Transcript of Pelosi Weekly Press Conference Today
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. How’s your week been?
[Laughter]
Last weekend I was in Normandy with a very strong bipartisan delegation led by Buck McKeon, the chair of the Armed Services Committee. We were observing the 70th anniversary of D-Day. It was quite wonderful to see the patriots. We spent most of our time with the veterans, hearing their stories. Yesterday, members of our Caucus sat down for our regular roundtable meeting with the Veterans Service Organizations. We heard their suggestions about how we can work together. They want us to work in a bipartisan way, and that is what the Senate did yesterday. So we are very pleased with the bill that passed overwhelmingly, the VA reform legislation.
They cautioned us, though, that this is only a piece of it, A. And one piece of it that they had some concerns about, that we are cautioned about, is that they don’t want the temporary measure, which many of us advocated for in the short term – for our vets to go to federally qualified clinics for service or other health providers for meeting their needs – that this is not to be something that weakens the Veterans Health Administration or is interpreted in any way as a step toward privatization of that.
We have given them our assurances. I am hoping the House will move quickly. We could pass – we have introduced that bill. We could pass it immediately here, too, or we may be going to conference on Chairman Miller’s bill. But, hopefully, we will have something very soon and celebrate the Fourth of July with a bill signed by the President either by sending over – just sending over the Senate bill with it passing in both houses. Ninety-three Senators voted for it. So, hopefully, it will be given consideration here. In any event, we have another alternative.
Unfortunately, the Senate did not do the same thing for student loans. Earlier this week the President took action to address the crushing burden of student loan debt that is weighing on the lives of America’s families. Seventy-one percent of those with a bachelor’s degree have a debt. The average is about $29,400. Perhaps you are among them. When we had the majority, we enacted legislation that would cut in half the interest rate of 6.8 to 3.4 for the subsidized Stafford Loans for undergrads. We created an income-based repayment program to ensure that graduates could manage loan repayment and created the American Opportunity Tax Credit, maximum of $2,500 tuition tax credit for eligible families and students.
But we really must take action now to go further. The John Tierney-George Miller bill in the House and the companion bill that was born in the Senate we were hoping would pass, and that is the Bank on Student Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. I think that is some kind of an acronym, but I get these acronyms all mixed up. But it starts with Bank on Students – B.O.S.E.L.R.– Does that mean anything? No?
[Laughter]
I don’t know why it says “Bank” in the beginning. But, nonetheless, it would allow millions of borrowers to refinance their existing student loans at lower rates. However, the Republicans in the House and Senate, both houses, chose to block the votes in both chambers, a big significant defeat in the Senate on that. We are used to that here, but we were much more hopeful of that in the Senate. It was just another example of the Republican agenda focusing on doing what they need to do for millionaires at the expense of the middle class.
And one example again is on the floor. Instead of working to create American jobs and strengthen the economy for everyone, Republicans are continuing their double standard, adding billions to the deficit with these two bills that are on the floor today. Today the House is considering more of the completely unpaid for $614 billion, 12 bill-GOP package for permanent tax breaks, mostly for businesses. It is really so interesting to see. We must have our unemployment insurance extension paid-for, but hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks not paid for. And, by the way, 60 times as much in tax breaks for business as it would cost to do the extension of unemployment insurance. Twenty-four percent – that they are doing 24 percent more than the entire federal deficit that is projected for 2014. That is $492 billion.
And, by the way, the deficit is coming down. Thank you, President Obama. We all need to talk about it more. What they are doing today is almost seven times the investments in education, job training, social services in the year, and 10 times our annual investment in our veterans. That is what they are doing on the floor today. What is also problematic about it – the problems it creates are twofold. One is that it is an opportunity cost for all the investments that we want to make, if we have a budget.
Actually, when Chairman Camp had his proposal on tax reform, it was paid-for. And now he is bringing a bill to the floor that has these not paid-for, but made permanent unpaid-for – a real opportunity cost in any investments we want to have in growth in our country, and, also, an opportunity cost for having comprehensive tax reform. Fairness, simplification, reform, closing loopholes, lower corporate rates: do all those things, but let’s do it comprehensively instead of taking all of these things off the table, crippling our ability to invest in the future in R&D and all of the things we want to do in an important way, but not a deficit increasing way. So they continue to require full offsets for everything, including now they want full offsets for the Senate veteran’s bill, but not for their tax breaks.
