Transcript of Pelosi Press Conference Today

Leader Pelosi Opening Remarks:

Leader Pelosi.  Good morning, everyone.

I just came from a speak-out on the East Lawn here of the Capitol on behalf of voting rights.  Two bills, one introduced by John Lewis, the Voter Empowerment Act, and another, introduced by Terri Sewell, to advance the voting rights in our country, to correct the mistakes made by the Supreme Court on that score.

I always, always, always quote Martin Luther King in so many ways.  But in this score, he said, ‘The ballot, the ballot, the ballot.  Legislation, legislation, legislation.  Your life, your life, your life.'  He went on to say, ‘No one should underestimate the power of this method.  We must continue to gain the ballot.'  So my statement there was we would hope that we could get a voting rights bill passed in the Congress.

Members like to show up for the unveiling, Republican leadership likes to show up for the unveiling of the Rosa Parks statue or to go to Selma, Alabama, for the 50th anniversary and come home and do nothing.  Actually, the day we unveiled, as I said just now, the day we unveiled the statue, we were on the steps of the Supreme Court earlier that day because that was the day a few years ago where they did the oral arguments on the Voting Rights Act and the court decided against the Voting Rights Act.  Now we have to correct that.

So anyway, it is pretty exciting, and voting is an important subject.  And we can talk about it in a moment in terms of what has happened in the last few Elections.  But first, I want to talk about what's really the most important thing: that we stop the harmful ‘bill?without?a?heart' Republican legislation.

They have finally released what they call a working draft that they've worked so hard to hide all of this time.  Even their own Members have criticized their process.  But I am more concerned about their substance than their process right now as we see the bill.

The President called the House bill ‘mean' after celebrating its passage.  He then changed to saying ‘it's mean.'  He said that ‘he hopes the Senate bill will have heart.'  So sad, Mr. President.  Heartless.  Mean and heartless.

And this is the same thing.  It's the same thing all over again.  It will do exactly what the House bill did.  Increased cost for fewer benefits.  It will have an age tax.  People 50 to 64 may be paying as much as five times more for their benefits.  Undermines Medicare by reducing the years of its solvency.  And tens of millions of people ?? we will see what the CBO comes down with ?? but millions and millions and millions of people will lose their healthcare.

In addition to that, it still takes away the essential benefit package, I call it Pontius Pilate, leave it up to the States.  It does serious harm to the States.  It throws a few crumbs in the end years in terms of Medicaid and then clobbers the States, making them unable to meet the needs of their people.

So I am very proud of our Members as they understand that Trumpcare inflicts great suffering on veterans, on seniors, on working families, on rural communities, and as I said, working families.  It is a job killer, too.  It was estimated that the House bill would lose 1.8 million jobs.  I got a Pinocchio for saying 1.9 or 2 million, so let's be precise.  And we will see what their bill looks like.

This is a working draft, probably something where they put some terrible things in so they correct them and then Members say, "Oh, it's better now."  But it still has to pass the CBO, and we haven't seen what that is.

So the American people are shut out of the debate, as they have been.  We want to make sure they're not shut out of their healthcare.

And speaking of jobs, as I said, 1.8 million jobs, many of them in rural areas.  There are changes in Medicaid.  Many rural hospitals will have to close.  When a hospital closes in your area it's a bad thing for the health and well?being of the community.  That's for sure.  But it also is about reducing the attraction that community might have to attract business.  Why would you choose a place that did not have health care accessibility there?

And when they talk about access, they talk about emergency rooms.  They wouldn't even have that.  We don't call that access.  That's the most expensive kind and the most detrimental to the health and well?being of the American people.

But again back to the jobs that would be lost by their healthcare bill.  We haven't seen a budget.  The budget we have seen from the President would lose 1.4 million jobs.  Some of that is overlap with the healthcare bill, not in addition to.  We haven't seen the infrastructure bill.  Again, we have a start with the budget.  We know what the healthcare bill would do.

