Transcript of Pelosi Weekly Press Conference Today

Contact: Ashley Etienne/Henry Connelly, 202-226-7616

Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi held her weekly press conference today in the Capitol Visitor Center. Below are the Leader's remarks:

Leader Pelosi. Good morning, everyone. Welcome back. Perhaps you've been here the whole time.

It's eight legislative days. We have eight legislative days before the end of the fiscal year.

In Congress, I am pleased to say, as a former appropriator – you're always an appropriator – that the Appropriations Committee, left to its own devices, can act in a bipartisan way. It's the poison pills from on high that create the problem.

But I do want to commend Congresswoman Nita Lowey, our Ranking Member on Appropriations Committee, for the outstanding leadership she has provided there and the victories that Democrats have won that are not, shall we say, at the top of the news but are at the top of our agenda.

I'm pleased to commend Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who's the Ranking Member, soon to be Chair, of VA/MILCON; Marcy Kaptur, Energy and Water; and Leg Branch, Tim Ryan. They are part of minibus one – minibus one – which we expect and hope will be resolved soon that will come to the Floor.

And minibus two – you understand it's not omnibus, it's minibus. Omnibus two is Ag Committee with Sanford Bishop; and Transportation, David Price; Financial Services with Congressman [Mike] Quigley; and Interior with Betty McCollum. That has the EPA in there. And hopefully that will come to a conclusion soon as well.

Minibus three is the biggie, the two biggest: Labor HHS and Defense. Labor HHS, Rosa DeLauro; the Defense Subcommittee, Peter Visclosky is our Ranking Member. So, I thank them for their leadership.

The Senate has served in a bipartisan way on the appropriations bills, and not as much so in the House, but close. And so we hope that some of the poison pills that rain upon these bills from on high can be resolved. It may not be in the committee. Hopefully so, but, otherwise, they'll come to another part of the discussion.

I also want to thank Lucille Roybal-Allard, who's our Ranking [Member] on Homeland Security Subcommittee of Appropriations, for the important work that she is doing to protect our children; and Jose Serrano on Commerce, Justice, Science, what he is doing to protect our census. And, of course, Nita Lowey has State and Foreign Ops, but she's also the Ranking Member of the whole committee, I thank her for her leadership. We haven't seen a vehicle for those. Perhaps they'll be part of the CR, I don't know.

But I spent time on that because that's what we're spending time on here, is to have appropriations bills as much as possible completed by the end of the fiscal year, which there are only 8 days left, as I mentioned, and to do so in a way that reflects what we've won in the fight.

Remember, we had the fight. It took five CRs for the Republicans to grasp the idea that we needed parity in terms of the increases in the allocations, that domestic would be treated the same as defense in terms of the amount of money that would be increased. We never get to their number, because they start way ahead. But this is an infusion of resources on the domestic side.

And I remind that the domestic side, a third of it, 34 percent of it, is about Veterans Affairs, the State Department, Homeland Security, and the antiterrorism activities of the Justice Department. So, it is a strong security piece in the domestic side that we were fighting for as well.

So, with that, I will say that this week – that's what's going on now. But this week – that's what's going on in the Congress. This week in the courts, the Republicans renewed their assault on America's health care, once again targeting the pre-existing condition benefit. Over 130 million families have a pre-existing condition in their families, and the Republicans are taking that benefit to court.

Oral arguments began for this outrageous Republican Texas v. U.S. lawsuit, which tries to bring the cruelest parts of the Trumpcare bill back from the dead. Now, you understand it's Texas versus the U.S. It would follow that the U.S. would defend its position, the law of the land, but it has said that it will not defend that position.

If Republicans succeed, again, the health care of 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions namely asthma, diabetes, cancer. It includes babies, little children, seniors, babies born with a heart defect, anything. A pre-existing condition will be excluded in an affordable way from having access to quality health care.

Sadly, the threat to America's health care does not stop there, but that's a very prominent place that it is manifested.

Another place is what's going on in the Senate. This week, the nation has witnessed the confirmation hearings for one of the most radical, anti-health care, anti-choice Supreme Court nominees in recent history, a nominee who thinks that President Trump is above the law.

We recognize the right of a President to make appointments. We have a disagreement over a couple of things in the terms of issues and values. Apparently, there's also a disagreement about stare decisis. If something is established law, it is established law.

