Transcript of Pelosi Press Conference Today

Leader Pelosi. Good morning. Since we saw each other last – we have had a break during that time – many of us went to Selma for the 50th anniversary of the march. It was a beautiful commemoration. The President spoke so magnificently about what we were observing that day. It was so important for him to say the march is not over; we have so much more work to do.

And today House Democrats are introducing the Voter Empowerment Act. The voice and vote of every American must be heard in our democracy. We must pass [it] and strengthen the Voting Rights Act. It has been a long time now since last year that the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act. It's long overdue for us to correct that. With the leadership of John Lewis, Mr. Clyburn, and others, today we will be introducing the Voter Empowerment Act.

Today also on the floor of the House, Republicans are making it harder to vote and join a union. The attack on the ability of the NLRB to bring labor elections and regulations into the 21st century, it's a brazen – it's an outright attack, not just on unions but on the right to organize. The right to organize has been such a fundamental principle for progress for America's working families.

Today we expect to see a Republican budget. I don't know if that will be possible. They just went back – they were supposed to go back in this morning. I don't know if they have. But, as we have discussed before, a budget is supposed to be a statement of our national values. What is important for us as a nation is where we should be allocating our resources. Instead, we see a Republican budget which isn't. It's a budget – so far, from what we have seen of it, because they haven't passed one yet, as you know – but their initial statement is what we would describe as ‘work harder for less.' Harder to buy a home, harder to send a child to college, harder to secure a dignified retirement.

Again, it's the same old, same old warmed-over stew. That's all can I call it, same old taxes. It green lights the massive Romney Ryan tax windfalls to the ultra-wealthy while forcing higher taxes on hardworking families. So far, what we have seen is it ends – for seniors – it ends the Medicare guarantee, turning Medicare into a voucher program. It forces current seniors to pay more for preventive services.

In terms of education, it forces deep education cuts for students and makes college less affordable, freezing for 10 years the amount of a Pell Grant – for 10 years. And that really helps – when I say the "poorest," I don't mean "poor" in any way except economically – the needy kids to get a college education.

It doesn't invest in the future. It takes over $700 billion over 10 years of cuts in the domestic agenda and even deeper cuts in investment needed to keep America number one.

You have heard me say over and over again the best way to reduce the deficit: Nothing brings more money to the Treasury than investments in education. Investments in education, of course, are wonderful to help people reach their aspirations. A family can make no better investment than the education of its children. And the country can make no better investment than the education of its people. Innovation begins in the classroom. Education is essential to keeping America number one.

And yet this is a budget that is counter to that. And that's why I was so pleased when some of you were here the other day when we talked about introducing the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act under the leadership of Joe Courtney. It had been the Tierney bill in a previous Congress. Now Joe Courtney has taken the lead; Senator Warren in the Senate.

All of this comes down to a message that we need bigger paychecks, better infrastructure, investments in education so that every family in America – every hardworking family in America – can realize the American dream.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

***

Leader Pelosi. Yes, ma'am.

Q: We've seen some criticism from groups like Move On and some other left groups of Congressman Van Hollen, your Ranking Member on the Budget Committee, supporting potential frameworks that would include changes to Social Security. Are you concerned that, moving forward, that type of criticism could pull your Members away from something like Simpson Bowles, which is what he keeps talking about, or an ability to find anything that's going on…

Leader Pelosi. Well, he wasn't talking about Simpson Bowles. He talked about the framework of Simpson Bowles. But I think all of our – now that Barbara Mikulski has said she isn't running – I think almost every Member of our delegation is looking at the race and I think all of them subscribe to strengthening Medicare as they did in the Affordable Care Act and preserving Social Security – prolonging the life of both of them. That would apply to Mr. Van Hollen, Congresswoman Donna Edwards, to Mr. Cummings, to Mr. Delaney, to – who else is running? Everybody! Not everybody.

I have every confidence in Mr. Van Hollen. He's gone to the table bringing the values of our Caucus to the negotiating tables under any one of these configurations. And in every case, quite frankly, he has been the champion on these issues – but again, a value that he shares with the other candidates who are running as well.

Q: Madam Leader, are you working directly with Speaker Boehner on the doc fix?

Leader Pelosi. Yes.