So this is a big problem.  No budget, no infrastructure bill, no tax bill.  We thought we could work together on infrastructure; we could work together on reducing the corporate rate, closing special interest loopholes, reducing the deficit, creating growth by working together.  But I fear that what they may do is just get through this debate on healthcare to enable them to get on to debate about taxes and just, again, trickle?down economics to prevail.

One other point I want to make is, again, this bill that the Republicans put out, a working draft, if that's the term of art, is yet again a tax bill disguised as a healthcare bill.  They need this in order to do their tax breaks for the high end to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.  It's unfortunate.

I know you probably have some interest in what happened in Georgia this week.  The fact is we are very proud of the race that was run there.  The candidate who carried the banner, Jon Ossoff, ran a great campaign.  I was interested in some of the statements of the people from Georgia saying, "Hey, we reduced by 20 points what the advantage had been in that district for the Republicans."  This is good news for us, for our legislative races and our congressional races and also statewide.

I think our Chairman, Mr. Ben Ray Lujan, deserves a great deal of credit for the work that was done in these four races.  I don't have it right here, but it adds up to over 71 points.  Twenty?five points carved off of the Republican majority in Kansas.  Another big chunk in Montana.   Another big chunk in South Carolina.  Another big chunk in Georgia, nearly 20 points.  So over 71 points.

By all accounts, if you're a Republican, this is not good news to you.  It's a Pyrrhic victory, four Pyrrhic victories, because it shows where the vulnerability is on the Republican side as we come forward.

So we take pride in the candidates who ran, their campaigns and the difference that they had made.  These would not have been districts that would have been our priorities just given the slate of races to be involved in.  These are races chosen by the President to replace when he appointed Cabinet officers.  And when you do that, you choose districts that you know your party will win.

But little did they know the serious damage they would do to their party in terms of reducing the majority, the margins there.  They have now made these very competitive races.  Single digits, five and below for some.  These are opportunities for us.  One of the prognosticators on this, Mr. Wasserman, said that this opens the way for about 80 seats to be in play for the Democrats in the next election year.

As far as some of the enthusiasm in my Caucus, I always listen to my Members.  I respect the ambition that exists in any Caucus.  It's a part of our life.  But I am proud of the unity that we have had, and, frankly, my leadership, in terms of keeping everybody together on fighting the healthcare bill in the House of Representatives.  Very proud of our success in defeating it the first time, moving them to the right, to a place that I think is unsustainable, but defines who they are very clearly.

I am very proud of our unity, which gave me leverage to succeed enormously in the negotiations on the omnibus bill.  When it comes to the issues, we are united in terms of our concern for America's working families.  That's what unifies us.

When it comes to personal ambition, having fun on TV, have your fun.  I love the arena.  I thrive on competition.  And I welcome the discussion.  But I am honored by the support.

Every action has a reaction.  I try to say that to them.  Every attack provokes a massive reaction that is very encouraging to me, from our Members, from our supporters outside and across the country.

With that, I would be pleased to take any questions.

Yes, ma'am?

***

Q:  Leader Pelosi, thank you so much.  As you just referenced, some of your fellow Democrats have blamed you in part for the loss in Georgia, the other losses in the special elections.  They say it's time for a fresh perspective.  Is it time for you to step aside and allow for some new leadership? 

Leader Pelosi.  Some.  We always have this discussion.  One is one, two is a couple, three is a few, some, some.  But I feel very confident in the support that I have in my Caucus.

No, my timing is not about them, my comment is about the issues that we are here to fight, and we are fighting right now on the healthcare bill.

The expansion of opportunity in our Caucus has been great for people who want to take advantage and help us win.  Maybe they don't want to play in that arena, but I am very proud of the Members who do.  They are going around the country listening, our 30?somethings listening to the voices of young people.  And my 30th anniversary is in June, and at my celebrations I have always featured the young 30?somethings, and they are so impressive.

So we are paving a way for a new generation of leadership.  And again, I respect any opinion that my Members have.  But my decision about how long I stay is not up to them.

Q:  Just to follow up, Democrats have lost 60 seats over the past 6 years.  So why should you keep your job?

Leader Pelosi.  Well, look, I am going to tell you something.  We lost 54 seats, something like that, when President Clinton was President.  So history is on our side.  Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say that.

