com promo code two WMM buy one for yourself. Everyone on your list. It's December 18th folks. If you're not buying fairway and green stuff and Chef IQ stuff today, do not blame me on December 25th when you're out at the Walmart before it closes. Opportunity of a lifetime. As I said, 30% off. Chefiq.com promo code 2 WMM for all your holiday shopping needs. Hey, Ryan Reynolds here wishing you a very happy half off holiday because right now Mint Mobile is offering you the gift. A 50% off unlimited. To be clear, that's half price, not half the service. Mint is still premium unlimited wireless for a great price. So that means a half day. Yeah. Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer.

[Caller Jamie]

Offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of network's busy taxes and fees extra.

[Mark (Host)]

See mintmobile.com all right, here we go. To Alan or Aaron rather. Aaron, welcome in. Tell folks who don't know where you are what's on your mind for Congressman Khanna, y'. All.

[Caller Aaron]

I'm in Houston currently Healthcare. Okay, well let me start off with the post office is an institution that is in the business of building trash to your home. The TSA gropes more children in a single day than Epstein ever did and is in the business making air travel absolutely terrible and degrading passengers. The IRS has been hacked a number of times and everyone's Social Security number is out there. Shout out to the guy buying a boat with mine in the last time my government intervened in healthcare in my life, it told me that I wasn't allowed to work unless I put a needle in my arm and plunged in an experimental drug. Are you absolutely sure that the American people will trust the federal government to expand Medicare and deliver anything approaching you know decent care for the American people.

[Mark (Host)]

Yeah. Congressman, if, if you ran for president, which I know you're considering, would you, would you be a staunch advocate for single payer Medicare for all? You'd be for one of those two, I assume, right?

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

I would be for Medicare for all. Let me answer your question. The first of all with Medicare for All, as you know, we'd still have private doctors, we would still have private hospitals, we'd still have private nurses. So it's not like the British system where you have a national health system and you have to go to a government doctor. Second, even with Medicare for All, you would still be able to get supplemental insurance. That was non duplicative. So if for whatever reason you were concerned that the government or Medicare was not covering something that you thought should be covered, there is the supplemental, but most people believe who are on Medicare that the costs and the coverage are far better than if you're on UnitedHealth Care with the denials. And I just think that that is the Social Security and Medicare are two things that have worked and people have trust in them and we should be expanding them.

[Caller Aaron]

Yeah, I mean people, people like getting free stuff. I agree with that. You know, the increasingly or decreasingly healthcare providers are rejecting Medicare patients and they're not taking those patients. And this whole, oh, we're going to have private doctors and private health care. Private doctors, excuse me, my government forced private companies to cause private doctors and private nurses to plunge experimental drugs into their arms. Otherwise these private companies could not employ these private individuals. So that's sort of empty.

[Mark (Host)]

All right, Aaron, hold on. Go ahead. Congressman.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

I would separate. Look, I supported the idea of COVID vaccines, but that's separate in my view from the conversation on Medicare for all. I would just say that the vast majority of people think the costs are too high, that they're getting denied coverage. And then when you have an AI revolution and a lot of people may not have the same job like my dad did for 30 years, years, having health care tied to what job you have is very, very risky. And I, I just think people should have health care in this country. You've got, here's what bothers me the Most. You've got $18 trillion in my district, literally 1/3 of the US stock market. We're making more wealth than has ever been produced in the history of the world. And you're telling me Americans can't have the right to health care and can't have education? Give me a break. Of course we can. And you know who's going to pay for it. The tech billionaires in my district are going to pay for it and they're going to be happy paying for it because I'm going to tell them I'll call it an anti revolution tax. And you know, when I go to rural America, when I go to urban America and I say we're making more money than ever, but the working class has gotten shafted and we're going to make sure the working class have health care, education and good jobs. That's a message I think 70, 80% of Americans can be for.

