Democrats Promise to Help Keep GOP's Johnson as Speaker

Good morning.

Good morning.

Morning.

In today's caucus meeting, we honored the life of our friend and colleague, Donald Payne Jr. He was a warm and passionate person, is deeply missed by all of us. Many of us will be heading to his home-going ceremony in Newark and New Jersey, later this week. House Democrats are proud that we finally broke the Republican logjam to deliver critical resources to our allies in Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan and humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians in Gaza. The National Security Supplemental does not make it over the finish line without the steadfast leadership of Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries. Our caucus is eager to continue efforts that will strengthen our national security and raise the quality of life for everyday Americans. We need, at this moment, to come together to address issues like the affordability crisis that countless Americans face when it comes to housing and child care. We should also extend the affordable connectivity program and tackle the situation at our southern border, in a manner consistent with our values. Democrats are ready to reach across the aisle to solve these important challenges ahead, and we cannot go back to a partisan gridlock that define the last seven months. We want to build on the progress that we've made together, to ensure that the people's house continues to function. Vice Chair, Ted Lieu.

Thank you Chair Aguilar. My prayers are with the family, friends, and colleagues of Congressman, Donald Payne Jr. He was a wonderful member of Congress and may he rest in peace. I also want to say my thoughts are with the eight law enforcement officers who were shot in North Carolina, four of whom have already passed away. I commend these law enforcement officers for their bravery and their courage and my thoughts are with them and their families. Like Chair Aguilar said, one, talk about their supplemental. Their importance of passing that supplemental is that it's the best way to achieve peace in Ukraine. Having served on active duty United States military and then in the reserves, it's very clear to me that the only way to get Putin to negotiating table is to stop him on the battlefield. He will not negotiate if he believes he can continue advancing in Ukraine. His goal is to take over Ukraine and he's not going to try to negotiate anything until he has stopped. And what this supplemental package will do, is help Ukrainian military and give them the resources to stop Putin on the battlefield. And then that's how we get to a lasting piece in Ukraine. And with that, I yield back.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

I want to ask about the decision to help on the motion to vacate from the caucus meeting this morning. You've talked about Speaker Mike Johnson as the chief architect of Electoral College objections, the House, of course, will have to certify an election in January. What should people make of the fact that this is now the guy that you guys would stake to keep the House functional?

First of all, I would say that none of the discussion that we had in caucus was about saving Mike Johnson. The underlying motion to vacate was not discussed. The motion to table was, and there is a distinction there. It's not lost on me, the role that Mike Johnson played, when the lead up to January 6th. We saw that in our work on the January 6th committee and it has not been forgotten by our members. However, we want to turn the page, we don't want to turn the clock back and let Marjorie Taylor Greene dictate the schedule and the calendar of what's ahead. We want to turn the page and focus on the pressing issues that everyday Americans care about, and spending time on this just doesn't make sense to us. And so after hearing from our caucus, both today and in the preceding weeks, we felt that that was important to clarify and in the leader's statement, in our joint statement, he said specifically, that this was on this motion to vacate. Because of the Republican rules that they all passed, by the way that we all voted against, it's possible that this could happen again. With respect to this motion that she could bring up, we want to turn the page and we want to move on.

Can I just hear the distinction that you made between motion and table?

Yeah, sure. First of all, and the leader said this morning, we are not asking individuals to take a position that is opposed to their values. There, each members is going to vote their district and their conscience guided by the Constitution. There may be a procedural vote that would table her proposal that she could bring forward. On that motion to table, we would be inclined and many members indicated that they would be as well, to table the motion and to put this behind us and to move on. There's important legislative business ahead. That should be the focus for the American people.

Thank you Mr Chair. Just to follow up on that though, Congresswoman Greene is suggesting that she will move forward with this motion to vacate, citing the statement that you all put out. She claims that are endorsing speaker Johnson's speakership. That the speaker cut a backroom deal with you all and then she says, I'm a big believer in recorded votes because putting Congress on record allows every American to see the truth and provides transparency to our vote. So, how do you specifically respond?

Well, I'm not going to try to get in the head of Marjorie Taylor Green. I don't know what goes on in there. It's her right to bring that up. The Republican rules that she voted for, that we voted against, allow any single member to bring this proposal up. She is a legislative arsonist and she is holding the gas tank. And Kevin McCarthy allowed that to happen. That's not lost on anybody. What we are saying is we don't need to be a part of that. Let's turn the page. Let's focus on the issues that the American people care about. There's an FAA bill that was dropped. There's important work that we still have ahead. So, I haven't read her full statement, but I'm not going to get into a back and forth on what she means. Nick?

