Skip to main content

Transcript of Pelosi Weekly Press Conference Today

July 10, 2014

Contact: Drew Hammill, 202-226-7616

Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi held her weekly press conference today in the Capitol Visitor Center. Below is a transcript of the press conference:

Leader Pelosi. Some good news this morning from the Commonwealth Fund – talks about the progress of the Affordable Care Act, of which I am very proud. It has already lowered the uninsured rate among young adults between 19 – well, overall, these are not young adults – between 19 and 64, from 20 percent to 13 percent among adults. Among younger people, it is even a greater reduction in uninsured. So we are very excited about that.

And in addition, the CBO expects the government to spend $50 billion less in Medicare this year than it expected to 4 years ago, thanks in part to the Affordable Care Act. That means $1,000 less for beneficiaries this year and $2,400 less for beneficiaries by 2019. So that is good news.

Other good news: as you see, when the President was sworn into office, the stock market was at about 7,000. Now over 4th of July, it reached over 17,000. More than double increase. Unemployment is down from around 10 when he took office to 6.1 percent now and going in the right direction with a positive jobs report. We have: the deficit is less than half of what it was when the President took office. So all of this going in the right direction.

But here we have the wrong direction being advocated by our Republican colleagues, despite all the progress being made. By no means are we satisfied, because America's working families are still not enjoying the benefits of an economy that works for everyone. So we have important work to do, but we are going in the right direction. In response, the Republicans want to sue the President. They have been resisting initiatives that would be enormous job creators. They have a mini highway bill that will take us into a rut rather than something our economy can ride on in a very positive way. And we have that opportunity to do so.

The Ex-Im Bank, they don't want reauthorize and fund, and that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs in our country too. The TRIA, which is about terrorism risk insurance: very important to growth in our country and investment in our country. And of course, the immigration bill, which for all the right reasons, we should be doing in terms of who we are as a nation and our values. But the business case for it is a very strong one. That is why the business community is so strongly for it.

In California, the agriculture, technology, hospitality industry and the rest, and every state in the union that now shares in all of those industries and others, would benefit from passing comprehensive immigration reform. On top of which, as CBO tells us, in the 10-year life of the bill, we would reduce the deficit by nearly $1 trillion. So in addition to the Bible, the faith based groups who support this; the badges, the law enforcement leadership that supports the legislation; the B, the third B – the business community takes what it means to our economy: strong. Wrong direction on the part of the Republicans.

We have two issues: I mentioned the Highway Trust Fund. They are coming up with it, which will expire. They are talking about a mini bill until next year, to kick the can a little bit, not even down the road but down the path a little bit, instead of embracing what the outside – what the business community, what everybody is saying that we need; what the Society of Civil Engineers says is a severe deficit in our infrastructure and transportation and our economy. Their response is so small, as I said to put us in a rut, rather than onto a road of economic growth.

And then, of course, we have the Supplemental, which is the subject at hand – something which should be brought up immediately, voted upon, and recognized as the emergency that it is. During the break I visited Brownsville, Texas, and saw the challenge that we are facing there. Little children. Little children coming across the border. And it is not a question of the border not being secure. These people are turning themselves in. They are not being captured. They are turning themselves in. So whatever you think of it, it is a humanitarian need.

No one speaks to it more eloquently than the National Catholic Conference of Bishops and their report on it. No one has stronger presentation on it than the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees calling these children "refugees." The bishops talk about baby Jesus fleeing violence. That is how they begin in the beginning of their report. And at end of their report, they say to send these children back would be like sending them into a burning building.

Well, in the meantime we have a challenge that we must meet: the Supplemental to take us a long way toward leading the humanitarian challenge that is there, having due process to send those back who should go back, and also help border security, which is our right as a country to secure our border from others who might exploit the situation that is there, taking advantage of the good nature and the compassion of the American people.

