Transcript of Pelosi Weekly Press Conference Today

Contact: Drew Hammill, 202-226-7616

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

Leader Pelosi. Good morning. Good morning.

Yesterday Democrats gathered on the steps of the Capitol to launch our "Middle Class Jumpstart." I was very excited about it. It contains our "Make It In America" agenda for good paying jobs here in our country, tax credits to keep jobs here rather than the Republicans' initiative to send jobs overseas. It's about the building of the infrastructure of the America. It's about fairness, the CEO/employee tax fairness initiative of Mr. Van Hollen. So it's about jobs.

And the second point is about when Women Succeed, America Succeeds. That's familiar to you. One of the best things you can do to grow the economy of our country is to unleash the full power of women in our economy. And so it is about equal pay for equal work, raising the minimum wage. Over 60 percent of people making minimum wage are women. It's about paid sick leave. It's about affordable quality childcare, which I think is a missing link in the evolution of women in the workplace. That workplace, work/home balance is essential for men and for women.

And then a third: Affordable Education to Keep America Number One. All innovation and entrepreneurship, and all the rest, all begin in the classroom. And we have the Tierney bill, similar to – which we have had for a long time now – mirrored by the Warren bill in the Senate, for making it more affordable by lowering the interest rate. It all begins, though, at a very early age. So it's about early childhood education: children learning, parents earning. We're very proud of the initiative and look forward to the continuing to talk about it throughout the country.

While we were on the steps of the Capitol talking about jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs – that four letter word, how we keep them here, how we grow our economy to create jobs, how we prepare our workforce, and how we have a work/home balance; but, again, all centered around the workplace – the Republicans were inside the Capitol wasting time and taxpayer dollars suing the President, once again, actions taken to avoid our real responsibility to meet the needs of the American people. Over 50 times overturned, the Affordable Care Act, unsuccessfully, and now they want to sue the President.

Another issue they are ignoring while they do this is comprehensive immigration reform. And as you know, they had said two weeks ago that they weren't going to do anything about comprehensive immigration reform. And that is the answer to many of the challenges that we face in terms of immigration: have comprehensive immigration reform. Whether they're concerned about deportation, whether they're concerned about children at the border, whatever it is, the big answer is comprehensive immigration reform.

In the absence of that, we need Republicans to send us the Supplemental as soon as possible, because the resources are needed to address the crisis on the border. That crisis could be an opportunity to show our greatness as a nation on how we can discern, how we can address the needs of those who should be given their days in court. And those who have that day in court may not end up staying in the United States. The B.I.D. I keep telling you about the B.I.D.: the best interest determination. The best interest determination of the children is what should drive our policy.

And so we are waiting to see a Supplemental on that, and hopefully it will come soon. The Speaker said, I think, next week they would have something maybe on the floor for us to see, work closely with our Appropriators. What the President asked for in the Supplemental is what we need to get the job done, so we're waiting to see what part of it they will send over.

But just to get to that point for a moment – people keep asking the difference between contiguous, noncontiguous, all the rest. Did you ever think you'd become an expert on that subject? You never know here. The purpose of the legislation passed in 2008, and some of the groundwork that was laid before that, was to address the issue of trafficking. It made a distinction between contiguous and noncontiguous countries. That means Mexico, for some reason they decided they would have in that bill that children who might be victims of trafficking from Mexico would have – we summarily turned them back, I guess. I don't know what their intention was, but that would be the net. Without changing the law or anything else, we can, with resources, expedite the procedure to have a more timely procedure with more representation and with more judges to deal with the issues, no matter where the children come from.

If you have a lawyer, serving now, if you have a lawyer, 50 percent of the time the child can stay in the U.S. If you don't have a lawyer, one in 10 times you can stay in the U.S. So representation is important, because what child can plead his or her own case? So it's current, it's hot. It's an opportunity, and as the bishops and other state-based organizations and humanitarian groups have said, we must act in the best interest determination, the best interest of the children determination. And that means we need the resources to get that job done.

