Skip to main content

Transcript of Pelosi Weekly Press Conference Today

March 11, 2021
Contact: Speaker's Press Office,
202-226-7616
Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi held her weekly press conference today in the Capitol Visitor Center. Below are the Speaker's remarks:
Speaker Pelosi. Hello, everyone. We just had a nice victory on the Floor of the House for H.R. 8. Now, we are moving on to H.R. 1446. So, here we are.
One year ago, today, the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus, COVID 19, a pandemic, a pandemic. On that day, by then, 1,000 Americans had been infected, about 38 had died from the pandemic. Here we are a year later, as we observe that sad moment and everything that has ensued from them, with over 500,000 Americans who have died, around 30 million have become infected. And, again, our hearts are broken for them, for their families and for all of those who are affected by the coronavirus.
But we also, today, are celebrating legislation that will make a tremendous difference. President Biden's American Rescue Plan is a plan to crush the virus and to save lives and livelihoods of the American people. It is historic, it is monumental, it is consequential. And as I said, it is probably the most consequential legislation most of us will ever – many of us will ever vote for in the Congress. I put it on the par with the Affordable Care Act as having serious consequences for the well being of the American people.
The Biden plan will make an immediate difference in people's lives, injecting vaccine into their arms, money into their pockets, children going back in to school safely and people going to work safely. So, it is – it's just remarkable. It's remarkable legislation.
Unfortunately, Republicans, as I say, you know, vote no and take the dough. You see already some of them claiming, ‘Oh, this is a good thing' or ‘That is a good thing,' but they couldn't give it a vote. But anyway, enough of them.
I've talked about children in school. When I talked about this legislation yesterday, I talked about it in terms of America's children. Children are my why, why I went from housewife to House Speaker, because of the children, that one in five children in America lives in poverty. As a mother of five, I couldn't abide that and wanted to make a difference in public policy. One in five goes to sleep hungry at night, hungry at night, and that was even before the coronavirus.
And I've always said that the three most important issues facing the Congress are our children, our children, our children; their health, their education, the economic security to their families, including pension security for their grandparents and an environment in which they can thrive safely, a world at peace in which they can reach their fulfillment.
On the first three of those, their health, their education and the economic security of their families is very much affected by the Biden American Rescue Plan. I'm very proud of what it does for children, their health, their education and the economic security of their families.
Today, on the Floor, we go to that fourth place, a safe environment in which our children can thrive, by passing the background check legislation. It is hard to imagine legislation being more popular than the Rescue Plan, 75 percent, whatever. This legislation, background checks, closer to 90 percent, bipartisan support across the country, receiving the support of gun owners, hunters and the rest. They've all had to do a background check, why shouldn't others? Our Chairman of the Task Force, Mike Thompson, is a hunter, is a veteran and is a gun owner. And he has had again – protective of the First Amendment rights of gun owners, but also protective of the survival of our children.
So, I see this issue through the eyes of our children. I tell my colleagues the stories when I go to like a child care center in my district a few years – several years ago. We're playing on the floor with stuff. And all of a sudden, a balloon bursts, and the kids yell ‘drop.' Four year old children yelling ‘drop.' And that is not unusual in certain communities. What are we doing to our children? As Senator Murphy, this morning in our press conference, talked about what it does to the well being of children to live in a dangerous atmosphere.
And then we all know about the children in Newtown, and I thought for sure we would get gun violence legislation – gun violence prevention legislation passed then, but they said, ‘no' time and time again. Florida, Nevada, you name it, all over the country.
So, here we are with this legislation. And we're very optimistic that with 90 percent support in the public and with the public awareness, again, the drumbeat created by the people out there, the survivors of gun violence. We told them we are not resting until we get this job done. And today, we are taking a giant step in that direction for the children.
And as I say about these Members of Congress, if you're afraid to vote for gun violence prevention because of your political survival, understand this, the political survival of none of us is more important than the survival of our children and the fear that they have of this.
