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.
As Congress proceeds with its agenda, it's important to observe what is happening under the formula of trickle-down economics, a failed Republican approach, and middle class economics, which is there to turn our economy around by supporting bigger paychecks for the middle class. This week Republicans continued to double down on their trickle-down priorities at the expense of the middle class, with the latest completely unpaid-for, permanent, deficit-exploding tax measure.
Yesterday, $182 billion for an unpaid permanent R&D tax credit. Earlier it was $269 billion, $269 billion, more than a quarter of a trillion dollars for 5,400 families' estates in America. 5,400 families benefit – over a quarter of a trillion dollars to pay for that tax break. So combining the 269, the 182 and other – some here, some there – we are now past $600 billion, adding $600 billion to the deficit in unpaid-for permanent tax measures. Really, this is not Trickle-Down. Now this is turning into a real storm, practically a tsunami, that hard-working families in America have to pay for.
It also prevents us from making the investments that we need to make to continue to be number one, at the same time that the Republicans were contending that this is about R&D. We are all for R&D tax credits. In our Innovation Agenda a few years ago, which became the COMPETES Act, we said we had to modernize and make permanent R&D tax credits, but to do so in a responsible way.
We tried yesterday in a Motion to Recommit to have this apply to small businesses, to start-ups, which it does not. So how could it be, when on the very same day that they are adding $182 billion to the deficit, that they at the same time are ransacking the COMPETES Act, which is about research and development? Their bill that they put on the floor attacks science and surrenders U.S. leadership in innovation.
I feel very personal ownership of the Innovation Agenda in the COMPETES Act, because it is one of the first major initiatives that we passed under President Bush, and he signed the bill. The Republican leadership in the House opposed it, but we had a majority of Republicans in the Caucus to support the bill. It is a great bill.
Now, what they did yesterday cuts energy, efficiency, and renewable energy R&D by $496 million, nearly 30 percent below last year's appropriated level, cuts RFFE – that is a very significant initiative, RFFE – by $140 million, 50 percent below the level in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill passed last week. Yesterday they cut 50 percent out of RFFE, 50 percent lower than what was in their bill that they passed last week.
They tried to silence science – of course, climate. They are in denial, environmental and social science Republicans, that they just don't want to hear about all of that. And now they're adding, as I said, $600 billion to our deficit. It really does violence to our ability to invest in the future, in hard-working American families.
For example, Monday marked the 50th anniversary of President Johnson signing the Head Start Act into law, a landmark commitment to our children's education and the future of our nation. If Republicans had their way in their budget – they have proposed in their budget they will cut $421 million and 46,000 children from Head Start. Wait a minute. We have to give tax breaks to 5,400 families to the tune of a quarter of a trillion dollars. We have to explode the deficit by $182 billion without really helping start-up companies and ransacking all of our research and development bill. And now we are taking $421 million out of Head Start.
In contrast to that – perhaps you were there – this week Democrats put forth a Strong Start bill. We expanded Head Start and early learning programs – so important – funded pre-school for children below 200 percent of poverty, and created an innovative 10 year partnership to expand and improve early and full day learning. Anyone can tell you that this earliest childhood education is a very important investment with a very big payoff, but [Republicans] are cutting it by nearly a half a billion dollars.
At the same time, they are apparently unable to plan for the future of our country in another way. The Ex-Im Bank's charter expires on June 30, just 16 legislative days from now. This Ex-Im Bank sustained 160,000 export related jobs just last year, created and sustained 1.3 million private sector jobs since 2009, with no cost to the taxpayer. And, yet, they have said it is corporate welfare and they are not going to pass the Ex-Im Bank reauthorization. Hopefully, whatever's happening on the floor of the Senate now will come up with a compromise and an initiative to send a bill forward.
Again, while we are giving away all these tax breaks and all the rest, we cannot have a highway bill unless you can come up with the pay-fors for it. $182 billion unpaid for, their R&D thing. $267 billion to 5,400 families unpaid-for. And now they're saying, "Well, we can't have a Highway and Transit Trust Fund unless we can find the pay-for." And while they took over the House since 2011, the Ways and Means Committee has not had a single hearing on financing the Highway Trust Fund, the highway bill, not one single hearing, again, meaning bigger paychecks, better infrastructure for every hard-working family.
So Monday is Memorial Day. We remember what has been given up to protect our country. They died to make us free. It's really a very solemn, unifying occasion. And we are so grateful to all of our men and women who risked their lives, the families who made the supreme sacrifice, and a very special day in our country.
