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, everybody.
As you know, a matter of a very intense discussion in the Congress these days is the Iran negotiations and the agreement that has been reached. I am really very proud of our Members in terms of the thoughtful approach and the serious approach they have taken to seeking information – not even seeking it, but the Administration has provided.
Yesterday, we were briefed by three secretaries, the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Energy, as well as representatives of the intelligence community; information, education.
Secondly, validation. Last week, 100 Democratic and Republican former ambassadors came out in support of the bill. This week, over 60 national security leaders in our community, Democrats, Republicans, people not identified as party at all, came out in strong support of it.
In their letter, they say, "We congratulate President Obama and the negotiators for a landmark agreement, unprecedented in its importance, for preventing the acquisition of a nuclear weapon by Iran. We have also not heard any viable alternatives from those who oppose the implementation of the JCPOA." And that is signed Madeleine Albright, Brent Scowcroft, a wide range of security adviser in between.
Again, this agreement was precisely about intensifying our vigilance over every aspect of the Iranian nuclear program. Again, all options remain on the table should this not go forward or, more importantly, should they not comply. But again, in terms of information, we are getting it; validation, it's there; outside sentiment is very positive.
Of course, we'll be facing tens of millions of dollars of mobilization against the agreement over the August break, or even starting now. But I feel confident in the mobilization of the American people who support this agreement.
Today, as you know, on the floor of the House we have a bill that affects sanctuary cities. It's a bill the administration has issued a veto threat on, saying, this bill "undermines current Administration efforts to remove the most dangerous convicted criminals and to work collaboratively with State and local law enforcement agencies, and threatens the civil rights of all Americans."
This is really an inappropriate attempt to address a very serious situation, a very sad situation that happened in my city of San Francisco. Our thoughts and prayers, of course, are with the Steinle family. The Republican Congress, though, should not use this and blur the distinction between what happened there, which was a tragedy and must be addressed, and sanctuary cities and their purpose.
As you know, the Republican Congress almost shut down government because they didn't want to fund the Department of Homeland Security. There is one clear solution to these problems: pass comprehensive immigration reform.
I want to pay special tribute to my colleague, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, who is an expert on these issues. She has been an immigration attorney. She has taught immigration law. She has chaired the immigration committee. And she is a strong, strong supporter of protecting the American people. And we'll see what happens in the debate today. They're debating the rule right now. So I may have to leave momentarily.
As you know, the clock is ticking. The time is running out on the Highway Trust Fund. Just a matter of another 10 days, and the Trust Fund will have exhausted its funding. The clock [has already run] out on the Ex-Im Bank. It already ran out in terms of [the authority to offer financing]. Last week, the House sent to the Senate a five month bill to extend the Trust Fund and to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank. Our thought was, and hope was, that the Senate would send that bill back to us, but – excuse me: our bill did not address the Ex-Im Bank. Our hope was that the Senate would put the Ex-Im Bank on our bill, send it back over to us. Instead, now, they're saying that it would have to be on a long term bill, which cannot possibly be finished by the 31st of July, when the authorization runs out.
So I would hope that they would follow the path that we set here in a very bipartisan way from the House to the Senate, even though we're reluctant to support another short term bill. But the fact is July 31 is fast upon us. I believe the Speaker's wish was not to have this take five months to do, but that we could do a bill in a shorter period of time, two or three months. And I would hope that the Senate would recognize that and send us this bill, as they proceed to pass or not their own long term bill, which we would then go to conference on. So there we are on that.
But the President has proposed a Grow America Act. It's a six year bill. It's robust. It's paid for. It's exactly what this country needs. And I would hope that whatever we did looked more like the President's proposal, even if we can't go that far. It has that robustness, has that strength to create jobs, to grow the economy, to reduce the deficit, to improve the quality of our air, the pace of our commerce, to take people to and from work, to and from market, products from the field to the marketplace, some of it destined to abroad. This is really important to our economy.
In addition to which, the American Society of Civil Engineers has given us all kinds of failing grades on how we maintain our infrastructure and also have said that we're in the deficit of trillions of dollars. Well, there is a way to address this. We don't have appropriated funds to the tune of a trillion dollars, but we can repatriate some money, we can have an infrastructure bank, we can leverage the money that we do have to do much more.
