Skip to main content

Transcript of Pelosi Press Conference Today

May 14, 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 morning, everyone.

What a sad day after yesterday. Our thoughts and prayers are with everyone affected by the train derailment in Philadelphia, especially those families who lost their loved ones. And now we are still waiting to see for the unaccounted-for victims, as well as those who are seriously injured. We look forward to an investigation into how this happened and how it must be avoided in the future. And we must have a constant reminder that we must strengthen the confidence of safety in our infrastructure. And in order to have safety in infrastructure, you have to have strong infrastructure.

One aspect of that is the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund – we have five legislative days left until the Highway and Transit Trust Fund expires. Six hundred and sixty thousand good paying jobs are at risk; 6,000 critical construction projects are endangered across the country. This issue has not, in the past, been a partisan issue. We've always been able to work together over time, over years, over various bills, to come together on our transportation and infrastructure legislation. Let's hope that we can do that now.

It is unfortunate that yesterday, in the Appropriations Committee, just with the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill – that bill is $1.14 [billion] below the President's budget and, in fact, below fiscal year 2015. An amendment by Chaka Fattah to fund Amtrak at the President's budget request was voted down. A DeLauro amendment to fund the positive train control, which some have said could have prevented what happened night before last – the DeLauro amendment would have funded positive train control at the President's budget level, $825 million. That was voted down.

The Passenger Rail Investment Improvement Act. In 2008, we passed this bill. It was Oberstar in the House, Lautenberg in the Senate, Passenger Rail Investment Improvement Act. You may recall it as PRIIA, with all of our acronyms. And it required positive train control by December 2015, this year. That is what they were asking for the funding for, to help try to meet that deadline. One thing I just want to say is that there are some in the Congress who are saying, "Oh, we better push that date five years farther into the future." We have to resist that. We must try to get the positive train control. At that time, we had an accident in California which resulted in many deaths, two trains colliding. And so this bill called for the positive train control, which could have prevented that. It is in place in California in that location, but we need it to be everyplace.

So [those are] just some of the decisions that we are making currently, that now we are wiser about the need and the urgency and, hopefully, we can be bipartisan in how we come together to not only do a highway bill, but also to do a highway and infrastructure bill. And that would talk about things beyond highway, like mass transit, bridges. The state of Pennsylvania, they had another accident today. I don't think anyone was injured. It was freight or something.

But I had the Conference of Mayors in yesterday. Twenty five mayors came by to advocate for the highway bill. And the mayors from Pennsylvania were saying that they have the highest number of bridges of any state in the country, [and] that the security is threatened because of, you know – no maintenance is the most expensive maintenance when it comes to maintaining the safety of our infrastructure.

Instead of dealing with these really challenging issues, which people genuinely look to the public sector to address, our Republican colleagues are continuing their radical effort to dismantle women's right to choose, access to comprehensive health care. This Congress – so far, we have voted to place unprecedented restrictions on how women can spend their own money when they purchase insurance. We did that earlier this year. And we voted to enable D.C. employers before the last break – voted to enable D.C. employers to fire employees for their reproductive health decisions, the employee or his or her spouse or their dependent.

Another issue before us now is the National Defense Authorization Act. We take an oath to protect and defend our Constitution, the American people. That's our first responsibility. And we all stand for strong national defense.

We support lifting the sequester and fully funding the President's defense budget. The Republican bill that is coming to the floor – the Republican defense authorization bill before the House is both bad budgeting and harmful to military planning, perpetuating uncertainty and instability in [the] defense budget, damaging the military's ability to plan and prepare for the future.

Defense Secretary Carter said last week: Republicans' approach is "clearly a road to nowhere," "managerially unsound," and "unfairly dispiriting to our force." Republicans are trying to use war funding as a virtual slush fund for one part of the budget while letting the axe fall on everything else, leaving priorities essential to the strength of our country – the veterans budget, infrastructure, education, innovation – grievously underfunded.

The Republican defense authorization bill is not only disingenuous, it is dangerous. Republicans should acknowledge that it is impossible to meet the needs of our nation with the caps that are present in the budget. We should come together with all of us, Democrats and Republicans, in a fiscally responsible way to protect our national security and grow our economy.

The Secretary's direct quote said: The Republican approach "reflects a narrow way of looking at our national security – one that ignores the vital contributions made by State Department, Justice Department, Treasury Department, Homeland Security Department, and disregards the enduring long-term connection between our nation's security and many other factors: factors like scientific R&D to keep our technological edge, education of a future all-volunteer military force, and the general economic strength of our country," in addition to his more specific description of this particular bill.