Any questions? Questions? No questions. Okay.
Yes, sir.
***
Q: A couple days ago Speaker Boehner called on President Obama to essentially reset on the Authorization for Use of Military Force, [he] said that the President needs to come up with a new strategy to fight ISIS and ISIL.
What was your reaction to the Speaker's comments? And what do you think about the debate going forward in the Congress?
Leader Pelosi. For nearly one year we've been asking for the Congress to take up the Authorization of the Use of Military Force. In the summer, we were asking the Speaker, can we do this when we come back in September, can we get ready for this? The Speaker said no, he wasn't going to do it before the election and we'd have to wait. And then we had to wait because he said it has to be an initiative, the President should put something on the table.
The President did. We just got this before, three areas of decision making: the geography, how extensive it is in terms of geography; the timetable, how long is this authorization for; and the scope, what is the definition of the scope. The White House put a very clear authorization on the table for us to act upon, for Congress to work its will, to expand or limit in any of those categories or add them. So the idea that it should be after the election, it is well after the election; that the initiative should come from the White House, it has.
How could it be that all of this is happening and Congress has refused to have this conversation on the floor the House? So I don't know, really, what is different about what the Speaker said. He said the President should put something on the table. The President did.
Q: He said it is a non-starter here in the House, that, you know, essentially the powers that he has with the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs gives him more…
Leader Pelosi. Well, then, Congress can act. It can repeal those. So, yeah, Congress can act. The Congress can say: We think the geography is either too broad or too narrow, the timetable is too short or too long, and the scope is too aggressive or not aggressive enough.
And if he thinks that the existing authorizations that are there should be repealed, then act upon it, act upon it. I don't really quite understand why they are saying, "You have more authority because we gave it to you, and we can take it away, but, but" – I don't know the continuation of that sentence.
So I think the ball is definitely in our court to take up this issue and to make some decisions as to how we go forward. There should be an Authorization for the Use of Military Force as we go forward. It's long overdue. And every timeline and every requirement that the Speaker has asked for has happened. Now it is up to us.
Yes, sir.
Q: Madam Leader, do you have any reaction to Senator Paul's talk-a-thon on the floor about the PATRIOT Act?
Leader Pelosi. You know what? I hate to tell you this, but I missed the whole thing. I know that it happened. You used the term "talk-a-thon" because clearly it doesn't qualify as a filibuster. But what I would say is that what we did in the House was a very positive, non-partisan, bipartisan initiative, the FREEDOM Act, when you can bring Conyers and Goodlatte, Sensenbrenner and Nadler together as co-sponsors of the bill, and a strong vote, 338 to 88.
Now, some people opposed it. And I don't have an objection to some of Senator Paul's objections. But where is his bill? Move something forward. Go to conference. As you know, our bill ends government bulk collection of metadata. That's a good thing. It replaces bulk collection with a new process which requires the government to get approval on a case-by-case basis with a FISA court order before asking phone companies for specific records.
It strengthens privacy and civil liberties protections. We always want more in that regard. But it makes great progress in that regard. It increases transparency through a panel of amicus brief legal and technical experts to provide guidance on privacy and civil liberties, technology, et cetera.
These are nonpartisan in their nature. Both sides of the aisle have these concerns about civil liberties and privacy. And it also enhances public and congressional reporting requirements, and requires declassification of FISA court opinions.
So this was – again, do we want more? Do you think we can build upon that? Certainly. But to have nothing? If we have nothing, in just a matter of days – this Friday? This weekend? – Then all the metadata collection will stop, but without a replacement for how we can, with a court order, get the information. I'm not any fan of the metadata collection. I'm so glad that our bill will end that.
So I would say, put something on the table, go to conference, get something done.
Yes, ma'am.
Q: Madam Leader, what are your thoughts on UAE Ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba? And how often do you speak with him?
Leader Pelosi. I'm sorry? I didn't hear what you said.
Q: On UAE Ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba, what are your thoughts about him? And how often do you speak with him?
Leader Pelosi. I don't speak to many ambassadors for one reason. There are really a lot of them, and I couldn't do my day job. It would be a wonderful ceremonial thing to have the benefit of the thinking, but I really – you can ask the Speaker the same question. If we have these conversations, it would be its own full time job. But I appreciate your question.
Yes, sir.
Q: Today the State Department is hosting the fourth round of conversations between Cuba and the United States. There are two big requirements from the Cuban government side. The first one is to be removed from the list of countries that sponsor terrorism, a position that has been made by the President and submitted to the Congress? Have you identified any movement within the Congress to try to block this imposition?
