Transcript of Pelosi Press Conference Today

Contact: Drew Hammill, 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.

The world is shaking. The world was shocked by the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo newspaper offices in Paris. This was a horrible assault on freedom of the press, but also freedom of expression for everyone, and a real attack on the principles of a civil society. Of course, our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the 12 people who were killed and with the people of France.

This week we start a new Congress and a new year, a new fresh opportunity to work together for the good of the American people. Part of that working together is to make clear where we have common ground and where we do not. From day one, the Republicans put forth their same old, same old, warmed-over stew: trickle-down tax breaks for the rich. And the Democratic distinction is a clear one: bigger paychecks, better infrastructure, good jobs here in our country.

In fact, we had two pieces of legislation, which, by the way, had clear bipartisan support over time, that a CEO cannot make over a million dollars and make it be tax deductible unless he enables his workers to get a wage increase and, of course - paying for it by stopping inversions, stopping those going overseas with our tax dollars, and using that money to build infrastructure in our country. So very clear. Better infrastructure, bigger paychecks versus tax cuts for the rich, trickle down.

We have seen a manifestation this week again with the 11-bill Wall Street giveaway, which was defeated yesterday. I am sure they will bring it back. But we will be able to sustain the President's veto on that bill. Same thing with the Keystone Pipeline. Whatever you think about the Keystone Pipeline, this isn't a bill that says to approve of it or not. It is a bill that puts forth a proposal that exempts, that does not address that, that this Keystone Pipeline, TransCanada, does not have to contribute to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. So if there is any spill, it is paid for by others. It is subsidized by others. And that is just not right. Again, there will be another bill to dismantle ACA, and we will sustain the President's veto on that – it will increase the ranks of the uninsured up to a half a million people. That is not right.

So we see a blueprint for where we go forward. We want to build infrastructure – significant infrastructure. That has always been bipartisan, in fact, non-partisan, and that is why we have that as one of our priorities. And we want to do so in a way that increases – makes paychecks bigger in our country to address the growing disparity of income in our country, and that is really important.

I shared with my colleagues a Christmas greeting that I received from a friend that really just said that we have to recognize that, in the Christmas season, what puts "merry" into Christmas is the consumer economy, that people have the opportunity to spend, to build demand, to create jobs. And that, again, is a cycle of disposable income injected into the economy, creating jobs, and that is why we are focusing on – it's the paycheck that we want to [increase]. So, in any case, already there is the distinction: tax cuts for the rich, same old, same old, warmed over-stew, dynamic scoring is one way to characterize it, versus building infrastructure, bigger paychecks.

We had a vote yesterday, as you know, that would sustain the President's veto on, yet again, another Wall Street giveaway to undermine the Volcker [Rule], to postpone it for two more years. The regulators have already given the financial institutions two years in order to address the Volcker [Rule], the Volcker [Rule] saying that financial institutions have to use their own money to make investments that are risky and not money that is covered by the taxpayer.

So, with that, here we start again. But, hopefully – really, hopefully, we can find some common ground in some other ways. And, as I said, bigger paychecks. I don't know why that would be controversial or even partisan. Infrastructure. It has never until recently, but in the history, has always been a bipartisanship in that regard.

Again, it is a very sad day when you see the aftermath of what happened in Paris. Again, our prayers are with the people of France and with the families of those affected.

Any questions?

Yes, ma'am

***

Q: Hearing a lot of people on the other side of the aisle talk about coming together, working together, getting things done, "Why won't the President sign my bill?", "Why won't they [pass] a bill that the President will sign?", we haven't heard anyone talking about the two different parties talking to each other. Do you get any indication that there are going to be any type of actual negotiations? And do you think anything actually can get done until there is those types of conversation?

Leader Pelosi. Well, I certainly hope so. We have a responsibility to the American people to try to find common ground. But, as I have said in my remarks from the podium, that does not mean that all disagreement and all debate goes away.

In fact, our democracy is strong because we have beliefs and we have principles and we debate them, but we also have to have humility to try to find a solution – coming together to find a solution that may not be exactly what we would have written ourselves.

We had a great deal of success with President Bush – President George W. Bush. We passed the biggest, one of the biggest energy bills in the history of our country. We passed a stimulus that was very positive for low income people. We passed the TARP, working with him. When his own party deserted him on the TARP, the Democrats came through with that. And so there is, in recent memory, a time when the opposing party worked with the President of the United States to get some things done, and that is what we would hope they would do with President Obama. So far, they have not.