So, on that note with Marjorie Taylor Greene though, she's threatened to bring this up over and over again. Is it time for Democrats to try to change the rules? So, to raise this threshold on the motion to vacate?

Again, this is a Republican rule. They have the ability to change their own rules, we all voted against this Republican rule that would allow one person to bring it. If they are concerned about the rules, that they all voted for, it is completely within their right to revisit that and to bring something to the house floor. If they want to make changes in a bipartisan way, I think they know where to find a leader, Jeffries.

Speaker Mike Johnson has been very outspoken about retaliation is going to take place if the International Criminal Court brings arrest warrants against top Israeli officials, including Netanyahu. Just wanted to get the Democrat's reaction to that?

That's something for the State Department to work through. We don't want to get ahead of the administration. From a foreign policy perspective, the administration speaks for the United States government. That's important for them to have conversations with our allies and friends within the region. The ICC has not taken any action that I'm aware of, as of this morning. If they do, the administration is within their right to respond. If they need help and support from members of Congress to implement what it is they seek to do, I would expect them to reach out to us and to work with us in a collaborative way, in a bipartisan way.

Do you think Congress should get involved in that?

The ICC hasn't done anything to this point. I think it's completely premature. We have said, from the very beginning, our key focus and the importance of the National Security Supplemental, as the Vice Chair mentioned, is helping our allies in the region. Helping Ukraine, helping Israel and unlocking that humanitarian support that was so important within this region for innocent Palestinians in Gaza. That is important. That should be the focus. Implementing that piece of legislation should be the focus that the administration's working on. If there are external newsworthy items, I would anticipate that we'll have responses, but that's what we're focused on now. Chad?

Thank you. Good morning. Do you support the administration's statement that the students of Columbia should not have taken over the building forcibly and should there be consequences for some of these universities, if they don't respond in appropriate form to maybe cut off some of the federal fundings?

Look, I think it's an important moment on college campuses. Everyone is entitled a right to protest, but everyone is also entitled to feel safe, especially on a college campus. I do not support taking over buildings, that is not appropriate, and that should be addressed. But I will say these universities also have a role in enforcing rules that they have on college campuses in general, but from our perspective on the leadership side, as members of Congress, as leaders in communities, our jobs should be to lower the temperature of what we are seeing. We should not be doing anything to inflame these discussions. We should be respecting the right to protest while ensuring the safety of everyone on the campus. And so, our responsibility, our charge or mandate should be to do just that, and to lower the temperature in the discussions. That's what I feel is most appropriate.

Do you think some of your colleagues haven't been lowering the temperature, some of their criticisms of these schools?

Well, previously there was a question about Speaker Johnson going to the campus as well. I'm saying all of us as leaders have that responsibility to lower the temperature of what's going on and what we're seeing.

Sure. You have the absolute right to free speech in America. You can protest, but the First Amendment does not give you the right to break windows, to vandalize buildings, to take over private buildings and to make students, who happen to be of Jewish descent, feel unsafe. Those things are not protected by the First Amendment, and so the folks who are protesting need to understand that line. And when they cross that line, then universities have every right to take action against those students.

Max?

On the house floor, there's going to be a bill, a lawler bill that's [inaudible 00:11:54] to expanding the definition of anti-Semitism to allow the Department of Education to go after some of these schools. Do you support this bill and what are your thoughts on how the caucus might react to this?

We had Ranking Member, Nadler, this morning speak on the bill as well as representative Kathy Manning. If Democrats were in control, her bill, that is by the way, bipartisan and bicameral that addresses anti-Semitism, would be our chosen vehicle. So, we talked through that a little bit and she presented her bill, as she has in a number of different opportunities, presented to the leadership team and to each of us. President Biden created an office to stamp out anti-Semitism. What her bill would do is ensure that an individual whose charge and mandate is to do that work is based from the White House. It's important work and codifying that, putting that into law, what the president has done is important, and that would be our preference. We heard from Representative Manning, we heard from Representative Nadler, Ranking Member Nadler, we may have continued conversation about the bill tomorrow morning in the WIP meeting. And I trust that members are going to do what they feel is in their best interest, guided by their constituents and their values. I would anticipate it's a bipartisan bill that there will be Democrats supportive of the bill while not perfect. I think some will be supportive of it.

