Transcript of Pelosi Press Conference Today
Leader Pelosi. Good morning. To some of you, welcome back. Some of you we have seen earlier in the week on one issue or another. Hope you've had a restorative and enjoyable holiday.
First, as we come back, it was very moving and historic, really, to see the President opening the new year with strong, commonsense executive actions to address the epidemic of gun violence in America.
As you all know, Americans overwhelmingly support action to reduce the daily tragedy of gun violence in our communities. The President has clear authority to toughen the application and enforcement of existing laws to save lives. And, again, no substitute for some additional congressional action, which we're asking for a vote for. It's necessary because 30,000 Americans are being killed by guns each year; many more, probably three times that, close to 100,000, gun injuries.
Tomorrow marks the five-year anniversary since our own colleague, Gabby Giffords, and 18 others were shot outside a supermarket in Tucson. It was really a joy to see Gabby there five years later that she is devoted to reducing gun violence in our country, she and her husband, Mark.
With all of that and the families that were gathered there and the hope that the President instilled in them and the path that he provided to reduce gun violence in our country, it was really almost sad to see Speaker Ryan and congressional Republicans say that the President's action reduces action dismisses actions to reduce gun violence as a distraction. The Speaker said what the President did was a distraction.
I wish he could've been there at the White House, because it wasn't a distraction for the families of children who were there – the families who were there of children killed at Sandy Hook and Newtown. It wasn't a distraction for the Pinckney family, who were there, Reverend Pinckney's family, from South Carolina. It wasn't a distraction for the many other families who were there. In fact, it was their central focus. And the President's actions gave them hope, gave them something to mobilize around.
As they say, enough is enough, and we will not stop until the job is done. We want a vote in Congress on the bipartisan Peter King-Mike Thompson legislation to close loopholes.
Now, 20 years ago, when we first passed the Brady bill, how many of you were shopping on the Internet? Well, many of you weren't even shopping, but how many of us were shopping on the Internet? Now, 20 years later, many people are shopping on the Internet, and some people are buying guns there. And that loophole needs to be closed.
The Republican Congress even refuses to keep guns out of the hands of suspects on the FBI's Terrorist Watchlist. Later today, Republicans will vote for the 10th time to block action to close the loophole that allows suspected terrorists to buy guns in the U.S. You can be on the FBI Terrorist Watchlist, go into a store, and, 90 percent of the time, leave with the gun of your choice. That's a loophole that should be closed. The Republicans refuse to do so.
We must build on what the President did and pass the King-Thompson bipartisan legislation. I truly believe that it would pass the House if the Speaker gave us the opportunity to vote on it.
Meanwhile, instead, as we discussed yesterday, some of us, for their first act of 2016, Republicans decided to renew their attack on women's health. With yesterday's reconciliation bill, Republicans once again tried to take family planning and lifesaving preventive care aware from millions of American women. It is the House GOP's 11th vote to attack women's health in the 114th Congress.
In 2013 alone, Planned Parenthood – the last time we have all of it measured – Planned Parenthood's 669 centers saw more than 2.6 million patients, giving more than 370,000 Pap tests and more than 450,000 breast exams.
This Republican bill to defund Planned Parenthood is an insult to the intelligence and judgment of women. It's a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. The President will veto the bill. Democrats will sustain the President's veto.
Hard-working Americans would've hoped that the first act the Republican Congress would put forth the first legislation they would put forth would be something about job creation, about growth, about good paying jobs for the American people, not grandstanding on women's most intimate decisions. Republicans should resolve – their New Year's resolution should be to quit their anti-women health obsession for the new year.
In global matters, as you know, North Korea has reported a nuclear – in fact, they reported a hydrogen test this week, and that is deeply concerning. The initial analysis is that North Korea has overstated the nature of the test, but these reckless actions threaten the security of the region and the world.
This irresponsible act by North Korea violates longstanding U.N. Security Council resolutions on nuclear weapons activities. Those resolutions include ballistic missiles and other initiatives, but speaking specifically to this, it's in violation of the U.N. resolution.