But when you go beyond the various cases that come before the court and say the President is above the law and should not be questioned – he's far too busy to be questioned. He didn't feel that way in contradiction to his vile proposed questions that he wanted posed to President Clinton. I'm sure you're familiar with them.

If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, Roe v. Wade, affordable health care, voting rights, commonsense gun violence prevention, freedom for LGBTQ Americans, communities of color and immigrants are all on the chopping block, just to name a few. And if he doesn't believe in stare decisis of established law, everything is on the table – again, voting rights, civil rights, Brown v. The Board of Education.

Our focus has been, since his name came forward and he was proposed, on health care and Roe v. Wade, because they have such clarity and immediacy for the American people in their lives, and that might be a way to stop this nomination.

With their culture, they have a culture now, these Republicans – I've identified this about them in 2005 and 2006, and here they go again, with their culture of corruption, cronyism, and incompetence. Republicans are selling out the American people to put their special interest friends first.

The GOP's corrupt special interest agenda is manifested in the indictments of two sitting Republican Congressmen, the first two GOP Members to endorse President Trump. Isn't that something remarkable? The first two people in the Congress to endorse President Trump, indicted.

Instead of draining the swamp, which is a phrase we used in 2006 – President Trump hijacked the term and betrayed the mission. Instead of draining the swamp, Republicans have turned Washington into a cesspool of self-enrichment for special interests, and the American people are paying the price.

Republicans want government of, by and for the special interests. Democrats are For the People. Democrats are For the People, with a bold, historic commitment, with a sharp contrast between House Democrats and Republicans, and it couldn't be clearer.

Our For the People agenda is lowering the health care costs and pre-existing, excuse me, prescription drug prices. Of course, we're fighting the pre-existing conditions. For the People, lowering your health care costs and your prescription drug prices, increasing your pay, with strong economic growth by rebuilding America and cleaning up corruption to make Washington work for you.

Over the coming weeks, House Democrats will continue to develop legislation. We don't take anything for granted in the election, but there's a good chance that we will have the gavel on the Democratic side, and we will be ready. We will be ready to deliver our commitment For the People, what I mentioned. And we'll continue to be ready to take action that we've tried to get the Republicans to do – and hopefully they will before this session is over to protect Dreamers and to advance gun violence prevention, commonsense legislation.

We're fighting For the People. We will challenge Republicans for leaving families behind. And we will hold the President accountable – the beauty of our Constitution's system of checks and balances.

All the beautiful other freedoms, of the press, which I believe is the guardian of our democracy, came in the Bill of Rights. In the body of the Constitution from the start, the separation of power and the checks and balances, so essential to our freedom. We will honor that.

Any questions?

Yes, sir.

* * *

Q: Madam Leader, your reaction to the anonymous op-ed that was published by The New York Times yesterday? Are you concerned or relieved that the President seems to not be in full control of this Administration?

And what do you think it would be prudent for Congress to do to explore the issues raised in that article?

Leader Pelosi. Well, thank you for the second part of your question about the Republicans. Republicans in Congress have enabled so much of the mayhem that exists in the White House to occur without any comment.

The President has to know that when a President speaks, his words weigh a ton. So, if some in the White House think that correcting this behind the scenes is a consolation, I don't think it's good enough.

It's interesting, because I've never known The New York Times – perhaps you have – to go without a source. So, this is interesting. And that the President is saying it's treason is, again, a manifestation of his instability.

But what was said in there is a reflection of what we hear from many Republicans around the country, not in Congress, that the party of Lincoln cannot survive as the party of Trump, by dint of tone, by dint of fiscal irresponsibility, by dint of national security concerns, and also that the Republicans in Congress are just letting it happen without weighing in. No checks, no balances, as the Constitution calls for.

So, we'll see. I mean, it probably won't take too long for us to find out who wrote it. Who has denied it already? The Vice President. That was my first thought. Dan Coats, Pompeo, they've denied that they have written it. I guess by the process of elimination it'll come down to the butler, who probably has the most knowledge of Presidents in the White House.

But it's a sad statement. And it is a manifestation of corruption, cronyism – cronyism, just having your friends around you, incompetence of some of the people who are advising him, so that others, the adult supervision has to weigh in. It's sad.

