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 Opening Remarks

Leader Pelosi. Good morning, everyone. Here we are, the end of the summer part of the session, we're going into August.

By the time we come back in September, we will be meeting many challenges: raising the debt ceiling, keeping government open, extending reauthorizing State Children's Health Insurance Program, community health centers, flood insurance, so many things that the can has been kicked down the road on, and that's just to name a few. So, so far, not much happening here.

As you know, today we will be debating what's called the minibus, not an omnibus, everything, a minibus and it's on the subject of security.

As you know, all of us, anyone who serves in government or civically involved, takes an oath of office to protect and defend, support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Our first responsibility is to protect the American people and our Constitution. If people are not safe, how can we proceed in any other way? Democrats believe in a strong national defense.

Sadly, the so called security minibus before the House this week serves neither our national defense nor our upholding our oath of office. It is founded on phony numbers and narrow thinking that will create destructive uncertainty for our military. And at the same time, it will starve us on the domestic side.

We believe that a measure of our strength is, of course, our military might. But it is also the health and education and well-being of the American people in so many ways.

So what they want to do here is bring a bill to the floor that is $70 billion over the sequestration limit, forcing a 13 percent cut of all defense accounts. So with their fraudulent accounting, they are cutting our national security by 13 percent rather than adding the money they think they're adding.

It would squander billions of taxpayer dollars on, well, a down payment by $1.6 billion on President Trump's immoral, ineffective and expensive border wall. You know the one that we weren't going to pay for, that he promised.

It also eliminates ARPA-E [Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy], the advanced energy research vital to our energy dependence, to our national security and to keeping America the innovation superpower of this century.

I feel particularly protective of that because ARPA-E was part of our competitiveness legislation when we had the majority. The bill was signed by President [George W.] Bush. It was part of the Innovation Agenda. It has created so many jobs, strengthened our country by giving us more options in terms of energy. That would be eliminated.

In order to be the strongest possible America, we, again, must measure our strength not only in military might, but in the health and well-being of the American people.

Okay. And so here we are and the health and well-being of American people is in mortal danger as the Senate continues votes on Trumpcare. Republicans may call their latest iteration we call it the ‘repeal and run plan.' They may call it ‘skinny.' But it is huge in terms of the cost increases and coverage losses it will cause for hard-working American families. The CBO found that the premiums will soar, plans will evaporate and millions of families will lose health coverage.

Democratic and Republican Governors put out a letter late yesterday. I don't know if you've seen it, but we certainly will make it available to you. And in the letter, among other things, they said the Senate should also – they were talking about rejecting some things – but the Senate should also reject efforts to amend the bill into a ‘skinny' repeal, which is expected, they said, to accelerate health plans leaving the individual market, increase premiums and result in fewer Americans having access to coverage.

That is bipartisan, Democratic and Republican governors sending that letter. You'll have it. Do you have it, have the letter? We'll make sure that you do.

The cruelty and contempt that Republicans are showing for the health-care of American working families is mind-boggling. Except what could be surprising these days?

Last week, some of you were here when we had our four Ranking Members come forward and talk about four initiatives several initiatives, four main ones that had bipartisan support, some of which are in the Republican bills. They relate to cost sharing, they relate to reinsurance, and the list goes on, but outreach and the rest.

And so we, again, extend the hand of friendship. I think some of you may have seen, C-SPAN showed it over and over, our hearing that we had on the Steering and Policy Committee, [Co-Chairs] Rosa DeLauro and Eric Swalwell, about thirty Members were there to ask questions of our witnesses, who were superb, objective. This is nothing partisan or ideological or philosophical. It was just, how does this work? How do we get better results?

Again, reinforcing what our New Dems have sent out in a letter. Had a press conference with all of you earlier this month, but also a large number of Members have sent to the Speaker: Let's just do the four most important things and maybe find some other common ground. But everything that we've been asking them to do they have expressed support for.

So in any event, we should join together. The American people want us to do that in a constructive, bipartisan way, to stabilize the insurance marketplace now before Congress leaves Washington for August. We have to have a clear message about the cost sharing. Hopefully, the President will honor that. He has so far. We need him to do it again.

Again, as I mentioned last week with our Ranking Members, we proposed measures with bipartisan support. There were other places we hope we can make at the beginning of the year we had hoped, beginning of the session we had hoped we could find bipartisan agreement.

Infrastructure, it's never been partisan, jobs that could come from infrastructure. Again, lifting the debt ceiling, appropriations bills [and] keeping government open.

The appropriations process, as an appropriator, I can tell you, it is the culture there to get it done, to work in a bipartisan way, to get it done in a way that gives us assurance that government will be open.