And also regarding to the embargo, Cuba insists that the Congress should lift the embargo. Do you know any movement within the Congress also to try to remove the embargo? Yesterday there was this Senate meeting where some Republican Senators were very strong in favor of keeping the embargo.
Leader Pelosi. I'm not aware of that action on the part of some Senators in the Senate. But I will say this: I salute the President for his courage in going forward in terms of trying to normalize relations with Cuba. Since his announcement and that of President Castro in December, I have been there on a CODEL to Cuba, and the excitement in Cuba about the prospect of normalization was very tangible in the streets and all.
I think that the President made the right decision to remove Cuba from the terrorist – it changes its name all the time: terrorist, countries of concern, rogue nation, whatever that list is. I think he made the right decision to take Cuba off of that list because they are not engaged in the activities that would warrant them being on it.
The deadline for action in the Congress to overturn the President's decision and announcement is May 29. No. But I don't see anything that could be accomplished on May 29 to overturn the President's decision in that regard.
In terms of the – I almost said blockade. Because when we were in Cuba, they kept calling it a blockade. It's not a blockade. It's an embargo. Blockade is different, but they kept calling it that. There was some sentiment by some of the leaders that we met with in Cuba that the President had the authority to lift the embargo. He does not. That is an act of Congress. That requires an act of Congress. I have not myself been involved in any of the activities to lift the embargo, but I would certainly be very supportive of them as they materialize. Because it is really important for us to lift it.
I hope, though, on the part of Cuba, that it's not a requirement to normalizing relations with the United States. It is something that normalizing relations could lead to lifting the embargo, but it is a relic that has not been useful and has certainly – it's time for the embargo to go.
Q: Do you think that Guantanamo should be part of the negotiations?
Leader Pelosi. You know what? I'm not going to have a complete conversation on Cuba before we get…
Q: Not…
Leader Pelosi. The Speaker's going to be coming in here in a minute. I think Guantanamo should have been closed. If you are asking me should it be returned to the Cubans, I'm not getting involved in the details of the negotiations. I think Guantanamo should be closed. Okay?
Q: Madam Leader.
Leader Pelosi. Yes.
Q: Can I follow up on the NSA question?
Leader Pelosi. Sure.
Q: Because I think it's important not to have nothing. The Senate Republican leaders are pretty confident they can defeat the House bill that passed, and they have a two month extension on the table. Would House Democrats back a straight two month extension if it appears that that could come right on the deadline? The House isn't back until June 1, which would be the deadline.
Leader Pelosi. I think they should face reality and come up with a bill. Why are we having a two month delay? Is this a surprise to anybody over there that this is happening? We really have to act in a more timely fashion and in a more substantive way.
I don't know. We had a large number of House Democrats who voted against this, 43. It was half and half. 88 votes. 43 Democrats. What would that make? 45 Republicans voted against the extension.
I think people just want to say, "Act your will upon this or come up with your own bill." But what is two months going to get us?
Q: But if push comes to shove and then…
Leader Pelosi. But what is two months going to get us?
Q: …it expires, would you rather have an extension than nothing?
Leader Pelosi. What is two months going to get us? What is the point of going to two months? All these two month things is as if all of a sudden in two months, of which half of it we're not even here, they're going to come up with a bill. Just do it or take a look at this bill and, again, make your suggestions on how to change it.
But this was a very important bipartisan piece of work that was done in the House. It addresses the different aspects of it, the nature – of course, ending the collection, what replaces it, where it is domiciled, considerations about privacy and civil liberties. It's a very fine bill.
So what part of it don't they like? Write your own bill or amend it or do something and go to conference. But we get really kind of impatient with these two month formulations as if something is going to happen. What is going to happen in two months? They are going to extend it for another two months?
I think we have to have some certainty, to the extent that we can, in how we go forward, whether it's a highway bill, whether it's FREEDOM Act, as this is called, whatever it is. The two month excuse is – it's not even enough time to get anything done.
I mean, if they were on the verge of a bill, it would be one thing. So, you know, I lose patience with the two month timetable.
Q: Madam Leader.
Leader Pelosi. I think that I have to give up the room because the Speaker is coming in now.
Q: Can I just ask really quickly?
Leader Pelosi. I don't think we can – you can ask Drew.
Q: Okay.
Leader Pelosi. He'll have an answer.
Thank you. Thank you all.
# # #