[Mark (Host)]

Aaron, thank you. I know you'd like to keep going back and forth, but I want to bring in other folks. Congressman, this is Dr. John. He's a doctor, treats children in Nashville, great member of our community. And I bet he's got a question has nothing to do with medicine, but maybe I'll be wrong. Dr. John, welcome. And question.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

No, not today. Not today. Mark, I heard that. I heard the health care question. Yeah, I pulled over so I'm safe.

[Mark (Host)]

Don't worry.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

Okay.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Not driving. I wanted to give the Congressman opportunity to explain what he means. What you mean in Congressman when you say Medicare for all. And I'm like I said, I'm a physician. I have a lot of thoughts that I won't go through today on the healthcare system and it's brokenness. I do not believe that health care consumers are rational actors in a system. When your child has cancer, you're not.

[Mark (Host)]

All right, John, we're having trouble hearing you unfortunately, so I'm going to mute you. But go ahead, Congressman, explain what Medicare for All means to you. What would the program look like? What would it cost? How would it, how would it be implemented?

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Well, it would mean that every person was enrolled in Medicare from the day they were born. Healthcare as a human right. It's a Bernie Sanders plan. Now honestly, that would mean that people would have to pay something. This idea that only the billionaires are going to finance it. The math doesn't add up. But the reality is the current family pays about $11,000 when you look at the premiums and the deductibles and you would be paying far less into a Medicare system that then would cover you and your family and you wouldn't have no premiums, you'd have no denials of health care and people would have health care. And most people like Medicare, especially if it's expanded to cover dental, vision, hearing and long term care. And the details, you know, Sanders is basically the plan laid out. One point I will make is if you wanted to get to Medicare to 50, that cost is not nearly as high. It's about $50 billion a year and that's 1/20 of our defense budget and would cover a lot of people because health care obviously is someone about to turn 50. It becomes a bigger deal after 50. And that's one step that we could take right away.

[Mark (Host)]

What would be the risks of your plan? What would be the things you'd be concerned about maybe would have unintended consequences or downside.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

It's a large part of the economy. I mean It's a, it's 18% of the economy. I mean, I think that some of that's a deadweight loss. But we need to figure out, okay, if you're working at these insurance companies, where, where are you going to have jobs? We need to make sure we have more doctors and nurses because obviously if you have more people coming into the system, we need to make sure that the, the coverage that people are going to be there and we need to, to make sure that the, there are supplemental programs so that people feel like they, they have a choice.

[Mark (Host)]

Thank you. Congressman Walt, welcome in unmute. If you would tell folks who don't know where you are what's on your mind. For Congressman Khanna, I am in Grass.

[Caller Walt]

Valley, California and incidental question mark. I love your vest. I want to know how I can get one go.

[Mark (Host)]

Go to. Go to two way. Go to two way TV fairway. You could buy all sorts of great merch.

[Caller Walt]

From what, what I see is a principal problem with medical care in this country is it's way, way, way too expensive. And there's a feedback loop between our federal government that has created monopolies in medical insurance monopolies and medical services monopolies in pharmaceutical availability. And we have gigantic contributions from the medical industry back to politicians in Congress and in the Senate. And that perpetuates the system that we have today that's creating such a problem. How do you break that feedback loop?

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Well, one of the things that Medicare for all would do would be able to negotiate with the big pharma. Obviously you wouldn't have big private insurance companies. You wouldn't have the vertical integration where these private insurance companies are buying up the providers and are consolidating with the pharmacies. You know, members, guys, I was telling you, I wouldn't say who a member of Congress who was thinking of getting a medical procedure and cannot because now they that person is not covered by for that procedure. I mean this is a most People think members of Congress have all this fancy health care. We don't. We're on, you know, United health care, the same kind of plans. And the fact is that. The fact that you're having denials for members of Congress and others just shows how broken the system is.

[Mark (Host)]

Go ahead.

