政府关门与联邦雇员的待遇

What's your thought on the president's ideas here on using this as an opportunity to limit the size and scale of government? Should that be the conversation now should be the conversation at any point. Obviously, September the 30th, there were 150,000 federal employees that ended their their connection to the federal government. Those are the folks that were given the opportunity to be early out through the early months of the Trump administration, said you could stay until September the 30th. So we had 150,000 employees that left at that point. What the president is doing now is he's basically sorting in every agency to say if they're considered essential or nonessential, if they're considered nonessential, then there's a second look to say if they're nonessential now in the shutdown, are they nonessential long term on that? That should be a reasonable thing any business would do. Federal government is no different than any business. If you want to be able to take a hard look at it and say, if we can function without them, should we? Is that the right thing to be able to do and then to be able to make the wise decision from there? 您认为总统利用这次机会来限制政府的规模和范围的想法如何？现在是否应该进行这样的对话，或者任何时候都应该吗？显而易见，9月30日，有15万联邦雇员结束了与联邦政府的联系。这些人是在特朗普政府初期被给予提前离职机会的，并被告知可以工作到9月30日。因此，在那时有15万人离开了。总统现在所做的，基本上是在每个机构进行筛选，看他们被视为必需还是非必需。如果被视为非必需，那么就会进行第二次审查，看他们在这次关门期间是否是非必需的，以及他们是否长期而言也是非必需的？任何企业都会这样做，这是合理的。联邦政府与任何企业没有区别。如果你想仔细审视一下，看看如果我们没有他们也能运作，那么我们是否应该这样做？这是正确的做法吗？然后在此基础上做出明智的决定？

Interesting. Got it. But in that case, they would not be rehire. These would be permanent layoffs we're talking about. Well, the president has not announced. That's what they've implied initially on this. What Russ Vogt has talked about from the Office of Management and Budget, but he's not actually given any clear instructions of what they would do long term. But this gives them the opportunity to be able to look at that. They've still got that. We got to make the decision on it. 有意思。明白了。但那样的话，他们就不能被重新雇佣了。我们说的是永久性裁员。嗯，总统还没有宣布。这是他们最初暗示的。这是来自管理和预算办公室的Russ Vogt谈论过的，但他实际上并没有给出任何关于他们长期将如何做的明确指示。但这给了他们机会去审视这一点。他们仍然拥有这个机会。我们必须做出决定。

He also was asked today in the Oval Office about back pay. This was an idea floated by the Office of Management and Budget that not all federal employees deserve backpay. The Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, talked about that earlier. We followed up with the president on that, who said that some people don't deserve to be cared for, but he wouldn't identify who they are. Should should Congress reinforce the laws on the books about federal workers receiving back pay when the government reopens? Yeah, we've had pretty clear federal law on this that if we have a shutdown on and you were furloughed and you're coming back, that you do get back pay on it. That's something that's happened. Obviously, not the decision of any federal worker, by the way. That's why I've worked so hard as a member of Congress to have a bill called Preventing Government Shutdowns. We've worked we had 56 votes for last time. We need 60 to get it done, that we would permanently end any government shutdowns because federal workers and their families and members of the military and their families should not be the ones paying the consequences for a government shutdown and should be members of Congress that actually have the impact if we don't get our work done, that's a different issue. But for me, yes, they should get back pay. 今天在椭圆形办公室，他还被问及了关于补发工资的问题。这是管理和预算办公室提出的一个想法，认为并非所有联邦雇员都应获得补发工资。众议院议长迈克·约翰逊此前也谈论过这个问题。我们随后就此问题跟进了总统，他表示有些人不配得到照顾，但他没有具体说明是谁。国会是否应该加强有关联邦雇员在政府重新开放时获得补发工资的法律？是的，我们在这方面有相当明确的联邦法律，如果政府关门，你被停职了，然后回来工作，你会得到补发工资。这是已经发生过的事情。顺便说一句，这显然不是任何联邦雇员的决定。这就是为什么作为国会议员，我一直非常努力地推动一项名为“阻止政府关门”的法案。上次我们获得了56票支持。我们需要60票才能通过，这样我们就能永久性地结束任何政府关门，因为联邦雇员及其家人，以及军人及其家人，不应该为政府关门承担后果，而应该由国会议员来承担影响，如果我们没有完成工作，那是另一个问题。但对我来说，是的，他们应该获得补发工资。