So, as I have said about the rescue package, how great it was, we sent it over to the Senate in a package that had been negotiated. There were some changes, not much, so that we could receive it back in terms of the essence of the bill. But one important part of it that did not survive the Byrd Rule, or the Byrd lady, or whatever it is over there, was the minimum wage, and we will persist with the minimum wage.
Now, what I want you to understand is, because so many times you hear people say, ‘Well, I am for a $10 minimum wage or I am for an $11 minimum wage.' Well, understand what the Fight for 15 has been all about. It is about a Fight for 15, where by 2025, people would arrive at $15. So, if you're for a $10 raise in minimum wage, now it is only $9.50 this year, 2021, $11 in 2022, $12.50 in 2023, $14 in 2024, and finally, $15 in 2025. I have been fighting for the Fight for 15 for a number of years. Quite frankly, I think it should be higher, but this is the fight that we are in.
So, if you think it's okay to have a $10 minimum wage, we don't even get there this year. We don't even get there this year. When we passed the bill in 2007, it was one of the first bills we passed in the first 100 hours of the new Democratic Majority. It was one of our Six for Six, you know, Six for '06 that we had, the six bills. We passed it. We sent it to the Senate. It didn't make it there, but we put it in an appropriations bill and it passed. First, we passed it and then President Bush vetoed it. But then we put it in an appropriations bill and then it was passed and signed by the President. So, it was a fight then for $7.25. Really?
And I tell the story of when we went outside to celebrate, Senator Kennedy, who was the leader of it as Chairman of the HELP Committee in the Senate, he came to the podium and he said, ‘You know what we have to do now? We have to raise the minimum wage.' Because he knew that $7.25 wasn't even enough then, but here it is. $9.50. Can you live on $9.50? A family of four, both parents making the minimum wage? $7.25, still under the poverty line.
And by the way, a low substandard minimum wage is corporate welfare. It is subsidizing the private sector not to reward work. And how do we subsidize it? Medicaid, food assistance, housing assistance and the rest. So, the taxpayer is subsidizing the low minimum wage for the private sector. Fortunately, not everybody in the private sector thinks that way and they respect the dignity of work. And many of them have come closer to not even a living wage, but at least a higher minimum wage.
So, this is – again, we're not giving up on that. We're not giving up on gun violence prevention. We've told the survivors again and again that we're not going away. We will persist until the law is changed and we have safety for our children.
So, again, this is a hopeful time. And I want to praise, of course, Senator Schumer, Leader Schumer for his leadership in sending us back a bill that we did not have to amend or go to conference on because it resembled enough what we had sent over there, except for the minimum wage, and we'll find a path on that.
So, again, one year ago, declared a pandemic. And of course at that time, declared a hoax, all the rest of that, avoiding science and the rest. And now, truly an attempt to crush the virus.
***
Any questions?
Q: Madam Speaker?
Speaker Pelosi. Yes. You. Alright, Garrett. You go first.
Q: So, when you have been focused on COVID, the Republicans have been talking about immigration. When you were focused on the Voting Rights Act, they were talking about immigration. Today, you are talking about Fight for 15; today, they're talking about immigration. I'm wondering if House Democrats, if you guys — why are we not seeing the same thing? Is this a distraction on their part? Is it a mistake for House Democrats to not include immigration elements earlier in the agenda? I'm just trying to square how these two parties are talking about such different things as the key issue right now.
Speaker Pelosi. Well, I guess their Dr. Seuss approach didn't work for them, so now they've had to change the subject. But we do not prioritize our values and how we can get – make a difference in the lives of the American people to be attuned to the bankruptcy of ideas that the Republicans have. No, there was no mistake. The bill is – except for the minimum wage, again, certain tweaks here and there, which were not consequential, the bill is what we all agreed to as the priorities to save lives and livelihoods, shots in the arm, money in the pockets, kids in the school safely and workers back in their jobs.
Yes, sir.
Q: Madam Speaker, I just wanted to ask you about the surge of unaccompanied minors at the southern border. The Biden Administration has acknowledged that the humanitarian effort they have may be an incentive for them to come. What would you like to see done out there?
