Transcript of Pelosi Weekly Press Conference Today

Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi held her weekly press conference today in the Capitol Visitor Center.  The Leader was joined by Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, Congressman Chris Van Hollen and Congresswoman Nita Lowey.  Below is a transcript of their remarks, followed by the question and answer session:

Leader Pelosi.  Good afternoon.  How are you all?  Thank you for coming.  I was going to start telling grandchildren stories until they got here.

Mr. Hoyer.  Or great-grandchildren stories.

Leader Pelosi.  Yes, Steny.  When he says great-grandchildren – we all think our grandchildren are great, but he really means great-grandchildren, with a hyphen.  Hard to believe.

Good afternoon, everyone.  Yesterday, as you know, President Obama made a call to act to reverse the growing inequality, income inequality in our nation.  He called for an increase in the minimum wage, equal pay for women, ending discrimination in the workplace, early childhood education.  Universal Pre-K has been part of his proposals all along.  I was excited to hear what he had to say because they echo our initiative among House Democrats, "When Women Succeed, America Succeeds."  And this is our agenda: respect for work, and of course for women's work on the job, and helping to balance home and work.  But income inequality, as he pointed out, is really eroding the middle class, which is the backbone of our democracy.

Earlier today House Democrats had the privilege of hearing from Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear on how the Affordable Health Care Act is working in his state.  He talked about the way the world is working from a moral standpoint and from a values standpoint – that it is the right thing to do to improve the health of thousands of his citizens.

But he also talked about it from an economic and fiscal standpoint.  Over the next eight years, $15 billion will be injected into Kentucky's economy.  It will bring $800 million to the state treasury and create 17,000 jobs, as it upholds our values and supports their budget.

So we were very proud to hear what he had to say, and some of you came to hear him at the press event afterwards.  In Kentucky and across the nation, the American people are experiencing the benefits of the Affordable Care Act.  In few areas has the law been of greater impact than the lives of Americans with preexisting conditions.  Whatever category you are in, in terms of if you had insurance that you liked before, whatever it was, it is going to be better now because of no preexisting conditions being a barrier to your access to insurance.  Also the law removed lifetime or even annual caps on the funding that you can receive for care.

And thanks to the Affordable Health Care Act, in relationship to preexisting conditions, up to 17 million children with preexisting conditions have already been able to gain affordable coverage.  And starting on January 1st, up to 129 million Americans, including children, including Americans with cancer, asthma, diabetes, and other conditions, will no longer be denied coverage or charged higher premiums based on their health history.

Today is a day where we are all focusing on the issue of preexisting conditions, and I'm happy to say, according to the Affordable Health Care Act, being a woman is no longer a preexisting medical condition.

The numbers I talked about represent the real stories of Americans in every health insurance, who every day remind us that we enacted this law in the first place not only to offer good health insurance for America.  It is about not only health care, but it is also about the good health of all Americans.

Again today – we have had a busy day so far, that's why we are coming in later now – earlier today Democrats held a hearing on the impending expiration of an essential lifeline that millions of Americans and their families depend on, unemployment insurance.  Under the leadership of our Ranking Member on Ways and Means, Congressman Sandy Levin, who has been championing this issue every day relentlessly for a very long time, we had witnesses who spoke passionately to the shared stories of the 1.3 million Americans who will be cut off from federal unemployment compensation on December 28th, right in the middle of the holidays.

Tens of thousands of veterans who rely on these unemployment benefits will lose them; up to two million children can be impacted by the loss of these benefits; 1.9 million more Americans will lose their unemployment benefits during the first half of next year when their state benefits run out.  So it is absolutely essential that we extend the benefits.

Economists agree that unemployment benefits remain one of the best ways to grow the economy in a very immediate way.  It immediately injects demand into our markets and increases employment.  For every dollar spent on unemployment benefits, the economy grows by, according to one estimate, $1.52, by others $2.  So somewhere in that range, but much more than is spent on it.  Failing to extend the benefits will cost us 200,000 jobs over the next year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

We have a responsibility to the American people.  These are people who have played by the rules, have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and need these benefits in order to survive.  So we must extend this insurance before the end of the year, and we must extend it for at least a year.  And I would like to see that as we go forward before this year ends.  Hopefully, it could be part of the budget, but it doesn't have to be part of the budget, it could be in its own vehicle as it goes forward.  But it's something we must consider.

