Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: Listen to what we have heard from the President over
Speaker 2: the course of the last two weeks about the prospects
Speaker 2: for this agreement.
Speaker 1: All I can tell you is that begging to make
Speaker 1: a deal, if there is no deal, we are going
Speaker 1: to hit each and every one of their electric generating plans.
Speaker 1: We have to have a deal that's acceptable to me,
Speaker 1: and part of that deal is going to be we
Speaker 1: want free traffic of oil.
Speaker 2: So for more we turn to Republican Congressman Nicole Malia
Speaker 2: Takis of New York, who is in our New York
Speaker 2: headquarters right now joining us on Bloomberg TV and Radio. Congresswoman,
Speaker 2: is wonderful to have you back on balance of power.
Speaker 2: I think clearly there is a sense in the White
Speaker 2: House here in Washington that the hope is that diplomacy prevails,
Speaker 2: but the President maintains that there is the military threat
Speaker 2: still there that he is willing to use if necessary
Speaker 2: if no deal can be reached, and the absence of
Speaker 2: a diplomatic break through this weekend, would you be supportive
Speaker 2: of the President resuming military operations and specifically going as
Speaker 2: far in those as he is indicated He is willing to.
Speaker 3: Well, look, we don't know the specifics of what he
Speaker 3: means by military action. What we do know is that
Speaker 3: he has three leverage points. Right. He has the economic,
Speaker 3: which we've implemented multiple sanctions sanctioning those who are providing
Speaker 3: support and equipment and missiles too Iran. We also have
Speaker 3: the diplomatic which is going to be taking place this weekend.
Speaker 3: And then you have the military, which we've seen the
Speaker 3: decimation of so much of Iran's capabilities, whether it be
Speaker 3: manufacturing capabilities of drones and missiles, or whether it be
Speaker 3: the overall components of its military, naval, and air. So look,
Speaker 3: I think that we need to really just wait and
Speaker 3: see what happens this weekend, but I have faith that
Speaker 3: we'll be able to get a good outcome. Obviously, the
Speaker 3: Strait is the most important thing right now for us economically,
Speaker 3: making sure there is that free flow of oil, making
Speaker 3: sure that these gas prices come down. That is critical
Speaker 3: for so many of our world partners as well. But
Speaker 3: we need to make sure that Iran is removed as
Speaker 3: a threat. And we've already made a tremendous amount of
Speaker 3: progress in a short time frame, and we'll see now
Speaker 3: that they are weakened, if we will be able to
Speaker 3: make some more progress in these negotiations, because they are
Speaker 3: in a much weaker position today than they were just
Speaker 3: five weeks ago. And President did give them, Remember at
Speaker 3: the beginning of all this gave them an opportunity to negotiate,
Speaker 3: they wouldn't negotiate. Maybe now they're rethinking that.
Speaker 2: Well, to your point, Congresswoman, about the importance of the
Speaker 2: straight off meus economically, you said specifically it is important
Speaker 2: economically for the United States, which is something that the
Speaker 2: President has disputed. His argument is that actually, when it
Speaker 2: comes to the energy flowing out of the Middle East,
Speaker 2: that is much more a concern for other countries European
Speaker 2: Asian ones, not so for the United States. Is that
Speaker 2: a sentiment that your constituents would agree with, especially as
Speaker 2: they're looking at prices of the pump as you alluded.
Speaker 3: To, Well, he's right in this sense that the oil
Speaker 3: that is going through that strait really goes to many
Speaker 3: of our partners in Asia, but it does affect the
Speaker 3: overall world market. So I think that it is kind
Speaker 3: of both a little bit of both. The reality though
Speaker 3: here on the ground here in my community as well
Speaker 3: as parts of the country gas prices have increased. We
Speaker 3: need to get those those prices back down. We were
Speaker 3: under three dollars a gallon, about two eighty nine was
Speaker 3: the national average. And I think this is a temporary spike,
Speaker 3: and it is an important long term investment that is
Speaker 3: being made for the security of our country, for the
Speaker 3: Middle East and the world. The reality is we need
Speaker 3: to make sure Iran is weakened here and that there
Speaker 3: is regime change. That is important, I think because they
Speaker 3: continue to try to kill Americans. They've attacked our military
Speaker 3: bases over the last decades, They've killed Americans, They've killed
Speaker 3: their own people, tens of thousands of their own people,
Speaker 3: And we need to make sure that there is a
Speaker 3: change there because they are the most destabilizing factor in
Speaker 3: that Middle East, which affects the entire globe. And so
Speaker 3: I think the objective here is to come out of
Speaker 3: this with some type of agreement to open up that straight.
