Rep. Torres on Rep. Santos and Changes in Congress

[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Congressman Ritchie Torres from the Bronx is our first guest today as he begins his second term in Congress. You'll remember, he was elected in 2020 as the first openly gay Afro-Latino member in US history, little like how George Santos just became the first openly gay Republican Latino in the House, except for the small detail that Ritchie Torres' life story was true.

We'll talk about that, about something that's usually boring, but today is really interesting, the rules package that the House votes for itself at the beginning of every session. I don't think we've ever done a rules package segment before. In this case, it's about how much the skin of his teeth Speaker Kevin McCarthy allowed rules changes to win enough speaker votes and how that might affect policy and affect us all and more than that too. Congressman Torres, always good to have you on. Welcome back to WNYC.

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Always a pleasure to be here.

Brian Lehrer: I know you've been speaking out against your new colleague from Queens and Nassau County. Have you met him yet?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: I actually met him back in 2020. When I was attending the freshman orientation, he attended it as well, even though the results of his race were not known. He briefly introduced himself to me and pointed out that he was gay. I thought it was an awkward interaction. That's been the extent of my encounter with him, but I have not spoken to him since. I'm so appalled by what he's done that I would not even shake his hand.

Brian Lehrer: I see you proposed something called the SANTOS bill and have now requested a House ethics investigation. What's in the bill and what would the investigation involve?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: I find it outrageous that a fundamentally fraudulent candidate like George Santos can flagrantly lie to voters about his qualifications without facing legal repercussions. That inspired me to introduce the SANTOS Act. SANTOS stands for Stop Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker. The SANTOS Act would require federal candidates to disclose in writing under oath, under the penalty of perjury, their employment, educational, and military history so that candidates who do lie can finally be punished.

Disclosure would enable voters to compare what a candidate has said under oath versus what a candidate claims on the campaign trail. It would enable the detection of lies and the punishment of candidates who tell those lies. As you noted, I'm partnering with Congressman Goldman, Dan Goldman, to file an ethics complaint against George Santos. Even more disturbing than his pathological lying is his possible lawbreaking.

As late as 2020, Mr. Santos reported a salary of $55,000 a year. He then subsequently reported earnings somewhere between $3.5 and $11.5 million, which is an astronomical growth in his personal wealth that he has never fully explained. He lent his own campaign more than $700,000 and claims the money comes from the Devolder Organization, which is shrouded in secrecy.

It has no LinkedIn page. It has no public website. There's reason to think that it might be a pass-through for an illegal campaign contribution. He claims that he earned millions of dollars from clients, but he never disclosed the names of those clients on his congressional financial disclosure as required by federal law, and so we're calling on the ethics committee to investigate him for likely falsifying his congressional disclosure.

Brian Lehrer: Do you want him expelled? He did get elected and other polls have lied about their backgrounds before. Some of the conservative media have been pointing out that Joe Biden, when he was running for president in the '80s, seemed to exaggerate the number of degrees that he earned and whether he got a full scholarship to law school and he plagiarized and got caught. What's the standard and what's the punishment?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Look, it's one thing to lie, which is wrong. It is something else to fabricate your whole political existence. George Santos lied about every aspect of his life. He lied about his family heritage, his educational background, his employment background, his business dealings, his philanthropic endeavors.

He essentially pretended to be a gay, Afro-Latino, Ukrainian, Belgian, Brazilian, Jewish, Catholic brain cancer survivor whose ancestors survived the Holocaust, whose employees died in the Pulse mass shooting, whose mother died twice, including on 9/11, and who magically became a multimillionaire overnight. The breadth and depth of his deception is unprecedented. There's nothing remotely comparable in the recent history of congressional politics. I see his case quite differently from the usual line that you see in politics.

Brian Lehrer: There's a New York Times headline about Santos and I was laughing a minute ago at some of the litany there. It's funny, not funny, right? This headline is as funny as it is sad. The headline is Brazilian Authorities Will Revive Fraud Case Against George Santos. It says, "A 2008 court case had been suspended because Brazilian law enforcement officials could not find Mr. Santos," from The Times. Here's a guy avoiding criminal charges because they can't find him, and what does he do? He makes himself a public figure by running for Congress. Can you get much more brazen or just more weird than that?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Even before assuming office, he's become the target of law enforcement investigations at every level, the local and state level, and the national and international level. I predict that he will be gone either by the end of his term or well before then.