But you know what? It's an op-ed in The New York Times. We are focusing on the well-being, the kitchen table concerns of America's working families. The book, the op-ed, all interesting, but what people want to know is: What are you going to do to improve my life, the health and national security of my family, in terms of lowering health care costs and prescription drug costs, increasing paychecks by building an economy, building the infrastructure of America so people have bigger paychecks? And, again, catenating all of that by saying, we're doing this in your interest, diminishing the role of special interests, that's our focus.

Q: To follow up, may I ask how a Democratic majority would respond to this, what a Democratic controlled Oversight Committee would do to explore the implications of this?

Leader Pelosi. Well, what I've asked over time of our colleagues – first, I told them when we left in July, the end of July, we will own August. With our For the People agenda, our outside, grassroots organizing around a better life for the people, we will own August and will come out of August very strong. So, without being presumptuous, we believe that we can win, as I mentioned earlier, and we will be ready.

So, you asked about oversight, but I'll start with, I've asked our ranking members to work with our caucus to establish what our priorities would be, following the For the People agenda – lowering health care costs, raising the paycheck and cleaning up government, as well as recognizing that we have asked the Republicans for a bill for Dreamers and a bill for gun violence prevention. And so that would be part of our agenda.

And, at the same time, I've asked them to think in terms of what would be our priorities in terms of oversight. I don't want this to be scattershot. I want it to be direct. And so we have to see – we can ask for documentation across the board, but how we choose to go forward with that oversight will be determined by our committees and our caucus. And I don't have an announcement to make about that.

The only thing I will say is, earlier on, in July, we asked the now-ranking member, soon to be chairman, of the Rules Committee, [Congressman] Jim McGovern, to communicate with Members about what our Rules package would be on the first day and how we would have the most open Congress, the most bipartisan Congress, and the most unifying Congress, honoring our Founders. E pluribus Unum. From many, one. Couldn't imagine how many we would be or how different we would be, but that we would strive for unity.

So, what we will do – we'll have that principle of what unifies us as a country, seeks truth, protects our voting system, and the rest. But, again, not to just pick a fight, but to make progress.

Yes, sir.

Q: You've always been proud and vocal of how diverse the Democratic Caucus is compared to the Republican caucus. This week's primary results in Massachusetts are the latest sign that next year Democrats are going to be even more diverse.

What's your response to this broad trend this year? And do you think an increasingly diverse Caucus means the Caucus should take a different approach in terms of what it pushes for next year?

Leader Pelosi. Well, I think the two areas that I think you're making reference to, one in New York and one in Boston, are a reflection of those districts.

And I'm going to give you a chance to commend [Congressman] Michael Capuano for being a progressive champion in the Congress on the Financial Services Committee, he's a champion for affordable housing. On Transportation, for job creation and building the infrastructure of our country and being a champion for ethics reform in the Congress.

We welcome the new Member of Congress. And his concession speech was done with great respect for what Ayanna Pressley will bring to the Congress – that Massachusetts will do just fine. So, we look forward to welcoming her.

That's a district like mine. It's a liberal district. The district in Queens, the district that [Chairman] Joe Crowley represents, is also a district like mine. So progressives running in those districts, the votes won't be so drastic.

But everybody brings their own ‘why,' why they're running, what they want to focus on, how they want to get the job done. And that's the constant reinvigoration of the Congress.

In terms of where we are winning in the rest of the country, I think you see an array of candidates who, again, know their ‘why.' They have a vision about our country. They know their subject matter. They plan to communicate and listen, listen, listen to their constituents.

And everybody is an independent representative of their district. Their job title and their job description are one and the same: Representative. So they will come representing their different regions.

So, it's not a boilerplate, ‘So and so won here, so and so will win there.' No, they're different districts and they're different representatives. It's all exciting.

When new Members come to the Congress – some of us have been here a while – for years, we would sit there and say: Here they come, the fresh recruits. Who among them will be a leader in this Congress? Who among them will run for other office? Who among them could be President of the United States? The endless potential that our Founders saw.

Q: Would you comment on an NBC report which just came out? The Trump administration announced a new rule Thursday. It would allow immigrant children with their parents to be held in detention indefinitely until their cases are adjudicated, their asylum cases are adjudicated.

Leader Pelosi. What the President did with that was to undermine the Flores decision, which limited to 20 days the amount of time that the government could hold a child in detention. So this is another inhumane assault on families and children, and it's just – who can explain what their motivation is?

