| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
|
unidentified
|
10 o'clock flight, still nobody at the gate. | |
| This was on my cell phone. | ||
| And then just two or three minutes later, they said, You're going to leave tomorrow morning. | ||
| And I thought, I'm not going to spend the night in some hotel out here and get on the up and early in the morning, get on a plane and come in. | ||
| So I saw on my own without help from United, there was a flight to Dulles, and I went to two different gates, and nobody at the United wanted to help me. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gate where the plane was supposed to leave, there was nobody there. | |
| The next gate, there were two ladies. | ||
| They came up and they said, We're off at 9. | ||
| This was 8:35. | ||
| I thought, fine, adios. | ||
| So I finally got somebody to help me. | ||
| It was difficult, and the guy was not friendly and nice, particularly, but he begrudgingly helped me. | ||
| Got me on the Dulles flight, and I got on a bus and went to another terminal, sat on the tarmac for an hour and 15 minutes because we were 33rd in line to take off, and finally got to Dulles. | ||
| So, Congressman, this was before all this stuff. | ||
| Newark's a mess. | ||
| I don't know what the cause is. | ||
| I plan to ask questions on Thursday over the good morning. | ||
| Pleased to be joined still morning. | ||
| Pleased to be joined with Vice Chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Ted Liu. | ||
| This week, Republicans have laid out exactly who they are fighting for. | ||
| After weeks of promises that they wouldn't cut Medicaid, their budget contains drastic cuts that will throw millions off of health insurance. | ||
| After campaigning on helping working-class Americans get ahead, their budget once again rewards billionaires and wealthy corporations and makes it harder for families to make ends meet. | ||
| They are watching prices go up because of Trump's reckless tariffs, and their response is to take food off of the table for women, veterans, and children. | ||
| The Republican budget doesn't address the cost of living crisis, it makes it worse. | ||
| The cost of groceries, clothing, and everyday necessities are still too high, and Republicans want to add to that and make health care more expensive on top of it. | ||
| This isn't about helping people find good-paying jobs or a shot at a better life. | ||
| This is simply about helping people like Elon Musk pay less in taxes. | ||
| House Democrats believe that we can shore up these basic needs, programs, and help everyday Americans reach their full potential. | ||
| It's long past time that the wealthiest of Americans pay their fair share and we make it easier for working families to afford basic needs like health care and housing. | ||
| These devastating cuts will make Americans, particularly children, sicker, hungrier, and poorer. | ||
| They're short-changing the future just so their friends can continue to get richer. | ||
| The American people cannot afford the Republican budget, and House Democrats are using every tool at our disposal to stop it. | ||
| I want to thank our energy and commerce members who continue to meet the Ways and Means members who continue to highlight the unfairness of this plan that Republicans are putting forward and the Agriculture Committee who will continue to fight for nutrition programs throughout the day. | ||
| Vice Chair, Ted Liu. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you, Chairman Aguilar. | |
| Omaha, Nebraska, is the sixth largest city in America, led by a Republican. | ||
| And last night, in a stunning upset, Democrats flipped that seat from red to blue. | ||
| I want to congratulate Mayor-elect John Ewing Jr., who's going to be the new mayor of Omaha, Nebraska. | ||
| We also know that voters are very angry at Republicans who continue to enable Donald Trump's harmful policies. | ||
| And the Republican mayor, in this case, aligned herself completely with Donald Trump, and the voters spoke out in Omaha, and now we have a Democratic mayor-elect. | ||
| I also want to talk about now their Qatari luxury palace in the sky gift to Donald Trump. | ||
|
unidentified
|
There is no such thing as a free palace in the sky. | |
| What do foreign countries want when they gift massive amounts of money and other gifts to the president? | ||
| Donald Trump should reject this gift of the luxury palace in the sky, Boeing 747, completely and righteously, because we are the United States of America. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We don't need gifts from foreign countries. | |
| We can build our own very impressive Air Force One. | ||
| We don't need to fly a Qatari plane around as our Air Force One. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's also un-American. | |
| I also want to note, new reporting came out showing that to retrofit this Qatari 747 would take perhaps up to a billion dollars because you can't just fly a palace in the sky from a foreign country. | ||
|
unidentified
|
You have to actually make it safe and secure. | |
| You have to make this plane ready to launch nuclear weapons. | ||
| You can't have people eavesdropping on it. | ||
| And so it's going to cost way more money to do it this way. | ||
| And again, people need to ask: why is a foreign country trying to give this massive gift to Donald Trump? | ||
|
unidentified
|
And think of the precedent it would set. | |
| Would it be okay if Brunei gifted a luxury 757 to JD Vance for Air Force II? | ||
| Would it be okay if Germany gave a Porsche SUV to Senator Thune as his official car? | ||
