Transcript of Pelosi Press Conference Today

Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi held her weekly press conference today in the Capitol Visitor Center.  Below is a transcript of the press conference:

Leader Pelosi.  Good morning.  I know you're out there.  I see you.

Today, as you know, we go to the floor with a budget agreement.  I commend Senate Chairwoman Patty Murray, our three conferees – Congressman Chris Van Hollen, our Ranking Member on Budget; our Assistant Leader, Jim Clyburn; and the Ranking Member on Appropriations, Nita Lowey – for bringing this fight to a draw.  I think that's really where it came out.

And hopefully it will go forward today and enable us to clear the table – to set the table for other debates as we go down the line, whether we're talking about job creation, whether we're talking about raising the minimum wage, whether we're talking about passing an immigration bill.  Let us get this out of the way.  Having said that, I just want to say about the Republicans, they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity when it comes to job creation.

In this budget, we could have had, as Chris Van Hollen had suggested, investments in short term and long term growth.  Just to close a loophole, we could have built infrastructure in our country, creating jobs immediately.  Close a loophole, we could've built the human infrastructure by investing in early childhood education.  The Republicans said: "No."  One of the fastest ways to inject demand into the economy and to create jobs and growth would have been to pass the unemployment insurance piece in this legislation.  The Republicans said: "No."

And getting rid of sequestration, which was one of our goals, we did accomplish that one goal.  And that one point of Mr. Van Hollen's recommendation of the House Democratic budget – those views were shared by the Senate Democratic budget.  As I say, we fought it to a draw.  Let's get through it.  Let's get it off the table.  Let's move on to addressing specific issues.  There are many that are bipartisan when it comes to the American people:  raising the minimum wage, passing an immigration bill, passing the Brady background check legislation, passing ENDA.  And all of these things have overwhelming support, not only in the general public but including strong support among Republicans.  I think that is what we have to do.

It's interesting to note that they rejected unemployment insurance.  This is so unconscionable, it's practically at the level of immoral, to do to people who work hard, play by the rules, lose their job through no fault of their own, are not able to continue to get an unemployment insurance check.  Again, as I say, not only is it a bad idea from a humanity standpoint, but from an economic standpoint.  For every dollar spent on unemployment benefits, it grows the economy by $1.52, a dollar and a half.  For every dollar that is spent, you get a dollar and a half back to the economy, according to Moody's Analytics, not me.  Failing to extend benefits will cost us over 200,000 jobs in the next year.  It's going to cost jobs.  And a recent report said that extending UI would produce, instead, 300,000 jobs – that's the Economic Policy Institute.

Instead, 1.3 million Americans will be cut off from Federal unemployment compensation.  Tens of thousands of veterans will lose their benefits.  Up to two million children will be impacted because of the families in which they live.  And 1.9 million more will lose their unemployment benefits in the first half of next year.

We really have a responsibility.  Unemployment insurance is insurance.  It is part of a safety net, not for these individuals but for our economy.  Unemployment comes up or down, and the safety net for that wonderful free market system is that we have a safety net for workers who have to lose their jobs because of the downturn in the economy and through no fault of their own.

Today, as you saw the figures about the Affordable Care Act, more and more Americans are signing up for quality affordable care health insurance, and we continue to highlight important protections in the bill.  Today, I want to focus on the issue of preexisting conditions.  This, to me, is really so transformative in the lives of the American people.  And already, for over one year, children with preexisting conditions have been protected from being discriminated against by being barred from having insurance or other issues that come into it – lifetime caps, annual caps, and the rest.

Imagine a child born with a birth defect or with an early childhood illness where for a lifetime it would be almost impossible for that child, that person, as he or she grows older, to get insurance because they have a preexisting medical condition.  And so, since 2010, insurance companies have been prohibited from denying health insurance to up to 17 million children with conditions like cancer, asthma, or diabetes.  And starting in January, up to 129 million adults will benefit from this protection, as well.  This is remarkable.  Addressing coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions is one of the core reasons for passing the Affordable Care Act.  And by doing so, you bring down cost.

I understand that the administration is looking into some steps to ensure that these American have more time and space to transition.  Some of them are in a high-risk pool.  Some adults with preexisting conditions are in the high-risk pool, and so they're perhaps allowing more time for them to move from the high-risk pool to a comprehensive insurance plan.  I'd encourage them to do that.  There's a good deal of support among our colleagues for that to happen.  Again, the Affordable Care Act is about life – a healthier life – liberty to pursue your happiness and not be tied to a plan and job locked but free to pursue your happiness, if you want to start a business, if you want to be self-employed, if you want to change jobs.  Think of what that means to an individual.  Think what it means to a society.  Think of what it means to an economy.

