Skip to main content

Transcript of Pelosi Press Conference Today

February 25, 2016

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 morning, everyone.

Since last we were together, the nation has mourned the passing of Justice Scalia. The Italian American community was very proud when he was named to the court, the first Italian American named. Through that shared community, which we both loved, I came to know firsthand Justice Scalia's love for his family and for our country. I know he loved the Constitution. And I would hope that we could follow it in his honor.

However, other Republicans have a breathtaking refusal to meet their constitutional duty to give Justice Scalia's replacement a timely vote and a fair hearing. Republicans' contempt for functioning government and their disrespect for the President know no bounds. Evidently, it isn't enough for Republicans to merely shut down government or threaten the full faith and credit of the United States; they must sabotage the Supreme Court, too. Republicans have obstructed the Congress, obstructed our President, and now they want to obstruct the court. And with their refusal to act on the Voting Rights Act, they are obstructing our democracy.

Eleven months left in the Obama presidency. Since the 1980s, every person appointed to the court has been given a prompt hearing and a vote within 100 days. Six justices have been confirmed in Presidential election years in the last century, including three Republican nominees. And those justices have included Justice Brandeis, Justice Cardozo, and Justice Kennedy. The Republicans are saying they will not even consider, not even meet with the person the President would nominate.

In addition to not giving a hearing to anyone the President would nominate to the court, Republicans are also refusing to have a hearing on the President's budget. It's unprecedented that they would not hear from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to present the President's budget.

Sadly, the budget gaining the most traction with the Republicans is the ‘Tea Party Fantasy Budget’ from the Heritage Foundation. And this is some of what it would do: dismantle Social Security; end the Medicare guarantee and block grant Medicaid; end grants to curb domestic violence under the Violence Against Women Act; and eliminate Head Start. It's time for Republicans to stop putting their toxic ideology ahead of the Constitution and ahead of hard‑working American families. Let them reassess their priorities. Let us work together in a bipartisan way to pass a budget that creates growth, that creates jobs, raises the paychecks of the American people, invests in the future of our country as we reduce the deficit. Let's hope that we can get about that soon.

Questions? This gentleman in the second row, please.

***

Q: Madam Leader, regarding the President's Supreme Court nominee…

Leader Pelosi. Excuse me?

Q: Regarding the President's Supreme Court nominee, he is considering Brian Sandoval, the Republican Governor of Utah – excuse me, Nevada. Do you believe it's a good idea for the President to consider appointing a Republican to the Supreme Court?

Leader Pelosi. Well, first of all, I don't know that the President is considering Governor Sandoval. Yes, I think it's a good idea for the President to consider a Republican or a Democrat to the court.

Q: Madam Leader?

Leader Pelosi. I told Chad he is next.

Q: You talked a lot about the budget that the Republicans are trying to craft. And you talked about the potential ties with The Heritage Foundation. They are having a bear of a time putting this together. Now, you said this was going to dismantle Social Security and Head Start. If they are stymied, that seems to be – you can't turn that against them the same way you have used the Ryan budgets against Republicans politically in the past. Is that a problem…

Leader Pelosi. The very idea they would say they would want – and that's part of the Tea Party or Freedom – what do they call themselves now?

Q: Freedom Caucus.

Leader Pelosi. Freedom Caucus is to make Social Security a program for the poor. Of course, that would totally undermine Social Security. And that's why it was never designed to be a program just for the poor. You pay in; you take out. It's an insurance program. It's not a poverty initiative, although it has reduced poverty in our country drastically. The very idea that they are putting it forth – and the same thing, some of these things are consistent with the Ryan budget in terms of removing the guarantee from Medicare by voucherizing Medicare. That's part of the Ryan budget: block granting Medicaid. They go further in eliminating Head Start. But, nonetheless, this is all part of the debate. This is one of the biggest debates we have here, the battle of the budget and the debate as to a statement of our values, which should be reflected in our budget. And how we come to those allocations of resources, again, it should be a statement of our values about what is important to our country. And to make Social Security a program just for the poor, to eliminate the waiver on Medicare, and to eliminate Head Start, well, that's even an act of cruelty, in addition to being bad policy.

It sounds like – we have always tried to have a tough love kind of thing. How can we lift people out of poverty, bring them into the middle class? Tough love. This is a tough luck budget. In fact, it's the – what are they calling it? The Eliminate the American Dream? Oh, yes, they are calling their Heritage Group the Eliminate the American Dream Team. Yes, sir.