We started the debate yesterday. We will continue it on Tuesday. Millions of children nationwide depend on school breakfast and lunch for their daily meals. Republicans are determined to overrule the views of science and medical professionals, nutritionists, who are urging children to eat more fruit, vegetables, whole grains, etc., less fats, less sodium – fewer foods containing those ingredients. This is the time. One in three children in America are obese. Isn’t that a stunning figure, and all that that implies? And we have an agricultural appropriations bill which will return to the floor on Tuesday.
Republicans are even going after the nutrition for pregnant women and children, the WIC program, mandating that WIC program include more white potatoes. We are talking about fruit, vegetables, whole grains and the rest. And they have an amendment that said more white potatoes than nutritionists recommend. These assaults on essential nutritional standards are really hard to explain to anybody, but we do know they reject science, they ignore clear cut facts and evidence to betray the best interests of America’s families while protecting special interests. So what we have to do is what is right for our children and our families. They deserve better.
***
Leader Pelosi. Do you have any questions? Look at him just jumping in there right away. He does get points for being around.
[Laughter]
Okay. Chad. Right?
[Laughter]
Q: Yes. On foreign policy, things have gotten very serious in Iraq here…
Leader Pelosi. Yes.
Q: …with militants and so on. Should the United States use air strikes? Or what should the United States do? And, if not, as things are really getting so volatile there, has this time that the United States spent in Iraq over the past 10 plus years – has this been all for naught?
Leader Pelosi. You have a multi-faceted question there. What is happening in Iraq is obviously very troubling, especially when you see what is happening in Syria. You can take a cab from one to the next there – and my understanding is from the local Metropolitan journal, that the State Department has said that we are supplying some weaponry to the Maliki government. I don’t think there is any appetite in our country for us to become engaged in any manner in military activity in Iraq.
Q: Why not? Why is that not?
Leader Pelosi. It doesn’t matter why. It is a fact. The American people have been exhausted with wars. If you want to talk about Iraq and the opposition they have always had to our military engagement there, we have to go back to 2003 – or go back to 2002, in the fall of 2002, when the Bush Administration misrepresented the facts to the American people, took us into a war on a false premise that they knew not to be true, told the American people the war would pay for itself, would be over soon, we would be greeted by rose petals, that we had to go in there, according to Condoleezza Rice, because the smoking gun might be a nuclear plume.
That is what they told the American people. Of course, it was not true and they knew it not to be true. I said at the time, as the senior Democrat on Intelligence, this intelligence does not support the threat. You could not find in any intelligence that was available – and they had to show us everything – any sign of that threat. So we go down a path, diverting our attention from Afghanistan. We should have just finished the job in 2002, 2003. Instead, we take up another war, and here we are. War begets war. It is just not a good idea.
And, what is next? That is what the American people would want to know. What is next? Was it Hannah Arendt who said people think that one more act of violence is going to end violence, but it is like a flywheel? One act of violence provokes another act of violence. And here we are. I think this represents the failed policies that took us down this path 10 years ago. It was March 19th, the Feast of St. Joseph, 2003, when I got the call from Condoleezza Rice saying: “The President asked me to call you to tell you we are initiating military action into Iraq in a few hours.” “Why?” My question, “Why? We haven’t exhausted every remedy in terms of inspections” and the rest.
So pardon me for going back. But before we go forward, we have to know what is going on. And I think the American people do not have an appetite for sacrificing our troops, our precious treasures, first and foremost, and to be engaged in a conflict there. Yes, ma’am.
Q: Do you believe that the U.S. invasion created the conditions that allowed something like this to happen? And, if so, doesn’t the U.S. have a responsibility to get involved?