Brian Lehrer: If he does resign, what happens? Congress would have a House majority of Republicans anyway by a few seats, but do you happen to know? This might be out of your jurisdiction, but would Governor Hochul have to then call a special election earlier than two years from now? This is if he does resign, what happens?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: There would have to be a special election. Whereas a senator can be appointed, a member of the House has to be elected. There would have to be a special election.

Brian Lehrer: By the way, some listeners on Twitter want you to repeat that acronym for the SANTOS Act. They're finding it amusing.

Congressman Ritchie Torres: SANTOS, Stop Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker.

Brian Lehrer: Stop Another Non-Truthful Office Seeker, SANTOS, the SANTOS Act being introduced by Congressman Ritchie Torres. Listeners, we can take your phone calls on that or other things. There's so much big policy to talk about, including the House rules changes that could have a lot of impact on policy and other things you might want to ask Congressman Ritchie Torres, Democrat from the Bronx. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, or tweet things other than your reactions to the acronym, the SANTOS Act, @BrianLehrer. Before we get off George Santos, is there even going to be an effective House Ethics Committee under the Republicans?

Let me read to our listeners from the new Washington Post article. They may not know this story yet. It says, "The House on Monday passed a rules package that included changes to how ethics-related complaints about members of Congress are handled. According to a summary of the GOP's proposed rules changes released last week, the package imposes term limits of eight years for the eight board members of the Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent body established in 2008 that investigates complaints about sitting members of Congress. Any board members who have exceeded those term limits would be removed." That's a lot of bureaucratese, Congressman. What matters there to you, if anything?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: I'm sure we'll get into the rules package, but the Republicans have passed rules that essentially defund the Office of Congressional Ethics, which is different from the Ethics Committee, right? The Ethics Committee will continue to be in place. It's one of the few committees, maybe the only committee, that's evenly bipartisan no matter which party is in charge, no matter who's the speaker. There's no question that the Republicans have passed rules that have eviscerated ethics enforcement, but the committee remains in place. Congressman Goldman and I are personally filing the complaint to ensure that it's a priority for the committee.

Brian Lehrer: I guess I conflated the two there, the House Ethics Committee and this independent body, right?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Now, there's obviously a connection because the House Ethics Committee relies on the Office of Congressional Ethics, but the authority to investigate remains and the bipartisan control of the committee remains.

Brian Lehrer: A sarcastic listener tweets, "There is a better chance that George Santos will become chairman of the Ethics Committee than the SANTOS Act ever seeing the light of day in the Marjorie Taylor Greene/Matt Gaetz-led House." That's fair, right? You have a talking point, not something you can pass?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Not sure actually. I'm not sure if I agree with that actually. What possible argument could one make against requiring candidates to tell the truth to voters? There is a strong case to be made that candidates should be expected to identify their qualifications, their employment, their education, and military history under oath. Both Democrats and Republicans should be bound by those requirements. I'm not so sure that it's dead on arrival to be honest with you.

Brian Lehrer: Let's see. Peter in Brooklyn wants to bring up another Democrat. I mentioned Biden with lying in their background who got elected recently. Peter in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC with Congressman Ritchie Torres. Hello.

Peter: Hi, Ritchie Torres. Do you have any opinion on Julia Salazar also claiming that she has a Jewish background? She was once a conservative Christian, who I think was pro-life in college. She also had a criminal background. Something with Keith Hernandez's wife and trying to steal money from her bank account. There's actual audio recordings of her trying to pretend like her-- Anyway, you can do the research. I just saw a lot of parallels between the two of them.

Brian Lehrer: Peter, thank you. New York State Senator Julia Salazar. You're familiar with her case?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Only vaguely, but there's a difference between one sense of one's own identity versus falsely claiming that you had ancestors who survived the Holocaust or falsely claiming that your mother died on 9/11 or falsely claiming that you had employees who died in the Pulse massacre. I feel like those lies are qualitatively different from one subjective definition of one's identity.

Brian Lehrer: Tom in Scotch Plains, you're on WNYC. Hi, Tom.

Tom: Hi. My question was, could George Santos possibly say or threaten Speaker McCarthy with calling for a vote to oust the speaker if he is ever referred to an Ethics Committee for investigation?

