Skip to main content

Transcript of Pelosi Press Conference Today

June 9, 2016

Contact: Drew Hammill/Evangeline George, 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. It's still morning. My apologies for running late. I just came from a very invigorating session with the Democratic Party Platform Drafting Committee. I went there to talk about the Innovation Agenda 2.0. Under the leadership of Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, our Members have had sessions across the country on innovation.

As some of you may recall, 10 years ago, we had the Innovation Agenda, which we passed into law and created the Competitiveness Act, which contained ARPA-E and so many other initiatives for innovation.

Recognizing that innovation begins in the classroom, a strong part of our agenda is about investing in education, which, by the way, helps to reduce the deficit because nothing brings more money to the Treasury than investing in education from earliest childhood, K through 12, higher education, post-grad, lifetime learning for our workers.

It was pretty exciting – the fact is the world is going digital. America must continue to be number one. In the spirit of John F. Kennedy, he said, “Under the vows of our Nation, we must be first, and therefore we intend to be first, when announcing the moonshot.” That was the inspiration for so much innovation in our country.

But it keeps happening; technology keeps moving. And, as they say where I live in northern California: you ain't seen nothing yet. So this is happening. It's inevitable. It's important for us. Other countries are becoming digital. It's important for America to be number one. We are excited about it.

In our Innovation Agenda 1, 10 years ago, 22 of our platforms – this was nonpartisan, it was academic, businesspeople, labor and workers, every aspect of an economy and society weighing in in a nonpartisan way – 22 recommendations. Only one of them failed to become law, comprehensive immigration reform, which is really central to, again, the invigoration of America, having the best possible talent educated here, to stay here, to work here, as we train our own workforce. Comprehensive immigration reform, so many reasons we must pass it, still to be done. But that's what I did this morning, and I'm very excited about it.

At the same time, Republicans' reckless obstruction has been going on on display. Two days after rolling out their so-called “poverty agenda” that will make life harder for struggling families, they are releasing their national security plank today, desperately trying to distract the American people.

House Republicans will have to answer why they want to hand the nuclear codes to a man who explodes at the slightest provocation, who wants to ignite a nuclear arms race in Asia, and who wants to undermine our multilateral security with NATO, to name a few.

Republicans are twisting in the wind over what our very own Speaker calls Trump's “textbook racist attack” on Judge Curiel. But there is not a dime's worth of difference, as I've said to you before, between what Donald Trump said and what the House Republicans have said. Republicans have comfortably surrendered to their new standard bearer, to his dangerous discrimination agenda, because it's an agenda that House Republicans have shared.

Instead of acting upon the concerns of the American people, creating good paying jobs, decent paychecks, and the rest, this is what the Republicans are doing. On the floor of the House, they are trying to require the Library of Congress to use dehumanizing terms when it comes to referring to undocumented immigrants in our country.

At the same time, we have been beseeching them, begging them – it has been over 108 days since the President asked for the emergency supplemental. Republicans voted seven times to block the President's $1.9 billion request.

On opioids, Republicans voted twice to block the $600 million in fully paid for vital new resources to address the opioid epidemic that kills 78 Americans a day. This is happening all over America, including in their districts.

Flint, it's hard to get their attention on Flint. It challenges the conscience of our country, and yet we still haven't acted upon that.

Instead, we're too busy on the floor trying to encourage the Library of Congress to use dehumanizing terms. So the Republicans will try to, but they cannot, hide their radicalism and their discrimination from the American people.

Yesterday, they announced – the Speaker announced – his Rules Committee, they're going to ban even the pretense of regular order. Just shows how afraid they are of people speaking on the floor of the House.

Last month, the Republicans voted down their own appropriations bill. You know why? Because it contained protections for LGBT Americans. It's long been clear that the regular order is not as important to the Republicans as protecting their special interest agenda, which includes discrimination. Too bad.

But, again, we have important work to do. I'm hopeful about what will happen on Puerto Rico. That should be imminent, and we look forward to finishing that off today or tomorrow.

Yes, sir.

***

Q: Madam Leader, there is obviously a lot of talk about Bernie Sanders today, his meetings with the President, with Harry Reid. Is there something unique about Senator Sanders and/or his campaign or his supporters? We've had other presidential campaigns and people, you know, get to a certain point when it's obvious they can't win, and they drop out. And I don't mean this in a negative sense, but the idea there's something, there's some fire he caught on to that makes it tougher for him to get out and maybe help get the party overall to be unified behind Hillary Clinton. What's unique about the circumstances of him and his supporters in this case?

Leader Pelosi. I don't know if I would use the word "unique" because, again, everything is different. Hillary Clinton's campaign, up until the day of the election, or the day after the election in California – 8 years ago Hillary Clinton was still in the race. There is another event happening next week here in Washington, D.C.’s process. My understanding is that Senator Sanders wants to be respectful of the process until the end, until the people have spoken.