Q: Madam Leader, Senator Sanders said that there were racist efforts behind in efforts to undermine President Obama's –specifically regarding the Supreme Court vacancy. In light of this historic obstruction by the Republicans, do you think race plays a role in it at all?

Leader Pelosi. I think it's true that people think that, as they have indicated: the chair of our Congressional Black Caucus, speaking for the caucus; Presidential candidate Sanders. But this obstruction of the President has been since he took office. He has extended the hand of friendship over and over again, and they have rejected that. And it's hard to understand why. We have a responsibility when we come here to find common ground. We come from different places, different ideas. The competition of, the marketplace of ideas is the excitement of coming here. Instead, since they have not much by way of ideas, it is to obstruct. They obstruct the President. They obstruct governance. And they obstruct science. So they have a trifecta. So I don't want to go to that point. I respect the views of those who hold it, though.

Yes, ma'am.

Q: As far as obstructionism is concerned, I mean, we can go back to the Bork nomination, Priscilla Owen, as well as Alito. So, as far as when different parties use the rules to their advantage, I mean, we are talking about here as far as one party being in the majority…

Leader Pelosi. I get your point, but your point isn't well taken, if I may be so bold as to suggest. I don't remember anybody saying: The President should not appoint, and we will not even interview his appointee; we will not have a hearing.

What I am talking about…

Q: But should the parties, when they are in the majority, use the rules to their advantage?

Leader Pelosi. Look, the Constitution says that the President will nominate and the Congress shall act upon ‑‑ the Senate shall act upon that nomination. Not to even interview, to say, "We are never going to interview anyone he names, and we're not going to have a hearing on the subject," takes – that just flies in the face of what the intention was of Congress. Yes, ma'am.

Q: On the Presidential election…

Leader Pelosi. Yes, ma'am.

Q: Just generally, what do you think accounts for the rise of an anti‑establishment candidate like Bernie Sanders? Does Congress share some of the reason behind that, the dysfunction in Congress, not getting major problems solved?

Leader Pelosi. What Bernie is putting forth is what we have been advocating in terms of reducing the cost of student loans; we passed Dodd‑Frank in terms of putting a cop on the beat on Wall Street; in terms of the DARE that I have to reduce the role of money in politics. So many of the things that he is advocating that have attracted support are what Democrats have stood for in Congress.

I will say this, though, and you in your business know this better than us: When Members of Congress say something, it's something. When a candidate for President says it, it attracts much, much more attention.

And I think we should be glad that he is out there making his campaign, attracting many young people who might not otherwise be attracted to politics. They are attracted to public service. They are attracted to community service in different ways. But now they are understanding the importance of elections. So the concerns that he expressed really have – as well as we have addressed some. The money in politics issue I think affects everything. And I hope that his candidacy will give us the boost that we need to make the changes necessary to overturn, to Disclose, where is this money coming from? Amend the Constitution to overturn Citizens United. Reforms. Have legislation like the Sarbanes Act, legislation to increase the role of small donors in the political process, and Empower, to remove obstacles of participation. So while we may have some differences of opinion on whether we should have single payer – I have been for single payer for 30 years. Long before some of these people were born, we were out there with signs saying "single payer." We almost got it for people 55 and older in the Affordable Care Act, but we couldn't get the 60 votes needed in the Senate.

Q: So maybe the anti‑establishment label is an incorrect label?

Leader Pelosi. I don't know that – if that's what you want to call it. I don't care what you want to call it. But what I do call it is that he is calling attention to – and good for him – I mean, who'd a thunk it? Bernie Sanders, 74 years old, the darling of the under 25 set. But he is articulate, eloquent, and has attracted – and that's really so much about what this is. You can have the best vision about what America should – how you would take us into the future, how you build upon the successes of the Obama Administration – and they are many, and they are great. You can have great knowledge and great judgment about it all, and you can have a plan to get – take us into the future and your strategic thinking about it. You also have to be able to attract attention to it. And both Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton I think have done that in a very magnificent way that will serve us well in the general election.

Yes, sir.

Q: Given the dispute between Apple and the FBI and the subsequent reports we have seen today that Apple is trying to construct a phone that would be impervious to even the technological capability that the FBI has now sought an order to force Apple to perform, do you see a scenario under which Congress will have to act to strike a new balance between the legitimate needs of law enforcement to investigate criminals and the legitimate privacy needs of ordinary cell phone users?

