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. Such a busy time. My apologies for running behind. As we all know, sadly, this morning we observed the anniversary of 9/11. Yesterday, proudly, Congress presented the Congressional Gold Medal honoring families, honoring the first responders, honoring those on the airplane. I mentioned then something I mention almost every year at this time, that President Lincoln cautioned against the "silent artillery of time" wearing away our memory. But we, every year, make sure the families know that we hope that time will dull their pain, but it will never, never dim the memory of your deeds, the courageous actions of those who tried to save others, and those that we lost at that time.

It seems sad that as we observe 9/11 today, we are talking about another threat to our homeland, and that is ISIS. Last night, the President was strong, formidable, and clear in presenting his strategy to deal with ISIS. A large part of it is diplomacy and leadership in terms of establishing a government – hoping to establish a government in Iraq that would be one of reconciliation of the Sunni and the Kurds, the coordination of our NATO allies to assist in defeating ISIS, and also other super powers in the region giving their support to that effort, his efforts to disrupt the finances of ISIS as well as the flow of foreign fighters into the region.

On the military side, our House Democratic Caucus supports the President in the actions he has taken, the air strikes, the deployment of a few hundred more troops to protect our interest there. People asked: "Do we want to vote?" Right now, we believe, as the President has stated, that he has the authority he needs to take the actions he described last night in his comprehensive strategy to defeat ISIS. As you know, recently we passed the McGovern amendment that talked about a marker as to if we went beyond a certain point, there may be a need for a vote. We do not believe we have reached that point.

Since we met last, the President has made an announcement about deferring any action on immigration until later this year. I am confident, meeting with our caucuses in the House – our Tri-caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, the Asian American Pacific Islander Caucus, and the Congressional Black Caucus, all of whom have a big interest in the immigration issue – we feel confident that there's a great deal the President can do that is at his administrative discretion, and that we're confident that that will happen. And we want people who are concerned about this to be hopeful that, by Thanksgiving or Christmas, there will be more security in their lives because of some discretion that the President will execute.

All of this is interesting and important and at the center of our attention. But at the center of the attention of the American people is something we share with them as well, and that is the concern about the economy. Despite incredible progress under the President's administration of reducing the deficit by more than half, by having unemployment rate come from over 10 percent to 6.1 percent since he took office, by having what, 50-some months of sustained growth of private sector job creation, 50 some months in a row – the list goes on – the stock market just soaring. So many indicators of economic success.

But nonetheless, still great uncertainty among the American people, and that is why we have put forth our Middle Class Jumpstart; that in the first 100 days of the new Congress we would pass legislation that would create good-paying jobs here in the United States by growing infrastructure, build America bonds to grow the infrastructure – to build the infrastructure of our country, paid for by closing loopholes, tax loopholes that are given to businesses to send jobs overseas; by reducing the cost of education, by allowing students to renegotiate their loans at a lower rate; and third, our initiative about women: When Women Succeed, America Succeeds. That is not just the title of our economic agenda, for equal pay for equal work, et cetera. It is a statement of fact.

And so we really are enthusiastic about how we move forward, and I am very proud of my Members over the break, how they have kept the drumbeat going on this. They have done it electronically. They have done it traditionally through communication, town halls, seminars, every kind of press event, but also electronically, and I think on one of our women's agenda issues, we have like 54 million communications on the subject – not just what we put out but how it was transmitted beyond there.

So, as I say, I am proud of our Caucus and the work they are doing for the middle class, which is the backbone of our democracy, and I am proud of the President. I am proud of his deliberate approach to this, the success of his leadership to make a big difference in Iraq in terms of having a new government. I pay tribute to Joe Biden for his work on that as well, for the work with our NATO allies, to be working together on this issue and to put powers in the region to do their part. With that, I would be pleased to take any questions you may have.

***

Q: Madam Leader, John Yoo, a lawyer in the Bush Administration who gave President Bush some powers through a legal memo that the White House interpreted back then to combat terrorism and the role of Commander-In-Chief without necessary congressional approval, said: "Obama has adopted the same view of war powers as the Bush Administration." Do you share that view?

Leader Pelosi. No, I do believe that when we passed the authorization in 2001 following Afghanistan, it was to narrow the war powers then. When our country is – when someone strikes our country as was on 9/11, it enables, it triggers any and all powers of the Commander-In-Chief. What we did with that resolution was to narrow it to the purposes. I have it right here, but if you read it, you will see that it is a narrower interpretation.