[Caller Walt]

Yeah, but how do you break the feedback loop of the contributions, political contributions? Do all of the. All of the congressmen and senators that I see on committees being in charge of the decisions made on medical care provided in this country, Everything is heavily influenced by politicians who are more or less on the take from the industry that they say they're trying to regulate. And we have had nothing but problems ever since.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Walt, I couldn't agree with you more. I mean, I don't take a dime, a PAC or lobbyist money. I'm one of 10 members of Congress. I think we need to ban PAC, PAC money. We need to ban lobbyist money. We need to ban super PACs. That summer, Lee and I have a bill to say. Why is it that you can only give $3,500 to a member of Congress, but you can turn around and write a million dollars to a super pac? That should be illegal. We need to get this big money out of politics. It's one of the things that keeps us from having sensible reforms.

[Mark (Host)]

Yeah. Well, thank you, Congressman. Do you take money from just small dollars, but do you take money from. From people of business before the committees you serve on?

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

I'm sure I have individual contribution. I mean, I take individual contributions, and I'm sure someone, you know, may work at a defense company. We don't look at that. But we take no money from corporations. We take no money from PACs, no money from. From lobbyists. But.

[Mark (Host)]

But would you do something like this? Pretty common. If you were on the defense committee that dealt with defense spending, would you go to a reception where 35 employees all wrote $33,000 checks?

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

In that case? I haven't. Just largely because I vote against the defense budget. I don't know if the employees. I just mean.

[Mark (Host)]

I just mean in general, don't even need to make it about you. But is that something that you would try to. Try to figure out how to stop? Because that's obviously very common. Right. You're on a committee that regulates AT&T. And the lobbyist for AT&T in Washington has a reception and a bunch of at&p.at&t. People write checks. Is that something you're.

[Congressman Mike Lawler]

You.

[Mark (Host)]

You don't do? Is that something you're against and would like to try to regulate.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

I do. I mean, I think it's a fair point. I mean, I've focused on Super PACs and PACs and lobbyists. But you're right, one of the challenges is this bundling. And you probably could have restrictions about. Maybe it's on committees that if you're on a committee, there should be a prohibition on, on, on bundling from companies that are within the jurisdiction of that committee. It's a thoughtful point. I, you know, maybe give me an idea for a legislative, legislative idea. But it is a fair point.

[Mark (Host)]

Do you think the current Supreme Court would uphold any of the bills you just described?

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

I do, because the Supreme Court. Look, the Supreme Court has said you can't stop money as speech. But what they have said is you can regulate it when there is quid pro quo corruption. Right. Otherwise, why can't someone just give $1 million to a congressional candidate? Obviously, Buckley versus Vallejo, the Supreme Court has said you can restrict contributions. So if you can show that the regulations you have are to restrict corruption or the appearance of corruption, you can regulate it. So you can't say Michael Bloomberg can't spend millions of dollars to run. But I do think you can say he should be limited to what he can spend on a super pac or if you're serving on a committee, you shouldn't be able to have bundling from people on the committee. I think those kind of things could be held constitutional even under Citizens United.

[Mark (Host)]

Yeah. I've said before, of all the people who might run for president in 2028 after your governor, Gavin Newsom, you've had the best year in terms of where you started and where you are now. Yesterday on Two Way Tonight, we had a conversation about 2028, and the consensus was that you're more likely to be the party's nominee than Rahm Emanuel, who is the darling, who's the darling of so many people in the establishment and who, of course, has been on the national stage far longer than you have. Where do you stand now after a year at sort of dabbling in thinking about running? Are you more. More, you know, inclined to do it than ever before, or have you had experiences that make you feel less likely to do it?

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Ron was a strong ambassador for us in Japan. He did good work.

[Mark (Host)]

But apparently less likely to be the nominee than you.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

The, the. Look, I believe I have the right economic vision for this country, especially in a time of AI and technology. I represent a district with which has literally one third of the entire United States wealth in the 50 mile radius of my district. And I have ideas of how we can make sure that that wealth doesn't just stay in Silicon Valley, that families and towns across this country can have good paying jobs, can understand the economic, the AI revolution, that we aren't having workers eliminated, that we can have economic prosperity across this country. I call it a new economic patriotism. And I certainly am going to be out there in 2026 making the case for that economic philosophy. Whether it is me or someone else who ultimately runs there, I am more and more convinced that the economic roadmap I'm laying out is the right roadmap for this country.

