Meeting Minutes
會議筆錄

Meeting Date: 2025-02-03
Generated Time: 18:23:14

__________________________________________________

[0.03 - 31.52] Speaker 00:

Raceful music playing a

[83.53 - 86.70] Speaker 00:
[83.53 - 86.70] 話者 00:

but I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing, but I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing, but I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing,

[230.98 - 261.49] Speaker 00:

but I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing,
但我要做一點相同的事情，

[391.38 - 392.81] Speaker 00:
[391.38 - 392.81] 講話人 00:

Let's see.

[393.12 - 398.26] Speaker 01:
[393.12 - 398.26] 講話人 01:

Let's see. Let's see. Let's see.

[399.16 - 401.61] Speaker 02:
[399.16 - 401.61] 講話人 02:

Let's see. Let's see.

[402.23 - 404.52] Speaker 01:
[402.23 - 404.52] 語者 01:

Let's see.

[405.99 - 414.30] Speaker 01:
[405.99 - 414.30] 講話人 01:

Let's see. Let's see. Let's see. Let's see.

[414.92 - 422.53] Speaker 01:
[414.92 - 422.53] 講話人 01:

Let's see. Let's see. Let's see. Let's see.

[426.60 - 436.38] Speaker 01:
[426.60 - 436.38] 語者 01:

Let's see. Let's see. Let's see. Let's see. Let's see.

[438.00 - 442.71] Speaker 01:
[438.00 - 442.71] 講話人 01:

Let's see.

[449.50 - 509.00] Speaker 01:
[449.50 - 509.00] 講話人 01:

for this to be something that President Trump recognizes as important enough to include in his inauguration speech. It's worth noting that both Doge and Mars were in the president's inauguration speech, which is very notable because, you know, there's a very limited amount of things you can talk about in that speech and both the government efficiency and Mars were prominent elements of the inauguration speech and in the early executive orders as well. So meaning that President Trump takes improving government efficiency very seriously, obviously, although it is a humorous name. Ironically, I think Doge will have a very serious and significant impact on government
for this to be something thatPresident Trump 認可為重要到足以納入他的就職演說。值得注意的是，Doge 和 Mars 都出現在總統的就職演說中，這是非常值得注意的，因為你知道，在那篇演說中你可以談論的事情非常有限，而政府效率和 Mars 都是就職演說以及早期行政命令中的重要元素。所以這意味著 President Trump 非常認真地看待改善政府效率，顯然，雖然這是一個滑稽的名字。諷刺的是，我想 Doge 將會對政府產生非常嚴肅和重要的影響。

[516.39 - 539.04] Speaker 01:
[516.39 - 539.04] 講話人 01:

And Senator Ernst actually has been working on this for, I think, perhaps more than a decade, I think, a long time and has uncovered many, many crazy things. So that's why I invited her to speak, as well as Vivek has been thinking about this for a long time. And maybe there'll be some others that come along. But there's already been really tremendous progress.
And 參議院恩斯特實際上已經在這方面工作了，我想，可能超過了一個十年，有一段很長的時間，並發現了很多瘋狂的事情。所以這就是為什麼我邀請她來演講，以及維傑克也已經思考這件事很久了。或許還會有其他人加入。但已經取得了非常巨大的進展。

[541.26 - 549.24] Speaker 01:
[541.26 - 549.24] 講話人 01:

You know, a rough estimate is that there's at least a few billion dollars a day of savings. Now, that may sound like a lot, but when you're talking about a federal spending that's seven
你知道，粗略估算每天至少有幾十億美元的節省。現在，這聽起來可能很多，但當你談到的是佔國庫支出七

[550.16 - 558.98] Speaker 01:

trillion, it's actually, we still need to do quite a bit better than we have thus far.
trillion，其實我們還需要做得比迄今為止的更好。

[559.61 - 573.04] Speaker 01:
[559.61 - 573.04] 講話人 01:

So yeah, well, let's see, with that, perhaps, Senator Ernst, it would be great for people to hear from you. I think not that many people have heard from you. And you've been spending more time on this than we have.
So yeah, well,讓我們看看，有了那樣的機會， maybe Senator Ernst，讓人们聽聽你的意見會很好。我想並不是很多人聽過你的意見。而你花在這上面的時間比我們多。

[573.75 - 585.85] Speaker 01:
[573.75 - 585.85] 講話人 01:

And it would be great to hear your thoughts on government waste and efficiency and things that could be better and maybe some anecdotes about some of the crazy things you've seen.
And 它會很好聽聽你對政府浪費和效率的看法，以及有些可以改進的事情，也許還有一些你見過的一些瘋狂事情的 STORY。

[604.63 - 605.83] Speaker 01:
[604.63 - 605.83] 話者 01:

Let's see, Vivek, can you hear me?

[607.51 - 614.62] Speaker 01:
[607.51 - 614.62] 語者 01:

Yeah. Yeah. Well, welcome. Perhaps you'd like to say a few things.
Yeah. Yeah. 好吧，歡迎。也許你想說幾句話。

[615.70 - 622.60] Speaker 05:
[615.70 - 622.60] 講話人 05:

Yeah. I mean, it was cool to lay the foundation for the first couple of months. You've been kicking ass in the last couple of weeks.
Yeah. 我的意思是，頭幾個月打下基礎很酷。你最近幾週表現超級棒。

[623.24 - 628.42] Speaker 05:
[623.24 - 628.42] 講話人 05:

And it's been funny to watch the public processing of this, which is basically on the side of
And 它-watch 的公眾處理這個，基本上是在

[629.06 - 634.24] Speaker 05:
[629.06 - 634.24] 講話人 05:

eliminating waste, fraud, abuse from the government.
從政府中消除浪費、詐欺和濫用。

[639.15 - 651.95] Speaker 05:
[639.15 - 651.95] 講話人 05:

be the ones who actually make the laws in Congress. And the bureaucrats have no place in doing it. And so I guess my question for you is two weeks in now, the thing we're taught is that
實際上在國會制定法律的是我們，而官僚機構則沒有這個資格。所以我想問你，現在兩個星期過去了，我們學到的是

[652.82 - 657.13] Speaker 05:
[652.82 - 657.13] 講話人 05:

we have three branches of government, not four.
我們有三權分立的政府，不是四權。

[658.49 - 662.95] Speaker 05:
[658.49 - 662.95] 講話人 05:

What's your experience now two weeks in? Is there actually a fourth branch of government?
你現在兩個星期的 Experience 是什麼？實際上真的有第四個政府部門嗎？

[663.44 - 664.84] Speaker 01:
[663.44 - 664.84] 講話人 01:

There most definitely is.
有絕對是的。

[665.95 - 745.23] Speaker 01:
[665.95 - 745.23] 講話人 01:

This is actually really what Vivek is saying is really goes to the heart of the problem. The in order for us to be a true democracy, a functioning democracy, the government must be responsive to the people. That's literally what democracy means. However, when you have a vast unelected bureaucracy that is not answerable to the public and where the and if the if the elected officials, if the president, the people in Congress and the Senate actually don't have if they don't have the power to affect the bureaucracy, and it's actually extremely difficult to to affect the bureaucracy, then you do not have rule of the people. You do not have democracy. You have rule of the bureau bureaucracy. And this is obviously wrong. It is unconstitutional and it is imperative, therefore, that we return power to the people of the country and and not have tyranny of the bureaucracy, which we we most definitely have had to fall out to a degree that is that is absurd. As Vick said, there's this it's not just that there's an unconstitutional fourth branch to government, but it is arguably the most powerful branch of the government. Joining us to your back, would you ask him, can you hear me now?
This is actually really what Vivek 是說的，這真正觸及了問題的核心。為了成為一個真正的民主國家，政府必須對人民負責。這就是民主的意義。然而，當你有一個龐大的未經選舉的官僚體系，這個體系不對公眾負責，而且如果選舉官員、總統、國會和參議院的人實際上沒有能力影響這個官僚體系，而且實際上極其難以影響這個官僚體系，那麼你就沒有人民的統治。你就沒有民主。你有的是官僚統治。這顯然是錯誤的，是違憲的，因此，我們必須將權力還給國家的人民，而不是讓官僚體系的暴政成為事實，這已經到了荒謬的程度。正如 Vick 所說，不僅政府有一個 unconstitutional 的第四個分支，而且這個分支可能是政府中最為強大的分支。請問您現在能聽見我嗎？

[743.88 - 746.16] Speaker 02:
[743.88 - 746.16] 講話人 02:

I can. Yes.
I can. 嗯。

[747.17 - 786.17] Speaker 02:
[747.17 - 786.17] 講話人 02:

Yep. Oh, I apologize, gentlemen. Yes. To my laptop. So, you know, I've been working on this for, as Elan said, over a decade now with my squeal awards. And and there are many in Congress that actually really do care about this. Absolutely. The problem, the problem, I think, is there there are not enough of us that have paid attention to this. And so while I I highlight a lot of the abuses and you wanted some anecdotes, Elan. And I've shared a number of those with you.
Yep. Oh,我道歉，先生们。是的。到我的筆電。所以，你知道，我已經在這方面工作了，就像艾蘭說的，已經超過十年了，並且我因為尖叫獎而努力。而且實際上有很多國會成員真的關心這件事。絕對是。問題在於，我想，是我們中關注這件事的人太少。所以雖然我強調了很多濫用行為，你也想要一些事例，艾蘭。我已經和你分享了很多這些事例。

[784.38 - 799.11] Speaker 01:
[784.38 - 799.11] 講話人 01:

You've got some there. So it's like I think it's hard for the public to resonate with statistics because it's sort of like but people can really resonate with, you know, powerful anecdotes. Oh, my gosh. Yeah.
你那边有了一些。所以 pubblic 人們難以與統計數據產生共鳴，因為這多少像但人們真的能與強有力的個人故事產生共鳴。Oh, my gosh. Yeah.