The clock is ticking.  You know, I am always, as my temporal markers, where we are, what we did this morning, what the President did yesterday, what we did later in the day, and here we are.  The clock is ticking.  There is still much work to be done, and time is running out on a budget agreement.  While we understand that negotiations are continuing, we also understand that there is no final deal.  House Democrats want to extend the hand of friendship over and over again to cooperate in a way that grows the economy, reduces the deficit, and does so in a way that is fair and strengthens the middle class.

Hopefully, budget conferees can come up with an agreement that is bipartisan, that we can, both houses, pass in a bipartisan way.  We are very ably led in our discussions from our side by our Ranking Member on the Budget Committee, Chris Van Hollen; he can't be with us now because he had a flight, James Clyburn, our Assistant Leader; and by the Ranking Member on the Appropriations Committee, Nita Lowey.

I am very pleased to be joined by our House Democratic leadership as we hear Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen come forth and give us a briefing on where he sees things on the bill and what Democrats are proposing.

Thank you for your leadership, Chris Van Hollen.

Mr. Van Hollen.  Well thank you, Leader Pelosi.  It's great to be here with my colleagues and my fellow conferee, Ms. Lowey.

There is no budget agreement yet.  Been a lot written, but there is no budget agreement yet.  We believe these budget negotiations have already dragged on way too long, and we share the view of the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who wrote to all the conferees sometime ago saying that we should get this done by right after Thanksgiving so the appropriators could get to work.  So that's the sentiment of the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

We also believe that as this process has dragged on important priorities are at risk of being left behind.  And that's why we have presented our priorities.  These are priorities that we presented as part of these negotiations going forward, and I want to quickly outline what we said from the beginning should be part of this negotiation and discussion.

Number one, we've said from the beginning we've got to focus on jobs, we've got to get the economy moving faster.  We have made progress, but we also know we could do a lot better.  My goodness, we lost $24 billion in economic activity because of the government shutdown in October.  That's an unnecessary self inflicted wound.

So instead of doing bad things to the economy, we should be doing things to help move the economy forward, and we have a proposal to invest more in our national infrastructure.  We believe, as do people around the country, we have huge unmet needs in that sector, and we have high unemployment in the construction industry.  So it's a win-win to get moving on the jobs front.

We pay for that infrastructure by saying: "Let's spend more of the money that was going to be spent on nation building overseas to help invest in our economy right here at home."  We have built lots of roads and lots of facilities in places like Afghanistan.  We're saying: "Let's take some of that savings and invest it right here for jobs at home; and also to focus on jobs of the future, early education, invest in that area."

Number two, we believe we have to replace the sequester, no doubt about it.  We understand that we may not be able to replace the whole thing at once, but we need to replace it.  And we need to replace it in a balanced way, a way that calls for shared responsibility, which is why we have said from the beginning that in addition to making targeted cuts, we should also look at closing special interest tax breaks, to make sure that everybody is participating in trying to replace the sequester.

We all know the sequester is hurting the economy.  The Congressional Budget Office says it will result in 800,000 fewer jobs by this time next year.  So we have got to fix it, and we need to fix it in a balanced way.  And you've seen the reports – a lot of you have written about this.  The proposals Republicans have put forward as part of this process go after middle-income, middle class taxpayers, and leave the high-flyers alone.

So what do they propose to do, for example?  They propose to go after federal employees, who are hard working people, who have already taken it on the chin in terms of furloughs and the impact of the sequester and the government shutdown.  These are hard working folks who are working for the country every day.

They don't want to, apparently, close a single loophole for private corporate jets, but they want to say to the traveling public: "You should pay a higher airline passenger fee."  So, we're not saying you can't consider user fees.  Of course you can consider them.  We find it odd that they would say they want to use airline passenger fees but not close private corporate jet loopholes.  And at the same time they've said, and again you've read this in the newspapers, and the Speaker said this himself, he did not want to include the savings from the farm bill as part of deficit reduction or sequester replacement, even though they call for that in their budget.  And so what they are saying is that they don't want to take away some of those big agriculture subsidies as part of this effort.  They would rather pick on middle-income taxpayers.

So we believe when you are replacing the sequester you need to do it in a way that calls for shared responsibility.

And finally, as the Leader said, two days after Christmas the unemployment compensation support for over a million Americans runs out.  We've heard very powerful testimony from Americans who were out of work through no fault of their own.  One of them testified that she lost her job because of the sequester.  She worked in a biotech company, and because of the cutbacks in places like the National Institutes of Health, she lost her job, and she has been looking hard for a job and can't find it.  And she has got a stack of letters two feet high in terms of her job applications.  So these are hard working, these are people who have been working hard, lost their jobs, they're still looking every day.