So this Supplemental is what everybody knows is needed. Hopefully it will dawn on the Republican leadership in the House, because that is where an appropriations bill must begin that we should provide forthwith. We can have the debate as to what we might want to add. I'm very pleased that the Supplemental has a least $600 million for wildfire – funds that are needed to fight wildfire and prevent it. I wish it weren't needed, but since it is, I am pleased that the Administration included that in their request.

So a full plate of what is happening. I am pleased to take any questions you may have.

***

Q: Madam Leader?

Leader Pelosi. I always respect the regulars.

Q: On the Supplemental. One policy change that was not included in the report, the request, that the White House has signaled it supports is altering the asylum and adjudication rules for a lot of these children from the non-contiguous countries that we're talking about. Will House Democrats be willing to sign onto an alteration of those rules so that it's – I don't want to say easier to send people back – but in the end, allows for the law to send more of those children back to where they came from? Because that seems to be a big part of the debate here.

Leader Pelosi. Well, I really do think all of this has to be done on a case by case basis, if somebody has a well-founded fear that they are a refugee. The purpose of the legislation that you're talking about altering was to address the trafficking issue. As you know, that Wilberforce law was passed practically unanimously in the House and the Senate and signed by President George W. Bush – one of the last bills he signed as President of the United States – a bill about values to stop the trafficking.

So, quite frankly, if they wanted to make it uniform, I would rather they treated the Mexican kids the way they treated the non-contiguous countries. Really, what's important is to get the Supplemental. What price we have to pay to do that – we'll see in the course of the debate. But I would have hoped that they would not have made that change. I don't think – it's not a deal breaker.

Q: And that's a part of the question, because as you know, Republicans have said: if the President wants this money there have to be policy changes. And this is one of the areas they've glommed onto – not necessarily to make the non-contiguous policy the same as Mexico, but to make it easier for Border Patrol or Customs or whoever to turn them around. And that's something Democrats can do?

Leader Pelosi. Again, what I would like to see, rather see than that, is to have in-country processing in the countries where the violence is taking place, in Honduras and Guatemala and El Salvador, instead of families sending their child across the desert, the whole country of Mexico to come to the United States. Why don't we have in-country processing, so we can say: you really don't have a well-founded – it's not going to work for you, so don't risk your life on something that you are not understanding. In order to do that, and to live up to our values, though, we have to have due process. You have to have representation. You know, if you were in a similar situation you'd rather have a lawyer plead your case than you plead your case – no offense, but you'd rather have somebody who knows the law deal with it.

Some of these children do not only not speak English, they don't speak Spanish. They speak indigenous languages and the rest. So if we're going to address the humanitarian crisis, we can do so in-country. We could look at the Mexico border with these other countries, and see how can we say, at that point – get the cooperation of those countries and Mexico – at that point: ‘There's no use – if you think that somebody told you you're going to get into the United States and stay and the rest, make sure you take inventory of what your case is. And it's not worth the trip.'

Let me tell you: I saw all these children – I mentioned it to you last time we met, or did we? Have we talked about this? It's so heartbreaking. One of my colleagues said there was nothing to compare to it emotionally for him other than to be there when his father died. It's heartrending. And it's about the children. And as I said: read the National Conference of Catholic Bishops – so eloquent and beautiful on this subject. And I met with many of the advocacy groups there, and the bishop of Brownsville. The conference report is written by the Bishop of El Paso. It's beautiful.

But make no mistake, if they want to say: ‘Well, contiguous versus non-contiguous, that's the price that we want to exact,' what's their point? Do you lessen the due process that kids would have? Or is it to send a message to those countries to say: ‘Don't think that this is going to be easy.' If it's about message, okay, whatever message we can send to keep people home who shouldn't be trying to get into the country under the Wilberforce law. But the fact is, whoever is there is there. Whoever is here is a challenge to us, and we need the Supplemental because these kids are in these detention centers. They're not a good place for children to be for any period of time. By law, it should be 72 hours. But in fact, unless there's absorptive capacity to take them from stage one to stage two, which is more like a cot and a meal and all that, rather than just honoring the Flores law, which says they have to have one hot meal a day – you would have to see it to see how necessary it is to get the Supplemental funds to get them to the next stage, and hopefully in as short a period of time, either sent back or sent into, if they qualify, a situation here.

