Transcript of Pelosi Press Availability Ahead of Votes on Iran Agreement

Contact: Drew Hammill, 202-226-7616

Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi held a press availability today ahead of House votes on the Iran Nuclear Agreement. Below is a transcript of the press availability.

"Good morning, everyone. Just in case any of you missed it in a number of our comings together in the last few days, here we are again with our Member Statements. This, to me, is such a tremendous inspiration: after thousands of hours of reading and listening and discussing with constituents, as well as experts, and even world leaders, our Members have written their statements of support of the President's agreement, the JCPOA – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

"We are, today, going to go to the Floor and have a very strong vote in support of the agreement. I've always had confidence in that, that we would sustain the President's veto, if that would be the vote, because – and it sprang from the fact that, in my judgment – which is decades of service on the Intelligence Committee, a commitment to stopping proliferation as a priority of my service in Congress – that I saw the quality of the agreement. I think it's masterful. Our colleagues, to one degree or another, agree with that. So today we will go to the Floor, have a strong vote – I'm very proud of the debate and the substance on which our colleagues have based their decision and made their statements.

"It is also interesting to note that today in the Washington Post, there is an op-ed – or I don't know if you call it an op-ed if it's not on the op-ed page – but an op-ed by President Hollande of France, Chancellor Merkel of Germany and Prime Minister Cameron of the UK in no uncertain terms saying how important this agreement is. And it just shows what diplomacy can accomplish. So this is a day not only of making history by supporting the agreement, but making progress by having the agreement move closer to fruition.

"With that, I'd be pleased to answer any questions you have."

***

Q: Madam Leader Pelosi, looking ahead to the CR that's coming up…

Leader Pelosi. Excuse me, just one second. I'm happy to talk about that. Any questions about what's happening today? Or is all the mystery gone? Usually you'd be asking me now, how many votes do I think I will have?

Q: Why do you – how do you account for the stark, black and white nature of the debate, in which every Republican is speaking in apocalyptic terms, and most Democrats are speaking in favor of the agreement, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of nuance or a lot of middle ground?

Leader Pelosi. Well I think you see some of the nuance outside – not even nuance, you see associations. We associate ourselves with statements of the nuclear physicists who congratulated the President, and said that this was an innovative agreement, an agreement that would be – what's their exact word? A "guidepost" for future nonproliferation agreements. We associate ourselves with generals and admirals who have come out in support of this, the Heads of State of other countries and their diplomats who have said that we are going to hold – this is a good agreement; we're going to hold Iran accountable should they even entertain the notion of cheating. And that's in the three Heads of State statement. We have ways to know in advance, even, of that.

So, it's not about what happens between Democrats and Republicans here. It's about the unity of Brent Scowcroft, security adviser to President George Herbert Walker Bush and other Republicans, coming out strongly in support of this, and saying in his statement that Secretary Moniz is the foremost authority in the world on this subject of nuclear weapons and proliferation. It's about John Warner, the former Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee joining Carl Levin, another Chair, in support of this agreement. Diplomats of Democrats, Republicans, no party coming out in support of this. So your question should be to the Republicans: why is it that not one Republican could examine the substance and come to a different conclusion?

I think that's really the question. But you know what? We're all going to come together in support of our security, Israel's security and making sure that rather than engage in really – it's hard to describe what is happening on the floor. The Republicans, in order to get a vote on the rule, they have this potpourri of votes there. But after that, hopefully a level of seriousness will set in on them to say: we have the agreement; let's make sure they honor it. Because if your concern is that they don't honor it, and that's why you object to it, let's make sure they honor it. Then we're all on the same page.

This is very exciting. This is a very exciting, historic event. We have never had an agreement where we haven't had to give something up in terms of our own arsenal. Ronald Reagan – our goal is to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction. Many other countries are supporting this because they know the danger of Iran having a weapon – not just because Iran would have it, which would be horrible of itself, they can't get it – but what it would cause in terms of contagion in terms of other countries deciding they wanted a weapon as well. It would be over. It would be over. And so this gives us hope, and it gives us a plan, and it's not based on trust – distrust and verify. So many of us have said that over and over again. So go ask them why not one of them could have the openness to support this.

Yes, sir?

Q: Madam Leader, are you troubled by reports that the Administration might be trying to influence the intelligence on ISIS?

Leader Pelosi. No, I have not paid too much attention to that right now because we're involved in this. But I would be troubled by any interference in any intelligence.

Yes?

Q: Are you concerned about the possibility of legal challenges to go to the deal?

Leader Pelosi. No. But why wouldn't we say the process is taken place, the agreement is going forward and why would we put in doubt the determination of the United States of America to be a full partner in this agreement? It says the P5 – the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and Russia, + 1, Germany. When you read the agreement, it's the EU and all those member states plus three – the United States, China and Russia. Why would we say: we are going to abdicate our role in the collaborative effort to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? It's time for us to get serious.