Leader Pelosi. Yes, I do. I think that this is an interesting challenge to the balance that we’ve always had in our country since our founding – the balance between security and liberty. Benjamin Franklin said, ‘If you don’t have one, you can’t have the other.’ He said it more articulately than that – but that they go together. I think, today, in our world that we live in, our preeminence globally in technology is essential to our security – essential to our security. So, it’s not one instead of the other – again, as Benjamin Franklin said. The fact that any technology company would be moving forward with technological change. You can’t stop that. It’s like saying, ‘I’m going to stop the sun from coming up.’ That’s just what the technology world is about – constant, constant innovation – product cycle ever-shortening.

I think that there had been some suggestions – in fact, one by Apple – that there be a Commission to look at this. There are several institutions in place. We have the Privacy and Oversight Board in the Intelligence Reform Bill. In 2008, we had this Oversight Board – Privacy and Oversight Board. It is of very important elements – one something I insisted upon in the legislation. It is a very important place for us to have this discussion.

On the technological side, there is a cryptologist report that is very technical but raises questions that, I think, need to be answered in this debate. And I refer that to you. In addition to that, Congress – I don’t think it should be up to one judge to decide on the encryption policy as we go forward. This isn’t about one case, as dreadful as San Bernardino was, and it was. And we must do everything in our power to prevent anything like that from happening again. The cooperation, I think, that Apple gave to the FBI following that was something that I’m grateful for. Now, we’re at a place where – is this about one thing? The FBI is saying, ‘We’re only asking for one thing – the ability to use more passwords.’ You know that – views 10 passwords – boom. The information disappears. The ability to use more passwords – okay, that’s one thing. And to do so in a way that won’t take 10 years to find, to open up the phone – well, that second part is what is the controversial part.

So, let’s have people understand technology, the possibilities – recognition that technology never stops and that our commitment to protect and defend the American people is our first responsibility. And I believe that having preeminence in technology globally is in the furtherance of our national security, as we protect our privacy. So, Congress – there’s some legislation here about a commission – a commission could be a good idea, depending on the composition. Or, it could be a foregone conclusion, depending on the composition. So, I’m – as you may know, a number of my Members of the – our Democratic Members of the Judiciary Committee have come out cautioning against any back door or opening up of encryption – not just because it could invade privacy, but because it could impede our security.

So, we’ll see. I think everybody has a role – the Courts, the Congress, the Commission – but that would mean, probably, the Executive Branch. I think – if we have a Commission and if we act upon this in Congress, we have to have a short time frame, so that we can get this done. I just make one other point – the Justice Department, the FBI has been very specific in saying, ‘This is about this one case.’ But then, you have District Attorneys around the country – or one in New York, saying, ‘I have 175 cases that I want to use here.’ I think we have to be very careful, as to when we are using – taking extraordinary means for our national security to then have that door open to prosecute a drugs case or something like that.

Q: Well, should it not be – should this information on cellphones not be available to prosecutors chasing big drug cartels?

Leader Pelosi. That’s always been the case before 9/11, where there was a distinction. As you know, Intelligence [Committee] is where I’ve been for a long time in the Congress, since the early 90s. And before 9/11, if we were going in for a security issue and we found out that somebody did a domestic crime, that’s not our business right then and there, but some of that was relaxed after 9/11.

Okay? Yes, sir.

Q: Can I ask you about Flint? The Senate seems close to about a $220 million aid package for Flint and other cities with infrastructure issues. Is that enough money for Flint? Do you think that goes far enough?

Leader Pelosi. I think it's a reasonable – that does not mean good – a reasonable start. I think we're going to need much more as we go into this. There are infrastructure issues. There are health issues. There are education issues that have to be dealt with. These children have – I don't know if you came to our hearing, but it was fabulous. And we have been briefed and briefed and briefed on this in terms of the impact of this lead on the brain of little children, or unborn children, too, in the prenatal situation, that the impact on the brain is such that you need to have remedies, and fresh fruit and vegetables, education, Head Start – all these kinds of things to make sure that these children are not at a disadvantage. There is nothing I think in that bill on education. So I think that's an addition that I would like to see. As you know – what did you say, 225, 250?

Q: Yeah.

