Transcript of Pelosi Press Conference Today

Contact: Nadeam Elshami/Drew Hammill, 202-226-7616

Washington D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi held her weekly press conference today in the Capitol Visitor Center. Below is a transcript of the press conference.

Leader Pelosi. Good morning. Today is World AIDS Day, as I am sure you're aware. Throughout the world, people are reflecting upon the progress that has been made in the fight against AIDS and of course a commitment to doing much more to make it history instead of part of our future. And today for me as a San Franciscan in particular, I particularly want to acknowledge that this is the 20th anniversary of the AIDS Memorial Grove in San Francisco. If you haven't been there, you should go. It is a sight of remembrance and renewal. It is a place that many of us and many people from around the world have come to weed the garden, to create a grove, to cry, to remember and to look to the future, the source of comfort to families who have lost their loved ones to HIV/AIDS. It is a place of community where we have had events with pink umbrellas and red ribbons and, you name it, to call attention to all that needs to be done in the future but also to remember those whom we have lost.

When I first came to Congress, my first day I was sworn in, they told me you won't make any speeches. And the Speaker said will the gentlelady from California wish to address the House. But I was told I wasn't supposed to speak and, if I did, not to speak long. So the one thought that I conveyed is that I was here to fight HIV/AIDS. Our city had taken a big, big bite of that wormy apple and, on the plus side, had been a source of many community-based suggestions that turned into legislation in terms of care, prevention and research. Other things followed through it, housing opportunities for people with HIV/AIDS. Again, much of the care, prevention and treatment…care prevention and research captured in the Ryan White Care Act and community-based solutions. I was very pleased to work with President Bush on PEPFAR, which has saved many, many lives throughout the world. And I was very, very pleased with President Obama's statement this morning of a new target of helping 6 million people around the world get the treatment by the end of 2013. It is a goal, something we have to strive for. I'm also glad that he talked this morning about increasing the funding of the Ryan White care by $15 million and that the ADAP, the AIDS Drug Program, by $35 million.

One really important point to make now is the emphasis, more importantly, is on not only prevention, which is very important, but early intervention. And 2 decades ago our office was instrumental in saying that people of HIV be eligible for Medicaid, not just before it became full blown AIDS. And that was important in our country and throughout the world. That is the focus now, to sustain the quality of life of people until they are secure, and hopefully that will be soon.

So it is an emotional day. It is a day where public policy has made a difference, where Democrats and Republicans have an opportunity to work together with many on the outside. Bono, for one, who has made a tremendous difference in raising the visibility of not only a challenge, but some solutions to it.

In terms of the business at hand here last week, Whip Hoyer, Mr. Clyburn, Assistant Leader Clyburn, and I sent a letter to the Speaker calling for action on UI, unemployment insurance, the payroll tax cut and on SGR, the doc fix, that is so important to our seniors. I believe that we cannot leave here without addressing these issues in the appropriate way. The payroll tax cut is about jobs and economic growth. The Treasury Department has said that passing this proposal will mean a tax cut around $1,550 for the typical American working family. Macroeconomic Advisors, a respected independent economic group of forecasters, said that allowing the payroll tax cut to lapse would reduce GDP growth by .5 percent and cost the economy 400,000 jobs.

So this is really important to passing it. What it means to families, for injecting demand into the economy which creates jobs, and the President's proposal is one that has an enhanced payroll tax cut. It has more economic growth than what the Republicans are proposing, it creates more jobs than the Republican proposal not only—it pays for the payroll tax cut by eliminating 200,000 jobs, by eliminating, by saying we are going to pay for the payroll tax cut by eliminating 200,000 public jobs. And the President's proposal puts more money into the pockets of the middle class families in our country, the Republican proposal does less. And the President's proposal cuts taxes for small businesses. The Republican proposal does not.

I am really I guess, it is important to note that the Republicans have finally felt the heat of doing something about the payroll tax cut. They had resisted it for a while and now you see that they understand that it has to pass. But the constraints that they place on it have a dampening [effect], the payroll tax, that is about injecting demand into the economy, more money people have in their pocket, the more they will spend, the more jobs are created. The Republicans are saying, okay, but let us pay for it by firing 200,000 people. It is very interesting. This is a contrast that is worth noting I believe. The Republicans want to extend tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America, $1 million and above. We are saying up until they are…you know, we should just have the situation we have now. But after people making a million dollars a year, not having a million, making a million dollars a year should pay more. The Republicans have resisted that and those tax cuts for the wealthy shouldn't be paid for. But tax cuts to the middle class, the payroll tax cut, that needs to be paid for.

I don't know what the middle class ever did to the Republicans that they are so out to get them. But whether it is job creation, economic growth, the tax code and the rest, this deck is getting stacked against the middle class. You saw on the floor yesterday their attempt to deprive workers of their right to negotiate collectively, an important, important priority for America's working families.