Brian Lehrer: Well, there's a hypothetical.

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Yes, notice the Republicans were conspicuously silent, or Republican leadership was conspicuously silent about the fraudulence of George Santos. Elise Stefanik, who is the chair of the Republican Conference, not only endorsed but raised $100,000 for George Santos. She said nothing about the lies that have come to light about the frauds that have come to light. Kevin McCarthy said nothing because he depended on George Santos to win the speaker's gavel. Notice on the 14th round, Kevin McCarthy only lost by one vote. There's a sense in which the vote of George Santos was decisive.

To the caller's question, Kevin McCarthy agreed to a rule that would enable one member to file what is known as a motion to vacate, to set in motion a no-confidence vote against the speaker, which will make the House so dysfunctional as to be ungovernable. Kevin McCarthy has passed a rule that makes him arbitrarily removable at any moment at the whim of any member no matter how petty or personal the reasons. It empowers the extremes like Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and even George Santos. George Santos could file a motion to vacate Kevin McCarthy as speaker.

Brian Lehrer: That, of course, is the big rule, getting attention from the new rules package that any single member can call for a new vote for speaker at any time. Let me drill down a little bit on that. Why is that such a bad thing? I believe that was the case at times in the past. Good government groups are often railing against the leaders of legislative bodies having too much power as individuals, whereas the majority of the majority gets marginalized. Why should the speaker have so much power as an individual that he shouldn't be accountable to a majority of the House at any time if somebody wants to call for a no-confidence vote or removal vote?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: You cannot govern as speaker if you live in constant fear of your own removal. If anyone at any time for any reason can propose your removal and force a no-confidence vote, you might recall that John Boehner's speakership collapsed under the same rule, under a one-member no-confidence vote, filed a motion to vacate. History suggests that it would create a dysfunctional House where the inmates are running the asylum. We saw the dysfunction around the House, the speaker vote. The speaker vote has shown House Republicans to be embarrassingly dysfunctional. I'm concerned that the new rules package will perpetuate the same disunity, dysfunction, and division that unfolded on the House floor last week.

Brian Lehrer: Doug in the Bronx, you're on WNYC with Congressman Ritchie Torres from the Bronx. Hi, Doug.

Doug: Oh, hi. I'll get to my point in a second. Ultimately, it's the voters who are always at fault. Why? This goes for the previous occupant of the White House. Why did he win the election? Why did this guy win the election over Mr. Zimmerman? My question is, can we send him to Brazil? I assume that Brazil has a warrant for his arrest for-- I think it's check fraud. I think he stole someone else's checkbook and used it in Brazil some time ago. Are they seeking him or can we extradite him to Brazil if they have a warrant for him?

Brian Lehrer: That's a good question. Congressman, do you know? It might be an interesting time for George Santos to go to Brazil. He was at the January 6th rally for Trump. Maybe he'll storm the Brazilian capital with those guys.

Congressman Ritchie Torres: As far as I know, there's no precedent for extraditing a member of Congress to a foreign country. I suspect Congress as an institution would have separation of powers concerns about extraditing one of its own members. I would take the view that George Santos should be held accountable within the American system of law enforcement.

Brian Lehrer: Well, if he's charged with a crime in Brazil, I don't know exactly how this works, but it wouldn't be on Congress, would it? Wouldn't it be on law enforcement between the two countries to agree on an extradition? I'm sure we have an extradition treaty with Brazil, where law enforcement would arrest him and send him to Brazil if that's what Brazil asked for.

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Ultimately, the decision would rest with the Justice Department, but it would implicate concerns about separation of powers. There would be an institutional concern on the part of Congress.

Brian Lehrer: I do want to move on from George Santos, but just lastly on this. What exactly are the next steps of the process after the ethics complaint is filed? What can we expect?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: An investigation. Then once an investigation is complete, the Ethics Committee will have to determine whether the allegations have merit. If it has merit, it has to determine what's the appropriate penalty. It could be a fine or it could be recommendation for expulsion.

Brian Lehrer: Would that all be public or how long would it take? There was a story recently about an Ethics Committee investigation of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but without saying what it's over. How opaque is that process?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: The conduct of the investigation itself is opaque. If there's merit to the allegation, then the findings, as I understand it, would ultimately be released to the public and the penalty would be publicly known. The investigation itself is conducted confidentially, which is often the case with investigations.