Leader Pelosi. I think Shia-Sunni conflict is a very old one, and this may have happened with or without that. But I do know that the big concern, well – in the 1990s, in the U.S. – was Iran and Iraq, and what did this do? But the war gave Iran all the freedom it needed. No more problems at the border. And look where Iran has gone in terms of – they were a check on each other. And now Iran, our concern is that they could develop a weapon of mass destruction, which we cannot tolerate. They can’t do that.
But they have the freedom to do that because we freed their borders and gave them opportunity. I don’t know what would happen because the idea of, again, the Sunni-Shia fight is, really, an ancient one. And the desire to have a Sunni – even greater than one country – a unity in that part of the world is a real danger to the region and has global implications.
But I don’t know what our going in does about that. Are we going to refight the war that we just got out of where we were for – what are we? 2003? Almost a decade? I just don’t see – when we won in 2006, one of the main reasons was the war in Iraq. The American people opposed the war in Iraq, and it had nothing to do that much with party. They just opposed the war in Iraq. And we passed legislation to have a time certain for us to come home. The President vetoed the bill. We couldn’t override the veto. So the war went on. And now the violence continues. So I don’t think this is our responsibility, but I do think we were irresponsible going into Iraq for a variety of other reasons. Yes, sir.
Q: If I can change to more of the present moment of what has been happening here this week, is it your fear that the shakeup in House Republican leadership will make it more difficult, if not impossible, to get any type of big issues, immigration and other things, done in the remainder of this year and possibly next?
Leader Pelosi. When you use the word “fear” with me, it really doesn’t relate to legislation on the floor. Although I do think the House of Representatives at this time is an unsafe place for children and other living things, I don’t think that this is making it any worse. There has not – let me just say I hope – let me not talk about fear. We are about hope, we Democrats. I hope that what will come of this is that people, when they look up – and this is why I have said this is a game changer, that it is a whole new ball game; this is me throwing up a ball. It is a whole new ball game because now the public is paying attention. What’s going on here? And what’s going on here is the Republican party going even further to the right. The Representative who was here is here still, was a handmaiden of the Tea Party. They wanted their own person, going further to the right.
And it is about an anti-government attitude. Under the current leadership on the Republican side, we have had a shutdown of government, we have not passed immigration, we have not passed the Voting Rights Act, which has always been bipartisan. We had the votes for the immigration bill. It passed the Senate in a bipartisan way. So I don’t know how things could get worse than the obstruction that is already here. But I do hope that, when the public is paying attention, it will improve the debate and people will understand what the choices are.
And elections are about two things, if we can take it to that point. They are about who gets elected, but they are also about the debate. If we can have a debate on issues, then perhaps, with the public paying attention, that debate can take us back to a place of governance, compromise, bipartisanship, instead of further in the direction of obstruction.
Q: Do you feel sympathy for Mr. Cantor personally?
[Laughter]
Leader Pelosi. Sure.
[Laughter]
But of course. I mean, it is hard to lose an election. But, you know, most of us are here because of policy and what we want to do. We have some understanding of politics, and we all know that you keep your home fires burning. And the people are the boss. They speak. That is really what counts. But I have as much sympathy for Mr. Cantor as he would want me to have for him.
[Laughter]
Q: Leader Pelosi, do you think that…
Leader Pelosi. Why are you laughing?
[Laughter]
It’s a sincere comment. You were next. And then we will come over here.
Q: You mentioned the VA.
Leader Pelosi. …Or that he would have for me.
[Laughter]
Q: You mentioned the VA. The CBO is still trying to get its head around that bill, but it could cost as much as $50 billion a year. And the Senate bill had no offsets. Over here in the House, you are voting on the tax extenders, which along with the previous tax extender bill, also an offset of hundreds of billions. Why should anyone think that either party is serious about deficit reduction, given what we are seeing this week on those two issues?
Leader Pelosi. Well, just on the substance of your first part of it, that is why whatever is happening on this two-year bill, the Sanders bill, cannot be something that, on the ongoing, that increases the cost of health care. We have got to get to a place where we make the Veterans Health Administration well. And, by the way, many of the vets like the health care they are getting. It is just the access that is the problem. So that is where some of the correction has to take place – to facilitate their getting the health care. Once they get the health care, for most of the people that I am hearing from, they approve of the health care they’re receiving. So we don’t want this to be an ongoing initiative.