Any questions you may have?

***

Leader Pelosi. Yes, sir.

Q: Last week, you said that changes to the 2008 trafficking law wouldn't be a deal breaker for you to pass the supplemental. Now it seems like you've kind of changed your mind there, in terms of what appeared in the New York Times yesterday. Considering Republicans' plan to include changes to the 2008 law, is that a deal breaker for you on the Supplemental?

Leader Pelosi. Well, let me be really clear. The question I was asked was about the Supplemental that the President put forth, which was a Supplemental that has resources that can more expeditiously give due process to these children. I did not appreciate the characterization the New York Times is making, saying I'm for sending kids back or something like that. No, I'm not. I am for giving them the process to do so.

So all of these things are of a piece. It's not about: "What's your price to take this penalty." It's about: "How do we deal with this issue?" It's stunning to me. I'll be very honest with you, I'm rarely surprised around here. But it's stunning to me how the Republicans have tried to politicize these issues – not all of them. Most of them were responsible for the good legislation that passed in 2008. As I said before, many of my colleagues on the Republican side had been champions for human rights and stopping trafficking – Chris Smith, Ileana Ros Lehtinen, Frank Wolf, and others. But in the here and now on this legislation, what we have to do is what's right for the children, what's right for the American people, and that is not to draw lines in the sand with the legislation that we have.

I do not believe that they need a change in legislation to more expeditiously provide due process for all of the children that we're talking about. And trafficking is an issue. A large amount of this trafficking of children that we're concerned about is Mexico-based. It is Mexico-based.

Q: But could you support a Supplemental that included changes to that 2008 law?

Leader Pelosi. Do you want to say and describe what that Supplemental would look like otherwise?

Q: I mean, we're still waiting to hear.

Leader Pelosi. I understand. So ask me when we see it, okay? Because the fact is – I don't know what analogy to use – you want to send a child back barefoot and hungry, or are we sending a child back to a situation where the resources in the bill have allowed for the reintegration of that child into society in a safe way? Are they going back home as you make a judgment as to whether the child is legitimately entitled to asylum or is a refugee?

You know, there are categories of people that we have welcomed that neighboring countries to Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador have welcomed in their own Central American region. So why don't we just – instead of a bill that we haven't seen, we don't know what it's going to be, although they said it's not going to be what the President has sent. So let's see what that bill is and what the mitigating factors are – which I used that word, I think, last week – mitigating factors are as to, I think this can be done under current law with the proper resources. And that's what we need to bring, is some level of assurance that's the B.I.D., the best interest determination, the best interest of the children determination, which is what the bishops have out there.

Q: Just to follow up on that, the President's own Secretary of Homeland Security says he does think there needs to be a change in the law, and he's saying that it's becoming an issue. And Members who went to Honduras and Guatemala last weekend said that embassy personnel in those countries – American Embassy officials were saying that the law is the problem; that's the magnet drawing people here.

Leader Pelosi. I don't agree with that. I mean, the point is that there are issues other than the law that are drawing people here – the conditions in the country. If you had a child and you said, you're going to go across Mexico because it's safer to do that than to stay here and be subjected to rape and other forms of violence, including murder, in the country, you know that something is pretty bad there.

Again, this is a very emotional issue. People are passionate about it. You have to be dispassionate in how we make our evaluations of what is necessary. I would certainly hope that if they want to change any laws relating to immigration, they do so in a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Just put it all together in its oneness there, and at this time get the resources to deal with the humanitarian challenge that we face on the border. Wouldn't that be a better way? And if those resources are sufficient, to have the legal representation, a sufficient number of judges – that's a lot – a good deal of judges to expedite the process, to perhaps engage in processing in country – in other words, have interviews in country to say: "Your family will not have well founded grounds for being received in the United States to stay, so don't bother making the trip."

