Skip to main content

Transcript of Pelosi Press Conference Today

April 16, 2015

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 afternoon, everyone.

This week marks the 100th day of the 114th Congress, controlled by the Republicans. This week we also observed Equal Pay Day. This week Republicans rejected our attempt to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Equal Pay Day, for those of you who weren't at our Equal Pay Day press conference, is the day by which women finally start earning for this year – unless they would have equal pay for equal work – 78 percent, 78 cents on the dollar. You work until the middle of April for free as a donation to your employer at the expense of your children, your retirement, your ability to reach your fulfillment.

So I think this is one of the strongest demonstrations, manifestations of the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in terms of middle class economics versus trickle-down economics. In this same week, as they are rejecting putting more money in the pockets of women, largely in the middle class, they are rejecting an opportunity for us to turn our economy around.

The middle class are the job creators in America. When the middle class succeeds, America succeeds. When women succeed, America succeeds. And there is a reason for that, because while you may see all these indicators talking about how great our economy is doing, and they are good, and I will go into some of them in a moment, we are not going to have the full recovery that we need to have until we have stronger paychecks for America's middle class. Because the middle class will then use that money, inject demand into the economy, create jobs, turn around the economy. The consumer confidence that we need is directly connected to strengthening the paychecks of America's workers. Middle class economics. The President talked about it in his State of the Union address.

On the other hand, you have trickle-down economics, the same trickle-down economics that took us to the brink of depression in 2008 before President Obama took office, and they want to take us right back there again. In this short period of time, the first 100 days, they have already passed or marked up tax bills that will give tax breaks to the super wealthy and special interests up to about $600 billion, and more to come. This isn't job creating, it is deficit increasing. This is the same trickle-down economics that has never worked, that they have proposed, Republican President after Republican President, and now Congressional Republicans. Again, took us to the brink, and they want to return us to that place.

And it's a fight we must make for America, and hopefully it can be nonpartisan, because the fact is it is taking a while for Americans to recover from the scars they received in 2008, where their homes, their pensions, their paychecks, and their children's education were threatened by what happened in 2008. And while other indicators show the economy on the rebound, we won't have that full rebound until we put bigger paychecks in the pockets of the middle class.

And so that's what you see this week. It's an amazing thing. They just had a bill on the floor to eliminate the estate tax. It will cost over a quarter of a trillion dollars to do that, $269 billion, and it affects the top 5,400 estates in the country. Fifty four hundred families are subsidized by taking $269 billion out of our pool of resources. It increases the deficit, reduces our opportunity to invest in our future, which is job creating. This is the 101st day. That's how they are starting the second hundred days.

So they voted to give millionaires a $200,000 tax break if you make a million dollars a year. Not if you are a millionaire in your net worth, if you make over a million dollars a year you will a $200,000 tax break. And at the same time, it has to raise taxes on the middle class if you are going to have any balance in how we go forward. So it increases the deficit [and] undermines our ability to invest in the future. I said this to you before, I will say it again: nothing brings more money to the economy, to the Treasury than investing in education.

So because of what they are doing on these tax breaks and all the rest, they will then say: "Well, we have got to give $38 billion in tax incentives to Big Oil to drill," the five biggest oil companies, who will make a trillion dollars over the life of that subsidy. They don't need any incentive to drill. They have a trillion dollar incentive to drill, if they make any profit, not revenue, profit. But we can reduce Pell Grants by $38 billion to cover that.

Nothing brings more money – early childhood, K through 12, higher ed, postgrad, lifetime learning – nothing brings more money to the Treasury, in addition to helping people reach their aspirations, in addition to keeping America number one, because innovation begins in the classroom.

At the same time, in this first 100 days they voted to deport DREAMers, deport DREAMers striving for a future in the only home they have ever known, America; voted to strip health coverage from millions of American families again and again; advanced an unprecedented assault on women's health; dragged the Department of Homeland Security to the brink of a shutdown. And thank heavens we got out of that.

So, again, we need bigger paychecks and better infrastructure. Let's invest in the middle class, which will bring more revenue to the Treasury, enabling us to support the infrastructure that we need. Better infrastructure, bigger paychecks.

