Transcript of Pelosi Press Conference Today

Contact: Drew Hammill/Evangeline George, 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 afternoon, everyone.

Thank you for your accommodation of being here later. We had the Highway Bill on the Floor.

That is very good, to be passing a bill. And House Democrats are very happy that some of their priorities are contained in it. The automatic increase in infrastructure investments; if more revenue flows into the Highway Trust Fund, it would be used for more infrastructure – strengthening the Buy America provisions to maximize American job creation, focusing transportation investments to increase access to jobs in disadvantaged communities – this is really important. And promoting women and minority‑owned businesses recruit[ing] and training transit workers from underrepresented populations. So this is, hopefully, a way to bring jobs to communities that would greatly benefit.

I'm very pleased that reauthorization of the Export‑Import Bank is in there and that every amendment was defeated – every amendment was defeated. That was pretty – that was a bipartisan effort, to defeat every amendment: Maxine Waters, Steny Hoyer, Denny Heck, working with Congressmen [Charlie] Dent, [Frank] Lucas. You know, it was really quite a bipartisan effort, and we're very proud of that, because that is really a job‑creator that reduces the deficit, increases our competitiveness abroad by enabling small and moderate‑size businesses, as well as large businesses, to have access to markets abroad.

The Highway Bill is a good bill, except it's modest. I would say, rather than a robust rollout, it's a modest step forward. We really do have to work to do more, because our infrastructure needs are great. And they go beyond highway and transportation. You know, it's about broadband infrastructure, it's about water infrastructure in our country. And so, we have a big challenge.

As you probably know, the American Society of Civil Engineers puts our deficit into the trillions. Well, we are not going to have that kind of money to spend, but we, hopefully, will be able to leverage the money that we do have into getting the most for it. And it goes beyond transportation. It goes into other infrastructure that we need that I mentioned.

The bill is a 6‑year bill that's funded for about 3 years. I'd like it to be funded – take that 3 years and spend it in 2 years, and then we'd have something more robust, but then we'd have 4 years unfunded. So, we have to find a way and work for a greater commitment to repair and modernize our infrastructure, creating good‑paying jobs, increasing wages, lowering the deficit. And here we are now with the appropriations. The clock is ticking. We have until December 11, as you know.

Last week, we were really happy with the Budget Bill. One hundred percent of the Democrats in the House and the Senate voted for the Budget Bill. The bipartisan compromise, Democratic and Republican‑shaped Budget Bill – 100 percent of the Democrats voted for it.

Sad to say, 200 Republicans – House and Senate combined – 200 Republicans voted against the bill. Sixty‑eight percent of the Members of the House Republican Conference voted against it, and the remainder coming from the Senate side.

What the bill did was to affirm the full faith and credit of the United States of America. What a ‘no' vote does is to default on that. What the bill does is to enhance our ability to invest in our defense and our domestic agenda by lifting the caps and removing the stranglehold of sequestration. That's what Democrats voted for. 200 Republicans said no to that. 200 Republicans said 'no' to stopping the drastic increase in Medicare Part B payments. 200 Republicans said 'no' to stopping a 20‑percent cut in benefits for people with disabilities under Social Security. It's hard to understand, but we were able to pass the bill. And the Budget Bill serves as a blueprint for how we go forward now in the appropriations season.

Yesterday, I met with our appropriators to – the appropriators – I'm an appropriator, Steny is an appropriator, Mr. Carter is an appropriator, Rosa DeLauro is an appropriator, Mr. Israel – much of our leadership are appropriators, as are Senator Reid and Senator Durbin. So, we understand the mentality of appropriators, and that is to try to work in a bipartisan way to get the job done with a time fuse there.

And so we salute their work. And that is what they are doing and preparing for where we go here, except now we've lifted the caps. There's more investments to be made, and they have to do their 302(b) allocation as to how much they're going to spend, invest, and what committees it goes to. That will be a Republican decision, and then we'll ask in a bipartisan way to implement it.

And we have until December 11 to put that omnibus together, just remembering that September 30, in time for the end of the fiscal year, 151 Republicans voted to shut down government, not to support the – and, sadly, they tied to that – if this bill came up and did not remove funding for Planned Parenthood, then the Speaker would have to give up his gavel, which he did, sad to say.

We welcome the new Speaker. We wish him luck and cooperation. And I'm happy that we're moving forward with a modest Transportation Bill. I wish it could be bigger, reflecting new technologies and all that is going on out there.