We understand the Republican leadership plans to move a bill strengthening U.S. sanctions on North Korea. That will have strong bipartisan support. My understanding is it may even be brought up under suspension as early as next week. Democrats in the committee will support the legislation [and] do support the legislation. And it has been in the works for a while; this just did not materialize since Monday night's test. But it is ready to go, and we will support it.
Any questions?
No?
Chad, are you Chad's person here? Is he going to ask about the Bengals or something like that?
***
Q: Well, the Bengals beat the Niners. You didn't talk about that.
Leader Pelosi. Well, I've talked about the Warriors, didn't I?
Q: I know, I know, but we don't have a basketball team.
Leader Pelosi. Okay. What do you got?
Q: That said, I know you're always optimistic about electoral prospects for your party to re-win the House here. There is one school of thought out there that if Donald Trump were to be the nominee that it drastically increases chances, but some people say that is still a hard match. What do you think, as specific to the Trump scenario?
Leader Pelosi. So you want to talk politics right here under the dome of the Capitol?
Q: We've never done that, have we?
Leader Pelosi. From time to time, as a small percentage of our meeting, after we've discussed policy and why the election is important.
Yes, I'm confident about, in this Presidential year, the clear contrast between Democrats and Republicans: the message of trickle-down which the Republicans espouse, tax breaks for the wealthy and special interests, and perhaps it will trickle down; or growing out from the middle, recognize we're a consumer economy, grow our economy in that way. I think that contrast is a stark one and the American people will identify with our Democratic initiatives under that framework.
We have great candidates. The optimism that I have springs from the enthusiasm of people who are stepping forward to run. So we have the candidates. We have, under Mr. Clyburn's leadership, a mobilization, an outreach to register and reconnect with people as to why it's important that they vote. And the leadership of our chairman, Mr. Lujan, who is – 24/7 is an understatement of the time he puts in and the high regard with which he is held by our colleagues.
So we had a very successful year in terms of mobilization, messaging, and money – the three M's.
Q: But how much does it make a difference if Trump is the nominee?
Leader Pelosi. So if I say we want Trump, then that means we think that that enhances our prospects, so that might reduce his support.
I don't really get involved in the Republican nomination for President. You know that. I barely get involved in the Democratic nomination for President.
But whoever they choose, we will be ready to make the contrast. Because it's not just about personalities, although that counts in a Presidential. It's about policy. And it's about how the American people identify with someone who identifies with their aspirations, who understands them, who knows them.
So I wish them well on their process, whoever they nominate. We feel very confident that we will be able to defeat and to do so in a way that lifts many more members into the House and the Senate and State legislatures across the country.
Q: Madam Leader, I'm curious for your perspective. Is the Canadian born Senator Ted Cruz, do you think, eligible to be President? John McCain said he didn't know today. I was curious for your perspective.
Leader Pelosi. He said he didn't know?
Q: Yeah.
Leader Pelosi. Well, you know, again, this is inside baseball – to use one of Chad's always sports analogies – inside baseball of the Republican Party. It's up to them to decide.
I do think there is a distinction between John McCain being born to a family and serving our country in Panama than someone born in another country. But, again, this is a constitutional issue that will either be decided or not, but in a constitutional way. My opinion means nothing here.
Q: So would it be fair to say you're unsure?
Leader Pelosi. I haven't paid any attention to it. I'm more concerned about the fact that the Republicans in Congress think that trying to stop gun violence in our country is a distraction, that their first legislative act is to defund Planned Parenthood. That's really what my focus is, not where Ted Cruz was born.
Q: Since we're talking politics, progressive groups, some, are calling for Debbie Wasserman Schultz to step down as the head of DNC. She's been in open battles with one of your Democratic Members. Does she still have your confidence?
Leader Pelosi. Yes.
Q: Can you elaborate? Why does she have your confidence?
Leader Pelosi. Well, I don't share the concerns that others have put forth. I have been vocal in saying I thought we should've had more debates. That isn't about her leadership; it's just about a decision that was made by those who make those decisions.
But Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a very valued Member of the House of Representatives from the standpoint of policy. She knows her issues. She came here as an experienced legislator from the Florida Legislature. She has all the stamina and enthusiasm for the job that she has, and I believe she has the confidence of the President and will of the nominee of our party. And that's where these decisions are made.
