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. I thank those of you who joined us on the steps of the Capitol this morning as we talked about the Voting Rights Act, that on August 6 marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson signing the Voting Rights Act.

A couple of years ago, the Supreme Court negated some of the provisions of the Act and instructed Congress to update its criteria. A simple matter, it would seem. We have bipartisan legislation to do just that. But this Republican House of Representatives has decided that it's right to go home with that business undone before the 50th anniversary. We think it is wrong to go home.

And it's in sharp contrast to the Republicans in 2006 when we reauthorized the Voting Rights Act the last time. As you may recall, that was before we took the majority. So we were in the minority in the House, worked in a very close way, in a bipartisan way with our Republican colleagues, were able to walk down the steps of the Capitol that day, House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, with a vote of nearly 400 House Members voting for the Voting Rights Act and the unanimous vote in the United States Senate. I was honored to walk down with Senator [Bill Frist] and other bipartisan leaders, bipartisan, bicameral leaders. And President George W. Bush very proudly signed the bill.

In fewer than eight years the Court overturned that part of the bill, it was 2006 to 2013, so seven years. And in the two years since it was a simple matter to make that adjustment. We had the bill, Mr. Conyers and Mr. Sensenbrenner, two of the original authors of the 2006 bill. And yet Republicans think it's all right to go home and undermine a fundamental principle of our democracy, the ability of people to vote.

Today – so thank you if you were out there in the heat. It would have been worth it to hear John Lewis and Jim Clyburn, who were so much a part of the civil rights movement, and John Conyers, who voted, he's the only person here now who voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1965.

1965 was a very big year, not only the Voting Rights Act signed on August 6, but today marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson signing Medicare and Medicaid into law. If you came to our birthday party, our pre-birthday party yesterday, you saw Congressman, former Congressman, the Chairman, the dean, former dean of the House, John Dingell there. He presided that day in 1965, and he brought the gavel that he used to gavel Medicare and Medicaid into law. He also brought it the day that we passed the Affordable Care Act so many years later. And it's quite remarkable that this one man – and his father – for decades have been champions of providing access to health care for so many more Americans.

How many? Improvements in the Medicare Act since only 2013 saved 300,000 more lives than 1999. And thanks to the Affordable Care Act, we have extended the life of the Medicare Trust Fund until 2030, 13 years longer than it was projected before the bill. And, of course, in a bipartisan way, we worked on SGR with reforms to have a permanent fix to SGR, ensuring that seniors have access to their doctors and the care they need.

And again I salute John Dingell. We had the giants we have served with here, John Lewis, John Dingell, all present, all present at the birth of these very important pieces – transformational pieces – of legislation.

Yesterday, also, we were at the White House. President Obama gave a very strong and forceful presentation of his case supporting the nuclear agreement with Iran. The President's been clear [that] a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable to the United States and unacceptable to the world. It is clear the agreement offers the best long-term way to stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon.

It's about increasing our vigilance on every aspect of the Iranian nuclear program. And it's very clear that for it to succeed, we say over and over again, that we will be vigilant in observing the enforcement of it and that every option is left on the table to stop them from having a weapon of mass destruction.

So here we are. Can you believe we left on Wednesday afternoon, coming in Monday night, leaving Wednesday afternoon for six weeks – six weeks – with all the unfinished business that we have. No Ex-Im Bank. July 31 is fraught with meaning in many ways, the Highway Trust Fund, Ex-Im Bank, of course the Voting Rights Act, I mentioned, needs to be renewed and strengthened. Very simple. We have the bill.

Appropriations – we have no appropriations bills that, if vetoed, would not be sustained – and it will not even see the light of day on the floor of the Senate. It's long overdue that we come to the table to talk about how we go forward with appropriations. But somehow or other the Republicans thought it was better to go home than to come to that table.

And, of course, the Highway Bill. Without passing a robust long-term Highway Bill that America needs, how can we leave during that? Now we have another short-term bill. I feel confident that the Speaker sincerely wants a Highway Bill, but he must not empower those in his Caucus who take away his power to bring such a bill to the floor. And here we are again, the Republicans. The Highway Trust Fund infrastructure bill has never been partisan until this particular breed of Republicans was out there.

