Speaker 1 (00:03):
We believe in our democracy, even though we know it isn't perfect. We want to strengthen our institutions so they can't be used to compound inequality or rip people off. We will never give up on building a more perfect union, because that's why we ran for Congress in the first place. After yesterday's commemoration, we're ready to turn the page and to get to work on behalf of the American people. Now I'll turn it over to House Democratic Caucus Vice Chair, Ted Lieu.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Thank you Chairman Aguilar, and let me follow up on what the Chairman said. Yesterday, Congress certified the electoral college results, and you know what we didn't see? We didn't see anyone storm the Capitol, we didn't see a mob attack 140 law enforcement officers, we didn't see anyone incite an insurrection. President Biden, and Vice President Kamala Harris, and Democrats understand that what makes America great is our peaceful transfer of power, hopefully the incoming president will understand that. Someone I know that understands that is President Jimmy Carter, who will lay in state at the Capitol this week. He was a great man, he was a good man, a graduate of the Naval Academy. He not only was good, as president he did amazing works after he left the presidency. We're all going to miss him and may he rest in peace.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
Questions, we'll start with, we'll go Michael, Maeve, and Mike. If your name doesn't start with an M, you're going to have to wait until next week. Michael?
Speaker 3 (01:38):
I appreciate it Mr. Chairman, happy New Year. So as of now, 48 House of Democrats have voted for the Laken Riley Act, that's up from 37 when it was up last Congress. I want to get your reaction to that increase in number and just your general thoughts about the bill and how it fits into this broader immigration narrative that House Republicans are going to look to push this Congress?
Speaker 1 (02:01):
Look, it's very clear that House Republicans are going to push an anti-immigrant agenda. There are serious flaws in this bill, it did not come up before the Judiciary Committee, this has not gone through the normal traditional process. I personally voted against it because this would open a path for individuals with DACA to be deported even if they are just around someone who committed a crime. That's a concern of me and it's a concern to a lot of my colleagues. We're going to continue to have robust discussions about immigration policy, about border security. The Democratic Caucus believes in the rule of law, we also believe in a process, and we believe in the fundamental principle that people accused of crimes have the ability to respond, and that doesn't mean that if you're accused of a crime, you should be deported. That is a concern, and so we believe in the rule of law, but we believe in the process and the fundamental principle of our justice system. But we're going to continue to have these discussions, when I left, people were still voting, so I haven't seen the final vote count, but that's where we are.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
Appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
Thank you. Maeve?
Speaker 4 (03:19):
Thank you, Chair. I wanted to get your reaction to President-elect Donald Trump posting multiple groups of House Republicans, including Freedom Caucus members, at Mar-a-Lago this weekend to kind of begin negotiations on either one or two major reconciliation packages?
Speaker 1 (03:32):
Yeah, look, Donald Trump is going to have a lot of press conferences, he's going to say a lot of things, and some of them are just going to continue to be crazy. We're not falling for this trap, and one bill, two bill, it doesn't matter, what the American public need to know is that Donald Trump is working with House Republicans on efforts that will hurt them, on efforts that will have the potential to reduce Social Security, and Medicare, and Medicaid, that will harm their ability to qualify for supplemental nutrition. They've talked about eliminating Head Start, the Department of Education, the list goes on and on and on, and what they are talking about is they're huddling behind closed doors, they do not believe in transparency, and they are trying to cut a deal, just like Speaker Johnson cut a deal to have his gavel. They're trying to cut a deal to hurt the American public, that's what this is about. And so they're going to have a lot of closed-door meetings, they're going to say a lot of things, but at the end of the day, that is their fundamental focus, is how they provide tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires and how they cut programs that hurt people, that's all they're trying to do. Vice Chair Lieu.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
I agree with Chairman Aguilar, I don't think their procedure matters whether it's one bill or five bills. I think the standard that the American people are going to see is does this bill help their lives? Does it make the economy better? Does it lower prices? And that's what we're all going to be looking at, and if it doesn't do those things, then I'm not going to support it, and it doesn't really matter the number of bills that they put out, it's going to be what's in those bills.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Mike, mike, did you have one?