Speaker 3: If he can get them to turn over any enriched uranium,
Speaker 3: that's also critical. We need them to stop funding these
Speaker 3: proxies hamas Hesbela Huthi's as well, and that should be
Speaker 3: really the main objectives of this and I think again,
Speaker 3: they're in a much weaker position today than they were
Speaker 3: five weeks ago. So hopefully the United States and these
Speaker 3: negotiations can extract those concessions well.
Speaker 2: And what roles should Congress play, if any? And ultimately
Speaker 2: the finalization of an agreement. As we know, the President
Speaker 2: didn't ask you in your colleagues first before launching these operations.
Speaker 2: You didn't have a direct say. But should there be
Speaker 2: a say in how this ends? Senator Lindsay Graham, of course,
Speaker 2: who has been an advocate for this war, says any
Speaker 2: agreement should have a vote in the Senate, that they
Speaker 2: should get to take a look at it. I wonder
Speaker 2: if you agree with that notion.
Speaker 3: I don't know that we need to have a vote
Speaker 3: on a particular agreement. The President did abide by federal law.
Speaker 3: He gave the FED, He gave the federal government or
Speaker 3: his partners in the federal government Congress, the forty eight
Speaker 3: hours notice that was necessary. The President does have under
Speaker 3: the War Powers Resolution of nineteen seventy three, sixty days,
Speaker 3: and so I think after that sixty day period, he
Speaker 3: certainly should come back to Congress. We should be briefed
Speaker 3: and updated on what is going on, and we should
Speaker 3: talk about the next steps together. But I think that
Speaker 3: we have faith in the president's negotiating ability here. We've
Speaker 3: seen what he's been able to do with other conflicts
Speaker 3: around the world, helping mediate conflicts around the world, and
Speaker 3: he is known as the deal maker. So let's see
Speaker 3: what comes out of this weekend before we discuss next steps.
Speaker 2: Well, I'd also like to talk about the next steps
Speaker 2: for lawmakers, for you and your colleagues in the House,
Speaker 2: as you get set to return from recess next week.
Speaker 2: Pretty quickly, it seems you're going to have to take
Speaker 2: action on a reconciliation bill to fund at least parts
Speaker 2: of the Department of Homeland Security. The President wants it
Speaker 2: on his desk by June first. What is your expectation
Speaker 2: as to how quickly this will get done, and if
Speaker 2: it is going to be narrowly targeted to just those
Speaker 2: specific components of the Department of Homeland Security or if
Speaker 2: other members may want to be adding things to this package.
Speaker 3: I think it's important that we fund the entire Department
Speaker 3: of Homeland Security that does include ice and border protection.
Speaker 3: Just over the last few weeks, we saw multiple American
Speaker 3: citizens and multiple states killed by people in the country illegally,
Speaker 3: and it is unfortunate that with the changes that have
Speaker 3: already been made to ice some of the de escalation
Speaker 3: that we've seen in cities, as well as the removal
Speaker 3: of Christinome from the agency, that Democrats will not work
Speaker 3: with us in a bipartisan manner to fund those critical
Speaker 3: agencies that do important jobs, know who was coming in
Speaker 3: and out of our country and removing those who should
Speaker 3: not be here. We just saw any three year old
Speaker 3: man here in New York City killed being thrown on
Speaker 3: the subway tracks by somebody who should not have been
Speaker 3: here and had multiple prior arrests. There was a lack
Speaker 3: of cooperation between these municipalities and our federal government to
Speaker 3: have that person removed prior to this eighty three year
Speaker 3: old veteran being killed. Completely preventable. We've seen that taking
Speaker 3: place again over the last few weeks of multiple states.