And the final point I want to make about that is it's not only the right thing to do to help those families, but it's the right thing to do to help our community and our economy.  Because the Congressional Budget Office tells us that by making sure that we provide unemployment compensation we will help create another 200,000 jobs by this time next year.

So a million people are going to lose their unemployment compensation, yet if we replace the sequester and we have unemployment compensation, we can have a million more jobs by this time next year than we would otherwise.  And that is not my figure, that is the Congressional Budget Office figure.  So we believe these priorities have to be addressed by the end of this year.  The Speaker said if it's not within the four corners of the budget agreement we have to see a clear path to getting other parts of these things done.

***

Leader Pelosi.  Questions?

Q:  Madam Leader, the Speaker of the House stood right where you're standing and acknowledged that Republicans, when they talk, have to be more sensitive to women.  What do you make of that comment and how should he carry that out?

Leader Pelosi.  Well, let me just say that it's a little late, but nonetheless we're always hopeful.  We are very proud of our own initiative, "When Women Succeed, America Succeeds."  Rosa DeLauro, who is sort of the godmother of this idea, did a lot of research about what meant the most to women in the workplace, and what that was, was much of what the President said yesterday: equal pay for equal work; raise the minimum wage, very important; value the work of women; paid leave, very important to women – and men as well – but women being the major caregivers; and then of course the issue of child care, which is something that we have a crusade on, the missing link and unleashing the power of women.

I think he was saying that in response to the fact that they were teaching – what, didn't they have a class for their Members to say how you should run against women?  Which is really strange, especially being a woman.  But you know what, they have made an art of running against women in ways that we think are inappropriate, and nonetheless it will be interesting to see what they have in their curriculum for how to run against women.

Q:  On that topic, do you also train your candidates on how to run against women? 

Leader Pelosi.  What is this?  I'm so excited that there is so much attention on women, and women that are candidates.  I am not going to take too long to answer this because I want you to hear the views of our distinguished Whip, Mr. Hoyer, on the subject of the budget and of our Ranking Member on the Appropriations Committee, and she may have something to say about this.

I have gone forth all over the country and said this, and I guarantee you that it is true: it's not about how we talk about women in one race or another, it's how we give more opportunity to women.  And there are two ways.  One, reduce the role of money in politics and increase the level of civility.  If you do that, I guarantee you, you will elect more women to public office and to public service, and that's a very wholesome thing for our country.

When I encourage women to run, they say: "Well, how can you even take the abuse that you take in terms of the negative things that people say?"  I say: "They don't matter to me."  If I were not effective, they would not be attacking me.  However, having said that, we want people with options to run, and people with options don't want to subject themselves to the maliciousness that some people have out there.

So we know that if we can make the debate more civil and reduce the role of money, many more women would enter the arena, and that's how we want to increase the number.  And we are very proud of the fact that in our caucus, the House Democratic Caucus, is a majority of women, minorities, and LGBT community people.  That's beautiful, the beauty is in the mix.  We're very proud of that.

I'm going to ask a question of Mr. Hoyer to tell us what he thinks of what he has heard here today.  I'm happy to talk about women all day.

Mr. Hoyer.  Me, too, for that matter.

First of all, let me say that we don't know what the budget parameters in the agreement are going to be, and we have heard rumors, you have written about them.  So we don't know the substance.  What we do know is, however, that we are for a balanced addressing of the budget, of the economic issues that confront our country, and of putting our country on a fiscally sustainable path.

I am, as you know, for a big deal in which all of the options are put on the table, which is what President Obama did.  President Obama didn't do small bore, as is being discussed, as I understand it now, and being urged by Mr. Ryan.  And the reason he didn't discuss small bore is because he wanted to give confidence to the economy, and he wanted to get off this government by crisis.  He wanted to have a sustainable path as we move forward.

I am very hopeful that before the budget conference reports out something that they reach such an agreement.  Not a small bore agreement, but a big agreement which deals with the issues that Chris Van Hollen has talked about: investing in our economy, investing in education, investing in our infrastructure, growing our economy, making sure that unemployment insurance does not expire.  And I agree with Leader Pelosi, that doesn't necessarily have to be within the budget agreement itself, but it must be a part of addressing the economic challenges that confront our country and our people.

