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.  Welcome to our regularly scheduled Thursday morning press availability.

Day 185 of the Republican Majority in the Congress, and we still have not seen one jobs bill come to the floor.  This is obviously reflected in the jobs number this morning.  We have put probably 20 job initiatives on the floor, and the Republicans have rejected every one of them - 10, 10 votes on job creation measures, and they voted no each time.  Some of those on more than one occasion.  And that's really unfortunate.

I'm so pleased that this morning the President talked about infrastructure.  It's something that starting with the recovery package 2.5 years ago, that Democrats have been pushing, and now I think more needs to be done.  The President referenced some bipartisan legislation to that end.  I hope that our Republican colleagues will consider that, because people are crying out.  They are literally crying out there for jobs.

I also want to point to some of the austerity measures that are real or imagined that may come from this--are we calling it a grand bargain?  Perhaps a grand bargain, the debt talks, that we can't do harm with that.  Whatever cuts we need to make, we have to do so in a way that does not harm our economic growth.

You see with some of the austerity measures that were already done in the laying off of public employees across the country, that will only get worse if we continue down the path that is insensitive to the impacts of cost shifting to the states in order to reduce the federal budget.

So whether it's authorizing job creation, especially through infrastructure and the infrastructure bank, whether it is how we budget, sensitive to job creation, growth, we all agree is essential to bring revenue to the Treasury.

Where do we stand on all of this?  As you know, we had a meeting at the White House yesterday, bipartisan, bicameral.  We've talked since then about some level of optimism that emerged from that meeting to enable at least us to schedule there to be, the President to schedule a meeting on Sunday late in the day to see where we are on something that would have the elements of, in their words, grand bargain.  I wish we could be thinking about a grand vision, but whatever you want to call it, how we go forward to not harm the economy, to reduce the deficit, to create jobs, to educate our children and to have a decent retirement for our seniors.

This morning I had the privilege of meeting with the President and the Vice President on the subject so that we had a clear understanding, as the President has met with all of the leaders, a clear understanding of what our terms of how we go forward, and some of this will, will come forward on Sunday evening.  But the questions that I have relate to the baseline, the length of time, the firewall, some of the technicalities of the discussion, so that we are not change the rules in the middle of the discussion.

And so, with that, I just came--and my apologies for even running later than late--from the usual lively discussion in our caucus where our Members were very definite.  Let me say their enthusiasm was such that many of them stayed around after votes to participate in this caucus.  Almost unheard of.  But they did on a Friday afternoon.  And they're as firm as ever on what I have been saying, which is we want to, of course, reduce the deficit as we grow the economy.  We are not going to reduce the deficit or subsidize tax cuts for the rich on the backs of America's seniors and working families.  No benefit cuts in Medicare and Social Security.  And we have serious concerns also about the, what is happening with Medicaid as well.

So, although I think that talking it through and people understanding more about what the possibilities are has been constructive, I'm still optimistic that we can find a place where we can come together.

I don't--I don't like to have a situation where we are saying, well, you need our votes, so you better have this in the bill.  No, this is a big deal.  This is 10 years; this is not a 6 month CR.  It is a 10 year bill.  And we want to work together to have something that has bipartisanship, that has balance, that has consensus broader than enough Democratic votes to put something over the top that most people don't want to vote for.  It has to be reflective of our values, because 10 years in a budget makes a very serious imprint on the future.

The decisions that will be made in the next few days, up until August 2nd, will determine what the future will look like, depending on decisions that we make about, again, taking it to a higher plane of the dignity of the retirement of our seniors, the opportunity for jobs for our working families, the education of our children as we reduce the deficit.

Q:  Madam Leader, you said you just came from a lively discussion in the caucus here.  What are you hearing from your Members when you talk about, say, preserving these values with these entitlement programs, at the same token making alterations to them that may be part of a grand bargain, chain CPI with something which was voted in the meeting here?  Are Members getting that, or are they drawing a line in the sand saying, no, this is a change, a fancy word for cutting benefits?

Leader Pelosi.  No, cutting benefits is exactly that:  Cutting benefits.  There are many initiatives, some we tried to effect in the health care bill, the affordable health care bill, whether it was dual eligibles--not to get too technical about it, but giving the Secretary the ability to negotiate for lower prices for pharmaceuticals as a cost savings.  That's not a benefit cut; that is a cost savings to Medicare.  And if that were to be part of a global grand plan, we want assurances that that money would be poured back into Medicare, not to subsidize a tax cut for the wealthiest persons in America and to say we are reducing the deficit.

So it is that that kind of thing.  I think Members can make distinctions, obviously.  But by and large, we don't want anybody to think that because we think pharmaceutical companies got off easy in the health care bill, that that means that is the opening of a door of weakening Medicare.  No, it is opening a door of strengthening Medicare.

Q:  Madam Leader, to follow on that, how much resistance, say, from some of your progressives did you get in the caucus just for uttering the words 'cuts to Medicare'?

Leader Pelosi.  I never uttered those words.  Did I say that?  No cuts to Medicare.  You forgot the 'no.'  No cuts to Medicare benefits.

No, our caucus is diverse in many respects, philosophically, geographically, generationally, gender wise and the rest.  And when I spoke to some of you yesterday, I said when I went to the table yesterday morning at the White House, I said I come here in a very special way because I represent a caucus that 100 Members are either women or minorities, and of that 100, over half of those are women.  And that is more than 50 percent--the 100 more than 50 percent of our caucus.