With that, I'd be pleased to take any questions you may have.

***

Leader Pelosi.  Yes, ma'am?

Q:  Leader Pelosi, Speaker Boehner had some choice words for conservative groups who were once again calling on conservatives to vote against this deal, and that's something that he's been reluctant to do in the past.  What do you think it means for the possibility of more bargains like this one next year?

Leader Pelosi.  Well, I hope the bargains that we have are better than this one because, as I say, this was fought to a draw, but not a draw with a high split, but a draw as small as it could possibly be.  But I was encouraged by what he had to say, and we'll see what happens today.

Yes, ma'am?

Q:  Do you think that the bipartisanship expressed in this deal is a one-off event, or do you see this as a real turning point in the way the House works? 

Leader Pelosi.  I think it's neither.  I don't think it's a one-off, and I don't think it's a great turning point.  But I think that we have many more areas that we can work together on in a bipartisan way.  We know if the Speaker would bring the immigration bill to the floor, it would have bipartisan support to go forward.  We know if the Speaker would begin ENDA, employment nondiscrimination in the workplace with people from the LGBT community, it would have overwhelming support; we have over 200 cosponsors for that legislation.  We know if the Speaker would bring a background check bill to the floor, it would pass with strong bipartisan support.  So there are many areas – and we know that infrastructure has never been a partisan issue.  That has always been very bipartisan.  So there are many, many areas where we can work together.

You know, I'd hope that we would judge each piece of legislation on its merits and go forward from there.  Certainly, not achieving this would not have been a good signal, but I don't under- or overestimate the power of this one event today.

Yes, sir?

Q:  You mentioned unemployment insurance, and so many Democrats have.  But I wonder, what's different this time around with expiring benefits than times in the past?  Several times in the past, since the end of the Bush Administration in fact, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have really gone to the mat on several occasions to insist on UI.  This time, the White House has mentioned it but they really haven't pushed it.  You stood at the podium last week and said: "We want UI definitely, doesn't have to be part of the Murray-Ryan deal."  That kind of defused that a little bit.  And why it is different with the expiring benefits this time?

Leader Pelosi.  Well, we aren't giving up on it.  I said it was an immorality that it wasn't in the legislation.  The President is making overtures to Congress to do this.  We had a Steering & Policy hearing last week that was – really, I was so happy it was shown on TV three times, with people telling their stories about what this meant to them and their families, their homes, the places that they live to be able to be intact.  So this is a big fight for us.  And I told my Members: "We have to go forward with what is before us right now, but that doesn't mean that that diminishes the importance of this."  In fact, it gives us a bigger spotlight to put on it:  "Look, they would do this.  They wouldn't close one corporate loophole, even just to extend it for three months so we could continue the debate."

No, these are fighting words for us because this is about who we are as a nation.  It's about our economy and how it thrives as a market economy, a capitalist system.  But you have to have a safety net so that the cycles can take place and when people lose their job through no fault of their own, because of the cycles, that they have a safety net.  And, by the way, many requirements go with it, like that people have to be looking for jobs at the same time.

So we'll find out if this is the price or if it's the money.  Is it the price?  Do they think the price is too high to pay?  Well, it isn't, because it brings $1.50 or more to the economy for every dollar spent.  Is it the money?  Would they rather give tax breaks to special interests rather than reinforce the community that we have to grow our economy with workers sometimes working, sometimes not?  So, no, this is a big philosophical fight for us.  And what we want to know from them is, do you ever intend to support unemployment insurance?

Q:  May I follow up quickly, though?  Because Senator Reid came to the floor yesterday and said, we'll deal with this in January.  Why didn't Democrats say, SGR doesn't get out of here with UI, Murray Ryan doesn't get out of here with UI, this is what we're – you know, why haven't you done that?

Leader Pelosi.  Yeah, but you have heard of this – they would have to have 60 votes in the Senate to do this.  They still need that for this kind of a vote.  And we still need the Speaker to agree to put it there.  So you should ask these questions of the Speaker.  But this is an intolerable situation to us.  But we also want to end sequestration.  So you have two "No's."  Two "No's" don't make a "Yes."  So we want to get one "Yes" and then fight to get the second "Yes."

Q:  Madam Leader, how difficult of a pill is this for some House Democrats to swallow?

Leader Pelosi.  What, not having UI?  Or just the whole bill?

Q:  The deal as a whole.

