Transcript of Pelosi Weekly Press Conference Today
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.
I think you would probably agree that the closing hours, yesterday and today, before we leave for the August District Work Period, are a mess on the floor of the House. Yesterday we spoke to you about the fact that the Republicans do not have time to raise the minimum wage, but they have time to sue the President of the United States. They do not have money to feed the children, help the American people, but they want a blank check to sue the President. They have lost moral standing with what's happening on the border, and they have no standing in suing the President.
That is sort of the framework for how they go forward. It's very sad because there is a very strong bipartisan place that we can come together on addressing the situation at the border to turn that challenge into an opportunity, display the values of our country to have due process, to provide humanitarian assistance as we go forward.
Instead, on the floor of the House today, to follow up on their tirade against the poor children, they have a bill that is so bad, but is not bad enough for some of their outside groups to whom they pander. And so in order to sweeten the pie for them and intensify the harm for the children, they have added another bill to follow the supplemental that they have on the floor, the supplemental that does not track humanitarian assistance, due process, assistance to repatriate these children back to their own countries in a safe way. It only tracks more on the border without helping to resolve the humanitarian challenge that we have.
And, again, if that bill were not bad enough, they are saying to their Members: "Unless you vote for this terrible bill, even though you don't think it's terrible enough, you're not going to get a chance to tie the President's hands when it comes to using his discretion and executive authority to improve the situation."
Then, of course, we have the highway bill, a bill that comes to us from the Senate with strong bipartisan support. A majority of the Republicans in the Senate have voted to support the Senate bill. Seventy nine votes in the Senate. How much more strongly bipartisan can you get? And really typical of our work on infrastructure and highways before, because it has never really been that partisan. So the bill comes over to us, it actually very closely mirrors our Motion to Recommit that our Members voted for when the highway bill came to the floor before, and now they're bringing a motion to the floor to disagree to the Senate language – disagree to the Senate bipartisan, overwhelming and majority of Republicans in the Senate, 79 vote bill. Republicans and Democrats in the Senate support it. Business and labor on the outside support the Senate bill. We have an opportunity to reject what the Republicans are offering, support the Senate bill, and go home with the best possible – in this framework – best possible way to proceed to eventually, by the end of this year, have a stronger bill for a longer period of time.
If the actions of the leadership is simply to reject the Senate bill, that will mean that states will lose, in the course of the next weeks, 28 percent of their funding. Twenty eight percent. What we want to do is have long term solutions so we are not stoking uncertainty, so that we are encouraging investment and building the infrastructure of our country. Instead we have child's play. Really sad. But I am hoping that at the end of the day, we can come to agreement.
One thing to note about this is here they go again. You may recall that the rules of the House say that if there is a true – if the House and the Senate are in true disagreement on legislation – that any Member in the House can call for the Senate bill to be brought up on the floor. Remember that? And remember that before, they wrote a rule trumping the House rule that says only the Majority Leader would have that privilege, depriving 434 other people of that privilege. They are doing the same thing on the highway bill today. The rule that's coming to the floor dishonors the rules of the House that give that privilege to any Member, and says only the Majority Leader will have the right to bring it up, which means, of course, that it will not be brought up. Perhaps you saw our Ranking Member on Budget, Chris Van Hollen, on the floor. He has been our spokesperson on this because he has bore the brunt of it in the past.
And so, again, with the lack of seriousness about legislating, trying to reach bipartisan agreement, trying to solve problems to provide opportunity for people in our country – instead, we're wasting taxpayers' money, giving a blank check for a lawsuit that is a road to impeachment. They can take that off the table any time they want, but they haven't.
Secondly, that uses time that could be spent to raise the minimum wage, pass legislation, equal pay for equal work, the Paycheck Fairness Act, provide unemployment benefits for long term unemployed, pass comprehensive immigration reform – which would resolve many of the challenges we face now at the border. The list goes on. Pass, pass – this is heartbreaking – the Voting Rights Act, which has bipartisan support. Pass it. Instead they want to use their time on something on which they have no standing, and that is suing the President. And by their actions with this supplemental bill, they really have no standing to talk about meeting our moral obligations to have a humanitarian solution to the problem at the border.
Any questions?
Yes, sir.
***
Q: Madam Leader, Congress is going to be going home for five weeks. We don't know what they're going to do in the next – until the election. The approval ratings are at record lows.