Speaker 5 (05:25):
I didn't have my hand up, but I'll take one.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
Sure.
Speaker 5 (05:29):
Meta this morning announced that it would do away with its independent fact-checking policing of its platforms and that duty would now shift to the community of users. Democrats have said a lot from that podium about the dangers of misinformation, especially around elections and politics. Just get your reaction to Meta's shift in policy?
Speaker 1 (05:52):
Well, taking the Meta piece out of it and just saying broadly, misinformation, disinformation, continues to be a concern of the Democratic caucus, it continues to be a concern of members on the Energy and Commerce Committee. We're going to have some robust debates, but the American public need to have certainty behind the information that they see, or it needs to have a disclaimer that this is some news outlet that is making things up. That is the concern that we have, but it's clear that in this Donald Trump era, companies are paying attention, and they're paying particular attention that the incoming administration does not care if what you spread is truthful or not, and that should be a problem to all of us who care about a free press, who care about honesty, integrity, the rule of law, and in trusting information that you're reading while navigating the complex world that we live in, that people are getting their information from a variety of sources. That's the world that we live in.
Speaker 5 (07:03):
Does Congress have any role?
Speaker 1 (07:06):
Look, the Energy and Commerce Committee thinks they have a role over everything, and so I would imagine in that room you're going to hear robust discussions on what they can regulate and what they should be regulating from people on both sides of the aisle and what that looks like. Nick then Scott.
Speaker 6 (07:24):
So I don't have to wait till next week. I want to ask-
Speaker 1 (07:27):
It's a new Year Nick, I'm starting off on a good foot.
Speaker 6 (07:31):
I wanted to ask about immigration. Again, Republicans look like they'll try to do a lot alone through reconciliation, but what do you see as the places for common ground or some sort of bipartisan action with Republicans?
Speaker 1 (07:44):
It's a good question. Republicans turned away a bipartisan opportunity for border security and immigration reform. I didn't love every piece of it, I stood at this podium and told you all that I didn't love every detail of it, but I also said I would've voted for it. So they do not have a rich track record in working to solve these issues. You heard Leader Jeffries in his speech the other day, and I have said multiple times, the vice chair has said, we will work to make lives better for our constituents and everyday Americans, that's our responsibility and our mandate. If they present us with an opportunity to do that, we will consider it. If it is genuine bipartisanship, we will consider it, but what we have seen from them is just reciting time and time again anti-immigrant rhetoric and then wrapped in a policy bow that they present.
(08:42)
That's not going to do it, but if they genuinely want to do this, I've got a track record in working with Republicans, many who have since come and gone from the chamber, on real reform. In that case, that was DACA and border security reform. There are serious members on the other side of the aisle who may want to have discussions about that, they're also very unserious members on the other side of the aisle who have no interest in working in a bipartisan way, they just want to be on Fox News and they just want to be loved by Donald Trump. We will see which House Republicans emerge when it comes to immigration as a policy topic. Scott?
Speaker 7 (09:23):
I have one question for each of you if you don't mind, Mr. Lieu first. As part of the announcement Mark Zuckerberg made today, he said, Meta is going to shift their content moderation teams from California to Texas to be more fair, to eliminate the perception of political bias. So what do you make of him referring to Californians as politically biased and not trustworthy?
Speaker 2 (09:47):
I have no idea what he's talking about, but what I do encourage members of public to do is they can look at trusted sources. So you can either listen to your cousin's friend who posts some random thing about polio vaccines or you can look at what the American Medical Association has said about polio vaccines or what your pediatrician has said. So talk to your doctor, talk to experts that you trust, and I'm not overly concerned that Meta is doing this or not doing that, I'm more concerned that people understand the sources of information they're relying on, and I'd rather them rely on sources that do have science and expertise, and that's what I encourage people to do.
Speaker 7 (10:30):
I'll ask the same question to you, but I wanted to add something else, sorry. Trump will have press conferences, he did have one, but he also made an allegation that there were no guns on January 6th, bolstering his support for pardons, that Hezbollah may have played a role in January 6th, and that the person shot trying to enter the house chamber was shot for no reason at all. You're on the committee, how do you respond to what seems to be the rewriting of that day?