On another front, yesterday, I appointed the Members to our select committee. We renamed it the 'Republicans' Select Committee to Attack Women's Health.' Our Ranking Member, Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, and Congresswoman Diana DeGette are of the Energy and Commerce Committee. From Judiciary, Jerry Nadler and Suzan DelBene. And from Government Reform, Bonnie Watson Coleman and Jackie Speier of California. Those are the three Committees of Jurisdiction for this issue where hearings take place. They bring a great wealth of knowledge, staff, intellectual resources, and the rest to this.

It's a funny thing. It's – well, we'll see what their agenda is as they go forward. But I do believe that hard-working families deserve better than wasting taxpayers' money on select committees that diminish women's health possibilities.

In terms of women's health, Sunday [marked] the start of the Affordable Care Act's third open enrollment period. Uninsured Americans across the country will be able to visit the Health Insurance Marketplace and enroll in quality affordable coverage for them and their families.

It's pretty exciting. It's really exciting to say that, thanks to this historic law, nearly 18 million previously underinsured – uninsured – 18 million previously uninsured Americans now have quality, affordable health coverage.

Again, young adults can stay on their parents' health insurance until 26. No longer will insurers be able to turn you away for preexisting conditions. No more annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you can receive. And no longer will being a women be a preexisting medical condition. Just a few of the advantages of the law.

As you know, Republicans have tried scores of time to take it down, but we are very proud of the number of people who have had access now to affordable, quality health care. And, at the same time, it is serving to lower costs of health care not only to families but to our budget, our national budget, and to our economy.

One of the fastest‑growing parts of health care in our country is the cost of prescription drugs, the fastest‑growing part of health expenditures today. This is really coming to be a crisis. It must be understood, it must be investigated so we can find ways to rein in the soaring cost.

As you know, Ranking Member [Elijah] Cummings has called on Chairman [Jason] Chaffetz for an investigation, which so far has not materialized. Democrats have formed a task force. Maybe some of you were at their press event yesterday. We will have a Steering and Policy Committee hearing on this subject. It really hits home with people.

And part of the whole idea of our investments in basic biomedical research and the National Institutes of Health and then coupled with the Affordable Care Act, with accessibility, is so that these miraculous cures could be available to everyone. But the pricing is really becoming almost an immorality.

And while I understand that research and development has to be paid for and that we have some drugs that are cures that may be worth the money, we cannot stand for what is happening right now. We don't paint all of our companies with the same brush, but we do have to investigate those. We have to investigate the practice that some are engaged in.

It's a very big issue across the country. I know some of you do travel across the country, and it's a big issue in many homes and in many doctor's offices. And it's a very huge issue in hospitals across the country, because they have to bear the cost.

Any questions? Yes, sir.

***

Q: I saw that the NDAA passed today.

Leader Pelosi. Yeah.

Q: It includes provisions to block President Obama from transferring detainees from GTMO. Do you have a reaction to that? And, also, are you disappointed that President Obama hasn't succeeded in closing GTMO entirely?

Leader Pelosi. I am sorry that this is in the bill. The President has signed this bill before with a signing statement that relates to GTMO.

But I'm not disappointed in anything in terms of the President. I'm disappointed that the Republicans have prevented the President from closing Guantanamo, which he said he was going to do, which he set out to do, and which he had a plan to do and he does have a plan to do now.

As you know, there was a facility to be built in Illinois, where people welcomed the economic development that it would bring, but the Republicans prevented that from happening. So my disappointment is that the Republicans ‑‑ they should know that Guantanamo should have been closed a long time ago. They should not have prevented it. That's where my disappointment is.

Yes, ma'am.

Q: Ms. Pelosi, Democrats faced a pretty tough night on a Tuesday, but, particularly, the San Francisco sheriff race, where Vicki Hennessey ended up beating Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi. I believe she ended up picking up 52,000 votes out of 83,000 ballots that were cast. That particular race kind of focused in on the sanctuary cities situation, since Sheriff Mirkarimi, he was a big, staunch supporter of that. What does that really tell you about what San Francisco voters really want in that city?

Leader Pelosi. Well, let me disagree with you. I don't think it was such a great – there was a loss in Kentucky. There were four – Democrats picked up four seats in Pennsylvania, in New Jersey. In neighboring Pennsylvania, they swept the election for the Supreme Court, preventing some, shall we say, not‑so‑friendly‑to‑people initiatives there.