We know one thing for sure: no maintenance is the most expensive maintenance, as we see with our crumbling bridges, roads, and transit systems.
With that, I'd be pleased to take any questions.
Q: Madam Leader, you've acknowledged that tens of…
Leader Pelosi. I'm trying mix it up for people who didn't ask a question last week to have a question this week. Anybody who didn't ask a question last week? Okay. So no other questions?
Okay, you go, and then we'll come back.
Q: So it sounds like you are against the Senate bill. And this is not just the McConnell bill, it's the McConnell‑Boxer bill.
Leader Pelosi. I didn't say I was opposed to it. I'm just saying it's not going to be done by the end of next week. So let's deal with it. I am not opposed. We don't know what it is. They're in the process of amendment today. So we'll see what comes out of it.
I commend Senator Boxer, she has many good things in the legislation that I've seen so far, but they are going through the process of amendment. I don't like several of the pay‑fors in the bill, starting with using Social Security to pay for roads. We cannot…
Q: Apparently they pulled that out last night.
Leader Pelosi. Well, we'll see. We'll see. That was the rumor, that it was going to be pulled out. I hope that that is the case.
But they will pass a bill, and we will pass a bill, and then we'll go to conference. Perhaps we can go to conference with our – I think we would want to go to conference with something stronger than our five month bill. So this is going to take some time. And that's why we're just saying let's take the time, let's get the job done, but in the meantime don't let the Trust Fund run out and don't let the Ex‑Im Bank [remain expired].
Q: Madam Leader, you acknowledge that tens of millions of dollars are going to be spent in this August recess against the Iran bill.
Leader Pelosi. Against the Iran bill, yeah.
Q: What do you say to your Members in terms of holding firm? Because you guys took an awful lot of heat on the health care bill, and it proved detrimental. What is your message to them during this August recess in the face of all this adversity that you're going to encounter?
Leader Pelosi. Well, I don't stipulate that the health care bill was why we didn't win in 2010. There were many things that relate to we saved the economy with passing the TARP bill, probably one of the most unpopular bills that we ever asked Members to vote for. You recall the Republicans took a walk from their own President on that legislation. These are completely different issues.
But the Members are going to do what they believe, and that's why we want them to have the information, all the information that they require. And the Administration is endless and boundless in its interest in supplying that information. As I held up last week, the agreement is not a long one, and the annexes are not that long, but there are some other documents that are classified that we're encouraging Members to read.
Today, we'll have a meeting with a couple of the Secretaries, Secretary of State and [Energy] for two, so that Members can ask direct questions. As I said, I'm very proud of the thoughtfulness and the seriousness that Members are bringing to this.
And I would caution anyone, whatever anybody outside, and I know people want to consult with their constituents and their families and their advisers, and that's admirable, but at the end of the day it is their vote, the Member's vote, and the Members have to vote what they believe. Nobody makes you do it. You know, you can't say somebody made me do it on an issue of this magnitude.
How did those security leaders characterize it? They said, "A landmark agreement unprecedented in its importance, preventing the acquisition of a nuclear weapon by Iran." This is very important. So Members are going to be responsible for their vote.
I harken back to the vote on Iraq. Most of you weren't here, but at the time, as the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, I said the intelligence does not support the threat. Overwhelmingly, Democrats voted against the war in Iraq. Those who voted for it had a lot of explaining to do later. And now hopefully we're past that.
But the fact is, is that study the information, review the validation on either side of the issue, understand what the decision is, and make a vote on it. And as I say, I'm proud of the time, the attention, the seriousness which Members are bringing to it.
Q: One of the criticisms by opponents of the agreement is that it doesn't do anything to change Iran's support of terrorism, and by lifting sanctions money would be flowing in that might empower the Government of Iran to continue along that path and even expand it. Is that a legitimate objection to a nuclear nonproliferation treaty?
Leader Pelosi. It is a nuclear bill, as you rightly point out, and that is what they're attempting to do in this. The money that they will receive is their money that are in banks. Not all the banks are in the United States, so they're foreign banks. The Secretary – well, I don't know if I can go into what he told us about – let me find out what I can say about that, because I heard it in a classified setting. So it may not be classified, but I heard it in a classified setting.
