Skip to main content

Transcript of Pelosi Press Conference Today

February 5, 2015

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. I just returned from the Prayer Breakfast, the National Prayer Breakfast, which is lovely, and always hopeful, always hopeful. Much was talked about in terms of ministering to needs, of God's poor, for one and all, and it sounded very bipartisan.

In any event, that at a time when this week the President released a budget that expresses those values, that is a statement of the values of our country, a powerful budget for the future. It is dedicated to working families and recognizes that they are the backbone of our economy and our country, both of our democracy and our economy.

The investments we make today have an impact on our future, as we all know, and a budget that invests today for the future in terms of – strengthens our investments in education and job training and deepens our commitment to our veterans, 7.7 percent increase in funding, reduces the deficit by $2 trillion, that again, strengthens American investment in innovation, builds bigger paychecks, better infrastructure.

The President's budget recognizes the reality that the middle class are the job creators in America. In a consumer economy when workers have better wages and confidence to spend, they create demand, inject demand into the economy as they spend, and create jobs – which, in turn, reduces the deficit. It is about bigger paychecks. We cannot say it enough, about bigger paychecks. The success of the middle class is the most important engine of our economic growth and of meaningful deficit reduction. We keep coming back to that – bigger paychecks, better infrastructure, greater prosperity for everyone, and as we do this, to create more productivity, more job creation, more manufacturing in our country.

It is a strong plan based on his "Middle Class Economics" that he put forth in the State of the Union address. "Middle Class Economics" stands in sharp contrast to trickle-down economics that the Republicans have relentlessly pursued, a policy that got us into a fix in 2008, scarred the confidence of the American worker, even as the economy improves, still that concern of 2008.

So this week we have February 2, Groundhog Day. We all know Groundhog Day, even if you didn't see the movie, even if you did see the movie 25 or 30 times. Republicans began the week celebrating "Groundhog Week" by bringing forth their 56th vote to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act. That is the bill they took up on a vote on February 2.

According to CBO, 19 million previously uninsured Americans will be covered in 2015, thanks to the Affordable Care Act. The law has extended the life of Medicare by 13 years. And for 56 times now, Republicans have brought forth a bill to undermine the Affordable Care Act. I think they have – they are putting forth the illusion – it can't possibly be taken seriously, but it is their latest ACA repeal or amend bill unveiled by Chairman Upton.

It would hand the healthcare insurance back to the insurance industry. It raises healthcare costs on working families, increases the number of uninsured, jeopardizes the health of millions of Americans, but puts coverage for essential health care like maternity care up to the whims of the state – it is no longer a guarantee – dismantles ACA's bedrock guarantee that you no longer lose or be denied coverage due to preexisting conditions. It increases the deficit. It takes away the Medicare cost reduction, the many Medicare cost reductions for seniors, eliminates those. So it seriously undermines – well, it is, in fact, a repeal, but it is a repeal of all the things they profess: "Oh, we don't want to repeal denying coverage for preexisting medical conditions," all the rest of that.

So to judge by the priorities brought to the floor by this Congress, Republicans have little regard for the security of America's families – their economic security, their health security, and their Homeland Security. Republicans have not passed a serious Homeland Security funding bill. There are only 23 days left until the Department of Homeland Security shuts down on February 28.

One of their spokespersons, Mr. King, has said I am really not worried about the 27th coming and going. He is not worried about shutting down the Department of Homeland Security which protects Americans. There are 23 days left until it is shut down. Only eight of those are days in which Congress is in session. They are holding our Homeland Security hostage because of their opposition to commonsense immigration reform that strengthens the economy. With all the other arguments we have about how immigration invigorates America, according to the CBO, immigration reform would reduce the deficit by $138 billion over the first 10 years, and $700 billion in the 10 years after that.

This is a deficit reducer. This is an extraordinarily dangerous game the Republicans are playing with the safety of American families. We have to pass a clean, long term Homeland Security funding bill, and we have to do it immediately, as you have heard me say over and over. They kicked the can in December. They didn't want to pass the bill except for a short term until February, saying that, oh, we will take care of it after the new Congress comes in.

