Transcript of Pelosi Press Conference Today
Leader Pelosi. Good morning, everyone.
Time check: with only 16 calendar days and only five legislative days left until the Department of Homeland Security is scheduled to shut down, House Republicans refuse to admit the dangerous collapse of their anti immigrant grandstanding. Senate Republicans have told the House Republicans their bill cannot pass in the Senate, but still the House Republicans refuse to acknowledge the facts.
Yesterday, every House Republican voted to block consideration of a clean Department of Homeland Security bill. On Tuesday, asked whether the House will take up a DHS spending bill, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said, "Why do we have to? Why do we have to?"
Here's why: forcing the Department of Homeland Security to shut down endangers the American people, violating the sacred oath we take to support and defend. It is our oath of office. It is our first responsibility: protect the American people. Republicans should stop holding our Homeland Security hostage and bring forward a clean, long-term funding bill immediately.
Instead of addressing these urgent priorities for our security, Republicans were bringing forward two deficit exploding and permanent unpaid-for tax extender bills. Together, the bills increase the deficit by nearly $100 billion, part of the same unpaid-for permanent tax extender package from the last Congress. Their package in total would increase the deficit by $800 billion – nearly a trillion dollars. We need comprehensive tax reform that strengthens working families, promotes growth, and reduces the deficit.
Also yesterday, the President submitted a draft for a new Authorization for Use of Military Force to Congress. It ends the outdated 2002 authorization that authorized the Iraq War. It restricts the use of ground troops. It includes other important limiting provisions as we go forward. Congress must now debate the draft, make our own positive proposals on how we protect the American people. And that's a bigger debate than the provisions of this AUMF. It's a debate that we should have been having.
Since last August, we've been calling for the Speaker to let us bring something to the floor so that we could debate it. He said "No," and it's here and all that, and then he said: "We can't act until we see something from the President." Well, that is not so. But now we have seen something from the President. And what we have to do is consider the threats and the evaluation of the threat. We have to see that it is in our national security interest to address that threat, and we have to make a judgment as to whether what the President has put forth is commensurate with the threat.
Many of us believe that he is on the right path – but not necessarily committed to the words in this draft, until we review them more carefully. And you all know that the subjects are about timing – three years – about scope, about geography, unlimited in the President's proposal. There are Members who have something to say, shall we say, about the timing and the geography. But the most serious part of it is the scope, and that would have an impact on timing and geography.
And in what the President has put forth, there is a limitation. I'll just read it exactly. Under the section on limitations, "The authority granted in Subsection A does not authorize the use of United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations." That is a limitation. As you know, Senator McCain has a different view of giving unlimited authority to the President, and we have some in our Caucus who proceed cautiously on that. And that is the debate that we will have. The first debate is about an evaluation of the threat and what arrows do we want to place in the President's quiver to deal with the threat.
Yesterday, again was a busy day – well, not a busy day in terms of getting things done around here. But, nonetheless, we went to the floor to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the foot soldiers in the march on Selma. The legislation will award the Gold Medal when it is minted and presented, but we had the authorization for it yesterday. It was very interesting to hear the debate – very inspired, very praiseworthy, of these people in the march on both sides of the aisle. Beautiful words on the floor about the foot soldiers.
But they are foot soldiers who alone came for voting rights, and what was missing from all of that – as we heard tales of the courage of these marchers and the violence that they suffered and putting their lives at risk for the right to vote, it was all very inspiring to hear the admiration for the foot soldiers – what we would have liked to have seen is a commitment to honor their work by giving a commitment to passing a voting rights act.
Yesterday, Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner and our Ranking Member John Conyers introduced the bipartisan Voting Rights Act Amendment. And Mr. Sensenbrenner has been part of that bipartisan initiative all along. What we need is for the Speaker to bring the bill to the floor. We had hoped it would happen last year. They didn't bring the bill to the floor. It is just – nice words on the floor are no substitute for enacting legislation that honors the sacrifice of the those marchers, and that is to pass the Voting Rights Act.
