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.

Q: Good morning.

Leader Pelosi. Not such a good morning. So sad. So saddened by the deaths of the two hostages killed in an American strike on al Qaeda in January.

I just listened to the President's very, very moving comments, his condolences to the family, which we all extend as well. He took full responsibility as Commander-in-Chief, apologized to the families for the tragedy. And I look forward to what he calls for, the declassification of all the information related to the strike so that the families will know the facts and so will the public.

I commend the public service of, really, a neighbor here in Mr. Delaney's district, Dr. Warren Weinstein. Our sympathies to his family and Giovanni Lo Porto, both of them public servants, trying to make the world a better place. Very sad.

So here we are in another week of the Republicans' mad embrace with trickle-down economics over middle-class economics. Latest manifestation was on the floor this week when the Republicans took a perfectly good bipartisan – well, nothing is perfectly good here – a bipartisan bill that was well-received as to strengthen the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and just as we thought we were going to have the bipartisan legislation to do just that, they turned it into one of their insidious schemes to undermine the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This is the first bureau that is built to really protect consumers and taxpayers.

So, you know, it's a vital consumer watchdog. And some recent revelations are that overall, 15 million consumers have benefited from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's actions, enforcement actions. Recently, they successfully provided a half a billion dollars in relief to families who were overcharged in private student loans. On Monday, they took action to refund $3.1 million in illegal undisclosed funds to servicemembers.

And what is the Republicans response to that? It's "let's seriously underfund it, undermine it" in a bill that is disguised to strengthen it. Instead of doing that, we should be working on a values-based budget. Instead, the Republicans have taken one bad bill, the House budget bill, and another bad bill, the Senate budget bill, into seclusion, keeping out the Democrats. Any agreement reached between two bad bills is a bad deal for the American people.

Do this, then they are going after women's personal health issues in the District of Columbia. Why don't we just focus on what we're here to do, what our responsibilities are, instead of meddling? They're not in favor of big government except when it comes to women, especially if they happen to live in the District of Columbia.

They're wasting time again on the CFPB. It's no wonder, again, that the negotiations on the budget are delayed. They have missed their statutory deadlines – which, of course, they say they won't do, but they have.

Today is a good day in one respect in that the Senate is expected to move forward on a vote to confirm the highest law enforcement officer in the land, the first time an African American woman will hold this position. She's brilliant, she's experienced, she's effective. She's been fighting corruption, terrorism, human trafficking, fighter for civil rights. It's just going to be a great day for America when she's confirmed. Sad to say, though, she was nominated [166] days ago. More than 55 days ago her confirmation was approved by the Committee, and it's taken more than 55 days for it to be brought to the floor of the Senate.

Now, since [former Attorney General Richard] Thornburgh, it's been like under 10 days, if you add all of the Attorneys General in that period of time together. It's more than all seven of them combined to approve her nomination. But at long last, this embarrassment for the Senate is over and this triumph for the American people will occur in a matter of hours. When it happens, we'll celebrate.

I just want to make the mention about trade. We really think that the opportunity with the TPP is one where we can leapfrog over past debates about trade and do something glorious, do something where people come together to honor the principles for labor that are contained in the ILO, the International Labor Organization – that recognizing that commerce is directly related to our environment and to address those issues, to make sure that in conflict resolution, that the American taxpayer and worker are protected, to speak to the issue of currency manipulation, which has had a negative impact on job loss in our country – and to do so in a way that puts the past behind us, to say that was business as usual. We're leapfrogging over that to do something quite special, and I still believe that that opportunity can be achieved.

I said I'm looking for a path to yes. There are being recognized – there will be bumps in that road, that path. I think what the Republicans put out – that the Senate plus Ryan put out – is not a bump in the road, it's more like a pothole. And we can do better than that, and that's why I support Congressman Levin, who is striving so hard to get to a yes on this, the proposal that he put forth.