But we don't want the message down in those countries to be: ‘You can come. It will take six years to resolve your case, and at least you have six years.' No. This is going to be expedited, and the Supplemental helps to expedite that, because it has the resources in it to do it. So any question the people have about ‘they should go back,' ‘I want this to go faster,' the answer to all of the questions is the Supplemental: I care about the children – the Supplemental. I care about them going home; they should have due process – it's in the bill. I care about securing our border; it's in the bill.

So it's about the Department of Homeland Security. And by the way, the Border Patrol is doing an excellent job. They deserve great kudos for what they have done to deal with this – maybe three times more than last year – 29,000 last year, maybe 90,000 – more than three times this year of these children. So, it's Department of Homeland Security, of which the Border Patrol is a part; it's the Department of Health and Human Services which has the responsibility under the Wilberforce law to take these children in 72 hours more or less – and unfortunately in some cases, it's more – and the law is 72 hours. And, it's the Department of Justice to have more judges, more due process and the rest.

So, the Supplemental goes a very long way to resolving many of the challenges that are there, including sending an important message: that America is a great country and our greatness is about being humanitarian and stopping trafficking and all that, but also that we won't be taken advantage of by using that good bill and our good nature for people to exploit the situation.

Q: Madam Leader, when you were Speaker, there was a contingent in the Democratic Caucus, very vocal, about 38 Members, who pushed for you to move articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush. We are hearing a similar call from the hard right in the Republican Party. How did you go about your decision to sort of say that was off the table at the time, versus what we are hearing now from the hard right in the Republican Party pushing the current Speaker to move articles?

Leader Pelosi. The argument against President Bush was about a President and an Administration that sent us into a war based on a false representation of the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That's a major accusation against the President. And I, myself, said that at the time, you know, in 2002 when the bill came up the evidence, the intelligence does not support the threat that the President – not the President, his Administration is contending.

Having said that, it's not about impeaching the President. It's about putting the country through that. I thought what the Republicans did to President Clinton was shameful, irresponsible, and wrong for the country. And what he did was stupid, but it had nothing to do with public policy and his office – his responsibility and his office.

I do think people could have made a case about President Bush, but I didn't want to go down that path because of what it would mean to the American people. They just tried to impeach – well, we did impeach, but didn't remove from office – one President in a very irresponsible manner, in my view, on the part of the Republicans in the House at the time. And I thought it was time for us to address – try to end that war, which we voted to do and the President vetoed our bill. But to deal with it on the policy in a policy way rather than take us down that path.

So for even Republicans now to be talking about suing the President, what are we talking about here? Let's get to work. We are legislators. They're not effective legislators so they are changing the subject all the time. But the fact is, when it comes to executive orders, President Reagan had 381 executive orders. President George W. Bush had 291. President Obama has 181, with two years to go in his term. So this is, again, substitute. It is a distraction. It is: ‘I don't know how to do what I am supposed to do here, so let me think of something else to do.' It is totally irresponsible of them to be suing the President.

And the reason, to go back to your question, I did not encourage those who wanted to move to impeach the President, although they had an argument, was that it wasn't something that I wanted to put the country through. It was an opportunity cost of great magnitude in terms of what we are here to do to meet the needs of the people at the cost to our reputation in the world. We get a new President and we will find a reason to impeach him? Although, I will say that the case against what the Republican Administration did – taking us to war in what they knew was a false premise – was far more serious than anything that Bill Clinton did in his off-hours.