What the Bush Administration, how they interpreted it and for how long is another issue. But he is not relevant to right now. What we are talking about right now is: ISIS is a threat. We have to work together to destroy them, and that is the subject at hand. I didn't approve of anything [Yoo] said or did when he was in office, much less care about his opinion right now.

Q: But you don't think that President Obama is following his opinion right now? I mean…

Leader Pelosi. I think the President is following the law. Yes, ma'am.

Q: Given the threat the President outlined that ISIS posed and you mentioning it, doesn't Congress have a bigger role beyond just voting on the narrow authorization for Title X? Isn't it shirking its responsibility by just focussing on that issue alone?

Leader Pelosi. Well, Title X is really an important part of this and among the initiatives that the President talked about last night, the idea of our training Syrian moderates to fight ISIS in Syria is an important part of it and it is very timely. That is why we are talking about that now. I would hope that it would be in the CR because that is the train leaving the station, and that is – the President needs this to happen now. There is talk of people doing it separately, but that takes longer than just putting it on, again, the CR that is leaving the station. But that is by no means to say that that is the limitation on our involvement in this.

In fact…there is a presidential request for two billion dollars for meeting needs in Eastern Europe related to Ukraine, Iraq, and other concerns in the Middle East. But in terms of this authorization, this is a big debate. We are having a brief right now. As I leave here, I will go to another briefing on the subject.

And again, yes, I do believe Congress has a role. What I did say, though, was what the President is doing now, I think he has the legal authority to do. I know he does. I have studied this issue for a very long time.

Yes, sir?

Q: You have been in the Intelligence here for a very, very long time. How far do your concerns go as we take new steps to confront ISIS about the aftermath – the potential aftermath of the Saudis arming their Sunni assets in Iraq? The Iranians arming the Shiite militias anew? Us arming the factions in Syria, all that come at ISIS sort of in a triangle here? And eventually, there will be a lot more armed people in Iraq, not only weapons but battle hardened people with – have their incentives changed at all? What is your vision of the aftermath after we do this?

Leader Pelosi. Well, I started my comments in praise of the President about the establishment of a different government in Iraq, which I think, if that had not happened – so then the situation that you are describing, I believe, would be exacerbated – although your concerns go beyond Iraq, I understand. It goes into Syria.

So, to have a government that understands its responsibilities – that it is not just about who the Shia in charge, the Shia rule and we don't pay any attention to the needs of Sunnis or the Kurds – that provides fertile territory for some, especially the Sunni, to be responsive to ISIS when they were originally coming through.

When you are arming people, you are always concerned. And also, ISIS, I am concerned, is a mutating thing, you know, what is it that it becomes and what emerges out of all of this. So that is why it has to be comprehensive. The Europeans are very interested because they have thousands. We may have up to 100 foreign fighters from the U.S. who have gone there. The Europeans have thousands, more than 10,000 maybe, who have passports from their countries, who are citizens of their countries who have joined the fighting force.

So the concern goes beyond our concern about our homeland; that is our primary responsibility. But this is a very big deal and we have to deal with it in a way that is not just – and Aaron talked about it – the use of violence. Yet people think one more act of violence is going to end it, but it is just an endless flywheel. No, we have to be smart about it as to how we go forward so that we are having not just military initiatives but political initiatives and diplomatic initiatives, too, so that we reduce the fertile territory for more recruitment of terrorists.

Q: Then what level of confidence has been transmitted to you, Madam Leader, from the Administration that Iraqi coalition 2.0 or whatever we are on now is actually going to work this time?

Leader Pelosi. Well, we have to support it. And one other part that I didn't mention was continuing the humanitarian assistance in some of those regions. As you see what the U.S. did to help those people on the mountain was lifesaving, but it was also helpful in having people understand that we are there to help the people. We are not there to help the government.

But to have a government that is there for all of the people is essential for us to be putting in resources because your question is exactly the right one. This, the government has to work or otherwise the investments that we are making otherwise – diplomatically, politically, intelligence wise, militarily – fall into a chaotic situation; so we can't have that. It is challenging and it is complicated. That is why I think the President's deliberativeness in how he has dealt with this step by step to put us in a place now where we can go to the next step, because the first, initial – not everything has been done as far as the government is concerned, but a great deal has been done.

Yes, sir?

Q: On the Continuing Resolution, two questions. One: how do you feel about setting the end date for the reauthorization date to the Ex-Im Bank separate from the December 11th end date for the CR? And then the Senate: there is some talk of trying to set that end date for the CR actually in the next year. How do you feel about those and how do those affect the Democratic support for a CR here?