Unfortunately, the Republicans may not allow it to come up in the Ways and Means Committee. They say the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee has not been waived on it, but yet they waived the jurisdiction on the Senate plus Ryan bill. They waived jurisdiction on that, but they won't waive jurisdiction on the House Democratic proposal put forth by Mr. Levin. So that's unfair. That doesn't seem like a good intention of trying to find a way to come together.

But as I said, the real measure of all of this is what does it do to the paycheck of America's workers? I think what Mr. Levin puts forth is that he recognizes that TPP has the potential to raise standards and open new markets to U.S. businesses, workers, and farmers, and he makes positive suggestions on how to do so. So I support the Levin substitute and hope that in the course of the debate on the Trade Promotion Act, that they will say, you know, we should have some more congressional considerations, congressional transparency, congressional consultation, more leverage for the Congress in that bill.

I also want to put to rest some things I've seen in the press lately, that Democrats voted for fast track for President Clinton and fast track for President Bush, but that really didn't happen. The fast track vote in the '90s, the late '90s – now, I'm talking about the post-NAFTA, in 1999 that was brought to the floor – and only 29 Democrats voted ‘aye' for fast track in 1999, and the bill failed and President Clinton did not get fast tracked. In 2001, under President Bush, 21 Democrats voted for fast track. That bill prevailed with the Republican vote. But although a majority of the Republicans – it was tied. It was 215 to 214. The Republicans were equally divided.

And then with President Bush, the May 10th is what we gave him, which would say, "You can consider these bills in the Congress on a fast track if you abide by the May 10th agreement," which we worked with the Administration on that honored the ILO principles. It's a whole list of the standards that had to be met that related to freedom of association, rights of collective bargaining, those kinds of issues, as well as issues that relate to endangered species, Montreal protocol, other environmental issues that were contained in that.

So I wanted just to say we've always had a kind of a lively debate on this subject on the substance, regardless of who was President of the United States. It was not a question [of] "Democrats stuck with President Clinton, but they didn't stick with President Obama." That is simply not the case.

Subjecting whatever is put forth to the scrutiny of "what does this do to the paycheck of American workers?" – and this is the debate we're having: Is what is being put forth better than the status quo? In some cases, yes; in some cases, no. But weighing all of those equities, what does it come down to for increasing the paycheck of American workers? And that's what we're dedicated to.

That's what Mr. Levin is committed to, and he is just so eager for us to come to yes on this as am I, and we're just not going to give up with this. We think it would be a missed opportunity not to be able to say we're concerned about the safety of food coming into our country. Maybe this bill can improve things, because the status quo is not good. But in some cases where the bill validates the status quo, that's not a positive. That's not viewed in a positive way, because that's viewed as a setback.

With that, I'd be pleased to take any questions.

***

Q: Madam Leader, if TPA – if the Levin amendment is rejected, how will you vote on this bill?

Leader Pelosi. Well, I'm not giving up [that] it's rejected. We're going to fight to see if we can get some of those considerations into the bill.

Q: Would you…

Leader Pelosi. If they have 218 Republican votes, I don't think they'll pay too much attention to many of our concerns. I don't know that they have that.

Q: Madam Leader, obviously President Obama is in support of this Wyden-Ryan bill.

Leader Pelosi. Right.

Q: Have you spoken with him about it? And it's kind of an interesting place for you to be, lobbying against something the President supports.

Leader Pelosi. I'm not lobbying against anything. I'm lobbying for a positive trade promotion and a positive bill. Now, it's a chicken and egg.

If you were asked to approve to give fast track to something that is really not clearly known to you, you say, well, why should I fast track something that I am not inclined to support, but maybe you could convince me with the substance – when that bill is not even finished.

So there are two arguments. Some Members are saying, "well, I'm not going to give fast track to something I don't know what it is." And others are saying that, you know, "well, let's do fast track so that we can see what it is and then we can vote it up or down." By then, it may be too late to make any improvements in the bill. So I'm not lobbying anything except for us to arrive at an agreement where we can have 150 Democratic votes for the bill, but that may not be possible.

Q: But you just called this bill a pothole.

Leader Pelosi. It is a pothole.

Q: Okay. So it's supported by the President. Correct?