Leader Pelosi. Right.
Q: What do you think – what is the impact of Congress' standing right now with the American people on this institution as a democratic institution?
Leader Pelosi. Well, I thank you for your question, because the impact of it goes beyond their impression of Congress. It's about the confidence that they have in our system, the confidence that they have in voting, that elections matter, and that people fought hard for the right to vote, and now it seems hard to get people to vote because of the skepticism that they have.
But this is a tactic. It's always been a tactic of those who are anti-governance and anti-government. And here we have a majority in the House; I speak to the House, that is anti-governance, anti-science, and anti-Barack Obama. And so that gives them a comfort level to do nothing. As I said to you before: nothing is their agenda, and never is [their] timetable with this President.
But that is a luxury neither they nor the country can afford. We have a responsibility to work together, and we never did that. We had disagreed with President Bush on the war in Iraq and privatizing Social Security, but we worked with him on many things. So this is something almost new in terms of abandoning the debate. We've always had in our country a healthy debate of the role of the Federal Government in the life of our society, our economy, our country. This is something beyond that. This is, again, anti-governance, and you see it in everything they do.
A solution is there, it's bipartisan, on the highway bill. They reject it. A solution is there on the Voting Rights Act. It is bipartisan. They reject it. A solution is there on immigration reform. They reject it because they are anti-governance. And if you are anti-governance, what you want people to do is not participate in the electoral process.
The confusion, the negativity that can emanate from here in a congressional election year is one that is not conducive to people exercising their voting rights and having a debate. Elections are about two things, because you went right back to the election. Elections are about two things. They are about who wins, and that's up to the people to decide. But it's up to the candidates to decide to have a debate on what is at stake in the election, what are the values that we share or not, what are solutions for providing opportunity or not. But they don't want that debate because their answer is always no governance. And if they have that debate, that's a healthier one. So confusion and suppression of the debate, and negative attitudes toward Congress serves their purpose.
Now, having said that, historically Congress has been a marketplace of ideas where people have disagreed, and sometimes vehemently, and has been the subject of mockery. But this total rejection is something even new for the Congress of the United States.
Q: Leader Pelosi, you mentioned in your opening remarks that the [Speaker] should take impeachment off the table. But the Speaker has said he has no plans, no future plans…
Leader Pelosi. Take it off the table.
Q: He has called publicly for…
Leader Pelosi. Take it off the table.
Q: But aren't Democrats guilty of the same…
Leader Pelosi. No.
Q: …base rallying politics you're accusing Republicans of?
Leader Pelosi. No.
Q: Because you're raising money off this talk when the Speaker continues to say he…
Leader Pelosi. I want to tell you something. That money coming in is practically spontaneous. People are very upset. And I'm sorry to interrupt you, but every stipulation that you were making I don't agree to.
The fact is: why do you create a lawsuit? Because you want to find somebody culpable of something. So if that's not their point, and it is not a path to impeachment, all they have to do to say to their people – and ours, because they've activated our base – all they have to do is say to their people: it is off the table. I had to say that, with a great deal of courage, I might add, about the war in Iraq. There was plenty of case that people thought could be made against President Bush for taking us into war under a false premise and all the rest of that. But the fact is, for our country, we really needed to get moving and into the future.
They have a thing about impeachment. They impeached President Clinton. They said yesterday on the floor that that was the right thing to do. They said that on the floor yesterday, the Chairman of their Rules Committee. So all they have to do is take it off the table. You want to passionately defend the Speaker to say – well, he said "I don't feel like it, I might not." He said we weren't going to shut down the government. Remember that? Did you hold him to that? He said we are not going to shut down government, and we shut it down for 18 days.
So there is only one clear [way] to take it off the table. You have to take the heat with some of the people in your own party in the Congress and outside. But we owe the American people more than just this taking stuff to the limit the way they do, and that there is a way to get that done. And I can speak with firsthand experience for doing that.
And, again, people always think: "Why should you take anything off the table?" You should take impeachment off the table because it's not right for the American people. And there is no, there is no equivalence on our base reacting to their not taking it off the table, and that some of the people in their ranks are using that word.
Yes, sir. You had a turn last night. Okay. Go again. Reward the attendees.
Q: Thank you. So you make this case about the skepticism that people have of this unified governance premise here. You talk about their riding this impeachment horse, and the lawsuit horse and all these things going into the election?