Q: But now that the DNC is being sued by one of your Presidential candidates, do you think she's been good for the party?
Leader Pelosi. I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware of a lawsuit. I'm sorry. I'm just not paying that much attention to that aspect of it, you know?
Yes, sir?
Q: China's currency devaluation is rattling financial markets. The Customs Bill that passed the House, do you think that that would address this adequately? And is that about the most Congress will do in this Congress?
Leader Pelosi. I don't support the Customs Bill. I think that it started out as a reasonable place that we could support, but when they added other – you know what the story is of the Customs Bill. The Customs Bill is where their terrible amendments to the Trade Promotion Act, the fast track, where terrible amendments to that went to hide. They didn't put these amendments on the fast track bill because they knew they'd lose Democratic votes.
You know, totally ignoring climate change and its relationship to commerce, lowering the threshold in human trafficking as it related to Malaysia, issues that relate to currency that were not adequately addressed in the Customs Bill. So what they did was put some terrible stuff in the Customs Bill to attract Republican votes for fast track without losing Democratic votes there. So, this is their path to TPP.
I don't know if it has any relevance to what is happening in China, in terms of the underlying causes of the market there going down and its relationship to our Customs Bill. But I would hope that the solution is on firmer ground than the Customs Bill, which had strong Republican support and the President was supposed to sign, but now they injected another element, which is extending the moratorium on internet taxation, into the bill, so that's complicated matters as well.
I'm hoping we'll get to the Chaffetz bill, which is bipartisan. It was sponsored by a Republican Chairman – that we all support for marketplace fairness. It has different names – Internet Fairness Act or Main Street Fairness Act – but something that's fair to the States and cities.
Yes, sir?
Q: To stay on trade for a second, would you state your position on TPP and how you think it should be handled?
Leader Pelosi. I'm reading it now, I'm reading it now. I'm trying to study it very carefully. I've made clear to the Members that a vote on fast track – which I do not believe the Congress should relinquish its authority to any President, Democratic or Republican. That's a prerogative that is, I think, important for the Congress, so that is one vote. What the substance of TPP is is another vote, and that requires our study of it.
And Mr. Levin, our Ranking Member of Ways and Means, is having a series of meetings on it. And you might be happy to know that, at one of our meetings, Mr. Levin said that he was having one – it could be today; yeah, I think it's today – on currency and that it would be ‘sizzling' – Mr. Levin and his sizzling meetings.
[Laughter]
It will be interesting to see, but that meant that they had representatives on both sides of the issue in terms of currency – maybe more than two sides. And that's what was happening today.
So Members are studying and learning more, and we'll see. But a great deal of it depends on when the Republican majority will bring up the bill. And, as you've seen, what I see reported in the press – I don't know if it's a fact, but it is a fact that it is reported in the press that Senator McConnell said it would probably not come up until September, if then.
Yes, sir?
Q: Over the weekend there was a series of arrests of illegal immigrants including a number of families who had arrived a year and a half ago as part of that migrant surge. The cases had been adjudicated and they were deemed ineligible for asylum or any number of other elite agendas that you got. They're now in these detention centers that you have asked them to close and they're in line for deportation. Do you think they should be deported?
Leader Pelosi. I thank you for your question because this is a very serious challenge that we have. The mothers and children are overwhelmingly who we're talking about here. They are the subjects of these proceedings; [they] are desperately trying to escape violence in their home countries. In processing the asylum claims of these women and children and others fleeing horrific, really horrific violence in Central America, I think the Department of Homeland Security must ensure that no person is wrongfully deported to face certain persecution of mortal danger. And that's what's happening there. The adjudication process has to recognize that not all of these people that you have discussed has had full access to effective counsel during all stages of the process.
Now refugees, they really do not have – as an American citizen might have – the right to counsel, but we do have to try to make sure that there's some evenness when they try. For example, we must address barriers to access to attorneys, clear explanations of what is happening in their native language – largely Spanish – about their rights in the process, especially about the right to appeal and especially considering that, as I said, these individuals are not entitled to court-appointed attorneys.
