Transcript of Pelosi Weekly Press Conference Today
Leader Pelosi. Good morning. Good morning. Today, October 1, 2014, marks one year since the government shut down. On that day, the Republicans chose to inflict damage to the economy. For 16 days they kept the government shut down.
Even before October 1, I had said to the Speaker: We will give you the votes to keep government open even though we don't like your 988 figure. You recall that was a drop of $80 billion from the $1.058 trillion that we had all agreed to. And then the House said not one dollar over 988 or else they would shut down government. The Senate agreed. The President agreed. House Democrats agreed. The only people who didn't agree were the House Republican Members, and they shut down government – with glee.
For 16 days we had a government shutdown damaging to the tune of $[24] billion, our economy hurting, our rate of growth of our GDP. And when they finally came around after public pressure was too much, overwhelmingly the Republicans voted to keep government shut down, and the Democrats voted for their number, which we didn't like but we accepted, to open up government.
Just stunning, the frivolity with which the Republicans treat the economy. That was five years from the time when they had on September 29 voted against a solution to the financial meltdown. President Bush was President, six years from now – go back 6 years. And six years ago was when we were leading up to the election of President Barack Obama. When he took office in that year the unemployment rate was over 9 percent. It's now 6.1. The deficit was $1.4 trillion in that year. It's now around $506 billion, a 60 percent drop in the deficit. The market then was around [8,000]. It is now around 17,000. We have had 54 straight months of private sector job growth, to the tune of 10 million jobs. Much more could have been done if the Republicans had supported some of the job initiatives that the President had put forth.
We are not in a good place yet for most working families because they were scarred by what the President inherited, the greatest financial meltdown and economic crisis for us since the Great Depression. The President has much to be proud of in terms of his turning around the economy, but more needs to be done. And that's why it's hard to understand how the Republicans could leave for a break, the earliest departure for a break before an election.
Instead, we should be here for our Middle Class Jumpstart issues that are not particularly partisan – to build the infrastructure of America with Build America Bonds, paid for by closing tax breaks for companies that send their jobs overseas; investing in education to keep America number one; supporting initiatives that enable families and students to renegotiate their loans at a lower price, at a lower interest rate, so that they can be entrepreneurial, so that they can afford college in the first place and be entrepreneurial, not straddled and chained by that oppressive debt.
And of course in our Middle Class Jumpstart, the jewel in the crown: When Women Succeed, America Succeeds. Who can argue – but the Republicans do – that we shouldn't have equal pay for equal work for women? Raise the minimum wage. Over 60 percent of people, nearly two thirds, making minimum wage are women. Allowing women to have a balance between – and families, men too – between work and home with paid sick leave. And of course to me, the missing link in the evolution of women in the workplace and in our economy: affordable, quality child care, children learning, parents earning. Instead of being rejected, the President's proposal for universal pre-K, rejected by the Republicans, we even have to go younger than that. So we have important work to do to meet the needs of the American people. The best thing we can do for our economy is to empower women, unleash the power of women in our economy.
So that's part of the debate that we'll be having as we go forward. I'm looking forward to the President's speech on Thursday – that's tomorrow – on that subject.
You have, some of you, asked me about ISIS and a vote in Congress on that subject. We are the first branch of government, Article I, the legislative branch. Congress has a role in defining how our country degrades and defeats ISIS, one of the challenges that we face to our national security. There is a conversation among Members informally about what form an authorization should take that would secure our national security interest, as well as could pass in both houses of Congress. Those conversations should be moved from the informal to the official. When this Congress comes back into session in November, it is important that we are here, we are ready to debate and vote on such an authorization. Between then and now we should be preparing.
As you have seen in the news on a day-to-day basis in recent days, the peaceful demonstrations in Hong Kong – some of you that have been around for a while know that the issue of pro-democracy and freedom and human rights in China and Tibet have been an important issue to me since even before Tiananmen Square. These demonstrations are peaceful, they are young, and hopefully they will produce a result.
At the time of the U.K. yielding back Hong Kong to China, a Basic Law was established. And Article 26 of the Basic Law or the constitution states: "Permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall have the right to vote and the right to stand for election in accordance with law." What China is doing now is counter to that because they're saying the people they put forth are the people who have a right to stand for office. So we're all watching very closely to see what is happening. The Chief Executive has said, we need to amend the methods of establishing a Chief Executive, which is, of course, counter to the agreement that took place in the 1990s.