We have a long list of two pages, if you want to talk politics – I should have brought that – because we can go State by State, where there were some victories.

The loss in Kentucky was a sad one for the Governor. However, we did win the Attorney General seat there, and the Secretary of State was reelected the there.

That you would describe Vicki Hennessey's victory in San Francisco as an indication of a bad night for Democrats just – I can't grasp that. Sheriff now to be Hennessey, or acting – she will be the Sheriff – is very popular in our community. We had a race between two people, and her statements about this subject – she said she would view these issues about turning over people on a case‑by‑case basis. She disagreed, as most of us did, with what the current Sheriff did.

But I wouldn't, in friendship, think that it was a bad night for Democrats because Vicki Hennessey won in San Francisco. We are all very proud of her. It was a great victory. And her distinction that she made is: You look at each case one at a time.

And I'm pleased that the Senate has rejected some of the ill‑conceived notions that were drifting around there about sanctuary cities.

Yes, Chad. So, Chad, what are you going to do with you now? The Speaker went to your alma mater.

Q: Right.

Leader Pelosi. So are you going to be a nonbiased reporter?

Q: John Boehner represented the district where Miami was located, so…

Leader Pelosi. There you go. Well, goodness. Oh, gosh.

Q: I lived down the street from him, actually. Anyway…

Leader Pelosi. Congratulations to…

Q: Thank you.

Leader Pelosi. Miami of Ohio.

Q: We've got a President, Benjamin Harrison; the first Speaker; and two unsuccessful Vice Presidents Whitelaw Reid and Paul Ryan.

But my question is about Paul Ryan. How do you think he has done in this first week? I mean, it's right out of the gate here, but how do you think he has done in that first week?

Leader Pelosi. Well, you know, to become Speaker of the House is a very momentous step forward. It's the third‑highest position in the country: President, Vice President, Speaker of the House. And so it's a great undertaking.

To do so in medias res, you know, to be tossed in right in the middle of a legislative session, in the middle of negotiations on the budget and the rest, is very challenging. And to then have to make your adjustments from a staffing standpoint and the additional responsibilities that I know the Speaker is proud to assume, it's, I think, really not ‑‑ the first week is not a time to judge a Speaker.

I think that just getting through the week is an accomplishment, with all the things that barrage the new Speaker and his time.

Q: And having been in the Speaker's chair yourself, not that you would give advice necessarily, but what are the – you know, you were there for that first week. Granted, you didn't come in in the middle of a Congress.

Leader Pelosi. Right.

Q: But what is kind of a potential pitfall you could see that, you know, if you were talking to Speakers at large, what you would say, watch out for this, watch out for that?

Leader Pelosi. Well, you know, if the Speaker asks me for advice, then I will share that with him and perhaps with you.

Q: And you've not had a conversation with him yet? You've not had a conversation with him?

Leader Pelosi. No, we have not, not in that – we have had a friendly exchange on the floor, but we have not had that conversation. But I wish him well. It's a very challenging job.

And I don't know if you have anything specific about the appropriations process or anything like that, because that's what we're engaged in.

It's my understanding from his press conference that he said he was going to have the appropriations bills that had not yet been negotiated by the subcommittees to be taken up by the full conference of Republicans.

Well, that would be good news to our Members, because 100 percent of our Members say they should all be on the Appropriations Committee and that we should have one committee in the House, and that's it, so that everybody makes those decisions. But the fact is, that is not governing by committee. That's not governing by committee.

And so I think that will be challenging. But it's interesting and it's curious, and I wish him well with it. But, as an appropriator, as I said, out of respect for the knowledge, the expertise that people have in their focus on their subcommittees, I think that that will be an interesting dynamic, to see how his appropriators react to his whole conference weighing in on the bills of his committee and calling it, "We're respecting the committee system."

Yes, sir.

Q: Leader Pelosi, among the election results this week was the defeat of a nondiscrimination ordinance in Houston that would have protected LGBT people.

Why do you think that ordinance failed? And do you think that defeat could galvanize support for a federal nondiscrimination bill in Congress?

Leader Pelosi. It was sad.

I spent time last week in Texas. I was invited by the Bush family to speak at the Points of Light conference there. So I was there from the weekend and then into Tuesday, when I spoke at the conference and then the convention and then at a salute to the 25‑year anniversary of it with President Bush and Mrs. Bush. It was glorious. So thank you for affording me the opportunity to sing their praises in terms of volunteerism and hope.