As the new Congress was coming in, we saw what happened in Paris. The whole world was galvanized around homeland security. I mean, the whole world except for the hermetically sealed chamber of the House of Representatives, which then said that "we are not doing it because we don't like what the President's doing on immigration" – something that he has every right to do in terms of the law and in terms of precedent. Any questions?

***

Q: Madam Leader, I am wondering following the horrific murder of the Jordanian pilot, whether you believe the Administration should move quickly to help the Jordanian King get more equipment so he can take the fight to ISIS?

Leader Pelosi. Yes. And I know that some Senators have signed a letter or something to that effect. I certainly support that, and so, yes, I believe the Administration should move quickly to give more capacity to the Jordanians. As you know, His Majesty was here and had to go home when he learned of the tragedy, whenever it took place, but they made it known now. But thank you for your question.

Q: Madam Leader, on the front, what is the status of the Authorization of [the Use] of Military Force? Have you heard from the White House about it moving forward?

Leader Pelosi. We have been in conversation with them, three of our Ranking Members, plus one more Member who has been very active in it. That would be – the authorization committee is Foreign Affairs, so that's Eliot Engel; in Armed Services, Adam Smith; Intelligence, Adam Schiff; and in addition to that, Chris Van Hollen, who has been very active on this issue for a long time. We have been talking to them about, and I assume they are having similar conversations with the Republicans, about an AUMF, an Authorization of the Use of Military Force, around three points. One is time, what will be the length of time? Two, what would be the geography of it, the extent of geography? And, third, what is the scope of the authorization?

It would also involve a repeal of the 2002 authorization, the authorization to go into Iraq, but would maintain the 2001 authorization to go into Afghanistan and the authorities given to the President in that. We don't have the answers to those questions. I think they are talking about three years. There is a question of geography. Some people say very "limited." Other people say "boundless." And the scope language like "enduring combat" for troops on the ground, obviously if we go in and rescue somebody, we have boots on the ground. So what is the language around boots on the ground, "enduring combat engagement," something like that? These are all different things. I am not saying anybody has come to any agreement on it. I think it is going to be a challenge, but we will have a solution to it and hopefully a very strong bipartisan way. Yes, sir?

Q: I want to ask you about the Israel issue on Capitol Hill. You were at the White House, I believe, last night.

Leader Pelosi. I was.

Q: I was wondering if it came up with the President, what your message was to him? And what did you make of the meeting – Boehner's decision to invite Hoyer and Engel to the meeting with the Speaker of the Knesset yesterday, and not you?

Leader Pelosi. Yes. Well, let me start with your second part: yes, we did have a meeting yesterday with our distinguished Whip, Mr. Hoyer, Assistant Leader Clyburn, Mr. Engel, Ranking Member on Foreign Affairs, and Adam Schiff, the Ranking [Member] on Intelligence. It was a meeting put together rather rapidly, because the Speaker [of the Knesset] called us and said he thought that it was a bipartisan meeting, and since it [wasn't], would we meet with him, which we did. So anyway, that's the context. It was a very, shall we say – we are friends, and it was a meeting in friendship. I think it was a meeting, I would say, marked by sadness, on my part anyway – really sad that it has come to this. But hopefully, there will be a path out of the situation that we are in.

We have – many of us have been fighting the fight on non-proliferation for our whole lives – our whole political, public service lives. So we understand that, even if Israel did not exist, we'd still have to make sure that Iran did not have a nuclear weapon. Because – in itself, we can't have it, and the arms race it would lead to would be disastrous. So we all stipulate to that fact. I do happen to think that the creation of the state of Israel was the greatest political achievement of the 20th century. But nonetheless, even if it didn't exist, the United States is committed. It's a pillar of our national security and our foreign policy to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. And a nuclear weapon in Iran can't happen. So there was that.