Speaker 3: So I think that we're going to go in there
Speaker 3: and fund this agency, and we're gonna have to do
Speaker 3: it with only Republican votes through reconciliation. Then we will
Speaker 3: work together to get that done. We were hopeful that
Speaker 3: the Democrats would work with us on a bipartisan matter,
Speaker 3: but clearly that has not happened, and the reality is
Speaker 3: this agency needs to be funded. Is a twenty fifth
Speaker 3: anniversary of nine to eleven, you have the FIFA World
Speaker 3: Cup coming, you have all these America two fifty events happening.
Speaker 3: This can no longer be delayed. The agency needs to
Speaker 3: be fully funded, from Coast Guard to TSA, to ICE,
Speaker 3: to CBP, to counter terrorism to cybersecurity.
Speaker 2: Well, and to be clear, Congress women, to get all
Speaker 2: of the parts of the agency fully funded. Are you
Speaker 2: supportive of the plan to pass the Senate pass DHS
Speaker 2: funding bill x IC and CBP and then handling those
Speaker 2: portions with reconciliation? That two track plan is that one
Speaker 2: that works for you.
Speaker 3: That may be the only way we can get it done.
Speaker 3: But a lot of members, including myself, would like to
Speaker 3: see ICE and CBP funded first. Now, if the White
Speaker 3: House can reassure us that they have the necessary funding
Speaker 3: to fund those organs, because we remember we did this
Speaker 3: in the first reconciliation. We did put additional money in
Speaker 3: there so ICE can continue its operations and enhance those operations.
Speaker 3: If they have the resources, perhaps we'll be able to
Speaker 3: do the other parts first. But I think a lot
Speaker 3: of members would feel a lot better knowing that we're
Speaker 3: funding ICE and CBP first or at the same time
Speaker 3: as the rest of the department.
Speaker 2: Well, and of course, this is a reconciliation two point
Speaker 2: zero that we're talking about here. But congresswomen, I'm sure
Speaker 2: you're well aware that there's a lot of buzz about
Speaker 2: a third reconciliation package. In fact, to your chair on
Speaker 2: the House Ways and Means Committee, Jason Smith, has suggested,
Speaker 2: if there's going to be one, there's going to be
Speaker 2: some tax measures included. What would you like to see
Speaker 2: included in a third reconciliation package? Do you think achieving
Speaker 2: that as a realistic legislative outcome in a midtern election year.
Speaker 3: Look, I think that well, first of all, what I
Speaker 3: think we really do need to do is address some
Speaker 3: of the expiring provisions. We have a film tax credit,
Speaker 3: there's a NASCAR tax credit. Things that are important for
Speaker 3: our local economies that have expired that need to be addressed,
Speaker 3: and that could be done in a bipartisan way. Doesn't
Speaker 3: necessarily need reconciliation, But no doubt that Ways and Means
Speaker 3: will play a big role if there is a third
Speaker 3: Reconciliation Bill. Look, we delivered a significant tax cut for
Speaker 3: middle class families. We are seeing the benefits of that
Speaker 3: take place right now in my district. The salt deduction
Speaker 3: is helping New Yorkers. The Senior deduction are helping eighty
Speaker 3: eight percent of seniors across the country refunded to them
Speaker 3: what they paid in taxes on their Social Security Tipped
Speaker 3: workers are seeing an average increase of about thirteen hundred
Speaker 3: dollars in savings, so or over many overtime workers. So
Speaker 3: we delivered a significant product that was yes, tailored to
Speaker 3: the middle class. But let's not forget the significance of
Speaker 3: what President Trump did going back to twenty sixteen. If
Speaker 3: you look at twenty seventeen, when he came in and
Speaker 3: passed that initial bill, you have seen tax revenue despite
Speaker 3: the tax cuts, tax revenue increase as well as our
Speaker 3: GDP significantly from eighteen trillion to about thirty one trillion dollars.
Speaker 2: All Right, we have to leave it there. Thank you
Speaker 2: as always for joining US Republican Congress. From Nicole Molly
Speaker 2: Takas of New York on Bloomberg TV and Radio.