Secondly, there are many afflictions or diagnoses that really cannot be dealt with outside the VA system in an effective way. If you have a cold or an appendectomy, okay. But if you have a war-related injury, the earlier diagnosis of what that is, therefore, the treatment of it is better – for the patient, but it is also less costly to the Veterans Administration.
So this is expensive. There is no question about it. But we owe our veterans the care that they deserve. They understand that this – what they tell me and the Veterans Service Organizations, the individual veterans, is that they would – that this is a temporary measure, recognizing that not everybody, and mostly people will need to still go to VA health. This is a temporary measure.
So, where they would go to pay for it, I haven’t seen any suggestions for it, but we have to do that. That is our moral responsibility. We do not have a moral responsibility to give tax breaks to business unpaid-for permanently. We are talking about a two year proposal as a transition to a healthier VA health administration.
And so, again, we have to handle these things discretely and understand what the path is we are going down and for how long and what is the best way to get it done, the cheapest, most efficient way. And one of the cheapest ways to get it done is to intervene earlier and to diagnosis and care for our veterans.
The second point, I totally object to what the Republicans are doing on the floor. I think to make these permanent and unpaid for, again, is an opportunity cost in reducing the deficit, investing in growth in our economy and having the opportunity to do comprehensive tax reform, close the loopholes, lower the corporate rate, invest in growth and bring more revenue into the Treasury, because of the smart decisions we would make. But don’t tie our hands with nearly a trillion dollars in permanent tax cuts, which leave out lots of things as well – child tax credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, it’s a long list. I wouldn’t like it better if they were all included, but what I’m saying is they have selected the high end at the cost of the low end.
Q: Leader Pelosi, some Democrats have been almost gleeful at Cantor’s defeat, saying that it will make it easier for them to run against the Republicans, the Tea Party Republicans. Other Democrats, you know, are not so sure, saying they think that this is an isolated race, a very specific set of circumstances, that led to his defeat; so, the Tea Party, therefore, is not resurgent. You are a savvy political thinker. What do you think?
Leader Pelosi. Well, I don’t think we have enough information to analyze the race, really, more fully. But what I will tell you is that one of the advantages for Democrats coming out of here is not only what I said before, is the public has looked up and now they want to see: “Okay. What do you have to offer and what do they have to offer?” And that is a good thing for the debate in our country.
But also, this, shall we say, lemming mentality of: “Well, no political party wins in the off year if the President is in the other party,” all that thinking – that is so stale, so obsolete, so unimaginative, so yesterday. The whole communications system has changed. And that was a factor yesterday – the communication by a social network that enabled the supporters of Professor Brat to mobilize his troops.
So I don’t know about gleeful. I mean, we are too busy to be gleeful. But some Members have said to me: “I got the Tea Party candidate and that means I will be able to help other people in their elections. Because that is really going to be an easier race for me now.” And others are just waiting to see. But I think, again, every assumption is from before and you just have to evaluate every district. So when all the pundits in Washington say: “Oh, this, that, that,” they don’t know. He was going to win by 35 points. He lost by 10. Forty-five point difference in what the conventional wisdom was. I don’t know if it is conventional, but it wasn’t wisdom.
So, I’m just saying nobody knows. It is on the ground in those districts, one at a time, to see how it plays. It may play differently from one district to the next. But everybody has to know their district. And being the politically savvy person you attributed me to be, I would say to people: “Know your district, down to the grassroots, down to the last blade of grass,” because in most districts, one part of the district may not be like the other part of the district, similarly, north, south, east, west or in any way. “So understand who you represent. Your title and your job description are one in the same: Representative, Representative. Don’t ever forget that.”
Q: Leader Pelosi, Kevin McCarthy is becoming the favorite to take the Majority Leader position. Does he seem like somebody you could work with as Majority Leader or do you have somebody else that you feel like would be somebody you would rather work with as Majority Leader?
Leader Pelosi. In the Republican Congress?
Q: Yes.
