Transcript of Pelosi Press Conference Today
Contact: Ashley Etienne/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. I was hoping that my grandson Thomas and his brother Paul could shadow me into this room today as they are shadowing me on the Hill. We have many young women from Spelman College also shadowing Members on the Hill today.
What a day for them to come because today marks seven years since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act. It was a great day for our country because the Affordable Care Act stands there strongly with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, as pillars of economic and health security for the American people.
This historic law made immense progress in expanding coverage and lowering costs for hard-working American families. Improving quality, the ACA instituted landmark protections for every American: no annual lifetime limits; no discriminating on a preexisting condition; children allowed to stay on their parent's policy until 26 years old; no charging women more for health coverage, being a woman is no longer a preexisting medical condition; and it guaranteed coverage for essential health care, including maternity care, mental health, and addiction rehab.
More than 20 million people, previously uninsured Americans, now have health coverage. The percentage of uninsured Americans is at its lowest ever, a very important point. Since enactment of the ACA, health care costs have been increasing at the lowest rate in the 50 years that this measure has been taken. So it has lowered costs, improved quality, and expanded coverage.
Today, the Republicans are trying to push millions of hard-working American people off of their health coverage and to make health care more expensive for everyone else. Here's what TrumpCare means for the American people:
Higher cost. TrumpCare forces families to pay higher premiums and deductibles, increasing out of pocket cost. Higher premiums. That's a message of the Freedom Caucus, higher premiums, and they are right on that score. Less coverage. TrumpCare will take away health care from 24 million hard-working Americans. A crushing age tax. TrumpCare forces Americans age 50 to 64 to pay premiums five times higher than what others pay for health coverage no matter how healthy they are.
It steals from Medicare. TrumpCare shortens the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by 3 years and ransacks those funds of Medicaid that seniors depend on to get the long term care they need, whether in a facility or to stay in their own homes.
It also affects people with disabilities or addiction, et cetera, especially meeting the needs of America's children who need that assistance.
As bad as TrumpCare was, Republicans have been up all night trying to make it worse. They are scrambling to find a bill that they can pass on the floor. I don't know if you want to call this, on Trump's part, a rookie's error, but you don't find a day and say ‘we're going to pass a bill.' You build your consensus in your caucus, and when you're ready, you set the date to bring it to the floor.
But so eager were they to, I don't know, to be mean spirited, to say we are going to bring up this bill on the same day as the seventh anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, rookie's error, Donald Trump. You may be a great negotiator. Rookie's error for bringing this up on a day when clearly you're not ready.
And how are they moving to get ready? Here's how they're moving. Now we hear Republicans are planning changes to destroy the protections of more than 155 million Americans who get coverage through their employers, eliminating essential health benefits.
You've probably seen – I don't have it here – but essential health benefits that were something we're very proud of in the Affordable Care Act, I'll just say that the essential health benefits means Republicans are making being a woman a preexisting condition again. Stripping guaranteed maternity care is a pregnancy tax, pure and simple. Stripping guaranteed maternity care is a pregnancy tax, pure and simple. Pure and simple.
Worsening the addiction epidemic and making it harder to access mental health care, making it more expensive to be sick in America, well, that's their goal, to Make America Sick Again. Speaker Ryan has called this bill an act of mercy. An act of mercy. There is no mercy here. TrumpCare is a moral monstrosity that will devastate seniors and hard-working Americans.
I talked about what they had been talking about in the essential health benefits. Now, in order to get votes on the far, far right, they are looking at other items, including at Title I in the Affordable Care Act. You probably have this list. These are some of the things we are very proud of that are in the Affordable Care Act that they are now looking at. This will all hurt America's working families.
And it's a remarkable thing. It's clear that this is not a health care bill. This is a tax bill. This is once again Republicans never missing an opportunity to give a tax break to the high end. This is about the biggest transfer of wealth from working class families and those who aspire to the middle class to the richest people in America.
It's amazing. More than $600 billion transferred upward at the expense of working families. Ironically, some of these families are people who voted for Trump. In some areas, 57 percent of the people who voted for Trump are on the Affordable Care Act. That will be taken away from them, those red areas. That money will probably go with blue areas. Interesting, isn't it? All terrible.
So in any case, I've told the Republicans, and we worked for several hours in the Rules Committee last night, Republicans vote to destroy health care coverage, especially in this brutal form, well, that vote is going to be tattooed to their heads. They can't say, "Donald Trump made me do it." He's not their boss. Their constituents are their bosses. And this vote, as I say, will be their tattoo.
As you know, yesterday, in another diversionary tactic, the Deflector-in-Chief created some kind of a scenario where he either duped or the Chairman of the committee was a willing stooge, he committed a stunt with the White House yesterday raising questions about Chairman Nunes' impartiality, especially given his history as a part of the Trump transition team.
