Skip to main content

Transcript of Pelosi Weekly Press Conference Today

July 25, 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. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning.

One week ago House Democrats stood on the steps of the Capitol to launch our Middle Class Jumpstart. Yesterday was the five-year anniversary of the last increase in the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage is a very important part of our Middle Class Jumpstart. It goes along with the creation of jobs, building America, infrastructure, broadband, bridges, rivers, high-speed rail, water systems and the rest.

While we're on the steps, as I mentioned last week, at the same time the Republicans were in the Capitol planning to sue the President of the United States – those two visions of what we live by every day around here: Democrats for progress, for creating jobs; Republicans for process and obstruction, obstructing the President. While we are trying to end tax cuts that Republicans support that send jobs overseas, Democrats support tax incentives to keep jobs here. We are about, again, building infrastructure. And When Women Succeed, America Succeeds is at the heart and is central to our Middle Class Jumpstart. And that, again, has the minimum wage in there, as well as equal pay for equal work, earned sick leave, and what I think is the missing link in the evolution of women in the workplace: affordable, quality child care. It has legislation to do all of these things.

Again, the innovation, the entrepreneurship to make all of this happen to keep America number one begins in the classroom, and we have legislation to make college more affordable by reducing interest rates. Again, while all this is possible to be done in a bipartisan way, the Republicans keep harping on their anti-Obama agenda. It is not just against the President; it is against the interests of the American people.

We know that we can work together. Building infrastructure has never been a partisan issue until now. So when we passed minimum wage when we had the majority, President Bush signed that. We had bipartisan coming together over time.

Yesterday also was a day – some of you were there; I guess those who were there are not here now – we met with two of the Central American Presidents, President Hernandez of Honduras and President Perez Molina of Guatemala, and [a representative of the President] of El Salvador, who had not arrived in Washington yet. They told us their perspective of what's happening at the border, and we told them ours.

We are hoping that we can have bipartisan cooperation on a supplemental that addresses the humanitarian needs of the children; that provides due process, as well as representation, as well as judges to quickly hear their case and cases; and that we protect our border; and that when a decision is made about these children, if it is to return them home, to do so in a way that repatriates them quickly back into their country. Hopefully we can, as the Administration, I think, is considering – according to the press – process them in the home country so that they can find out what their legal standing is and prospects are before they make the trek across the desert, across the whole country of Mexico.

I think I will stop here and just take any questions you have, because it's Friday morning, and we have young people coming in to tell us their view of how we go forward, and I hope we can handle this more quickly.

***

Q: Good morning. With August and the recess approaching, what do you say to your constituents and the public about a lack of accomplishments on Capitol Hill?

Leader Pelosi. Well, I think my constituents, but broader to the public, should know that we are engaged in a drive-by Congress. We are hardly ever here, and when we are, we are engaged in process, not progress. It's absolutely shameful that opportunities for job creation – which is what the American people want us to do: create jobs, get growth in our economy so that we have a good jumpstart to the middle class – we are going to be in just a few days this month and next month. We are in 12 days in September. And now the Speaker – there is rumor that the Speaker may cut off the last week of that 12 days. That's not responsible. That's not responsible.

So there is a choice to be made as we go forward. It's: do we want bipartisan cooperation to get the job done for the American people, or do we want to obstruct and be absent, to be missing in action for addressing the needs of the American people? It's about progress versus obstruction. It's about bipartisanship versus obstruction.

And people know. I think that more and more the public is aware of the Republican obstructionism here. But that's not good enough. We all have to keep trying and keep trying to find bipartisanship, and one place we can do that is on this border issue. I know Republicans across the country care about those children. I know some of our Republican colleagues do. Hopefully we can, at least from our values of who we are, and how we treat children, and how we respect our own due process and our country, at least have that as a basis for coming together.

Yes, ma'am?

Q: I know in the past you said that you wanted to see the supplemental go through before any changes to the 2008 anti-trafficking law were discussed. And now Kay Granger has put out her recommendations. It does include changes. Is there any way Democrats can get on board if it means getting a deal before the August recess versus leaving and not really addressing the money issue or any solution to the children on the border?

Leader Pelosi. Well, is there any way that the Republicans would be on board to address the humanitarian needs of the children? Because that should be a priority. But let me say: these are different laws that we're addressing. One is to address the needs, and we need a supplemental to do that because we have an emergency situation that needs to be addressed.