Speaker Pelosi. Well, I don't know – I haven't heard them say that that would be an incentive. I do think what they are doing is talking to regional governments to say: keep them home, as well as if they have a case for refugee status or asylum seekers, to have that adjudicated in the – have those interviews happen in the country of origin. But for those who are coming, they have a humane policy about how they, as quickly as possible, and it takes time because you want to do it right, can get them situated with a family member or a safe place for them to be. And it would be nothing like what we saw in the Trump Administration of babies being snatched from the arms of their parents. To me, as a mom and a grandmother, that to me is like the most vile – with stiff competition from the Trump Administration – but one of the most vile things they did.
So, I think that the – I trust the Biden Administration's policy to be based on humanitarian and love of children, rather than political points or red meat for their – the Republican base.
Now, let me just say one thing about asylum seekers. Four years ago, around now, the President – then President put a ban, a Muslim ban in place. The same women who marched the day after the inauguration saw the power of their presence, and many of them marched to the airports and to other venues to protest the Muslim ban. But not only them, they were an example to others. And you saw an outpouring of disapproval of what the President was doing.
We then had a session here. It couldn't be a hearing because we were in the Minority, but we had a rump meeting about asylum seekers and opposition to the Muslim ban. We had the military come and say, ‘How could they do this?' We promised our interpreters and others who helped us in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are Muslim, that they could come to the United States and this is hurting our security. We heard diplomats, maybe a 1,000 signed a letter, which was unusual, that many, but them to testify that how this was bad for our national security from a diplomatic standpoint. We had economists saying this is bad for our economy in terms of the intellectual resources that we were depriving our country of.
But why I bring it up is that we had representatives – a representative of the [National Association of Evangelicals]. And what he said at that meeting that I think everybody should continue to remember, because the evangelicals have been really good on immigration and on asylum seekers and refugees. He said the United States' refugee resettlement program is the ‘crown jewel' of American humanitarianism. And that was at a time when the Administration was preparing to reduce the number that we received while encouraging other countries to take other asylum seekers.
So, it is – you know, it's a value decision that we have to make. And I think the difference between this Administration and the one before is great in terms of how we meet the needs of these children, placing them, as much as possible, with family, but in other safe homes. And in the meantime, to have humanitarian reception for them wherever they are.
It is a big – I'll just tell you this one more thing. I took a group, before COVID, so it was the last trip that I was able to take, to Central America, to the Northern Triangle – Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador – to see what was happening there in terms of dangerous situations that people were escaping, and that was the reason why they would risk crossing a desert, because they would die if they stayed home, and their children as well. What was the economic situation? What was it that we could help them with to keep people home, because people really, generally, do like to stay home.
One of the things that was interesting on that trip was that a number of the people who were leaving for economic reasons were farmers. Because the drought had caused such a severe situation in – Northern Triangle, they could no longer farm. What was arable before was no longer arable. Again, a climate issue, a climate issue. And so, there are all kinds of ways that we can help people be successful, or comfortable at least, at home, rather than coming to the United States, but to recognize the many reasons why they do. Some because of the dangerous situation to their lives. And we could spend all day going along chapter and verse of all the young people we met and how they feared for their lives and the communities they were in.
Yes, sir.
Q: Madam Speaker, since the President has already had a meeting with lawmakers from both parties on infrastructure, it seems like that may be the next legislative agenda item for the Biden Administration. I'm curious your thoughts on the size and scope of a deal considering that the $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill got zero Republican votes in Congress.
Speaker Pelosi. Yeah. Well, I thank you for the question. It is one of my favorite subjects.