I could say more, but enough said now.  And unfortunately I am going to have to leave because my staff is saying I am very late to another event.  But I thank Leader Pelosi.

Leader Pelosi.  Any questions for Mr. Hoyer?

Q:  I do.  I have a question for you.  I know, Mr. Van Hollen, you said you don't know what the agreement is or what the agreement might look like, but what are the parameters to have, you know, you go to Members and start to whip this?  What has to be in there?  They've talked about maybe doing a CR.  You said the other day you are not going to do something on $967 billion that reintroduces the sequester.  But there hasn't been any communication at all about next week and whipping. 

Mr. Hoyer.  Well, I tried to get Mr. Cantor to be more specific today on the floor, and if you were watching, that did not happen, and that may be because he doesn't know.  He may not know what the specifics are.

However, you're correct, and Mr. Van Hollen mentioned it.  One of our principal objectives is eliminating the sequester.  Why?  Because in a bipartisan fashion not only did Mr. Rogers say the sequester is unworkable and unrealistic, but his 12 chairmen – Republican Chairmen of the Appropriations Subcommittees – said it was unworkable and unrealistic.

So, one of the first objectives needs to be to get rid of the sequester.  The sequester was never intended to go into effect.  Everybody believed that the supercommittee, so called, would come up with a big, balanced deal.  Unfortunately that did not happen, and they presumed that over the next 13 months, after failure, that we would come up with an alternative to sequester.  We did not.

Mr. Cantor today on the floor, in our colloquy, said the sequester was not the way to do to reduce government spending.  He is absolutely right.  I have been saying that, Mr. Cantor has been saying it.  The Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee knows probably more than the rest of us that that's not the way to do it, and Leader Pelosi has been saying the same thing.  So we think that's a threshold issue that needs to be dealt with.

Q:  Congressman, on federal workers? 

Mr. Hoyer.  On federal workers?

Q:  Yes.  We saw the email supporting federal workers, concern about them in this process, but if it comes down to it, rolling back the sequester or taking a deal where perhaps Federal pension contributions have to go up maybe even more than the sequester is rolled back, is that something that you and other Democrats could swallow?  Could you talk about those tradeoffs?

Mr. Hoyer.  We don't think that's good policy.  Mr. Van Hollen talked about it in terms of working people.  The only working people that have paid a price so far in trying to bring down the deficit have been Federal workers, and they have paid $114 billion to date over the last four years.  And that does not include the furloughs.  I am trying to get that figure.  I've talked to Sylvia Burwell to get that figure.  But that's billions.  I don't know how many billions more that they paid.

So, I think it's inappropriate, absent a big deal in which you are dealing with all segments of savings and of investments, which a big deal contemplates, it is inappropriate to further look to the pockets of federal employees at this point in time.  It's not necessary.  Mr. Van Hollen points that out.  He has alternatives which don't deal with that at all.

They want to save $10, $15, $20 billion in the Farm Bill.  They also want to shift some of that money to pay very wealthy farmers on insurance.  We ought to look to those first before we, again, reduce the pay and benefits of our federal workers because we have already dipped deeply into their pockets and reduced not only their present benefits and pay, but also their longer term benefits and pay.

Thank you.

Leader Pelosi.  Thank you.

Q:  Madam Leader, on the issue of UI, whether or not it's a part of a budget deal or not, the Speaker said this morning that if the President sends a plan, presumably how much, how long, how to pay for it, that they would look at it.  Is there going to be such a proposal from the White House or from Democrats here?  Are you aware of one that will be coming? 

Leader Pelosi.  Well, I was very pleased to see that the Speaker left the door open on unemployment insurance because it's so important to the lives of the people affected and really to our economy.  I don't know what the White House's plans are to send something over, but I do know that they have asked Congress to act upon it.  And we're just talking about a one year extension, which is important, the one year extension.  Let's bring up a one year extension.

Q:  Details like the pay-fors, that's the perennial fight?

Leader Pelosi.  Well, it's a perennial argument.  And you know, I subscribe to the fact that this has been paid for by people paying unemployment insurance.  So we don't need to pay for it twice.

Mr. Van Hollen.  I agree with that.  And despite that, because of the fact that that has become the pattern and practice, if you look at the plan we just handed out, we do pay for the unemployment compensation, and we pay for it in a way that the Congressional Budget Office, which is our nonpartisan budget referee says will generate the savings necessary to offset the costs.