So we have a lot of unfinished business. The Speaker predicts that September is going to be this great month. I think there are [ten] working days, maybe [twelve] if we've got two to welcome His Holiness, Pope Francis, which is wonderful, but it's not a day that we're going to get any of this work done.

So jobs, jobs, jobs, Ex-Im Bank, Highway Trust Fund bill, let's address the budget issue so that we can have an appropriations process that invests in the American people to create jobs, to reduce the deficit. Let's do so in a way that takes us to the table to discuss reform of our Tax Code so that we can close loopholes, lower rates. Again, growth. It's all about growth.

But what do we hear about? Just going home with so much unfinished business.

Any questions?

***

Q: Madam Leader, what do you make of August – and this effort by Republicans to gin up all this attention on Planned Parenthood? There's another set of videos out today, and Members saying: "Alright, we're probably going to have to do a CR." The Speaker has admitted as much, last week, to keep the government open in September, to your point that there's a lot to do. And them saying, "Well, we'll vote for the CR, but you have to defund Planned Parenthood. Is that going to be the "battle royale"?

Leader Pelosi. Well, they're back to where they started. They started their majority by saying they want to shutdown government instead of funding Planned Parenthood. So this is nothing new in their regard. And we probably were going to have a CR anyway. The question is: what does it look like? And if they don't have the Republican votes to pass it, then hopefully we can have some influence over what is in that CR. As you know, a CR – a Continuing Resolution – is just the same dollar amount of the current year, which is debilitating to our investments in people. Because our needs have grown. Our veterans' needs have grown, and the rest. And just to use that one example: we need more.

But we'll see what they propose. But again, he cannot let – we have to weigh the equities of what is important. And what is important is we have a September 30th deadline in which we have to have appropriations bills passed. If not, we have a CR – for how long, and what is attached to it? The mean-spirited riders that we're never going to support? But actually, the bill is supposed to be about the budget. They may put – I hear two different things. They may put the Ex-Im Bank on that, or – and I don't know how these same people respond to that – or they may just, I would hope, at some point, bring up the Ex-Im Bank, free-standing. I've heard both rumors. But it's only true that there are rumors. It's not true that they're going to do it that way.

Q: But we keep hearing so much about this Planned Parenthood businesses…

Leader Pelosi. Well, I think that it's really a distraction. You probably saw the op-ed, or letter that Cecile Richards had sent to Francis Collins, saying we need a review of fetal tissue research. It hasn't been reviewed for a few decades. But when it was passed – enabling this research to go forward – I remind that Mitch McConnell voted for that. Yes, ma'am?

Q: Would any Democrat vote for a CR that defunds Planned Parenthood?

Leader Pelosi. Well I have to see – I don't know that that will be what's in the CR. I think this is highly hypothetical. I know that the tail wags the dog over there. But I just don't know that the tail has the dog in a spin. They have responsibilities and work to do. That would be a most unfortunate proposal. And what else is in the CR?

Q: But you don't rule out Democratic support for that?

Leader Pelosi. On any given day, any one person may do something. But, overwhelmingly, the Democrats will not support that.

Q: Leader Pelosi, I wanted to ask you about Iran. Also, over August recess opponents of the deal are pledging to really crank up a campaign against it and are targeting undecided House Democrats and Senate Democrats. Last week, you said you were confident the deal would be upheld. Do you think after this weeklong effort to really ramp up opposition the veto will be sustained in September?

Leader Pelosi. Yes.

Q: Why are you confident?

Leader Pelosi. Well, I'm confident because of the nature of the agreement. As I've said before in a very self-serving, self-promoting way, this is a subject I know a great deal about. I've been for a generation, about 25 years, working on the issue of nonproliferation in the Congress. It was a priority for me before I came here. And I've tracked Iran for a long time.

One of the reasons I've tracked Iran is because I was always tracking China, for those of you who followed Congress all those years ago. China still continues to be a major focus, whether it's trade barriers, whether it's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction technology, and whether it's human rights violations in China and Tibet. So China has been my focus. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't make myself as current as possible with what is going on in largely those three categories in China.