Q: Can I ask you a question on the CR?

Leader Pelosi. Now have we finished Iran?

Q: I have a question on the Syrian refugees. Do you have any response in the…

Leader Pelosi. You know what? I promised this gentleman we would come back to him when we were finished with Iran. You can't know how proud I am of the Members because they not only are making a vote they are making a statement about support of this. And they know how to not only defend their vote but advance this initiative. With that, I am probably, reluctantly – because I carry it around all the time – and you know what? Like a baby I would carry around, it's always growing.

Drew wants me to mention to you: as of now, we have at least 150 public statements of support for the agreement, which is quite remarkable because usually people would just say: people will know my vote when I vote. But it's the pride they take and the demonstration of knowledge of the subject that makes this such a strong vote.

On the CR, what was the specific question?

Q: On the CR, given the divisions that have emerged on the Republican side, is it clear to you that Speaker Boehner will have to rely on you and Democrats to keep the government open and does that empower you to get rid of the sequester cuts that you've called so damaging?

Leader Pelosi. Well, I certainly hope so. But you have to ask the Speaker how he would bring his Members together. What we keep hearing from the Republicans in the House is that they are not going to let anything go forward unless it defunds Planned Parenthood. We're talking about keeping the government open and all we are responsible to meet the needs of the American people. And what they are saying is, for an ideological bent in their Caucus, they would shut down government. They are a luxury this country cannot afford. So hopefully, I'll wait to hear how the Speaker wants to go down this path, but I like your scenario. I hope that everyone heard it – that they're saying they're not going to vote for something [that] empowers the Democrats, and therefore, we'd have to be working together. Would that be the essence of what you said?

Q: I'm wondering if you think that's going to happen.

Leader Pelosi. Well, I hope it does.

Q: Going back to Iran… I wanted to ask you, if you could talk about how floor time was managed for this debate. Clearly, the majority of your members are in support of the agreement, there are some members prominent in the Caucus who aren't in support of the nuclear agreement. Can you talk about how decisions were made about who had time to speak on the floor and how everybody had a chance to sort of go on record?

Leader Pelosi. Yeah. Well, we originally had 10 hours, and that, we were operating under that scenario. The question is about the very-interesting-to-the-American-people subject of how we managed our floor time on the debate.

[Laughter]

Q: I'll take it. Okay. I'm still curious.

Leader Pelosi. This is what is called inside, inside baseball. Inside the baseball, that fact is originally, we were quite pleased – when we heard we would have ten hours of debate – it would be distributed among the five committees. Then, they changed it to seven hours of debate. So, for those of you who are very interested, reducing it to seven hours of debate means that we have 90 minutes – fewer minutes – to make our presentation. That's either 90 one-minute, 45 two-minutes, or 30 three-minutes. That's a lot of time taken away from Members – that's a lot of Members who wouldn't be able to speak or all of them speaking in a much shorter time. So, but, when they did it, they also took away the breakdown of the five Committees of Jurisdiction. And what we did there was to restore the jurisdiction of the five Committees of Jurisdiction. So that each committee – for example, right now, [the] sanctions [bill] largely comes under the Ways and Means Committee, so they are controlling the time at the end here.

Q: Thank you.

Leader Pelosi. You're welcome.

[Laughter]

It may not be a big deal to Americans, but it's a big deal to our Members. It's for the time.

Q: President Obama yesterday directed the Administration to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees in the next fiscal year. Some of your Members are calling for 100,000. What is your response to the Administration's reaction about policy exceptions?

Leader Pelosi. You know, I've just seen their number. I haven't sat down with them to see how that works. But, I really do think that in the tradition of our country – to welcome refugees from war torn areas – that we should try to do as many as possible. I commend the efforts of Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren who is saying that – they are saying to increase the number of entries into our country by 100,000 – they might not all be Syrian refugees, but a large chunk of them would be.

Q: There's 200,000 total and 100,000 Syrian refugees.

Leader Pelosi. Is that how she's framing it? Well, certainly, there is a case to be made for that. It is interesting to note – how the European countries – Germany is taking the lead on this. And I read in the paper this morning that it could be a salvation to their economy to have this younger, newer population coming in to reinvigorate. I'm not just saying Germany, but the countries that are receiving them. Myself, [with] my background, I wish that we could accept as many as possible. We took the lead after the Vietnam War, where we were taking like 14,000 a month for a period of time from Southeast Asia. And when we did, other countries followed suit. So, I don't know how the Administration arrived at 10,000, but that is going to be a very strong focus for us. Our Members expressed their appreciation to the German Ambassador when he came to see us the other day about the Iran agreement, but commended him for the leadership role that Germany is playing.

Well, in just a little while, we'll just see how big the margin is. And I thank you for your interest.

# # #