Who doesn't get back pay? Our contractors Now there are contractors and some of the janitorial services and food services and other things that are in a lot of these federal buildings. They're just not used during this time period. Many of those contractors will never received back pay and never have. So there are some pretty vulnerable individuals that are vulnerable during this time period. I know there are a lot of ancillary businesses around here that are feeling this, Senator, and you're right to point that out. 谁得不到补发工资？我们的承包商。现在有很多承包商，以及一些清洁服务、餐饮服务和其他在许多联邦建筑中的服务。在这个时期，他们只是没有被使用。其中许多承包商将永远不会收到补发工资，也从未收到过。所以在这个时期，有一些相当脆弱的个人。我知道这里有很多附属企业也感受到了影响，参议员，您说得对。

兰德·保罗的立场与政府关门的僵局

We spoke earlier this hour with your colleague, Rand Paul of Kentucky. And of course, you well know, he's the he's the lone holdout on the Republican side of the aisle, a no vote pointing to not to associate himself with Democrats, but what he calls increased debt and deficit. Why is he wrong in this case? Well, right now, we're fighting just to be able to keep the government open, to continue the negotiations on this. I understand he's saying this is still an extension of the Biden budget before. And so he just says we need to have a much, much, much lower spending level on it. So you'll just he votes against every continuing resolution saying, hey, I'll vote on it if we have much, much lower. The challenge that we have is we don't have 60 votes. We're not even close to that. So the alternative then is to just keep the government closed down forever. That doesn't help us either. We've got to actually have conversations with Republicans, Democrats who disagree on a lot of things, figure out how we can get 60 votes in the Senate to agree to something and then to be able to move. 本小时早些时候，我们与您的同事，来自肯塔基州的兰德·保罗进行了交谈。您当然很清楚，他是共和党阵营中唯一坚持己见的人，投了反对票，不是为了与民主党人结盟，而是为了反对他所说的债务和赤字增加。在这种情况下，他为什么错了？嗯，现在，我们正在努力争取让政府保持开放，以继续进行谈判。我理解他说这仍然是对拜登此前预算的延续。所以他只是说我们需要一个低得多、低得多、低得多的支出水平。所以他只是反对每一项持续决议，说：“嘿，如果支出低得多，我才投票。”我们面临的挑战是我们没有60票。我们离那还差得很远。那么，另一种选择就是永远让政府关闭。这对我们也没有任何帮助。我们必须真正与共和党人和民主党人进行对话，他们之间在很多事情上存在分歧，找出我们如何能在参议院获得60票同意某事，然后才能推进。

That's why it's so surprising. During the Biden administration, all four Septembers, we had a continuing resolution during this time period as well, kept the government open while we continued negotiation. That was not an issue. But when President Trump comes, Democrats are now saying we're just going to shut the government down, not negotiate. That doesn't help us. 这就是为什么这如此令人惊讶。在拜登政府期间，所有四个9月份，我们在此期间也都有持续决议，在继续谈判的同时保持政府开放。这当时不是问题。但当特朗普总统上任时，民主党人现在却说我们要关闭政府，不进行谈判。这对我们没有帮助。