Leader Pelosi. Look, whoever should be the leader of the party is who has the support of their party. I myself work with Speaker Boehner. But I hope that we could – I am, again, always hopeful – that we could get back to a place of governance. You see, the anti-government attitude that people have, and the debate as to the amount of government, more or less, has been historic in our country. It is a legitimate debate and it defines party.
And we think that a lot of what we can do for the good of the American people is science-based. Technology and science have taken us to a new place where we can grow our economy, improve our health care, improve the air our children breathe, be number one in the world because of our economic preeminence and our national security, which is affected by all of that technology and science. And some people are anti-government, anti-science, anti-Barack Obama, obstructionists. “Nothing is our agenda, and never is our timetable.” And so that is what we have had up until now. There is always an opportunity. We owe it to the American people to find common ground, and, hopefully, that will be the case, whoever is the leader on the Republican side.
Q: Follow-up: Congressman Hensarling took himself out of the race today. He was the conservative’s favorite. They didn’t really like the idea of Kevin McCarthy as Majority Leader. Do you think that he is an acceptable option to be Majority Leader, in your eyes?
Leader Pelosi. You know what. You have to talk to the Republicans. I am the last person to be talking about…
Q: But McCarthy’s a fellow Californian. Surely you have dealt with him some and…
Leader Peosi. But wait a minute. You are talking about who they should choose. That is up to them who they should choose. It is up to them who they should choose. Yes, sir. I think we’re going to have votes. I am going to have to run. But we will come back to you.
Q: You were talking a little bit about the pundits before in the aftermath of Leader Cantor’s race. Pundits have said that the results of that race absolutely kill – 100 percent kill the prospects of an immigration bill this year. People on the other side have said: “Actually, no. We have a great opportunity here.” But have you had any conversations with Republican leadership in the last week or even in the last 48 hours that suggest to you that immigration – an immigration bill this year may be possible?
Leader Pelosi. Well, the last 48 hours have been busy.
Q: Yeah.
Leader Pelosi. They have been really busy, distracting.
Q: How about in the last week?
Leader Pelosi. I am not one of those who thought that Eric Cantor was an advocate for immigration reform. In fact, I thought he was an obstacle. So I don’t think that this is an impediment to immigration reform. I don’t think the race was about immigration. I think it was about a lot of other things. They have said it is about TARP. They said it is about PATRIOT Act. They said it is about the STOCK Act not being the complete bill. They have said it is about favoring Wall Street over Main Street, many sentiments that many of us share, as a matter of fact.
But I don’t – I will talk to the Speaker, I regularly do, about what our prospects are. But I have never seen Eric Cantor as a positive force for immigration reform. That is why you see people on both sides, because nobody knew where he was.
Q: You haven’t had any solid evidence recently that a move on immigration in the coming weeks and months is in the offing, as possible?
Leader Pelosi. Before this election, I did. So you asked me – well, last week, we were in Normandy. So before that, yeah, I had the impression that there were conversations taking place. Yeah. I have always said in all of these, our wonderful comings-together, that I believe the Speaker has a good heart on this, that he wanted to have immigration reform, he wanted to do it in pieces, whatever I said, you know, any way you want to do it. But we need to do something.
Now, today there is a letter from the Evangelical Immigration Table writing to all the Republican leadership saying: “Exactly 2 years ago we came together to advocate for immigration, consistent with Biblical values. After thousands of hours of work, reaching millions of evangelical Christians across the nation, the evidence proves America is ready for commonsense immigration reform.” With all due respect, it is time to decide. And, of course, in one week or two, we will be observing the one year anniversary that a bipartisan immigration bill passed the Senate.
The Speaker has told me that he doesn’t intend to take up that Senate bill or that he doesn’t even intend to go to conference with that Senate bill. So what is the – is there something else that he would propose? We stand ready to cooperate with him on that. And I think he has always been of good intention in that regard. But he is the Speaker and we haven’t had a vote. Eleven million people waiting for legalization, a path to citizenship. Eleven hundred being deported every day. One person with the power to bring a bill to the floor.
