Skip to main content

Transcript of Pelosi Press Conference Today

January 6, 2017

Contact: Drew Hammill/Caroline Behringer, 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. Today is the Feast of the Epiphany, January 6, the visit of the Magi. Epiphany. I always pray on this day that we will all have a wonderful epiphany coming together this week in the first week of the new Congress.

On that opening day, Democrats pledged to stand our ground on issues of concern to protect Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, the Affordable Care Act. And we also said we would work to find common ground on issues that would grow our economy, raise wages, have good paying jobs, and meet the needs of the American people. We were hoping on that day that there would be such an economic initiative put forth. Instead, as you know, the Republicans put forth a measure to violate freedom of speech as well as to overturn the – well, they attempted to – the outside ethics commission, which they have now reversed. But, anyway, it wasn't a good – I don't think it was a good opening.

Instead of focusing on creating jobs, they've declared war on the health of our country. You have seen – we came together, Democrats in the House and the Senate, to talk about protecting our care, to not – to refuse to participate in what the Republicans will do to make America sick again. In the rule, the opening day rule, the Republicans admitted that repealing the ACA would add cost to the budget, would increase the budget, and that's why they had a provision in there to reject their own rules on the subject of not having a point of order when they're going to increase cost to the taxpayer. They also had a provision in there to move mandatory spending to discretionary to make it something that cannot be counted on for the American people. So, again, if the Republicans decide that they're going to remove the guarantee of Medicare, we will be there to protect the American people. And the list goes on.

When they want to repeal and replace, as I've said to you before, repeal and replace has only alliteration going for it. It has no votes. It has no ideas. It has no proposal. And so we'll be interested to see how they want to replace. But they cannot replace it if they're going to diminish coverage, benefits that people receive, the number of people who receive them, and stop what we consider to be very important: lowering cost, increasing access, improving benefits.

This morning, we had a very interesting presentation, the Gang of Eight, that would be the House and Senate Democratic and Republican leaders, House and Senate Democratic leaders of the Intelligence Committee. That's the eight. It was really quite a stunning disclosure. Right now, as we speak, the four briefers are on their way to brief the President elect in New York. Later in the day, some of the report will be released to the public. I would hope that we could get more. I don't – I know we, as a longtime intelligence person, I know we have to respect sources and methods. But I think that even Congress has the right to know more than they want to disclose to Congress beyond the Gang of Eight. So this will be interesting in terms of what the disclosure is of this report. But, suffice to say, it's stunning in its conclusions. And you will see some of it.

They are now briefing the President elect, a person who has tried to discredit, disparage, and dismantle the existing intelligence community because he doesn't like some of the things that they're putting forward. I keep reminding administrations – I've been doing intelligence for many Presidents – and I keep reminding them that intelligence is – while the administration is the custodian of the intelligence, the Congress of the United States has to act upon that intelligence and has a right to access it, protecting sources and methods. So I'm hoping that more Members will have more access than is planned right now, just confining some of it to the Gang of Eight.

Today we'll be joining many of our colleagues who will be making an announcement later today about the large number of Members cosponsoring the Swalwell Cummings legislation calling for an outside investigation, an independent outside investigation, of the Russians hacking into our system.

With that, pleased to take any questions you may have.

Q: Madam Speaker?

Leader Pelosi. Yes, ma'am.

Q: Hi. I wanted to ask: You expressed yesterday opposition to repealing Obamacare and defunding Planned Parenthood through reconciliation, but how do you square that with that's how the Democrats were able to put Obamacare in place in the first place?

Leader Pelosi. Actually, thank you for asking that question. The Affordable Care Act was passed not under reconciliation in its – when it first came to the Congress. So the main part of the bill, House and Senate, was not under reconciliation. The final version with just some tweaks – I would have liked more – were what was done under reconciliation. But the bulk of the bill, if you look back to the history of it, the bulk of the bill was done on the 60 vote rule, not under reconciliation. So…

Q: But it passed without a single Republican vote.

Leader Pelosi. Well, they had – we had 60 Democrats. We had 60 Democrats then. And then the two bills passed, and then the Senate bill was a little bit different from the House bill. So, on that, on some of those changes, which were not, shall we say, structural – it was just some changes in the legislation – that did go under reconciliation, but by and large, the whole process was done with the 60 vote: Hundreds of hearings, bipartisan, over and over again. Some Republican amendments taken. Some Democratic amendments taken. Some Democratic and Republican amendments modified. Some Democratic and Republican amendments rejected. They were treated in a similar fashion.

Yes, ma'am.

Q: Two questions. One, do you know if the House Democrats are going to object to the electoral college today, have found a Senator to support them? And, two, what are your thoughts on this potential House GOP plan to fund a border wall through the appropriation process later this spring?

Leader Pelosi. Well, in the first question, I don't know. I don't believe that there's a Senator who is participating. As you may recall, in 2004, Senator Boxer joined the effort. And if you have a Democrat – excuse me. If you have a Senator and a House Member, you can go forward and have debate time and the rest of that. But if you don't, you can't. So I don't believe they have that. I don't know who will show up and object, but probably somebody will.

On the second question, it is pretty interesting to see that the Republicans would put, what, $14 billion in a continuing resolution to build the wall? I don't know. That's – I think that's a heavy sell. I think that's a tough sell for them.

Q: You mentioned earlier about the rules package and things about debate. And I was just curious. When you look at that debate, it seems to be the question of the speech and debate clause versus the constitutional prerogative for the House to make its own rules. Are you arguing that speech and debate has primacy over the ability of the House to make its own rules?