Speaker 1 (10:58):
This is not new for Donald Trump. He is trying to rewrite history and suppress the truth. That is exactly why he does not want the special counsel's report released down in Florida, and it is exactly why he continues to spread lies about January 6th. But let's talk about the weapons that were on campus on January 6th. People were arrested with bear spray and there people were arrested with tasers and brass knuckles. People used flagpoles and fire extinguishers to beat police officers. There were documented cases where AR-15s were brandished downtown. There were collections, as we heard testimony in the January 6th committee, collections, mounds of things that Secret Service would not allow into the area around the former president's speech when he was near the ellipse. That's what was happening here four years ago. People were bringing weapons and there was also a cache of weapons found in a car earlier in the day, as we know, and was publicly reported.
(12:08)
Our report as well as the Department of Justice Reports continue to show the amount of guns and weapons that were in the DC area and on campus and in the building by these violent intruders. Now the president can say anything he wants, he's entitled to do that. He's not entitled to his own set of facts, and so that's on us, that's our responsibility to continue to provide that information to the public. And whether it's Donald Trump, or Barry Loudermilk, or Mike Johnson, we are not going to allow anyone to rewrite history or have their own set of facts. Donald Trump does this all the time, he tries to convince you what you were seeing did not happen, and he's doing this time and time again. Our job is to give the American public our perspective and the truth as we lived it and as we see it.
Speaker 8 (13:09):
So we are seeing a lot of the GOP messaging bills from last Congress that got passed through the House but did not make it through the Senate are now coming back up for votes like the Laken Riley Act today and other ones this week. What are Democrats' reactions to some of these messaging bills potentially becoming law now? And then also with some of those bills, I know Democrats have said there are more bipartisan avenues we could take to address some of those issues. Have there been any conversations to bring up some of those bipartisan bills or will there be any in the future?
Speaker 1 (13:38):
Look, and I'm not going to give you too much of a process argument here, but I will tell you, look, committees have not met, a lot of committees do not have their formal members yet, so there has not been an opportunity for members to get together to process bills, to hear bills. This is all bills that were part of Mike Johnson cutting a deal to be speaker. These Republican members went to him, wanted these bills considered, many of them without being marked up, without going through the normal process, some of them from last Congress. This is their effort to try to extract something from Mike Johnson. There is not a rules committee, I have not been aware of a rules committee chair, so they do not have the ability to bring a bill to the floor to have actual debate. When you have actual debate and an actual markup, then at least you open the door to have some amendments and to have some bipartisanship. That's not what this Republican conference is interested in right now, we'll see if that changes. Last question.
Speaker 9 (14:43):
Congressman Ralph Norman has come up with a resolution for term limits for congressmen and women. I just want to get your thoughts on that and does it hurt or help with leadership and experience as well?
Speaker 1 (15:00):
There are always a variety of characteristics that go into members being successful here. Seniority, the arc of your professional career, what you did before you came to Congress in order to be effective, whether you were in the military, and a lawyer, and in the state senate like my colleague, the vice chair, whether you were a local mayor, or in the private sector like me, and all of this is the totality of it. We live every two years by term limits. If the people in the 33rd congressional district in California choose for me not to be their representative, I will move on. I have limits, the voters decide that, that's what our system is about and that's what I'll continue to focus on and live by. Vice chair.
Speaker 9 (15:48):
Vice chair, do you have anything on that?
Speaker 2 (15:49):
No.
Speaker 1 (15:52):
He said it was perfect, But then he said just a little bit.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
Perfect responses from Chairman Aguilar.
Speaker 9 (15:58):
Yes, sir.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
I just want to say one of the best things American people did is they put term limits on a US president.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
Thank you.
Speaker 9 (16:05):
All right.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
Thank you guys.
Speaker 9 (16:06):
Thank you.
Speaker 10 (16:06):
Yes. Sorry.
Speaker 11 (16:06):
[inaudible 00:16:17] I'm so sorry.
Speaker 10 (16:06):
No I get [inaudible 00:16:20].