And at that time, I could see sales of weapons to Iran and then from Russia and other countries. We're transferring dual-use technology, missile technology, technology related to the development of a nuclear weapon.

And that this President of the United States – and I think it's really important to say – this President of the United States has brought into line countries who were engaged in those activities. So farms in China – it's a longer conversation. Perhaps we'll sit in my office and talk about it some time.

But this President has put together the P5+1, the five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council plus one, Germany, and then further engaged the EU to be part of the agreement. This is quite remarkable. And kept them engaged. Everybody was not of one mind on every aspect of every detail of this. But kept everybody engaged. This is a diplomatic masterpiece, that they stayed at the table and came to the conclusion that they did.

And it's an agreement. It isn't, shall I sit down and write it and say to Iran, "This is what I would ideally like to see you do." No. It's an agreement with another country, with all of those countries weighing in, amplifying the strength of anything that we could do individually as a country in a bilateral way with Iran, multilateral sanctions and pressure and insistence that Iran not get a weapon of mass destruction.

So where does my confidence spring from? First of all, from the quality of the agreement. Second of all, to the seriousness and thoughtfulness with which my colleagues have approached this, and more and more of them have confirmed to me that they will be there to sustain the veto. They have done this not blindly, but thoroughly and over the last two and a half weeks reviewing the documents, not only the agreement, but the accompanying documents in the intelligence space.

And it's really pretty exciting. It's probably one of the most important endeavors that Members will be engaged in. I recalled to them how awful it was when we had the vote on the war in Iraq and I told people that the intelligence does not support the threat. Overwhelmingly, Democrats in the House voted against that, but for those who didn't, it's serious gum stuck to their shoe.

And I want Members to see this as their vote. It's not a constituent group vote. It's not my neighbor's vote, that is to say, my neighboring Member of Congress. It's your vote that you're going to be held accountable for. And if you truly believe that we must stop Iran from having a weapon of mass destruction and we must try to do it with all the diplomacy that we can muster – and the President has done that – then you should vote for this or have an alternative plan, but we haven't seen what that is.

And as has been said, the President said every option is left on the table in case the vigilance of this reveals something in violation of the agreement on the part of Iran. And as you know, we can make that decision ourselves. It's something to be very, very proud of.

And by the way, the Atlantic Charter, that was an agreement between Churchill and Roosevelt. I mean, Presidents have this authority to do. The fact that we're even going through the motion is interesting and informative. We've gotten beautiful education from the White House and other outside validators. So we have information, we have validation, we have clarification on some points that Members need clarification on.

But we go to the fourth point of mobilization. The outside will have endless money, $40 million, I hear, to spend on TV and going door to door to poison the well on this. And you wonder why, you wonder why, have they even read it? It looks political to me. But I do respect the disagreements that we have on substance even among some in our own Caucus. I'm just talking about the outside mobilization.

So our Members have a firm foundation on why they support this. I feel confident. I wish it were now. I'm sorry that this went 30 additional days because I think the sooner we can get on with this diplomacy and this agreement, whether we go from adoption – what's the first step? Agreement, adoption, implementation, there are certain categories of the agreement. The agreement came, the adoption by the U.N. Security Council of their resolution, and now the further implementation of the agreement. So we like to get on with stopping the – and the whole time they had frozen their program. It's quite a remarkable accomplishment.

So, as I say, tell the Members, over time, the generation I'm talking about, for all countries, not just Iran, but Iran was in my sights, to use a term, you look at do they have the technology, do they have fissile material, do they have the technology, do they have the scientific kno- how. This is really important. And do they have the launch capacity, and do they have the intent.

So early on, they did not have, this was not indigenous to Iran, and many of these countries that are now in agreement were part of transferring technology, perhaps unwittingly as to what the intent was of Iran. We don't know exactly what that is. Hopefully, it's not as has been described by some, but we have to be vigilant.

So whether it's the ability, the technology to make a weapon, whether it's the know-how to do it, scientists conveyed, transferred knowledge. And they are a well educated, sophisticated population, and they can engineer that.