Our priority has been to reignite the American dream. We are determined to do that and our policies must meet the test of building ladders of success, removing obstacles of participation to all who want to work hard and play by the rules. This is really important and we have important work to do to accomplish that. Across the country Americans have been occupying areas and one thing is clear, their statement that the status quo is not, cannot stand, the status quo is not acceptable. And while they have occupied places across the country, we in Congress must be preoccupied with job creation. Of the 99 percent, 1 percent are now part of our lexicon.

And in that regard, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for unlimited secret money to influence our elections and undermine our public debate. This is related to that 99 and 1 because many in the 1 percent have used that secret unlimited, undisclosed money to affect an election, to affect public policy that again is counter to reigniting the American dream. We must give that 99 percent a stronger voice. In fact, we would like to make that the case for the 100 percent, but not in the way that the Supreme Court did it.

And so as we go into these campaigns we are talking about, yes, we want to amass the resources, gain the support to elect reformers to Congress who are committed to giving again more voice, a stronger voice to citizen participation in our process and to diminish, to offset, to offset again the unlimited, undisclosed money. One step in that direction is the DISCLOSE Act, which we passed in the House last year. The Senate failed to pass it and therefore this money is secret. We must have transparency, we must shine a bright light on that. And Congressman Van Hollen is taking the lead on that again. We have to go beyond that and study proposals for citizens, strengthening citizen participation in the electoral process to offset the damage done by the Supreme Court with their decision to say that unlimited secret money can flow into campaigns because we see the impact on the middle class and we see what it does to dampen the American dream.

With that, I will be pleased to take any questions.

Q: Given the difficulties that Democrats and the Senate are going to have to get this millionaire surtax through and also Speaker Boehner's difficulties in selling an extension of the payroll tax holiday even with financed by spending reductions, are Democrats going to be willing to vote for something that is partially offset by spending?

Leader Pelosi. While I point out the inconsistency of the Republicans saying tax cuts for the rich don't have to be offset but tax cuts for the middle class do, we would be interested in talking about a proposal that offsets that spending, that tax cut for the middle class. I don't think it is fair, but we need to have the tax cut for the middle class. But that would not include firing 200,000 people. You're saying you need the tax cut for the middle class so that it can create 400,000 jobs. And while we are doing it, we are going to eliminate 200,000 jobs. It doesn't make any sense except it is consistent with the Republican principle that they are here for the 1 percent. But, yes, we would certainly be open to reasonable pay fors for the tax cuts.

Q: Leader Pelosi, there is a hearing today in the Senate that has to do with taking a look at a couple of bills to stop or prevent insider trading among Members of Congress. This follows a report which you were one target of this report having to do with that question. Would you support such legislation to prevent insider trading amongst Members of Congress?

Leader Pelosi. Yes.

Q: Would you push for the Republicans, would you push for the Republicans to bring it to the floor? How urgent do you think it is?

Leader Pelosi. I have very little influence with the Republicans. [Laughter.] I have a big agenda of things I would like for them to bring to the floor that include tax fairness and the rest. But I do think that this will have a momentum and, yes, I would like to see it come to the floor.

Q: Is it important?

Leader Pelosi. I think it is important. I don't think that, I would hope that it is not as necessary as the whoop-dee-doo over it makes it seem. But I do think that we all disclose what we do and that is really important and everything that we do is a matter of public record. So it is in the public domain. So it is not so insider. But to the extent that they and I would be interested in seeing how the hearing comes up with it, but I'm sure they will come up with something that removes all doubt that this is not something that is acceptable in the Congress. And when they do, to me it seems like it would fly through Congress I would think.

I always reward people who are around. So forgive me if I'm repeating.

Q: Thank you. There are reports that lawmakers have attempted to insert earmarks into about 10 spending bills throughout the summer and fall. Is this a problem and what should be done about it?

Leader Pelosi. It was an interesting article to me. I saw the article, but that's all I have heard about it, what I have seen in the press on this subject. I don't…I hope that is not the case. And one of the things I'm supportive of is what Congressman Van Hollen and Chairman Ryan are putting forth on the expedited rescission, or whatever they are calling it, the Budget Reform Act. I think it has a different name, which would enable the President to effectively line item veto things in the bill that would then have to have an additional vote of Congress.

But in the article that I read, I didn't see too much evidence that that was really going to happen. Needless to say, we are all on the alert for those kind of things. If we have public policy and a budget that reflects the concerns of our communities, the competition for those kinds of appropriations, whether you want to call them appropriations, grants I guess by the time the Executive branch does them, is something that I think is wholesome.