[808.82 - 811.90] Speaker 05:
[808.82 - 811.90] 講話人 05:

Yeah, you had a bunch of them, Joanie.
Yeah, 你有很多個，喬安妮。

[811.90 - 845.16] Speaker 02:
[811.90 - 845.16] 講話人 02:

Yeah, I did. So, you know, sending kitties to spas to find out whether they produce less furballs. So, yeah, we've spent taxpayer money on that. We put shrimp on a treadmill to see how fast they run. I'm sorry. But, you know, all of these things, while they may be fun, why are we spending taxpayer dollars on them? And it goes to the point of we've sent millions of dollars to China to study what?
Yeah, 我做了。所以，你知道，我們把貓送到 SPA 去檢查是否會減少毛球。所以，是的，我們花公帑做了這些事。我們讓蝦子在跑步機上跑來檢查它們能跑多快。對不起。但你知道，這些雖然可能很有趣，為什麼我們要花公帑在這些事情上？這還說明了一點，我們花了數百萬美元去中國研究什麼？

[846.08 - 848.49] Speaker 02:
[846.08 - 848.49] 講話人 02:

COVID. We saw how that ended.
COVID。我們看到了那 Ended。

[846.77 - 893.04] Speaker 01:
[846.77 - 893.04] 話者 01:

Well, in fact, it's pretty outrageous that the COVID, the virus was developed in, you know, a lab in Wuhan and yet was funded by U.S. tax dollars, which was simply routed through this sort of fake nonprofit EcoHealth because the U.S. government can't give directly to China, so they just gave to EcoHealth knowing that it would go to China. So U.S. tax dollars were used effectively to, in the end, kill Americans, which is insane.
Well, 在事實上，新冠病毒是在武漢的實驗室開發的，卻還獲得美國稅款的資助，這些資金只是通過這種虛假的非營利組織 EcoHealth 流轉，因為美國政府不能直接對中國提供援助，所以他們把資金給了 EcoHealth，知道這些資金最終會流向中國。因此，美國的稅款最終被有效利用來殺害美國人，這真是瘋狂。

[894.36 - 906.47] Speaker 02:
[894.36 - 906.47] 講話人 02:

Absolutely insane. And I know, Ilan, you have been on USAID. You have really. And so that's the one that's missed for sure.
Absolutely 瘋狂。而且我知道，伊蘭，你曾經在 USAID 工作過。你真的有。所以那一定是錯過的那一個。

[905.81 - 908.07] Speaker 01:
[905.81 - 908.07] 講話人 01:

And so that's the one that's missed for sure.

[907.38 - 955.22] Speaker 02:
[907.38 - 955.22] 講話人 02:

This was another one of my efforts. And this began years ago when we were trying to figure out what they were doing with our American taxpayer dollars that were going to support humanitarian efforts in Ukraine. So I wanted to know exactly how those dollars were being spent. Right. A reasonable request. Yes. Oh, my gosh. And I shared this with you earlier, Ilan, just privately, but we got all kinds of threats from USAID because I was trying to exercise my oversight capacity in Congress.
This was 另一一個我的努力。而這一切要追溯到幾年前，當時我們正在努力弄清楚他們是如何使用美國納稅人資金來支持烏克蘭的人道主義努力的。所以我想要知道這些資金是如何被使用的。當然，這是一個合理的請求。是的。天啊。而我之前已經私下和你分享過了，伊蘭，但因為我試圖在國會行使我的監督能力，我們收到了來自 USAID 各種各樣的威脅。

[936.04 - 937.40] Speaker 01:
[936.04 - 937.40] 講話人 01:

Right. A reasonable request.
Right. 一個合理的請求。

[954.78 - 975.78] Speaker 01:
[954.78 - 975.78] 講話人 01:

So that's just shocking. I mean, it's how I mean, honestly, it's outrageous that a taxpayer funded organization would threaten a U.S. senator who is simply trying to figure out if American taxpayer money is being spent correctly and not fraudulently.
所以這真的令人震驚。換句話說，誠實來說，一個由納稅人资助的組織會威脅正在努力弄清楚美國納稅人錢是否被正確而非詐騙性地使用的美國參議員，這真是無法接受。

[976.23 - 1051.70] Speaker 02:
[976.23 - 1051.70] 講話人 02:

Yes. And so what my staff and I had estimated was that 30 to 40 percent of the USAID's awards would go to indirect costs. So their overhead, you know, their rents, employees, things like that. What are they living in, the top of the holly? OK, but get this. OK, after months and months and months of obstruction where USAID wouldn't let us in, they told us the NICRA, the negotiated indirect cost rate agreements. It's a lot of, you know, government jargon. But anyway, the indirect costs, they said that the database, oh, it doesn't exist. That was a lie. That was a lie. It was false because we found it. And then we were told we weren't allowed to access the database. And then that's when Congressman McCaul and I came together and we launched an official congressional investigation so that we could gain access to the rates. Wow. And then after about six more months of negotiations, then my staff was finally allowed to access very limited data.
Yes。而我們估算的是，美國國際開發援助署（USAID）的獎助金中有 30%到 40%會用於 INDIRECT COSTS。所以他們的額外開支，你知道的，租金、僱員等。他們住在 Holly 的頂端嗎？好，但請注意這一點。好，經過幾個月、幾個月、幾個月的阻礙，USAID 不讓我們進去，他們告訴我們有關 NICRA，即協商後的间接成本率協議。這有很多政府行話。但總之， INDIRECT COSTS，他們說數據庫並不存在。那是謊言。那是謊言。因為我們找到了，所以這是假的。然後我們被告知不能訪問數據庫。然後就在这个时候，McCaul 先生和我一起行動，展開了一項正式的國會調查，以便我們能夠訪問這些率。 wow。然後經過大約六個月的協商，我的團隊終於被允許訪問非常有限的數據。

[1052.47 - 1100.47] Speaker 02:
[1052.47 - 1100.47] 話者 02:

They were on camera the whole time. They couldn't remove any of the information. But what my staff found is you were laughing at that 30 to 40 percent because that is outrageous. That was understated. What? In some of the cases, the NICRA rates were upwards towards anywhere from 50 to 60 percent. And that doesn't include the cost for subcontractors, what the subcontractors were adding on. So this is the problem with USAID. And that's why, Ilan, I'm just I'm with you on this because so much of that taxpayer money is not even going to, you know, we love to feel good about helping starving children and name your country.
他們整段時間都在鏡頭前。他們不能移除任何資訊。但我的幕僚發現的是，你們對那 30 到 40％的比率開著玩笑，因為這太離譜了。這被低估了。什麼？在某些情況下，NICRA 的比率向上調整到 50 到 60％。而這還不包括分包商的成本，分包商還在上面加價。所以這是 USAID 的問題。而這就是為什麼，伊蘭，我完全同意你的看法，因為那麼多的稅款並沒有真正用在幫助飢餓中的兒童，你說呢，我們也喜歡覺得幫助了別國的兒童而感到開心。

[1101.61 - 1111.50] Speaker 02:
[1101.61 - 1111.50] 講話人 02:

But it's not going there. It's going to pay rents in Paris. It's going to support somebody's fancy dinner to entertain whoever.
But 它沒有去那里。它會在巴黎付租金。它會支援某人的豪華晚宴來款待任何人。

[1102.95 - 1106.39] Speaker 00:

But it's not going there. It's going to pay rents in Paris.
But it's not going there. 它會在巴黎付租金。

[1111.72 - 1150.94] Speaker 01:

So to be clear, in shutting down, which we're in the process of shutting down USAID, the reason for that, as opposed to simply trying to do some minor housecleaning, is that as we dug into USAID, it became apparent that what we have here is not an apple with a worm in it, but we have actually just a ball of worms. And so at the point at which you don't really like if you've got an apple that's got a worm in it, maybe you can take the worm out. But if you've got actually just a ball of worms, it's hopeless. And USAID is a ball of worms.
所以為了澄清，在關閉 USAID 這件事上，我們正在進行關閉程序，這樣做的原因並非僅僅是為了做一些小規模的清理工作，而是因為當我們深入研究 USAID 時，發現這裡並不是有一個蘋果帶有一個蟲子，而是實際上是一個充滿蟲子的蘋果團。因此，如果你有一個蘋果並且裡面有一個蟲子，你可能可以取出蟲子。但如果實際上是一個充滿蟲子的蘋果團，那就無濟於事了。USAID 就是一個充滿蟲子的蘋果團。

[1152.19 - 1165.87] Speaker 01:
[1152.19 - 1165.87] 話者 01:

And when there is no apple, you've just got to basically get rid of the whole thing. That is why it's got to go. You know, it's beyond repair.
而且當沒有蘋果時，你只好把整個東西處理掉。這就是為什麼它必須離開的原因。你知道，已經無法修復了。

[1157.88 - 1159.70] Speaker 00:

That is why it's got to go.
那裡就是為什麼它必須離開的原因。

[1165.32 - 1173.06] Speaker 05:
[1165.32 - 1173.06] 話者 05:

There's a solution to this, which is that let's say something's cut that the people of this country just demand needs to exist again, it can always be voted back into
There's a 解決方法，就是說如果某個東西被砍掉，而這個國家的人民堅持認為需要重新存在，隨時都可以通過投票重新引入

[1173.86 - 1191.00] Speaker 05:
[1173.86 - 1191.00] 講話人 05:

existence via Senator Ernst and her colleagues. And totally, the fact that that isn't going to happen exactly why many of these agencies really deletion is the only answer that's left. Well, yes, that's exactly right.
existence 通過參議員恩斯特和她的同事。而完全地，那不會發生的原因正是為什麼這些機構真正需要刪除。是的，完全正確。

[1187.86 - 1197.31] Speaker 01:

Well, yes, that's exactly right. If it turns out we really need such an organization, if you should, we just create
好吧，是的，正是這樣。如果我們真的需要這樣一個組織，如果應該的話，我們就創建

[1198.81 - 1209.43] Speaker 01:
[1198.81 - 1209.43] 講話人 01:

Yes, by the people and answerable to the people and to the people's elected representatives. That is the way that government is supposed to work.
Yes，由人民治理並向人民及其選出的代表負責。這就是政府應該如何運作的方式。

[1210.41 - 1220.16] Speaker 02:

I agree. And more transparency. You know, sunshine is the best disinfectant out there.
我同意。而且更透明。你知道，陽光是這裡最好的消毒劑。

[1219.37 - 1221.43] Speaker 01:
[1219.37 - 1221.43] 話者 01:

And they need sunshine. That tells you something.
他們需要陽光。這告訴你一些事情。

[1221.43 - 1222.49] Speaker 02:
[1221.43 - 1222.49] 講話人 02:

Yes.