On another note, I am very proud of my House Members. In the days following the introduction of the Corker legislation, my Members rallied to the President and said we will support a veto, we will support sustaining a veto of that damaging bill that would be harmful to negotiations to go forward.

I believe that it had an influence on the Senate, because they knew they were wasting their time. This bill was going nowhere. But I also think public opinion weighed in on them. And thank goodness the Cardin compromise of Corker is something that is a non-event. I don't think we need any legislation, but as innocuous as it is, no problem going forward with that.

But we are very proud of what the President has done. The diplomatic effort to organize the P5+1 in these negotiations, China, Russia, plus one is Germany, China, Russia, U.S., France – it is very, very exciting. And it can't be squandered because of somebody's view of their role in the world when we have to weigh the equity of what is the best thing we can do to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Let us give diplomacy a chance. Diplomacy that is P5+1, very significant. Very significant. I was very proud of the briefings that we received from the Administration on it. But as I say, our Members were already at a very good place to support the President, reassured by those briefings, increasing our numbers in that regard.

You probably want to know about the gyrocopter. It's stunning. We were having a meeting, yet again another meeting yesterday with the Administration. In the morning we had the Administration, at 1:30 we were having the environmental groups to speak about the TPP and its impact on the environment. And someone was going up to me and said everything is shut down because a helicopter, a gyrocopter, a small helicopter was landing, had landed out front. It didn't take too long to open up again, so our meeting was a success, in case you are wondering. The guests were there and Members could come.

But it is my understanding that the Capitol Police are now conducting an investigation, working with the Secret Service, the Park Police, the Department of Defense, the FAA and the D.C. Police. And when we see that, we will be working, as you know, in a nonpartisan way. The Speaker and I have always understood our responsibility of protecting the Capitol for the Members of Congress, for the press who cover us, for the families who visit, for everyone who comes here.

But it's a stunning thing to think that we had that visibility, and we are very interested in getting the answers to that. But my understanding is that, I don't know how long that investigation will take, but we certainly need answers to it.

Yes, ma'am.

***

Q: Can you talk a little more about why you called the Corker bill, as modified, innocuous? It still sort of leaves in place 30 to 52 days in which Congress has time to review, the deal can't be implemented, and in some scenarios could lead to a resolution which would prevent the waivers.

Leader Pelosi. It doesn't require that. It doesn't require that. In any event, it's much different from the original Corker bill, which had certain requirements. Congress can always act upon anything it feels like, obviously. But the Corker bill, in the form that it was, was harmful. I don't think it is as harmful now.

Yes, sir.

Q: So you said that this incident yesterday was stunning. Over the last weekend there was a man that took his life out there on the West Front at the height of the cherry blossom festivities, and then this happened in the middle of the day.

Are you confident or at all concerned, are you confident with the policies that are currently in place to keep the campus safe, or do you think that there needs to be a complete review of everything to determine whether the tourists that do come and visit are going to be safe out there on the West Front?

Leader Pelosi. The first incident is horrible. It happened outside the Capitol. When I first heard it, it was, what, Saturday, I was in California – "[he] got into the Capitol?" But, no, it wasn't in the Capitol. And fortunately, it was on a Saturday. That doesn't mean there weren't lots of tourists around.

But that's what these investigations will have to test, because how much security can you have to still have a free flow of people coming into the Capitol, to see the Capitol? So it's a constant balance of security and freedom that is something that we make a judgment in, in everything that we do.

So nonetheless it is essential that we have the investigation to see how people have gotten that far, whether it was a self-immolation, however he did that, or the gyrocopter. That's why I used the word stunning. What safeguards can we use? And we don't want to be a place where we are saying "this is an ironclad Capitol" and have such restriction as to people having access to it.

Nonetheless, we have to ensure the safety of those people. And I think this investigation – we can surmise, we can guess, but we really want to know what the background was.

Q: But after 9/11, I mean, there was a different mindset on the airspace around here. And then still a vulnerability like this was exposed yesterday. I mean, does that at all give you…

Leader Pelosi. Well, remember, we lost two of our Capitol Police a number of years ago, and that really hit home in a very sad way. So security changed a bit after that. And then of course 9/11 changed everything.