Q: And how do you see that moving forward?

Leader Pelosi. Well, you will see as it will come forward. I think we put out some framework today. Is that correct? I believe that it will be ready to go forward today. And then more particulars when we post the bill. Yes, we have been working on that. It's something that has to happen. It's not a doc fix; it's a fix for America's seniors so that they can continue to see their doctor under Medicare. And some other priorities that will expire soon, we want it to be in advance of. As you know, the SGR, as you call the "doc fix" – you call "doc fix" – the SGR expires in just a matter of days.

Q: How has it been working with Speaker Boehner on this?

Leader Pelosi. I have always had a good rapport with the Speaker.

Q: Madam Leader, is it something you hope he does more often in the future?

Leader Pelosi. Of course. Yes.

Q: Coming to you initially?

Leader Pelosi. You are both speaking at once. I am sorry. What is your question?

That's your characterization of what he does. But it is – many of these issues have not been partisan, ever. Transportation and infrastructure have not been partisan issues. We have all been able to work together.

All of us have a responsibility to try to find our common ground in terms of getting the job done for the American people. Where we can't find common ground we have to stand our ground, but nonetheless we have to try. And sometimes our differences are regional, sometimes they're philosophical, sometimes they're generational. I call it the giant kaleidoscope. You never know when you turn that dial who is going to be part of the formula for passing a bill. So we are always a resource to each other. And, hopefully, this will be a good example of how we go forward.

Q: So back to this issue of the doc fix here, do you anticipate the trouble that the Republicans have had in the past 12 hours or so getting a budget out of committee because of these ‘pay-fors' and everything else, that that might somehow affect the putting out of the doc fix framework, as you put it, because of questions about things that are unpaid for because the Republicans are saying, well…

Leader Pelosi. I have no idea. You have about five hypotheticals in there. I have no idea.

[Laughter]

Q: But it is contingent upon it.

Leader Pelosi. I think we are on a path where everybody understands the seriousness of addressing the SGR, the so-called "doc fix", so that seniors can have access to their doctors under Medicare. That's very important. And we understand that that has to happen. I don't have the faintest idea what's going on in the Republican Caucus right now. We don't know if they have the votes to pass a budget. So I can't speak to what has an impact here or there. You have to go ask them. So, I'm just being very honest with you: I don't have the faintest idea.

Q: Any scenario where you guys would help them on a budget since you have helped them on other issues? That is not tradition, but…

Leader Pelosi. As I said, a budget is a statement of values. This isn't about issues, this is about values; it's about the ethical responsibility we have to invest in the future for our country. I would hope that we could come to agreement on different parts of it. But I haven't seen any budget they have put forth in a long time that does anything more than take us back to the failed economic policies under President Bush that took us to the brink of a depression, took us into a deep recession. And now they want to go back to a budget that does exactly the same thing.

Yes, sir.

Q: Madam Leader, new topic. On the ISIS fighters, how do you characterize them? Should they be called Islamic jihadists or a variation that has a religious connotation to it? How would you define…

Leader Pelosi. Terrorists. I'd use one word. They are terrorists, and that's the word that I would use.

Q: Do you think the President is right in avoiding a certain tone or characterization that he has struggled to do?

Leader Pelosi. Well, the President calls them terrorists. I agree with that characterization.

Q: Madam Leader, Speaker Boehner earlier this week has emphasized his calls for Hillary Clinton to turn over her private email server to a third party administrator, a neutral party to take a look at the records. Are you satisfied with what she has turned over, or do you have any concerns that there are outstanding records that were erased or that were not turned over to Congress?

Leader Pelosi. I have a concern. I have a concern that this isn't really about emails; it's about a partisan investigation by a select committee that has spent millions of dollars to produce nothing. And I think we are going to just see an ongoing attempt to investigate Hillary Clinton, whatever the subject, whether it's her emails or it's her hair or whatever it happens to be. So that's what I am concerned about, is just the politicization of an issue. And if the fact is the Speaker said that her server should be turned over, well, I think that Hillary Clinton should not be treated any differently than any other Secretary of State. Even if he just said in this century, where technology has moved forward and this kind of a subject would not come up about a server and about emails a number of years ago. Communications, yes, but not this particular stamp on it. So I would say, let's see what other Secretaries of State, what their practice is, what the status is of their server, and maybe that would be an interesting contrast.