And so, again, I think that people throughout the world should speak up on what is happening in Hong Kong. It's amazing to see how young, some of them in secondary school, some high school students. They have their demonstration, they don't run from tear gas, they clean up behind themselves, and they show up the next day because they want to have what was promised to Hong Kong.
On the subject of Ebola, I just want to make a comment there, because global health has been an issue of concern to the Congress for a long time, and we have submitted substantial resources to it, whether it's HIV/AIDS, whatever it happened to be, malaria, tuberculosis, and the rest. On the subject of Ebola, I salute the President for what he announced recently. It was well received by one President that I had been speaking to on more than one occasion, the President of Liberia, saying it gives them hope and hospital beds; and my conversation to the President of the World Bank, who sees this as having an impact on not only the people, which is first and foremost the issue, but the economy of these countries.
Resources will make a difference. As people are quarantined in clean settings and they have care, they can recover. And when they recover it gives other people hope to come in to seek care. So it's a sad, sad challenge, really in our interest from a humanitarian standpoint, but also for what it means to our own country.
With that, I'd be pleased to take any questions.
***
Q: Do you share Mr. Cummings' belief that the Director of the Secret Service should resign because he's lost confidence in her ability to run the agency?
Leader Pelosi. I have great confidence in Chairman Cummings, Mr. Cummings. I did not see the entirety of the hearing yesterday because I was at some events for the Prime Minister of India, which were wonderful. But here's what I would say: In terms of the Secret Service and the protection of the President of the United States, there has to be an independent investigation as to what is going on at the Secret Service. The protection of the President has to be precise, it has to be flawless, and there has to be accountability when that is not the case. It is inexcusable that someone would jump over the fence and into the White House; inexcusable that someone would be on the elevator with the President of the United States – with or without a weapon. So I think an independent investigation is what is needed – not just to hold people accountable, but to see how we should go forward in a way that, again, has precision, accountability and is flawless. Because the protection of the President is really important to our reputation – the reputation of the Secret Service – and Mr. Cummings keeps making that point. And I agree with him: It's about reputation. This is the expectation. The President will be protected – the President and his family will be protected.
Q: Madam Leader, the senior Democrat on the Government Reform Committee says that he's not comfortable with Julia Pierson continuing as head of the Secret Service. Do you agree with him?
Leader Pelosi. Well, as I say, I have confidence in what he has to say. I do think that the challenge may be more than one person. I would like to see an investigation of the culture and the procedure and the accountability in the Secret Service. Because, while I have confidence in Mr. Cummings – complete confidence – I do think that the challenge may go beyond her, because some problems existed before she was there.
Q: So she should stay for now?
Leader Pelosi. Well, I think we should have an investigation. Again, we'll learn more about what they have been learning and who has come forth. But I understand that she's the top person and the buck stops here, and there are those that are calling for her to step aside. Whether she does or not, I think we need an independent investigation. Her leaving doesn't end the need for us to know a lot more about what is happening. But again, I would accept the recommendation of my Ranking Member on the Committee.
Q: To that end on the same point here, on the Secret Service, when we had some of the scandals a couple of years ago – the carousing in Cartagena…
Leader Pelosi. That was pre-her…
Q: …And so on, prior to her coming in as the Director, you called the culture and some of the things going on there "disgusting."
Leader Pelosi. Right. It was very disgusting.
Q: Do you think, though, that the culture change – maybe they fixed one type of problem, you know, that was the idea, to bring her in – versus some of these other issues that deal more directly with the security portion?
Leader Pelosi. I have no idea. That's why I said we have to have – in other words, what was happening there was inexcusable, and a weakening of the security that we need to protect the President. So it's not unrelated to protecting the President. So if Mr. Cummings thinks that she should go, I subscribe to his recommendation. However, I don't think – and I don't say that he is saying this – that that is all that should be done. There has to be an independent investigation. There has to be accountability. The President of the United States and his family, the reputation of the Secret Service as ironclad in terms of protecting our President – any President; Presidents to come – has to be one that the American people have that confidence, that anyone who would serve or run would have that confidence. So whether it's some of the disgusting behavior of some of the members, which is, in my view, inexcusable – but that's minor compared to letting a person on the elevator with the President, with a gun or without a gun, or letting somebody jump the fence and have several lines of defense not work. But again, this is important, and it has to be dealt with. But we also have to deal with – because the protection of the President and his security is of the utmost importance to us. Again, this President, any president.