But this was really more about the casualness with which an invitation was extended to a head of state two weeks before his election, and using, politicizing, deep convictions about the important relationship between Israel and the United States – our shared values, our shared national security interests. And I just would hope that, as these negotiations go forward, diplomacy is given a chance, so that, as we have every option on the table, we can demonstrate that we exhausted every diplomatic remedy. And please God – [that] the diplomacy will work.

So it was a meeting in that kind of friendship. I was interested in seeing the Speaker again. I've seen him before, of course, when I was Speaker and visiting Israel, when he was a member of the parliament, of the Knesset – but not Speaker at the time. But I said to him: "You know, before I even met you, I was – before I was in Congress – outside the Soviet – it was Soviet at that time, in the '80s – advocating for the Refuseniks." And of course, he was a very well-known one at the time. And it was just wonderful to sit across the table, seeing him as the Speaker of the Knesset. So again, some of these relationships are deep, even when we didn't know each other. And the friendship between our two countries is important to both of us. And our friendship with Prime Minister Netanyahu is respectful. But I think that – I hope we can find another path to go forward.

Q: Did it come up at the White House with any…

Leader Pelosi. That was a reception to welcome the new Members. So it wasn't really…

Q: The White House has a photo of you and the President speaking one-on-one.

Leader Pelosi. Yeah, we were waiting for Mitch McConnell, who was coming, so we could all go out together. So it was really more about this, that, and the other thing. Any number of subjects came up fleetingly, including trade. And that was probably where – if you asked me what we were talking about, I would say trade. Did the other subject come up? Maybe, for a moment.

Q: Does the invitation, in your view, on the world stage, undermine at all the American negotiators – the P-5 negotiating position – in the final, sort of, stages of this negotiation? Or is it just kind of seen as an internal squabble that doesn't really tip the balance…

Leader Pelosi. Well I certainly hope it doesn't undermine our negotiating – no.

Q: Have you heard any concerns from people in a position to know that it does actually make a difference in this negotiation?

Leader Pelosi. The bigger concern was, would we pass sanctions before. And that's resolved. We're not passing further sanctions. Everybody knows we could pass sanctions at the drop of the hat. So it's not a question of, we have to exploit this opportunity that we have now, because it won't exist again. No, that moment exists whenever we choose to use it. So the fact [is] that there's a recognition that further sanctions would undermine the agreement as to how we [went] in – we shouldn't have more sanctions, they can't have any enrichment – and so those were some of the terms of bringing people to the table. It was a really remarkable achievement of the Obama Administration, to bring together the P-5 countries plus one, the Permanent Members of the Security Council, plus Germany, in concert in these negotiations. This is no small feat.

And I was telling the Prime Minister – excuse me, him too, but yesterday the Speaker – that 20 years ago, more than 20 years ago, some of us were traveling to Russia or meeting Russian officials here, to China, to say: "Stop transferring technology to Iran" – and to the Europeans, to the French, to others – "Stop transferring technology." It's dual use, it's this, and said the Russians: "You're the biggest arms salesmen in the world. Who are you to tell us not to transfer technology?"

But we're talking about unconventional. The Chinese said: "We're not doing it" – which of course they were, rig magnets, rocket delivery service systems and the rest of that. And Europeans were saying: "It's dual-use, it's not really intended." But it's all to say: three of those countries I just named are part of the six countries that are engaged in these negotiations. That is a gigantic step forward and should not be devalued or taken lightly. And every one of those countries knows that it's very important to stop Iran from having a weapon of mass destruction.

Q: It sounds like, Madam Leader, what you're saying is that this has highlighted, politicized some debates about Israel here in this country; but if Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to derail the deal with Iran at this episode, that it's not going to work – you seem to be saying.

Leader Pelosi. Well, I'm hoping this doesn't take place, so I'm ever-optimistic and hopeful. But the fact is: our negotiators are on track and firmly there. The question is: could that advocacy have resulted in the passing of sanctions in the Congress? It didn't. So that was very important. But the fact is: these negotiations are under the auspices – from our point of view – from the President of the United States. And you know, again, this is – the three of our countries have great friendships in terms of country-to-country, leaders-to-leaders. It's really something that we should be able to resolve.