So we know firsthand the impact of changes in any of these initiatives to communities, to individuals, to people who depend on Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid.

Women, women overwhelmingly depend on Social Security, and they live longer, as you know.  Women are also caregivers within their own families and health providers across the board.  So they know the impact of this, and our Members are men, women, minority or not, are close to their constituents.  We are retailers of this operation.  We are right there on the frontline.

And so when somebody talks about something, we want to know the ramification of it; they can see it from a direct impact on people, and we want to make sure that people who are making policy decisions understand how that translates.

So it is a very informed, intellectually and by personal experience, caucus.  So the high tension wires go up when you talk about making changes, unless you can justify what the purpose of it.  For example, when you talk about the pharmaceuticals, if the purpose is to strengthen Medicare, then let's make sure that money goes to Medicare, not to deficit reduction.  Strengthening Medicare and strengthening Social Security has a positive impact on the fiscal soundness of our country, but it is not in the accounting of--we've got this pharmaceutical money, so we will use that to offset tax cuts at high end and say that we are reducing the deficits.  I'm only going to have time for two more.  I have to make every minute count between now and 6 p.m.

Q:  Madam Leader, this morning, you know, Republicans were out here, and they were talking about these nine bills that they passed through the House, sent over to the Senate.  You talked about the 10 bills that the Democrats have brought forward that have had no action on the floor.  And then today we saw the President in the Rose Garden specifically calling for action on infrastructure, extending middle class tax cuts, patent reform, trade agreements, all of these different things.  

I guess people want to know is, this idea that you can create jobs immediately, ASAP, is it gone because there is a broken process up here on the Hill, or why hasn't the Congress sent any of these bills to the President?

Leader Pelosi.  You will have to ask the majority party about that because they control the floor and the legislation.

But I would say that there are bills we could pass immediately that would give confidence, that would give confidence.

I have spoken to many captains of industry.  Does that term still apply?  What do we call it?  CEOs.  Okay.  And they have told me they will create jobs when they have customers.  If people are buying their products, they will create jobs.  So when you fire a policeman and a firefighter and a teacher and a public employee because of austerity programs, you are not only hurting the safety of your neighborhood, the education of your children, et cetera, you are reducing the number of consumers.  You are reducing the number of consumers.

So we have to understand, again, the impact of all of these actions, and that's why all this slash and burn, take no prisoners, cut, cut, cut, just in order to reduce the deficit does just the opposite because it lowers revenue coming into the Treasury.

The President has made some suggestions that are good there.  I myself would reject the patent bill because I don't think it is about entrepreneurship, but that is another press conference.  I thing that was the wrong bill.  But it is something that passed.  You notice, into 6 months of this majority, how many bill signings have you witnessed at the White House?  Think back 2 years.  How many bill signings, celebratory bill signings did you attend at the White House?  It's something quite different.

I'm only going to going to have time for one, not that this is not very useful in terms of 6 p.m. on Sunday.  But I have some internal work to do.

Q:  Since you only have one more question maybe I can get two into one?

Leader Pelosi.  That is up to everybody else.

Q:  Do you believe that having the government move to a it chain CPI measure across the program would represent a benefit cut to programs like Social Security? 

And secondly, did you hear anything at the White House yesterday from Republicans to indicate flexibility on the idea of revenue?

Leader Pelosi.  Well, the Speaker said, you have told me, the press has told me the Speaker has said that there was a 50-50 chance that something could happen.  I only heard that from you.  I did not hear that from him.

However, enough was said at the White House to set up another meeting on Sunday.  Period.  That's all I can say.  I can't, obviously, speak for the Republicans, but we are having the next meeting.

What was your first question?

Q:  The first question was whether chain CPI would cut benefits to Social Security?

Leader Pelosi.  CPI--at our meeting, they spent a whole lot of time talking about the 14th Amendment.  And I said, you know what?  Why are we talking about something that's not going to happen?

I have no idea if this is going to happen.  If it does, if it were to be something that would be put on the table, it would have to be something that would be put on the table, say, if it's to address Social Security, where the money went to Social Security.  CPI money--chain CPI money would go to the general fund.  This money would have to go to the trust fund if its purpose is to strengthen Social Security.  They use it as the excuse, if that is then the reason, it should go to that.

The Gang of Six has--I have no idea what is public about the Gang of Six or not.  Is it all public?

Q:  Yes.  Everything. 

Leader Pelosi.  I have been told, and that is true, it is a fact that I have been told that in the Gang of Six plan that what they consider CPI chains, they talk about phase in and protection for the poor.  So those kinds of things, protection for the poor, phase in, funds going directly to the Social Security Trust Fund, not sitting in the general fund, some things like that.

But again, we are discussing things that may or may not happen.  Let's see what happens on Sunday and deal with what emerges there.  There is concern in my caucus about what would happen with the CPI.  Some think that it is a benefit cut; others do not.  But again, again, this falls into the category of hypothetical at the present time.

We , we--one reason I can't say any more is I don't know any more.  We haven't seen, as I said there, the dirty rotten devil is in the dirty rotten details.  We haven't seen what that is and when we see it, then we can speak better to it.

Thank you all very much.