Leader Pelosi.  Well, what I said – you mentioned some of what I said last week.  What I also said was, if it's a stinking, lousy budget, even with UI in it, we may not vote for it.  So there was much improvement that had to take place in that bill for us to vote for it.

And that improvement did take place, and Members will vote for it.  The most unease we have, of course, is that unemployment insurance isn't in it.  So I said to them: "Just weigh the merits of what this bill is as a budget bill."  And we have no problem with SGR going forward; that helps our seniors.  It's about the doctors, but it's about the doctors and their relationship to seniors.

So, it isn't about this or that.  It's about the fact that, yeah, we're unhappy, we're very unhappy about it, but not enough to say: "Therefore, we're going to make matters worse by not having an agreement."  We're just going to point out, differentiate to the American people, because the American people understand how necessary this is.

Yes, sir?

Q:  Madam Leader, is there ever a point when the economy is in a better place, or in a good enough place where you don't need to expend these unemployment benefits?  Like, six percent unemployment?

Leader Pelosi.  You should ask the Speaker that because I think he was voting for it when the economy was at five point something percent in the past.  So it just depends.  It's a question of what sectors of the economy, how much of it is long term.  There are different aspects to it.  It isn't a simple thing, we're all on, we're all off.  It's what's the percentage in certain States and the rest of that.

But to answer your question, I would say the answer to almost every question is a job.  It's growth in our economy, investments in infrastructure.  Nothing brings more money to the Treasury of the United States than investing in education and all that that brings to our competitiveness, as well as helping people reach their aspirations.

So, we have a values debate on this subject, but you can't say: "a certain percentage, yes; certain percentage, no."  It depends on what sectors of the economy, geographically how states are affected by it.

Yes, sir?

Q:  Thank you.  So you have said the past couple of days that it's going to be up to your Members to vote how they want, how they see fit on this bill here.  Now, we've had…   

Leader Pelosi.  Well, that's how they always do.

Q:  Ok.

Leader Pelosi.  We always build consensus or we decide that our consensus is that some of us will vote differently.

Q:  But there have certainly been occasions where you guys have pushed more depending on pieces of legislation?  I guess my question is, in the past three years, though, we have had several dozen major pieces of legislation that have passed with more Democrats…

Leader Pelosi.  That's right.

Q:  Than Republicans. 

Leader Pelosi.  Unfortunately.

Q:  Is this because they've been able to get – Congressman Ryan had, as you say, this is a draw, this isn't what you guys want.  Are you basically saying to Republicans: "you guys are in the majority; you lead; you pass this bill?"

Leader Pelosi.  No, no.  As I said, it all depends on what the bill is that people are going to vote for.  It all comes down to: what is this?  A matter of days ago, I would've said there weren't very many votes on our side for this bill.  Now there are.  We'll see how many votes the Republicans get.

But it's always interesting to me when people say: "Oh, good news, we're going to have a majority of the majority."  And we're like, if I ever came to you and said: "Good news, I have 120 votes for something," you'll say: "You're 100 votes short."  So, you know, we really thought that it would have been – it's the right thing to do, to do unemployment insurance, and especially when you need our votes.

But let me just say this about that subject because I'm reading these things about how heavy-handed I was when I was Speaker.  We build consensus.  We have a very-finely woven fabric that is called the House Democratic Caucus.  Every thread in it is its own individual person, whether it's philosophical, geographic, generational, ethnic.  Whatever the differences are, everybody is that unique piece.  And we build consensus in our Caucus, and when we reach consensus is when we have a position that we're asking other people to vote for.

And so when they're saying: "Oh, she was heavy handed."  I said: "Your guy was called ‘the hammer.'  We build consensus.  We're weaving a loom.  We have a loom; you have a hammer."

So you know, this whole thing is very interesting.  But the fact is I don't think that our Members will let this bill go down.  If it's a close call for some, as they weigh different things or unease about unemployment insurance, that's really my main issue, because I think that, while I don't like this bill, I think, as I said, much more could've been done to invest and create jobs and the rest.  It's an ok thing to vote for.

So we'll see.  We'll see what the Republicans produce and the rest.  But I would hope that we could show a good, strong bipartisan vote on the bill.  I think that sends a message that, as you asked earlier: "is this a sign of things to come?"  Well, certainly, the opposite would've been a really bad sign of things to come.

Yes, ma'am?

Q:  Speaker Boehner says he is actually open to extending unemployment insurance as long as you pay for it.  I'm wondering, are there any ideas that Democrats are working on other than the farm bill savings?  Is that    

Leader Pelosi.  No, that's what we talked about last week, and that's what we're still talking about now.  There are very significant savings in the Farm Bill, and we think that they could now – we could even just do a three month extension on the unemployment insurance, which doesn't cost as much money, obviously, because it's one quarter of the time, and try to put some things together.

