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. Happy St. Patrick's Day. I see some wearing the green here. Good morning.
What a week. Yesterday, President Obama presented his nomination for the next Justice of the Supreme Court. Judge Merrick Garland is a widely respected jurist who embodies wisdom, judgment, and a dedication to justice for all Americans.
As Chief Justice for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Garland has the experience and the legal acumen to serve on the highest court in the land. He has a powerful command of the law, a deep respect for the impact on the lives of hard‑working American people.
What we are seeing here – and I hope this is temporary – is a disrespect for the Constitution by the Senate Republicans. The American people expect Merrick Garland, the President's nominee, to be given a fair hearing and a timely vote in the Senate. The Senate should do their job.
I remind that six Justices have been confirmed in the presidential [election] year; three of them, one, Kennedy, one, Cardozo, one, Brandeis.
Today, however, speaking of the Court, the House Republicans continue to push their radical anti‑immigrant agenda before the Supreme Court. House Republicans have brought forward a resolution authorizing the Speaker to file an anti‑immigrant amicus brief with the Supreme Court, but they won't tell the House or the American people what they planning to say in it.
Will Republicans yet again call for tearing apart families and deporting DREAMers? Will they yet again suggest a religious test for prospective immigrants? Will they ask the Court to explore ending birthright American citizenship?
Sadly, there is not much difference between Donald Trump and House Republicans when it comes to a record of appalling anti‑immigrant statements and an agenda of discrimination.
Furthermore, Republicans have denied Democrats the opportunity to have a meaningful vote on our alternative amicus brief in support of the President's immigration executive action which we filed with the Court last week, 225 House and Senate Democrats. I'm very proud of that.
It's ironic that they're having this vote on St. Patrick's Day. Last night, we had a celebration of Irish American heritage. While I do not have Irish grandparents, I do have Irish grandchildren, and one of them was there at the dinner, we talked about immigration and the rest. The Taoiseach talked about – the Prime Minister of Ireland talked about immigration when he was here at the Speaker's lunch.
And what it is about is all the Irish who are here, the 50,000 who are here who can't even go home for a family funeral because the law would not allow them to come back into the country. They are not here, shall we say, fully documented, and we need to change the law, comprehensive immigration reform. The Taoiseach has asked for that over and over again.
So here we are on the floor to ask for filing an amicus brief. Not only this. We don't even know what the amicus brief is, it may be yet to be written, but also how it is paid for? I think they said hopefully it will be pro bono. Yes.
Okay. And now this week the House GOP leadership presented their caucus with the latest budget proposal. We call it the ‘Road to Ruin’. It continues down the path that Speaker Ryan has taken us in his previous Ryan budgets. It devastates good‑paying jobs, lacking investment in education, the future of infrastructure in America, abandons seniors by ending the Medicare guarantee, and demands $6.5 trillion – $6.5 trillion – in cuts, the most extreme cuts ever proposed by Republicans on the Budget Committee.
And yet, it is not brutal enough for their Tea Party element. It is a freeze and cut. Oh, no, it is a cut and freeze. Cut domestic agenda and then freeze it for 10 years, stultifying growth in our country.
The goal of the Republican Conference is clear: to take us back to the radical trickle‑down economics that shattered our economy and hollowed out the wages of America's working families. Democrats stand for a budget that is a statement of our values, that creates jobs, raises the paychecks of hard‑working families, invests in the future of our country, while reducing the deficit in a balanced and responsible way.
I don't think we should leave here until we have some action. You know, the Republicans were famous, when we were in power, famous for saying no budget, no paycheck, and they made a big fanfare about that, and now they can't get a budget. And we are saying at least we shouldn't adjourn until we do and until we have a statement of – a supplemental that will support our initiatives on Zika, on Flint, and on opioids.
I don't know if they have any idea how every day of delay in trying to control Zika by investments in research and the rest, what that means in terms of public health, what that means to women of childbearing age, that a bite of a mosquito can just completely destroy the brain of your child.
In any case, we have work to do. We shouldn't leave until we do it. I hope that the Speaker will bring a supplemental to the floor before we leave. The Senate would still have to act upon it, but at least we'd be that far down the road.
With that, I'd be pleased to take any questions.
Yes, sir.
Q: Speaker Ryan set up an informal deadline or goal of completing legislation on Puerto Rico by the end of this month. It looks like that's not going to happen. And I understand that the Democrats are in bipartisan talks on this. Can you give us a progress report on where these talks stand and when you think there might actually be a product here that the House will act on?
