Chairman Aguilar on Bloomberg's Balance of Power

And now joining us live from Capitol Hill for more is Congressman Pete Aguilar of California, chair of the House Democratic Caucus. Congressman, thank you so much for being here on Bloomberg TV and radio. As we look ahead to the vote expected just a short time from now, have you heard from your Republican colleagues about just how many of them are willing to vote with your caucus on this one? I haven't, but the important thing here is that we have an opportunity to vote. We have an opportunity in the House here this afternoon, just like the Senate has had in the past to exercise our disapproval of these tariffs that Donald Trump levied onto Canada. These tariffs are costing Americans thousands of dollars. The average household is paying thousands of dollars more as a result of the tariffs and the big ugly law combined. That's just the reality that Americans are facing, and they are feeling this affordability crunch come their way. In every corner of every community, that's felt. And as elected officials, we should have an opportunity to voice our feelings on those tariffs. And my Republican colleagues, if they vote no, then they are accepting, then they are supporting these tariffs and the rising costs that people are facing. Mr. Chairman, it's good to have you back. I'm wondering what the Democratic Party does, what your conversations with your fellow leaders include here for how to handle this opportunity? Now that the gates are open, we understand it's the Meeks bill on Canada tonight. Do you have a war room set up? Is there a map on the wall? Will each member get a different country as this goes forward, a daily vote, a weekly vote? What should we expect? Well, you should expect that Congress should be, should work its will. We should have an opportunity to voice our displeasure about these tariffs. Each of them is different, and the president wrote them all differently. We should have an opportunity to voice whether in each jurisdiction, Mexico, Brazil, other countries. That's all fair. This isn't about political opportunities or points. This is about demonstrating our ability, respecting article one of the constitution, and standing up and being able to say on behalf of our constituents, that's a policy I support, or that's a policy I don't support. Democrats have said loud and clear that these tariffs aren't being done appropriately or effectively. And the Supreme Court might have something to say about that as well in the future. But in the meantime, that shouldn't stop us from debating and discussing and voting on this. Well, to your point, Congressman, why not just leave it up to the Supreme Court to say something definitively? Why can't you wait for that moment? Well, we have been waiting for that. It was Speaker Johnson, actually, who turned off our ability to address this. We would have liked to do this well before the courts heard this case. We would have chosen to do this in real time to demonstrate our view once the president enacted these tariffs. It's only because of Speaker Johnson and House Republicans that we in the House didn't have an opportunity to do that. This isn't something Leader Thune did. Leader Thune let the Senate vote on this. What we're asking is, why can't we have that same opportunity to voice our feelings from our constituents about these tariffs and the rising costs that it will lead to? This vote tonight is coming against the backdrop of a countdown to another partial shutdown. Here, as you well know, Congressman, end of the day, Friday, Department of Homeland Security runs out of money. We understand that there could be a counteroffer. John Thune says something on paper, presumably with details that could be included in legislation. Have you seen that counteroffer? Do you expect that tonight? All I know is the public reporting that's indicated that Senator Thune has said that it's coming. I haven't seen any details. Democrats put out our offer last week. We put out legislative text days ago as well. Our view is very simple. ICE and CBP should operate just like other law enforcement agencies around the country. They should have body cameras. They should have accountability. They shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars to terrorize our communities. That doesn't seem like a heavy lift. We feel that that is important, and that's what we have been advocating. If the White House has different thoughts and they have legislative language, it would be helpful if they shared that with us. We're hours away from a shutdown, so the clock is ticking here. But unfortunately, I don't believe that this is going to be a serious offer from them that we can take up. Well, so that said, and we've talked to a number of Republican lawmakers in the past couple of days who say unmasking alone is a deal breaker. Sounds like DHS is shutting down. Are appropriators making efforts to strip ICE away from the Coast Guard, FEMA, and from the TSA so this shutdown doesn't hamper air traffic, for instance, or disaster response? Or are you prepared to let this go for a couple of weeks? We understand TSA wouldn't miss a paycheck till March. Rosa DeLauro, the lead Democrat in the Appropriations Committee, just this morning put out a language that would do exactly that. I would encourage my Republican colleagues to think about that. It would ensure that we have continuous operations for FEMA, the Coast Guard, TSA, Secret Service, CISA, cybersecurity, all of these agencies that are engaged in actual homeland security. Those should be funded through the continuation, through the remainder of the fiscal year. But ICE and CBP and the Secretary's office, we have huge