I am very pleased that our Democratic Outreach and Engagement Task Force led by Congressman Clyburn, who himself was part of the Civil Rights Movement, will be introducing legislation in the weeks ahead again. Hopefully, by the time we all go to Selma the first weekend in March, we will have reason to be hopeful that the 50 year anniversary will be marked by a recommitment to the bill in the form of legislation passed in the Congress.
I remind you that, when we brought this forward in 2006 – the bill was written in 2006 and put together – the vote in the Senate was unanimous. It was unanimous. In the House, only 33 people voted ‘No.' And that was a broader bill than what is being put forth now by Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Conyers. So it has been bipartisan with great pride. Hopefully, they will bring a bill to the floor soon again.
With that, I'd be pleased to take any question you have.
***
Q: Madam Leader?
Leader Pelosi. Yes.
Q: What is the most likely end game of this DHS drama? Is a two-month CR realistic? I'm just trying…
Leader Pelosi. But that is not an end. That is not an end. A two-month CR is not an end. A two-month CR is a continuation of uncertainty. And they are just – face the fact that this President has the right to do what he has done by executive action, has the right in the law by legal authority as well as by precedent of other Presidents.
And they want to overturn that using the Constitution and the rest and saying, therefore, they are not going to fund Homeland Security, the very first responsibility we have. It is hard to understand, but two months is nothing. And as their leader said, "Why do we have to" do that? "Why do we have to?"
So if they don't understand why we have to do that, they don't understand that maybe 100,000 people will be without pay, people who, more importantly, should be at work protecting the American people. How would they like to be without pay because they are not protecting the American people by honoring their oath of office?
So a two-month is not an end. An end is to pass the bill clean, just as they did – now, there should be a recognition that 11 appropriations bills were arrived at in a bipartisan way that we supported. And not that I am saying it is a bill I would have written, but they are a compromise and they are to be respected for the bipartisanship and the work product that came forth. And those 11 have gone forth and they are funded until the end of the fiscal year, at the end of September. Only this one is the one that they have held up. And in December, when they decided to have a CR, a continuing resolution, the CRomnibus – cute – they said, "Oh, we are going to do it in January." And, as I said to you before, that was December. "Oh, we are going to do it in January."
January, "Je suis Charlie," the whole world is galvanized around this issue of anti-terrorism and domestic safety and homeland security except, again, the hermetically-sealed chamber of the House of Representatives, where they came back and, instead of just moving with it, they dug in their heels. So two months, that is not a solution. That is not an end game. So you have to ask them how they are going to face up to their responsibilities. It is important to…
Q: Madam Leader, in clarifying your call for a clean bill, how is that different than saying you're willing to shut down Homeland Security to protect illegal immigrants from deportation?
Leader Pelosi. Just as I said – perhaps you weren't listening – the President has the legal authority to do what he did. He has it by the law, and that has been recognized in court cases under other Presidents. And so he has it under legislation. He has it under legal affirmation of that. And he has it under the precedent of other presidents. And the biggest protectors were President Reagan and President George Herbert Walker Bush with their initiatives over and above what the Congress did.
So it is not a question of protecting illegal people in the country. It is a question of respecting the authority of the President of the United States to do – did you hear anything from them on Reagan, President George W. Bush, one of the greatest champions for immigration reform in our country when he did this? So this is not a reason. This is an excuse. And it is a very poor one to say, "I'm not going to honor my first responsibility because I have a problem."
And as the President said, "If you don't like what I have done, pass a bill." Pass a bill. Now, this is – they are in a fix. We will see how they get themselves out of it. We stand ready to work with them to protect the American people.
Q: Madam Leader.
Leader Pelosi. Yes, ma'am.
Q: About the Voting Rights Act, has there been any indication from Republican leadership that they will bring the Sensenbrenner-Conyers bill to a vote? And, more broadly, do you think the Republican Party is committed to getting this update done? And, if not, why not?