When President Clinton was elected in 1992, in 1994 I think it was 54 seats the Democrats lost with a Democrat in the White House.  When President Bush was President, we won the Congress, winning over 30 seats, nearly double what we needed to win the Congress.  When President Obama was President, again, the 60 seats you referenced.

So again, we have a Republican in the White House.  We believe there is real opportunity.  Now, it's not a slam dunk.  History is on our side.  But it takes being strategic, unified, and disciplined, we have harmony.  That doesn't always mean we have unanimity, but we do have unity when it comes to fighting that fight.

So you want me to sing my praises?  Is that what you're saying?  Why should I?  Well, I'm a master legislator.  I am a strategic, politically astute leader.  My leadership is recognized by many around the country, and that is why I am able to attract the support that I do, which is essential to our election, sad to say.

I am very pleased at the cooperation that we are doing working with all the social media and the small donor community to change how we communicate, but also how we attract resources, intellectual and financial, to the party.

I have experience in winning the Congress.  When people said to us in 2005, ‘You don't have a chance, be prepared for a Republican permanent majority,' Harry Reid and I said, ‘We don't accept that.'  So we proceeded, we took the President from 58 to 38, President Bush, won the election.

But the fact is they will always make a target.  Senator Reid was a target, Senator [Tom] Daschle was a target, [Speaker] Tip O'Neill was a target, I am a target.  And they always want to choose our leaders.  And usually they go after the most effective leaders, because they want to diminish the opportunity that we have.

We have a Democratic Caucus where Members participate in the decisions, and right now the Members are putting together our messaging as we go forward.  I could have written something down on a page and said, ‘This is what I think.'  But we don't do things that way.  We listen to Members.

We are very proud of our Policy and Communications Committee, Hakeem Jeffries, David Cicilline, and Cheri Bustos, elected by the Members to put this together and work with the Senate so that we can have something ready pretty soon.

Q:  Leader Pelosi, you did get some support from the President this morning.  He tweeted he hopes that you stay in that post because he feels that you are helpful to Republicans in these races where they tie you to their Democratic opponents.  How do you respond to the President?  And there are other Republicans who believe that you are actually helpful to them.

Leader Pelosi.  It is not about me necessarily.  They like to target my district, the city of St. Francis.  The song of St. Francis is the anthem of our city.  Make me an instrument of thy peace.  Where there is darkness, I bring light.  Hatred.  Love.  Fear.  Hope.  You know the song of St. Francis, I'm sure.  It's a classic beyond religion, but just in terms of a value statement.  I am very proud to represent San Francisco in the Congress.

And for a long time now, since I was elected Whip and Leader, it was always about do you support gay marriage, do you support this?  Yes, I do, and I am proud to do so.  So that's what they play off of.

It would be interesting to see what they would say if I were from some other place.  But I take their insult against my city as a bankruptcy of values on their part not to recognize the greatness of the city I represent.  I am a progressive, and they use that as well.

But I don't think that Members of a party should pick up the line of the Republicans, and that's what my Members are coming back to me saying.  Why are these people using their line?  We don't agonize, we organize.  So let's get started on winning the races where we really do have a chance, where the numbers are more in our favor.

But I think, this is what I think when I heard that tweet, I said, he didn't write that.  That's the first one I think he didn't write.  He didn't write that.  The Republicans gave him that, and then he added the Chuck Schumer line in there as well.  He may have added that.  But I think that they wrote that for him, because it's a classic Republican line.

The fact is that we have to redistrict our country so that when we get the majority of the votes in the country it is reflected as a majority of the votes in the Congress.  And that's what we're setting out do as well, as you know, under the leadership of Eric Holder, working with President Obama, the Governors Association under the leadership of Terry McAuliffe, and House Democrats and Senate as well, to end voter suppression.  These are the activities largely in the courts, to end voter suppression, redistricting, injustices, and the rest.

So we know infrastructure?wise what we need to do.  We know message?wise what we need to do.  And our Chairman, in terms of the DCCC, separate from the redistricting, he understands the value of the mobilization, that mobilization cannot happen without a message.  You can't run on empty.  You have to have inspiration to do that.  And our inspiration was there at the grassroots level, but we have to communicate it to a broader audience.