[1223.45 - 1270.97] Speaker 02:
[1223.45 - 1270.97] 講話人 02:

So, you know, we really we need to be able to exercise our oversight. And this is where we have been blocked so long in Congress. I mean, you can go on to my on to my official website on the Internet. You can look through my priorities, go to my my squeal area. You can go back. I've got the last several years on there of efforts, whether it's USAID, you know, NIH, the National Institutes of Health, those taxpayer dollars that were going to China's Wuhan Institute of Virology, snap overpayments through USDA and the state. I mean, you name it. The gosh, just even my back to work,
So，你知道，我們真的需要能夠行使我們的監督權。而這就是我們在國會中被阻滯這麼久的地方。我 Mean，你可以到我的官方網站在網上查看。你可以查看我的優先事項，去我的申訴區。你可以回去。我那上面有過去幾年的努力，不管是 USAID，你知道，NIH，國家衛生研究院，那些稅款資金流向中國武漢病毒研究所，農業部和州政府的多付賬單。我 Mean，你說到哪個方面。天啊，甚至是我重返工作，

[1271.56 - 1297.18] Speaker 02:
[1271.56 - 1297.18] 講話人 02:

report, you know, the out of the office that we've talked so much about. And on day one, you know, the president came in and said, hey, everybody back to work. You know, I don't I don't think most Americans understand that only six percent of our federal workforce shows up to work in the office every single day, only six percent. Yes, absolutely. It's truly insane.
report,你知道我們談論過的離職情況。而在第一天，總統進來說，各位，回到工作中去。我不認為大多數美國人了解，我們的聯邦職員每天只有六％會到辦公室上班，只有六％。是的，絕對瘋狂。

[1295.59 - 1304.38] Speaker 01:
[1295.59 - 1304.38] 講話人 01:

Yes, absolutely. It's truly insane. In fact, one of the one of the most insane things I've seen was that I was
Yes, 绶絶絶對。真是瘋狂極了。事實上，我見過最瘋狂的事情之一就是我被

[1305.09 - 1346.37] Speaker 01:
[1305.09 - 1346.37] 話者 01:

speaking with the with hopefully I'll soon to be attorney general, Pam Bondi, and she was telling me that the the U.S. engraving is I guess was used for the U.S. Mint, which is actually the building that is an historic building, actually a beautiful building is here in D.C. And the windows are all broken and has turned into a homeless encampment. That means like this, nobody is like this. No one comes to work to such a degree that this beautiful building has all the windows broken and is turned into a homeless encampment in downtown D.C. That's how absurd it is.
與將來的美國司法部副長潘·邦迪談話時，她告訴我美國造幣局實際上是一棟歷史建築，實際上是一棟非常漂亮的建築，位於華盛頓特區。那裡的窗戶全部破損，已經成為無家可歸者的營地。這意味著沒有任何人會去那裡工作，直到如此程度，這棟漂亮的建築物窗戶全部破損，並成為華盛頓特區市中心的無家可歸者營地。這真是荒謬至極。

[1348.29 - 1368.27] Speaker 02:
[1348.29 - 1368.27] 講話人 02:

Yeah, and that's why so so many of these buildings, if if we could repopulate them, that would be great. And that way we can have oversight and make sure employees are are doing what they're supposed to do. You know, I'm going to hammer on USAID one more time.
Yeah, 而且這樣的話，如果我們能夠重新-populate 這些建築，那就太好了。這樣我們就可以有監督，確保員工們都在做他們應該做的事情。你知道，我還要再敲打一次 USAID。

[1368.27 - 1370.80] Speaker 01:
[1368.27 - 1370.80] 講話人 01:

Yes, well, that's it.
是的，好吧，就是這些。

[1370.08 - 1397.55] Speaker 02:
[1370.08 - 1397.55] 講話人 02:

You know, we yeah, so we we talk about the locality pay abuse and that's what happens when people aren't working in the office, what they're doing in D.C. and not everyone. I don't want to accuse every federal worker of being a bad actor. But but I have seen so many examples of this. We had a USAID employee that was falsely using an office supply retailer's
你知道，我們 yeah，所以我們-talk about the locality pay abuse 和那是什么時候發生的事情，當人們不在辦公室工作，他們在華盛頓特區做什么，不是每個人都一樣。我不想指控每個政府員工都是壞蛋。但但我見過太多這樣的例子。我們有一個 USAID 員工，虛假使用了一家辦公用品零售商的

[1398.24 - 1422.91] Speaker 02:
[1398.24 - 1422.91] 講話人 02:

mailing address, you know, think like staples and places like that, using that address in Virginia to defraud the taxpayers by claiming higher Washington D.C. locality pay. But they were actually living in another state full time and they had the full knowledge and assistance of their supervisor in pulling off this scam.
邮寄地址，你知道的，想像史丹利和那類地方，使用 VIRGINIA 的那個地址來詐領華盛頓特區的地點津貼，但他們其實長期住在另一個州，而且他們的主管也全程知道並協助他們執行這個騙局。

[1423.71 - 1433.16] Speaker 02:
[1423.71 - 1433.16] 講話人 02:

And then the and then the IG, the USAID IG blew off my request for an investigation.

[1433.56 - 1437.17] Speaker 01:
[1433.56 - 1437.17] 講話人 01:

What did they give without that seems complete?
他們給了什麼看似不完整的东西？

[1437.90 - 1442.67] Speaker 01:

I mean, these how can they do that? They can.
我意思是，這些他們怎麼能做到？他們可以做到。

[1441.34 - 1460.80] Speaker 02:
[1441.34 - 1460.80] 講話人 02:

They can. This is the problem we have, is that there are checks and balances in place where we can write letters all day and we can request IG oversight. But if that IG says, I'm not going to investigate, I'm not interested.
他們可以。這是我們面對的問題，就是有檢查與制衡機制在，我們可以整天寫信請求 IG 的監督。但假如那個 IG 說，我不會調查，我不感興趣。

[1461.56 - 1467.41] Speaker 02:
[1461.56 - 1467.41] 講話人 02:

I, as a United States senator, don't have the power to force them to do it.
我作為美國參議員，沒有權力強迫他們去做。

[1468.07 - 1478.03] Speaker 02:
[1468.07 - 1478.03] 講話人 02:

And this is why I'm so excited that we have Doge and that we have a president that's willing to back us up.
And this is why I'm so excited that 我們有 Doge，而且我們有一個願意支持我們的總統。

[1479.29 - 1519.74] Speaker 01:
[1479.29 - 1519.74] 話者 01:

Absolutely. So really, none of this could be done without the full support of the president. And with regard to the USAID stuff, I went over it with them in detail and he agreed with that we should shut it down. I mean, that's I want to be clear. That's, you know, and I actually checked with him a few times. Are you sure? Like, yes, so we're shutting it down. And yeah, it's also incredibly politically partisan and has been supporting radical left causes throughout the world, including things that are anti-American, which is insane.
Absolutely. 所以真的說，沒有總統的全額支持，這一切都無法做到。至於 USAID 的部分，我詳細和他們討論過，他同意我們應該關閉它。我意思是，這點我要說清楚。實際上，我幾次確認過他的意見。你確定嗎？像，是的，所以我們要關閉它。而且，這也極其政治派系化，並且一直在支持全球極左勢力，包括反美勢力，這真是瘋了。

[1521.41 - 1560.14] Speaker 02:
[1521.41 - 1560.14] 講話人 02:

Right. And that's why, you know, there are probably some arguments to be made about what could be important work that falls under USAID. But the fact of the matter is that it's been it has been overshadowed by these bad actors. So if there are truly good pro-American programs, then let's move them to the State Department. Exactly. Let's make sure we have proper oversight. Let's make sure that when senators and congressmen are asking for documents, that they provide them in a timely manner. Yes. Let's make sure the IGs are upfront and honest and wanting to be the watchdog over the agencies that they are charged with.
Right. 並且那也是為什麼，你知道，可能有一些論點可以說某些工作可能是重要的，屬於 USAID 的範疇。但事實是，這些都被這些壞角色所壓過了。所以如果真的有好的親美計劃，那就讓它們移到國務院吧。完全正確。我們必須確保有適當的監督。當參議員和國会议員要求文件時，他們必須在及時提供。是的。我們必須確保 IGs 公開、誠實，並且希望成為他們負責的機構的監督者。

[1560.73 - 1567.16] Speaker 02:
[1560.73 - 1567.16] 講話人 02:

I mean, this is not rocket scientist and you're a rocket scientist.
我意思是，這不是火箭科學，你可是火箭科學家。

[1565.17 - 1591.97] Speaker 01:

This is simply common sense and being responsive to the electorate. And, you know, that's you just can't have these institutions, which are taking lots of taxpayer money, but then are not answerable to elected representatives of the public, then it's they're totally disconnected.
這只是常識，並且要對選民負責。而且，你知道，這些機構如果佔用了大量的稅民錢，卻不受公眾選出的代表監督，那麼它們就完全脫離了公眾。

[1592.90 - 1599.33] Speaker 01:

So I sort of I call it like we must move away from rule of the bureau to rule of the people of demos.
所以我就稱之為我們必須從局勢的規則轉向人民的規則，也就是 demos。

[1598.97 - 1602.78] Speaker 05:
[1598.97 - 1602.78] 講話人 05:

You know, I would say I'm hopeful that some of this creates momentum,
你知道，我會說我對此創造動能感到抱持希望，

[1603.39 - 1607.70] Speaker 05:
[1603.39 - 1607.70] 講話人 05:

Joni, with senators, with some of your colleagues as well in passing the Raines Act, right?
Joni，和參議員們，以及你們的一些同事在通過 Raines 法時，對吧？

[1608.47 - 1620.33] Speaker 05:
[1608.47 - 1620.33] 講話人 05:

I mean, half of this is decades of Congress effectively just punting off the responsibility to avoid accountability, not you, but many of your colleagues over the years.
我意思是，這其中有一半是數十年來國會一直把責任踢開以避免 Accountability，不是你，而是你多年來許多同事。

[1621.01 - 1645.68] Speaker 05:
[1621.01 - 1645.68] 話者 05:

And, you know, hopefully if this is a catalyst to say Congress and the Senate say we make take the lawmaking power back to the elected representatives of the people and, you know, get the kinds of things done that haven't gotten done for years, like the Raines Act and other mechanisms to say lawmaking power comes back to Congress. I think that could be one of the best things to come out of all of this. I'm hopeful that happens this time. I know you're supportive.
And,你知道，希望如果這可以成為一個契機，讓國會和參議院說我們要把立法權收回到人民選出的代表手中，你知道，去做那些多年來沒有做成的事情，比如雷恩斯法案和其他機制，說立法權應該回到國會。我相信這可能是從中產生的最好事情之一。我希望這次能夠發生。我知道你支持這一點。

[1643.55 - 1644.31] Speaker 01:
[1643.55 - 1644.31] 話者 01:

I'm hopeful that happens this time.
我希望這次會發生。

[1645.38 - 1666.25] Speaker 01:
[1645.38 - 1666.25] 講話人 01:

Yeah, I mean, fundamentally, there's got to be a feedback loop to the people. You can't have these organizations that are just disconnected from the will of the people. Like I said, you just fundamentally do not have a democracy in that situation. You have tyranny of the bureaucracy, which is just inappropriate and needs to end.
Yeah, 我的意思是，根本上來說，必須有一個反饋迴圈給人民。你不能讓這些組織與人民的意願脫節。就像我說的，那種情況下你根本沒有民主。那只是官僚主義的暴政，這是不適當的，必須結束。

[1667.77 - 1672.17] Speaker 05:
[1667.77 - 1672.17] 講話人 05:

By the way, Len, you know who's pumped up about you bringing everybody back to work
顺便說一下，Len，你 KNOW 誰對你帶大家回去上班很興奮