Any questions?

Yes, sir.

***

Q: Madam Leader, the Senate is about to pass legislation on currency manipulation, among other trade enforcement measures. Speaker Boehner has not expressed a whole lot of interest in this bill. First of all, what are your thoughts on currency manipulation, on trade enforcement, and what can you do to try and get this actually to the President's desk?

Leader Pelosi. What can I do to get it to the President's desk? I think it will probably go to the President. We'll see what happens in the Senate today. I have no idea if it will pass. Mr. Schumer seems optimistic about having the votes on currency manipulation. All I can say of it is, is that there is concern among Members of the House about currency manipulation. There has been for a very long time. So now, the concern is now manifested in the opportunity that may present itself in these trade negotiations. The Administration has been pretty clear that they don't want – my understanding is they don't want this in the bill. We keep saying, well, what other suggestions would you have? Because there is a general belief that currency manipulation has been responsible for the loss of many jobs in our country. It is effectively a government subsidy that some countries have used. And that's unfair in terms of trade. So it's – there's a high level of interest. We'll see what happens in the Senate, but I don't usually predict what's going to be happening in the Senate. We'll know at, I think, 12 o'clock. Are they bringing it up at noon? So, more to say after that.

Q: Madam Leader –

Leader Pelosi. Yes, ma'am.

Q: On the House side of it, obviously, TPA will come to the House after it passes the Senate. But are you willing to, able to say if you think it will pass the House at this point? A number of Democrats in your Caucus are very opposed to it.

Leader Pelosi. You noticed that…

Q: Do you think it stands a chance of passing, and do you have any news about where you stand on that legislation?

Leader Pelosi. Let's see what comes out of the Senate. They'll be taking up the customs bill, of which currency will be part, and AGOA – the Africa and special preferences legislation – at 12. Then they start the debate on the other two – Trade Promotion Act and Trade Adjustment Act. We'll see what comes through the amendment process there. One major – in other words, you go back and forth on specifics, and can we have any changes that might be made in the TPP – the actual bill, the Trans-Pacific Partnership bill. But one concern that people have about the Trade Promotion Act is – of course we would have love to have seen Sandy Levin's substitute pass, because it empowered Congress more; it had more transparency, more consultation with Congress, and the rest. That was not made in order by the House Republicans.

And we would have preferred that. But one overriding concern that members have on the TPA is that this is not a TPA for a Trade Promotion Act, fast-track just for the Pacific bill – the TPP bill – or the European bill that will be coming up. This is a six-year – I don't want to say "get out of jail free" but something to that effect – a carte blanche fast-track, three years, easily renewable for three years as a privileged resolution – the Senate giving up its 60-vote requirement for a renewal in three years. So that means any and all bills that might come down the track. And I think that's a real reason for concern and I wish that that part of it could be changed because what we're saying is: well, you're asking for fast-track, let's see what you're asking for fast-track for.

And for weeks and weeks and weeks, as I think you know, we've been reviewing the TPP to the extent that it is finished – you know, some parts of it aren't. But we've been drilling down currency manipulation, dispute resolution, food sanitation, environmental concerns, workers' rights – the list goes on and on substantively. And so people are saying: well, I'll give you fast-track if I think that I might vote for TPP – depending on what it's for. But this fast-track is for things unknown, and I would hope that there could be some addressing of the length of time of the open-season that it gives for any trade agreement not related to the substance of any agreement that we see on the horizon, but anything that might come along.

So when I had the majority, when I was the Speaker, I used to always write that every vote was the test of my leadership – no matter what it was, it was a test of my leadership. So now this will be a test of the Speaker's leadership as to whether he can produce the votes for a bill that the Republicans support.

I think we only have time for maybe one or two more questions.

Q: Madam leader?

Leader Pelosi. Yes, sir.

Q: Thank you. Have you spoken with the White House about your desire to have a shorter time frame for the TPA? And what have they said if you have?

Leader Pelosi. Well, we have a number of concerns that Members have again – and I listed some of them. And what I'm going to do today is really to see what responses we have received back on some of the concerns that have been mentioned. That was really part of what the Levin substitute put forth. They obviously are supporting the bill as it is going to the floor in the Senate. That might be a response.