关于奥巴马医改补贴的谈判

Well, Senator Lankford, whether it's now or when the government reopens, they'll have to be a negotiation at some point. The president indicated yesterday that talks with Democrats were underway, at least on an informal level, on extending Obamacare subsidies with maybe some new guardrails around it. You know a lot about making deals. Senator, and we watched you put, I think, 4 to 6 months of your life into a very important bipartisan deal on the border that the president then turned away from. This was last year, of course, before he was in office. Candidate Donald Trump affected the outcome there. And I know you don't need me to tell you what would be different this time. Would you lead a gang to help negotiate something on health care or would you have advice for others who are? Well, I would say first and foremost, we got the president, the House and the Senate all in the same page to be able to work through that. At that time, I was trying to be able to navigate a situation where I had a Democrat president and I had a Republican House and a Democrat Senate and trying to be able to figure out how do we actually solve this intransigent issue of open borders with a president that did not want to close the borders. So it's a very different issue at this point now that we have a president that does want to be able to solve the problem of the budget, we have the House and the Senate that do want to be able to solve this. We've got to be able to figure out how to be able to navigate it. 好吧，兰福德参议员，无论是在现在还是政府重新开放后，最终都需要进行谈判。总统昨天表示，与民主党人就延长奥巴马医改补贴（可能带有一些新的保障措施）的谈判已经开始，至少是非正式的。您很了解如何做交易，参议员，我们看到您花了，我想是4到6个月的时间，致力于一项非常重要的关于边境问题的两党协议，但总统随后却拒绝了。这当然是去年，在他上任之前。候选人唐纳德·特朗普影响了那里的结果。我知道您不需要我告诉您这次会有什么不同。您会带头谈判医疗保健方面的事宜，或者您会给其他人提供建议吗？嗯，我首先要说的是，我们让总统、众议院和参议院在同一个页面上，以便能够处理好这件事。当时，我正试图驾驭这样一种局面：我有一个民主党总统，一个共和党领导的众议院和一个民主党领导的参议院，并试图弄清楚我们如何才能真正解决开放边境这个棘手的问题，因为总统不想关闭边境。所以现在情况非常不同，因为我们有一位总统确实想解决预算问题，众议院和参议院也想解决这个问题。我们必须想办法应对。

And there are a couple of things on the on the Obamacare subsidies. The Obamacare subsidies, the base level are not in the argument. These are plus ups that were done during COVID. And that's what a lot of my Democratic colleagues are trying to conflate, is not the base subsidies being talked about. This was the temporary sops for COVID that they're trying to say they now want to make permanent. That's a very different issue. Now, you're right to point that out, and we've tried to make that delineation when we talk about it as well, Senator. So that begs another question, should they be sunset altogether? We're not in a pandemic right now. Do you fade this out after a year because Democrats want a permanent extension? Right. Democrats actually put that in during the Inflation Reduction Act. They said this was temporary for a health emergency and we're sunsetting it at the end of 2025. So it already has a sunset. It was set there by Democrats when they said this is only for the pandemic time period. And now they're saying, just kidding. I want to be able to make that permanent. The question is, yeah, the Affordable Care Act is either not affordable because they continue to need more and more and more subsidies on it go or drives up everyone's insurance cost. So we've got to figure this out. It's one of the things the president says he wants to go back and look at what is systemically driving up the rates this way. We can't just keep pouring more money into it over and over and say the way that we make it more affordable is more tax subsidies. 而且关于奥巴马医改补贴，有几件事。奥巴马医改补贴的基础水平不是争议点。这些是COVID期间增加的补贴。而这正是我的许多民主党同事试图混淆的地方，他们谈论的不是基础补贴。这是COVID期间的临时援助，他们现在试图说他们想让它永久化。这是一个非常不同的问题。您说得对，我们也试图在谈论时区分这一点，参议员。那么这就引出了另一个问题，它们是否应该完全失效？我们现在不是处于大流行病状态。你们是想在一年后让它逐渐消失，因为民主党人想要永久延期吗？是的。民主党人在《通胀削减法案》中加入了这一点。他们说这是为了应对健康紧急情况而临时提供的，并且我们将在2025年底使其失效。所以它已经有失效日期了。这是民主党人设定的，当时他们说这只适用于大流行病时期。而现在他们却说，“开玩笑的。我想让它永久化。”问题是，是的，平价医疗法案要么是因为他们不断需要越来越多的补贴，要么是导致每个人的保险费用都在上涨，所以它并不“平价”。因此，我们必须解决这个问题。这是总统表示他想回去看看是什么系统性地导致费率如此上涨的事情之一。我们不能只是不断地往里投入更多的钱，然后说让它更平价的方式就是更多的税收补贴。