[1672.85 - 1687.97] Speaker 05:
[1672.85 - 1687.97] 講話人 05:

Okay. You're talking about the homeless encampments. I talked to her maybe, what, last month or month and a half ago, and that's a Democrat. Doesn't matter. It's basically the base principle of A, self-governance and B, saving money and
Okay. 你正在談論無家可歸者的營地。我上個月或一個半月前跟她談過，她是一個民主黨員。這不重要。這基本上是自 Governing 和節省錢兩項基本原則。

[1674.99 - 1676.11] Speaker 00:

You're talking about the homeless encampments.
您在談論無家可歸者的營地。

[1689.02 - 1706.28] Speaker 05:

making sure that our buildings aren't being infested by homeless invasion, but instead is actually creating a thriving capital, I think is shockingly a bipartisan idea if we give people the permission to come out as Democrats and say those things make sense, which I think we're seeing some of, which I think is cool.
確保我們的建築物沒有被無家可歸者侵佔，而是實際上創造一個蓬勃發展的首都，我認為這是一個令人驚訝的兩黨共識，如果我們讓人們有權以民主黨的身份說這些事情有道理，這正是我們現在看到的一些情況，這讓我很開心。

[1706.58 - 1728.06] Speaker 01:
[1706.58 - 1728.06] 講話人 01:

No, you're absolutely right. The lack of people showing up for work in D.C. has actually made D.C. look like a ghost town. In fact, I mean, it looks kind of post-apocalyptic in parts of D.C. because once people start coming to work, then the restaurants close down, then the stores close down, and then you just have boarded up stores and restaurants, and it destroys the small
No,你完全正確。華 Washingtion 特區的人出勤率低，實際上讓華 Washingtion 特區看起來像鬼城。事實上，華 Washingtion 特區的部分地區看起來有點後末日風景，因為一旦人們開始上班，餐廳就關門，商店也關門，然後你就只剩下封閉的商店和餐廳，這對小型

[1738.16 - 1761.21] Speaker 01:
[1738.16 - 1761.21] 講話人 01:

and more collaborative in one place. We're sort of rediscovering why do you have offices? Oh, it turns out there's a reason. And the president has made his world clear. Return to work. That's it. End of story.
並且更為協作，都在同一個地方。我們有點重新發現為什麼要有辦公室？哦， Turns out 有原因。而總統已經清楚表明了。回去工作。就這樣。故事到此為止。

[1767.35 - 1780.87] Speaker 05:
[1767.35 - 1780.87] 講話人 05:

I think the first two weeks have been pretty massive. And if it continues at that rate, I mean, even if you think about one of the big economic questions right now is the 10-year Treasury rates, right? They're going up.
我認為前兩個星期已經非常巨大了。如果持續那種速度，舉例來說，現在一個重要的經濟問題就是 10 年期公債利率，對吧？它在上升。

[1781.73 - 1786.03] Speaker 05:
[1781.73 - 1786.03] 講話人 05:

Bond markets don't like our national debt. If this is the pace of what cutting looks like presented
債市不喜歡我們的國家債務。如果這就是削減的樣子呈現出來的樣子

[1795.77 - 1808.49] Speaker 05:
[1795.77 - 1808.49] 講話人 05:

government debt can at least say, okay, this is positive progress, which actually will bring down not only the costs that you're cutting directly, but also our interest rate costs. And I think that's really when we hit a virtuous cycle here, which I think could happen soon.
政府債務至少可以說，這是正面的進展，這實際上將不僅降低你直接削減的成本，還會降低我們的利息成本。我想這時候我們可能會進入一個良性循環，我相信這很快會發生。

[1808.49 - 1836.52] Speaker 01:

No, I agree. Actually, the bond markets do not currently reflect the savings that that I'm confident we can achieve. And I'm actually giving a talk later this week with JP Morgan Chase and Jamie Dimon. And this is obviously a financial audience. And really just to say, look, if you're shorting bonds, I think you're on the wrong side of the
No, 我同意。實際上，債市目前並未反映我們有信心能夠達成的储蓄。我這週稍後會在 JP 摩根大通和傑米·迪蒙舉辦的演講中發表看法。這顯然是金融界的听众。我只是想說，如果你在做空債券，我認為你站到了錯誤的一方。

[1837.36 - 1845.03] Speaker 01:

bet. I mean, it's like, really, like basically the bond, I mean, there will be less debt needed.
bet. 我的意思是，真的像基本上那種債券，我意思是，會需要較少的債務。

[1847.91 - 1866.25] Speaker 01:
[1847.91 - 1866.25] 講話人 01:

As we stop wasting taxpayer money on crazy things, like $50 million for condoms to Gaza, which I suspect didn't actually end up being condoms in Gaza. That's a lot of condoms, guys.
As 我們停止浪費稅民錢在瘋狂的事情上，像是給加沙地區的-condoms，價值五億美元，我懷疑那裡並沒有真正收到-condoms。那可是很多-condoms，各位。

[1867.06 - 1871.97] Speaker 01:

What is that, a supertank or condoms? I mean, who needs to need?
那是超 Tank 還是-condoms？換句話說，誰會需要需要呢？

[1871.97 - 1875.03] Speaker 02:

Oh, my gosh, you guys. That's a real line item.
Oh,我的天，你們們。那真是個實項。

[1879.65 - 1889.63] Speaker 02:

Is this fiction? I don't doubt that we did have those items going to Gaza. I don't know if it was that many, but this is- No, no, that was the line item. It was $50 million.
Is this 虛構的嗎？我不懷疑我們確實向加沙運送了那些物品。我不確定是不是那麼多，但這是－不，不，那是專案編號。是五千万美元。

[1891.79 - 1926.03] Speaker 02:
[1891.79 - 1926.03] 講話人 02:

But this is the problem. Well, it was probably that line item, but God knows what it was. What it wasn't really. Yes, exactly. Exactly. But that's the problem we have with the budget and why when money flows through all of these entities, we may have a line item that goes to, say, USAID or maybe goes through USAID to the United Nations. And then from the United Nations, it goes to a subcontractor.
But this is the problem. Well,它可能是那項條目，但上帝知道是什麼。不是什麼。是的，完全正確。完全正確。但這是我們在預算上遇到的問題，也是為什麼當錢流經所有這些機構時，我們可能會有一項條目流向美國國際開發援助署，或者可能是通過美國國際開發援助署流向聯合國。然後從聯合國流向一個分包商。

[1898.22 - 1900.65] Speaker 00:

What it wasn't really. Yes, exactly.
什麼它不是真的。是的，Exactly。

[1926.85 - 1946.38] Speaker 02:

money and to understand what it's actually being used for. So again, going back to the transparency, you know, we need to make sure that we have our eyes on it and that it's easily accessible. And maybe not just by members of Congress, but also the public as well.
money 和了解它實際上被用來做什麼。所以再次回到透明度，我們需要確保我們能夠監督它，並且能夠輕易取得。不僅是國會成員，公眾也應該能夠取得。

[1947.09 - 2021.27] Speaker 01:

I agree. If it's public money being spent, it should be in full view of the public. But when they want to hide the stuff, frankly, the reality is because there's massive fraud and abuse. That's the reality. Nobody needs to hide something unless they have something to hide. Once in a while, you've got something that's, say, an intelligence operation that actually needs to be classified. But that's a rare situation. That's a tiny fraction of expenditures. The vast majority of these things is unfortunately a tremendous amount of fraud and abuse. The reason that is so extreme with the federal government is that the checks never bounce for the federal government. So the federal government can always make more money. And the problem is in doing so, that's what creates inflation. Something that I really want to reinforce for people is that it's government spending that creates inflation. So when you see prices go up at the grocery store, it's because the government spent more money than it brought in in taxes, increased the money supply, diluted the value of money, and made your paycheck be less valuable.
我同意。如果是由公帑支岀，理應公開予公眾。但如果他們想隱瞞這些事情，坦白來說，現實是因為存在龐大的詐騙和濫用。這就是現實。沒有人需要隱瞞某件事，除非他們有什麼需要隱瞞。偶爾，你會有某些事情，例如說，一個情報行動，實際上需要保密。但這種情況非常罕見。這只是支出的一小部分。大多數這些事情不幸地涉及極其大量的詐騙和濫用。這種情況在聯邦政府中特別嚴重的原因是，聯邦政府的支票永遠不會退票。因此，聯邦政府可以永遠賺更多的錢。但問題在於，這樣做會造成通脹。我真正想強調的是，是政府支出造成通脹。所以當你在超市看到價格上漲時，這是因為政府花費的錢比它從稅收中獲得的多，增加了貨幣供應，稀釋了貨幣價值，使你的薪水變得不那麼值錢。

[2021.99 - 2086.42] Speaker 01:
[2021.99 - 2086.42] 講話人 01:

It meant the prices are going up because of government spending that results in inflation. So now it's just very important to connect those dots because people, they sort of think like, well, maybe the supermarket is taking advantage of them. And they're not. You can look at the financials of the supermarket, they have like 2% margins. So it's got nothing to do with price gouging the supermarket. It's just that the government spent too much. That increased the money supply and diluted the value of somebody's paycheck. And that's why the prices go up at their grocery store. But the good news is if we solve government overspending and the money supply grows at the same rate as the output of goods and services, there will be no inflation. And the prices in the supermarket now will be the same as the prices in the supermarket in a year. And that's a super big deal. And that really affects people's lives. That's what we're aiming for. And we're going to do everything possible to succeed in that goal.
它意味著價格上漲是因為政府開支導致通脹。所以現在很重要的是要連起這些點，因為人們可能會想，超市是不是在利用他們。事實上並不是這樣。你可以看看超市的財務，他們的毛利只有約 2%。所以這和價格哄抬無關。只是政府開支太多，增加了貨幣供應，稀釋了工資的价值。這就是為什麼他們雜貨店的價格上漲了。但好消息是，如果我們解決政府超支問題，且貨幣供應增長率與商品和服务的產出相一致，那麼就沒有通脹。超市現在的價格和一年後超市的價格會一樣。這是一個非常大的改變，真的影響著人們的生活。這就是我們的目標，我們會盡一切可能實現這個目標。

[2087.89 - 2110.28] Speaker 05:
[2087.89 - 2110.28] 講話人 05:

And I think every dollar saved, I mean, the problem you just mentioned, Elon, is exactly why in your interest rates on US treasuries are persistently going up, even if the government's trying to make them go down, the market's bidding them right back up. But conversely, for every dollar, hard dollar actually saved, so how many ever billion it was in the first two
And 我認為每 Saves 一美元，我意思是，你剛剛提到的問題，埃隆，正是為什麼即使政府試圖讓美國公債的利率下降，市場仍然將其推高。但相對地，對於每 Saves 一美元實際上被節省，也就是最初兩次有多少十億