Q: Madam Leader, I wanted to go back to the question Todd asked. I am a little unclear here. This is an issue that is dividing your caucus where have folks like Representative Cuellar who is partnering with John Cornyn, his Senator in Texas, about switching the 2008 law so that it would extend past Canada and Mexico to these countries. You have folks like Raul Grijalva and Zoe Lofgren in your Caucus who say they don't want that change at all; they like it the way it is. Where do you fall on that? Are you more with Zoe Lofgren and Raul Grijalva or are you more with Representative Cuellar?

Leader Pelosi. Let me just totally disagree with your premise that it is dividing our caucus. One of our Members has a different view. For most members, they are just finding out a lot about the distinction between contiguous and noncontiguous, as the American people may or may not be aware. But it isn't dividing our Caucus. And what is important is that we all want to have the supplemental passed.

Should any law be subjected to review as to whether this is a good idea? When I was in Brownsville, the people there said to me: Can you make the law the same for the Mexican children so that they're not summarily sent back? So my inclination would have been, as I said to you, is to take it in the other direction of case-by-case, what is worthy of consideration? When I say worthy – who meets the standards of being able to stay here?

But that is not dividing our Caucus. Understand this: They understand this is a humanitarian crisis. This isn't about politics. It isn't about anything like that. You can have a different view about the value of a provision of the law – and as I said, it's not something that would be a deal breaker as we go forward. It's not something that the Catholic Conference of Bishops, the humanitarians, [or] anybody who really cares about what the priorities should be right now. Should it be a priority? If that's the face saver for them, let them have their face saver; but let us have the resources to do what we have to do. So one dissident voice does not make a divided caucus. Unanimity is not ever our goal. Consensus is.

Q: You would be okay though with the change occurring if that meant having a larger bill?

Leader Pelosi. I don't think it should be a priority. But as I said, it's not a deal breaker. What is important right now: Time is important and time means if we can pass this very soon.

Q: Where do you fall on the bill?

Leader Pelosi. Quite frankly, I think that the Republicans want to do worse. If so, if that is the path that they take – as long as we have a supplemental to have the due process, to have judges, to expedite the proceedings – again, let's mitigate for that change with increased resources to due process and for more judges.

Q: Where do you fall on it though personally?

Leader Pelosi. I don't support it, but it's not, you know – in other words, there is an emergency. There is a burning building. We have to put out the fire. I'm not having to have a conversation about the color of the buckets that the water is in. This is very big in terms of these children.

As you probably know by now that when it comes to children from my standpoint, I'm like a lioness. Just don't mess with the children. Okay? You want to talk about contiguous or noncontiguous. Talk about it all day. But give us some money to deal with it and let's mitigate for what, in my view, negative aspects that change might have on those kids by expediting the process of reviewing their cases on a case-by-case basis. And there are criteria within the bill that are very clear: This didn't say everybody come running here who has a problem wherever you are. It has very specific standards that somebody would have to meet in order to qualify for that.

So that's not the story. That's not the story. One person in our Caucus has a different view – maybe a couple do. But as I said, if I waited around for unanimity we would never move. Consensus is what we strive for.

Yes, sir?

Q: Leader Pelosi, a question on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. A number of gay rights groups announced this week that they are withdrawing support from the bill out of concern over its religious exemption. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force actually now opposes the bill. Are you aware of this controversy and how would you vote on this bill if it came to the House floor?

Leader Pelosi. Let me just say the choice that we have, because it is all about choices here. When you are an advocate, 100 percent is your goal. When you have to make a vote, the bill that we have is one that passed the Senate in a bipartisan way. I think that has a big value. And if we were able to pass it, send it to the President and get it on his desk. There are aspects of it I did not like, and I did not have in the 2007 bill that we passed in the House of Representatives. I would like to see that bill. But it is a question of timing. Right now, we could get this bill and then deal with some of the concerns that are in it which has been inflamed by the Supreme Court decision of last week. So I'll be in consultation, as I always am, with my members and also with our friends who advocate for this.