Leader Pelosi. Yeah. But that's what that bill is. It's a bicameral legislature, the Senate – excluding our House Democratic Member who could have helped improve that bill – but clearly, they decided they may have had the votes in that little circle of the Senate plus Ryan. And so that's – I don't subscribe to that. I think that that does not – in asserting the prerogatives of Congress on trade, where we have a strong prerogative, that bill surrenders much of our prerogative. So let's see how we can improve that bill. Let's not just argue yes or no on the bill. Let's say "that's something on the table." Sandy has something else on the table. If they have 218 votes, they don't have to care about that. But I do think we can do much better than that bill, and that's no secret.

Q: Are you ruling out voting for the underlying bill, then?

Leader Pelosi. I'm not telling you how I'm voting on anything because we we don't have anything to vote on yet.

Q: Are you comfortable opposing the President?

Leader Pelosi. I'm not opposing the President. I think the President wants what we want, which is a TPP. And I think this, I believe so strongly about this President – I don't want to make any comparisons or contrasts to other presidents – but he believes in all that we want. That's why it's important that the trade agreements are part of the bill and not a sidebar as they've been in other agreements.

That's why the environmental concerns are part of the bill and not a side bill. I appreciate that, but what is the opportunity that we have? And why can't we take this to a higher place where we understand what trade is about?

But, as a Californian, I would have concerns about any conflict resolution that says a tribunal will make decisions as to whether our environmental laws in California prevent a company from making a profit and, therefore, that's a strike against our environmental standards in California. There are lots of specifics in this bill that deal directly to our own state, and the differences that we have among them in relationship to the environment and other subjects, whether it's consumer protections, whatever it happens to be.

So this is not a fast track thing. This is a very big deal. And it's a tremendous opportunity, and I'd hate to see it be a missed opportunity to do something real. We all know, I grew up in Baltimore city, built on clipper ships and trade, represent San Francisco with the same kind of heritage in terms of being open to trade and to the world. President Kennedy had made us a party of free trade, the Democratic Party, but it has to be fair trade in terms of what it means to our workers. And so this isn't about, oh, the President said this or that. This is about the substance and how it affects American workers.

And one of the things that has prevented us from having a full recovery in our economy has been that the paychecks of middle-income Americans have not increased – the stagnation of wages, the disparity of income, but mostly the stagnation of wages. So we want a trade agreement that grows our paychecks, but does not hinder that growth. And I think we have an opportunity to do it. And if they don't have 218, we have a further opportunity to say where there are some areas where we can come together to ensure that – while we have trade, which most people think is an exchange of you buy this from me; I buy this from you – but it's about investment, it's about insurance, it's about a lot of other things; and we don't want some of those other issues to undermine the opportunity for American workers, as sometimes people believe our trade agreements have done.

Q: Madam Leader, besides conflict resolution, which you mentioned, there are other specific provisions that you believe must be in this bill, for instance, currency manipulation to get enough support that you and the Caucus…

Leader Pelosi. Let me say this: I have tried to have this be as thoughtful and as drilled down a process where people really knew what they were talking about and not just fighting old wars or whatever. And we just don't know everything yet that is in the bill, but some of it that is in the final product of the TPP, forgetting this first part of the past – we'll call it fast track to keep the names clear.

And so the concerns that our Members have, the concerns that our Members have relate to, as I mentioned earlier and as you asked, currency manipulation. There are people who think that more than a million, maybe as much as five million jobs have been lost because of currency manipulation from other countries, more than subsidizing your products directly, but by subsidizing through currency manipulation. So that's one thing.

Another is conflict resolution. That is a very big concern and there's some unresolved cases or those that had been resolved have not given people reason to be encouraged. This is not a new subject. As you know – as you probably know – in our U.S.-Australia deal, the conflict resolution was taken out, taken out of the bill.

Issues that relate to the environment, food safety, agricultural, market access in those regards in terms of access are not resolved yet in terms of some big countries, and issues like food safety and workers' rights in a country like Vietnam. So there are different things. We'll do more on Vietnam next week, but we have addressed mostly issues that I just talked to in terms of a first look at where they are now.