I mean, one little loophole someplace would take care of this just like that.  But they have said: "It's off limits; we won't touch one hair on the head of the special interest in our country for initiatives that don't create jobs, that increase the deficit."  And instead we're having to face narrower choices.

But I don't even think it should be paid for, because you know why?  It's an emergency.  And we traditionally have not paid for unemployment insurance.  It's insurance that has been paid into.  And so why – it's a benefit that has been paid into – so why do we have to pay for it again?  I don't think we should have to.

But if it's the price that we have to pay to go forward on that, while we want to make the philosophical debate as to whether it's an emergency and should be paid for, still, these families are suffering.  And for us, what happens at the dinner table and family table for these persons who are affected is more important than what happens at any table of discussion here in Washington, D.C.

So in any event, I wish you all a happy holiday.  I look forward to seeing some of you at our holiday party later today.  I don't think we'll have a bill by then.

Do you think so?

Q:  We'll have the rule before and then the bill after.

Leader Pelosi.  The bill after?  Well, we'll be voting against the rule because it does not allow bringing up unemployment insurance.

Q:  What do you think of the Buster Posey rule in baseball?  No collision at home plate. 

Leader Pelosi.  That was a very mysterious, that's a very – some of it is very subjective, as you well know.  And that's what's interesting there; what is the intent?

And what is the intent of the Republicans in not bringing up unemployment insurance?  Do they think that people shouldn't have these checks?  Why wouldn't they be saying: "Here are some of the pay fors we could go along with?"  I think that's really the question of the day.

Are they never intending to do this?  Do we have to make this too hot to handle for them, that we have to take it to the public and the public has to be repelled by what they are doing here?  That's the only way we passed the Violence Against Women Act.  Six hundred days, more than 600 days after the expiration of the act, finally they brought the Violence Against Women Act to the floor.  Over 60 percent of them voted against it, but they brought it to the floor.

All we want is a vote.  All we want is a vote on unemployment insurance.  All we want is a vote on immigration.  All we want is a vote on background checks.  All we want is a vote on ENDA.  All we want is a vote on the living wage, raising the minimum wage.  That's all we want: a vote, and let Congress work its will.

So again, with this one, what the intention is of the Republicans would be very interesting.  Some of them have said to me: "I don't think people should get those checks," which I found to be appalling.  But nonetheless, I was struck by the candor that someone would even think it, much less say it.

But that's what the American people have to know.  If you're having your job, you're working hard, playing by the rules, and you lose your job because somebody sends a company overseas or the downturn in the economy, whatever it happens to be, or in your particular industry, you're just out there to dry?  That's just not really what our country is about.

So, especially at this holiday season, I would hope that at least whatever it is that is their intention, that they let the American people know, and let's have that as part of the national debate.  And that's one that we will take great pride to participate in.  And travelling the country as I do, what is one of the most beautiful things to see is the strength of the work ethic in our country.  People work so hard.  And they work hard to make the future better for their children and for future generations of their family.  They work hard to – I could tell you chapter and verse of people working morning, noon, and night and their kids are getting college and beyond education and succeeding in ways that make them so proud.

And that is really the American way.  And that work ethic is a part of who we are as a people, and it's something that should be respected.  And, in some ways, the poorer you are, the harder you work, because you're doing two jobs and the rest so that your children can have a better future.  And that's a good thing for America.

So in any event, the discussion on raising the minimum wage, it takes me back to when women succeeds, America succeeds.  When we pass an increase in the minimum wage, almost two thirds of the people making the minimum wage are women.

Pay equity, why can't we pass that?  We passed it in the House, the 60-vote requirement in the Senate blocked it there when we had the majority.  If you are working side by side with a male counterpart with equal education and responsibility in your job.  Well, in many places in our country, most places in our country, women are working the first three months of the year for free because they make, on average, 77 percent of what a male counterpart makes with the same education, same responsibility, same job, and same timing.

And so, respecting work, valuing work, as I say, women are especially affected by that: paid sick leave, child care, all these things.  We could've had a strong early childhood learning piece in this sequestration, which would've been so good for America's future.  So there are really some missed opportunities.  But nonetheless, let's get this off the table.  Let's go forward and have those debates without the heat of battle and also without any uncertainty about whether we're going to have a budget so that other people can make their budgets, that businesses can plan, and that government can function.

I'll see you all later at the party.  Thank you.  I mean, if you choose to come.