But I think you've seen in the press over the years some of the technology that has been transferred. Some of it is, shall we say, classified, but some of it has come out into the press where they have stopped buying stuff because they didn't trust it, buying technology from other countries.

But this is a very important agreement. The President should be so roundly praised for keeping everyone at the table. And a continuation of the work of George W. Bush, because he knew that – everybody knows that we have to stop Iran from having a weapon of mass destruction. Nicholas Burns spoke to us yesterday. He served in the Bush Administration, was part of some of the negotiations early on, quite remarkable in his support of the agreement.

And we all recognize you have to weigh the equities. Every agreement is not the perfect agreement. That would be unilateral: I write this, you accept this. No, it's an agreement. But it's a viable agreement, pragmatic agreement.

Q: Madam Leader, if Republicans do decide to defund Planned Parenthood, what can Democrats do to stop them? And as a follow up, are you worried that these videos have caused lasting image problems for Planned Parenthood?

Leader Pelosi. Planned Parenthood administers to the needs of almost 2.5 million American women. A very small percentage of that relates to women having a right to choose. But it relates to their health. College-aged women seek out – whether it's breast cancer, cervical cancer, ovarian cancer [services] – all things that relate to women's health, and in some cases, women's reproductive health. So I think they have a solid grounding of support with the American people. As I said before, this issue of fetal tissue research is one that was approved by the Congress with a bipartisan vote. So this is not something, all of sudden, it looks like: where did this come from? No, this is something that – and, as President Cecile Richards has said, it's time to review the guidelines again, as she'd written to Collins. So that's what I think about that.

Any other questions on any other subject?

Yes, ma'am?

Q: Back on the Highway bill.

Leader Pelosi. Yes?

Q: One of ideas being discussed is a hybrid between the Senate funding that's provided for three years and Ryan's tax plan for a total of six years. What do you think of that?

Leader Pelosi. Well, first let me salute Senator Barbara Boxer, former chair of the committee of jurisdiction. I think because of her leadership we are at a place where at least we're discussing some choices in relationship to the Highway bill.

There are many good things, as I said last week at this meeting, there are many good provisions in the bill that I hope would be part of the final provision. Some of the pay-fors, as I said last week – but some of you all told me that they were taken care of, but maybe not fully. You'd have to ask the Speaker specifically, but my impression is that the House would see something that resembles more of what our pay-fors are here. Leader McConnell has said, "Read my lips, no" – what was the word he said – "international funding," or something like that. I don't know what the term of art he used, but he did say, "Read my lips, no," in relationship to what we were putting forth.

This is what I think. I think that the fact that we would use this repatriation of funds, if it were changing inversions or whatever it is, there would be a couple of different pieces of it, for an investment in jobs in America is excellent. I think that is excellent.

And how we do it is a discussion. Does it go to an infrastructure bank? Do we use it in a way that leverages it? There has to be leverage because there is never going to be enough appropriated dollars to meet the trillions of dollars of deficit we have in our infrastructure and our highways.

But I think that to use that money when it comes home at a reduced tax rate with the caveat that it will be used for investment, as is what I think the path the Speaker is on, but any given moment, I don't know, you have to check with him, but that's the path I think they're on, is a good idea.

There are others who say, "Well, we want to bring that money home, but we want to give tax breaks to God knows who." So while it's tempting to say, "Well, let's just take it all to the table and do tax reform and that should be part of it" – no, we should close the loopholes in order to bring down the corporate rate. I think that's something we all support. But we shouldn't bring the money home to bring down the corporate rate and keep the loopholes open.

So that's kind of the discussion that's going on. So I would like to see it be more of an investment.

Having said that, I think a user fee is the way to go in all of these things. My first choice would be a user fee, and that's a gas tax, let me be very clear. Any number of states have already instituted them. Nobody has paid any political price, Democrat or Republican, in any of those states. They have come to us and said, "You do more. We did as much as we could, you do more."