From the Administration, the trade representative is a remarkable, remarkable trade rep, Michael Froman. He's just fabulous, and he's been just boundless in his willingness to spend time with Members to go through this. It doesn't mean they like all the answers he gives. And also we have outside – there's labor, environmental, just lawyers to talk about conflict resolution and the rest come in and talk to Members.

So they'll make a very informed vote that perhaps past trade bills may inform their decision, but we don't want to be fighting past fights. We want to be seeing future opportunity.

And so, you know, again, at the end of the day, you weigh the equities. Is this better than the status quo? How much better? Or is it a wasted opportunity? And right now, I'm disappointed in what they're – the two plus one, how can you reference the Hatch-Wyden-Ryan proposal puts forth. I know that Senator Wyden fought very hard, and the bill is much better because of his leadership and participation. But, you know, we shall see. And I don't think anybody – I think there are many people who are still waiting to see some – we'll see what happens in the Senate, we'll see what happens in the committee today.

But why wouldn't the Ways and Means Committee give equal treatment or, at least, just a time to be heard by the Levin proposal, which is a substitute, but based on the realities of life as the trade agreement as a compromise. So they're saying: "We can't hear yours because it wasn't weighed by Rules, and we wouldn't let Rules waive yours, but we insisted that Rules waved our bill." They must be afraid of something. They must be afraid of something.

So what my view is, if we just all say no, and they have 218 votes, we have lost an opportunity of probably a lifetime, a generation, a long time to come, to do something special.

In my view, those of us who appreciate the value of trade whose communities benefit greatly from it but have concerns about issues that relate to climate, which are ignored in all of this, but that's a decision they made. It's not a reason to vote against the bill, but it is a statement of value that we can, again, be in the forefront of something new and special in terms of trade.

We thought May 10th was a breakthrough when we did that with President Bush and said: "No, we're not giving you fast track, but we will allow bills to move on the track like that if they meet these standards, and that was great progress." We have to do better than that on this because they were bilateral bills, Colombia, Peru, Panama. This is – who knows how many nations, but in the teens already. We'll see if Korea comes in.

Yes, Chad?

Q: But, I guess, what we're trying to get at here in some of these questions is…

Leader Pelosi. Is what my vote is going to be on the bill?

Q: No. Not what your vote, no.

Leader Pelosi. Don't waste your time.

Q: Is that if you don't like what the Senate has come out, you don't like the process in the Republican controlled Ways And Means Committee…

Leader Pelosi. Right.

Q: Then why, then, would Democrats when the President, the Democratic President is saying we want to do this, wouldn't he be wrongheaded about this and not put this on the Republicans?

Leader Pelosi. The President is trying to do what we're all trying to do. We all have different roles. We have a congressional responsibility when it comes to trade and we have a vote on what that is. And people see things from the perspective of their bosses, the people they represent.

And the people they represent, in my district, it's a mixed bag because trade is really important to our State of California. And we are on the Pacific, and there's a whole new balance to the Pacific. Strategically, I just mentioned five nations and then came home and went to a Naval base San Diego on Monday within about three weeks having been to six or seven installations, posts, or bases and understanding the face to the West, which, of course, California is part of the forefront, the whole West Coast. And so from the standpoint of trade, that's an opportunity for us as well.

So again, this isn't about – as I said, President Clinton, we voted no. President Bush, we voted no. And let's just see what it is that we can do to improve this bill. And I don't know why it's such a mystery that everybody wouldn't try to get something better where we have leverage, where we have leverage.

The President is the President. He's there. He signs, or not, what we send him. We have an opportunity now, when they need 218 votes, to say this is a possibility. Why can't we just all come together and do this in a way that, again, increases the paycheck of the American worker as we further engage in gullible trade, but do not have our workers be the losers in a deal that is really perceived by some to have missed an opportunity to improve their lot in the deal.

Any other questions from another subject?

[Cross talk]

Leader Pelosi. We'll have to take two.

Q: The labor unions provide a huge part of the Democratic coalition. President Obama does not have to worry about running for reelection again.