And, again, tax reform. We thought we could work together on tax reform. But we haven't seen any evidence of any legislation coming so far, and we look forward to receiving it. As a matter of fact, they haven't been able to pass a budget; months after a budget would've been due.

Okay. So there we have that. I'm very excited that earlier this week we went to Berryville, Virginia, House and Senate Democrats, to roll out a Better Deal under the leadership of three very, and you've seen them, you know, three great leaders of our messaging: [Democratic Policy and Communications Committee Co-Chairs] Cheri Bustos of Illinois, David Cicilline of Rhode Island and Hakeem Jeffries of New York. We worked with the Senate. And we're very proud of Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages and Better Future; creating jobs and raising income.

We know that the economy can never really fully turn around unless we increase the purchasing power of America's working families, of the great middle class. Their confidence to consume injects demand into the economy, creating more jobs, and we hope that under our plan that we can create ten million more jobs in the next five years.

And it's not only about increasing the paycheck. It's about lowering costs for families. For example, one is to take aggressive action to lower the cost of prescription drugs, still the biggest contributor to any increase there is in healthcare, although we've lowered the rate of increase in health care in our country. For as long as it has been measured, this is the lowest rate of increase.

Still, the biggest impact is from the cost of prescription drugs. That's an issue we've been working on for a long time. We hope we could find bipartisan support to do that.

And another is by cracking down on monopolies that raise costs and hurt competition. This has a very direct impact on the bills that people have to pay every month.

And then, again, giving every American the tools that they need to succeed in the 21st century, with a massive new national commitment to apprenticeships, lifetime learning, paid-on-the-job training. It's very exciting.

So we look forward to this August break where we take this home with us, have town meetings, roundtables, whatever works in someone's district, across the country to listen, to see how this A Better Deal, which sprang from the community, sprang from our Members, but now, as they say, road-testing it to see what suggestions people have.

But it's, again, a very exciting prospect for our country. And most of what we're talking about can be done in a very bipartisan way.

Any questions?

* * *

Q: In regards to what you just talked about, the Better Deal, the last time the Democrats took back the House from the Republicans of course, this was back in 2006, it was under Rahm Emanuel's tutelage over at the –

Leader Pelosi. No, his is on the political side.

Q: Right.

Leader Pelosi. Inside we had our Caucus working on the message.

Q: But more strategy–oriented though. There was a lot of strategy kind of going more to the right of some Republicans in some districts. And I'm curious as to what sort of strategy Democrats are looking at in some of the more ‘redder' districts–

Leader Pelosi. You want to talk politics? Right here, under the Dome of the Capitol of the United States, you want to talk politics?

Q: Well, I'm curious as to where Democrats are looking to –

Leader Pelosi. Well, we can do that for a small percentage of the meeting, so I'm happy to do that.

When we won the House in 2005 and 2006 we started right after the 2004 election, and we knew that we had to have a positive message as we went forward.

And it took time to develop it, listening, listening to Members, taking it on the road, and we came up with Six for '06, a New Direction for America, Six for '06. And we had six proposals that we would pass into law. Five of them became law, one did not. You know what it was?

Enabling the Secretary of HHS [Health and Human Services] to negotiate for lower drug prices, the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. We couldn't get 60 votes in the Senate.

But that took a lot of work. So the messaging part of it, keeping us disciplined, focused, working with the Senate on the messaging part. President Bush was at 58 percent in January when we started this. By September he was in 38 percent. He gave us a gift. He was going to privatize Social Security, so we could go to that place. And that messaging part was central to Democrats sticking together.

On the political side, outside, Rahm was our DCCC [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] Chair and did a great job. Very wisely and what we always should do is to recognize candidates are Representatives, will be Representatives. That's their job title and that's their job description. So they should be a match to the district, especially if they're going to represent and win the district.

This is something that from the right to the left has approval in our Caucus. It's about how we create. Not just saying jobs and the economy, anybody can say that, but specifically how we go down that path.

On the political side, [DCCC Chair] Mr. Ben Ray Lujan is doing a terrific job. Our recruitment team is very, shall we say, hardworking. I don't want to say aggressive, but they're hard-working. And some people are self-recruiting. So there have to be evaluations about which races are the ones we would prioritize where the candidate is a match for the district. And that's really important. That's really important.

And so, of course, we have our dynamic within the party. But, again, we probably will be participating in maybe 75 or more races. We just need to win 24. I feel very optimistic about it. But I can't talk too much more. It has to be a small percentage of the meeting. We could go down the street.

Yes.