Because for what we do, it should be appropriate to what we're trying to keep. For example, I don't support taking savings from Social Security and using them to build bridges. If there is money to be saved, let's enhance Social Security with that. It should be in its own place, in my view.

I have concerns about further use of the SPRO, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, because that was supposed to be used for ending speculation in the oil markets or to have an impact on price for the American consumer, not to pay for a different subject. Now, we used it, some of it, in the 21 Century Cures Act, and many of us voted for that bill, we didn't love the pay-for. But to go over and above that, I think this really goes too far.

But I commend Senator Boxer. Without her, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The substance of the proposal she has put forth is excellent, the pay fors are always a debate, and we have to really see when the bill ends. I know when I say that, people say, "Oh, well, when the bill ends we'll see what it is, when it ends over there, and people can make a judgment about it."

I had hoped that we could bring it over here, act upon it with the appropriations process, what don't you like about it, this or that, and move it along more quickly. The Speaker says, "We don't want to deprive our Members of writing their own bill," which I agree with, but that could be an amendment to the Senate bill to facilitate.

But they'll have their bill, we'll have our bill, we'll go to conference. All of these issues, whether it's the substance of what we invest in, how robust the bill is, how it's paid-for, it's going to take some time, and we don't really have that much time. So I would have hoped that this devotion to our having our own bill, which I fully subscribe to, could have been simultaneous with the Senate instead of consecutive, because we just don't have the time.

Yes, ma'am?

Q: The Highway Bill has provided another example of House and Senate leadership on different pages working from different playbooks. You have a good deal of experience with working on bicameral actions as a Leader. Are you concerned at this point that Boehner and McConnell's differences, disagreements, inability to stay on the same page could derail things like the Highway Bill in the future, like getting a spending bill done before October 1, like other big pieces of legislation, Iran, the TPP, anything else that has to come through the Chamber in the next year?

Leader Pelosi. No, I don't think that. I think that they have a healthy respect for each other and they have disagreements. And if we all thought alike, there would be no need for one person to show up. But that's not what a democracy is about, and everyone represents their constituents in their legislative bodies. So I'm not concerned.

But I'm more concerned about what's happening in the House, where a certain number of Members have a stranglehold on the Speaker's ability to legislate. That, I think, is a bigger issue than whether the House and Senate. But many times in the House, Democrats and Republicans can find a way to get along better than with the other body, just it's a proximity issue.

But, no, I – yes, I'm concerned because we see no performance so far, but I'm always hopeful. Members of the Appropriations Committee work closely together to produce bills in a bipartisan way. It's just that they're predicated on a bad budget figure, and it's not one that we can live with or support, and that's why we have to go to the table.

But I would be hopeful that weighing all the equities, understanding that we have a responsibility to the American people to get the job done, to have a budget that invests in growth in our country and meets the needs of the American people, to pass a highway bill which facilitates so much in commerce and in quality of life for people and job creation, in an Ex-Im Bank that keeps us dominant in the global economy and creates jobs here in America, the list goes on and on. I think that we should be able to come to terms with all of that. And it's a legislative process. If his Caucus won't let the Speaker be the Speaker, that's really where more of the problem is. So we shall see how that unfolds.

And, again, I come back to what I always say, public sentiment is everything. Shutting down government is not a good option. It's a terrible one for the American people. And it proved to be very unpopular for them when the Republicans did it before. Let's hope that – I won't say saner – cooler minds prevail.

Thank you all very much. I hope you have an interesting break. Perhaps I'll see you. Perhaps I won't. I certainly will be in touch with my colleagues on these and other subjects over the break, and I'm sure you'll be aware of what those communications are. If you have any questions over that time, 24/7, Drew Hammill is your man.

Q: The Giants are surging.

Leader Pelosi. Hmm?

Q: The Giants are surging.

Leader Pelosi. How about the Giants?

Q: When you talked about the giants earlier, John Dingell and so on, I thought you were talking about the San Francisco Giants, because you said the Giants of Congress.

Leader Pelosi. He wasn't here the day we talked about the Warriors and the Giants.

Q: You reminded me the next day I showed up.

Leader Pelosi. Thank you all very much. Have a great day.

# # #