[2114.10 - 2133.44] Speaker 05:
[2114.10 - 2133.44] 講話人 05:

that lenders to the US government charge will go down at a time when the interest rate payment itself on our national debt is one of the biggest items of our federal budget. So that automatically comes down for every one of these other savings. Exactly. And the only thing presented as a coherent
that lenders to the US 政府 Charging will go down at a time when the interest rate payment itself on our national debt is one of the biggest items of our federal budget. So that automatically comes down for every one of these other savings. Exactly. And the only thing presented as a coherent

[2137.20 - 2146.63] Speaker 05:
[2137.20 - 2146.63] 講話人 05:

savings for every dollar that's actually, hard dollar that's actually saved because you get the interest cost next year that comes down as a consequence as well. Yeah, that's actually a
储蓄對於每元實際存下的錢，因為你下一年的利息成本會減少。是的，這實際上是

[2146.62 - 2194.56] Speaker 01:
[2146.62 - 2194.56] 話者 01:

very good point you just made, Vivek. I just want to basically repeat that and reiterate that for the audience. You actually get a double benefit when you bring down government spending, and it's a very important benefit, which is that you stop inflation and interest payments go down because the government is no longer borrowing money. If the government is borrowing money, it's actually competing with everyone else to borrow money, and that drives up the interest rate. So if we solve government spending, in a nutshell, your grocery bill stays the same, your mortgage payment goes down, and your car payment goes down, and your credit card bill goes down. Exactly. That's so, I mean, I think that's what the people of America want. I mean,
你剛剛說的是一個很好的觀點，維傑克。我想基本上再重複一遍給現場的觀眾聽。當你降低政府開支時，你實際上會得到雙重好處，這是非常重要的好處，因為你可以停止通膨，利息支出也減少，因為政府不再借錢。如果政府在借錢，它實際上是在和其他人爭取借款，這會提高利率。所以如果我們解決政府開支問題，簡而言之，你的雜貨帳單保持不變，你的房貸付款減少，你的車貸付款減少，你的信用卡帳單也減少。完全正確。這確實是，我認為美國人民就是想要這樣。我認為

[2199.45 - 2279.19] Speaker 02:
[2199.45 - 2279.19] 講話人 02:

obviously. Yeah, I couldn't agree more, gentlemen. I mean, it's really important. And, you know, I'm sitting here tonight in Iowa, and, you know, I took my mom to church this morning, and, man, everybody at church, we all kind of stand around afterwards and visit, and everybody's just really excited about the opportunity that the new administration is bringing because costs are just through the roof for people in my neighborhood in southwest Iowa. I mean, it's hard. These are folks just getting up every single morning trying to do their job and do the best, and yet we as a government have failed to listen to their needs and then to be able to cut the spending at the federal level to make sure that their taxes stay low and make sure that we are paying down our debt. No more deficit spending. Let's try and balance this budget as best we can. And we've heard plans from, you know, Ron Johnson and others in the Congress, but we've really got to get serious about it because, like, every one of my constituents owes $67,000 to our national debt. That's
顯然。是的，我完全同意，先生們。我意思是，這真的很重要。今晚我坐在愛荷華州，我知道，今天早上我帶我媽媽去教堂，然後，天啊，教會裡大家會在活動後圍在一起聊天，大家都對新政府帶來的機會非常興奮，因為我們鄰里西南部的開支對人們來說已經高得不得了。我意思是，這很難。這些人每天早上都努力工作，做到最好，然而我們作為政府卻沒有聆聽他們的需要，然後在聯邦層面上削減開支以確保他們的稅收保持低水平，並確保我們還清債務。不再有赤字開支。我們最好盡可能地平衡預算。我們已經聽過羅恩·約翰遜和其他國會成員的計劃，但我們真的必須認真對待，因為，就像我所有的選民都欠著我們國家 67,000 美元的債務。

[2279.93 - 2297.75] Speaker 01:

outrageous. And it's getting worse over time. So really, if we don't do something about it, America isn't going to go bankrupt. That's the fact. So we must do something about it. It's imperative. Senator Mike Lee, I see you've joined. Would you like to add something to this conversation? I know you've got some great stuff as well to talk about.
outrageous. 而且情況隨著時間變本加厲。所以真誠地說，如果我们不採取行動，美國不會破产。這是事實。所以我們必須採取行動。這是不可或缺的。參議員米奇·李，我看到你加入了。你想要對這場對話添加一些內容嗎？我知道你也有許多很棒的內容可以討論。

[2303.27 - 2325.69] Speaker 03:
[2303.27 - 2325.69] 講話人 03:

Every 75 to 90 years in Anglo-American history, we've seen a major upheaval. We had one in 1776, another one in 1861, another one in 1937, 2025. We're due for one. And I think that's going to be the Doge revolution. And I think it has to be about much more than just the individualized
每 75 至 90 年，在英美歷史中，我們都見過重大變革。我們在 1776 年見過一次，在 1861 年見過一次，在 1937 年和 2025 年也將見到。我們即將經歷一次。而我认为這將是 Doge 革命。而且我认为這必須不僅僅是關於個體的。

[2326.37 - 2348.49] Speaker 03:
[2326.37 - 2348.49] 講話人 03:

wasteful spending projects. At the core of all this is a fundamental ailment, which is that we've misconstrued the purpose of the United States government. It's supposed to be about just a small handful of things, weights and measures, trademarks, copyrights and patents regulating interest in foreign commerce. The founders of the country, it would blow their minds
浪費的支出計畫。所有這些的核心是一種根本的症結，那就是我們誤解了美國政府的目的。它的本質應該僅僅是幾件事情，如計量衡、商標、版權和專利，以及調節對外貿易的興趣。這個國家的創始人如果知道這些，一定會大吃一驚。

[2346.08 - 2355.58] Speaker 01:
[2346.08 - 2355.58] 講話人 01:

interest in foreign commerce. The founders of the country, it would blow their minds that the federal government has gotten so gigantic and is interfering with people's
對外貿易的興趣。這些國家創始人如果還在世，一定會驚訝於聯邦政府已經變得如此龐大，並且干涉著人們的生活。

[2357.86 - 2401.09] Speaker 03:
[2357.86 - 2401.09] 講話人 03:

lives in so many ways. That's exactly right. And then we've compounded the problem once we lost track of what the federal government's purpose is. We put the wrong branch in charge of the wrong responsibilities. We've been making most of our law, a hundred thousand pages a year through the executive branch, which the constitution says you can't do. It says you cannot make a federal law unless you go through both houses of Congress and then give it to the president. So we've destroyed federalism and separation of powers. I think for Doge to succeed, we have to restore both of those. In my view, the best way to start is by passing the Raines Act, which would require Congress to enact those laws. And I think to get that passed this year, we've got to attach it to the debt ceiling bill. I posted on that on my base, Mike Lee.
生活有許多方式。這正是正確的。然後我們一失去對聯邦政府目的的掌握，問題就更複雜了。我們把錯的部門放在了錯的責任上。我們每年通過行政部門制定了數萬頁的法律，而憲法規定你不能這樣做。憲法說，除非經兩院議會通過並呈交總統，否則你不能制定聯邦法律。所以我們破壞了聯邦主義和權力分立。我认为为了 Doge 的成功，我们必须恢复这两者。在我看来，最好的开始方式是通过 Raines 法案，这将要求国会制定这些法律。我认为今年要通过这项法案，我们必须把它附在债务上限法案上。我在我的基礎上發佈了這一點，Mike Lee。

[2400.31 - 2450.21] Speaker 01:
[2400.31 - 2450.21] 話者 01:

I mean, I absolutely agree with you 100%. I mean, what you're saying is just absolutely true. There's vast amounts of federal regulation, which are de facto laws that are created, that it's an incomprehensible amount. It's literally no human could possibly even comprehend it. If you tried your hardest your whole life, you could barely understand a small fraction of the regulations. And these regulations, if you look at them, there's millions of them. And it's not like any one regulation is the showstopper. But I mean, the way I sort of visualize it, it's like America's like Gulliver tied down by millions of little
我意思是，我完全同意你百分之百。我意思是，你說的完全正確。有大量聯邦規範，這些規範事實上成為法律，數量之多令人難以理解。即使你一生努力，也幾乎只能理解其中很小一部分。這些規範，如果仔細看，數以萬計。而且，並不是任何一條規範都是決定性的。但以我自己的方式來想像，美國就像是格魯利被數以萬計的小繩子綁著一樣。

[2453.45 - 2465.03] Speaker 03:
[2453.45 - 2465.03] 講話人 03:

Those laws, which they are laws, those will put you in prison. Those will shut down your business. Those will ruin your life if you disobey them. Exactly. No different than any other law.
那些法律，他們稱之為法律，違反這些法律會讓你坐牢。會關閉你的 BUSINESS。會讓你的生活破產如果違反這些法律。 Exactly. 沒有什麼不同於任何其他法律。

[2468.83 - 2474.65] Speaker 02:
[2468.83 - 2474.65] 講話人 02:

It's totally crazy. Well, it is exciting. Ilan, isn't it true, President Trump has
它真的瘋了。好吧，這很刺激。伊蘭，不是嗎， PRESIDENT TRUMP 有

[2475.32 - 2482.63] Speaker 02:
[2475.32 - 2482.63] 講話人 02:

an executive order that says for every one new regulation that is put into place, 10
一個行政命令，規定每有一項新的規範實施，就廢除十項

[2484.84 - 2546.60] Speaker 01:
[2484.84 - 2546.60] 講話人 01:

have to be rescinded? Yes. Now, of course, the bureaucracy is going to try to game that by having the one regulation. Somebody says, well, everyone can ask one question, but then have a question in like 10 parts. So it's possible to game the regulations. So I think in addition to that executive order, which I certainly applaud, I think we need to go and do wholesale removal of regulations. Regulations basically should be default gone. Default gone. Not default there. Default gone. And if it turns out that we missed the mark on a regulation, we always add it back in. These regulations are added willy-nilly all the time. So we just got to do wholesale spring cleaning of regulation and get the government off the backs of everyday Americans so people can get things done and the government doesn't have a boot on the neck of the average
have to be rescinded? Yes。現在當然，官僚機構會試圖 Gaming 那個規定，只有一個規範。有人說，每個人都可以問一個問題，但然後問一個像 10 個部分的問題。所以有可能 Gaming 經營規範。所以我认为除了那個行政命令，我當然表示贊成，我认为我们需要彻底去除規範。規範基本上應該是預設不存在。預設不存在。不是預設存在。預設不存在。如果後來發現我們在一個規範上失誤了，我們總是把它重新加回去。這些規範隨時隨地都在增加。所以我們必須徹底清理規範，讓政府從普通美國人的生活中退出，讓人民能夠做事，政府不要把腳鐐套在普通人的脖子上。