Leader Pelosi. Well, CRs are never something to be very, very proud of because it means that we haven't been able to get all of our work done in a timely fashion. Sometimes they are a convenience and sometimes they are an excuse not to – "well, let's just do a CR," and I say that as one who has had to use CRs myself. But the CR end date for this year is very appropriate. That is what the CR does: to get us past the October 1st beginning of a new fiscal year.

So the end date in December is an appropriate one so that we will pass something, an omnibus, a better deal, a more responsible way to advance our appropriations for the next year. I don't think we should delay it any longer. What are the choices? I mean, we know what the decisions are that need to be made. If they don't think that they can be made within the next 10 days, then they should be made within the next couple of months.

In terms of the expiration date for the Ex-Im Bank, I am totally opposed to that. I think that the Ex-Im Bank is a formidable instrument for competitiveness for the U.S. businesses, large and small. I think that it affects every region of the country in terms of job creation and stability. I think that it has already having an impact on contracts because of there is uncertainty about the longevity of the bank and even its existence and that if you put the date to next June, you are effectively putting a marker as to the demise of the Ex-Im Bank. So, let's just go forward.

I like the Heck bill that has a long term authorization for the Ex-Im Bank, and I would hope that those forces outside the Congress – communities that are affected, businesses that are affected and the rest – that this is about job creation; this is about keeping America number one; it is about facilitating our exports. To play with this is really damaging, because you are dealing with a bank and you are talking about a few months and a few months and a few months, you are not talking about the stability and the certainty that businesses need. And some of these are very big contracts.

So again, as far as the forces outside the Congress, I don't know why they are not more active with their Republican friends to say: this is not something to mess with, because I don't believe that it is good.

Yes, sir?

Q: Madam Leader, there never really has been much hope for peace dividend following the, you know, 9/11 mindset and foreign policy, et cetera, as we wound down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do some of your Caucus members, though, worry that as this fight against ISIS gets expanded, we will siphon off a lot of dollars for social programs?

Leader Pelosi. Yes.

Q: That they may favor?

Leader Pelosi. Yes. Well, there is some necessities that honor our responsibilities to meet the needs of the American people. I don't think we are getting – I do not think with the evidence that I see before me, I judge, that what we are talking about is by no means of the scale of where we had been before. This is focused, targeted, discreet, and it is not engaging in hundreds of thousands of troops being deployed. In fact, it is exactly the opposite of that. But certainly, every time we talk about an initiative or the use of force or initiation of hostilities, it is a question of resources, and we have so many unmet needs in our own country.

It is really, what is more of concern to Members when we were building roads and schools and hospitals and all the rest in Iraq and Afghanistan, when we had unmet needs in our own country, but actually that part of the diplomacy is important to security as well. But in answer to your question: yes, there is a concern, and it has been brought up at our meetings, but we have a first responsibility to protect and defend. That is the oath we uphold.

I think I only have time for one more question. Yes, ma'am?

Q: Madam Leader, has there been a concern raised in the Democratic Caucus in voting for this authorization and ending up in a situation potentially in the future where you have sort of a political pushback much like you did with the authorization for Iraq?

Leader Pelosi. Well, we didn't vote for the authorization for Iraq, so we didn't get to take – well, and House Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the Iraq initiative in 2002. October initiation was in 2003, of hostilities. But right now we are watching, observing, and judging.

The President made – we have briefed. The President made his speech last night which was very strong and convincing. Our Members are proud and support the President. We are being briefed right now, once again. And so the question is: what is the challenge? What are our resources? How do we engage other countries? What is the country that we are dealing with in terms of having a new government? And what is, you know, what is our definition of success?

But it is not about, you know, whether we take a vote or not. We are not at that point because we believe the President has the authority. And so it is deliberative; it is open to new information – that is what our Caucus is about – and I am very proud of the thoughtful way that they have approached it.

I will go back to where I began on this subject, and that is, that a matter of a couple of months ago we did vote and we got an amendment on the floor. And I think I have it right here and what it says: "The President shall not deploy or maintain United States armed forces in a sustained combat role in Iraq without specific statutory authorization for such use, and that is after the date of the enactment of this concurrent resolution."

So, hopefully we don't have to go beyond what the President is doing now and we won't need that vote, but we stand ready to have that discussion.

Thank you all very much. I have to go back to work.

# # #