But we also have to be mindful of what's happening in people's homes. Right now, we have insecurity about their stability, their financial stability: about their job, their pension, about the education of their children, about their ability to have a home. Because for all the progress that was made in reducing the deficit and lowering unemployment and the growth of the stock market to almost 10,000 points and the job growth in the private sector, still too many people are left out of the loop. And their financial security, their financial stability is something that we have a responsibility to be dealing with, too. And we can do more than one thing at a time.
Q: Madam Leader, what kind of independent investigation would you support? Is this something that would be done here by Congressional committees.
Leader Pelosi. Well, I think Congressional committees have – believe me, I'm a big supporter of the prerogatives of Congress to investigate – but I do think there could be an investigation of people who have experienced directly in protecting presidents and the First Family and all that they protect – visiting dignitaries, and the rest. And that expertise might be useful in a "no nonsense", "this is what this is," "what we recommend is what we want to see happen." This isn't a conversation. This isn't a conversation. This is more than a recommendation; it's a requirement; that if people decide they're going to pull back the curtain on the Secret Service, that there's going to be acceptance of some of the maybe very difficult suggestions that they may have to make. It's interesting because, as you know, it started off as a Collector of Customs, and California was one of the big places – the person who headed the Coast Guard collected customs – the Secret Service, part of the Treasury Department. Now, it's evolved and is part of Homeland Security when we established that committee.
We have to do much better than this, much better this. And take it to a level of professionalism where there's no question of politics or anything else – just what do we need to protect the President? What does it mean when you decide to join the Secret Service? What is the level of professionalism? When I say professional, I mean you take responsibility.
But again, we have to take the responsibility for meeting the needs of the American people and their financial security. The President should be very proud of what he has been accomplished in his Administration, much of it because of what we did in the two years when we had the Democratic majority, with the recovery initiative and the rest. And did I say: about 15 million people now have quality affordable healthcare, which is helping to reduce the cost of health care cost, helping to reduce the deficit.
Q: Madam Leader, can you explain what you meant a minute ago? You just said: you subscribe to Mr. Cummings' recommendation that she should leave. Does that mean you think she should leave?
Leader Pelosi. I said I agree with his analysis, yes. But I'm saying: if that's what he is suggesting, I support his suggestion. But if you follow up and say: "Tell me why you think she should leave," I don't have the knowledge that he has. So, I am subscribing to his superior judgment and knowledge on the subject. But I'm also further saying that this is more than one person because there were problems before she went there. There were problems, as Chad was mentioning, before she went there. And we want to see what challenges the Secret Service still faces to keep the level of professionalism that is the conduct of their duties in a professional way and professionalism and being accountable for the protection of the President.
Q: Madam Leader, on ISIS you are privy, obviously, to a lot of intelligence briefings. President Obama said the United States Intelligence Community underestimated their threat. Do you share that opinion?
Leader Pelosi. What the President said in August, which is what I think he reiterated, I think there's no doubt that their advance – ISIS' advance – their movement over the last several months has been more rapid than intelligence estimates, I think that's more rapid than expectations of policymakers, both inside and outside of Iraq.
Q: We had a lot of briefings up here, though, over the course of the year…
Leader Pelosi. Yes.
Q: …especially when Fallujah fell, that ISIS was a real threat.
Leader Pelosi. It's a threat.
Q: Is it fair to…
Leader Pelosi. And that's when actions were taken, after Fallujah, the dam, the mountain, then actions were taken to degrade them.
Q: Is it fair, though, for the President to put that much blame on the Intelligence Community, though?
Leader Pelosi. It's not a question of blame; it's a question of fact. The fact is: what Mr. Clapper said in his statement is – he said that – his analysis had reported the group's emergence and its prowess and capability, as well as the deficiencies of the Iraqi military. What we didn't do was predict the will to fight. That's always the problem. And that is what he said.