Thank you Mr Chair. Going back to the National Security Supplemental, when President Biden gave his remarks after he signed the bill, he mentioned that the bill didn't have border security and that he was going to continue to fight for that border security proposal that the Senate, that came out of the Senate. Are House Democrats interested in using political capital to try to get that bill, start the debate on that bill again or do you think that that's an inefficient use of time given the capital?

We're interested in solving problems, guided by our values that meet the needs, that the American public have. And clearly there are some concerns at the southern border. We acknowledge that, we address that, we want order at the southern border. We want a process to work. And so, to the extent that there are conversations, we are happy to engage. But what I want to see right now out of House Republicans and honestly Senate Republicans, is do they have a willingness to engage here or will they just, again, bow at the altar of Donald Trump and do his bidding? He has said he wants this as a campaign issue. He does not want a legislative solution. As you have seen with the National Security supplemental, as well as government funding, as well as everything that we have been able to accomplish over the last year, it takes bipartisan consensus to do anything around here. And so we are waiting for Republicans to indicate that they want to be partners to address this in a meaningful way. If they have a willingness to do that, we will because it will meet the needs that the American public has, consistent with our values.

If they don't, would you support the administration putting forward an executive action to use whatever authority President Biden has to curb the issue at the board?

I've said before, executive action is not a way to solve this alone. These are issues that Congress should deal with. I said that under a prior administration. I would continue to say that, but we stand willing to work with the administration, as well as with our colleagues across the aisle, if there are meaningful reforms that can be done legislatively or administratively. Okay.

Thank you Mr Chairman. Do you support the idea of stripping public funding and government funding away from some of these colleges and universities, if it's proven that they have allowed latent anti-Semitism to occur on campus?

These colleges and universities have a responsibility. As the Vice Chair mentioned, to ensure that everybody has the ability to protest and to make their voice heard, but they have a responsibility to honor the safety of individuals. And for many of Jewish descent, they do not feel safe. And that is a real issue. They have a responsibility here. We should allow them to act before we create new rules and regulations. But it is completely appropriate for Congress to have discussions, but I have not seen anything to date that I would be willing to support. But right now, the important thing, as I mentioned is we need to ensure safety on these college campuses. And the schools play such an important role in that. They have guidance, they have rules. They need to enforce those before Congress creates new ones.

Trump said that he's going to make a statement on the Comstock Act in the next two weeks. It's a law that his allies want him to enforce the National Abortion Act. Do you think Democrats should be working to see if they can repeal it?

It has been very clear from the very beginning, that House Republicans want a national abortion ban. They have had individuals in Congress who continue to support that. Over a hundred Republicans have supported that Life at Conception bill, that would do away with IBF. That would ensure and pave the way for a national abortion ban. Reproductive care and women's health, and abortion is absolutely an issue that concerns us. It scares us what a future president could do. This has been something that has been toiling around in the prior Trump administration for years, and I think we believe them when they say they want a national abortion ban. And how they get there, we don't know, but it's clear that that is the focus of House of Republicans. That is the focus of former President Trump, and that is what the Republican Party stands for today, unfortunately. And so, we want to ensure abortion care. We want to ensure women's reproductive health and abortion as healthcare. That is what we stand for and we're willing to have that discussion as we make our way to November.

Donald Trump campaigned on overturning Roe versus Wade. He then bragged about overturning Roe versus Wade, and Republicans now want to put in a national abortion ban. Democrats want to codify Roe versus Wade. The two parties are not the same.

Are Democrats interested though in-

In the back.

Due to the recent protests on college campuses, are Democrats concerned about youth voter turnout this election season?

I mean, we're concerned. We want everybody to turn out and exercise their franchise to vote. I'm not going to deal with super political insider questions from this podium. Those are questions for the DCCC when it comes to numbers and turnout, but I will tell you, everybody eligible to vote, who has an opportunity and is able to vote, should be voting because of the issues of the day. Because Donald Trump stands for an abortion ban, because Republicans want to turn the clock back, because they want to stand with Putin instead of standing for democracy, because Republicans won't certify a free and fair election. These are all important pieces that are on the table. And so, what I would talk to young people about are all of these issues, and encourage them to exercise their franchise to vote.

Last question.

Thank you. I was just curious. Representative Omar drew criticism for saying that some Jewish students are pro genocide. Republicans are threatening to center her over that remark. Are you comfortable with that language?

It's not the language I would've chosen. It's not something I would've said. And as I mentioned previously, I think we all have an obligation to turn the temperature down, especially when we're in those positions where people are listening to us and when we're speaking to people who feel passionate about issues. We do that in our own offices. We do that in our districts every week, every month. That's important, but it's not language I would use. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.