There's no question that he has captured – again, I use the word "invigorated" – the process with the people that he has brought in, an ever widening circle of young people who have been physically involved, community-oriented, but not particularly politically interested. He has shown them a path with his plan for reducing the cost of college, addressing the egregious actions of Wall Street, and, again, the big umbrella issue that affects everything, campaign finance reform, overturning Citizens United.

So, it's hard. As everyone knows, it's very hard. People have their hopes, their dreams, their aspirations riding on a candidate. And sometimes it's really harder for the supporters to come to a reconciliation than it is for the candidate.

Bernie Sanders knows what's at stake in this election, what's on the line. I have no doubt that he will be very constructive as we go forward. I also know it's very hard not to win, and it's hard for your supporters especially.

Q: Is it tougher for him, though? You said it's harder for the supporters, but is there, again, something use whatever word you want – special or unique about Sanders that's harder for him to come to terms and that reconciliation that he can't win?

Leader Pelosi. Well, I hope not because if there is any uniqueness or specialness in this situation, it is certainly offset by the Republican nominee for President of the United States, Donald Trump.

But let me just say, you know, my history with all of this. I have been involved in every kind of way. I've chaired a platform committee, I've chaired a convention, I've chaired the delegate selection rules stuff and all of that. But in 1976, I went with Jerry Brown to the convention. That was my coming out of the kitchen and beginning my road to the Congress, I guess. But in 1976 we went, and we were lobbying people for Jerry Brown, thinking something could happen with the Carter candidacy and we'd be ready. In 1980, you know what happened at the convention; it was Kennedy and Carter. In 1984, I chaired the host committee for the convention in San Francisco. You would've thought it was a Gary Hart convention – the number of signs, the enthusiasm of the delegates and the rest, but Walter Mondale was the nominee.

Again, the list goes on. In terms of 1992, I was chairing the platform committee, and my friend Jerry Brown was running against Bill Clinton and took his fight to the convention.

So it goes on. And what's hard for some people – I know, in 2008, they came to me and said, "Do I really have to vote for Barack Obama? I'm so committed to Hillary Clinton." I said, "Yeah, well, that's a decision you have to make," and they made their own decisions. But, still, it's hard.

So it's always hard, and people are always hopeful. And every candidate thinks he or she is going to win. That's why they run, or to get their message out.

And so the question is: What is the purpose, going forward? I think that Bernie Sanders has really done a great job for our country, for our democracy, certainly for the Democratic Party and for young people. Now, what's the next step? That's really up to him.

Q: Just to follow up on that…

Leader Pelosi. Okay. We can talk politics all day, and I have been all morning, so…

Q: I'm sure. But just to follow up on that…

Leader Pelosi. And then we'll come to immigration.

Q: Just to follow up on that, Bernie Sanders' campaign is still being pretty adamant that he's going to take this to the convention. Are you comfortable with that idea?

Leader Pelosi. He has to make his own decisions. I just described to you several conventions that I was involved in where the candidate took it to the convention, whether it was Ted Kennedy, whether it was Jerry Brown on more than one occasion, whether it was – Gary Hart was not actually – he was thinking in terms of the future when he took his forces to the convention. But people – candidates do. And I think that Bernie Sanders should not be – while you point out the specialness and perhaps uniqueness of the movement he has created, he knows what's on the line. And he should be treated no differently than other candidates. He should be allowed the opportunity and respected to have the opportunity to make his decision about how he brings this to a place that advances the causes that he has been fighting for.

Q: On immigration reform, it's an issue in the election. So do you think that the U.S.‑Mexico border is secure?

Leader Pelosi. I think it's important to note that I just took a delegation, a bipartisan delegation, to Mexico, and migration was one of the issues – TPP, national security always first and foremost the issue. And the fact is that we have a negative migration. More people are going back to Mexico than are coming into our country.

And the idea of building a wall there, a barrier rather than a bridge – anyone familiar with the region – and I am to a certain extent. Been there many times, to El Paso or Laredo or McAllen, all those places along the border. Go to El Paso. It's a community with a border running through it. People come back and forth and buy their groceries, see their families, some go to school. It is a beautiful site to behold, I have to say. So the thought of building a wall there is wrong. And the people in Mexico have concerns about what that means, in terms of disrespect for them.

But I don't see many people writing about the fact that there are more people going back to Mexico than coming into the United States.

Yes, ma'am.

Q: On the Puerto Rico legislation, are you confident the rule and the bill can pass? And what does the Democratic support look like at this point?

Leader Pelosi. Well, you know, this morning, you probably saw that Nydia Velázquez and – Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez and Congressman José Serrano put out statements in support of the legislation.

I think it's important to note that what is in the bill to help Puerto Rico restructure is very important and very well thought out and represents a compromise in terms of the board that will do the oversight. And we want to make sure that people who are appointed to the board have the best interest of the restructuring working.