Brian Lehrer: There is so much more to talk about regarding the people's business beyond what happens with Congressman George Santos. We will take a break and then continue on lots of other things with Congressman Ritchie Torres and your calls at 212-433-WNYC and your tweets @BrianLehrer. Stay with us.

[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Usually, a House of Representative rules package is a yawn. Today, it's not only really interesting. It's really crucial to how a lot of policy might come out in the next two years that might affect any one of us here in 2023, 2024. We're talking about the new Republican pass rules package with Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres from the Bronx.

We have calls coming in on this that we'll take. Congressman, let me pick up on one thing that you have criticized from the package. Something called the Holman rule, which I see is 150 years old. I admit, I never heard of it until this morning and I read your release, but it hasn't always been in effect. Can you talk about the Holman rule and why it matters?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: The Republicans passed the Holman rule, which will enable House Republicans not only to impose budget cuts on particular departments and agencies but on particular individuals and investigations. The Homan rule could, in theory, enable House Republicans to defund the salary of Secretary Mayorkas over a disagreement on immigration policy. Republicans often speak of weaponizing-- decry the weaponization of the federal government. The Holman rule essentially enables the federal government to be weaponized against any official who draws the wrath of the Republican majority.

The Republicans often speak of draining the swamp. The House Republican rules would enable a member of Congress to defund a criminal investigation into Donald Trump. It would defund the Office of Congressional Ethics. It would enable a House Republican like Scott Perry, who is being investigated by the FBI, to investigate the investigators investigating him. So much for draining the swamp. The House Republican package, particularly the Holman rule, is the height of hypocrisy.

Brian Lehrer: Let me get you to clarify one thing on, for example, removing Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas' salary. Democrats still control the Senate, so does that prevent the House Republicans from passing anything too destructive from a Democrat's point of view, including under these rules?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Yes, but Republicans can leverage the threat of breaching the debt limit. What is to stop the most extreme elements of the House Republican Conference from saying, "We will not raise the debt limit unless you pass this budget that targets these particular individuals and investigations within the federal government."

Brian Lehrer: Then we might be looking at a government shutdown when Congress can't agree on a budget like we've had a few times in the not-that-distant past, and always the Republicans wound up paying a price. Do you think they would go there again if the public holds them responsible for shutting down the government because they take these unreasonable positions? Do you think it's a real threat given the politics of blowback against them in the last decade?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: I certainly think it's a real threat. The central lesson learned from the 2022 midterms is that the American people have an aversion to extremism, reject extremism. A case could be made that we're not for January 6th, we're not for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. We might have seen the makings of a traditional red-wave election.

The candidates who took extreme positions, who denied elections, who advocated for the overturning of Roe v. Wade, those are the candidates who did the worst in the midterm elections. You would think given that result, the Republicans would moderate. Instead, we've seen them double down on their extremism. The dysfunction around the speakers vote reflects a doubling down on extremism. Kevin McCarthy had to make concessions to the far right of his party in order to get the speaker's gavel.

Brian Lehrer: Edmond in Westchester has a rules change his question. Edmond, you're on WNYC with Congressman Ritchie Torres.

Edmond: Hello, thank you. I do feel as though there were some useful introductions around, for instance, being able to vote on separate components of the budget, so splitting it all up so you don't have to vote all one thing. I should say, the budget isn't put into one single block. That seems useful. Despite the messenger, can we talk about some of the upsides associated with what happened?

Brian Lehrer: Are there any in your view, Congressman?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Yes, there are some elements of the rules that continue practices that were pioneered by House Democrats. The rule that we should have 72 hours to review a bill is something that we support because it promotes transparency and accountability. There are certainly elements of the rules package that we support, but then there are elements that are deeply corrosive to Congress as an institution. I'll take one more example.

Historically, we've had something known as the PAYGO rule, which requires both spending and tax cuts to be deficit-neutral. We have to have revenues that offset the impact of tax cuts and due spending. Republicans have replaced the PAYGO rule with the CUTGO rule. The CUTGO rule pretends to be fiscally responsible. It prohibits deficit-neutral spending while permitting deficit finance tax cuts. According to Republicans, it is okay to provide massive tax cuts to the wealthiest individuals and corporations, but it's not okay to make public investments in American families and working people.