So, I think that we have to study every case separately. We want to obey our laws but we also want to, in obeying our laws, make sure that the process is fair to people. And I think in some of those, at least four, they have had a stay – so as they look more closely at it. We've been having some meetings on this subject; we'll be having another meeting and briefing today.
But it's a bigger issue. The situation in Central America is horrific. There is really – mortal danger is not an exaggeration of what some of these people will experience when they go home. If you're going to be killed or you try to come to the U.S., the choice is a clear one. On the other hand, we don't want the message to go out that this is a process that's almost automatic: you come, you stay. No. You have to prove your case. And you also have to say this is a regional issue. There are other countries that could be helpful in absorbing some of the people who have this well-founded fear of persecution and mortal dangers in their countries.
Q: But they have been through a process. Does that mean you don't have confidence in the process that's in place?
Leader Pelosi. Well, I think access to attorneys makes a big difference as to whether you are going to succeed or not. I think the numbers are very clear: if you have a good, qualified attorney in this kind of law, you have a better chance – just like any other legal [process]. But if you really have no chance, you have language barriers, you don't understand the process, you're probably not going to be able to make an effective case. Again, we want to obey our laws but we also want to implement them fairly. And we'll be having some conversations with the Administration to that effect. Some of them today.
Q: Leader Pelosi?
Leader Pelosi. Last question.
Q: You mentioned Peter King in your opening remarks. He is one of the few Republicans who agrees with you on background checks. But yesterday, he said that what Obama did with the Executive order effectively makes it harder for people like him who are advocating background checks because the President went around Congress.
Leader Pelosi. Well, Congress needs to act. How many more years does Congress have to refuse to act?
Again, I hope that you all saw what happened. This was historic, this was transformative, this was something great – the President of the United States using his authority to make people safer in our country, which is our first responsibility, to protect the American people.
And I know the Republicans have a line about this, ‘It's a distraction.' No, it's a focus. It's an important focus. And it's an embarrassment to the world that America has the gun violence that it has, because we have laws which have been proven to be effective but that we will not extend to the Internet or gun shows and the hobbyists, people who collect guns, collectors, and people who collect guns as a hobby. If you want me to go into the specifics, I will. But I think that it's never been easy.
So to say ‘it makes it harder to pass the bill' is compared to what? We have not had a chance to have that vote on the floor, while we've wasted time: over 60 times to overturn the Affordable Care Act, 11 times to defund Planned Parenthood, how many times more to – you know, the list goes on and on.
But this is a debate the American people wonder about with Congress. You wonder why our numbers are so low? This is about something that affects them very directly, not only in the high profile incidences of tragedy, but what happens every night on the streets in communities across our country.
Yes, he has a very good bill. I hope he's not walking away from it, but he did say it makes it harder. Perhaps it does. But hopefully it will make it easier for the American people to understand why we don't have a vote. And, as the President said, the NRA can try to hold the Congress hostage, but they are not going to hold the country hostage when it comes to the safety of the American people.
Q: Are you confident it will withstand a legal challenge?
Leader Pelosi. Listen, let's go back – and we really have to give up the room because the Speaker is coming any minute.
Look at the case on immigration. [Presidents] Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, to name a few, but I'm just naming three Republicans now, even going back to President Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, and beyond. All of these Presidents have taken action in terms of immigration in our country.
Ronald Reagan, after Congress acted in 1986, after Congress acted with the Immigration Act of 1986, he said, ‘Congress did not go far enough, I'm going further to protect families.' So he instituted the family fairness provision, which he and President George H.W. Bush implemented, with a higher percentage of an impact than anything that President Obama has done.
So these court cases – shall they be retroactive? Should they apply to President Reagan and President Bush when it comes to immigration? It's litigation, litigation, the courts, the courts, the courts – just really a waste of time.
I believe that the President did what he did on Tuesday with full knowledge, as a constitutional scholar himself, of what the possibilities were and is on very strong ground as we go forward to – what does it do? To enforce the laws that are on the books in a more effective way.
And I had some of the law enforcement people who were at the ceremony, one in particular from Baltimore whom I have a friendship with, tell me how pleased he was and how helpful what the President was going to do was going to be to law enforcement.
Thank you all very much.