[2547.36 - 2571.04] Speaker 01:
[2547.36 - 2571.04] 講話人 01:

Americans. What are the core founding values of this country? What has made America great? What will lead to further greatness is a focus on merit that you get ahead as a function of your hard work and skill and that you have freedom. It's the land of freedom and opportunity. If the government has millions of regulations holding everyone back,
美國人。這個國家的核心創立價值是什么？是什么讓美國偉大？進一步偉大的關鍵在于注重功績，你憑借努力和才能獲得成功，並且擁有自由。這是自由和機會的土地。如果政府有數以萬計的規範限制每個人，

[2581.30 - 2609.21] Speaker 05:
[2581.30 - 2609.21] 講話人 05:

multiplied at 50-fold higher where each of the 50 states then do the same thing. And many of these federal regulations are duplicative of the states doing the exact same thing where the bureaucracies in each of the states are behaving like the federal government. So think about the impact of people's lives. It just layers one on top of the other. And like you talk about zero-based budgeting, I really like this concept of zero-based regulations where the default is nothing and build back on top. I mean, that's what our founders wanted.
倍增五十分之一處，每一個州都這樣做。而許多這些聯邦規範是重複各州在做完全相同的事情，而每個州的官僚機構行為就像聯邦政府一樣。所以想想對人們生活的影响。這就像層層疊加。就像你提到零基預算，我非常喜歡零基規範的概念，預設為零，然後再從基礎上建立。我意思是，這正是我們的創始人想要的。

[2607.71 - 2693.96] Speaker 01:
[2607.71 - 2693.96] 話者 01:

where the default is nothing and build back on top. I mean, that's what our founders wanted. Yeah, absolutely. It used to be like, and not that long ago, if you wanted to start a business, you just start a business. You just go open a store. You can just do it. The government's not prying into every part of like, get the license for this, do the license for that, get 17,000 permits. I mean, like you look at LA and how it's like, I mean, when I lived in LA, it was hard to get a permit to remodel your kitchen. And now with this disaster that's happened in LA, this terrible tragedy, just the sheer number of permits required to build a house are staggering. Basically, they've made it illegal. But we've got to start somewhere on the regulatory front. And certainly, at least if we address federal regulation, then people can choose to move from one state to another and still remain in America and move to the state that has less regulation where the government gives you more freedom. And you've got that competition between states. You've got that federal system that was meant to be the case. That was how the country was created. Let the states compete. And if your state is being oppressive, you can go to a neighboring state and live there. That's the whole idea.
where the default is nothing and build back ontop. 我的意思，這是我們創始人想要的。是的，完全正確。以前是這樣，而且並不太久以前，如果你想開一家公司，你只需要開一家公司。你只需要開一家店。你可以這樣做。政府並不會插手每一個細節，像申請這個許可，申請那個許可，拿到 17000 個許可。我意思是，你看看洛杉磯，以前獲取翻修廚房的許可都很難。現在在洛杉磯發生了這場災難，這場可怕的悲劇，僅僅是建一棟房子所需的許可證數量就令人驚訝。基本上，他們已經把它非法化了。但我們至少在監管方面要從某個地方開始。當然，至少如果我們處理聯邦監管，那麼人們可以選擇從一個州搬到另一個州，仍然留在美國，搬到監管較少的州，那裡的政府會給你更多的自由。你會有州與州之間的競爭。你會有那個聯邦體制，那是本來就應該是這樣的情況。讓各州之間競爭。 如果你的州施行壓榨政策，你可以搬到鄰近的州去住。這就是整個概念。

[2695.51 - 2711.81] Speaker 05:
[2695.51 - 2711.81] 講話人 05:

Federalism is the answer, no doubt. You've got two things going for us right now in the country that haven't happened in a long time. One is a willing president, Donald Trump, who actually believes everything that all four of us have just said, which is a beautiful thing.
联邦主義是答案，沒有疑問。現在國家有兩件很久沒有發生過的事情。一件是樂意合作的總統唐納德·川普，他 Actually 相信我們四人剛才說的每一件事，這是非常美好的事情。

[2714.12 - 2720.55] Speaker 01:
[2714.12 - 2720.55] 講話人 01:

the more I like him. Frankly, I love the guy. He's great.
我越喜歡他。坦白說，我愛這個 guy。他很棒。

[2722.02 - 2730.68] Speaker 05:
[2722.02 - 2730.68] 講話人 05:

Yeah. And he's full bore more than any president we've had since the creation of the administrative state. So I think that's number one. And number two is, thanks to him actually in his first term,
Yeah. 他全心全意投入，比我們從行政州產生以來所見到的任何總統都更加投入。所以這是我認為的第一點。第二點是，感謝他實際上在他第一任期内，

[2731.40 - 2736.14] Speaker 05:
[2731.40 - 2736.14] 講話人 05:

you've got a Supreme Court that six to three vehemently agrees with everything we've just said.
你有一個最高法院，六比三一致同意我們剛才說的一切。

[2741.12 - 2745.53] Speaker 05:
[2741.12 - 2745.53] 講話人 05:

Yes. And so I think it's possible now. It's actually possible. Yes. In fact, if it's not
Yes。而且我现在認為這是可能的。這是實際上可能的。Yes。事實上，如果這不是

[2745.49 - 2759.21] Speaker 01:
[2745.49 - 2759.21] 講話人 01:

possible now, it'll never be possible. This is our shot. This is the best hand of cards we're ever going to have. And if we don't take advantage of this, this best hand of cards is
可能現在可以了，以後永遠沒有機會了。這是我們的機會。這是我們從未有過的最佳牌局。如果我們不把握這個機會，這張最佳牌局就

[2760.26 - 2785.64] Speaker 02:
[2760.26 - 2785.64] 講話人 02:

never going to happen. So we're going to do it. I agree. Now or never. Yeah. Now or never. And I do think you're right, Vivek. I mean, with the first administration of President Trump and kind of lessons learned through that administration and now in the second administration, the stage is set and he knows how to aggressively tackle a lot of these issues that have plagued
never going to happen。所以我們要去做。我同意。現在或永遠。Yeah。現在或永遠。而且我確實認為你說得對，維傑克。換句話說，隨著川普總統第一任時期的經驗和從那屆政府中吸取的教訓，現在在第二任政府中，條件已經成熟，他知道如何積極應對許多長期困擾这些问题。

[2786.23 - 2795.09] Speaker 02:
[2786.23 - 2795.09] 講話人 02:

us for years. And folks ask me, oh, Trump's first 100 days, what is that going to be like? And I'm
us 多年。而人們問我，哦，-Trump 的前一百天，那會是什麼樣子？而我

[2795.70 - 2803.34] Speaker 02:
[2795.70 - 2803.34] 講話人 02:

like, forget the 100 days, folks. It's going to happen a lot faster than that. And he needs to continue to be aggressive. And we all know there's going to be bumps along the way. Of
像，忘掉那 100 天，鄉親們。這會比那更快發生。他需要繼續積極行動。我們都知道過程中會有波折。

[2804.15 - 2840.18] Speaker 02:
[2804.15 - 2840.18] 話者 02:

course there are, because we're moving at the speed of relevance here. But we've got to get in there and make an impact so that our constituents can actually see the benefit. Because we've got a tough mid cycle or mid presidential year election coming up in 2026. And we cannot lose the house or the Senate because then the president will be dead in the water. And we just need to move out.
當然有，因為我們這裡追求的是相關性。但我們必須要進去並產生影響，讓我們的選民能夠實際看到效益。因為 2026 年將有一場艱難的中期選舉或中期總統選舉。我們不能失去眾議院或參議院，因為這樣-president 將陷入困境。我們只需要行動起來。

[2840.18 - 2912.71] Speaker 01:
[2840.18 - 2912.71] 話者 01:

Yeah. I mean, I think that's really the people will judge the performance and whether actually we've got things done and whether things are better off in two years. And I think if people feel like, yeah, they're better off, the country's working better, they feel like the reward for hard work is there, that their paychecks going further than it used to, that their standard of living is better, their mortgages lower, their credit card bills are lower, the prices at the stores are the same, they haven't risen dramatically. Then I think there's no problem. We will win the next election. The people will reward that performance. So I think that's what needs to happen. But I think if it does happen, there will be a Republican win in the midterms, which is unusual. But I think if we make these
Yeah. 我的意思是，我相信人們會評斷我們的表現，以及我們是否真的完成了事情，兩年後情況是否更好。我相信如果人們覺得他們更好了，國家運作得更好，他們覺得努力工作的回報在那裡，他們的薪水比以前更有價值，他們的生活水準更高，房貸更低，信用卡帳單更低，商店的價格沒有大幅上升，那麼我相信沒有問題。我們將在下次選舉中勝出。人民會對我們的表現表揚我們。我相信這就是需要發生的事情。但我相信如果發生了，中期選舉將會有共和黨的勝利，這很不尋常。但我相信如果我們做到這些

[2913.35 - 2926.58] Speaker 01:
[2913.35 - 2926.58] 講話人 01:

goals happen, I think we'll actually have an increased majority in the House and Senate and be able to continue to, as the president would say, make America great and even greater.
目標達成，我想我們在眾議院和參議院的多數會增加，並且能夠繼續像總統所說的，讓美國變得更偉大，甚至更加偉大。

[2928.35 - 2934.04] Speaker 05:
[2928.35 - 2934.04] 講話人 05:

In the case, the blanket that, I mean, Ilan, you and I have talked about this, Mike Lee,
在這種情況下，我們談過的那條毯子，也就是伊蘭，Mike Lee，

[2940.65 - 2956.33] Speaker 05:
[2940.65 - 2956.33] 講話人 05:

push it to the states. If there's some doubt about, okay, well, we're not sure about this regulation. You've got a whole nuclear energy framework at the federal level. You have an entire one in each of the 50 states. Same thing for spending or some other program. Are people going to really suffer if this is taken away? Federalism is the answer. Just push
推給各州。如果有些懷疑，好吧，我們對這項規範不太確定。在聯邦層面上，你有一整套核能框架。每個州也有完整的體系。對於開支或某些其他計劃來說也是如此。如果這被取消，人們真的會受苦嗎？聯邦主義是答案。只需推

[2957.41 - 2977.00] Speaker 05:
[2957.41 - 2977.00] 講話人 05:

it to the states. And I think that that's a big part of obviously what I'm looking to do next, but it's governors across the state, whatever, let them bear the load of what the federal government needed, because that's actually what the founders envisioned in the first place. Mike, you've been a crusader for this since day one.
it to the states. And I think that 那是我想要做的其中一大部分，但那是各州的州長們，無論如何，讓他們承擔聯邦政府所需的負擔，因為這正是創始人最初所預見的。Mike，從第一天起你就是這方面的鬥士。