Leader Pelosi. Well, you have to ask them. But I don't see any evidence of that yet because we had all of last year since the court acted incorrectly, in my view, because they said the Voting Rights Act had – I don't know if they used the word "obsolete," – but that was the inference to be drawn. Well, we had just passed the bill overwhelmingly, and it became law in ‘06. And this was, what, ‘13 when they did the court decision? So more than a year ago. So there has been plenty of opportunity.
Now, don't get me wrong; this bill is a compromise. There are many out there who think we should go farther in correcting what the Court did, but this is a compromise that we would have hoped that they would accept because it is a compromise.
There is a drumbeat for doing a better voting rights bill. We are saying, "Let us get something passed," with Chairman Sensenbrenner's support, who has been a champion on these issues, "Let us move forward." I don't know of any commitment from them. They certainly did not make any yesterday.
Q: But do you think the Republican Party is interested in protecting voting rights?
Leader Pelosi. I would certainly hope so. I would certainly hope so.
Q: Madam Leader, in regards to the AUMF, talking to a lot of your Members, I can't find one that is enthusiastic about this. They said that no repeal to 2001 AUMF means that the President could essentially continue to operate the way they are, no geographic limitations, a real concern about how long special forces troops could be prolonged in the area. How do you sell this to your Members?
Leader Pelosi. Well, it is not a question of selling. We are all considering it together. So in our Caucus we build consensus and we listen to each other.
Taking your points one at a time: in terms of the 2001 AUMF, the Administration said they didn't put it in this bill because this is a big package to move. So if we want to deal with that, we should deal with that separately. And that is something that we all would have the prerogative to do.
The second point on geography: well, some want to just confine it to Iraq and Syria. And we are saying, "Well, what about Jordan?" You know, so then you get into naming countries. And that is a conversation we should have. You know, I am not saying one side is right and one side is wrong. It is a conversation that we need to have. But it is easier to say no limitation rather than start naming countries and then you have left somebody out, giving a road map to Al Qaeda as to where they can go because we are not going. And that is a consideration.
In terms of the timing, three years – I think the timing and the geography are related to the scope because the scope is really the issue. And, as I read, the limitations are that this authority granted in the subsection does not authorize the use of U.S. Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations. And so that is the conversation that we need to have.
There is no question that there is no appetite in the public for us to go into any more war. There is no question that the American people have been scarred by the false premise of the Iraq War and the duration and the obligation we have to our veterans when they come home and the challenge it is to meet that. So when we proceed, as I said, when we give arrows in the President's quiver, we have to match it to the threat, its relationship to our national security, and how we can help other countries fight the fight with their boots on the ground, not our boots on the ground.
Q: Madam Leader, your rise on the Iraq War issue is very well known within Democratic circles. You were an ardent critic to the Iraq War, very much to your benefit. How do you view this as…
Leader Pelosi. What I was told when I opposed the Iraq War, quite frankly, by members of our Caucus was, "If you oppose this war, your future is ended in the leadership of the Democratic Party." They didn't understand.
And I said, "Well, if I am the only person to vote against the Iraq War, I will be the only person to vote against it, but my responsibility, as Ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee, tells me that the intelligence does not support the threat that they are putting forth to the American people as a justification to go into war."
The intelligence did not support the threat, and I told that to my colleagues. And for this and other reasons, their own reasons, many Members, in fact, I think over 60 percent of the House Democrats opposed going into Iraq. So I was already with it at that point, but I was told, "You vote for this, it is over for you because this is" rah, rah, rah. And I said, "Well" rah, rah, rah "if I am the only one, I am the only one" rah, rah, rah. But that was really more from my knowledge of the intelligence and the fact that that was being misrepresented to the public.