Leader Pelosi. A hundred for Michigan, a hundred for Michigan, hopefully mostly for Flint, because that's where with the crisis is right now, and a recognition that more may be needed; 70 for the rest of the country, 70 for the rest of the country for infrastructure concerns; and about 50 for health, largely, I think, for Flint. So it's a start. But, again, there are some areas that have not been addressed, and much more money is going to be needed. And one of the things we are doing today is to try to take inventory of what our national needs are in terms of water, because this is not – they made a very bad decision in Michigan to unleash the Flint River water to be part of the water supply for Flint. It was terrible. It was a decision; it was wrong. However, the condition of our water systems in the country needs to be subjected to review and to see where we can make our best investments as part of our infrastructure, clean water for our children.

Yes, sir, one more.

Q: I just wanted to clarify, quickly clarify your take on Apple. It sounds like you are siding with Apple that they should not comply with this court order.

Leader Pelosi. I think we should review what is happening. I’m sympathetic, again, to our security concerns and say that our preeminence in our technology is one of our security strengths. So, not to dismiss that as a “We’re for privacy, they’re for security.” No, I think everybody on both sides of this conversation are for security and are for privacy. There’s a hearing right now. [Director] Comey is right now, I think, in Judiciary Committee. I’ll be interested in hearing his further testimony and also, I think, next week there will be a hearing. But I think some of this is going to have to move quickly because we have to have an answer for this but we also have to address it because people are waiting in line to decide if their domestic cases should qualify for any backdoor in encryption when the discussion began as a strictly security measure focused on one particular case.

So, it’s a good discussion for our country to have as we go forward. Imagine our founders: security and privacy at the time after the establishment of our country – and they had good cause. We were engaged in the War of 1812 not that many years after the establishment of our country. So, they had first-hand experience in terms of homeland security – privacy versus that – and God bless them for the beautiful Constitution they gave us to deal with this.

Q: But the FBI seems to think that there is something in this phone that might prevent some similar attack. So, I understand the broader implications and the questions that you’ll ask going forward, but in this particular case, there is an urgency. And do you think that Apple should help the FBI get into this phone?

Leader Pelosi. My review for Director Comey – for whom I have the very highest regard, I respect him enormously. I’ve observed his leadership as deputy – deputy are we calling it? Or under attorney general? Whatever the second in command is there. So, I have the highest regard for him but his statement was really predicated more on the idea of: we owe it to the victims of San Bernardino to get to the bottom of this. I think the point that you make that if we can found out something in this phone that could prevent another tragedy is something that wasn’t in his statement and maybe it wasn’t because if we could find out what’s in everybody’s phone, we could prevent a lot of things. That opens another door. It’s challenging, it’s interesting, it’s a good time to be here coming from where I come in Northern California where this is, again, the pace of innovation and the rest is – just anything, it’s just accelerating. You can’t even stop it. It has its own momentum as well as the contribution that our area makes to the national security of our country in so many ways – many of them technological. I hope that we can come to a decision.

They say in law school, which I didn’t go to, that bad cases make bad law. Maybe using this case in that one discrete way might not make law but might make a decision. If we’re going to make law, we have to enlarge the issues in terms of its implications, in terms of privacy, in terms of brand U.S.A. – I don’t mean for profits, I mean for dominance in the global economy, which again I think is a source of strength, and then again the privacy issue. So, thank you all very much.

One more thing. Aren't you excited about the new Librarian of Congress being from Baltimore, Maryland?

Q: I thought you were going to talk about the 42 points by Curry last night.

Q: We would be more encouraged if you brought those cookies from town down here.

Leader Pelosi. The cookies from Baltimore – yeah, they are great. Little Italy, where I grew up in a family of deeply religious Catholics, proud of our Italian American heritage, fiercely patriotic Americans, and staunchly Democratic, with good cookies around the corner at Vaccaro's. That came after I grew up.

The Enoch Pratt Free Library is one of the great libraries in our country. It's where I spent my youth a long time ago. In the 1950s, they had books already, children's books about Mahatma Gandhi. That's how I learned about Mahatma Gandhi. I used to go there almost every day. And right there – to your interests – right there with the H.L. Mencken Room. Have you ever been there? Go see the H.L. Mencken Room. By appointment only. And it's a fabulous place. She is a spectacular leader. And it's just going to be wonderful. I'm so proud that she is the Librarian of Congress. Carla Hayden is her name.

Q: Did you suggest her to the President?

Leader Pelosi. No, I didn't. He didn't ask, and I didn't tell. But I could. If you want to infer that maybe, you know – no, I didn't.

Q: What if they refuse to hold a confirmation hearing on her?

Leader Pelosi. Thank you all.

# # #