[Mark (Host)]

Are you more or less inclined to run than you were December 18th of last year?

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Well, you know, December 18th, I was probably 1,000 miles back from the starting line and Now I'm probably 500 miles back from the starting line.

[Mark (Host)]

So, you know, closer in that sense. Do you. Well, let me ask, let me ask it this way. Are you going to stay up Friday night and wait for the release? If it comes out at midnight, we be up at midnight reading these Epstein documents, or will you spend your weekend reading them? Or are you just going to leave that to others?

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

No, I'm, I, I'm emotionally invested in this now. I mean, especially having met some of the survivors. So obviously I'm going to see whether the release happens. And I will say this because a lot of the media this week has been interviewing me and I said, I give the benefit of the doubt until the midnight in on Friday that DOJ is going to release something substantial. I mean, they have to their credit cited our law to these judges and said that we need you to order the release. And if you were being, you know, if you were giving them the benefit of the doubt, they would say, look, these judges had ordered us not to release this. Now you have a law, the judges are reversing themselves and saying they should be released. So let's give them till tomorrow midnight.

[Mark (Host)]

Let'S say on Saturday, get a call from a prominent Democrat whose name has never surfaced in connection with Epstein before. And the documents don't accuse him of committing any crime. And, and he calls you and he says, congressman, because of your legislation, my life is ruined. My phone's ringing off the hook. My, my family's asking me what happened. All I did was, you know, go to a dinner party, whatever. But now my name is associated with Jeffrey Epstein. I had no trial, I had no ability to face any accusers. There was no due process. And now forevermore, I'm linked To Jeffrey Epstein. How dare you. What would you say to that person?

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

I would say, look, I understand that your concerns and my belief and if I, if you want me to help make it clear that what you did was just take money from him, that you weren't involved, you didn't know about the COVID his underage girls and the abuse, that you weren't participating in these things and you feel like you're being unfairly targeted. I'm a fair person and I don't want people to be unfairly targeted. And I've also said in the past that in life, Mark, you've watched politics long enough. There's nothing that is clean. Life is always about trade offs in politics. And there is, there is a cost. And what I, it weighed heavily on me. There's a reason the Justice Department doesn't just release these files when someone is in charge. It's to make sure that we don't just have trial by public opinion. And that was something that is, is a reason to be cautious. But the president made this a huge issue. He said he's going to release these files. These victims have been denied justice, in my view, for decades. And so in this case, the public benefit outweighed that risk to privacy. But one has to acknowledge that, that, and that, acknowledge that the hypothetical concern you mentioned.

[Mark (Host)]

Congressman, very grateful to you for spending the hour with us. We hope you and your family have a great holiday.

[Congressman Ro Khanna]

Merry Christmas, happy holidays, happy Hanukkah.

[Mark (Host)]

And we look forward, we look forward to talking to you again in the new year. Thank you, Congress, thank you. Grateful to you. All right, everybody, again, this last episode of this program for the year. We'll be back first week of January with more morning meetings and more great hosts. So please join us then. Group chat at 4 today. Emma, Jo, Nina, Robbie, joined by David Carlucci, former New York state Senator, Democratic strategist. That's 4 o' clock two way tonight, the last two way tonight of the year at 6 o' clock and then at 7 o' clock on YouTube, the Moynihan Report, Michael with Brendan Sims. And again, so grateful to the two guests today, all the guest hosts we've had in December and we'll be back with this program in January. Thank you all for being part of two way. I will see you at 6pm tonight and a new episode of Next Stop will also be available to you by then. We'll, we'll tell you about that later today. Thanks so much for watching. Have a great day. It.