Leader Pelosi. Yes.
Q: Why, from every political analysis that we see, and including top people in your party, don't believe that the Democrats have a message that can get the House of Representatives back. Government shut down – why are these things not resonating with the electorate and won't resonate this fall?
Leader Pelosi. Well, first of all, we need you to be messengers about what is actually going on here. But apart from that, we have come forward with our Middle Class Jumpstart. Over the month of August, we go forward with how the Jumpstart talks about bringing jobs home. The Republicans have tax breaks to send jobs overseas; Democrats want tax breaks to keep jobs here at home. We want to build the infrastructure of America by Build America Bonds, and pay for it by closing loopholes for special interests that the Republicans insist upon. The centerpiece of it is When Women Succeed, America Succeeds: raise the minimum wage; have equal pay for equal work; the balance between home and work; and affordable, quality child care that is good for America's families, men and women. And then invest in education to keep America number one, because all of the entrepreneurship, all of the innovation begins in the classroom. And that is to have the bill to lower the cost of interest payments, which the Republicans refuse to bring to the floor.
It would be an easy thing for them to bring the Tierney bill; it's Warren in the Senate. They can call it anything they want, but they should bring it to the floor so it lowers the cost of borrowing.
Basically, in the month of August, because this is when people start to pay attention – they, frankly, just really don't pay – they are busy people. Some of them have two jobs. They're trying to take care of their families. They're very busy. Most people don't pay attention a lot to the political scene. But we believe that our timing is appropriate because our message is one that at this point, when the public is saying: ‘I don't like what the Republicans are doing, what do you have to offer?' Now we are putting that forward. And we are very excited about the unity that we have in our party on that.
But let's be very honest: they probably are prepared to spend a billion dollars to crush our message in the media and to suppress and suffocate the airwaves so that confusion reigns. Money is very associated with the public perception of what is out there. And while they may not persuade the American people to their point of view, the confusion they cause as people throw up their arms and say: there's nothing in this for me.
I would say that their strategy of going after the President constantly is one that they have to energize their base, because in a low turnout election in an off year, base voting is important. But what they've also done is energized our base. And in much of what we see also just in this respect turned off the persuadable, who are neither base on one side or the other.
So, money is a big thing. They have a billion dollars to come after us, because why? I mean, why are people there? Because they don't want to raise the minimum wage. Because they don't want to have fair tax policy that has everyone paying their fair share because they want to perpetuate their special interest loopholes in the law – the tax expenditures that don't create jobs but increase the deficit; increase the deficit, because they want to go offshore – inversion offshore, where you make so much money in our country by dint of the education of the workforce, the roads and highways to take products to and from markets, the courts of law to resolve conflict. Everything that a democracy has to offer is where they have had their growth. Some of them have 90 percent of their business here, but they're going offshore, having an inversion so they don't have to pay their fair share of the defense of our country – of the defense of our country as well as the investments in the people of our country that help them make their profits.
So a billion dollars; that's a drop in the bucket. It's the price of doing business to them, because they will make so much more in having a tax code that is unfair – that gives unfair benefits and incentives to go offshore rather than bring business home.
So there's a great deal at stake. And, of course, the whole issue of income disparity: they're comfortable with that, because they're on the high end of that income disparity piece – income inequality.
So this is an important election. I say to people – I know nobody's ever said this to you – but, "This is the most important election of our time." Of course, we say that every time; but it only gets more important. It's not that it's less important. I think a Presidential election, reelecting President Obama, was probably [the most important] because of the tactics they used and all the rest that needed to be rejected. But now for working families and their opportunities for jobs and the rest, this is a very important election, and so we intend to take the fight.
And I'll tell you – I think you probably know; I've said it enough times – ‘'If the debate can take us to a bipartisan place of coming together to do what is right to solve problems, to create opportunity, to create jobs, to grow our economy, the election shouldn't be that important. I've said to you: I would rather pass comprehensive immigration reform than win the majority in the Congress, because nothing we could do would be as transformative. We've done the health care. That was transformative. Eleven million people living in our country having the ability to contribute in a more significant way to Social Security and the rest. That's very important.
