Transcript of Pelosi Press Conference Today

Contact: Drew Hammill, 202-226-7616

Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi held her weekly press conference today. Below is a transcript of the press conference.

Leader Pelosi. Good morning. Thank you for coming early. As we gather, the votes are beginning on the floor. So let's get right down to it. We are very proud of President Barack Obama's State of the Union address. He put forth an agenda for middle income economics – middle class economics in sharp contrast to the trickle down economics that the Republicans have been advocating. He put forth an agenda of bigger paychecks, better infrastructure, which is something that the American people have told us they want.

And that was reflected in our opening day statements here for the House Democrats. He put forth an agenda that reflected "When Women Succeed, America Succeeds" – about equal pay for equal work, raising the minimum wage, about paid sick leave and family medical leave, and also about a very strong statement on child care, affordable quality child care.

These are transformational in terms of lifting the power of families – not only women, but families – in the workplace. So we were very proud of the President's statements, and again, a blueprint for success for America's working families; again, in sharp contrast to the trickle down tax cuts to the rich, "let it trickle down. If jobs are created, so be it" – not a way to increase the paycheck.

You have heard the expression: "It is the economy, stupid." Well, it is the paycheck, genius. This is really what it comes down to. We need more purchasing power for America's middle class. The middle class is the job creation machine of our country. To the extent that they have disposable income to consume in our consumer economy, the better off our economy will be.

And that is what has stood in the way of a full recovery from the near depression, the deep recession that the Republicans took us to in 2008, [with] the same policies they want to put forth now. They are not even trying. Instead of even putting forth some illusion of a jobs initiative today on the floor of the House, in contrast to talking about job creation and bigger paychecks, they are putting a bill on the floor that undermines the health of America's women.

The bill is worse than the bill they pulled from the floor yesterday. That affected thousands of women maybe. This affects millions of women. It not only affects their health, it affects the personal decisions of how they spend their own money for health insurance. So that is what we will be voting on now.

It is hard to imagine, with all that is going on and all of the talk about the middle class and bigger paycheck – and that is what the American people want us to address – that they go down this path. They didn't even have their act together. They had to pull their bill last night and come back with an even worse bill.

At the same time, as you know in December, they refused to put forth a [homeland] security bill, funding for a border security bill for a year. They said they would do it in January. In December they refused. In January, Paris occurred, the whole world was galvanized around the point of homeland security, and everyone in each person's country. And it seemed like the House chamber was a hermetically sealed chamber that was oblivious to everything that was going on in the world in terms of protecting people from terrorism.

Once again, they came forth with a bill that was ridiculous and irresponsible in terms of a bill that could pass and get signed that really did the job funding Homeland Security for the year. And next week, they will even make matters worse with an authorization bill, a border bill. They had a bipartisan bill that passed overwhelmingly, unanimously out of Committee. We hoped it would come to the floor.

Now they have taken another path on a bill that, again, cannot become law. It is hard to understand why they don't understand the priority that safety is. We take an oath to [support] and defend. And that protection of the American people is our first responsibility.

So whether it is their economic security or whether it is their homeland security, the Republicans have been delinquent in all of it.

But on the positive side, we are thrilled with what the President put forth with great confidence to grow our economy in a way that has prosperity, an economy that works for everyone, not just the privileged few. Forward thinking, bold, in areas that, by and large, we have had bipartisan support all along as we have worked together over the years. I thought it was particularly useful that what the President proposed is supported, by and large, by large numbers in the public in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way – but not on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Any questions that you have?

***

Q: Madam Leader, what do you make of the fact that it is the Republican women who led sort of the charge to pull the bill last night?

Leader Pelosi. Well, the fact is that some of those same women said they would vote for the bill. And now the bill that is coming back is worse. It is worse. So I don't know what to make of it because the bill up now – millions of women will be affected, and their reproductive health will be affected by what is happening there. Obviously, we will be strenuously opposing that legislation. I don't know if that was about politics. But in terms of policy, what they are bringing to the floor now is worse. And we will see how they vote.

Q: During the State of the Union, the President again doubled down on his threat to veto any new sanctions on Iran. And I was just wondering how you react to Speaker Boehner's invitation to the Prime Minister of Israel, and I also wanted you to touch on your experience as Speaker when you invited leaders of states to come to the chamber.