The Republicans are grasping at straws after their embarrassing performance on Monday, a place where FBI Director Comey confirmed that President Obama did not wiretap President Trump, affirmed an FBI investigation to links and coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign and into whether there was any coordination or connection between the campaign and Russia's effort to undermine America's election.
The necessity of an independent investigation is increasingly being recognized. I think that when Chairman Nunes acted the way he did, outside the circle of respect for his committee and his Members and his Ranking Member, outside the circle of just, again, respect for the responsibility that he has as chairman of the Intelligence Committee by being a stooge for the President of the United States, going to him, going to the Speaker, and going to the press before he even went to the Ranking Member of the committee, I think he has demonstrated very clearly that there is no way there can be an impartial investigation under his leadership on that committee. It speaks very clearly to the need for an outside independent commission. As Senator McCain said, no longer does Congress have the credibility to handle this one.
Chairman Nunes is deeply compromised and he cannot possibly lead an honest investigation. As I said, Congress must create a comprehensive independent bipartisan commission to expose the full truth about the Trump Russia connection. I've said it over and over again: What is it that the Russians have on President Trump, politically, personally, or financially, that they would go to such lengths, such lengths to hide these connections? What are the Republicans afraid of? The truth and an investigation?
And it's very serious because this has an impact on our national security. When a President elect comes into office and flirts with the idea of lifting sanctions on Russia, questions the new START Treaty, praises Putin as some kind of I don't know what and compares him favorably at the expense of the United States of America, it's a remarkable thing.
And now – I'm not going to go into it because it's all unfolding – but we see further connections between his campaign chairman and money connections to Russia and to Russian sympathizers in the Ukraine.
As you probably now, Nikolai Gorokhov, a lawyer who was to be a key witness in U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara's Russia probe, he fell four stories. This week he fell from a four story building. He's injured very seriously. And then Denis Voronenkov, a former Russian Member of Parliament, was killed in the city center of Kiev. He was to testify in the trial of the former pro Russian Ukraine Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych.
So it's a stunning set of facts that need to be reviewed for our national security, for the security of our nation, for the security of our democracy, and this needs to go outside.
With that, I'd be pleased to take any questions you may have.
Yes, sir?
Q: Shortly after Director Comey announced the FBI was effectively reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, you said that, quote, "Maybe he's not in the right job." Is that still your view, that Director Comey may not be in the right job in light of what happened on Monday?
Leader Pelosi. Well, I do believe that what the Director did during the campaign was inappropriate, by his own words. In the first week of the October, Director Comey said that he would not sign the consensus document that said the Russians were interfering in our election. The other leaders in the intelligence community signed off on that. He said it's too close to the election. It was the first week in October.
Two weeks later, for some reason, but heralded Rudy Giuliani a couple of days before, he says that he's looking into Hillary Clinton's emails again. This may be of no significance, he said, but we're looking into her emails. Now we're like 10 days before the election. Two weeks earlier it was too late, by his own words, and now we're looking into her emails. That had a direct impact on the election.
I think in this role now he's more in his wheelhouse as the Director of the FBI conducting an investigation. I don't know what he was doing on the political side. I thought that was very wrong what he did. I have respect for him for his other work, as I said then and I've repeatedly said, because I've observed him when he was in the Justice Department under President Bush and he was courageous there. But I think in this investigation he seems to be working from the facts and where the facts take us, and that's all this is about.
I've been in many investigative situations in the Congress as a Member of the Ethics Committee, seven years, longer than anybody, where we always instructed: It's only about what are the rules, what is the law, what are the facts. And I think that in that arena, hopefully, he can proceed.
Q: If I may follow up real quick. In both cases you had the Director come out and confirm an investigation that many say the Director should not confirm or deny the existence of an ongoing investigation, so –
Leader Pelosi. Who is that? Who says that? You said many say?
Q: Someone suggested.
Leader Pelosi. Oh, someone suggested.
Q: What is different from this case as opposed to –
Leader Pelosi. Well, good question, because I asked him, because it's been months since they've been doing the investigation and he hasn't said anything so far. And I said to him: Why did you say you were doing an investigation of Hillary Clinton – let me say this. I'm just trying to think. I'm trying to stay outside of the classified arena.
But I have posed probably the question: Why would the Director say publicly that he was investigating Hillary Clinton but would not even say in a classified setting, as you have seen over and over again in previous hearings, in the Senate, et cetera, that he was investigating the Russia U.S. election connection?