So, again, we have to subject what we do to the harshest scrutiny as to how to enable people to enjoy, find employment, legislate in the Capitol, but nonetheless ensure their safety.

So, again, I don't have anything more to tell you until we hear what the investigations will yield, and we will go from there. And I am sure we will be doing it in a most nonpartisan way of all.

Yes, sir.

Q: You are finishing up…

Leader Pelosi. Oh, I thought it was you. I thought he was a ventriloquist. I pointed at you, but I didn't see your mouth moving. Then you will be next. And then you could speak for him.

[Laughter]

Q: You mentioned the deficit-increasing effects of the tax bills today, and you are critical of those, and yet your Democrats almost to a man or a woman supported the SGR, the 10-year SGR fix, which itself adds $140 billion. And critics of it say it adds $500 billion over 20 years. What is the difference between those two? And is that hypocrisy?

Leader Pelosi. No, it's completely different. The SGR is an expense that we have. That's an expense that we have. It's not going to go away. And the longer we prolong it, the more expensive it is.

And it is, again, an investment in people. In that bill we not only have what you call the doc fix, I call it a remedy for our seniors, we invest in the health of our children. And that was, as I mentioned earlier today, one of the first bills we sent to President Obama's desk. We had been passing it, but we couldn't get it signed until we had a Democratic President. And President Obama signed it, and in this legislation we extend that. And investing in the health of our children is a very positive investment.

Some of it is paid-for. For example, we have an initiative to help poor seniors, very low income, poor seniors, and that is paid for by increasing costs to the very top, well-to-do seniors. And so some of it is paid-for, some of it is not. All of it is an investment.

And I'll make a distinction between investments and tax expenditures. The tax expenditure is an expense with no value. In other words, subject it to scrutiny. What is its value? The ones they are passing now have no value in terms of job creation, growing our economy, except to grow our deficit.

Yes, sir.

Q: Looking ahead, do you see any issues in which the example of the SGR episode may be replicated? I am talking about you had a seat at the table, your top legislators were all invested, were all working cooperatively with Republicans, and you managed to get a big vote in which you had your liberals, along with Tea Party Republicans, all voting for the same thing.

Do you see another issue over the next 18 months in which you might be able to replicate that sort of cooperation?

Leader Pelosi. I just remind you – I appreciate what you said about the SGR, but often, except for the homeland security piece of the appropriations bill, our Members had worked together on – now I am an appropriator, so I always go to that place. Our appropriators had worked in a bipartisan way to bring 11 bills, well, 12 bills forward. It was only on the 12th bill, the homeland security bill, that they decided to put riders which would repeal the President's executive action on immigration.

That doesn't belong in an appropriations bill. You want to bring it up on the floor, have a debate, see what you can do. But it doesn't belong on an appropriations bill. So I just remind you that there is a record of working together as appropriators, and that will continue. So that's one area of agreement. It doesn't get as much visibility, but that's one area of agreement.

And we would hope that we could pass these bills individually rather than having them in a CR/Om, Om, or whatever you want to call a bill that is a full package together. I think transportation offers an opportunity for us to work together. It certainly is urgent for us to do. The trust fund will run out. The Administration has an interest and a proposal. I understand there was an introduction of a bipartisan bill today to index the gas tax and other considerations. I haven't read it fully. But that being the revenue piece of it. But I look forward to examining it.

And I believe that the Committee of Transportation and Infrastructure is a committee that is – its tradition has been to act in a bipartisan way. So that is a very big deal. I would hope that before too long, and that's why I am concerned about some of these tax bills that are on the floor, because we have to have tax reform, comprehensive tax reform. It's really essential. We want to lower the corporate rate, we want to close unnecessary special interest loopholes, we want to increase revenue – there are many possibilities that can happen. Just going to the table, what works? What is a good investment? What is a good tax credit? And what just increases the deficit and puts money in the pocket of the special interests?

Making those judgments. But you can't take $600 billion out of the pot, and then there is more on the way. They will probably try to get up to about $1 trillion in these kinds of bills that are special interests for the super wealthy and the special interests. And when they do that, when you go to the table they have taken $1 trillion off the table, it's very hard do. These aren't going to become law. We have veto proof – we can sustain a veto for the President on them should they go to his desk, which I hope they don't.