医疗保险费率与补贴的未来

Yeah, I took a look at your state of Oklahoma. I see 277,000 enrollees in the Affordable Care Act. I don't know how many of those have the extended subsidies. But would you want to tell them that there's a definite period of time they can count on this or let it expire at the end of the year? Yeah, they've got to have some clarity right now. All the insurance rates are coming out already November the first. Every insurance company is already assuming the expiration because by law, the expiration is there. And so those rates are coming out. And what some of my Democratic colleagues are trying to say, well, the rates are going to go up unless we do this. What they're not saying is the rates are already going up on everybody else, just on the structure of the Affordable Care Act, which is pushing rates up over and over and over again. So even if these subsidies were put in place, even if they were maintained, rates are still going up significantly. It's not just because of the subsidy subsidies, what offset a portion of that, but the rates are already going up, everybody, just because of the structural problem in the law. 是的，我看了一下您所在的俄克拉荷马州。我看到有277,000人参加了平价医疗法案。我不知道其中有多少人获得了延长的补贴。但您是否想告诉他们，他们可以确定这段时间内依赖于此，还是让它在年底到期？是的，他们现在需要一些明确的指示。所有保险费率都将在11月1日公布。每家保险公司都已经预料到了失效，因为根据法律，失效是存在的。所以费率正在出来。而我的一些民主党同事试图说，“嗯，除非我们这样做，否则费率将会上涨。”他们没有说的是，由于平价医疗法案的结构，其他所有人的费率已经在上涨，不断地推高费率。所以即使这些补贴到位了，即使它们被维持了，费率仍然在显著上涨。这不仅仅是因为补贴，补贴抵消了一部分，而是由于法律的结构性问题，所有人的费率都已经上涨了。

毒品贩运与战争权力法案

Well, this is a conversation that is not going to end any time soon, I'm sure. Senator. And while you're with us, I'd like to ask you from your perch on the Homeland Security Committee and on Intel, Rand Paul also told us he is going to be introducing and co-sponsoring a War Powers Act later this week in response to the administration's efforts to blow up alleged cartel shipments coming out of Venezuela. Is that something you would sign on to? I've got to be able to read it. I can tell you we have a serious drug issue in the United States. We've done interdiction for a long time and then in the count is still coming at us. That's increasing. So. Securing the land border is helping. But a lot of that, those drugs are now hitting the Pacific, the Atlantic and coming right at the United States. So we had 100,000 Americans lost to drug overdose. We've got to find a way to be able to attack the incoming supply as we're also dealing with treatment for individuals to help them break that addiction as well. You worry about blowing up boats without knowing who's on them. We better know who's on them. And I would tell you from the intelligence gathering and everything else, these are not cruise ships. These are not individuals out on a pleasure fishing trip on it. These are individuals that are interdicting drugs into the United States to kill Americans. 我敢肯定，这场对话在短期内不会结束，参议员。在我们与您交谈之际，我想从您在国土安全委员会和情报委员会的职位出发问您一个问题，兰德·保罗也告诉我们，他将于本周晚些时候提出并联合签署一项《战争权力法案》，以回应政府试图炸毁据称来自委内瑞拉的贩毒集团船只的行动。您是否会签署这项法案？我必须阅读一下。我可以告诉您，美国面临严重的毒品问题。我们已经进行了很长时间的拦截，但毒品仍然不断涌入。而且还在增加。因此，确保陆地边境是很有帮助的。但是，其中很多毒品现在正通过太平洋、大西洋进入美国。所以我们有10万人因药物过量死亡。我们必须找到一种方法来打击进口供应，同时也要处理个人治疗，帮助他们戒除毒瘾。您担心在不知道船上是谁的情况下炸毁船只。我们最好知道船上是谁。而且，从情报收集等方面来看，我告诉您，这些不是游轮，也不是在进行休闲钓鱼的个人。这些人是在向美国贩运毒品，企图杀死美国人。