But let us hope that we can find – I think the biggest force for all of that are the American people. Lincoln said that public sentiment is everything. They want to see how we can work together. But if their first shot out of the box is tax cuts for the rich and that is how we create jobs in our country, we have a disagreement there.

Now we will see what happens on the Homeland Security bill. Homeland Security: we take an oath to protect and defend. This is really an important responsibility for Members of Congress, to protect and defend. And the Homeland Security bill, some of the resources that are there are there to protect the American people.

And if they want to play politics with it by contending that President Obama overstepped in what he did on immigration, it isn't true. It isn't true. He was acting under the law. He is acting under the law and he is acting in the manner that Republican Presidents had, President Reagan, President George Herbert Walker Bush, President George W. Bush in recent memory.

And so that will, I think, be one of the tests: How do we honor our oath to protect and defend, passing a Homeland Security bill without getting involved in the issue of the President's authority to have an executive order to protect immigrants in our country?

Q: But to follow up, you haven't actually seen any of those discussions happening so far. Is that…

Leader Pelosi. Well, we have been here three days – no, two. First day they did the rule and we made our distinction. Yesterday they brought a bill to the floor. Really, we found out about it the night before. For all of the openness and three day rule and all of that, we found out about it the night before.

And I would hope that, at least from the standpoint of transparency and openness, which the American people expect us to have, that we could have a debate on these issues where you can find common ground and you know what it is so you can have a discussion with your own Members about it.

But in their rule of what they put forth in terms of the number of days it takes before you can bring a Motion to Instruct, inside baseball stuff, they have not only shut down debate for Democrats, they have shut down debate for Republicans. So it is hard to have a discussion if you are shutting down a debate.

Nonetheless, we, again, have the know-how, the knowledge of the issues, the parliamentary skills, and the humility to try to find a path to yes on something that we can work together on. But that is a two-way street. Our leverage in the discussions springs from the fact that we have a Democrat in the White House, for President Obama's signing or not signing a bill, and our upholding his veto strengthens the hand of the minority in a debate of this kind.

Q: Madam Leader?

Leader Pelosi. Yes.

Q: So you mentioned the probable override of a veto on the Affordable Care Act.

Leader Pelosi. Yeah.

Q: Do you anticipate, though, the chances of, if Republicans are putting out this so called red meat, that – you know, good for their base, although there will probably be some Democrats who vote, you know, for the 40 hour workweek, obviously, Democrats vote for Keystone – that with these vetoes coming from the White House and maybe trouble with filibusters in the Senate, that the party is portrayed as the party of ‘No,' that there is a problem, Republicans are now in control and they can't get things done or the President is vetoing?

Leader Pelosi. Well, we are not the party of ‘No.' The Republicans are the party of ‘No' because they said right from the start that to prevent the President from being a success was the most important thing that they could do and that is their path. We have a path. We want a path to ‘Yes.' How do we have a path to ‘Yes," to get something done in a positive way? The President has always extended the hand of friendship, some think too much, but he is the President of the United States. And there is opportunity – I think there is plenty of opportunity to get things done.

But that doesn't mean that we are going to say ‘Yes' to let's give up what we want to do, just so you have a blueprint, a roadmap, from where we go from here. And this is a conversation in our Caucus. We want to have an approach that has – one, that has integrity, that is integral, that people see the relationship of one thing to another in the bill.

You give a tax cut for the wealthiest people in our country – it could be several a hundred billion dollars; it could be a trillion dollars – that increases the deficit. It is an opportunity lost and costs in terms of investments in education and the rest. And in order not to increase the deficit, the middle class is going to have to pay for it. So everybody has to see the relationship of one thing to the other. And we totally debunked the theory that trickle down reduces the deficit.

You want to reduce the deficit, the most important thing you can do is to invest in the education of the American people. It is an investment. They will say it is a cost. But nothing brings more to the Treasury than the education of the American people.

So looking at a budget as a statement of values, as a oneness that says we cannot give tax breaks to the high end on the theory that it is going to trickle down – and, as the Speaker said when they did this before, he said, "If it creates jobs, that would be good. If it doesn't, so be it." We had buttons made, "So Be It." So this isn't – this is not a secret comment that he made. "If it doesn't, so be it."