Q: If the Senate does pass a ‘skinny' repeal, it's not really expecting to get much traction as a ‘skinny' repeal in the House. It seems like that would be more of a vehicle to go to the conference committee.

I'm wondering if you will have Democrats participate in a conference committee and who you intend to appoint to it. Will it be your Rankers that were all up there last week with you, or do you have a broader strategy to get some younger voices?

Leader Pelosi. Well, first of all, we want to defeat the ‘skinny' repeal, because, as some have said, this is the worst of all of their suggestions. So who is going to be on the conference committee is a little bit of a not near a concern that I have.

The concern I have is that they pass a bill that is going to have millions of people lose their health insurance; costs to go up, benefits to go down and they call it skinny. Huge cost for the American people.

And so two options can happen: one is that they try to ram it through the House, they just send over the skinny repeal, or they then send it to conference.

What we have been talking about all along is let's have a conference. We had a conference on the health care bill when we passed it before. And let's have that be the regular order, Democrats and Republicans at the table, in full view, on C-SPAN, in public view, as to what that debate is about. And that's called the regular order. That's what Senator McCain was talking about.

Depending on what they do, if they decide they're just going to take it up on the House side and send it to the President's desk, I doubt they could pass it. I doubt they could pass it. But that's one option. The other is to go to conference.

No, I haven't, but I will say, in praise of our Ranking Members, they know, as do I, chapter and verse what the opportunities are and the rest. And I think they would have to be at the table because their committees are the committees of jurisdiction that are affected by the bill.

Did you have any other ideas?

Q: I was just curious if, you know, I know that in the Senate there have been some Republicans that have made a play to leadership that they want to be part of the conference committee should it advance to that. I'm wondering if you're receiving the same pressure from your ranks.

Leader Pelosi. No. Our energy is focused on defeating their bill. And let me sing the praises again of the outside groups. Last night we had a big Planned Parenthood rally.

They're trying to have another resolution to defund Planned Parenthood in the Senate, you know. I don't know if that holds up from a parliamentary standpoint, but it is their relentless pursuit to deny women the decisions over the size and timing of their families and access to full reproductive healthcare.

So in any event, thank you to the outside mobilization, so many families here with children with disabilities pleading their case, telling their story, so many people here talking about what it means to them and their families economically to have health security. The stories have been the most eloquent statement to, I think, persuade some of the Senators to do the right thing.

Let's see. Okay. Go ahead.

Q: Thank you. Thank you, Leader Pelosi.

I wanted to ask about what led up to yesterday's announcement from President Trump on the ban on transgender [people] serving in the military.

So apparently rank-and-file conservatives within the House went to the White House and said they could not support – that it was unlikely to get the support needed for the wall, for the security, unless there were restrictions on gender reassignment care.

I wanted to ask, is that extraordinary? Is that the sort of thing that as a Speaker, as a Leader, that you encourage or would take exception to within your Caucus? And is that a sign of a lot of friction within the Caucus?

Leader Pelosi. Well, in terms I don't know, I've just learned from you that such a meeting may have occurred.

What was more curious to me than that is that because I don't know, I take you at your word. You heard that that happened. I didn't. But what was curious to me was that the Administration is now saying that LGBTQ, members of the LGBTQ community, are not covered by the Civil Rights Act. Therefore, I mean, then it would follow we can discriminate against them.

Yesterday, just imagine this, July 26, 1948, 69 years ago from yesterday, President [Harry] Truman desegregated the Armed Services, and integrated the Armed Services. It didn't mean that African Americans weren't serving our country, but there was segregation, and he integrated the Armed Services. That was a great day for America.

Fast forward. On that very same day, the President, without apparent consultation with the Joint Chiefs or the Pentagon, tweeted, maybe as a result of that meeting you're talking about, or maybe as a result of I don't know what, his thought that they could be discriminated against, comes out and tweets that 14,000 to 15,000 patriotic Americans who want to serve our country are fired.

It's appalling. It's appalling, the disrespect, the lack of acknowledgment of the contribution these people make. That's one thing. But to deal with it in a manner that was undignified, unworthy of these people, unworthy of the office of Commander in Chief.

And so the fact that they then say it's justified because they are not covered by the Civil Rights Act, well, let's open up that Civil Rights Act. We have a bill. It's called the Equality Act. [Representative] David Cicilline is the sponsor. We have scores of people, even some Republicans, who support that. And let's include them in the protections of the Civil Rights Act if, in fact, that is the justification for the President's action.

But just to go into a little more history, when we had this vote on the floor, and we won, you know, the vote on the floor on this bill, we won, the Republicans gave the impression to us that they were going to you win, you win. That's it.