What his response to me was that there are at least two standards. I said: What is your criteria? One is that if you are to announce an investigation, you might give warning to the target of your investigation. So we're just talking now generally, all investigations. That would be one reason not to announce it. But one reason to announce it would be if it is of significant national interest. I think this is of significant national interest.
Yes, sir?
Q: Madam Leader, in your opening statement you mentioned a lot of what you see as key benefits of the ACA on the anniversary. Would you have a message for those people that are frustrated these years later? I mean, do you feel the system certainly can be improved? And for those people that are looking at what else is on the table, maybe they are just frustrated with what they have now, what would be your message to them?
Leader Pelosi. Well, there has never been a perfect bill that has passed Congress. And as I said, when you build your consensus, you go to the floor and you make all the progress you can in that bill. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Civil Rights bill, they all were revisited, and there would be an expectation when you see implementation what needs improvement or not. And by and large this has been overwhelmingly successful; not 100 percent. That's what we had hoped.
Part of the lack of success in certain markets where there is a big high risk pool, and that's harder for insurance companies to succeed there, was that the money was there to mitigate for that, the Republicans would not allow us to spend the money once they had the majority. So that would was a foreseeable challenge, but then they intervened.
Second point is that we could have extended the reinsurance. We had reinsurance to begin with. We would have extended that. We can do that again.
Where there are some problems are in the individual market, which is about six percent of the marketplace. It's not a large percentage, but any number of people affected are important to us. And that's a place that we would like to work with the Republicans to do that.
And of course a place that we have always said, I said the rate of increase of health care cost is the lowest it's been. It's more like that then, now like this. One place that we can work together and the President says he supports it is to the issue of pharmaceutical drugs, the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. That contributes more to the rising cost of health care?
So we can address that by having the Secretary be able to negotiate for prices the way the VA can, reinsurance. There are a number of things. And maybe some things that we can work together with the Republicans that are Republican ideas, as is the Affordable Care Act. Me, I would have had public option. This is a Republican idea, RomneyCare, individual mandate. An individual mandate can go with a public option, but if you don't have the individual mandate, you have free riders.
And this is the Heritage Foundation. They developed this idea of individual responsibility, and on top of the individual responsibility, a recognition that not everybody could afford it, and the subsidies were part of their idea as well.
So this is a free marketplace initiative. If you don't, as some people believe, that health care should not be a for profit industry, you go in another direction. But we didn't do that. We stayed with the mixture that was there.
Q: But you would characterize it as overwhelmingly successful?
Leader Pelosi. Overwhelmingly successful. And we have the stories across America. And that's why the AARP, the AMA, almost every physicians group, consumer group, patients groups, disease groups are all opposing what the Republicans are putting forth.
Yes, ma'am?
Q: Madam Leader, thank you for doing this. Lisa from "PBS NewsHour." You are well known as a vote counter.
Leader Pelosi. Yeah.
Q: Can you read the tea leaves or give us your reading for them for the Republicans? Can they add something to bring conservatives on board without losing their moderates? Can you talk about the positions the Speaker advanced?
Leader Pelosi. I wouldn't have the faintest idea. Because let me tell you why. I am a vote counter of my own votes. I don't ever pretend to know what goes on. I'd be the last person to ask what goes on in that caucus.
But I will tell you a big difference between Democrats and Republicans in this regard. As I said, when we built our consensus, we were ready to go to the floor. This isn't something where we ever go in and say: Here's the bill, now we need you to vote for it the day after tomorrow. That isn't the Democratic Party. Some people criticize us for being such a Democratic Party, but that's who we are.
And we are not transactional. We only can convince people about the merit of the bill. If somebody says, "I have questions about how this affects my constituents in my region, like mine, which might be more rural, more urban, more this, more that," then we have to find the answers to that and maybe make some adjustments in the bill in recognition of how it is predictably implemented in a way that could be corrected in advance.
From what I can hear of the rookie President is that he's transactional, he's a negotiator. So what is he promising? What is he granting or withholding? That's not how we operate. It's not about what committee you're going to be on or what bridge you're going to build. It's about what bridge are you going to cross to do something great for the American people.
So if "he's negotiating" means "I'm negotiating," I'm very concerned about that.
Q: And just to clarify, you're saying House Democrats are not transactional. Are you making the same statement about Senate Democrats?
Leader Pelosi. No, Congressional. No, I wasn't making it about that.
Q: I mean, the Cornhusker Kickback was a part of the Affordable Care Act.
Leader Pelosi. And it came out of the bill. And it came out of the bill. It came out of the bill. Because we all said, if it's not – it came out of the bill. You remember that that came out of the bill.
Yes, sir?