Do your members supporting a fast track, a TPP deal, do they risk losing support of the labor unions in their elections, that ground game they provide, is that a danger to them? And are Members talking about that because they're even talking…

Leader Pelosi. No. They're not talking about that.

Yes, sir.

Q: When Kayla Mueller was killed earlier this year, the Administration said that they would review their policy regarding hostage negotiations. And then today the Weinstein family just put out a statement saying that the government support was inconsistent and disappointing over the course of the last 3 1/2 years, and they called on the government to establish a coordinated and consistent approach to supporting hostages and their families.

Do you think the government did all that they could for the Weinstein family in light of a statement like this and…?

Leader Pelosi. Well, you know, we just found out about this now. So I'd be interested to read all that I can about it from an intelligence standpoint and a public domain standpoint.

I'm sad that they think that because the President said in his remarks that for a very long time they had been trying, with full force, of what they could do to find him, both of those hostages.

Q: What about in regard to the other hostages that have been killed in the past?

Leader Pelosi. We could say it's about all of the hostages, but it is beyond in a collateral damage, it is something that should never happen. And you know, the question is how much – my understanding is they believe they had what they needed to know that led them to believe that there was nobody there except their target.

And, again, you're asking me a question about – I don't like to answer questions where I don't have the full information and since this is very new. But what we all know is that it's very tragic, that it is so sad that people who want to make the world a better place, idealistic, go there to work in the service of meeting the needs of people would be taken hostage, and that, unfortunately, would – more than unfortunately – tragically, would be not only not apprehended and saved, but killed by our own fire.

But the President, I thought, took full responsibility, apologized – no apology is enough. And as he said, words are totally inadequate. You lose a loved one, as he said as a father and dad, a father and a husband, can't even imagine the sadness of it all, the sadness of it all and especially such a long time. I mean, he was captured, Weinstein, what, in 2002. 2002, isn't that when he was captured? I think that's…

Q: I thought it was 2010 or…

Leader Pelosi. 2001?

Q: 2011.

Leader Pelosi. I think it was '12. The other was 2000 and one was much longer than the other.

Q: I think that was the year of…

Leader Pelosi. You don't have the year?

Q: I think it was more recent.

Leader Pelosi. I only am going by what was flashed on the screen, so I better go back to that TV station and see what they said. But it's been a few years for both, so it's been a while and there has been an effort. And you used the term 3 1/2 years, so that would conform to the 2012.

But it breaks your heart. It's just very – and just takes us back to the fact that the fight against terrorism is a terrible one; that we have to take a look at this.

I met with a lot of people in California on the subject of fighting ISIS – in that case, it was ISIS, and al Qaeda, and they said what we should start to…

Oh. I have to vote. I didn't realize we had to vote.

But anyways, the recommendation from these people from the Middle East and Iran and all the places like that was we have to start looking at this not as Sunni/Shi'a, but as terrorists and moderate Islam, because that's really the distinction. Because when you look at who Iran is supporting, they're supporting Hamas, Sunni. Iranians are Shi'a. They support Hezbollah or Shi'a.

So those who are supporting people whose behavior can be viewed as terrorists. It's not Sunni/Shi'a. That fight [is] so much as it is fundamentalist terrorism versus believers of Islam and the Koran, a message of peace, reconciliation. And that's really what the division is more.

So it's a terrible situation that when we have to use all the intellectual resources available as to fight it. It's a big issue in terms of social media because the terrorists have really – I don't want to say mastered it, but they, to a certain extent, they have mastered the social media. Their propaganda is something to be reckoned with, and we have to deal with this in a way that is commensurate with the threat and proportionate to the risks that it is to the American people and our national security.

So it's a tragic, terrible, terrible day. There is no way to say anything less than our thoughts and prayers are with the families. Their sacrifice is a big one. The idealism of their family members will always be remembered, and that will be part of their legacy. And part of their legacy is for us to do better when it comes to fighting the fight and not losing the lives of those who are there in hostage situations.

Thank you all very much.

# # #