But you know, we have a moral imperative to create good paying jobs in our country. That sense of community is something that even Adam Smith recognized. When he wrote Wealth of Nations obviously, he talked about the economy driving everything, the invisible hand. But also, that laissez-faire – he wrote the Theory of Moral Sentiments, in which he said that we have a responsibility to other people. I don't know if he wrote that book. I should have brought it down here so you could see it. I wish he had written one book, both of them together.

So this sense of community, this sense – just even to take it to an economic side again, the fact that people have disposable income, that they can consume – and because the consumer economy has not come back because paychecks are not big enough is one of the reasons we have not had the recovery that we could have had where we have had 57 straight months of private sector job growth. It has been going on for a long time. I guess Leader McConnell doesn't realize the banks taking credit for it, but it has been going on for a long time.

Yes, sir.

Q: Madam Leader, do you share the view of some of your Democratic colleagues who are speaking at this hour that Trade Promotion Authority, which we believe the President will be seeking with the help of Republicans, is inimical to better paychecks?

Leader Pelosi. Well, I think we have to put – you said it is one of the criteria or a judgment on whatever it is we are doing – is it a bigger paycheck for the American worker?

Obviously, we want to see what the negotiation is on the trade. You know how complicated that issue is. But I do think the burden of proof is on those who want us to sign up for something like that, that it really will increase the paychecks of the American people.

But, again, I'd see what they are proposing. And I am not at that press conference so I don't know what is being said and I don't know what information they have. But I do know that I have not myself seen enough in terms of what – I don't know, are they talking about Europe? Are they talking about Asia? Are they talking about both?

Q: Well, Madam Leader, on that point, do you worry that that debate, though, could divide your caucus, similar to what we saw during the CRomnibus? Because there are a lot of progressives that do not like the fact the Administration is going to be dabbling in this and expect it to be mentioned quite loudly in the State of the Union as something that could be a compromise for the Republican Congress.

Leader Pelosi. Yeah. But I don't accept the notion that we were divided on the CRomnibus. We had, like, 71 percent of the House Democrats voted against that bill. We didn't lobby it. We didn't lobby. We didn't advocate one way. We just said to people, "Vote the way you vote."

And many people, appropriators, had worked hard on [it]. And the appropriations part of the bill was a good effort. It was, you know, the dark of night provisions that were objectionable to us.

But I would say: we are not going to see unanimity all the time on the part of Democrats. We will have our disagreements. Yesterday 80 percent of the Democrats voted against a bill that we did lobby against, when we saw what it said. But still, it was hard to reach everyone. I think we would have gotten more votes if we had had more time. But we don't expect everyone to vote; this is a good Democratic Caucus. But we do expect to uphold the President's vetoes on these issues.

Now, this is the reverse – the President is proposing something. And, as I said to President Bush a long time ago – President George W. Bush, "Do you have the votes on your side? Do you have a large number of votes on your side? Because all we are asking for is consultation, transparency when we are talking about trade agreements, and that is what people want to see."

I don't know that most people in our caucus have made up [their minds] – many have. Yeah. But what they have made up their mind to is they want to see transparency, they want to see consultation, they want to see fairness, they want to see what this means to the American paycheck.

But we are not opposed to trade. John F. Kennedy proclaimed us a party of trade. I was raised in a city of trade: clipper ships in Baltimore, Maryland, San Francisco, a big trade city. So we all know that we live in a global economy. We also have to know that, whatever we are doing, we have to make a judgment as to how it affects the American worker. I think the Administration has been engaged in some good discussion with our Members on that score.

One more, because the Speaker is coming.

Q: You mentioned that, in budgets, there is an ecosystem, everything is connected.

Leader Pelosi. Yes.

Q: Here is a connection: there are some very prominent Republicans who are ready to raise the gas tax. They want to connect it to a concomitant decrease, I guess, in income taxes, maybe for middle class people – I am not sure that they have said. How about that tradeoff?

Leader Pelosi. Well, you don't even know what they said. So how do I know what it is? They are saying, "We are going to raise the gas tax and we are going to lower taxes for the wealthy"?

Q: Middle class. No. No. No. I don't think so. Drivers. You know, middle class people. Specifically the gas tax.

Leader Pelosi. I can't respond to what is their proposal because I don't know what it is. But I do think that, if there is ever going to be an opportunity to raise the gas tax, the time when gas prices are so low, oil prices are so low, is the time to do it.