| Would it be okay if Italy gave a bunch of expensive Armani suits to Speaker Johnson for his official duties? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No, it wouldn't be okay. | |
| Also, because the Constitution says you can't do this, it requires congressional approval for the president to accept a gift of this size. | ||
| And we urge the Republicans in Congress to stand up, speak out, and call for a vote if Donald Trump were to accept this essential bribe from a foreign government. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And then let me now conclude on Medicaid. | |
| We now know that the Republicans lied when they said that they weren't going to cut Medicaid. | ||
| They're cutting Medicaid by a massive amount of money. | ||
|
unidentified
|
One of the largest cuts in U.S. history. | |
| Over 13.7 million people will be kicked off Medicaid. | ||
| I also note that two-thirds of Medicaid, two-thirds of nursing home patients rely on Medicaid. | ||
|
unidentified
|
This is also going to close down rural hospitals. | |
| It's going to make it so that health care for all of us becomes more expensive. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Because if you don't have health care under Medicaid, you're still going to get treated. | |
| You just walk in the emergency room and it costs even more money for all of us. | ||
| So we urge the Republicans to reject this massive Medicaid cut. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And I just want to say we told you so. | |
| We told you that Republicans were going to cut Medicaid and now we know that they are doing it. | ||
| So they lied. | ||
| We told the truth again. | ||
| Questions? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Nick. | |
| I understand leadership is going to vote to table Congressman Danadar's impeachment resolution today. | ||
| Does leadership also plan to do so with Congressman Al Green's impeachment resolution? | ||
| Well, resolutions in order to be to force a vote, resolutions of privileged have to be ready. | ||
| And the individual, the maker of the motion, has to go to the floor and ask for that. | ||
| We will deal with what is being offered this week. | ||
| I have said before from this podium that this is not the right approach we should be taking. | ||
| I'll join, we'll join members of the leadership team in voting to table that motion. | ||
| Right now, our focus is on health care being stripped away from the American people. | ||
| That is the most urgent and dire thing that we could be talking about this week. | ||
| Everything else is a distraction. | ||
| Andrew? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Oh, yeah, that was giving my question. | |
| That's it. | ||
| That's all you got. | ||
| Michael, then. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I actually have a question for Mr. Liu this week. | |
| These are my favorite questions. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The House Energy and Congress Republicans put a provision in their bill. | |
| It's a 10-year moratorium on artificial intelligence, most artificial intelligence models at the state and local level over the next 10 years. | ||
| They pass the communications title, so it looks like it's going to be in the final bill. | ||
| Given your role on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force last Congress and the interest that you have in this industry, what's your reaction to that particular provision? | ||
| Do you think that it's helpful to prevent states and localities from regulating this industry? | ||
| And what does it say that Congress hasn't really taken any meaningful steps to regulate artificial intelligence over these last few years? | ||
| So thank you for your question. | ||
| First of all, this has nothing to do with the budget. | ||
| So I don't see how this survives the Senate where I think the parliamentarian will out of order. | ||
| Just on their policy itself, I don't mind if we have federal preemption. | ||
| We do have federal preemption in a number of areas in the law, but we can't preempt with nothing, right? | ||
|
unidentified
|
There is no federal law or idea that we're preempting the states on. | |
| And so it doesn't make much sense to me to basically preempt with nothing. | ||
| I think if we're going to preempt, we should say we want to do X, Y, or Z at the federal level, and that's why you states cannot regulate in this area. | ||
| I also know that 10 years is an awfully long time. | ||
| If what Congress wants to say is, look, give us a year to figure this out, that might make more sense. | ||
|
unidentified
|
But there's no reason to have a 10-year preemption with nothing in its place. | |
| Thank you. | ||
| I just wanted to follow up on Congressman Tanadar impeachment articles. | ||
| This morning he admitted that some members of his party strongly disagree with him, and he kind of said, I'm moving forward anyway because I think that it's always the right time to do the right thing, regardless of what members of my party think. | ||
| So what would you say to the fact that he's pretty much admitting, I know my party doesn't want me to do this and I'm doing it anyway? | ||
| I'll keep the conversations I have with members, you know, between members. | ||
| Many of us have made our positions known. | ||
| Like I said, this is such an impactful moment when our colleagues are locking themselves in a room for 24 hours to protect and defend health care for their constituents. | ||
| We should be talking about uplifting that hard work. | ||
| We shouldn't be talking about this proposal that is not ripe, and not timely. | ||
