Transcript of Pelosi, Becerra, Crowley Press Availability After Democratic Caucus Meeting
Contact: Drew Hammill, 202-226-7616
Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra (D-CA), and Democratic Caucus Vice Chair Joe Crowley (D-NY) held a press availability after a meeting of the Democratic Caucus this morning. Below is a transcript of the Leader's opening statement, as well as a question and answer session:
Leader Pelosi's Opening Remarks:
"Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and Vice Chairman Crowley. As you mentioned, the Homeland Security appropriation is an important matter that has not been sufficiently dealt with in the House of Representatives. We take an oath to support and protect the American people, [from] the Constitution of the United States. The Homeland Security Department is that vehicle. We have 17 days until the expiration of the – what was that called, the CRomnibus? The short term funding of Homeland Security legislation – only six of those days are legislative days.
"We have the leader on the Republican side saying: ‘Why do we have to' do anything, when Mitch McConnell in the Senate says it's ‘up to the House,' but still – House Republicans refuse to acknowledge the fact that we must pass an appropriations bill to fund Homeland Security. As I said to you before, we should have passed this in December and removed all doubt that we could move forward in a very strong way to protect the American people. The Republican leadership, the Speaker, at that time said: ‘Well, let's just do it after the new Congress comes in.' That was December. The new Congress comes in in January. In January, ‘Je Suis Charlie' swept the world. Everybody in the world was concerned about homeland security in each person's county, certainly we in ours – everybody, except in the hermetically sealed chamber of the House of Representatives, where there is still a refusal to accept the fact that we must fund the Homeland Security Department in order to protect the American people in the best possible way.
"And why are they doing this? They're doing this because they object to the President exercising his constitutional authority to protect immigrants in our country. Ronald Reagan did so. George Herbert Walker Bush did so. President Clinton did so. And President George W. Bush did so. And that was okay. But when President Obama moved to use Executive Action to protect people in our country, they said ‘No' – and not only ‘No,' but ‘We're not going to pass Homeland Security.' They're holding the protection and safety of the American people hostage to their opposition to any action the President may take on immigration. So, in any event, we find ourselves in a situation where we have to make sure the American people understand what is at risk here. Even the Republicans in the Senate are saying: ‘It's up to the House.' But the House refuses to assume its responsibility.
"As our Chairman said, we also, this morning, talked – in the interest of our national security – talked about the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. That will be an ongoing debate, as our Members express their views. We're pleased that the Administration put forth a resolution. And we'll see what comments come from that. We hope to have bipartisan support for something that would limit the power of the President, but nonetheless protect the American people in a very strong way."
***
Q: Madam Leader, a question on the AUMF: We've heard from some Republicans that they're skeptical of this because they don't trust the President. We've talked about this, about how they don't trust him on immigration, executive orders, and so on. But, do you think that that disdain for his policies, and that trust from the majority will be an issue in trying to ultimately approve this AUMF – whereas, maybe some Democrats might go along, but then Republicans won't be willing to share their burden?
Leader Pelosi. I hope not. I hope the scenario you described is just anecdotal, because it's very dangerous. The fact is, the President is the President of the United States. The other fact is that ISIL poses a threat to security in that region – the Middle East, and beyond, actually; the Levant, that's the "L" – and they must be stopped. The President is asking for a limitation on the power that the President does have under Article II and [from] previous authorizations that have gone forth. He's saying: "Let's limit this. Let's limit [it] in terms of time and in terms of scope." And so, I would hope that we could have a thoughtful conversation about what is right for the American people, without them getting into their "We don't trust the President" mode. I don't know if that speaks for most of the Republicans, and I don't know who you're referencing. But it's very irresponsible, whomever it may be.
Our Members of our Caucus have questions, as do I, about what does this language actually mean? Because we are seeing it for the first time now, and I think that's a healthy debate. And I hope that there can be common ground that is found in a very bipartisan way, about the most important responsibility we have – to protect and defend the American people. That's our responsibility. I hope that they don't play politics with that, because this is deadly serious. And I do think that, in the country, there is no appetite for any boots on the ground, except in limited circumstances. And that scope is the debate that we will be engaged in.
Chairman Becerra. Other questions?
Q: Madam leader, Mr. Crowley: I'm just wondering if you could talk a little bit more about the healthy skepticism – what topics you have questions on, what topics you are talking about.
Vice Chair Crowley. Many of my colleagues in our Caucus have been through this before – not with, particularly, this Administration, but we've gone through two AUMFs, some that have support from the Caucus, and some that have not enjoyed that support. So I think in terms of listening to the President about what the Leader has said is probably the most serious issue we can ever discuss in our Caucus – and that is the lives of Americans going overseas to protect our interests overseas – and what limitations will be there, and in effect, what ramifications from the limitations is also something that our colleagues want to talk about. So I think, as the Leader has said, and the Chairman has said, we're going to have an opportunity over these next few weeks to talk about that, have that healthy debate, and, as the Leader has also indicated, [get] to a point in a piece of legislation that can help move our country forward in furtherance of the protection of the United States.