At the time, obviously, I was engaged in some political matters while I was there, meeting with Democrats along the way, and seeing the ads on TV. And that was heartbreaking. It was really heartbreaking, because some significant money came in, really mischaracterized what the initiative did.

And I think the size of the – not only that it lost, I mean, they, the other side won, but the size of the defeat was stunning. Because I don't think ‑‑ how many other cities in Texas have nondiscrimination?

Staff. Nine of the 100,000‑people‑or‑more.

Leader Pelosi. Nine cities of 100,000 or more in Texas have this nondiscrimination provision, and now they've defeated in Houston.

What was interesting to me – I talked about the negative ads, but to see the ads with veterans in them saying that they supported it, the HERO – it was called HERO – because of what it meant to veterans was so beautiful. And the kind of nasty ads – you know what they were. It's disappointing.

But we just have to think of it as a bump in the road. And, of course, we have our equality bill that we have introduced in July, introduced by David Cicilline but with bipartisan [and] bicameral support. In the Senate and the House, we announced it. And that would be an attempt to end discrimination, expanding the Civil Rights Act to include LGBT equality in there, as well.

It's inevitable. It will happen. It may be inconceivable to some. It is inevitable to us. We have to shorten the distance, as I always say, between the inevitable and the inconceivable. And we will prevail. But it was disappointing.

Q: But do you think that defeat could galvanize movement on that bill during this Congress?

Leader Pelosi. I would hope so. You know, we'll see. And we have a new Speaker and the rest. I would hope so. But I think that ‑‑ I don't want anybody's hopes to be held too high, when we see some of the actions taken by Congress.

But this is a – when we had the majority, we passed the hate crimes bill that was fully inclusive, including transgender [people]. At the time, I think you know, they told me, if you take transgender out, you can pass this bill in a minute. And I said, if we take transgender out, we're not passing it in 100 million years, because we're not doing it. We're just not doing that.

And so we thought we got past that a little – and, of course, then we went on to ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal. And then the courts did the marriage equality piece. So we're making great progress, and the momentum was on the side of ending discrimination. And this I hope we just consider an episode and not a trend.

And we'll keep working very hard and build public – the only way Congress acts is if there's public support. And that's what we will continue to do.

Yes, sir.

Q: Madam Leader, back to Kentucky, all the polls got it wrong. Mr. Bevin, who ended up winning that race, was viewed as very extreme conservative.

But I was listening to some political analysts who said that, because of the healthcare law that he actively ran against, you've sort of seen the loss of an entire generation of Democrats in the South.

You were Speaker on the backs of Blue Dog Democrats. How do Democrats win in the South in 2015, 2016?

Leader Pelosi. Well, let me, again, not subscribe to your characterization. What happened in Kentucky was – let me give you an example.

In Mr. Yarmuth's district, when he ran in the off‑year – when he ran in the Presidential year, he had over 200,000 votes. In the non‑presidential year, he had, what, 170,000 votes, something like that, over 150,000 votes. That was 1 year ago.

The gubernatorial candidate got 110,000 votes in his district. It was about turnout.

And the answer to your question, not only in the South but everywhere, is we have to increase turnout. And if the turnout had been bigger, the election would have been different.

But so what? You know, we don't agonize, we organize. And that's what we have to do, whether it's in the South, the Midwest, in suburban areas, in rural areas, and in the West, in the entire country. It's about showing people the connection, as Martin Luther King said, between the ballot, legislation, and their lives. And that just has not been done sufficiently.

Q: But President Obama, his team is very talented at that. There's a lot of worry, I have read, from Democratic groups that mobilization is just not there to the level that it was in 2012. What can you guys do?

Leader Pelosi. Well, the Presidential year is the big year. I mean, it's not there as it – in 2012. Yeah. Yeah. Because the Presidential race is the main event. It has everything. It has glamour, it has money, it has power, it has showbiz. It's an attraction. And the off‑years are like the lounge act. So who goes there, right? Unless you're just waiting for the next show.

So, no, I'm very optimistic, because, as I've said to you before and you've heard us present in a more full way, in fact, on Tuesday, Restoration Tuesday, where Mr. Clyburn and Congresswoman Terri Sewell presented their agenda for passing a voting rights act, having outreach and engagement with voters about the connection of winning elections and winning initiatives to improve their lives. And we just have to do better at it. But in a Presidential year is an opportunity time for us.

Somebody told me that there was a poll after 2012 of people who didn't vote, and, in that poll, President Obama won by 30 points over Mitt Romney.