Again, many people – I don't know. Some Democrats voted for it. They have said, "I wish I hadn't." But the fact is that, in making judgments about numbers that we got yesterday [at] 9 o'clock in the morning, people want to review it; they want to see what it is, but it has to be proven to them. They don't start at a place of, "Just show it to me and I am there." It has to be proven to them that this is an evaluation of the threat, that this proposal is commensurate with the threat, and it has limitations on the President. I don't ever remember a President sending legislation to the Congress to limit his power as Commander-in-Chief.
So I think the Administration has to be commended for that and we have to be commended for exercising our independent judgment as to the terms in this and make positive suggestions or not accept it. You know, this is a very personal decision that people have to make, and it is affected by what the threat is, what the proposal is, what the alternatives could be, and what the consequences could be.
And I would hope that, in the three years of this that ISIS will be defeated and that we can go on to our future instead of being in a war-like posture from ‘01. I don't think that this description here puts us in anywhere near the posture we were in Afghanistan and Iraq, though, I hasten to add. This is a limitation of presidential [power].
Yes, ma'am.
Q: Just to follow up on that question of the limitation, you and other Members have said you want to limit the ability to deploy ground troops.
Leader Pelosi. Yes.
Q: But the Republicans control both Houses of Congress, and they want to remove those limitations. Given that political dynamic and the fact that this is going to be marked up by Republican committee chairmen who want to take away those limitations, how likely is it that anything can pass?
Leader Pelosi. Well, it is going to be hard; and I would hope that we could find common ground to have bipartisan support for how we protect and defend the American people, but that takes work. It is called legislating. You probably maybe don't recognize it because it hasn't happened that much around here, but it is. And when we had the vote on going into Iraq in 1991, December, we went – the debate was in January 1991. When we had that debate; it was one of the best debates in the Congress. It really is important for people to express their knowledge of, again, our national security interest, what our options are, and make choices about it in a way that is values based, is not questioning anybody's motivation, but, instead, tries to find common ground to be united as we protect the American people.
It is a very, very, very serious responsibility to authorize the use of force and put our men and women in uniform at serious risk, and that is taken very seriously by Members.
Q: Madam Leader, moving down to the Horn of Africa on this as well, with the events in Yemen in the past few days, what does that say about the Administration's policy? And does that show that there has been a problem there or something that the U.S. and this Administration should have been more attentive to?
Leader Pelosi. Well, it says that what is going on in Yemen is a difficult situation. We were working with the Government of Yemen to fight the manifestation of Al Qaeda in Yemen. They are now gone. I am pleased that our personnel were able to get out of Yemen safely. But there is a lot going on in the world, and I don't know what would happen in terms of Yemen as we go down the road. But any of these incidences points to the fact that we need to have probably no geographic limitations on what we are doing.
That is not to say – and what they are talking about here is protecting our embassies. Well, we are out of there. We are talking about rescuing American personnel. Those are kinds of examples that we are talking about when we talk about not enduring offensive ground combat operations. That is what they are talking about.
So what we have to be talking about is how do we maintain the authority of our government to go in and rescue, go in and defend Americans and the rest; and that is what is relevant about this.
The Middle East is complicated, as you know; and as I'm sure you know in Yemen, apart from Al Qaeda, there are differences of opinion. There is tribal and all the rest. And we can't correct all the world's problems, but where they are a threat to us, we have to have some ability to protect the American people.
Thank you all.
Don't forget, in case you were forgetting, that, what, is this Sunday the last day to sign up for ACA? Here it is. Sunday marks the last day of the current open enrollment period under the Affordable Care Act. Enrollment has been extremely successful and exceeded expectations. So go to healthcare.gov for a healthier life, liberty, the freedom to pursue your happiness. We are very proud of the Affordable Care Act.
Thank you all very much.
Oh. And, by the way, don't forget Valentine's Day coming up. As a nice Valentine's Day, you can take your loved one to sign up for the Affordable Care Act.
[Laughter]
Q: I thought you were going to tell us about Ghirardelli chocolate.
Leader Pelosi. That, too.
Thank you. Bye bye.