Brian Lehrer: Another listener wants to know, "Isn't it a good thing that they would require now three days before voting on a bill once it gets printed or written or whatever that exact standard is?" I think you just had a 4,100-page federal budget for the rest of the fiscal year that got passed without having a chance to read it. Now, they're saying three days between you receiving a copy of the legislation as you'll vote on it and actually passing a vote. One caller says, "That part's a good thing." Do you agree?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Yes. No, that's exactly what I was describing before.

[crosstalk]

Congressman Ritchie Torres: That's a practice that began with Democrats.

Brian Lehrer: Yes, got it. Oh, yes, 72 hours, 3 days, same thing. Duh. Dave in the Bronx, a constituent, you're on WNYC with Congressman Ritchie Torres. Hi, Dave.

Dave: Greetings, Brian. Longtime listener, first-time getting through. [laughs]

Brian Lehrer: Good. You made it.

Dave: Thanks. Congressman Torres, they redistricted and they added certain sections of DHS [unintelligible 00:26:57] to your district. Now, the congressional district is supposed to be the poorest district in America, at least the poorest district in the state, right? What would your plan be in order to change that? Would you allow investments from corporations, partnerships across the country, things like partnering with George Santos' third district? Because they're the richest district in New York State. That's what they say.

Brian Lehrer: Dave, let me just ask before we get a response for you from the Congressman. Is there anything that you would like to see in particular to help alleviate the poverty in the district?

Dave: Well, I'd have to talk to the Congressman one-on-one. I invite him to our block association and we can add another. I hadn't thought it through, but I know there could be partnerships with corporations in America. Several of them do business in the district. You know what I mean? A lot of transportation companies. You have the Yankee Stadium. You have the Botanical Garden.

You have Alpha Avenue District. There are several other corporations in the district. What can be done? I guess they form new partnerships with companies that do business in the district and see if we could employ more people or do something with the parks like the Bronx River Alliance. There's things that could be done in the district that, say, the city government can't touch because of the budget crisis.

Brian Lehrer: Congressman?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: I favor development without displacement in a place like the South Bronx. I've partnered closely with the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, for example, to secure $100 million in federal funding for the redevelopment of the Hunts Point Produce Market, which would create thousands of jobs, which would generate billions of dollars in revenue, which would shore up the food supply chain, both locally and nationally.

I feel like we should have a greater emphasis on workforce development. Not everyone prefers to go to a four-year college and learn Shakespeare and then enter the workforce. There are some people who prefer vocational schooling, vocational training, career and technical education, and we should be making investments in those spaces. For example, I said on Homeland Security, which has jurisdiction over cybersecurity.

A third of the cybersecurity workforce is vacant and cyber is the wave of the future. We should be creating workforce development programs that train students from the lowest-income communities of color to fill those vacancies in the cybersecurity workforce. I see workforce development as the systemic solution to structural poverty and structural unemployment.

Brian Lehrer: Dave, did I hear an explicit invitation from you there for the congressman to come and visit your block association?

Dave: Correct.

Congressman Ritchie Torres: I would be honored.

Brian Lehrer: All right, let's take your contact information off the air, Dave. I knew I could broker that one. We're going to take your contact information off the air and pass it on to the congressman's office. Great. I hope that visit happens. You just mentioned that you're on Homeland Security. Do you have a blueprint for the border crisis?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: For me, the border crisis is not the disease. It's the symptom. The disease is the broken immigration system. In my view, without immigration reform, we have no hope for solving the border crisis. Republicans speak as if the border crisis were a product of the Biden administration. Every president has had waves of migration that overwhelmed the border. It was as true of Trump as it is now. Ultimately, we have to reform our immigration system in order to address the symptom of the border crisis.

Brian Lehrer: Do you support this 30,000 asylum-seekers-a-month cap for the four countries, Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti-- What's the fourth one? I'm forgetting the fourth. Oh, Nicaragua, that the President imposed?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Look, I think the President is making the best of a challenging situation. I'm sympathetic to the President's position. Ultimately, there's no substitute for comprehensive immigration reform,

Brian Lehrer: The caller mentioned the poverty in the district, which implies the need to spend money on anti-poverty programs. I see a debate has broken out among House Republicans about the defense budget. Some House Republicans wanted cut. As a progressive Democrat concerned with domestic priorities in the poorest congressional district in America, do you have a strange bedfellows coalition in the making there perhaps for cutting the defense budget and spending more on domestic priorities?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: No, you're misunderstanding the-- there are ideological tensions between the defense hawks who support the military-industrial complex and the members of the Freedom Caucus who want across-the-board spending cuts, including--

Brian Lehrer: Right, they don't want the money reallocated to domestic spending,

Congressman Ritchie Torres: They're not advocating a reallocation of resources from defense to domestic investments. They're advocating for defunding of government across the board. That is the central ideological tension within the Republican Party.