So we have a challenge. And that affects all the good things that we'd like to see happen, including a HERO's Act that was challenged in Houston.

Yes, sir. And then I'm going to have to go.

Staff. Last question.

Q: There's an argument to be made – and you may quibble with how well it could be made – that the bipartisan agreement that sort of hit this place in the last 2 weeks over the debt ceiling, sequester deal, and now the transportation bill is basically, "Let's kick everything until we see who the next President is," that these are basically sham, gimmicky, paid‑for bills whose basic thing is to get it off of the agenda until 2017.

So what does it say about the atmosphere here that that seems to be the case? Indeed…

Leader Pelosi. I don't even know what you're talking about.

Q: What is…

Leader Pelosi. I really don't even know what you're talking about. This is a very substantial decision to lift the caps, to put off sequestration, yeah, but it had nothing to do with who the next President is, whoever she may be. But it…

[Laughter.]

Leader Pelosi. Or he. We have wonderful candidates across the board on our side.

And that's one place I would disagree with the distinguished Speaker, with all due respect, when he said that any one of the Republican candidates on the stage would be a better President than Hillary Clinton. Come on.

But, anyway, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley – I'm so proud of him – from Maryland. We have great candidates.

So I don't see that at all. This was of the moment. We had to keep government open. We wanted to do so in a way – if anything, it wasn't about what comes next. It was about what we have not done, what we were delinquent in doing.

And so now we succeeded in lifting the caps, putting off the sequestration, lifting the debt ceiling until 2017 – that was remarkable – stopping the Medicare prescription increase and stopping the cut in disability.

But, no, this was – well, I wanted more. This was a compromise. I wanted more. I wanted the IMF. You know, I had a full agenda. But it being a compromise, I accept the fact that they have the majority, the President has the signature, we have the ‑‑ we can uphold whatever the President does.

Q: But doesn't the modest scope of these deals, this basic punting, basically mean that the next 14 months will be substantially policy‑free?

Leader Pelosi. Well, is that a bad thing? Is that a bad thing?

Q: Well, given that you guys' job is to make policy…

Leader Pelosi. I mean, not policy‑free. It'll be argument‑free because we have some – in other words, when it comes to lifting the debt ceiling, we have removed doubt that we are going to default. That's more certainty for our economy.

Just the discussion of it in 2011 lowered our credit rating. You remember that, or some of you who were here then? It lowered our credit rating, just the mere discussion of it. And when we finally passed it in – the last time we passed it, 199 Republicans voted no. They did not honor the full faith and credit of the United States. Twenty‑eight voted yes, including Speaker Boehner.

And don't we miss him? I mean, personally. Personally. I am just talking personally. No offense to the new Speaker, but, personally, what a lovely guy.

And so, no, I – that's a very interesting characterization. We're optimists. We're positive. This was a good thing. Let's see – well, it's going to create over 350,000 jobs in next year alone. So whatever it is, it is a good thing for job creation, for increasing paychecks and reducing the deficit and, again, having parity between defense, which we all want to support, and domestic, which we all want to support, in a way that honors a firewall, that you can't take from one or the other to increase the funding.

So it was, I felt, very positive, very bipartisan. And I was willing to accept what I couldn't get in the bill for what was in it. And that's what I always say to Members: Try not to judge bills for what isn't in it but to respect it for what is in it.

And I think it's worthy of respect. That's why 100 Democrats voted for it, not because they didn't have their problems with one thing or another, but because they have a shared commitment, all of them, to working families in our country, of creating good‑paying jobs, increasing paychecks.

And, you know, it all comes back to middle‑class economics versus trickle‑down. But we'll save that for another day.

Thank you all very much.

Q: What about [Colin] Kaepernick getting benched?

Leader Pelosi. How about the Mets? Why do they start those games so late at night?

Q: I agree.

Leader Pelosi. Honest to God.

Q: Well on the West Coast it's good for them.

Leader Pelosi. Yeah, yeah. Of course.

Q: How about Air BnB staying alive in San Francisco?

Leader Pelosi. It was good. That was good.

Q: Are you supportive of that?

Leader Pelosi. I was supportive of it. [Senator] Dianne [Feinstein] was not because some of these initiatives just go too far. And then you can't correct them except by initiative. And that's a problem.

Q: My aunt is a property owner and was very happy about the results. Aunt Christine – I'll tell her you say hello.

Leader Pelosi. Yes, tell her I said hi. Thank you.

# # #