Q: Thank you. I want to see if you can update us on the fiscal 2017 spending bills. We're about a month away from a potential government shutdown. Have there been any negotiations between Democrats and Republicans? I mean, is there any hope for anything but another CR for the last 6 months of the year?
Leader Pelosi. Well, we have to have another CR before the end of the year. I defer to my appropriators, being forged in that. Two places I was forged here, Appropriations and Intelligence – sidebar on Ethics over here, but those two the most time spent. And appropriators can get through it.
Both of those committees had, by and large, been the least partisan committees in the Congress, so you find a way. And left to their own devices, I think that the bipartisan Appropriation Subcommittees can get their jobs done.
One question that I do have, and this isn't based on a fact, it's just based on an observation of not seeing something happen, is they may attempt to do one bill for '17, and that could have serious implications for a domestic agenda.
But we'll see. I mean, there's a mish mosh. Just for the rest of you who don't follow this, because last year we didn't do a full year's CR, we went to the end of April instead of the end of fiscal year, September 30. So we had to do a bill from the end of April to September 30.
At the same time we have to be writing a bill for 2018. At the same time the President has sent down a supplemental, which is kind of disruptive in terms of the balance of investment spending that are made.
And at the same time the White House has sent over a "skinny budget," a "skinny budget." Is that what you call it? A thin budget, a skinny budget, whatever it s? And that is practically a defiance of any sense of values of our country.
A budget is supposed to be a statement of our national values. What is important to us as a country should be reflected in how we allocate our resources. That is a budget that gives some $4 billion to the Defense side, just draining resources from all the other sources of America's strength, the health, the education, the well being of the American people.
And on the domestic side is also Veterans, Homeland Security, Intelligence, State Department, all of the soft power that is so important.
So that's why I had some generals in my office the other day arguing for recognizing what that soft power means to informing us to have connections. When we're cooperating with countries, whether it's President Bush's magnificent PEPFAR or some other initiatives that we have done with countries, build confidence, establish trust, then that helps us to gain intelligence, to know what's happening, to prevent the use of force. But if we have to use force, to be better prepared with friends and information as we go in.
So this is not, while it may say we're spending more money on Defense, it is not necessarily making us stronger. It's another example of rash, reckless policy rather than smart, strong policy.
So I don't know. You'll have to ask them. I don't know if they know how they're going to proceed. But I would hope that they would adhere as closely to the regular order as possible. If they do, I think the Members, in a bipartisan way, can work out their differences or build consensus. If it's above their pay grade, then that's where the problem comes in.
Q: In 2009, you allowed a Boehner substitute with medical malpractice association health plans and interstate insurance sales as a substitute for the ACA when it came to the floor. Do you guys plan on having a Democratic substitute or alternative if an ACA repeal comes to the House floor in the next day or two?
Leader Pelosi. No. No.
Q: Why not?
Leader Pelosi. But I thank you for pointing out that fairness with which we always treated the Republicans by enabling them to have one. We didn't have any thought that they would allow such a thing. And so it's no use putting something forward that has no prospect for success.
And the fact is, if this bill were to fail today, Rookie Day, I stand ready to negotiate with them on how we can go forward, incorporating some of their ideas, saving face for them in some areas, but doing what is right for the American people.
This is a bad day for them. It's bad if they win and it's bad if they lose because of what destruction they will wreak in the lives of the American people, and the American people know it.
Q: So you see no reason to put forward your own alternative?
Leader Pelosi. Well, we don't see any prospect that they would give us. Did you see, did you watch the Rules Committee yesterday?
Q: It was 10 hours, ma'am.
Leader Pelosi. I'm sorry?
Q: It was 10 hours.
Leader Pelosi. It was interesting. It was interesting. But it was not hopeful. It was not hopeful.
So they have a bill that is just getting worse as far as we can tell that they have to – again, you do not bring up your bill just to be spiteful to the anniversary of the Affordable Care Act. You build your consensus in your party and in the Congress, hopefully, and then you bring up the bill so you can do the best job for the American people, not the shortest, quickest, worst monstrosity that you can pass on the floor.
Q: You said that Chairman Nunes is now not an honest broker, he is unfit to lead a bipartisan investigation.
Leader Pelosi. Yes.
Q: Does that mean the Democrats will no longer participate or will you still –
Leader Pelosi. No, I'm just talking about him. I'm just talking about him. The Democrats are fully prepared to be unbiased in terms of an investigation. Where the facts and the law lead, that is all this is about. And, no, I'm just talking about him. He was part of the Trump transition. All of this relates to Trump transition, by and large. I think it's very clear.
He, himself, I don't know if that was a cry for help or let me out of here or whatever that was, but it was highly unusual, outside the accepted behavior of a chairman of an Intelligence – or any committee.
Thank you all very much.
# # #