He understands the value of motivation, message, the money, and to expand the amount of people who are contributing.  And the $10 is really having a wholesome effect on politics in general in our country, and I am proud of that.

And then you have the messenger, the recruiting of the candidates.  Sometimes they self?recruit and come from their own districts, and sometimes we reach out to say to someone, "Would you consider running?"

This is what is at stake.  This is a year where people see the urgency, want to take responsibility, and we have a lot more self?recruitment going on.

Yes, ma'am?

Q:  Thank you, ma'am.  Three weeks ago you said that we need to be responsible stewards of God's creation? 

Leader Pelosi:  Yes.

Q:  And that it dishonors God to pull out of the Paris Accord.  The Heartbeat Protection Act would prohibit aborting a baby with a heartbeat.  Does it dishonor God to abort a baby with a beating heart? 

Leader Pelosi.  I don't – obviously, you want to get into that discussion.  What I say is I completely respect a woman's right to choose.  I am a mother of five children, nine grandchildren, but my five children were born within exactly 6 years of each other.  When our baby came home from the hospital, when we brought her home, our oldest child was turning 6 – I thought she might be here, she is not allowed in the room, I guess – turning 6 that week.

I come from a very strong Italian Catholic family, and many of my family members do not share my view.  But it is my view that it is up to a woman to have her own right to choose the size and timing of her family.  God gives us the free will and holds us responsible and accountable for our actions.

Anybody else?  Yes, sir?

Q:  Madam Leader, do you think that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch should be subpoenaed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee pursuant to Senator Feinstein's comments last week that she wants to explore the matter further? 

Leader Pelosi.  Well, I am not so familiar with all of that.  I don't think she should be subpoenaed on the strength of the President going by and saying hello, which I think was a mistake, but nonetheless.

But here's what I do think about that subject.  There's a lot of – there are meetings going on now to deconflict in terms of – what are we calling Mueller now? – Special Counsel Mueller is going to be doing his investigation at the same time the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, in a parallel timeframe.  One doesn't have to wait for the other.  The same thing with the Judiciary Committee.

But my comment to all of them, and you give me an opportunity to say it here, is there may be information that the Special Counsel has that may not be incriminating from the standpoint of the law, but might be useful in terms of the investigations, what might be obstruction of justice.  I don't know.  They need to get the facts.  But abuse of power is different.

So any information they may have should be made available to the investigative committees in the House and in the Senate, Judiciary, Intelligence.  And it shouldn't be a situation of, "Well, we collected this information so we are not making it available to you," while we curtail the ability of other entities to give you the same information because it was under a Justice Department investigation.

Anybody else?  Yes, ma'am.

Q:  Back to 2018, do you have any plans to, when the ads come out saying, ‘Don't vote for the Democrat because Pelosi will become Speaker of the House,' do you have any strategies for how you're going to approach that?

Leader Pelosi.  Let me just say this.  They spent over $100 million demonizing me in the 2010 elections and all the rest.  I believe one of the reasons they did it is because I'm an effective leader.  I passed the Affordable Care Act, we passed Dodd?Frank, all the things that big money was unhappy about, whatever the role of government is in protecting the consumer, protecting their good health.

So having said that, at the same time the Speaker was a candidate for Vice President of the United States, Speaker Ryan, hundreds of millions of dollars were spent to promote, to promote the ticket of Romney?Ryan.  So he's had hundreds of millions of spent on his side, I had a $100 million or so spent against me, and his numbers are no better than mine.

The difference is we don't engage in the politics of personal destruction.  The fact is that if we just talk about the issues –  for example, I think it would be interesting to people in these districts to know that the Speaker wants to take away the guarantee of Medicare.  So I think talking about issues is where we should be.  What is the difference in one person being Speaker than another?

But I don't think that any party should allow the opposite party to choose their leaders.  And I think the analysis is showing that these districts were very hard districts to win, and they were not resolved because of any attack on me.