So he said: "In this case, we underestimated ISIL, the Islamic State, and overestimated the fighting capability of the Iraqi Army, I didn't see the collapse of the Iraqi security force in the north coming, I didn't see that. It boils down to predicting the will to fight, which is imponderable." And that's what the [Director] of the National Intelligence said very recently in relationship to what the President had been informed and Congress had been informed earlier.
What I do want to say about the President, though, is that while all of this was happening, and for a long time now, the President has been working diplomatically and politically to make sure there was a new government in Iraq, because it's no use doing much in terms of military or diplomacy if you don't have a government that's going to be inclusive. So while all of this is going on the President and the Vice President were working very hard to see a transition to a government that would be inclusive – not just there to represent Shi'a priorities, but Shi'a, Sunni, Kurd, Christian, and the rest, an inclusive government.
The President has been putting together diplomatically a coalition of our NATO allies, as well as allies in the region, to degrade and destroy ISIS. The President has rallied humanitarian assistance in a very important way when ISIS was threatening genocide to thousands of people, isolating them on a mountain. The President came in and defanged and diffused that humanitarian crisis. So a great deal has been going on.
Again, when Mr. Clapper says, "We underestimated ISIL and overestimated the fighting capacity of the Iraqi Army," – the part of the fighting capacity of the Iraqi Army, the will to fight, sprang from also not having a government in Baghdad that really gave them any comfort that they were an important part of Iraq. That has changed, and that is one way to degrade and destroy ISIS.
Q: Madam Leader, as you say, a lot is going on, and it'll be, I think, when you guys come back from the elections, it'll be more than three months since President Obama started this offensive. Why shouldn't you guys come back sooner, debate ISIS, debate authorization…
Leader Pelosi. I'm with you. I'm totally with you. And I disagree with the Speaker who says: well, we have to wait for the President to give us an authorization so that we can vote on it. No. If you want to define an authorization which defines the – to use the word again – authority that you are giving the President, you don't wait for the President to write it. Congress writes it because we are asserting our willingness to vote for a plan of action.
I do believe, as the Speaker, I think, has said, for what the President is doing now he has the authority to do it. We have voted overwhelmingly, over 300 votes in the Congress, on the McGovern resolution that says: should there come a time that the if President goes farther, then it will require an authorization of Congress. I think we should have stayed to do it. I think we should be getting ready to do it.
People, as I say, are informally – we have a range of – well, two examples are Senator Nelson and Congressman Frank Wolf – but many other people within our own caucus are writing down possibilities of what an authorization would look like. I think it has to spring from Congress, Congress has to vote on it, and it defines how we would limit the power of the President or not. But it's our decision, it's not the President's decision.
So I'm with you. I think we should never have left. I think we should have stayed here to debate and discuss what we would do to degrade and destroy ISIS. I think we should be here to do a jumpstart to the middle class; to have job creation that gives confidence in our economy to the American people; to degrade ISIS; to get confidence in our national security. I think there's plenty of work that we could have been doing here now, and that's why I'm here and have been here each week since we have been out.
I think that we have just time for one more question.
Q: In 2007 there was an article in the El Paso Times, and then Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell said that: "a significant number of Iraqis had already come across that year, had already come across the Southwest border of the United States." If President Obama does what he has promised to do and takes executive action to legalize some illegal aliens in the United States…
Leader Pelosi. Are you referring to undocumented people who are in the United States?
Q: Undocumented illegal aliens, yes, ma'am.
Leader Pelosi. Undocumented people.
Q: Should this legislation include Iraqis as well?
Leader Pelosi. Well, we have many borders. We have the Canadian border. We have the southern border. We have people coming by land and sea. And we certainly have to protect the American people. That's our first responsibility: to protect and defend. I don't think it has anything to do with what the President is going to do next on immigration. I think it has to do with what we are doing for our national security.
Thank you all very much. Oh, yes, ma'am, okay?
Q: Can I sneak in a political question since we're getting so close to the election? Republicans are using a strategy they have used before in House races, which is featuring you in a lot of ads in competitive races, trying to link vulnerable Members to you.
Leader Pelosi. Me and President Obama.
Q: You and the President actually, often has both of you.
Leader Pelosi. So what is the question?