Leader Pelosi. The question is, will we have a law of the land by March 31? Well, at this point, we will not. But we should have a bill pretty soon. And, again, I think the Republicans are acting in good faith on this. I'm in communication with them. It is the bill that they will write. Hopefully, the advice and consent that we are giving, and hopefully consent that we can give them, is predicated on information that we have as to how urgent this is, how timely it is for us to do something.
It would be my hope that we would see something before we leave here that would be marked up as soon as we come back and then taken to the floor immediately and sent to the Senate.
Q: Is Chapter 9, extending Chapter 9 to the territory off the table?
Leader Pelosi. Actually, you would have to talk to the Republicans about that. I have some idea of where it's going, but I don't want to – we have sort of "an until we see it, we don't know what it is."
Yes.
Q: Madam Leader, the President goes to Cuba this weekend.
Leader Pelosi. Yes.
Q: Obviously, human rights has been an issue very dear to you. What would you like to see him say and do on that score during this historic visit?
Leader Pelosi. Well, it is a historic visit to begin with and a visit that takes place in the last year of his Presidency with an important focus on the relationship between our two countries.
It is no secret that the regime is headed by people who are, shall we say, very late in life in terms of their service and leadership of that country. So while other Presidents have always focused on regime change in Cuba, our focus will be on improving the relationship between our two countries and, again, the President's focus on honoring the values of our country in terms of human rights and the ability of people to speak out without having to go to prison.
We'll see what form it takes there. I was there last year. I led a delegation following the President's announcement and the excitement in Cuba over the prospect of a better relationship with the United States was palpable. It was just so exciting to be there at that time.
We met with leaders of the LGBT community, people in the arts community, people in the faith‑based community, and the rest. And people are optimistic that some good news may be on the horizon.
But I don't speak for the President, and the words that he will use there, you will see that. But I think that the emphasis on human rights is something you can't deny. As you know, I have been to China on this subject, and again, there are overarching issues that are important in the relationship, but we lose all credibility to talk about human rights anywhere if we don't talk about them in situations like this.
Q: And you suggest his visit is enough to influence the human rights issues? Because, you know, certainly, there are some on the right here who think he shouldn't even go because of the human rights issues in Cuba.
Leader Pelosi. Yeah. Well, there are people here who never want to lift the embargo. The times, they are changing, and even other generations of people who have said that have been in my office saying we have to find another way. And so, we will see as this current administration of Cuban leadership talks about transition, that the transition will be one where human rights are respected. If the Government of Cuba wants to be respected, they have to respect the rights of their people.
Yes, sir.
***
Q: On Monday, Energy and Commerce had a roundtable on head injuries, and for the first time an NFL official conceded the link between the sport and traumatic brain injury.
I'm wondering if you see a congressional role there, and if so, what is it? Does Congress have power to influence this debate?
Leader Pelosi. It's very interesting. Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, who has been a leader in so many initiatives in the Congress, whether it is a woman's right to choose, fairness in our economy, she co‑chairs the Senior Task Force, you know, the list goes on and on of her accomplishments. But talk about sports, front page of The New York Times, it's amazing, you have entered the popular culture and so people are watching.
And it's not just about sports. It's about our children and their participation in sports, or in my case, grandchildren and their participation in sports.
It was quite remarkable that the representative, high‑up representative of the NFL made that admission and that connection.
So, we'll see as we go forward. I think it depends on a number of things. The actions the NFL will take, Congress will always maintain an interest as we did in the, shall we say, other aspects of – whether it was baseball and any assistance some may have had in their performance‑enhancing drugs.
But certainly, we will have a role. But it depends on what they do. It depends on technology in terms of what these new helmets can protect. And it depends on, also, just the idea that you shouldn't be butting heads. You shouldn't be butting heads. Maybe it changes the nature of what is a foul on the field.
Q: But do you think the congressional role is just funding, is research, is CDC, or do you see it as OSHA governs the workplace?
Leader Pelosi. Well, again, you evaluate what the problem is and the initiatives taken to correct it. And I would think when it comes to sports, especially a sport played by many children and families across America, they will want Congress to put a bright light on this. And it will be interesting to see where we go from here.
But that committee has been very courageous, whether it's Henry Waxman in terms of baseball, whether it's Henry Waxman in terms of tobacco, and now this, again, having an impact on children in our country as well as the athletes.
Yes, ma'am.
Q: Thanks for your time, Ms. Leader.
On appropriations and budget specifically, a two‑part question here. What specifically do you think the House needs to complete on budget or supplementals before the recess? And have Democrats reached any conclusion on whether they would lend support to help pass a deeming resolution at 1070 if the GOP can't agree on a budget?
Leader Pelosi. Well, let's see. Let's see. You know, in other words, we have to make a judgment about what we would support when we see what it is.