Q: Madam Leader, shifting gears to foreign policy quickly, as you know, the President is hosting a summit at Camp David for Mid-eastern nations. The Head of State for Saudi Arabia and other nations declined to participate.

What do you think that says about our current relationships with such strategic Middle East allies?

Leader Pelosi. I don't think Saudi Arabia declined to participate.

Q: Head of State did.

Leader Pelosi. The Head of State did. But they are sending representation – for whatever reason, the King will not be coming, but they will have high level participation in the meeting.

I think that this is a new idea to bring everyone here. I commend the President for his leadership in doing it. And it is innovative, and some people are not attuned yet to that innovation. But I think this President deserves a great deal of credit on foreign policy.

Of course, one of the issues on the agenda, I believe – I haven't been told, but from what I read in the daily metropolitan journals at our disposal here – is that the Iran agreement would be an issue of discussion there. And this President deserves a great deal of credit. The very idea that – well, some of it probably started under President Bush and has continued, the reaching out for an agreement with Iran.

But this President, under his leadership, to have the P-5, Russia, China, United States, the U.K., and France, plus one, Germany, in agreement for a long period of time over sanctions, over the terms of the negotiations, is almost miraculous. This is a very big deal. I won't go into the years that I have been trying to get China, Russia, even France, to stop transferring dual technologies to Iran, for two decades at least.

But, in any event, I see this as a very major accomplishment. And, obviously, the goal is that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon, and we have to exhaust every diplomatic remedy to make sure that happens. So I think the President brings a strong hand to the table at Camp – is it at Camp David? Did they decide? I can't keep up with everybody's locations – but at the table in Camp David in terms of bringing countries together to act, severally, in terms of having leverage in negotiation with Iran.

So I wish him well. It's a discussion. It is not a lecture. So they will have a conversation among them and exchange views. And I think that is a very good thing for them to do.

Q: Madam Leader…

Leader Pelosi. Another question? No fair. No fair.

[Laughter]

It was a follow-up.

Q: On Amtrak, Amtrak got $1.3 billion from the stimulus bill. I mean, is there really an excuse for under-investment in the Northeast corridor if you have such a huge infusion that you helped get for Amtrak?

Leader Pelosi. Of course. Well, I think that, obviously, these needs are big. And some of the – you know, I don't know. You're going to have to ask others because I just don't know why.

But the Republicans have been very much against Amtrak for a very long time. I remember when Secretary Thompson came to be head of HHS – Secretary of HHS, former governor of Wisconsin. Do you remember when he came? Well, he really loved Amtrak, and I think that was where his heart was and was hoping that he could play a leadership role there. I mean, that's kind of what he told us. But they put him at HHS, which he loved as well. He was sort of an exception among the Republicans in terms of [being a] strong supporter of Amtrak.

In the history of our country, if you go back and read about Henry Clay when he was Speaker, the issue of infrastructure was controversial in our country then. More than you may want to hear about this morning but, you know, when Jefferson was President, he had an initiative for building infrastructure of our country. Part of it was the Lewis and Clark Expedition to explore the Cumberland Road, Erie Canal, all of that. And it's very exciting. And 100 years later, to celebrate, they established the National Park Service as a preservation of our infrastructure and the rest, another manifestation of infrastructure.

But even going back over 200 years, there was dispute because the Southerners didn't want to support infrastructure. It looked like most of those projects were going to be in the North, even though I'm not saying strictly Northeast at that point, but in the North. And so there has been a regional debate historically in our country on the subject. But that is sort of ancient. You saw President Eisenhower at a time of tough economic times have the interstate highway system put forth. It was a defense mechanism to unify America.

So this is about our economy. It's about our safety. It's about quality of life, clean air. It is so important for us to do. And one manifestation of that infrastructure which does all of those things is mass transit, is Amtrak. One manifestation is Amtrak, people to and from work, saving time, quality of life, cleaning the air and the rest. And for some reason, it has just been opposed by some, not all, by some in the Republican party.

So, in any case, we have the Speaker coming in in 10 minutes. So I have to give up this room. Call me if you have a question. And, I will see you next week. Are we here next week? We are here so infrequently.

This is a big deal, and I'm hoping that we can work together with the Speaker, as we have done recently on past issues, to restore the bipartisanship in the broader question of transportation and infrastructure, because we have to meet the needs of the American people. It affects every aspect of their lives, the economy of our country, the safety of our people.

Thank you all very much.

# # #