And what they say is that, you know, instead of saying that you can't have anybody at the IRS to go collect taxes from people who already owe them, these are from deadbeat taxpayers who because they're not paying taxes raise the cost of taxes to everybody else, if you just get a few more people to try and track down the deadbeats, people who are trying to hide their money overseas, in fact you can cover the cost.  So, our plan totally pays for a one year extension of unemployment compensation.

And I would point out, because I just think it shows the misplaced priorities around here, which is that during the government shutdown this economy lost $24 billion.  Unnecessary, shameful action.  The cost of providing for unemployment compensation over the next year?  Twenty-four billion.  We do pay for it.  We pay for it by making sure that people who are deadbeats and trying to hide their money pay their fair share of taxes so that other people don't have to pay more.

Leader Pelosi.  I just want to, because you seem to have an array of questions, I want to yield to the person who knows the most about this.  Steny mentioned our Ranking Member on the Appropriations Committee for her view because when we talk budget, then we get into continuing resolutions and the rest of that, and that is the purview of Mrs. Lowey.

Mrs. Lowey.  Thank you, Madam Leader.  I'll just mention a few things.  Number one, it's very clear from Chairman Rogers and all the 12 cardinals, Chairs of the Appropriations Committee, that we must…

Leader Pelosi.  We call them cardinals.

Mrs. Lowey.  Exactly.  They have issued a statement, they have discussed this process more than once.  They have made it clear they don't want a continuing resolution.  They want to have a budget that is workable.

Now, I mention this because my colleague talked about our priorities.  And if you recall we couldn't even get the labor, health, human services, education bill to committee.  Never mind going to the floor.  The Transportation HUD Bill, which as my colleagues referenced in our priorities, creates jobs, investment in transportation that is so absolutely essential in this country, that was pulled from the floor.  But we talk about the National Institutes of Health, we talked about women before, whether it is breast cancer, Alzheimer's, autism, these are diseases that affect men and women.  We couldn't even do that in the committee.

Chairman Rogers and I work very closely together.  I guarantee that we could sit down and within a week, and our staffs, we can put together a real bill.  We're wasting time now.  To me, this is what is so disturbing about the whole process.  We're paid to do our job, and we're wasting time.  We could get together.  Let's get this process going and let's make sure we're making appropriate investments in our priorities so we're creating jobs, putting people to work.

And I would just like to go along with Chris Van Hollen and my colleagues talking about unemployment insurance because I see it all over the district.  I have a very diverse district.  When you see the impact of the sequester, when you see people who are going to offices to look for jobs and they tell you their stories, it is painful.  When you go to the food bank in Westchester County and Rockland County, there are triple – maybe even higher now.  I have been shocked to see the numbers of people who are going to get their food for their families.

So we need to get on with this.  There is no question there could be bipartisan work done by Chairman Rogers and myself and our chairs and our rankings.  So let's do it and remember the priorities and remember that if we delay this, we're delaying jobs for people and we are really impeding the growth of our economy.

Q:  It sounds like just given the fact that you have put forward this proposal which you know that there are many aspects of this that won't win the approval of Republicans.  This is not, doesn't appear to be what Chairman Murray and Chairman Ryan are talking about.  Does this suggest that the reality is right now the chances for a deal that can win the support of House Democrats, like yourselves, is slimmer today than it was when this process started? 

Leader Pelosi.  Well, I just want to say, first of all, that building infrastructure for America has always been a bipartisan priority – that has always been.  SGR, as we want to resolve that issue, has bipartisan enthusiasm behind it, both in the Congress and in the country.  And reducing the deficit and ridding ourselves of sequestration, as Mr. Hoyer said, even the Republican Leader on the floor said we want to get rid of sequestration.

So, are you just talking about early childhood education as something they might not support?  I wouldn't characterize the Republicans that way.  So, it isn't a list of things that haven't had bipartisan support along the way.

I yield to the distinguished Ranking Member on Budget.

Mr. Van Hollen.  Well look, as we have said, these are our priorities and that the final outcome has to, you know, take into account and reflect many of the important issues that we've outlined here.  And as I said, as these talks have unnecessarily dragged on, we believe that a lot of these priorities are at risk of being left behind.

As the Leader said with respect to unemployment compensation, it doesn't have to be in the same legislative bill as the budget agreement, but we want to see a commitment and a way that we're going to get that done by the end of this year.