But the fact is they are not only what, they are a great differentiation for us because here they are doing what they are doing and not passing paycheck fairness and the rest, but giving tax breaks to the very super wealthy, 5,400 estates, the smallest percentage you could possibly imagine in our country, but a lot of money, $260 some billion.

So tax reform, hopefully not undermined by this silliness that they are going through right now for whatever purpose except it helps us in an our differentiation. I think there would be two big ones. Because building [the] infrastructure of our country is a very big deal. And they are related. Because if you do tax reform in some way to bring back the assets that are overseas, the money that is overseas, in repatriation, and you relate it to infrastructure, that is to say investment in some infrastructure bank or something where that money is leveraged – it has to be leveraged, because infrastructure's a big tall order – then I think we can; these things are all related.

And I think that, again, repatriation is very important to corporate America. We want it to come home. It can have a reduced rate. It produces jobs. When we did it before it was voted to do jobs, it did not. They understand, and that was some of them yesterday, they understand that it has to relate to job creation, bigger paychecks for the middle class. And I think that can all be done.

So in terms of the three areas that we do think, in terms of policy, that would be transportation; in terms of appropriations, that would be what I talked about about our passing the appropriations bills; in terms of how we invest in the future in terms of revenue or tax reform, there are three areas, and the three areas that we work in: Policy, appropriating, and taxation. There may be others.

I would hope that we could put immigration on that list at some point soon. Maybe when the Republicans see the light that they are not going to carry States if they are losing by such big margins in the communities that are concerned about immigration. That's most communities. You don't have to be a minority to be concerned about immigration. As the Senate had passed a bill that candidates for President could persuade the House Republicans that in order for them to win any of these States, they have to do better in the community that cares about immigration. But taxes, spending, health.

Q: Speaking of candidates running for President, Lincoln Chafee

Leader Pelosi. Oh, him?

Q: …is considering running for President as a Democrat.

Leader Pelosi. Why did I not think that was going to be the first name out of your mouth? Oh, Lincoln, of course.

Q: Lincoln Chafee said earlier this week that any Democrat who voted for the Iraq war should be disqualified from being your party's nominee. You called the Iraq War, among other things, a grotesque mistake. So he was obviously implying that Hillary Clinton should not be the nominee. If you don't agree with Lincoln Chafee, why not?

Leader Pelosi. If we are re-litigating the Iraq War, let me say that in the House of Representatives, we saw things differently. The majority of the House Democrats voted against the Iraq War. I was at the time – self-serving, self-serving, see that light go on? Self-Serving. I was the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee at the time. And as such, I was required to receive all of the intelligence – the Gang of Four, House and Senate Democrat and Republican – all of the information that the White House had on going into Iraq. And I said at the time, the intelligence does not support the threat.

Now, I had better access than most people, and I couldn't really say everything that I saw. You all – maybe none of you, but the press at the time – said: are you calling the President a liar? And I said: I am stating a fact, the intelligence does not support the threat. My Members had confidence in me, and on the strength of that, many of them voted against the war. And some of them were never going to vote for the war anyway. But they did thank me afterwards.

I mean, there are a few leaders – I wasn't a leader then, but I was one of the few persons to go into the leadership that had all these years of experience on intelligence and national security. And they trusted my judgment. I don't know what was going on in the Senate. I can't answer for that. But I can say that a message was given to the American people by the White House that was not true, misrepresented the concern that was out there, and created an atmosphere where unless you really studied this carefully and I am not saying that everybody had access to that material, because they didn't. I was in a special place. But I don't think that a vote on a war 13 years ago, 14 years ago – the vote was what, 2002, so that many years ago, for entering, right now, 2003, March 19, the feast of St. Joseph, got a call from the White House, the President wants to inform you that in a couple hours we are going to initiate hostility into Iraq. I was like we haven't done our due diligence. We haven't done our inspections. I mean, this was wrong all around.

Having said it, that was then, this is now, we go forward. And I do not think that the vote that Hillary Clinton took on that, nor did I think the vote that John Kerry took on it disqualified him from being a candidate for President. And, you know, again, Hillary Clinton has been a strong – she comes to this, yes, as a woman. It happens to be that she is a woman. She is so qualified. And she has had great national security experience as a member of the Armed Services Committee and as Secretary of State. And for these and so many other reasons, she will be one of the strongest, best prepared people to enter the Oval Office in a long time. I mean there are some others, but she will be among the best prepared to serve as President.

