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, everyone.
As Members are heading home for another Congressional break--what is it, 2 weeks in, 1 week out?--we will be hearing from our constituents about the Republican initiative to abolish Medicare as we know it.
But some Republicans are trying to run away from their vote. And here it is: 100 percent of the 'yes' votes to abolish Medicare were cast by the Republicans. Every Democrat voted 'no.' Four Republicans voted 'no.'
This is a vote tabulation that you will see over and over again. You will see it in its present form, and you will see it individually. Because this is a vote to undermine one of the pillars of security for America's seniors.
It would end Medicare as we know it, force seniors to pay at least $6,000 more a year--that's a lot of money--for fewer benefits. And there is a report from one of the committees to us that, if you're in your 50s, you have to start saving now $1,000 a month. And it will cost you about--a 54-year old today would have to save an additional $182,000 so that they could have benefits when they're 65 years old that are commensurate to what they have now--$182,000.
How many 54-year olds do you know who can save a thousand dollars a month, not to invest in a business to be entrepreneurial, to invest in their children's education, but to provide for their health security once they become 65-years old?
So, again, a helpful reminder: 235 Republicans voted to end Medicare; 189 Democrats unanimously voted 'no.'
Americans are rejecting this idea across the country. And here we have a situation where--it takes us back to energy, where we were yesterday--we have a situation where they want to end Medicare as we know it, have seniors pay $6,000 more for fewer benefits, while they give tax breaks to Big Oil. They want to say to seniors who are on Medicaid in a nursing home, 'Forget about that. That's over for you.' End that benefit for seniors, as they block grant it and make it smaller, while they give tax breaks to corporations sending jobs overseas.
And then, for the next generation, cuts in education and making college less affordable for nearly 10 million young people in our country, while they give tax breaks to America's wealthiest families. That's in their budget.
As you know, this week we unveiled our 'Make It in America: Clean Energy Jobs Now' package. It was a continuation of work that we had done the week before, the Bishop resolution, which would end the subsidies. Yesterday, we talked about increasing energy production here at home.
Drilling is allowed and even permitted in many places in our country that are being underutilized. Yes, we need to drill more for production here. There is, again, opportunity to do that that the oil companies have ignored. And we are establishing benchmarks for oil development on federal property, imposing fees on oil and gas companies who sit on drilling leases and don't use them. "Use it or lose it."
And then, not only are we complaining about their subsidies, not only are we complaining about price gouging and speculation increasing the price at the pump, but we have a positive initiative to encourage new alternatives and renewables in transportation, building the infrastructure for alternative fuel vehicles.
You know, it is one thing to be able to ride on, drive on natural gas, but you have to have distribution, you have to have the infrastructure to get it. And developing and manufacturing advanced vehicle technologies, that's what we talked about yesterday.
So while we're giving tax breaks to Big Oil for a policy which just continues our dependence on foreign oil or fossil fuels in our own country without investing into the future, while we are doing all of that, we are also saying to seniors, 'We would prefer to give tax subsidies to Big Oil and have you pay the price.'
Just think of this. Just think of this. I think it's kind of remarkable. Tell me what you think. If we remove the tax breaks for Big Oil, the big five oil companies, we would save $32 billion over 10 years, over 10 years. That's approximately what the big five made in the first quarter of this year. At that rate, they will make over a trillion dollars over 10 years. And they're telling us they need this $32 billion in order to have an incentive to drill, to make a trillion dollars in profit, in profit.
I wanted to also share with you my Mother's Day trip to the Middle East. It is always on Mother's Day that I like to visit our troops and say thank you to them, to all of our troops, especially to some of our moms and, would you believe, grandmothers who are serving--young grandmothers who are serving. One example, Crystal, she has a 7 month old baby and a 3 year old child. That's what you hear over and over, these young moms who are serving. Some of them, their husbands are deployed, as well. So they make a big sacrifice for our country, and we want them to know they are remembered on Mother's Day. And got some good reports from some of our troops as to how they were calling home on Mother's Day, those who were not moms themselves.
Then we went to Qatar to go to Al Udeid, our forward Central Command base there which is our platform for Iraq and Afghanistan, on our way to Iraq. We met with the troops there. And, in Qatar, we had a briefing from our diplomats there, of course, and the military and met with the heir apparent on his views of what's happening in the region.
In Iraq, we met with Prime Minister al Maliki, talked to him about how we honor our responsibilities, both countries, as we prepare for the drawdown at the end of this year. And I am very proud of our ambassador, Jeffrey. We met with the members of the Iraqi parliament.