With respect to sequester replacement, the idea of shared responsibility is one that should be fundamental to everybody.  We all want to replace the sequester because these are very deep and immediate cuts that are hurting and eating away at important investments in the country, hurting jobs.  But as we figure out how to achieve the same amount of deficit reduction, my goodness, why should we be going after working Americans?  Why should we be going after the middle income folks?  Why should we say that federal employees who are working in a veterans hospital and who have been taking it on the chin as a result of the government shutdown?  Why should we be asking them to pay something when we're not asking the owners of private corporate jets to reduce their subsidy?  Or why, as Mr. Hoyer and I said earlier, some of these large agribusinesses?  Why shouldn't we take some of the huge subsidies that we're now providing to major agribusinesses as a part of a way of reducing the sequester instead of these other methods?

And again, it's hard for us to understand why Republicans would say it's a great idea to raise, you know, fees on the traveling public when they won't take away these corporate tax breaks for the owners of private jets.  It just shows you that when it comes to looking to a way to replace the priorities, they're always going after the little guy and always letting the big guy not contribute to this effort.

Q:  Leader Pelosi, you seem to indicate earlier that the support of Democrats for a budget agreement was contingent upon a deal to extend UI.  Is that what you were…

Leader Pelosi.  No.  No, I didn't say that.  I didn't see many of you there this morning.  But we had a full house anyway.  Perhaps you saw it on TV.  What I said was, that I wanted to see the unemployment insurance – as we go forward with the budget – I would like to see the unemployment insurance in that.  It's in our proposal, but it could be separate from that as well.

Q:  But are you saying that you want an agreement to do UI in return for votes?   

Leader Pelosi.  Oh no, it depends on what the budget is.  The UI stands on its own as a very important initiative.  It doesn't justify some of the misplaced priorities that we're hearing coming out of some conversations from Republicans.  But on its own, we believe that is should be extended and – as speakers left that door open, you asked if we had a Democratic proposal.  We do.  It's in the piece of paper that you have there.  And if he's waiting for the President to send something, then hopefully that'll happen.  But what we're saying is, the clock is ticking.  We have a couple of weeks – three weeks of whatever it is – before Christmas and we need to get all of this done.  Yeah, I'd like it in the budget.  That's part of our budget proposal.  But that is not what I said.  I said either this or – I think I used the term some ‘sidebar' initiative that would go along, timing-wise, with it.

But they're telling me it's the last question because we have to get back to work.  I mean, that's a strange notion around here – a notion it is, it's not a hard idea.  But we are forever pushing to get some more done.  This is a stunning place that we're at.  And as you listen to the priorities that we're talking about and some of the priorities that Republicans put forth, you have to wonder.  And as I said to the hearing for unemployment insurance this morning, when we were talking about Pope Francis and what he said was a responsibility of elected officials, public officials and of business leaders – our responsibilities to working people – whether related to housing or food or whatever it was, you have to wonder why it's just so difficult.  So what I said to them was "either the Republicans don't know or they don't care."

We have to assume that they care.   So we just want to make sure that they know.  And that's why we had the hearing so that they know that.  While we talk about 1.3 million people and that statistic is staggering, it's staggering every single person at a time.  And some of the people who spoke today were the personal manifestation of  the work ethic in our country.  It's very strong.  People want to work hard.  They want to play by the rules.  They want to succeed.  And they can't if the deck is stacked against them.  And so that's all we're saying to our colleagues: "We assume you they care.  We want you to know what the nature of the problem is and what some possible suggestions are."

And everything we've suggested, whether it's on the immigration bill for example or in this budget, are initiatives that the Republicans have supported themselves before.  It's nothing to put on their plate that they've said, "Never will I go near that."  It's in friendship that we extend our hand over and over again so we can get a budget agreement that has bipartisan support.

But the clock is ticking, we shouldn't be  pushed up to this place .  Weeks have gone by since the democrats gave a 100 percent of the Democratic vote to open up government.  Over 60 percent of the Republicans voted to keep government closed and default on the full faith and credit.  So, we have a disagreement as to governments and the role of government and that's why they've diminished the importance of public employees, federal employees.  It's all of one piece.  But be that as it may.  There's a different philosophy on each side.  This isn't interparty bickering.  This is a major policy disagreement.  But we can and should be able to find a common ground and we're making some suggestions that will grow the economy, rid us of sequestration, reduce the deficit, and take us forward – and give the public some level of confidence that we can get the job done.

Q:  Just to clarify, though, you would support a budget bill that does not have unemployment benefits in it?

Leader Pelosi.  Within itself, yes, but I do still want to see an unemployment bill.