Brian Lehrer: Right, but maybe that's a place to start, agreeing on cutting the defense budget. It's getting close to $1 trillion a year. They say, by 2027, it'll be $1 trillion a year. Isn't that a little obscene?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: No, it's unsustainable. The Freedom Caucus is no friend of the social safety net, right? The Freedom Caucus is intent on dismantling the social safety net. I don't see them as allies at all. The Freedom Caucus will likely prevent us from passing a budget. We might either have a government shutdown or we might have to pass a continuing resolution, which will keep the government open, but it will cause it to be chronically underfunded.

Brian Lehrer: Right. Part of the underlying game plan for them on that, correct me if you think this is wrong, is that they want to move more aggressively toward a balanced federal budget. They want to move there within a decade, I believe the time frame is, which doesn't sound on the surface perhaps, that draconian. They would use their power, the Freedom Caucus, to block spending bills toward that end. Is that such a bad idea or goal? President Biden boasts about reducing the federal deficit this year.

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Look, the Republicans pretend to be fiscally conservative. As I noted earlier, the Republicans oppose new spending even if the spending is deficit-neutral but are in favor of massive tax cuts even if those tax cuts balloon the deficit. For me, that is not fiscal conservatism. That's a mockery of fiscal conservatism.

Brian Lehrer: One more call then we're out of time. Daryl in the Bronx, you're on WNYC with Congressman Ritchie Torres. Hi, Daryl.

Daryl: Hi. Good morning, Brian and Congressman Ritchie Torres. Congressman, as being our representative from Bronx, you realize that there's a strike in Montefiore Hospital and in Mount Sinai Hospital. As you talk about the Republicans coming in, Montefiore received 80% Medicaid money, right? Other hospitals received Medicaid money. What do you think that the Republicans are going to do in this Congress? Because they have been always threatening to cut Medicaid. The second part of that is about mental health. There's need to be help on the mental health avenue, not only for the citizens but for the workers in the hospitals too.

Brian Lehrer: Congressman?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: There's a fundamental difference between the Democratic Party, which is the defender of the social safety net, and the Republican Party, which is intent on dismantling the social safety net. If the Republicans manage to pass their preferred budget, it would do irreparable damage to the social safety net to programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

It would have a disproportionately destructive impact on the Bronx, which depends heavily on those programs. Montefiore may be the largest recipient of Medicaid funding in the country. Health care is about one-fourth of the Bronx economy. If we were to lose healthcare funding, it would be a catastrophe for the Bronx. I think the central role of House Democrats under Hakeem Jeffries is to resist the attempts by the Republicans to dismantle the social safety net.

Brian Lehrer: Do you have a position on the nurses' strike at Montefiore?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Montefiore needs to come to an agreement with the nurses because it is disrupting healthcare delivery in the Bronx, which has the most urgent healthcare needs. It's a public health crisis. It's a public safety crisis. I want the stalemate to be broken and the matter to be resolved as soon as possible.

Brian Lehrer: Anything else you want to say before you go? There are so many things to keep our eyes on at once when a new session of Congress starts. Anything else top of mind? You want to just make sure to have our listeners hear you say?

Congressman Ritchie Torres: My concern is that the New House Republican majority can be so dangerously dysfunctional that it will raise the risk of a government shutdown. It will raise the risk of a debt default, which could derail the full faith and credit of the United States and with it, the American economy. We cannot take lightly the dysfunction and division that will come from a House Republican majority.

Brian Lehrer: Congressman Ritchie Torres from the Bronx, we always appreciate when you come on. Thank you so much for answering so many questions for me and so many listeners from the Bronx and elsewhere. Thanks a lot.

Congressman Ritchie Torres: Take care.

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. A lot more to come.

 

Copyright © 2023 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.