Q: There's obviously, as you've indicated, this language about "enduring offensive combat operations," [which] many Democrats view as vague. There's also been concern about the 2001 authorization not being addressed at all in this. Can you talk about the role that House Democrats might play in terms of trying to set this debate – [will] you try to unite in favor of certain core components that you would like to see attached to the language? And secondly, can you address the concern that, obviously, this would be a three year authorization? It would lead into the next president. How much of a concern is that – while you might trust this President not to engage in an extensive ground campaign, that the concern of a next president, perhaps a Republican president, doing that, is going to affect your thinking as you vote on this?
Leader Pelosi. Well, starting with that, I would hope that the period of time of this legislation will be much longer than it takes to deal with ISIL. In other words, I don't want it to be [that] we're going to deal with them for three years, and then we'll see how we'll deal with them after that. No – let's just get this job done. And let's do it in a way that supports, say for example, the Jordanians and others who are at ground zero there, so that it's not calling upon our troops on the ground, as was called upon before – but nonetheless, in certain circumstances, that there would be boots on the ground – whether it's rescue, whether it's defense of our embassies, or whatever that happens to be. So the length of time in terms of another President – I'm more optimistic than that. I hope we can have success as we pursue ISIL.
In terms of the first part of it, just remember this: the 2001 authorization was an attempt to limit the power of the President because when attacked, our country, all the restrictions of the War Powers Act were off. The President had any and all authority. It triggered all of the powers of the Commander-in-Chief, and that was very broad. So that resolution was intended to narrow. It was still very broad, and it's still very broad. So I would think that one consideration might be is when this three-year sunset is there, that it sunsets '01 as well. I don't see any reason – in fact, I actively support repealing the 2002 authorization. It was based on a false premise. I was proud that Democrats overwhelmingly voted against it. Nonetheless, it should go and it should go now. The tactic of "Do you put it on this other authorization?" – that just is another complication. I believe the White House believes: let's do one; let's do the other, to make sure we do them both. But this is deadly serious, deadly serious.
And we have to make sure that we do right by our men and women in uniform. As you know yesterday there was a congressional signing and tomorrow there will be a presidential signing of the Clay Hunt legislation – just another manifestation of the serious harm that came to our young people who fought to protect our country. And that's one of the considerations that I don't think was considered enough when President Bush led us into the war in Iraq. Over 10 years later, here we are, and people were burned by that experience – burned individually in our country, burned congressionally here for those who voted for it, and all of us concerned about it as we review what comes next.
Q: Madam Leader, broadly on foreign policy: this Congress in the next month or so has to deal with Iran negotiations – whether it be more sanctions – whether to arm the Ukrainians, obviously the AUMF. There's a lot of issues bubbling. How does this Congress, which is so fractured between the parties, how do they take on these massive responsibilities given the conditions that exist right now?
Leader Pelosi. We take on those responsibilities in a bipartisan way. Issues that relate to our national security and our foreign policy – which is part of our national security of course – are issues that we have to find common ground on. The Ukraine issue, as you saw with Chancellor Merkel's visit, is one where there are decisions to be made, and we have people with a lot of experience and knowledge of the subjects over a period of time who can be useful in that discussion. I have always found that when it comes to foreign policy versus other issues, Congress is a like a kaleidoscope: might be one design to talk about domestic policy, when it comes to foreign policy, you turn the dial and different people come together to form a design which is how we would go forward to protect. And it's based on so many things: of course values, knowledge – what plan we think will work – and responding to concerns of our constituents about their knowledge, be it the Ukraine or other issues.
When it comes to Iran, the President has us on course. I commend this Administration for bringing together the P5, the Permanent Five members of the Security Council, plus one, Germany, to stay together in this negotiation. I think the sanctions that we've had so far and the multilateral sanctions that are there have helped keep Iran at the table. I'm pleased the Senate has said they're not going to do any more sanctions to upset that delicate balance.
I've believe we've said everything's on the table; but for everything to be on the table, diplomacy seen to its full course has to be on the table as well. And so that's the path we're on and I commend the Administration for that. And we're eager to see if there can be a good agreement. If there can't, then we go to the next step. I think that there's a real understanding of the seriousness. I mean, stopping the proliferation of mass weapons of destruction is a pillar of our security and our foreign policy, and it's serious of an issue that we deal with. Thank you all very much.
# # #