The Iranian Americans that I hear from, and there are large numbers in California – you know, the largest number of immigrants into our state are Iranian. It was until recently anyway. It may be still the same. And what they are saying is people keep thinking the two options are bomb Iran or let Iran have the bomb. But we believe that there is another path, and that path is about a non‑nuclear, secular, democratic Iran.
And many of those people, they have no trust for the government of Iran, don't get me wrong. I told you last week it's distrust and verify. This is not any compliment to the government of Iran, but a compliment to the people of Iran, that we have this agreement that takes us down the road a decade or more for stopping Iran to increase its nuclear weapon capability, that in the meantime we can move to a different Iran.
We don't know if that will happen, but that is the aspiration that people have, and the choice shouldn't be: do we bomb or do they get a bomb. They are a threshold country. They are on the verge of having a bomb. We have stopped that for a while with the negotiations. We can continue to stop it with an agreement.
And as these leaders also said, we have not heard any viable alternatives from those who oppose the implementation of the JCPOA. And by the way, I refer this letter to you. I don't have the names on it, but they are readily available to you, a range of national security leaders in our country who support the agreement.
The activities of Iran – again, let me find out what I can say – but the activities in Iran, let me put it this way, the $100 billion, which are Iran's assets held in foreign banks, some of that money is already accounted for in other ways. So it's a lower figure. And some of it is desperately needed in Iran.
So they are going to have their own domestic challenge as to how they're going to spend whatever money they get, whether to grow their own economy or to support terrorism. But I think that that is a very legitimate question people want to know, how far can they go on the terrorist activity.
Q: Madam Leader, as we have known for a long time now, Republicans, pro‑life Members have had Planned Parenthood in their crosshairs to defund and so on.
Leader Pelosi. Forever.
Q: And with this latest controversy, Senator Paul has talked about adding an amendment to the highway bill to defund. Do you view this threat…
Leader Pelosi. To the highway bill?
Q: …with any more potential than the other threats to defund Planned Parenthood?
Leader Pelosi. Well, as you rightly said, they have been out to get Planned Parenthood for as long as I can remember. And I have been here for a while and served on the Foreign Ops Committee, I was the top Democrat on the Foreign Ops Committee, Foreign Operations Committee, which funds our foreign assistance and cooperation, and has always had a debate in that committee over the gag rule or how we support family planning throughout the rest of the world and what is allowed and what is prohibited. And they have in that committee been fighting Planned Parenthood for a long time.
Planned Parenthood has as its top priority women's health. That's what they have always been about. And women's health does include reproductive health. But it's about breast cancer, cervical cancer, testing, and services to women. It's a very, very important part of the lives of many women in America.
For some reason, the Republicans have had this in their sights, to use your expression, I don't like it, for a very long time, to the point where, if you will recall, one of their first actions was a threat to shut down government rather than to fund Planned Parenthood. They would shut down government rather than fund Planned Parenthood.
So again, this is about women's health. Planned Parenthood has said that they have done nothing illegal. They do not ever charge, which would be illegal, for fetal tissue, that they only have defrayed the cost of mailing that to someone, which is not breaking the law.
And I support what my colleagues are doing, is to say, everybody is calling for an investigation of Planned Parenthood, let's have an investigation of those people who were trying to ensnare Planned Parenthood in a controversy that doesn't exist, and just to look at the disparity, which some of our Members have, completely between the actual filming and the edited versions that these people have put out.
So again, no, I don't think this puts it in a different place. I think it's just a continuation. And this has been going on for a long time, has been going on for a long time on the part of this outside group. But women's health is what is at stake, and Planned Parenthood is a very important part of promoting women's health in our country.
Q: Madam Leader?
Leader Pelosi. Yes, sir?
Q: With the end of the fiscal year approaching…
Leader Pelosi. Yes, sir?
Q: …to what extent – where are you at, at this point, if you have thought about it at all, in terms of a CR, in terms of desired length and in terms of whether it should be at the same existing funding levels?
Leader Pelosi. Yeah, I've thought about it at all. It's what we think about almost every day here, our work. And as you have seen, we are not taking up any appropriations bills this week because they were stopped in their tracks on the issue that related to the Confederate [Battle] flag.
But as you also know, that we have, Democrats have voted in numbers to sustain a Presidential veto of every one of the appropriations bills that the Republicans have put forth based on the fact that those bills are based on a figure that is unsustainable for us to meet the needs of the American people.