I disagreed with that vote, but a war vote is a vote that everybody makes on the basis of what they know, what they believe, who they trust. And there are a large number of people in both parties who supported the war, unfortunately, because the consequences have been terrible in terms of what it meant to our veterans and the rest of that. But no, the answer is no, I don't think it should disqualify. Yes, ma'am?

Q: Can I just follow up on Hillary question? Can you talk more about what you think her candidacy means for Congressional Democrats and for you to potentially become Speaker again?

Leader Pelosi. That's not important. What is important is what it would mean to elect a woman President of the United States. It's a very major consideration, a very qualified woman to be President of the United States. Not just that she's a woman, but a very qualified. And when I became even Whip, certainly Leader, and for sure Speaker, the response that I got from all over the country was so overwhelming from people saying how encouraged they were that we had broken not the glass ceiling; that's nothing. We are talking about a marble ceiling. And especially encouraging was some notes from dads, fathers of daughters saying, I have so much confidence in my daughter now, I know she can do anything because you have reached that height. Now, most people don't even know that there is a Speaker. It's not, shall we say, common awareness.

So imagine if that was the response then what it would mean to have a woman President, not only to the American people and women in our country, and families, but to the world to see that. Other countries have had women.

But again, I am not here to make any endorsements. I don't do politics in the Capitol. But you asked what it would mean, and I think it would mean a lot. I think it would mean a lot. Now, it is not everything. Lincoln Chafee has his, Martin O'Malley, I don't know what his plans will be. I guess Lincoln announced, is that what you are telling me?

Q: No, he is considering.

Leader Pelosi. Oh, he is considering. And there may be others who are being encouraged. We will see what happens there. But elections are about the future. They are not about what happened 13 years ago. They are about the future. And that's really what people want to hear. What does this mean to my life in the future? And this is a special election because it's happening at a time where the world is changing in so many ways economically, digitally. You know, countries are going digital just like that. We are dealing in a different way of communicating, of conducting our economies and the rest. And how we do trade agreements and all the rest have an impact on that. And it is going to be an interesting conversation about how any one of these candidates can take us into the future. Thank you all very much because I won't be

Q: You would think somebody that was mayor of Baltimore would be qualified to be President, right?

Leader Pelosi. Well, if he were Governor of Maryland also, yes, I think. I do put value on executive – Drew won't want me doing this. But here is the thing. And I say this to my colleagues who want to run for Governor, who want to run for mayor, depending on the size of the city and the rest, which direction they are going in, for President of the United States, when you – or even if they want to be Speaker of the House or leader, because you are in an executive decision making position. And so as a legislator, and this is what I read when I was in college about John F. Kennedy when he was President, that legislators conduct themselves in a deductive way. You have hearings and hearings and hearings, and you have one vote, and you persuade somebody else to join you so that you can have a majority. And that is a deductive reasoning.

Executives have to act in an intuitive way. They have to know on the spot. Something happens, they have to act. And they have to have enough knowledge – well, first, I would say this of many of the candidates – have enough vision. What is my purpose? What is my knowledge of this issue? What judgment do I have so that I can have a plan to act intuitively? So you have to really trust your judgment and your advisers and the rest of that.

So if you had been an executive, that's an experience that is valuable. And I believe being Secretary of State is an executive position in that regard, as I think being leader or Speaker, even though it's not an executive branch position.

So, again, what people know affects their judgment, what they believe in guides them. And how quickly they can come up with a plan. And my advice is if you act, 99 percent of the time that will be okay. Maybe sometimes it won't work. But because you act immediately, or, you know, I don't mean hastily, but quickly, you will prevent everybody who wants to destroy your options from weighing in. Because you hesitate, and all of a sudden it gets parceled out and you have fewer options than if you just decide. John F. Kennedy, "to govern is to choose." And that's why I think having some managerial experience is useful. And that's probably why we have elected a large number of governors to the White House, our present President not included. But he is a great President. Thank all very much.

# # #