| That's what is most important. | ||
| Impeachment is a tool. | ||
| Like I said before, this president is no stranger to impeachments. | ||
| He's been impeached twice. | ||
| Impeachment is a tool that can be used, but it takes weeks and months to do. | ||
| Right now, the issue of the day is: will four Republicans stand up and support health care in this country for their constituents? | ||
| That is a fundamental issue. | ||
| Everything else is just a distraction. | ||
| And we're seeing that play out in real time in the Energy and Commerce Committee. | ||
| And we will see that again as this bill goes to the Rules Committee and comes to the House floor. | ||
| That's what House Democrats are focused on fighting for. | ||
| And I understand, we've said before, it is a broad mosaic of opinions within the House Democratic caucus that the Vice Chair and I get an opportunity to lead. | ||
| But this is one that is a pretty easy call. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Go ahead. | |
| Mike Johnson said this morning that he supports a ban on stock trading by members. | ||
| Jeffries has said the same. | ||
| Do you think that's something now that should be moved on very swiftly now that there's agreement from both parties' leaders? | ||
| This has been a bipartisan issue. | ||
| Members on both sides of the aisle have talked about this. | ||
| There's a lot of details behind it. | ||
| I support a ban personally, but there's a lot of details that would need to be worked out. | ||
| What is difficult for members to also comprehend is, yes, we believe that members shouldn't be trading. | ||
| We don't believe that members should use any knowledge that they have in order to execute trades. | ||
| Marjorie Taylor Green and chairman of committees have recently engaged in some of this that is questionable. | ||
| What is also questionable is the President of the United States being able to trade his likeness with meme coins and he and his family profit to the tune of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in order to continue this grift on the American public and not just the American public to be able to profit from people around the country. | ||
| So I'm in favor of a ban, but let's not also lose sight that there are plenty of things in which we need to hold the executive to when it comes to conflicts of interest and trading as well. | ||
|
unidentified
|
You spoke a bit about the Omaha win yesterday. | |
| And what are some things that, and Democrats have also done very well in a lot of special elections since the 2024 election. | ||
| What are some things that these candidates are doing well that you think House Democrats should be incorporating as we move into the midterm cycle? | ||
| And what do you think is indicative of how the midterm cycle will go? | ||
| I want the vice chair to speak to this too because he pointed to it. | ||
| But look, I think candidates across the country are talking about the issues. | ||
| They're talking about providing a better quality of life and lowering the costs that people face. | ||
| That is fundamentally what folks want to talk about. | ||
| And in the case in Omaha, you had one candidate who's talking about social issues, and then you have another candidate talking about potholes. | ||
| The person at the local level who talks about potholes is probably going to win. | ||
| And so I think keeping your eye on the ball and making sure that you're focused on the needs of your constituents is the absolute most important thing that you can do. | ||
| And I think that's what those successful candidates are doing. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| Donald Trump is not popular. | ||
| In fact, he's the least popular president in over 80 years at 100-day mark. | ||
|
unidentified
|
His policies are not popular. | |
| Some of them are also lawless. | ||
| And when Republicans align themselves completely with Donald Trump, then the voters get angry and they're going to start taking them out in elections. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And that's what happened. | |
| The Republican bear was there, and she completely aligned herself with Donald Trump. | ||
| And her voters removed her from office and installed a Democratic mayor who's going to work on issues such as what Chair Maglar said, fixing potholes and improving people's lives. | ||
| Last question in the back. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you, Sarah. | |
| I wanted to ask your response to President Trump's executive order that he signed earlier that he said was aimed at cutting drug prices. | ||
| If Republicans were serious about this issue, they would join with Democrats. | ||
| They would have joined with Democrats when we lowered the cost of prescription drugs across this country. | ||
| Right now, they and their friends are working to sue to unwind those efforts. | ||
| That's unacceptable. | ||
| There are bills that Democrats are carrying that would lower the cost of prescription drugs, actually put more money in people's pockets. | ||
| All of this is just a disingenuous effort on the House, on the part of House Republicans and Donald Trump to pretend like they are looking out for people. | ||
| If they were serious about it, the policy would be placed within their reconciliation plan. | ||
| It's not. | ||
| This is just a performance effort by the President. | ||
| Thank you very much. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's National Police Week all this week, and in the House at noon Eastern, members will start debate on three law enforcement-related bills. |