Think of what they did in the last week.  He was going great, Ossoff.  In the last week, I leave this for our Chairman to present to you, but they had an ad that had Steve Scalise coming in in a gurney and saying that the Democrats were responsible for that.  I mean that is so beneath the dignity of the debate in our country.  And yet.

They had President Obama reading from his book quoting someone from an earlier time, talking about the black community, and they put that forth as a, shall we say, a suppresser of the vote in the black community.  I don't think they succeeded with it, but they were willing to go to that racist – and I will call it racist – place.

So, you know, the Democrats, we have to have the strength of our economic argument, and that's really our power, and to make sure people know, as Martin Luther King said, what legislation means in your life.  But I think whoever the Leader is, is going to be their target if the leader is effective.  And that's what I said about Tip O'Neill and this or that.

And in Georgia, look what they did in Georgia to some of the candidates there.  I mean really, hopefully, we will go down a different path as the public is more aware of it.

But the public is very smart.  Elections have results.  We respect that.  But then we get ready for the next fight.  Because nothing less is at stake than the fact that one in five children in America lives in poverty, and that's okay with them, that God's creation, whether it's our children, whether it's clean air, clean water, the planet, whether it's Medicare as a guarantee for our seniors, whether it's job creation for the middle class with good?paying checks and reducing the cost to people of their livelihood by affordable healthcare, paid leave, child care, things like that.

There's a difference between the two parties.  That's where we should take the debate.  They don't want to go there.  They'd rather go to San Francis in a cable car.

And by the way, just in case that wasn't enough, go to New York with two hipsters.  I didn't see the ad, but they tell me they have two hipsters at the end making it look like Ossoff was, I don't know, a hipster.  I don't know that place.  But apparently it was considered a negative ad.

Q:  Is it worth it to try and, I guess, like, rehab your image in some of these Republican districts, to sort of present what you've done, or are you guys more focused on –

Leader Pelosi.  Well, people say to me all the time, you raised more money than anybody – maybe not the Obamas and the Clintons, but I have not run for President ?? why don't you spend some of your money on yourself?  Go out there and say that you did, this, this, and this.

But you know, it's just not – maybe I should, but the fact is what I want to do is have these Members present themselves.  Because basically, at the end of the day, that's what people are interested in, their Representative and what their Representative is going to do for their district.

Republicans are afraid of that contrast in a race because they are going to go there to be involved in trickle?down economics, shutting down hospitals, and the rest of it.  So they don't want them to see that contrast.  So they focus on something else.

And it's a diversionary tactic.  It's a self?fulfilling premise.  You demonize and then you – we call it the wrap?up smear.  If you want to talk politics, you call it the wrap?up smear.  You smear somebody with falsehoods and all the rest, and then you merchandise it.  And then you write it, and they will say, ‘See, it's reported in the press that this, this, this, and this,' so they have that validation that the press reported the smear, and then it's called the wrap?up smear.  ‘Now I'm going to merchandise the press's report on the smear that we made.'  It's a tactic, and it's self?evident.

But I think I'm worth the trouble, quite frankly.  I love the fray.  I'm not disrespectful of people's views.  I respect any positive things that people want to say, or even negative, as long as it's constructive.

But when it's blatantly self?serving and beyond the normal competition that the press so enjoys focusing on instead of – wouldn't it be better if all the press were focusing on the Senate's heartless, mean?spirited bill that hurts seniors and veterans, working families in our country, does terrible damage to our children, who I hope that all the people are concerned about, our children, concerned about them in terms of these healthcare bills.

But it is an interesting time.  It is an opportunity.  It's what campaigns are about.  I serve at the pleasure of my Caucus.  My Caucus is overwhelmingly supportive of me.  And this is not the time.  At the end of a 2?year time, we'll see what happens then.  And every year it is a time.

Many times I had not really wanted to run again, when they called upon me to do so.  This time I did.  The election of Donald Trump, I thought this takes the knowledge and experience that I have, says she immodestly, to make this fight and to unify our Members around the facts.

The facts.  The law.  Progress for the American people.  Urgency.  Responsibility.  Opportunity.  I love it.

Thank you.