[2978.72 - 2984.63] Speaker 03:
[2978.72 - 2984.63] 講話人 03:

No, that is right. That is the whole reason I ran for this job 15 years ago. The fact is
No，那是對的。那就是我 15 年前跑這場選舉的整個原因。事實是

[2985.30 - 2994.18] Speaker 03:
[2985.30 - 2994.18] 講話人 03:

the people of our country are upset. They're upset about our government because it manages
我們國家的人很不滿意。他們對我們的政府感到不滿，因為它管理

[2994.87 - 3023.19] Speaker 03:
[2994.87 - 3023.19] 講話人 03:

things poorly. And what a lot of people are starting to grasp is that it's not just a matter of changing from the red team to the blue team and back to the red team and making sure you've got better personnel on there because better personnel won't make those same mistakes and won't fund the stupid studies about the drunk gerbils on a treadmill. The point is it's poorly run because when the U.S. government is doing all kinds of things that it's not supposed to be doing that should be left to the states or to the people, in the words of the 10th Amendment,
事情做得不好。很多人開始意識到，這不僅是紅隊換成藍隊再換回紅隊，並確保有更優秀的人員就能解決問題，因為更好的人員不會犯同樣的錯誤，也不會支持那些關於醉酒地鼠在跑步機上跑步的愚蠢研究。重點是，這做得很差，因為當美國政府在做許多它本不應該做的、應該由各州或人民來做的事情時，在第十 Amendement 的話語中，

[3023.78 - 3037.72] Speaker 03:
[3023.78 - 3037.72] 講話人 03:

it becomes very poor, very bad at doing the few things that it is supposed to do. You can't be good at running the Pentagon and at making sure that traffic lanes, lines of commerce are open
它在應該做的幾件事上變得非常糟糕，非常不好。你不能同時把五角大樓管理得好，並且確保交通要道和商貿通道暢通。

[3038.36 - 3083.21] Speaker 03:
[3038.36 - 3083.21] 講話人 03:

when you are doing all kinds of things that the federal government wasn't built to do. We're using it as the wrong tool. There are very few things that the federal government currently does that the federal government is itself uniquely equipped and constitutionally authorized to do. That's what we've got to get back to. And that's why this is going to be a painful, radical transformational change in many circumstances. But it's going to be a huge relief to the American people once we get through the initial shock and once we get through this stage where the media is telling us the sky is going to fall, dogs and cats living together in the streets, apocalyptic stuff. Once they realize that's not true, they're going to feel this huge burden lifted. That's what we want. We want a better future for America. We can't get to
當你在做許多聯邦政府並不是為了這樣做的事情時，我們在使用錯誤的工具。目前聯邦政府很少有事情是聯邦政府本身獨特具備且憲法授權能夠做的。這就是我們必須回到的地方。這也是為什麼這將是一種痛苦、激進的轉型變革，在許多情況下。但在我們渡過初始的震驚後，並在我們渡過媒體告訴我們天要塌下來、狗和貓在街上共處、末日般的情況後，美國人民會感到巨大的負擔被解除了。這正是我們想要的。我們想要一個更好的美國未來。我們不能到達

[3084.00 - 3086.55] Speaker 03:
[3084.00 - 3086.55] 講話人 03:

absolutely returning to our founding document.
絕對回到我們的創立文件。

[3089.37 - 3107.80] Speaker 01:
[3089.37 - 3107.80] 講話人 01:

Exactly. I couldn't agree with you more. I'm actually pretty optimistic that we're going to make it happen. I think it's going to happen. The progress is good so far and if it keeps accelerating, then I think it's going to be awesome. The cost of excess regulation
Exactly。我完全同意你的看法。我其實相當樂觀我們能夠實現這個目標。我相信這會發生。進展到目前為止都很良好，如果持續加速，我相信這會非常棒。過度規範的成本

[3108.56 - 3130.26] Speaker 01:
[3108.56 - 3130.26] 講話人 01:

on economic growth and prosperity is really underestimated. If you basically don't even allow people to do things, make it illegal, the boulders can't build.
對經濟成長和繁榮的估計真的被低估了。如果你根本連讓人民做事都不允許，把一切合法化，巨石也無法累積。

[3131.10 - 3139.73] Speaker 01:

America is a nation of boulders, but we need to give the boulders permission to build. That's really what deregulation is all about, just letting people do things.
美國是一塊塊巨石組成的國家，但我們需要給這些巨石 builders 的權限來建造。這就是解除管制真正意味著的，只是讓人們去做事情。

[3144.15 - 3149.40] Speaker 05:
[3144.15 - 3149.40] 講話人 05:

Deregulation and meritocracy go hand in hand, actually. They're two sides of the same coin.
deregulation 和 Meritocracy 實際上是相輔相成的，他們其實是同一枚硬幣的兩面。

[3150.49 - 3156.96] Speaker 05:
[3150.49 - 3156.96] 講話人 05:

I want to actually measure Doge's success is not just the deficit reduction.
我想實際衡量 Doge 的成功不僅是減赤。

[3157.56 - 3182.47] Speaker 05:
[3157.56 - 3182.47] 講話人 05:

and bringing down the national debt and the interest payment cost as a consequence. That's really important, but actually a lot of these benefits of delivering economic growth won't be measured in this year's deficit reduction, but will be measured in long-run GDP growth, long-run economic growth, long-run prosperity of the country. I think that's equally important.
and 削減國家債務以及隨之而來的利息支出成本。這真的很重要，但其實這些促進經濟成長的優點並不會在今年的赤字減少中被衡量，而是會反映在長期的 GDP 增長、長期的經濟成長以及國家的長期繁榮上。我認為這同樣重要。

[3182.47 - 3245.09] Speaker 01:
[3182.47 - 3245.09] 講話人 01:

I'm optimistic that we'll see a material impact in FY26, which starts in October. A lot of the stuff, I think we'll make significant gains in FY25, government financial year 25, which ends in September. I think the sort of metric we're tracking, sort of kind of startup style, and we're going to be posting more and more detail on the Doge website and Doge handle on X, is just so people can see in detail. This is where we're seeing the delta in spending between current spending and government financial year 26, which starts in October. That number is really, we think it's at this point over a billion dollars a day, maybe two billion, maybe approaching three.
我樂觀地認為我們將在 FY26（從十月開始）看到實質性的影響。很多東西，我想我們將在 FY25（政府財政年度 25，於九月結束）取得顯著進展。我們追蹤的指標類似於 Startup 風格，我們將在 Doge 網站和 Doge 在 X 上的帳號上發佈越來越多的細節，讓大家能夠詳細了解。這就是我們看到當前支出與政府財政年度 26 之間的差距，FY26 從十月開始。這個數字我們認為目前每天超過十億美元，可能達到二十億，甚至接近三十億。

[3246.09 - 3299.53] Speaker 01:

And I think we can take a trillion dollars out of the deficit next year. Obviously, this is going to require strong support from the president, but thus far we certainly have that, and also support of the Congress, and also hopefully support from the judiciary as well. Basically, the goal in a nutshell is pretty straightforward. We have a two trillion dollar deficit, which is far in excess of economic growth. If we can get that deficit in half, from two trillion to one trillion, and we can get the economic growth to match that one trillion growth in the money supply, that means there will be no inflation, and also that interest rates will drop, credit card interest down, mortgage interest down, car payment interest
And I think 我們可以明年拿出一兆美元來減少赤字。顯然，這將需要總統的堅強支持，但迄今為止我們確實有這樣的支持，並且也有國會的支持，也希望司法部門也能支持。总而言之一句话，目標非常明確。我們有兩兆美元的赤字，這遠遠超過經濟增長。如果我們能把這個赤字減半，從兩兆降到一兆，並且讓經濟增長與這兆美元的貨幣供應增長相匹配，那麼就沒有通脹，利率也會下降，信用卡利率下降，房貸利率下降，車貸利率下降。

[3300.14 - 3309.59] Speaker 01:
[3300.14 - 3309.59] 講話人 01:

down, and prices at the store stay the same. That is a great outcome for people, and I think
down,而且商店的價格保持不變。這對人們來說是一個很好的結果，而且我認為

[3312.96 - 3324.47] Speaker 05:
[3312.96 - 3324.47] 講話人 05:

we can do it. People say it's unrealistic. But the funniest part about this is just the hard number here. The four of us here know the answer, but for people who are listening, it might just be
我們可以做到。人家說這是不切實際的。但這裏最有趣的部分就是這個數字。我們四個人知道答案，但對正在聽的人來說，它可能 JUST BE

[3325.27 - 3345.03] Speaker 05:
[3325.27 - 3345.03] 講話人 05:

eye-opening. How much money did the federal government actually spend last year? Not the mumbo jumbo, not discretionary this and not. Just how much did the federal government spend last year? It was just under seven trillion dollars. How much did we spend in this ancient time period
開眼界。聯邦政府去年實際花了多少錢？不是那些無稽之談，也不是隨意開支。只是去年聯邦政府花了多少錢？大約是七萬億美元。我們在這個古代時期花了多少錢？

[3345.03 - 3359.98] Speaker 04:
[3345.03 - 3359.98] 講話人 04:

known as 2019? This year called 2019. Not that long ago. We'll kind of remember 2019. It was less than four and a half, about four and a half trillion dollars. That's two and a half trillion right there. So if you just go back to 2019, that's two and a half trillion, which is
known as 2019? 這一年叫作 2019 年。不長時間以前。我們會記得 2019 年。那時的數字不到四萬五千億美元。那裡有兩萬五千億美元。所以如果你回到 2019 年，那時就有兩萬五千億美元， WHICH IS

[3359.25 - 3368.48] Speaker 05:
[3359.25 - 3368.48] 講話人 05:

insane actually that they think that that's impossible, as 2019 was not that long ago.
瘋狂的是他們認為那是不可能的，因為 2019 年並不太久遠。

[3366.64 - 3372.13] Speaker 03:
[3366.64 - 3372.13] 講話人 03:

And nobody thought that there was an apocalyptic hellscape underway in 2019.
And 沒有人想到 2019 年有一場啟示性的地獄場景在進行中。

[3371.81 - 3382.03] Speaker 01:
[3371.81 - 3382.03] 講話人 01:

Yeah, 2019 was pretty cool actually. I like 2019. 2019 was not some nightmarish hellscape, exactly. In fact, things were just fine in 2019. Mike can vouch for this too though. What we saw with COVID
Yeah, 2019 確實很酷。我喜歡 2019 年。2019 年並不是 NIGHTMARESCAPE，事實上，2019 年一切都還好。Mike 也能證實這一點。至於我們看到的 COVID