So when we came in, we said we were going to do four things: one, an all-inclusive hate crimes bill. All inclusive. They said you could get a hate crimes bill in a minute if you took out transgender. I said: Well, I might be able to get a bill in a minute, but you are not going to get a bill in 100 years without transgender because transgender must be in the bill. And we got that.

One the next priorities was ENDA, and we passed it in the House at that time. Then the groups came later and said, "we would rather you do Don't Ask Don't Tell," which was another of the priorities. We would rather you do Don't Ask Don't Tell as a priority, which we effectively did, and that is a real tribute to the leadership of President Barack Obama. He really was a great leader on that subject. That is where many of our House Members who voted courageously on it – for some of us it didn't take any courage; it was a matter of pride. Coming through with hate crimes, on Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal. Such an exciting thing.

Now back to ENDA. And this is what the Senate can pass. So the choice is do we go for this or should we – I am a friend. I am a friend on this because this is really, really very important to me as it always has been. I can't even believe is that it should even be necessary to have – that we still need such a bill, but it is. And in states where it exists, it has not had any of the consequences that Speaker Boehner said: job killer whatever, this, that and the other thing. No. It has worked very well.

We want it to be a national law. And so we're going to carefully review what the options are. They could include: do we want to give up on this? We have Republican cosponsors on the bill. Overwhelming sponsorship in the House among the House Democrats. We have an opportunity. Or we can go to a place where we might not have Republican cosponsors without the clause. I don't even how to characterize it, because I don't agree with it. But nonetheless, we could go to that place and be starting in an earlier place not knowing if that could pass in the Senate. But those are…

Q: Are you still hoping for a bill?

Leader Pelosi. I would love to see [it], it's such a hypothetical that they would even bring up a bill here, why don't we just see what our options are and I will tell you where I am on it. I supported the bill. I was celebrating with Tammy Baldwin and others who have been advocates on this when it passed the Senate. And I think it was a good result. It's not the 100 percent result that we would like, but again, it is a legislative process.

But I respect the concerns that advocates have put forth about it. So we will see what our options are. And part of saying that is counting the votes. What do we have on the Republican side in the House if we change the bill and go to another place? And that's really where it lies, because we have the Democratic votes. So can you tell me how many Republican votes we would have if we changed back to the bill we had in 2007, which was minus the conscience clause? Recall, at the time, it was all transgender. That's why we couldn't pass anything in the Senate. So we want transgender and they want a conscience clause. I don't know what it is about conscience that you would be biased against people in employment?

But nonetheless, I appreciate your interest in the subject. It's very important to me and to our country that we – and again, why is it even a debate that we would remove discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and identity? I mean, I don't even know why it is a debate but again; it is so that is what we have to deal with. It always comes down to the same thing: the votes.

Yes, ma'am?

Q: I just want to follow up on Chris' question. Just to clarify, are you saying that at this time, you personally would support that bill if it came up in the House?

Leader Pelosi. What difference does it make?

Q: Because what you have to say carries a lot of weight.

Leader Pelosi. Well, I have to ask 200 of my Members to sign on as cosponsors. The groups were all for that – not all, there were some who didn't. But by and large, the community supported it. Yes, I think it would be a great advance if we could get that bill, but there is resistance now because of a change in the dynamic in terms of fear of the court. And really, we should be afraid of this court. The five guys who start determining what contraceptions are legal. Let's not even go there. It is so stunning and, of course, this is more like the Wheaton decision a few days later which was also problematic. But that court decision was a frightening one. That five men could get down to specifics of whether a woman should use a diaphragm and she should pay for it herself or her boss. It's not her boss's business. The business is whatever his business is, but it's not what contraception she uses.

So the court decision is – we are all taken aback by it. So we will meet and build our consensus around what we would do. But before the court decision, yeah, I would say I would have voted for the bill as I celebrated its passage in the United States Senate because it is a giant step forward. Again, not what we want, but what we could get passed. And that's what legislation is.