Leader Pelosi. Well, to get to your second question first – because the first part is much more important, negotiations on Iran: when I was Minority Leader and became one of the four leaders, it was clear, always, that if we had a suggestion about a head of state to come, that it was something that had to be passed around the four top leaders. For example, one of my – as Minority Leader, before being Speaker – one of the people that I hoped to invite was the President of Liberia, woman President of Liberia, President [Johnson Sirleaf]. And I knew that she would be a spectacular guest for the House, for the Congress, a Joint Session.

But I talked to Senator Frist – I talked to the leadership about, would that be okay. They agreed that it would. The concern that people had, going back to then, was would Members show up – because Members are not always enthusiastic about attending these Joint Sessions. So that was my introduction to it – you talk to all four, the other three leaders. There's some consensus among the four. And I'm not saying that it's a big challenge. People usually would cooperate. But they raised their concerns about attendance – this or that – I knew with [President Johnson Sirleaf], we would be bursting at the seams, and we were, with Member attendance.

Q: Did you consult the executive branch, too?

Leader Pelosi. Yes. But again, I think everybody recognizes that we have to have our own – I'm not going to go to them if we don't have our own agreement. So when I was Speaker, we had King Abdullah of Jordan, President Sarkozy of France, the Taoiseach of Ireland – Taoiseach Ahern – Prime Minister Brown of England, Chancellor Merkel of Germany, and President Calderon of Mexico. Some kind of a combination of initiated by the White House, or initiated by Congress – but agreed to by all four leaders.

So it's out of the ordinary that the Speaker would decide that he would be inviting people to a Joint Session without any bipartisan consultation. And of course, we always – our friendship with Israel is a very strong one. Prime Minister Netanyahu has spoken to the Joint Session two times already. And there are concerns about the fact that this – as I understand it from this morning – that this presentation will take place within two weeks of the election in Israel. I don't think that's appropriate for any country – that the head of state would come here within two weeks of his own election in his own country.

The more serious part of your question is about the sanctions. Yes, the President was correct in his presentation and the strength with which he presented his appeal to Congress that we not have sanctions at this time. Putting it in perspective – this Administration, working with our allies, the Permanent 5, that's the P-5, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany – that includes France, UK, Russia, and China. Think of the challenge to bring consensus on a negotiating position with those five countries, and then plus Germany – the P-5 + 1. They came together, very delicate negotiations, a real success of the Obama Administration to have that happen – it took time, and it has strength. And those negotiations have taken place. They needed an extension to see what was possible. We all agree that Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. That is important. That is probably the most important item – to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. An important pillar of our foreign policy, and a shared view of our allies on this.

And so these negotiations have gone on for a long time. They're delicate. And it will be really clear that a bad deal is not anything that we're going to accept. We have also made it clear that there are sanctions that work, that are multilateral with these same countries, and also we have bilateral sanctions. And that has been a force to bring Iran to the table. So it isn't necessary to show what we can do. Everybody knows that Congress can pass sanctions any time. So what is the point? What is the point?

The problem is that it could seriously undermine the delicate diplomacy that is at work. I see in the Post today that four foreign ministers – what is it, France, Germany, and the UK? Plus the EU – have written not to do the sanctions. So our President has a plan. It is, so far, taking a stand, perhaps, that has frozen the capability in Iran thus far. It may or may not succeed. But we cannot have it fail because Congress wants to flex its muscle unnecessarily, when these negotiations should rise and fall on what is happening in those negotiations, recognizing the strength that that diplomatic initiative of P5 +1 brings to the table. And so, what is the point of the sanctions? And if that's the purpose of Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit, two weeks before his own election, right in the midst of our negotiations, I just don't think it's appropriate and helpful.

Q: Madam Leader, is an unborn child 20 weeks into pregnancy a human being?

Leader Pelosi. You know, what we talked about on the floor of the House is something that says politicians should determine what affects the health of a woman, her life, her health, and the rest. I don't think it is up to politicians to do that. And that is why we are very overwhelmingly opposing what is going on on the floor of the House.

Q: Madam Leader, do you think you will be able to block it?

Leader Pelosi. I don't know if we will block it, but we will certainly sustain a veto. Is that the question?

Q: Do you expect it to pass?

Leader Pelosi. It is up to the Republicans if it will pass. Yes, ma'am.

Q: Madam Leader, you said that you thought it inappropriate to describe Netanyahu coming here to…

Leader Pelosi. An inappropriate invitation.

Q: Do you think Boehner was inappropriate in inviting him? Do you think that it was a mistake either in diplomacy or in protocol?