Q: So I'm just wondering what you think of this, whether or not…
Leader Pelosi. They have no ideas. They have no ideas. They have nothing to offer the American people in terms of job creation, financial stability, lowering the cost of education, raising the minimum wage, stopping their tax breaks for their friends to send jobs overseas instead of the United States. So they use the politics of personal destruction, which is their stock and trade. It comes from their poverty, their lack of ideas.
And you know what? People aren't responding to them. We have outmobilized them, we have outrecruited them, we have outraised them to a shameful extent, and they're desperate.
And most people say to me: why are they asking me about her? I thought it was between the two of you. What do you have to offer? What do you have to offer?
But, you know, we are in the arena, and that's the way it is. And I'm so respectful of the President and what he has had to do. I'm more offended by any attacks they might make on the President of the United States.
Q: You used to say that you were proud when they made a bogeyman of you.
Leader Pelosi. Oh, my goodness, they helped me raise money every time. As Franklin Roosevelt said: I take pride in my enemies – or how did he say it – in such a way.
But if they had anything to offer, they would be offering that. They have nothing to offer. They are not here. They shut down government. Six years ago, six years ago, they would have allowed our country to go down, our financial institutions to go down the drain. This President inherited that very, very bad economic situation, turned the country around. That's what I think we have to be talking about in this election.
I'm not here to talk about them. We surround ourselves with people who share our values and believe in what we believe in, and we have great candidates. We have great enthusiasm at the grassroots level.
And I remind you that for all that they had to say, last election we got nearly a million and a half more votes than they did nationally. Didn't happen to be in the right district, but nationally the public voted for the Democrats for the House of Representatives by over a million votes.
Q: Are you still predicting the same pickup that you predicted earlier?
Leader Pelosi. I think we'll do okay. I think we'll do okay. I'm going to go over to the DCCC right now to talk about some of that. But we feel very confident. And you know what? Their days are numbered. Their days are numbered. I know that in two years there will be a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President. I'd like it to be in two months. I'd like it to be in two months. So what we do here…
Q: So you're conceding this fall.
Leader Pelosi. Hmm?
Q: You're conceding this fall.
Leader Pelosi. No, I'm not. So I'm saying so in this fall it's important for us to come as close to that as possible.
Q: Will you stay on for two more years?
Leader Pelosi. So the last person – I just read his article – he said we could lose 39 seats. Let that be their prediction. Let that be their prediction.
Q: Will you stay on for two more years if, in fact, you believe there is going to be a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President?
Leader Pelosi. I am staying on for two more years. I'm running for reelection.
Q: Or, sorry, beyond that, beyond the two years?
Leader Pelosi. I will be.
Q: To be clear: when you say you're staying on for two years, meaning you're staying on in the House, but also as Leader, correct?
Leader Pelosi. Good bye. What is important are jobs.
Q: I thought the Giants were important.
Leader Pelosi. College affordability. When women succeed, America succeeds. That's what's important.
Q: How about the Giants?
Leader Pelosi. How about the Giants? How about the Orioles? My father brought the Orioles to Baltimore when he was mayor of Baltimore, so I'm happy to see them do so well.
My next door neighbor owns the Nationals. There are a lot of good teams that could win the pennant and then win the World Series, so stay tuned.
Come and see our new stadium, the 49ers' stadium. We have a lot going in sports. And by the way, that's the only TV I will watch is sports. I'm not interested in anybody's opinion. In fact, I don't even listen to the commentator's opinion. I just want to watch the score and the team and watch sports that way. That's really the only TV I watch.
But these elections are – just to get to your point again – are like the Olympics. They're a game of inches, of seconds. You come a couple of seconds behind or an inch behind, you don't even get a medal. So it's just a question of where we come down, on what side, how many seats come down, which I tell everybody.
Five weeks from today, this Wednesday, we can have no regret that we have done everything possible to advance the cause. Because elections are about two things. They're about who wins, and they're also about how the debate is conducted, so that the public holds people accountable for job creation and college affordability and equal pay for equal work. So the debate is very important too for our country, and that is what is exciting about it.
But since we're talking sports, think Olympics. One side or the other, a matter of seconds or inches. So we're fighting very hard, and we will have no regrets because we'll do everything possible to advance the cause as well as the candidates.
Thank you all very much.