Maybe we even have to review the idea of joint sessions of Congress, because they should not be a political arena two weeks before an election. There are some people who just think it's outrageous; some staunch supporters of Israel who called me and said it's outrageous – and they're supporters of Netanyahu – that our floor of the House would be used, exploited in that way for a political purpose in Israel and in the United States.

Again, I've taken too long on this question – I know, because I have to go vote, and the Speaker is going to be here in just a minute because he doesn't have to vote. But let's put it this way: we all know that Iran can't get a nuclear weapon. We all know that everything is on the table; and in order to have moral authority on how we proceed, we have to have the world see that we tried everything with Iran. And hopefully that will work.

And we all know that Israel's election is two weeks before his supposed speech before the Congress. It just – this, I think going forward in this way, the way this conversation is taking so much energy and is really stressful, is really beneath the dignity of the challenge that we have: stopping the proliferations of weapons of mass destruction, respecting America's approach to this which has brought five other countries to the table and across the table from Iran. I think they've done a wonderful, wonderful job and deserve the right to have us in Congress support them. And that's my view on the subject.

Q: Can I just follow up quickly, Madam Leader? You said you really hope it doesn't take place. Do you get the sense from your meetings that the Israelis are considering, or the Prime Minister is considering…

Leader Pelosi. No.

Q: … and what's your recommendation? So, if they're not, and the Speaker's not going to change the date, what's your recommendation to Members who are considering a boycott?

Leader Pelosi. I don't know. Just ever-hopeful that the decision in favor of respecting our system would – you never know; things happen in people's schedules.

[Laughter]

They do. You just never know.

Q: Are you going to attend?

Leader Pelosi. As of now, I am. As of now I am. Yeah, as of now I am.

Q: Are you looking to schedule something else?

Leader Pelosi. No, I'm just saying that we're just…

Q: You sound to be leaving the option of boycotting open.

Leader Pelosi. No, I don't think anyone should use the word "boycott" for this.

Q: …will not attend.

Leader Pelosi. Let me just tell you this: you know when these heads of state come? This is not – I mean, people are here doing their work, they're trying to pass legislation, they're meeting with their constituents and the rest. It's not a high-priority item for them. So if you want to invite a head of state and have that invitation be shared by the other leaders, because that's usually how it is – House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, and work with the White House. You have to demonstrate that you're going to fill those seats. And sometimes you look at that audience and it looks like the average age of Congress is 21 years old. And you know that's not the case, not even close. So you can just imagine how low the age is of some of the people sitting in those seats.

Q: To be clear, are you leaving the option of not going on the table? Are you considering not going?

Leader Pelosi. I'm seriously considering going. I mean, I am. As I said, as of now, it is my intention to go. It is still my hope that the event will not take place. There's serious unease, but don't even think in terms of the word "boycott." Members will go or they won't go as they usually go or don't go. This is not anything – it was a surprise to me when I first came to Congress, it started to snow outside and somebody said: "I'm going home." I was with these two senior Members, they said: "I'm going home." I said: "Well, you'll never be back in time for the joint session." And they looked at me as if I were really a freshman.

[Laughter]

So, in any event, again with all the respect in the world for Prime Minister Netanyahu, we have welcomed him royally on two occasions to the Congress. Only Winston Churchill was welcomed three times, and one of them was during World War II. My father was there as a Member from Maryland, December 26, 1948. I have a picture in my office. So, it isn't that there isn't any respect and admiration even any affection for the Prime Minister and certainly the strong ties to Israel; but, at this time, I think it would be better if we didn't have it.

I think I've said quite a bit on this subject. So you have to ask them how they thought the meeting went, the Israelis. We treated them with great courtesy and warmth and sadness. Thank you.

By the way, have your kids get inoculated.

# # #