So I am hoping that – and, again, you have to be inside the mind and caucus of the Republicans to see how they interpret this. But it would just be like when they brought raising the debt ceiling to the floor. One hundred and ninety-nine Republicans voted to default on the full faith and credit of the United States of America. Twenty-eight Republicans voted to lift the debt ceiling. And we provided the nearly 200 other votes that enabled it to be lifted.
So let’s do something like that again. He already has done that one time – at least one time. So, hopefully, he will do it now. I am very hopeful, because I have said – and I sincerely mean this: I would rather pass comprehensive immigration reform – I don’t love the Senate bill, but that would do – than win the election in November. Because it is so necessary for our country, so transformative for our country, I would rather just get the job done and not have it be about politics and an endless, fruitless debate about it. Yes, ma’am.
Q: I just want to follow up on that earlier question about the prospects for legislating, because Republicans that we talked to yesterday said that the lesson in Cantor’s loss means that, if you negotiate or compromise, you get beat.
Leader Pelosi. When did that negotiation and that compromise take place? Name one thing.
Q: The Republicans are only going to become less willing to talk to Democrats and they are convinced that they can take the Senate. Aren’t the prospects for the President…
Leader Pelosi. But you predicated – with all due respect, you predicated it on a premise that said that negotiation – Republicans walked away from every debate at the budget table. They shut down government. They haven’t brought up an immigration bill, which has passed in the Senate in a bipartisan way. They haven’t brought up their bipartisan voting rights bill. I don’t know where all this cooperation was taking place. Can you give me one example? I don’t know of any. I really don’t know of any.
It took them 90 days to do Sandy aid, and only about 30 or some Republicans voted for that. And they lived in Pennsylvania and New York and New Jersey and, again, their local pressure.
Q: But they are admitting that the motivation for them to work across the aisle is only going to get worse. Doesn’t that mean the President can’t really get anything done?
Leader Pelosi. Well, then, this election will be about governance – government, governance, getting the job done for the American people or obstruction. And what we have had so far is obstruction. So forgive me for not accepting and stipulating to: we have had all this cooperation up until now. I haven’t seen any of it. Obstruction versus governance. And the American people, whatever their view of the amount of government in their lives, want us to be able to govern. They want us to be able to help meet their needs, to have job creation, to build the infrastructure of America. People can’t do that on their own. At least they have to have a public private partnership in building America.
Build the infrastructure of America. Have a manufacturing policy to make it in America. Educate our children. Have a judicial system that brings justice – things that you cannot do yourself, but that are part of the governance of our country, instead of obstruction. And the obstruction takes many forms, including cuts in the appropriations bill for anything that would be a cop on the beat, and that is really specifically cop on the beat. They cut the COPS program in half in the Commerce-Justice appropriations bill a couple of weeks ago.
I mean, we still have time. We would like to use that time for governance, the next five months, six months, and, hopefully, we can get some things accomplished. But I really do not accept a premise that says this is going to now have less cooperation across the aisle.
Are we talking about the VA bill yesterday in the Senate? I mean, you know, I don’t know where all that cooperation – now, we did cooperate with them when Mr. Miller missed a vote on his own bill the other day and he came to me and said: “Will you agree to let them – give unanimous consent for them to take up” his bill, so he can vote on his bill. And, of course we did. He is the distinguished Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee and we didn’t want the tyranny of the bells to interfere with his associating himself with his own bill.
So, in any event, I am excited about it because I think, if we have a debate in our country about: what is our reason for being here? We have to meet the needs of the American people. Let’s have a debate about what form that takes. And that would be a very healthy thing, regardless of the outcome in terms of numbers in Congress, but in terms of impressing upon Members of Congress that the American people want us to get a job done and, therefore, we should seek compromise – that we should act in a bipartisan way, try to find common ground, always stand your ground when you can’t, but, nonetheless, strive very hard for it. So, an interesting time.
I will see you when? Next week? We’re in two weeks in a row. This is so remarkable. I really can’t get over it.
[Laughter]
I am sorry. I have to go to the floor to oppose hundreds of billions of dollars permanently entrenched into our system, which happens to be a very bad idea in terms of hurting our chances to have true, true comprehensive tax reform and a values based-budget that helps us meet the needs of the American people.
Thank you all very much.