So, yeah, no, it's a wrong decision that he made and undermining a court decision that was very specific about the amount of time a child could be held in detention to 20 days. So, I completely disagree with what the President has done.

And, again, when you see the visual of them taking babies away from their moms and then saying we can keep them endlessly, you understand the inhumanity of it all. It has no practical value whatsoever.

Yes, sir.

Q: Yesterday, Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan both said that they don't want to see any sort of government shutdown at the end of this month. But yesterday in the Oval Office, they were there at the meeting with the President when he said whatever happens will happen and he said that he is willing to do anything for border security.

I'm just kind of wondering, are you going to watch Republicans kind of work on their own through this appropriations process and, you know, potentially shut down the government if they have a split with conservatives and the leadership? Or are you willing to work with the Republican leaders in a bipartisan way to keep government open at the end of this month?

Leader Pelosi. Well, we have been – as in my opening remarks I mentioned that we are working in a bipartisan way. Again, from the culture of appropriations, I know that people understand the responsibility, are there to find solutions, and especially since we won the battle of the resources going into the committee so that when we are competing for funds we have adequate funds.

So we've been working with them in a bipartisan way. The Senate has worked in a more bipartisan way. That's why they're further down the road. But when we now join in conference with the Senate, I think there can be some improvement in what the House has even produced.

But I don't think any of us is looking for a path to shutting down government. That's the President. That's the President. And some have interpreted his remark that he's willing to do anything as a backing away from his demand for the wall.

Yes, ma'am.

Staff. Last question.

Q: In the background, over many months, the Problem Solvers Caucus has been working on bipartisan legislation on all the major issues. They haven't had a chance to come forward because of the way Republicans are managing the House.

So, if Democrats take over the House, what would happen to the impetus and legislation and voice of something like the Problem Solvers Caucus?

Leader Pelosi. Well, we have a caucus that has much diversity in it, and we have a Congress that is not as diverse as our caucus but that – as I've said to begin with, our rules will say that we are an open Congress. So people can see well in advance what is being voted upon so that they can know how it affects them. Time is not just about time; it's about time and information getting to the public. That's the importance of time.

Secondly, as I said, we will be marked by bipartisanship, not as a concession but valued as a principle. How do we work together to arrive at the third principle, which is unity? How do we unify the country?

So, as we did in the Affordable Care Act, Republican amendments will be considered, just as Democratic amendments were considered, and some were accepted, some were modified, and some were rejected. But it will be a different process. We can barely ever get an amendment on the floor. But anyone who has an idea to come forward to subject their idea to the full Congress, when it is appropriate, there will be an opportunity to do that.

Yeah, so we're very excited about it, because this has been a miserably dark Congress, in terms of being closed. Very hard to get an amendment on the floor. I think sometimes they're afraid that it will succeed; that's why they don't want to give us their amendment. And, also, just some bills like – the bipartisan nature, working on legislation for commonsense background check. Overwhelmingly, the public supports this. It has bipartisan support in the Congress. They won't give us a vote on the floor.

Same thing with Dreamers: overwhelming support in the country, has bipartisan support in the Congress. They wouldn't even give it a chance on the floor. So, where we can find as much bipartisanship, we certainly will value it.

But, again, this place is a giant kaleidoscope. You named about one design. We have regional bipartisanship. We have ethnic bipartisanship. We have every kind of – and so this side of the room may be supporting one thing one day vis a vis this side of the room. And so you're working to prevail. Then the next day, the back of the room may be working vis a vis the front of the room on an issue because of different the legislation is different, it has regional concerns, whatever. So, the kaleidoscope changes.

So, everybody is a resource. We feel that everyone is a resource to all of us in the Congress. We respect the people who sent all of us here, on both sides of the aisle, and want to have the fullest vitality of thinking, but also to be able to have our solutions be unifying and not dividing of the country.

And when I have sent Members – not sent, but when our caucus has sent Members to any tables about budget and the rest of that, my instruction to them is: Be agnostic. Wherever a good idea comes from – right, left, center, wherever – if it's going to grow the economy, creating good paying jobs, if it reduces the national debt, we're open to that. You know the values of our caucus, but that doesn't mean that we will just oppose something because we consider the source of it. We're here For the People.

Thank you.

# # #