Leader Pelosi. I think that the Constitution of the United States and the freedom of speech take precedence over everything else. And for Republicans to say, "If you express your point of view on the floor of the House, that the Sergeant at Arms can make a determination that you have violated a rule of the House and deduct from your pay a fine," I mean, this is completely outrageous. Completely outrageous. So it's not a question of one or the other.

It's all about freedom of expression. And in making rules of the House, we don't make rules that violate the Constitution. So it all comes back to the Constitution of the United States.

Q: Madam Leader?

Leader Pelosi. Yes, ma'am.

Q: Having seen the Gang of Eight briefing, having seen this new report, do you believe that what the Russians did cost Hillary Clinton the election?

Leader Pelosi. I would say this: Regardless of the outcome of the election, the American people have a right to know what a foreign power did to disrupt our election. And that's really the point. It doesn't matter – I mean, it matters…

Q: Do you think it affected the outcome?

Leader Pelosi. Well, when you see the report, you'll make a judgment about that.

Q: Well, what's your judgment? That's what I'm asking.

Leader Pelosi. Well, I have thought that the – I have said all along that the leaks – the Russians' disruption of our election, which is clearly evident in their – when you make a judgment about these things, you look at: What is the source? What is the source of the disruption? What tools does that source have at its disposal? What is the path they used to the target? And I think when you see this report, you will see with confidence how the intelligence community has identified what we had seen and I knew from the disruption at the DCCC. We knew it was the Russians, not from any classified information, because I could never disclose that, but from our own investigation, which was costly, to identify the source, the tools, the path, and the target.

There is no question that the Republicans – excuse me, that the Russians disrupted, and then they released the information so that – to a source, and this is the path, which would then, on a partisan basis, only release Democratic emails.

I really say to you, my friends in the press, with all the respect for the guardians of the First Amendment that you are, that you were accomplices in this. There was – every single day, you reported that there was an email that was embarrassing to the Clinton [campaign], without saying, "We know this because of a disruption by a foreign power into our electoral system." You knew that. You knew it was the Russians. And so did it affect the Clinton campaign? Of course, it did. Of course, it did. Would it have come out differently? I don't know. Because there are many factors in an election. But you read the report, and then we'll talk again about what the purpose, the source, the tools, the path, the purpose, and the target, and that would be the purpose – the target of it.

And that's why people have some level of dismay today on the vote, getting back to your question, about the electoral college. How much is known about the foreign disruption of our election? How much information was released with the purpose to hit a target? How much of it was altered? Why was it just Democratic emails that were released? And why wasn't there really a report that said, "This information comes to you from Radio Free Putin"? Nobody ever really made that. And then, after the elections, everybody says: Oh, we should have said and all that.

But I think it was very clear. I think everybody knew that whatever it was, it was coming from a disruption of our election.

Q: What should the response be from the U.S.? You say this is a stunning report. What should…

Leader Pelosi. Let's see the report. There's no use talking about it until you see the report today. And I wish that you could see the entire report. But protecting sources and methods is a very high priority for us. But I think maybe the intelligence community in their protecting sources and methods could maybe release a little more information at least to Members of Congress, if not to the public domain.

Yes, ma'am.

Q: Senate Democrats want the House Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate Congressman Price. What are you doing to make that happen?

Leader Pelosi. I'm not doing anything to make it happen. I served for 7 years on the [Ethics] Committee. Six years is the limit. But I was blessed with a waiver to serve for 7. And the last thing I ever wanted was any involvement of the leadership in our nonpartisan investigations. But it is important for people to have a responsibility of confirmation and the rest to have information necessary for their making a vote on confirmation. And that's what the Senate has asked for.

A Public Citizen has written to the Office of Congressional Ethics with a detailed complaint on a matter of Congressman Price's trades the same time as was acting upon them. I think it would be important for the OCE to swiftly move to review that information before the confirmation hearing.

It's interesting – this all came out after – later in the week. But it's interesting that the Republicans started the week – tried to start the week – by completely defanging the Office of Congressional Ethics, the outside Office of Congressional Ethics. And this is a place where this can come forward.

Okay. That's it.

Q: Madam Leader, on the electoral college, can you just clarify, are you encouraging the objections today? Are you encouraging…

Leader Pelosi. I'm not encouraging them, but I will be there, and I'll support those who object. But, you know, it's a very narrow parliamentary – we went through this in 2008 – excuse me – 2000, after the election of 2000 and 2001, 2005, and now we're here. You know how it works. The Vice President presides. So Joe Biden will be in the chair. A little easier than when it was Al Gore in 2001 in the chair when we were challenging that. But what it takes is a Senator and a House Member to both agree to object, and then it turns into 2 hours of debate: one in the Senate, one in the House, something like that. And then there's a vote. And it's not going to have an impact on the outcome of the election. So that's not the point.

But I think that people don't want the day to pass without registering concern about – in some cases, Members are concerned about voter suppression. In some cases, they are concerned about Russian influence on our election. There are a number of concerns. But, really, it's not going to have an impact at the end of the day. But Donald Trump will be – and Mike Pence – will be elected President of the United States by virtue of the electoral college. And that's what will happen today.

So Members will – we'll see who comes forward, and I support it. I'm not encouraging it, but I certainly support what they are doing. And I think, quite frankly, there's nothing they could say in there that would be an overstatement of the reasons why we should have further discussion. But the fact is that you can't do it on a one House basis.

Thank you.

# # #