Congresswoman Eshoo was on the trip, and her mother made her first holy communion in a church in Baghdad. So she had very serious concerns about the treatment of Christians and what was happening in churches in Iraq. And so we met with the Iraqi Christian community.
And that, again, building on our initiatives to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which, for us, is a national security issue, and investing in innovation, which is a jobs issue when it comes to renewables and alternatives, protecting our beautiful environment, which is a health issue as well as a moral issue, to pass this planet on to our future generation.
National security and jobs, very important in the energy debate. I'm very proud of Gerry Connolly and the initiative he brought to the floor [introduced legislation] yesterday, and also of David Cicilline, who will bring an initiative to the floor [introduce legislation] today, and Tim Bishop, who led the way last week for us.
Medicare, that's our fight. We will, we are, we vow to protect it. It is an initiative that is a pillar of security for our seniors.
With that, I would be pleased to take any questions you may have. No questions? Okay, thank you very much. Nice to see you all.
Oh, oh, okay. Now, now that I'm halfway down the hall. Yes, sir?
Q: Do you agree with the Democratic Whip, Mr. Hoyer, that the President should not require government contractors to disclose political donations as a condition of continuing to do business with…
Leader Pelosi. Well, we passed the DISCLOSE Act, which I fully, 100 percent support. I do not agree with the Supreme Court decision that people can make endless and undisclosed contributions to political campaigns. I think it undermines our democracy. I support the DISCLOSE Act, which said that you have to disclose contributions. That was for everybody. The President's discretion is narrowed only to those who have contracts with the government, is my understanding.
Everybody has to disclose their political contributions. In other words, if a contractor were to contribute to you and you were a Member of Congress, that would have to be disclosed. What we are aiming at in this is to have those who have this endless undisclosed money going into campaigns, again, in a way that I believe undermines our democracy. I salute the President for what he did.
Yes, ma'am?
Q: Oil executives testifying just today are saying that eliminating these tax breaks puts them at a disadvantage on the business side, would hurt the U.S. economy, and would have no impact at the pump anyway. So why continue to push for this?
Leader Pelosi. We have something called the deficit, and they are a drain. Thirty two billion dollars in order for them to make a trillion dollars over a 10-year period.
I was very pleased--and perhaps you haven't seen the CRS report, in response to Leader Harry Reid's request to CRS. Because they were also charging that if they didn't have these subsidies to drill, it would have an impact on jobs and price at the pump and all the rest. I commend it to you for your reading because it debunks what they are saying.
How do you say to the American taxpayer, how do you say to the American consumer who is paying the price at the pump that, in order for these people to make this much money, charge this much at the pump, you, the taxpayer, are subsidizing their production? It's just appalling.
And I think that it will be interesting--I think it's great that they are here, because there's a difference of opinion. This is the democratic society that we live in, that we have different points of view, and today they are presenting theirs.
But they, who should have been in the lead for decades in renewables and alternatives, while we continue to increase our domestic production of oil--nobody is saying we shouldn't do that. But we should do it in a way that is environmentally sound and, again, creates jobs and keeps our economy going.
But for them to say, them to say at a time, anytime I think it's wrong, but at a time of severe deficit challenge, which has an impact on the markets, as they keep telling us, 'You've got to do something about the fiscal soundness of the United States,' that a company that makes a trillion five corporations that make a trillion dollars over 10 years need $32 billion to incentivize them to make that big profit, I think it's just appalling, and so do the American people.
And when they're doing it at a time when we're saying we've got to, as you saw Mr. Markey's chart yesterday. If you weren't here and didn't see it on TV, he had it here last week, too; he may have it here the next week we get back. It's a rig, an oil rig, drilling down into somebody's, grandma's Medicare card. Why should seniors have to pay more for less while we're subsidizing Big Oil so they can make a trillion dollars over the next 10 years?
Yes, ma'am?
Q: A politically delicate question of sorts.
Leader Pelosi. I can't wait to hear. How about you?
Q: In the aftermath of the killing of Osama bin Laden, how much of a political windfall do you believe that gives the President and Democrats going into 2012? And does it?
Leader Pelosi. Well, I don't know that anybody is thinking about it in that context. It is a great thing for the security of our country. Not catching Osama bin Laden was, you know, I was very careful of what I said when President Bush was President, not to criticize him for not catching Osama bin Laden, by saying it isn't the be all, end all. But catching him is the be all, end all, if you know what I mean. If you don't, okay. But if you connect the dots and you bring it home, that's a very big deal. That's a big deal when we were in Qatar, when we were in Iraq, when we were in Israel.