Let's see how we can deal with it in a way that doesn't just send the children, as the bishops have said, back into a burning building. But there are distinctions that can be made – that should be made and can be made with resources. Let's deal with that, and then let's talk about the law, like we talk about comprehensive immigration reform. And that is, yet again, another reason for us to take up comprehensive immigration reform.

Q: Madam Leader, thank you. So as they try to assemble this package in the next few days here, do you envision yet another kind of two step here where the Speaker gets on the phone with you and says: Okay, I can only provide, you know, 50 to 70 votes here, and can you guys carry the weight? Or how he – and again, I know what you said earlier: You don't know what this package is going to look like on the policy nor the spending side. But on most major pieces of legislation in the past two and a half years here, that's the way it has gone. And when we talk to the conservatives, they said: Oh, we can't vote for this if this isn't offset, or this is additional funding. Do you envision that scenario coming down the pike again, and how do you grapple with it?

Leader Pelosi. Well, you are always asking these questions about why didn't I impeach the President, or what would I have done differently.

Q: I asked that once.

Leader Pelosi. It would be interesting to see how many votes the Speaker has on his side for this legislation to help the children. What we do here – but again, it's of no value. That is what they had said in their public statement is: they don't want to do all that much money. And they want to have legislation in there that is harmful to some of the children that we are dealing with at the border.

That sounds like an all Republican bill to me, you know. Okay. How many Republicans do you get for that? What more would you want to get more Republicans? How low can you go moneywise in it to get the Republican vote?

So we'll just have to see what they put forward.

Q: And you feel, though, that it couldn't be. Though, if push comes to shove, and if this is the only train leaving the station, the Democrats then feel there's a moral imperative to say: Well, this isn't all the money, this isn't all the border issues, that, you know –

Leader Pelosi. I think I take it the other way. You need Democratic votes; let's talk. You need Democratic votes; let's talk.

And back to your original question: that's how we get some things done around here. That's how we funded the war in Iraq – when we were in the majority, and our Members were completely opposed – was to have kind of a two step. And that's how we finally passed the Violence Against Women Act.

The Republicans overwhelmingly voted for a Violence Against Women Act that said: We're against violence against women unless: you're an immigrant, unless you're a Native American, unless you're LGBT. That gave them something that they were proud of. I don't get it, but that's what they were proud of. And so they were for that, and we voted with some Republicans to pass the all-inclusive Violence Against Women Act.

So maybe they want to get their people to vote their hearts out on this and have a good – I don't know, because we have – in other words, we're legislators. We know that legislation is about compromise and the rest, and balance; and if you want this, it's really damaging unless you do this. And so let's see how we can do it. Because I think most of the Republicans have heart on this. I really do. They haven't been on the lead of many of these issues that we are dealing with there in terms of human rights, and respect for the dignity of people, and in concert with the bishops on many of these issues, and on the issue of trafficking. And because the number of girls coming over is so much higher than it has been in the past, there is really an urgent need to get this done.

So let's be optimistic and hope that the better angels will prevail, and we'll see something that does the job for now and maybe recognizes they have the majority. And when we do comprehensive immigration reform, we'll put this in that perspective, but not to hold up the funding here. The funding is really urgent. And, you know, that's why last week I said: We need that money; we need that money now.

But all that has transpired in terms of the characterizations, the motivation of this and that, is like: well, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. I thought we were operating on shared values here. If we're not, let's put it in writing, and let's see what you have.

Q: Madam Leader, it sounds like you want to wait to see what the actual legislative language is.

Leader Pelosi. Before I say if I support it?

Q: Before you say you support it.

Leader Pelosi. That would be the normal course of events.

Q : But so many of your colleagues – a growing number of your Members in the Democratic caucus – are already willing to draw a line in the sand and say, I will not vote for any supplemental funding package that includes any tweaks whatsoever to that '08 law. Are you concerned that your Members are already taking that hard line without being –

Leader Pelosi. Well, first of all, if they see that part of it, yes, that' a place that they would be.