Secondly, we're talking about immigration law. What's happening at the border is a case for passing comprehensive immigration reform. Some are using it as an excuse not to pass immigration reform, and people do, but they said they are not going to do it. But they should not take any hope in saying that because of this, we can't pass it. Because of this we must pass comprehensive immigration reform.

And in the context of that, when you take up the 2008 law, what is its purpose? What is the damage that it has done to just – in a clause in another bill, without the proper review, what does it do to change that law? Because, you know, it relates not just to the supplemental; it relates to the American position on refugees and asylum seekers from around the world. Do we want to check out of that and say to other countries, you take them, but don't talk to us about that?

So, again, it's important to see what the purpose is; to have a regular order of a congressional review, hearings, et cetera. That's everything. Every law we pass is subjected to review or looking back review.

So I think those are two different things. If you want to talk immigration, talk immigration. If you want to honor the values of our country in terms of humanitarianism and due process, pass the other bill. There's no reason why they have to be tied. And I hope that the Republicans will come to that conclusion. And we are waiting to see what they will put forth. What can they pass in their own Caucus?

Yes, sir?

Q: That said, Jeh Johnson said very clearly this week that he wants changes to the '08 law, and he's talking to Congress about doing it in the context of this crisis at the border. Are you involved in those talks at all, and do you know what they want to do with the '08 law?

Leader Pelosi. Did he say he wanted it in the supplemental?

Q: No.

Leader Pelosi. That's what I'm saying.

Q: He wants to do it parallel. He's doing it in the context of the crisis at the border.

Leader Pelosi. I do not think these children should be held hostage to a discussion that should be taking place over here. Whatever he is suggesting is properly discussed in the context of immigration law, and if they even want to say: "We're not going to do comprehensive immigration reform, but we'll give the proper congressional order to reviewing this, rather than making it the price for children to pay in order to have humanitarian assistance."

Q: Do you know what changes they would like to make?

Leader Pelosi. Who?

Q: The Administration.

Leader Pelosi. No. I mean, I've read what you have printed in the paper. I'll be seeing him shortly on another matter, and I'll ask him about that. But I don't know whether he's speaking to expediency, or "we've got to get the supplemental, so let's open our minds to this," or if they really believe that we should be reviewing asylum and refugee policy. I think it's probably the former, but I don't know.

Okay? Anything else? That's it?

Q: Could you clarify, would you accept changes in the '08 law as the price for a deal on the supplemental, no matter what the process or linkage between the two is?

Leader Pelosi. You know, let me just say this, because is where we started this discussion: The President put forth a supplemental that met the needs of the emergency situation that we have on the border. It mitigated for some of the harm that can be done to children. It was comprehensive. It was about humanitarian assistance, due process, protect our border, repatriate the children safely by addressing their return to their home countries.

The Senate has, I think, although less money, lesser forces for a shorter period of time. So it is commensurate, even a better bill with just due process, with more assistance for representation and more judges to hear the cases more expeditiously. But either one of those two bills is what I would support.

And, again, whatever the bill is that comes forth we'll all review very carefully. It's not a question of: Do you support this if it is in a bill? But we do not have any idea what else is in the bill, I can't answer that. When I see the bill, I'll let you know. But I very strongly believe that it would be a mistake for us to do immigration law in a supplemental bill. We're not supposed to be legislating on an appropriations bill. We hear that every day on the floor when we try to include the legislation that they had put on appropriations bills. For them it's okay; for us it is not.

But it's not a good place to insert a clause that has such ramifications on a bill that has nothing to do really with the values that are put forth in the Wilberforce law. So, again, let's just keep them separate. Immigration?Immigration. You want to have a separate bill on 2008? Discuss it there. But, again, don't hold the children hostage to the cosmetics of how tough you are on the border, because these are children coming over the border. They're children.

And as I said to you before, the National Catholic Conference of Bishops compared this to baby Jesus fleeing violence. You can even speak about, if it's your tradition, Moses. What would we do if Moses had not been accepted by the Pharaoh's family? We wouldn't have the Ten Commandments for starters. But you understand my point? Historically we have a challenge, and we have examples of humanitarian assistance that should guide us in all of this.

The 2008 bill had strong Republican support. They were – many of them were the initiators. We had champions on the Republican side of the aisle who had been there for human rights and respects the refugees and asylum seekers. They are in the top of people in the country, in the world, advocating for that. So I trust the values that many of them have in the Congress. I hope that that in their caucus they will have as well.

We have to weigh equities. The equity we have to weigh is here: Are we going to live up to our responsibilities for humanitarian assistance, due process and the rest, or are we going to take a cheap shot at kids?