Q: In August, HHS issued a proposed regulation under the new health care law that would require that health care plans cover sterilization and all FDA approved contraceptives. The U.S. Catholic Bishops have called the regulation an unprecedented attack on religious freedom, have asked HHS to drop it. Do you agree with the Bishops?

Leader Pelosi. I don't know if I agree with your characterization of what the HHS put forth. But I have, as a mother of 5 children in 6 years, as a devout Catholic, I have great respect for our Bishops when they are my pastor. As lobbyists in Washington, D.C., we have some areas of disagreement. Again, I don't understand the proposal as you have described it, so I won't be able to answer it. But I do think that it is important for women to have the opportunity to have full reproductive health options available to them in their insurance wherever they receive it. I support the waiver that is there for the churches now. I don't know the exception as expanded by what you are saying there.

Q: Madam Leader, the Democrats are now in a position of proposing a deeper tax cut than Republicans. Does that represent in any way an endorsement of the tax cut economic policy that we have seen more from Republicans in recent years? And also what do you say to your allies in the Democratic Party who are concerned that extending and deepening the payroll tax cut will undermine Social Security?

Leader Pelosi. First of all, we have always been for tax cuts to the middle class. That is not the issue. The issue is that we want to see whatever economic and fiscal policy is be something that grows the economy. The Republican tax cut for the wealthy did not grow the economy. I remind you and it is something I say all the time here, in the 8 years of the Bush Administration, those tax cuts at the high end did not create jobs. In fact, in the second year of the Obama Administration, last year, more jobs were created in the public sector, excuse me, more jobs were created in the private sector. In the second year of the Obama Administration, more jobs were created in the private sector than in the 8 years combined of the Bush Administration. So we want job creation. We want vitality. We want fairness, we want balance, we want boldness in all of this. But we have always been about tax cuts to the middle class. Not in the mode we tax the wealthiest, we give tax cuts to the wealthiest people and then it will trickle down. And so be it. If it doesn't, well, that is the free market. Well, it is not a free market to disrupt the tax code in a way that is favorable to the high end, give them tax cuts without any pay fors and give the middle class a meager tax cut but we have to pay for it and we have to pay for it with jobs.

I take your question—the second part of your question very seriously. I do not think that it undermines Social Security.

Q: What is the most memorable thing that Barney Frank ever said to you?

Leader Pelosi. Well, it may not be of historic public policy nature, but I think it is one you might appreciate. When I was—go back some years, I was now the new Ranking Member on Foreign Ops. Now, when I was outside the Congress, you know, carrying pickets, Russians, Soviets out of Afghanistan, going to Central America, end the war. To me the most important place in the world was the Foreign Ops Committee of the House. They could stop the funding of all these things or make policy—not policy, but statements that related to our national security and human rights throughout the world. So to be the Ranking Member on Foreign Ops—never—it was one of those things I never expected, but this, that, and that and that and, you know, that around here, there I was, and when I came to Congress, I said does anybody know anybody on Foreign Ops because I want to talk to that person. Now I am the Ranking.

So I go to make my first bill on the floor, managing the bill. I wasn't the Chairman, but we worked very closely together. Our Chairman, Sonny Callahan from Alabama, was just wonderful. We worked very closely together, but we had some differences, one of them being international family planning. Here we go again.

Anyway, so I come to the floor, I have on a suit that I hadn't worn before and now mind you, Dave Obey had been the Chairman of that committee for, like, 13 years. He knew every semicolon, dot, everything in the bill. So he is the Chairman of the committee—no…the Ranking on the committee. It is his baby. You know, he thinks of this as his bill.

I go to the floor, the first person I ran into is Barney Frank. Barney Frank, he says, “That suit, give it away, give it away. Don't wear that suit anymore.”

So I do the bill. I get everything accomplished that I set out to do. I was so proud. David is sitting there where David sits there and David says to me, “You did what you came to do, you got the job done, but you could have been more diplomatic.”

So I said this is really my day. I'm getting fashion advice from Barney Frank and diplomacy advice from Dave Obey. Can you imagine? Can you imagine? [Laughter.]

So I will tell you one other Barney Frank story. Again, if you want to know what has helped me by Barney, I could be all day on Barney. When I first came to Congress, as I said to you, the first words I uttered on the floor were about HIV/AIDS. And so I was in my office and one of these, shall we say, Southern California, a very conservative Member, Dannemeyer, was on the floor—this is way before most of your time—was on the floor just ranting and raving against people with HIV. It was stunning to me. I mean, these are people who are sick…ranting and raving. So I called Barney. I said Barney, “Can you believe what he is saying? I can't believe that somebody would say that on the floor of the House.”

He said, “What are you calling me for? You have something to say, go down to the floor and say it. Why are you wasting my time?” [Laughter.]