The infrastructure – we like to call it, you know, jobs legislation. It's so important because it's about jobs. It's about the quality of life for people when we have better roads and transit systems and the rest. You have them spend less time in their cars, more time at home. A 45 minute ride, which should be a 20 or 15 minute ride – that's a quality-of-life issue – what that means in terms of clean air for our children and grandchildren to breathe. So, it is a quality-of-life issue in many respects in terms of time, but also in terms of clean air. Again, a jobs, jobs, jobs issue. Not only in the construction of these projects, but also the commerce it enables to happen. And in farm country where time is important in terms of produce from field to – from farm to market and the rest, time, time, time. So, the list goes on and on.
And it's not just roads and bridges and mass transit and high speed rail and that. It's also about water systems. Some of the water systems that we have now are over 100 years old. I've been saying this for 10 years, so they're over 110 years old. They're made of brick and wood. We really need to address the water systems in our country. And one of my colleagues, Congresswoman Tlaib, has been on this case in terms of safe water for our children all over the country, as has Dan Kildee, representing Flint, Michigan, and the rest. So, it's about that.
But it's also about infrastructure. We see in all of this telemedicine, distance learning, commerce through the internet, family interactions and the rest. So, that piece of intercept – infrastructure, which might not have been one we had 20 years ago, is important now. So, for these and other reasons, schools, housing – all of that. But remember this: this has always been bipartisan for us. In the years I've been in Congress, three decades, it's always been bipartisan. The only time they interfered with that is when President Obama presented his plan and they cut it back. We still got something, but not as much as was needed by the American Society of Civil Engineers. We're way behind where we should be in terms of building infrastructure.
So, I would hope it will, because it will be in their districts. Again, they'll vote no and take the dough, show up at the ribbon cutting and the rest. So, hopefully, they will be an intellectual resource as well as to what are the priorities in their region, what has the support of the communities and the rest, and whether it's a water project or whatever infrastructure it is. It's very popular with the American people. And the problem we had, President Trump always said during the campaign, his, you know, '16 campaign, and since for a long time he always talked about infrastructure. I didn't have a conversation with him for the first year and a half, say, that he was in office that infrastructure was not a part of the conversation. It's just when it came time to pay for it that he stormed out the door. But, we'll have to pay for some of it. We'll have to find ways to cover fees, et cetera. That's all a discussion that has to take place now.
But there's no question. The most expensive maintenance of our infrastructure is no maintenance. It only just gets worse. And so, we see this as a tremendous opportunity all across America, creating jobs, promoting commerce, cleaning the air, improving quality of life. And we hope that it will be bipartisan.
Q: Madam Speaker?
Q: Madam Speaker? It's International Women's Week, call on a woman?
Q: Speaker Pelosi, I wanted to ask you, in January, after the insurrection at the Capitol, you said that future security threats, that was something that was in the House. So the security threats were now in the House. I'm wondering what evidence you have –
Speaker Pelosi. I have never – I've said that that has been alleged. I have never made any characterization of that. That remains for the FBI and others to investigate.
What have you got, Chad?
Q: Thank you so much. So, yesterday, the House Administration Committee voted to continue its inquiry into the Iowa Second Congressional District.
Speaker Pelosi. That's right. That's right.
Q: Could you see a scenario, depending on what they find in their probe, of unseating the current Member and seating Rita Hart if it came to that?
Speaker Pelosi. You know, Chad is always the hypothetical, ‘could you see a scenario.' We don't do press conferences on ‘can you see a scenario.' Of course, of course.
Q: That would be a pretty bold move to do that.
Speaker Pelosi. Yeah. Well, they have – I respect the work of the committee. I did see, as you saw in the press, what they decided. And they were following my, as I read it, the requirements of the law as to how you go forward. And how you go forward is the path you're on. And we'll see where that takes us. Yeah, but there could be a scenario to that extent, yes.
Thank you.
Q: On the minimum wage?
Staff. Thank you all.
Q: Will the Giants win the World Series?
Speaker Pelosi. Don't forget, $9.50, $11, $12.50, $14.
Q: Can I have a question on the minimum wage?
Speaker Pelosi. It takes all this time to get to $15 an hour. Carry this around in your head and think of how you could live on this, put food on the table, and have the dignity of your work respected.
Thank you all.
# # #