Oh, did I tell you? We also, on the trip, went to Israel and met with Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Peres, the opposition leader, the representatives of many different aspects of daily life. We were there for the 63rd anniversary of the founding of the nation of Israel. It was a great celebration.
But, again, in Israel, the capture and death of Osama bin Laden was a very big deal. I'm not thinking of it in political terms, but in the terms of our national security, in terms of the boost of morale, in terms of the excellence of execution, the discipline, the allocation of resources, the focus, the patience, the connecting of the dots. Hail to the Chief.
Q: Can you put it in political terms?
Leader Pelosi. I just haven't thought of it that way. I mean, the election is a long time off, and…
Q: Would you think about it that way when you get back next week?
Leader Pelosi. No, I think about Medicare a little bit
[Laughter.]
Leader Pelosi. I think about Medicare a little bit that way. I would prefer that our colleagues would all agree with us on Medicare. Let's see how we can work together to extend its life. But if they don't, it's important for the American people to know that. And the election, again, is a long way off. But we do have one coming up soon in New York, and it seems to have an effect there.
On the issue that you asked, I called President Bush after the news, a couple of days after the death of Osama bin Laden, and thanked him for his role in that apprehension, that he strived to do that while he was President of the United States. In fact, I think he worked very hard to make that happen. I called President Clinton and thanked him for making Osama bin Laden public enemy number one in the 1990s. Even before 9/11, there was a recognition that he was a threat, and there were sources committed to it.
But, as I say, President Obama connected the dots. And that was a focus, an allocation of resources, of discipline, of patience, an entrepreneurial spirit willing to take a chance, which I fully supported. It was a pretty good chance it was Osama bin Laden, but if it wasn't, we couldn't miss the opportunity to try to get him.
One more question, because I think we're going to have another event here shortly. Okay, we have all of these hands up.
Okay, you.
If you think that I'm partial to some of our friends here, they are around at night, they are always here, and so I want to reward their diligence.
Q: I just wanted to ask a question about what the Republicans are doing with the safety net, and not so much Medicare, but I was thinking about the unemployment benefit and the Medicaid block grant. It seems like they want to give States more flexibility. But what is your take on what they are doing with the safety net and the whole idea of giving the States more responsibility in that area?
Leader Pelosi. Did you all hear the question? Okay, assuming that you all did, what do I think about what the Republicans are doing with the safety net.
First, let us talk about who that safety net is for. That safety net is not for individuals; it is for our society, it is for our economy. The economy goes in cycles. When it is good times, we have more employment. When it isn't, it's down. But we're able to have that cycle run because we have a safety net for the economy that individuals who lose their jobs through no fault of their own can participate in.
Just when you think you have seen it all, just when you think that they cannot go any further to hurt working families in America, yesterday in the Ways and Means Committee it is my understanding that they put forth legislation that would take the money for unemployment insurance for people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and use it to pay off the employer's responsibility to the Pension Guaranty Fund. You call that giving flexibility to the States? I call that not keeping a promise to America's workers.
And, by the way, you will recall that, in December, the price that had to be paid in order to give unemployment benefits to America's workers was to give tax cuts to the richest people in America. So that happened, but now they want to renege on the other side of it. It should never have been connected. It should never have been connected. But it was part of the package, and now they want to renege on that part of the package.
So I believe that the undermining of the social safety net is really a very important and harmful action on the part of the Republicans, because it's not just about those workers. If they don't get those benefits, they don't spend that money, they don't inject that demand into the economy, they don't create those jobs. And the economists will tell you, one of the biggest, fastest ways to create jobs and get the economy moving is to give the unemployment benefits. They also say the same about food stamps, because it's necessary for people to spend that money immediately.
It's also a great sign of disrespect for people who have to collect unemployment insurance, as if they prefer to do that than have a job. And that's what you hear, the mumble that you hear them say, 'Well, they should be working.' Oh, really? Why don't we just talk about that in terms of the great recession that we were in coming out of the Bush Administration and how President Obama's initiatives pulled us from the brink of that, pulled us from the brink of a financial crisis, and now has to deal with the deficit that this was created by all of that loss of revenue to the Treasury?
This is not a good idea. It hurts those families, it hurts the system, and it does not create jobs and does not lower the deficit.
Now, we have said that we will judge everything by three things: Does it create jobs? Does it lower the deficit? Does it strengthen the middle class? Those initiatives do none of the above.
I have to go now because somebody else is coming. I heard that on the grapevine.
Thank you all very much.