[3382.03 - 3400.09] Speaker 02:
[3382.03 - 3400.09] 講話人 02:

as we were pushing all those dollars out the door, they started a lot of programs with those dollars and people just continued to expect those dollars to come, even though we're way beyond
隨著我們把那些美元花出去，他們開始用那些錢推出很多計劃，人們也繼續期待那些錢會持續來臨，即使我們已經遠遠超出這個階段

[3398.67 - 3467.78] Speaker 01:
[3398.67 - 3467.78] 講話人 01:

COVID. Yes. Way beyond COVID. Often people will say like, well you can't reduce deficit that much because what about all the entitlement spending? You know, like there's the sort of guaranteed spending. Well, but here's the thing, and especially during COVID as you're looking to, there was actually a massive growth, a massive increase in the amount of fraud and waste in entitlements with like fake people collecting social security, like bogus payments to Medicare. It is, the level of fraud is actually staggering and it just cutting back on that. And by the way, it's not just even U.S. fraud rings. I don't know if people realize this, but the estimates I've seen are between $100 and $200 billion in foreign fraud rings. There are professional foreign fraud rings operating that are taking somewhere between $100 and $200 billion a year of U.S. taxpayer money out of the country. A lot of people realize that. So the fraud in that case isn't even going to American fraudsters. It's going to somewhere in other countries.
COVID. 是的。遠超過 COVID。通常人們會說，你不能那麼多減少赤字，因為還有所有保障支出。你知道，像是有種種保障的開支。但這裡有一點，特別是在 COVID 期間，當你考慮到這些問題時，事實上保障支出中出現了巨大的增長，大量的詐騙和浪費，像是假人領取社會安全，假的 Medicare 支付。詐騙的水平其實非常驚人，只是減少這些開支。而且，這不僅僅是美國的詐騙團體。我不知道大家是否意識到，我看到的估計數字是在 100 到 200 億美元之間的外國詐騙團體。有專業的外國詐騙團體在運作，每年從美國納稅人手中偷走 100 到 200 億美元的錢。很多人意識到這一點。所以這種詐騙不僅是美國詐騙分子，而是來自其他國家。

[3468.59 - 3502.59] Speaker 02:
[3468.59 - 3502.59] 講話人 02:

Well, Ilan, I sent that example to you the other day, sat down with a friend of yours, works in ID technology, and he showed me that video of a deep fake where it was a Chinese scammer trying to receive U.S. federal government benefits. It's outrageous, but so much of that money that Chinese scammers are taking out of the pockets of our taxpayers.
Well,伊蘭，我前几天把那個例子發給你了，然後和你的一位朋友見了面，他做 ID 技術的工作，他 Showing 我一個 Deepfake 的影片，那是一個中國詐騙犯試圖領取美國聯邦政府福利。這真是令人震驚，但那麼多錢都被中國詐騙犯從我們納稅人的口袋裡拿走了。

[3502.59 - 3565.06] Speaker 01:
[3502.59 - 3565.06] 講話人 01:

Yes. American entitlements are being defrauded by people not even in the U.S. from many other countries because the fraud controls are so weak on the entitlements programs. The due diligence is so bad that it's actually possible to operate hundreds, if not thousands, of fake people and get entitlements sent to you that you then take the money out of the country, out of the United States. This is happening as we speak. It's utterly insane. So this is why I'm actually quite optimistic that a trillion dollars can be saved just by addressing waste, fraud, and abuse. While it's a lot of work, I don't think this is some insurmountable task. I am confident it can be done and we'll do everything in our power to make it happen. If we succeed,
是的。美國的福利被來自許多其他國家、甚至不在美國的人 frau 虐，因為這些福利計劃的欺詐控制非常薄弱。盡職調查如此糟糕，實際上可以操作數百甚至數千個假人，領取福利金，然後將錢轉出國外，出美國。這正在發生。這真是瘋狂。所以這就是為什麼我對通過解決浪費、欺詐和濫用，可以節省一兆美元感到非常樂觀。雖然這是一項艱巨的工作，但我認為這並不是不可克服的任務。我有信心這可以做到，我們將盡一切努力使其發生。如果我們成功，

[3565.95 - 3672.94] Speaker 01:
[3565.95 - 3672.94] 講話人 01:

and I would like to ask for the support of the American people because we're going to get a lot of opposition. Let me tell you, one of the things I remember from the PayPal days was that, you know who complains the loudest? It's the fraudsters. When somebody was trying to commit fraud to PayPal, we would see the most amount of righteous indignation. It would be immediate, over-the-top righteous indignation was from the fraudsters, not from honest people. Because honest people are like, oh, I think there's something wrong with my account. I guess, I wonder what's wrong. Let me inquire. But the fraudsters will come at you immediately. It's like a tell that someone's actually doing fraud because the level of sort of foe outrage is way over the top. So we're going to get a lot of that. A lot of people claiming with fake outrage, claiming that they're sort of a single mother with kids just trying to feed them. Meanwhile, it's like some dude operating a fraud ring out of another country, actually. That's the kind of thing we'll see. I would like to ask for the support of the American people in pursuit of this goal and bearing in mind that we're going to see some pretty outrageous stuff from the fraudsters as we crack down on fraud. They're going to be the loudest complainers. So to anyone in America listening to this, your support in pursuit of this goal is very much
and I would like to ask for the support of the American people because 我們會遇到很多反對。讓我告訴你，我記得在 PayPal 的日子裡，誰投訴最 loudest？是詐騙者。當有人對 PayPal 進行詐騙時，我們會看到最強烈的正義義憤。這會即时发生，詐騙者的義憤反應過於激烈。而誠實的人則會說，哦，我認為我的帳戶有問題。我猜，我好奇是什麼問題。讓我查一查。但詐騙者會立即來攻擊你。這就像一個詐騙的徵兆，因為這種敵對的義憤程度遠遠超出常規。所以我們會遇到很多這種情況。很多人聲稱假義憤，聲稱他們是單親媽媽，只想要餵養孩子。而實際上，這像是某個 Guys 在另一個國家運作一個詐騙集團。這就是我們會看到的種類。 我想要請美國人民支持這個目標，在我們打擊詐欺時，我們會看到一些非常荒唐的事情來自詐欺分子。他們會是最 Loud 的抱怨者。所以對美國任何正在聽這段話的人，你們對這個目標的支持非常-needed。

[3675.64 - 3692.40] Speaker 02:
[3675.64 - 3692.40] 講話人 02:

appreciated. Thank you. Oh, absolutely. And thank you, Elon and Vivek. I think we've got a ways to go, but I'm glad it's rolling along. And this DOJ has been the most aggressive effort really to downsize or right-size our government since probably at least the Reagan revolution.
appreciated. 謝謝。Oh，當然。還有謝謝 Elon 和 Vivek。我想我們還有一段路要走，但很高興它正在進行中。而這個司法部可能是自里根革命以來最積極努力縮小或適度調整我們政府規模的行動。

[3693.11 - 3706.14] Speaker 02:
[3693.11 - 3706.14] 講話人 02:

So just excited to be part of it and have the support of the American people as we move through
所以真的非常-excited-Excited 能成為其中一分子，在我們前進的過程中得到美國人民的支持

[3713.43 - 3719.53] Speaker 05:
[3713.43 - 3719.53] 講話人 05:

You keep kicking ass and when in doubt, send it to the states and we'll take care of it there.
You keep kicking ass 和當有疑問時，可以發送到美國，我們會在那裡處理。

[3719.53 - 3739.13] Speaker 01:
[3719.53 - 3739.13] 講話人 01:

Exactly. All right. Cool. Well, thank you, Senator. Senator Lee and perhaps one day, Senator Romaswamy. Well, Governor Romaswamy. Yeah, that's kind of the direction we're headed. And everyone who tuned in and once again, I'm asking for your support for Noble Goal
Exactly. 好吧。酷。好吧，感謝參議員。參議員李，也許有一天，參議員羅馬斯瓦米。好吧，羅馬斯瓦米州長。對，這就是我們的方向。而所有觀看的朋友们，再次請求大家支持崇高的目標。

[3740.37 - 3751.53] Speaker 01:
[3740.37 - 3751.53] 講話人 01:

and please help in any way you can. Like sometimes it's like the small things that
而且請盡你所能幫助。有时候就像那些小事一樣

[3752.44 - 3772.42] Speaker 01:
[3752.44 - 3772.42] 講話人 01:

result like DOJ will win if millions of people support it in ways that I wouldn't even know how they supported it, but just that you did. And so, you know, thank you to the Unknown Soldier.
result like DOJ 會贏如果數以萬計的人以我連他們是如何支持都不知道的方式支持它，但你知道就是你做到了。所以，感謝無名英雄。

[3774.18 - 3804.53] Speaker 02:
[3774.18 - 3804.53] 講話人 02:

Yeah, definitely. And hey, Elon, before we all break out of here, I do want to acknowledge the, you know, I've founded the Senate DOJ caucus on my side of the Rotunda. We've got some great co-chairs over in the House as well with Pete Sessions and Aaron Bean and Blake Moore. They have got now, I think, over a hundred members of Congress that have joined the DOJ
Yeah, definitely。而且嘿，Elon，在我們全都離開這裡之前，我確實想要承認一下，在議員側的圓形大廳，我創立了參議院司法部議員小組。我們在議會大廈的另一側也有一些很棒的共同主席，包括 Pete Sessions、Aaron Bean 和 Blake Moore。他們現在已經有超過一百位國會議員加入了司法部小組。

[3805.17 - 3827.45] Speaker 02:
[3805.17 - 3827.45] 講話人 02:

caucus and we've got 18 and climbing in the United States Senate as well. So, you and the President and Vivek have all kind of really gotten everybody to come together and I'm just really grateful that we have an outlet and are able to do this. So thank you all so much.
Caucus 而且我們在美國參議院有 18 個成員，並且還在增加。所以，你和總統以及維傑克都讓很多人走到了一起，我真的很感激我們有這樣的渠道能夠做到這一點。所以非常感謝你們所有人。

[3828.06 - 3847.02] Speaker 01:
[3828.06 - 3847.02] 話者 01:

That sounds good and we'll be doing this every week, so I look forward to having members from the House and other contributors and try to keep the people informed of the progress and I think it'll be very interesting to follow along. So thanks everyone.
那聽起來不錯，我們每個星期都會這樣做，所以我很期待能有來自議會的成員和其他貢獻者參加，並努力讓大家了解進展。我相信這會非常有趣。所以感謝 everyone。

[3846.72 - 3847.58] Speaker 03:
[3846.72 - 3847.58] 講話人 03:

Thanks so much, Elon.
感謝你很多，伊隆。

[3847.02 - 3847.70] Speaker 05:
[3847.02 - 3847.70] 講話人 05:

Thanks so much, Elon.
感謝你很多，伊隆。

__________________________________________________

End of Meeting Minutes
會議紀錄結尾