On another day and another bill, it is important for us to recognize things that we couldn't put in this bill, just would not have worked at this time. And that would go to issues like Medicaid, earned income tax credit, issues like that which do help the island and its economic recovery.

But we'll see what the vote is. People are, sort of, very affected by what Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez and José Serrano have to say, so I feel pretty good about its passage.

Q: You're a longtime appropriator, or used to be, so you probably can figure out how Hal Rogers is viewing the Zika negotiations. It seems like the upper limit for funding would be the Senate figure at 1.1. It also seems like the House will insist on offsets. Is that a formula that might get some House Democratic votes, or would you simply…

Leader Pelosi. Well, let's say this.

Q: …not accept offsets?

Leader Pelosi. First of all, when the Senate put forth its, I think unfortunate, $1.1 billion proposal, the Democrats who supported it justified that by saying it's not offset. So it's not a lamb‑eat‑lamb situation, you're taking money for Zika from other initiatives that are good for the health and well‑being of the American people. Again, that's what we used to call it on our committee, Labor‑HHS: lamb‑eat‑lamb. There's almost no place to go to get some funding because everything is a priority.

As I was on the Appropriations Committee, I understand the culture, but I think that the easiest thing – the most important thing they could have done was to fund, under emergency funding, the full request of President Obama. I hope that that is what they will eventually do.

But, you know, this is not a compromise of a compromise, it's a – the first thing was a compromise, and now we're going backward. So it's really unfortunate. And we need the $1.9 billion. Now, let's see where they come down.

But I feel sorry a little bit for Mr. Rogers because I know he cares about opioids. He should care about Flint. The whole world cares about Zika. And their process seems to be oblivious to the urgency of all three of them.

So I don't have – I just think they're long overdue. An emergency bill could have passed – we're over 100 days since the request – could've passed. It could have been well down the road to what needs to be done in terms of prevention, in terms of research and the other aspects of stopping the epidemic.

Q: Madam Leader, on appropriations, given Republicans' move to a structured rule on appropriations, what's the game plan for Democrats on how or whether to support spending measures on the floor? I mean, Republicans are blaming Democrats for the move to a structured rule, and they say they've concluded most of your Members will vote against appropriations.

Leader Pelosi. Well, first of all, let's just say, again, getting back to the culture of appropriations, we always strove – is it "strove" or "strived"? We had striven – attempted to – we always worked in a bipartisan way to pass legislation that could pass on the floor that was the best we could do under what we had to work with. In the '90s, under Newt Gingrich of course, they tried to use appropriations as a poison‑pill vehicle, and that's some of what we're living with now.

So whether people vote for the bill or not will have more to do about the substance of the bill, whether it has poison pills or whether it is the bill that was negotiated by the Republicans and Democrats on the committee before the dose of medicine came down from the Leadership on the poison pill. So it all depends on the bill.

The fact that they – this is a longstanding tradition, you might even call it a source of pride, right? Of having open rules for appropriations bills. The fact that they are now closing down that option is a sign of fear and cowardice on their part. They are afraid of the debate.

You saw what happened – let me just close by this. You saw what happened last week. They had their own bad bill, Energy and Water, which met their standards. It was so bad that even their own people accepted it. And yet over 300 people voted against the bill because it had a measure in it to stop discrimination against LGBT contractors who received Federal contracts.

Imagine that they would say; even this terrible bill, which pollutes and – it's one of their specialties. It was such a bad bill. But even how bad it was and how polluting and degrading of the environment that it was, it wasn't bad enough for them to accept something that said the President's Executive order that said that LGBT contractors should not be discriminated, [against] those who have Federal contracts.

It's stunning. It's stunning. It's not surprising. It's typical. And it's completely in keeping with Donald Trump. That's why I said there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two of them. It's really sad, and I don't paint all the Republicans with the same brush. But enough of them to vote against any bill that would have anything about discrimination of LGBT.

I remind you, I remind you, I remind you – are you ready to hear? That in 2010, when the defense authorization bill was on the floor and we had the repeal of ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ in the bill and the amendment passed, only nine Republicans voted for the defense authorization bill. Only nine Republicans. Now, do you ever hear them criticize us for voting against the defense bill? But they did if it ended discrimination against LGBT people. So this is an ongoing thing.

And did you tell me? Who was it who told me that in their meeting, where they opened with a prayer, which I fully respect and said we do, that whoever was leading the prayer said to the Members that the people who voted for the Maloney – the [Rep.] Sean Patrick [Maloney] bill would – did he say burn in hell or just go to hell for voting for that amendment that ended discrimination? This is what we're dealing with.

So, interesting times.

Q: What's wrong with Steph Curry?

Leader Pelosi. He'll be back. Last question you asked me was, when we were down three to one and you were like – and I said one word to you: Believe.

Q: You said it five times. You sounded like Mickey Dolenz of the Monkees. "I'm a believer."

Leader Pelosi. They're having their anniversary.

Thank you.

# # #