And at some point, as leaders, you have to make a decision to say should we just get nothing around here because this is the order of the day? The agenda is nothing and the timetable is never. Or, do we put the pressure on to say bring the bill to the floor? It could be on the President's desk in five minutes and we can have – again, I'd go back to the Civil Rights bill. You know the story. It couldn't contain the Voting Rights Act and had to save that for the next Congress. But they were able to get the Civil Rights bill and that was an important decision that was made. We can't get it all. Should we go for the Civil Rights Act and then get the other parts of civil rights, the Voting Rights Act, in the end? And it was only a matter of months that they got it.

And by the way, they are not bringing up the Voting Rights Act. That passed almost unanimously in the House, unanimously I believe in the Senate, over 400 votes in the House when we passed it in 2006. [In] 2007, the Court said it was obsolete. By 2012 did they decide on it? It is ridiculous. We should have been able to correct that instantaneously in the Congress. We have a bipartisan bill to do it. Does it do everything we want to do for voting rights? No. Is it a bill that can pass? Yes. Mr. Sensenbrenner, it is bipartisan. It is a bill that can pass. And it is a standard that the Republicans should be able to meet. It doesn't take them to a place that they could never want to go on it. They have already been there in large numbers.

So understand where we live and what is going on here. And if people don't like that, they should just work really hard in the election to persuade Democrats and Republicans – well, the Democrats are there – but persuade Republicans to be for them on this in order to get their support in the election. Unless there is a political price to pay, people don't change where they are. They don't really think what the situation is. So, yeah, I'd like love to see the cleanest bill possible. That's what I passed when I was Speaker.

Q: But for you personally, the Senate ENDA bill is better than nothing at this point?

Leader Pelosi. I think so. Again, yes. I'm speaking from the standpoint of a legislator. I used to be on the streets. I was an advocate. I had the sign "30 years: Single payer, single payer, single payer." I never heard of single payer. And we have a bill – everybody has to make an accommodation because you know what? We only represent one district, and my district is probably a district that opposes the Senate bill more than any district in the country. But nonetheless, what is the opportunity cost? What happens if we don't pass anything? Is that a good outcome? That's what we have to decide.

But people have come a way on it and I think the Senate Republicans who voted for it did so in good faith. I don't know if that provision – maybe with more education and people – maybe your point is if the advocacy groups want to weigh in in a substantial political way. The public sentiment is everything. You have to persuade not only the legislators but the American people. Did you know that people in our country are discriminated against on the basis of whether they are LGBT community members or not? Most people probably do not think that is the case, but it is the case. And we need the bill.

And, again, I'm speaking as a legislator, not as an advocate. I don't want to diminish the accomplishment that the Senate made. I don't want to diminish the fact that we were able to get some Republican cosponsors on this legislation. But I also value the collaboration and the hearing from folks. If not this, then what is the path? And understanding what the commitment is all around.

Our Democratic votes are solid with or without the clause. So I just want to get Republican votes right now. Or else, win the election and then have a bill. But you still have to deal with 60 votes in the Senate and that's hard for people to understand. But it is the case.

In any event, let's get this supplemental passed. The fact is the American people are concerned about the possibilities right now, and all of these great job figures that I mentioned about the stock market going from 7,000 to 17,000, with the ingenuity of the American people and the leadership of President Obama, with the deficit in half, with unemployment from 10 to 6.1 percent and going in the right direction, with all of these healthcare costs going down, uninsured people's numbers going down and the rest. We need to do more to create jobs. The highway bill is one important way. Reauthorizing Ex-Im Bank is another important way. TRIA, passing that is another important way. Passing immigration reform is an important way.

We can sit around and talk all day about contiguous and one thing or another, but the fact is: we are spinning our wheels because nothing is happening. So we are having a theoretical discussion unless they really decide to bring something to the floor. And I think that the obstruction and the do-nothingism is something that we really have to address more than what my personal view is on the subject. My personal view on the subject probably can't pass the Senate. So there we are. But, thank you all very much.

# # #

Issues:Health Care