And I thought, what a good—yeah, why am I calling him. So what he trained me to do is when I would call him, I would say, “Barney, subject, question, timing, action.” You know, just talk that way, and it really served me well for over 20 years that we could speak in that shorthand to each other and I wouldn't have to set it up or show my emotion on the subject. This is the subject, this is the question, you know, what do you think.

But I will close with this. So he says to me—I love Barney. Personally I just love him. I'm really going to miss him. He takes great joy in the fact that he is one week younger than I am. So I say to him when his birthday comes around, now we are the same age. And he says, “No, you're always one week older than I am.”

So I always get these calls from reporters doing an article on Barney. I am talking, I have been here 24 years. He gets a call, he said I have had this call from a magazine that is doing an article about members of, just people. And one of the questions they have is what is the most—this gets to your question—what is the most poignant statement saying whatever that sticks with you?

And I said, Barney said—now, most of you won't even know what I'm talking about and that is really part of the point. He says—no offense, but I will direct it to some of you. He says I have always wondered about goodnight, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are. Goodnight, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are. No need to even explain it. It is too much. So you know what I'm talking about, right? So he said then they call me back—now, this is really, like, something from decades ago that everybody in America knew that phrase, right? Jimmy Durante, good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are. Was it his long lost girlfriend?

So Barney comes and he says, they call me back from the magazine and the writer said I took your statement to my editor and she said can, they liked it, but can we change it to goodnight, Ms. Calabash, wherever you are. This is a generational thing. It could never possibly, that was so demonstrative of the generational challenge that we all face around here. But it was Ms. Calabash—no, you are missing the whole. Well, I don't have to tell you what Barney said to that.

But suffice it to say—let me say this about Barney Frank. He really is a giant. He was an aide to Mayor Kevin White in Boston. Now we are in the 1960s and early 1970s when my brother was mayor of Baltimore. And while I didn't know Barney then, that whole bonding of the activist mayors was something that we bonded about later when we served together. Of course you know of his brilliance, you know of his humor. But he also, he is very, he is one of the fairest persons. He listens. He listens, he listens and tries to find a solution. And I hope that in so many of the stories that are coming out about him, they don't that they recognize that he commanded the respect on both sides of the aisle and from the business community for his openness. He had his values, he had his point of view, but he knew we had to have a solution that had legitimacy and that would hold.

And I think that one of his great contributions was to be an idealist and a pragmatist and to do so in a way that again took us from an idea to legislation to public policy to improving and strengthening our economy and our country, whether it was housing issues on his committee. It is not just about Wall Street, it is about Main Street; it is about housing and urban development and things like that. So his contribution is an enormous one.

His personal courage is one that helped us most recently—well, not most recently, but in recent memory on the hate crimes bill when he told the story. He said I am now the chairman of Financial Services Committee, captains of industry beat a path to my door, leaders of financial institutions want to see me, but I wasn't always the chairman of the committee. I was once a teenage age boy who was conflicted about my identity. And when he spoke—I don't do justice to the way he spoke, but to the emotion and his sensitivity that he brought to that discussion enabled us to pass a hate crimes bill, Matthew Shepard bill that was all inclusive to say that resorting to violence against anybody in our country is not acceptable.

So he has made a difference in many, many ways. I just give you a little sample of some of them.

Q: Can I ask you about the failure of the Supercommittee? This is really the first time we have seen you on camera since that happened.

Leader Pelosi. The Supercommittee. Well, it is unfortunate because it was a historic opportunity to do something big, bold and balanced. And our Members, as I said, they went to the table, free to negotiate, recognize an opportunity when they saw it. I don't know if the other Members there had, on the Republican side had that much discretion. But for whatever reason, it did not succeed.

As I said before in anticipation of the decision that the, whatever came of it, and this is before, that we are grateful to all of the Members, both sides of the aisle, both sides of the Capitol, for their dedication to trying to get something done.

But as long as the Republicans have taken an oath to a lobbyist to not have any revenue as part of the package, it was never going to succeed because it never would have had the balance that was necessary and it was unfortunate. The same thing that had the Republicans walk away from the table with the Biden talks, walk away from the President because of revenue, same thing happened here.

So it is unfortunate because I think it was an opportunity to do some things that might be difficult on both sides of the aisle but in a balanced package you could justify. That opportunity hopefully is not lost. We have to always continue to work really hard to reduce spending, to lower the deficit, but to recognize that part of that deficit is caused by those tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the country, which is—and those tax cuts are not job creating. So as we go forward, job creation is it. Entrepreneurial spirit of America. Small businesses and their prospects. That is where we should start and then look at the cuts and the revenue in relationship to how we grow the prosperity of America. They had that opportunity. Hopefully we can find another way to get the job done. But no question, it was a missed opportunity, very disappointing.

Thank you all very much.

###