So, again, while I'm a staunch Democrat, I'm an American first. And the point is: if we can have bipartisan agreement on these issues – nobody has it their own way – you compromise. That's the most important thing that can come in the election. But if you spend a billion dollars to suffocate the airwaves so that discussion doesn't take place, and elections are determined by who has fewer voters staying at home because of their exasperation with the system – both the Congress and the electoral system – then that's a victory for special interests; that's a victory for the Koch brothers; that's a victory for all who do not want to – again, have fairness in our tax code, fairness in how we value work, recognition of how we are the land of opportunity. And education is central to that.
And by the way, nothing brings more money to the Treasury to reduce the deficit than the education of the American people. So their initiatives to limit Pell grants so they can reduce the deficit? No, so they can use that money to give tax breaks to Big Oil. That is what they have said to us. That does not grow the economy. And that's not right. And that's what elections are about. And let's hope that we can return to a place where at least there is a discussion of the idea so people know and choose a path.
But not that – money is one of the biggest impediments to voter participation. I know they're supposedly doing their best to suppress voter suppression at the polls with their unfair requirements, and the timetables that they have that – you know, you have more polling places in white neighborhoods than you have in other neighborhoods. You have a timetable that does not work for working people who can't take off from work during the day. They're doing their level best, which is what: worse for our democracy. But in addition to that, money is a big deterrent.
Yes, sir.
Q: Madam Leader, we have a change in leadership coming on the majority side, and we're also leaving with a lot of business undone.
Leader Pelosi. Yeah.
Q: The border bill does not look like it's going to get enacted before we leave for August, so that may come back in September. You have an Export-Import coming up in September. There has got to be a C.R. or some other appropriation in September. It's a very consequential month ahead of the election.
Do you see any change on the horizon in how the House is going to be able to address those sort of things? Or when we come back under this new leadership team, are we going to be in the same sort of gridlocking situation we are now?
Leader Pelosi. Well, you'd really have to ask them. But we have the same Speaker, and we have the same people electing the leadership, so they will be responsive to their Caucus.
But let me just say that some of the issues that you brought up have not been partisan. People always – as is our responsibility – question the merit or the justification for going forth with any initiative, and what the dollar amounts are attributed to it, and are we getting our money's worth.
But what do we have that isn't done? Ex-Im Bank. TRIA, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, which really is important for investment in our country; that we have bipartisan support inside, outside the Congress, but they won't bring up. We have the IMF, which is really important to global economic success, which they reject. Again, you have the immigration bill.
All of these things are supported by their friends in business and our friends in business. You know, that is to say there is universal support on the outside – there is a big consensus on the outside for this. Small businesses benefit greatly from the Ex-Im Bank. All of these other initiatives are important to small businesses as well as big businesses in our country.
So why is it that all of their allies on the outside who care about these issues are not having any success with them? That takes you to what I say all the time: "Public sentiment is everything." And we all have a responsibility to have clarity in what we are talking about. Abraham Lincoln said that. "Public sentiment is everything." And if the public is aware of the opportunity cost to their success as an entrepreneur, a small business person, to their success in terms of having immigration reform, all these things, voting rights, why can't we pass the Voting Rights Act? Then there has to be some judgment made. And maybe that will change who is in office, but maybe it will change the minds of those who are in office that this is important to the American people, and it has a place. And to deter that is to incur an ‘X' mark. That is a failure. No Ex-Im, no TRIA, terrorism risk insurance, no IMF, no immigration bill. These are things – investments in education – that business, labor, enviroment, inside, outside the Congress, Democrats and Republicans support.
I really do not think that the actions of the Republicans in Congress are a reflection of Republicans across the country. That is my view from what I hear from Republicans across the country. But far be it from me to characterize how well they represent those people.
But we only have a few days – what is it, like 12 days – if we come the full tilt in September. So there is a big agenda. So hopefully during the district work period, we will continue to be working to find common ground to bring up bills. We could find common ground on the highway bill. We could do it. We have a solution as soon as we can hear what the Speaker has in response to that. Again, most everything I've said to you has been bipartisan. So we have to just vote, just be ready to vote almost every day. And one thing we can't do is waste the time of the American people and the Congress of the United States and the cost to the taxpayer of the time that Congress is in session doing nothing, suing the President.
It's ridiculous. They strove to energize their base; they energized ours. But that is not really – I mean, what we'd rather be doing is having a discussion of how we can grow the economy; create jobs, good paying jobs, here at home; build the infrastructure of America; have fairness and value work in the workplace for men and women; to recognize a strong head start for our children, early childhood education, as well as all the way up to lifetime learning and all the education in between is what reduces the deficit, grows, helps people meet their aspirations, but keeps America number one.