I think the characterization of the Hispanic Caucus is one that is – you have to have a press conference with them. I don't speak for the Caucus. But I do know that they greatly care about this issue. They have firsthand knowledge of it – as many of them represent border areas or areas contiguous to the border's districts – and that the issue of comprehensive immigration reform is something that they would like to see immigration law dealt with there, rather than in the supplemental, to meet an emergency.

I think that – bless you. I would hope that when we see the bill and how it is written, whether it's encouraging this to happen or prescribing this to happen.

There's one other problem with what we have heard. We've heard it's not as much money, that there may be unfriendly to children legislation in it, and that they may want an offset, a nondiscretionary – nondefense discretionary offset. Well, that's just saying: We don't think this is an emergency. This is an emergency, and that's why you have a supplemental, for an emergency. And that would be problematic as well. So why don't we just take a look at it, because it could have many problems. The better the bill is in other respects, the more opportunity it gets for expedited processing and representation processing and security, the better hearing it will get from the Members.

But we can criticize bills all we want. I never like to draw a line in the sand, unless you really can see the legislation. And that's why I said what I said last week: I'm open to see what is there – 2 weeks ago. But what we have seen so far is going in the wrong direction, and if they want Democratic votes, it's got to go more in the right direction. Okay?

Leader Pelosi. We had an important personage leave the room now, right?

Q: Let me ask you a question that's off of this border issue, but on to another issue of immigration, and that's companies that are emigrating to elsewhere. The House last week put – actually in a roll call vote – put a restriction on federal contracts for countries that invert to the Cayman Islands or Bermuda. Were you surprised by that vote, that [it] passed a roll call? And do you see this as an issue where the Democrats can advance in the 2014 elections?

Leader Pelosi. Well, I'm not surprised by the vote, because every time we take that vote – as we have done in different Congresses – it has gotten a strong number of Republicans, enough Republicans to win the vote. I don't know the date, but there was a day – you might want to look it up – where they were standing in the aisles to change their vote on a similar initiative. Whether that was inversion – that's a newer term now, invert – but a similar concept.

We didn't put that in our initiative yesterday except to say: Companies that publicly support tax policy that rewards sending jobs overseas, we support tax incentives that keep good paying jobs here in America. It is within that genre.

The inversion issue is a very big issue. This is about companies, maybe 90 percent U.S., and they merge – whatever, acquire, whatever they do – with a foreign company and then give up being a U.S. company to avoid taxes. They are companies that have succeeded in the U.S. workforce, protection of our laws, you know, court system, the whole thing, and now they're saying: We don't pay taxes here anymore. And I think it's important for the American people to know it.

And some of the motivation is not from the management of those companies, but from investors who are encouraging them to improve the bottom line by not paying taxes in the United States.

It's a big issue, and I hope it's not a partisan issue. So I don't see it as an election year issue. I would hope that Republicans and Democrats would come together to say: We want some economic patriotism here. Even Thomas Jefferson warned against this you know when. A very long time ago. And it's something that the public should be aware of.

Q: Do you support expanding that ban that was in that text to ban every inverted company from every federal contract as –

Leader Pelosi. Well, I don't know – in other words…

Q: …as Rosa DeLauro told us yesterday she wanted to.

Leader Pelosi. Again, everything is case by case. So if, in fact, the purpose of merging with a foreign company is to avoid U.S. taxes: yes. There may be other reasons why companies come together.

I believe in the free market system and the rest. I don't believe in using a merger of convenience to avoid U.S. taxes as being very patriotic. And if they don't want to be a U.S. company – essentially they're saying: Our U.S. company is giving up its U.S. citizenship in order for us to not pay taxes here – not help pay for the defense of our country, not pay for the education of the American people, not pay for the roads and for the commerce that is facilitated by highways, bridges, all the rest of that – just to say: We get a free ride in the U.S. because we vacated. Vacated.

In a way, that really – I don't think most of the stakeholders – it may interest some shareholders – but their stakeholders, as far as their management, their employees, their customers, the community at large, I think will not look fondly upon that.

Thank you.

Q: Thank you.

# # #