I can tell you my experience over the years. Our friends from oil states would say,when the price is low, "How could you do this to us now? The price of oil is so low" and, when the price of oil is high, they will say, "How can you do this to us now? Because the price of gas is so high."

But I am glad to see that they might be willing on one half of that equation to – actually, the decrease in gas tax is a tax decrease – the decrease in the price of gasoline is a tax break for the middle class. People are so excited about the travel they could do over the holiday and the rest.

Q: As a general proposition, the tradeoff of a marginal increase in the gas tax for a decrease in income tax, is that something…

Leader Pelosi. What I would be interested in seeing is something serious, not something "show biz", which would be: how do you relate the patent gas tax to the Highway Trust Fund? That is the relationship that is real. Because we only have until May, something like May, for the Highway Trust Fund to be flowing, and that is where we need to have – if there is to be an increase in the gas tax, that is where those resources should be used.

And we would love to talk to them about – we have many proposals for middle income tax cuts. You will be hearing from our ranking member on Budget, Mr. Van Hollen, on that subject. He has a very important speech to make on Monday in that regard. So stay tuned for that.

But, in any case, it is the financial stability of America's families that is what is important to our country. It is the economy, the family economy, how families thrive, survive, send their kids to school, are able to pay their bills and be part of a consumer economy, which, again, really lifts all boats. So that is why we are saying: better infrastructure – creates a lot of good paying jobs, improves the quality of life, – and bigger paychecks. That is where families are directly affected.

And, again, the price of oil, the price of the gas tax relate to the Highway Trust Fund, which is really important for building that infrastructure. So, again, everything comes around. It is all very connected. And, again, as you indicated, there are even Republicans who might be interested in one part of this or another, and we have to try to find as much common ground.

After the Minnesota bridge caved in – you remember that tragedy? – a Democrat and Republican went to the floor calling for, what, a five-cent increase, five cents – Mr. Young and Mr. Oberstar – and that was the end of that. That was the only discussion that they had on the floor. So we shall see.

But it is, again, a new year, a new Congress, a new opportunity, a responsibility to find common ground where we can, again, to stand our ground where we can't. But we all want to see us get something done. And many of these issues are bigger than Democrats and Republicans; they are about the American people and our character of our country in terms of a sense of community; that it is not just about the rich getting richer and the middle class getting squeezed; it is about how we relate to each other and how that benefits our entire society.

So we are very excited about the prospect of how we have this oneness, this integrity, this connection, this system of what a budget is, the statement of values that it is. And I will look forward to continuing that conversation on the floor. Thank you all very much.

Q: Your reaction to Senator Boxer retiring?

Leader Pelosi. What?

Q: She's going to retire, Senator Boxer.

Leader Pelosi. She called me before I came down here. It's funny, she called me and she said she wanted to talk to me personally. I thought maybe she wanted to have dinner tonight or something. Oh my. Well, her decision is an important one for her and her family. It's all personal and individual. Senator Boxer has been such a champion for the people of California and, indeed, for our entire country.

I have always said of Congresswoman Boxer, Senator Boxer – Congresswoman when I came to Congress – Senator Boxer, that she is – this will sound like an oxymoron to you, but she is one of the most unselfish politicians I have ever known of. She has always shared her ideas. She has always shared the credit. She has always tried to help people succeed with their ideas. She has reached across the aisle. She has reached across our state, which is a glorious state. And her leaving will be a great loss to the Congress of the United States, the people of California, and to our country.

I hope as she goes – I assume that she's not running, but she'll be here the next two years – and in the course of that time, there will be real recognition of the difference that she has made for fairness in our economy, protection of our environment, respect for our men and women in uniform. She's really a great leader for our country – small in size but a giant in terms of her contribution to the country. I didn't know. As I said, all I had was a call from her, but I didn't want to keep you waiting.

It's a real loss, I think. But God bless her, for her decision. And I wish her and Stewart and their family well. Thank you. My granddaughter just took her grandson out for their sixth birthday. They were born a couple months apart. So we are very close, from a family standpoint. Senator Boxer had a shower for my daughter, Christine, five days [before] – that would be six years [ago] – and the next day, her daughter Nicole had the baby, Sawyer. So they are just very close in age. And our family celebrations have been together over time, whether it's weddings or babies or whatever. So, it's a close personal friendship.

Of course, I wish the best for her in that regard personally. Officially, I think it's a big loss for the country. But she knows her timetable. Thank you very much.

# # #