So we'll see what they have planned for September. You'll have to ask them. One thing we did see a change. Mr. Majority Leader, Mr. McCarthy had voted for Ex-Im Bank before, and now he says he's against it. So that must be a reflection of his caucus. That's one indicator. That's the only indicator I would have to you about what this means for some of the issues that we have going forward. I don't know that he changed his mind personally on the subject, you'd have to ask him, but he is reflecting a sentiment in his caucus.
One more. Yes. Then we have to vote.
Q: Two part question: Jeh Johnson had said that ICE runs out of money mid-August, and the Border Patrol runs out in mid-September. If Congress does leave without getting a border deal, what are the practical effects? What is your understanding of what will happen down there? Can Obama shuffle money around, that sort of thing?
And then part two of that is: you have been whipping against the border supplemental. If you can give us an update on that – how many Democrats do you expect to cross the aisle this afternoon?
Leader Pelosi. Well, the supplemental on the border: I don't think we'll lose too many Democrats on that. There are some who have said they will vote for it, but I can't tell you what that is. Let me put it this way: the Democrats are not going to enable that bill to pass. That's the number that we're interested in. Okay.
Secondly, they're going to have to do that on their own, even though some of their right wing groups are against the bill because it is not bad enough. But they sweetened it by saying: unless you pass this bill, you're not going to be able to vote to tie the hands of the President. And so that might be an incentive to them.
Well, if the money isn't there, there has to be a way to juggle to meet the humanitarian needs; to provide some of the due process representation for the kids, courts to hear the cases. And the only hope we would have is that as soon as we came back in September, this would be the first order of business.
One thing that is happening is the number is going down because these kids are being absorbed into other venues of stage two – stage one being the detention centers, stage two being places HHS would take them, or even to foster homes or the rest. But the fact is that we have to have due process: if these children should not be here, that they are repatriated safely to their home country. And I would think that that would not be something that would be viewed in a partisan way.
See, because the problem with their bill is not just – I was fully ready to accept a bill that was smaller in number for a shorter period of time, because you're talking about the same rate of investment. But what they came back with was something so small and with different priorities that did not meet the humanitarian need – the due process needs, the safe repatriation needs. So they went off. So it wasn't a question anymore of how much and for how long – which as long as they are not saying it's a small amount for a very long period of time, they're saying it's a small amount for a shorter period of time – that's okay. But once they realigned how the money would – a much smaller amount of money would be realigned, they do not enable us to reach the challenge that we have in a good way.
And that's why this bill – and as I say: their anti-immigration groups don't think the bill is bad enough, and that's why they had to sweeten the pie, whatever term you want to use. As Nita Lowey said: do not give them their dessert unless they eat their vegetables of voting for the supplemental.
It's all an opportunity cost. What could we be doing here? What could we be doing here instead of spending all that time on suing the President – an issue where they have no standing, want a blank check, and take up the time of Congress instead of passing a highway bill, bipartisan highway bill, passing a bill for the border that really gets the job done, and to do so in a way that respects the concerns that the American people have put forth, because, again, it's confusing how it goes out there.
Q: Has the administration said that it will juggle? You said there has to be a way to juggle. Have they indicated that they're going to do that?
Leader Pelosi. I don't know. I mean, I think the numbers coming down changes the dynamic a little bit in terms of what the urgency of the next – so the middle of August versus the middle of September. But again, let's see if saner minds won't prevail in the next several hours and we have a bill that does something.
I don't know how that can happen at this point, I will be very honest with you, but we would hope that we would have a running start coming in September. And if that thought is there that there is a running start coming in September, it makes the management of the issue much different. If they are never going to meet the humanitarian challenge that we face, well, then that's a different story. But that's a story that has to be told by the faith-based groups, the Catholic Conference of Bishops, all of the denominations that have come forward to talk about this, all people of faith in our country who have talked about this. And really 70 percent – isn't it – of the American people think that we need to address the challenge that this faces. How we do it challenges our conscience. How we do it should be faster. And that's what I hope will happen.
So we won't be seeing each other for another while. Again, hopefully – though maybe not. Next week we have all of the Presidents coming from Africa. That summit is a very important one. Wish them all success in their deliberations here in our country. It's pretty exciting.
Thank you all very much.
# # #