Q: At this point, it seemed like he was indicating that he wants her to come to this decision and turn it over herself voluntarily. Do you think that it would be a mistake for the Oversight Committee or the Benghazi Committee to specifically subpoena those records and that server?

Leader Pelosi. I think it's a mistake for those committees to continue a political investigation of Hillary Clinton, whatever. And that's what they seem to do. Their organized purpose was supposed to be an investigation that produced some information already obtained by the Intelligence Committee, which made its report. It seems to me a big waste of taxpayer money. Again, whatever is determined here is about the future as well as what happened in the past. But if we are talking about the past, let's talk about at least since the year 2000.

Q: On the doc fix deal, is your own Caucus behind it, supportive of it?

Leader Pelosi. Our Caucus is very enthusiastic about ending this whole discussion and uncertainty of the SGR that has existed for years. For a long time our Caucus has been ready to take the action that we are taking now. And we will see. We will see when we see the final bill what their enthusiasm is for it. But I am very proud of the work of our Ranking Members on the subject. And I think – right now, of course, it is not finished yet. So when it's finished, we will see what it is, and then we'll see who wants to vote for it or not.

Q: I just want to get a quick question in. In the wake of Aaron Schock's resignation, do you think there needs to be tighter ethics rules, ethics mandatory training for Members of the House? You used to serve on the Ethics Committee, and now just staff has to be trained.

Leader Pelosi. I think it's important to – I spent 7 years on [the Ethics Committee], nobody spent seven years on the Ethics Committee. Between the Ethics Committee and the Intelligence Committee, I couldn't utter a word to anybody about where I was going, where I had been, or what I heard. But, yes, I think it would be important for Members and their families and their staff to have the ethics training. And the responsibility is with the Member. But I would like to think that what happened in that particular case is so outrageous and so unusual that – I don't think it should trigger the ethics training. I think we should just do the ethics training period so everybody has a comfort level as to what is personal, what is official, what is political. That's really where lines are crossed. But I don't want to spend any more time…

Q: Do you worry that with a lot of new Members that there really needs to be a beefed up training?

Leader Pelosi. It's not a question of need to be. It's just it would be a good idea to do. I don't think needs to be because there is a fear of violation. I just think it's a great comfort level for people to have, just as I would like them to know more about Jefferson's rules of the House and parliamentary procedure so that they can be their most effective self, so that when they set up their offices they do so in a way that has the benefit of what I am certain they must get in their orientation. We always had that strong ethics piece of what are the rules of the House, again, separating political, personal, official.

Q: You mentioned comfort level. Are you comfortable that, in general, the House Members are mostly ethical? What is your overall belief…

Leader Pelosi. I am more concerned about money in politics and what that means to the ethics of our country. That's really what I am more concerned about. So if you want to talk about ethics, I think we should be talking about reform of the political system. Not that I am not accusing anybody. I am just saying, in the public mind, in the public mind, there is a skepticism, there is a cynicism that money plays too much of a role. And if it isn't corrupting, it is certainly corroding of our democracy if most people think, why should I even vote because money plays such a big role? So that's the one place where I would place an emphasis to increase comfort level. Not me; what does that matter? But the comfort level of the American people and the confidence that they have. Thank you all very much.

Q: Madam Leader, just one possible final question.

Leader Pelosi. Just for you.

Q: Any comment on the latest kerfuffle at the Secret Service, where they blipped out apparently the tape of the two Secret Service agents that ran into the barricade? They can't find the tape. Apparently, it is a protocol that they destroy tapes after 72 hours, but there are two other tapes that aren't very clear that they let get through. What do you make of this whole episode and this latest one?

Leader Pelosi. I want to support the Secret Service in protecting the President and the Executive Branch, as they do. I am not into housekeeping for them in terms of how they have accountability. But I think even their leader has said that some of this needs to be addressed.

But you know more about what you just described than I do in terms of the facts. And, again, whatever it is, you want to have a Secret Service that protects our President, whoever he or she may be, and that also [includes] our candidates as we gear up for the election. Thank you very much.