And then what did they do but want to tuck it in a rule so that it would – you know, last time when we had a bill about LGBT in the military, it was about contracting. And they changed votes. And they were embarrassed by it. They said, ‘We're not going to do that again."'

So now what do they do? Go to the President and go to the Rules Committee and have a provision in the rule that now we are hoping to get rid of that too. But we don't know, you know, but we'll see.

But it's really shameful. It's really shameful. And, again, our country has always been about expanding opportunity, expanding freedom. President Obama, one of the first bills he signed was Lilly Ledbetter [Fair Pay Act of 2009], which, by the way, opened up the Civil Rights Act. Lilly Ledbetter bill did. That was the first bill he signed, to expand opportunity for women in the workplace.

One of the last bills he signed with us in the majority was the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, expanding opportunity, women in the workplace, others, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, in the military.

And now we have this backward, embarrassing step, which, we'll find out, but apparently the Joint Chiefs had no knowledge of and the Pentagon was at that very time, I am told, meeting on the implementation of the trans community participating in the military. It's a really very sad thing. It's a very sad thing.

Yes.

Q: I have a question about California water.

Leader Pelosi. Did you see him coming with this?

Q: Good timing.

Leader Pelosi. Is this California water?

Q: What is your solution to get Central Valley farmers more water? I know you and most of the Democratic delegation from California water voted against H.R. 23, save Jim Costa. So what's your solution to get these farmers more water?

Leader Pelosi. So you are going to ask a question about the water situation in California?

Q: Well, I'm a reporter from Fresno and we want to know.

Leader Pelosi. We think that there is obviously a way to do it. And first of all, thank you, God, that we had so much more precipitation this year that has gotten [to] people. The bill passed. The Feinstein amendment passed. You recall?

Q: Right.

Leader Pelosi. That bill passed, in the bill. So that became the law. I did not support it. I was with Senator Boxer on the subject. But it passed. It's the law. We'll move on from there, and it rained.

And now we have to deal with issues that everybody has to deal with. We have to deal with conservation. We have to deal with aquifers and perhaps even desalination. I mean, every time we almost get to that point, it rains and people say it's too expensive, let's save it for later. But so many storage, conservation storage.

Q: Would you support the Temperance Flat Dam?

Leader Pelosi. Excuse me?

Q: Would you support the funding for the Temperance Flat Dam in Fresno County?

Leader Pelosi. No. The issue of dams is something that is a much bigger issue than just shout-outs at some of these kinds of meetings. And there are some dams that some of our Members support and some dams that they don't in California.

And what we want to do is to not violate the Endangered Species Act, as one of our criteria for dams and others, make sure that we have the water that we need to grow our crops, to have the jobs that we need, to do so in a way that is fair to the entire State of California.

So I'm not going into individual dams.

Yes, ma'am.

Q: Have you talked to Congressman [Bob] Brady about the criminal investigation into his 2012 campaign? And do you think that damages the image of House Democrats in any way given that last year Congressman [Chaka] Fattah resigned after being convicted of corruption?

Leader Pelosi. No. I know that Congressman [Bob] Brady is fully cooperating with authorities and that he has done nothing wrong. But I have not had a conversation with him, no.

Okay. So see you after the summer. Maybe we'll see each other in the next day if something happens on the Senate side on the very important issue of the health and well-being of the American people.

But I do wish you rest up, because when you come back it's going to be big. Our people over the break will be listening on A Better Deal. They will be continuing to give interviews for people to tell their stories about health care and conveying those messages to the Congress of the United States, depending on what venue we're talking about, whether it's the conference committee. Or maybe they just won't pass the ‘skinny bill' and we can start from scratch in developing legislation for the health and well-being of the American people.

We have a very exciting time ahead of us. To get back to your political point, we are at a very good, we are in a much better place now than we were in '05 in terms of our attempt to win the Congress.

And elections are about a couple things. They're about who wins. And the other thing they're about is, do the American people win in terms of the debate. Is it clear? Does it have clarity as to what the different positions are? And will they know that clarity so they can hold us, whoever we are, Democrats or Republicans, accountable?

So in addition to our initiative for A Better Deal, and included in it is an initiative that two we introduced here under the leadership of [Representative] John Sarbanes and so many others, with our dare: disclose where does all this dark money come from, amend the Constitution to overturn Citizens United, reform the campaign laws to facilitate the participation of small donors in a stronger way and empower, end these measures of voter suppression that are out there.

We keep hearing a cry for a paper ballot so that people have confidence in the outcome of the election. But one thing we know for sure: we can do much better for America's working families if we can reduce the role of special interest dark money in the political process. So we'll be working on that during the break as well.

Have a good break. Thank you.

# # #