It is my understanding that Leader Mitch McConnell has said that they are going to proceed with the appropriations process, budget or not. That's probably what will happen in the House as well. And in terms of what has happened in the past in terms of deeming, we'll just see the context of what it is.
It is my understanding, and again, we're talking about deeming, assuming there isn't a Republican budget. We don't know that. It came out of committee. A couple of Members, Republican Members did not vote for it. None of the Democrats did. And it's even been mentioned that at least one of the Budget Committee members would only vote to get it out of committee, but not on the floor. So we'll see what that is.
In many countries, if you can't pass a budget, the government falls. This is a vote of confidence. And I think it's really important, for all of their chatter about how important the budget is and all the pride that the Speaker takes in his Ryan Budget, that it is not even – as bad as it is, and it is a Road to Ruin – as I said, it's not brutal enough for the Tea Party members of his own caucus. So we'll see. But we will proceed one way or another to do the appropriations.
Q: And what specifically do you want to have done before we break for recess?
Leader Pelosi. Well, we need a supplemental. We need a supplemental. We'd like to see some action on a budget, but in the absence of that, we need a supplemental. We need a supplemental to deal with Zika, opioids. I would hope also to include Flint, Michigan.
These are emergencies. And in some cases the Speaker says he wants a pay‑for. In Flint, okay, we have a pay‑for. Zika, that is an emergency that needs to be treated as an emergency. So it would be really important for us. How do we respond? What do we say to the women of America that so much is at risk by being bitten by this insect when we went home without doing something? And we're losing time. We're losing time right now. We have to act.
And so we would like to see at least on those three fronts a supplemental. There are other things that do not rise to the same level of emergency but are timely and perhaps would be included in that.
One last question because we have to give up the room in a minute.
Q: What do you think of Emily's List spending millions of dollars against Chris Van Hollen, who I know you are close to, in the Maryland Senate race? How do you feel about that?
Leader Pelosi. Well, I'm close to both of them, to Donna Edwards and Chris Van Hollen. I think they are excellent. I boo‑hoo the fact that they are leaving the House of Representatives because they're both very valued Members. Emily's List makes their decisions. And we will see how it turns out. It won't be long. What is it, April…
Q: April 26. His campaign basically says it is a waste of money because they are both – he's pro‑choice, she's pro‑choice.
Leader Pelosi. Well, that is true. I think from a policy standpoint it probably won't make a difference. From the standpoint of more women in the Senate, that's their goal. I would hope that it is not at the cost of more women in the House when it is between a Democrat and a Republican who will vote pro‑choice, pro‑gun safety, which are some of their priorities.
But they are a very astute organization. We are blessed with many Members of Congress because of the work of Emily's List. And the people of Maryland have a great choice to make. And so, I wish them well in that. But I wish that they weren't leaving the House. That's my overriding thought on the subject.
Thank you all very much. Happy St. Patrick's Day.
How about last night? Didn't score in the first four minutes, and then boom. Right back with the Golden State Warriors.
Q: Here is the most important question you're going to get: Are they going to surpass the Bulls' record of the best overall season?
Leader Pelosi. Do you think Steve Kerr has a conflict of interest?
Q: But you, as a fan of the Golden State Warriors, do you think they are going to beat the Bulls' record from the mid‑'90s?
Leader Pelosi. I certainly hope so. But it's interesting that Steve Kerr is – when we went to the White House for the championship, Golden State Warriors from last year, Steve Kerr got up there. And of course the President is a supporter, a fan of the Bulls, so they had their little banter back and forth when they introduced Steve Kerr.
And Steve Kerr got to the microphone, he said, “Mr. President, I understand that at end of the year you'll be an independent agent.” The President showed some of his moves. And I don't know what will come of that.
But in any event, we're going all the way. We're going all the way. Isn't it remarkable, isn't it wonderful to see if you can ever find the channel?
Q: You don't think the Spurs are going to – they played a pretty good game Saturday night, the Spurs and the Warriors.
Leader Pelosi. I think that now that we have gotten so high up. You know, I was concerned when we got to 45, tying the record, 46, surpassing the record, the Spurs, they were like 40, and it could be we would win and then they would surpass us, but now we are so far out.
Q: Any pangs of divided loyalty if Maryland plays California in the second round of the NCAA?
Leader Pelosi. Well, you know, I love both the teams. I root for the Terps. Of course, I root for California. But I revisit when I was rooting for the 49ers to win their division, and this, and rooting for Baltimore, the Ravens to win, and then they ended up together at the Super Bowl. Oh, my gosh – I didn't mean all in one year.
Anyway, thank you all.
# # #