Leader Pelosi. Well, it's out of order in terms of the protocol and the respect of – since when…I mean, look: the Speaker of the House has awesome power. I know that; I've been there. The fact, though, is: that power is not to be squandered. And we live through a period of time now under Republican leadership where they've gone out said and said: oh, we're open and transparent and all the rest, when, in fact, that is not the case. We have bills on the floor this week that have one rule because they don't want to have to debate; they don't want to have to have the discussion, the transparency that bringing a rule for each bill would enable that debate to take place. And they've done that over and over again: in the course of forming our committees, the Speaker has unilaterally cut the size of committees since he has become Speaker. Can you imagine if I ever did that and said, "I'm just deciding the committees are going to be smaller," what the reaction would be? But somehow the press has just chosen to ignore that. But that's not right because they don't' have diversity in their caucus, we do. We need representation on these committees and the Speaker cuts them.

So, there's been a series of things of just unilateral action – it doesn't have to be that way. Maybe we would all agree that way that certain committees are too large or too small; but just to decide: "My Members don't want to serve on Education so your Members can't either, we're cutting the size of the committee," for one example. So when the Speaker did this, is anything a surprise around here? No. So it's hubris to say: "I'll rule; I'll decide," without any sensitivity that an election is taking place within two weeks – the invitation I guess is for the third of March and the election is, what, the 17th or something like that. So the fact that – what is the purpose of it? Is the purpose to come and talk about sanctions? To talk about a policy in opposition to the policy our President has just put forth in his State of the Union address and that has been in operation for many months? Whatever the outcome of these talks, make no mistake: the President has taken no option off the table in stopping Iran from having a nuclear weapon, a weapon of mass destruction. But his hand is strengthened if you exhausted every diplomatic remedy. But to jeopardize that diplomatic remedy, I think we lose credibility worldwide in that regard.

Yes, ma'am.

Q: Hi, Madam Leader. Can you just go back to what happened with the abortion legislation that was going to be on the floor? Did it surprise you at all that there was this backlash from some of the women and moderates in Boehner's conference? And again, just putting on your old Speaker's hat, Speaker Boehner sometimes has had difficulty sort of corralling his Members. Do you have any sort of advice for him on this?

Leader Pelosi. Well, let me just say this: I don't know all the particulars because this is happening, we found out last night, that they were pulling the bill. Now they are putting a bill out there that makes matters worse, that makes matters worse. So when you say – this isn't about any improvement because of the actions that were taken yesterday, any improvement in the policy. It makes matters worse. It makes permanent the Hyde amendment. We haven't done that before. It undermines the ability of a woman to use her own money for her own insurance for full reproductive services. This affects millions of people in our country and it affects the District of Columbia. This is a much broader bill. So if there was some cosmetic reason, and that is what I have seen in the paper, I don't know if that is true where they said this will look bad to the young people that we are hoping to attract if you have a bill like this that was worded the way their bill was; if, for cosmetic reasons, they thought that wasn't a good idea, now they are going to a much worse bill. I don't know what the progress is and how moderate the influence of this is. But I am not inside their caucus. You are just going to have to talk to them about all of that. This was not a success for women and their reproductive health.

Yes, ma'am. One last question.

Q: My question is pretty simple. On the abortion issue, I understand your position on the legislation. But even the legislation aside, when it comes to the matter of whether or not an unborn child is a human being at 20 weeks gestation, what is your personal take on it? If it is not a human being, then what do you believe it is?

Leader Pelosi. You know, it is really interesting that you would come to these meetings to talk about it. The fact is what we have said, the life and the health of the mother is what is preeminent when a decision is made about a woman's reproductive health. It isn't an ideological fight; it is a personal health issue. And as a mother of five in six years, I have great standing on this issue, a great understanding of it, more than my colleagues. In fact, one day many years ago – maybe even before you were born – when I was a new Member of Congress, as a Catholic and mom of five, opposing some of the initiatives similar to – in the same vein of what we have today, one of the Republican Members got up and said: Nancy Pelosi thinks she knows more about having babies than the Pope. Yeah. Yeah. That would be true.

So in any event, this is, you know, this is up to women, their conscience, their God, their doctors, their health, their faith and survival. And that is about what the decision should be. Decisions about women's reproductive health should not be made by politicians in Washington, D.C. They should honor the decisions that have been made by the Supreme Court – a decision made by the Supreme Court recognizing the right of women to have that choice. Thank you all very much. Bye bye.

# # #