concerns about their leadership, about the direction, and about their continuous terrorizing of our communities. And that's something that we should continue to have disagreements about and work through. And if our Republican colleagues meet with us about that, then that's something we can talk about. But that doesn't mean that we should have these other entities within government elapse in funding. Rosa DeLauro put out a bill that would do just that. I haven't heard anything from our Republican colleagues about it. Well, what incentive would they have to deal with Democrats on that, Congressman? If you lose the leverage of the other portions of the Department of Homeland Security, that would lose funding. Knowing ICE was funded, provided ample funding in the one big, beautiful bill, does that not work against Democrats if you do do those carveouts to other parts of DHS funded? $75 billion for ICE in the one big, ugly bill that you referenced. So we understand that's seven times the ICE budget. The president would have the ability, likely, to declare that they need to continue operating. But they can use other funding. They can use that one-time funding. I am not going to offer my vote for ICE and CBP to continue the status quo that allows them to terrorize communities, to beat down doors, to rip people out of cars, and to shoot U.S. citizens. I'm just not going to do it, and my colleagues aren't going to do it either. And so we can continue to have that discussion about having real accountability to these agencies that mirrors every other law enforcement agency in this country. We can continue to have that fight, and we should, while allowing the other pieces of Department of Homeland Security to continue. If my Republican colleagues choose to shut down Homeland Security, then they're choosing that path. They're choosing to shut down TSA. They're choosing air traffic control disruption, and they're choosing lapsing funding for the Coast Guard. We've walked our way through a couple of issues, Congressman, and haven't yet mentioned Jeffrey Epstein. There was quite a doozy of a hearing today that we saw Attorney General Pam Bondi with her some pretty tough questions about the way the DOJ is handling this. She also came forth with a pretty aggressive presentation herself. If nothing happens in the pursuit of criminal charges against those who have been outed in the Epstein files before the midterms, if Democrats take power in the House, what do you plan to do? What hearings will we see? What actions will your party take? Look, this is about accountability and finding the truth. That's what oversight Democrats have been talking about. That's what our efforts to lead the discharge petition and to pass the law that ultimately the president signed that allows for the release of this material. Now, the Department of Justice is redacting a huge portion of that. We believe that that's wrong, and we would unseal that or reduce the number of redactions within those documents. But this is about providing oversight and accountability, justice for these victims. Democrats will continue to seek justice on behalf of the victims, whether we're in the minority or we're in the majority. That work will continue. The president can choose and the Department of Justice can choose to go along and to follow the law, or they can be subject to us bringing them in and asking them questions about it. It's their decision. I have one more question for you, Congressman, pertaining to the Department of Justice, as we understand the DOJ sought but did not get an indictment by a grand jury of the six of your colleagues, Democratic colleagues who put out that video encouraging members of the military not to follow unlawful orders, Congressman. And I wonder what your response is to that knowledge that, yes, they asked for it, though the grand jury did not give it to them. This is just another case of the Department of Justice being weaponized against people who disagree with the president of the United States. The president of the United States tweets out that he doesn't like this video that members put out, members of the House and Senate who have served our country, by the way, all members who have served this country in uniform, he doesn't like it. And so they have his back and they seek indictments now for these members. It's very hard to believe, and let me put these two issues together that you brought. It's very hard to believe that the White House is exercising good faith negotiations to avoid a lapse in funding for the Department of Homeland Security, while at the same time, the White House's Department of Justice is trying to indict six members of Congress. It's just absolutely ridiculous. Thankfully, again, the grand jury has turned back what the Department of Justice has brought to them. This is not the first or the second or the third or even the fifth time that that has happened. Grand juries across this country have said no to the Department of Justice because they are trying to weaponize the law against people who disagree with them. It shouldn't be done. It shouldn't be happening. More Republicans should be speaking out against it. And in the meantime, we just hear crickets. So it's incredibly unfortunate. But that's the state of play. And that's what you have when an administration and when the president tries to use his own Department of Justice to go after his political opponents. But this isn't the first time. And I'm going to venture to say it won't be the last time that he does it. He's chair of the House Democratic Conference, Congressman Pete Aguilar of California. It's great to have you back, sir. Thanks for joining us this evening on Bloomberg.