They know, the Republicans in Congress, some of them realize that and know that, and that's why some of them want us to get to the table sooner, to have a budget agreement so that we can lift the caps, get rid of sequestration, have some resources to pay for that, and to do so before September 30.
A CR at this current rate – and that's what a CR is, a continuing resolution of the budget number of the previous year – is really a very significant cut in terms of how we meet the needs of the American people, how we defend our country, and how we create jobs, produce growth, to reduce the deficit.
So what we'd like to do is, of course, go to the table as soon as possible. We'll be out by the end of next week, the House. The Senate has another week. I don't know that there are any appropriations bills on the agenda. But I would hope that on the agenda in September where we would immediately go to the table, because, as you know, we only have until September 30. The new fiscal year begins October 1.
Perhaps a short term CR to see us through. But a CR is a failure really, unless it's a short term to just get through the details of what the budget agreement will be. But a CR for the next year, well, that would be a failure.
Q: Madam Leader?
Leader Pelosi. Yes?
Q: On the sanctuary cities, I understand Democrats don't support the bill that's on the floor today.
Leader Pelosi. Right. And there is a veto threat.
Q: Is there a need for any sort of legislation pertaining to this? And I ask because your fellow San Franciscan, Senator Feinstein, said recently that she believes that a narrower bill may be in order to address this issue of whether cities are required to comply with these immigration detainers.
Leader Pelosi. Let me say this. Sanctuary cities, the fact that San Francisco is a sanctuary city – and there are many sanctuary cities, people live in sanctuary cities across the country – really has nothing to do with what happened in San Francisco.
Should we take a look? Always review what the standard is. For example, in this case, having nothing do with sanctuary cities, but why did the Bureau of Prisons not hand this person over to ICE as they had done in the past? A course of events unraveled which were unfortunate, and poor judgment was used by the sheriff and the city to not turn him over to ICE, the person, the suspect over to ICE.
My own personal belief is that when we examine this, and I think Senator Feinstein's legislation relates to the program that now exists and how we should increase communication, I haven't seen her bill, but should there be a way to increase communication among different authorities? Yes. Should there be a review of what constitutes a deportable offense? In other words, it says now violent felons. Well, there are lots of misdemeanors that are very violent that just really wouldn't fall under that category, and there are lots of felonies that aren't violent but that are breaking the law in a serious way. So I would say let's review what that standard is.
Remembering, of course, that also in the Violence Against Women Act we have this protection for immigrant women. And that's why, I don't have it here, but we certainly will be talking about it on the floor. The League of Cities, law enforcement officials across the country are saying vote "no" on this bill because it harms their discretion to protect people, to solve crime, to use their time more effectively to do that.
And again, if you're not familiar with the organizations, I'll see what's happening on the floor, I should have brought these. We'll put it out. It's overwhelming in opposition to the proposal that is there today.
But should we review, not for the purpose of sanctuary city, but just for the purpose of our policy in general, what is serious? Multiple misdemeanors or one nonviolent felony? You know, we have to have more discretion there, I think.
And then, of course, what would solve most of it, no guarantee of all of it, is to pass comprehensive immigration reform. What we also have to look at is how did this person come into possession of a gun in a state where his having a gun as a convicted felon would raise serious questions?
So with that, I have to go to the floor because we're having that debate now on the rule and later on the bill. But it's a tragic, tragic situation. Our hearts are broken over it.
So much heartbreak. So sad what happened in Chattanooga. How do you explain that? Again, a person got a gun online. Got a gun online. Another reason for us to have a serious background check.
But again, when you are so close to the incident, really our focus is on mourning with the families. But as we go forward, as people look at various things, whether we should be having arms in recruitment centers. That policy started under President George Herbert Walker Bush, as you may not recall but can research, and that's really up to the military to decide.
But is that not heartbreaking, that these young people who have risked their lives in military theater were not safe at home here? So again, our thoughts and prayers. We have a lot of thinking and a lot of praying to do around some of the incidences that have happened.
Thank you all very much. Oh, at 12 o'clock we'll be in the LBJ Room to announce our Equality Act. I hope many of you will join us there. It will be with the House and Senate leadership and Members who are cosponsors of the legislation.
Thank you.
# # #