I do think that it really is important – and I respect the fact that there's not been enough of explanation, there are too many back and forths on it – that the American people and they, in the goodness of their hearts, are humanitarian and would like to see this happen, but they shouldn't think it happens at the expense of our border security. And that's the case that has to be made, because, again, when people react to something with sometimes insufficient knowledge and sometimes with well-founded concern, we have to have that national discussion about why this is important.

As I say to you over and over again, President Lincoln said that public sentiment is everything. And we should try to come to a bill that brings us all together, including our country. I think we have the values here to be capable to do that; we are just waiting to see what the Republicans put forth.

Do you have a follow up?

Q: Yes. Two weeks ago at this podium you said that changes to the '08 law would not be a deal breaker, and that that

Leader Pelosi. Didn't I just answer that?

Q: No. You said that that would be the face saver that the Republicans needed, that the Democrats would be willing to accept it. I am just asking what has changed in the past two weeks?

Leader Pelosi. We haven't seen the bill. You asked me about the President's bill, right?

Q: Uh huh. I'm following up on his question, not my own.

Leader Pelosi. I understand. But you are talking about a question I answered when you asked about the President's bill. We don't have the President's bill. We're waiting to see what bill we have.

So, again, as I said earlier, the bill mitigates for the damage that it causes in one way and another. And believe me, the last thing I need at the start of the discussion is for the Republicans to say: "She drew a line in the sand. There is no way we can go down this path now." So in the context of this debate, my priorities are the children, and I want to see what they're going to do about helping the children. And if that seems inconsistent to you, I reserve the right to be inconsistent when we're talking about two different bills, maybe three, maybe four. We have the President's bill and the Senate bill, and we have yet to see the Republican proposal.

Q: Just really quickly, there's about four voting days left, I believe. I understand that there's a lot of hope that it gets done and it's very, very important. But do you actually believe that there's a chance that a vote on some sort of supplemental bill could happen before the August recess?

Leader Pelosi. Yes, I do. I am ever hopeful, because I believe in the good faith that many of my Republicans colleagues have on these issues. And I know that the American people, for all the concern they have with one aspect or the other of what's going on, want to help the children as well. And you have – don't take it from me – outside validation, the National Catholic Conference of Bishops, Save the Children, the list goes on and on, about people who care about this.

And I mentioned that I met with the Presidents of the countries yesterday, the Central American countries yesterday, but I also met with the mayors and elected officials and leaders from the border, from that area. I had visited many of them in Brownsville a few weeks ago, and now they came to Washington to further advance the cause: The representative of the Jesuit Refugee Service, the head of the Jesuits in that regard; Sister Norma [Pimentel] from Catholic Charities; and then the mayors, Mayor Martinez of Brownsville, Mayor Garcia of Edinburg, a number of elected officials, to hear what they had to say the impact of this is on their area.

I've always believed two things, because I've been there many times, to McAllen, to all of those places, to El Paso, to Laredo any number of times. When you're there, you understand what an important part of America our border is. It's a community with a border running through it. It's about a tremendous cultural connection. It's about very, very strong commercial relationships. The commerce between Mexico and the U.S. that is facilitated there is really important. They're very excited that they have SpaceX now coming out of Brownsville. The future is a very entrepreneurial venture there.

So they see themselves in such a positive way, and as we debate this, we must respect that part of America that is so valued. And that's just another equity to weigh: How do the people of the region – how are they affected in terms of how we deal with the humanitarian? It could happen any other place in the world. If children were fleeing violence in another part of the world, we know that the American people would say, what can we do about that? And that's what we're hearing now.

So I'm ever hopeful and prayerful that the outside validations, those who care about this, who have a good rapport with all Members of Congress – well, many Members of Congress, but certainly within the Republican Caucus – will be persuasive in having us honor who we are: A nation of immigrants constantly being revitalized by newcomers coming to our country, making our country more American by their commitment to family and faith and optimism and determination.

So seeing it in the sense of how it fits into who we are as a country, what our values are, how we have succeeded, and how this, again, is a part of our country, I believe that it's possible that they can come forth with something where we can find common ground. But we haven't seen that yet. I only hope that they don't go with the convoy theory – go as slow as the slowest ship in their convoy – because if they do that, then we won't be able to achieve what we need to achieve in a timely fashion to help the children, to save the children, to do as the bishops admonish us to do: Make the best interest determination that is in the best interests of the children. And that's what we have to do, consistent with our values, consistent with our laws, and very soon.

Thank you all very much.

# # #