Transcript of Pelosi Weekly Press Conference Today

Press Conference

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. Thank you for being here a day early. Maybe you will be back again tomorrow. Tomorrow marks the six years since, in the Capitol of the United States, Chairman Ben Bernanke met with the bipartisan leadership of the House and the Senate, following a report by Secretary of the Treasury Paulson, who described a meltdown coming in our financial services industry. When I asked the Chairman if he agreed -- what did he think of what Secretary Paulson had to say? -- the Chairman said: "If we don't act immediately, we could not have an economy by Monday."

Here we are six years later, the American people still frightened by what that crash did to them in their personal lives. It was only seven weeks before the election -- actually, two days and seven weeks before the presidential election. I won't go into detail about that conversation, except to say that that outcome was an outcome of the Bush economic policies.

When the President took office in January, the unemployment rate was in excess of nine percent. Today it is 6.1 percent. The deficit was $1.3 trillion; today the CBO estimates it will be $500 billion for 2014. Still too high -- we want it to be lower. But it has come down 60 percent since President Obama took office. We have had 54 straight months of private sector job growth. Millions of jobs, maybe 10 million jobs, created in the private sector. And that's important, but it was also because of the policies of President Obama.

Millions, maybe 15 million people, have access to quality affordable health care. And the Affordable Care Act has lowered the cost of health care in our country, contributing to the decline in our deficit. The rate of debt to GDP is the lowest it has been in the average of 40 years as they have measured these things. The list goes on about indicators that have said that the President has taken us forward in a very positive direction from a very deep place. "If we do not act immediately, we will not have a economy by Monday." This was a Thursday night. And now the Republicans want to take us back to those same policies -- to those same policies, those trickle down policies of tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the middle class.

And that is why we have launched our Middle Class Jumpstart: to build the infrastructure of America with Build America Bonds, which we had in effect then, paid for by ending tax breaks for companies sending jobs overseas, instead rewarding companies that Make It In America. We have to have investments in education to keep America number one. The Tierney-Warren bill to enable students to renegotiate their loans at a much lower interest rate has a big impact on families and entrepreneurship for these young people. And of course the center of it all: When Women Succeed, America Succeeds -- rewarding work with equal pay for equal work; raising the minimum wage -- over 60 percent of the people making it are women; paid sick leave; and relating to education, quality, affordable child care -- to unleash the power of women in the workforce, in the economy.

So our title, "When Women Succeed, America Succeeds," is not just a title for an economic agenda for women and families. It is a statement of absolute fact. Our country's economy will succeed as women succeed.

So that's what tomorrow is. It marks that day six years ago when, because of the Republican policies that they have been espousing, the economic and fiscal policies, we could not have an economy by Monday -- an economy! We are not going back to that place. We are going to continue to fight that fight to put the middle class first, in the first 100 days of a new Congress, to put the middle class first -- the backbone of our democracy.

As you know, today we will be taking a vote on the training of, outside of Syria, of responsible elements. I think the President deserves a great deal of credit for what he has done in a non-military way, humanitarian wise, saving the people on the mountain, for lack of a better term, but many more than those, from the barbarism of ISIS. In a political way, he and Joe Biden deserve credit to encourage the establishment, the establishment of an inclusive government in Iraq -- without which there would be no reason for us to even be helping out if the government is at war with its own people -- and, of course, the diplomacy that he engaged in to have the coalition of so many NATO countries as well as countries in the region to be part of the solution as we go forward.

The vote today is about one very discrete piece, and that is the training of the rebels. And I don't know if that's the word we use. Rebels have been described in a number of different ways. But what it is is a short term initiative to train the moderates outside of Syria. This training will take place outside of Syria.

I don't know how the vote will turn out. It's not a vote we whip. We just don't whip war votes. But I do think that as Members weigh the factors, that they will, I think, give points to the President for all that he has done diplomatically, politically, humanitarian-wise and asking for this discrete piece. It is not to be confused with any authorization to go further.

As you know, we passed the McGovern bill, which -- overwhelmingly passed the McGovern bill -- really what it stated was that if the President were to go further, he it would need an act of Congress. Over 300 Members voted for that. That's another subject. The similar -- the same challenge, the President needs the authority to train the troops -- to train, excuse me, the moderates. But I don't think he needs a bill right now to do what he is doing in the bigger sense. I think he has all of that authority. But there is a threshold, and if it is crossed, Congress will have to act.

Questions?

***

Q: Madam Leader, all of our ears pricked up yesterday when General Dempsey was in the Armed Services Committee. And I imagine you read his comments, where he said that the President's ironclad statement in front of the country -- that there wouldn't be boots on the ground in Iraq against ISIS -- was open to revision if circumstances on the ground change, if Dempsey's recommendation changes. He said that the President told him to come back to him on a case-by-case basis. Was that testimony a surprise to you, and what do you think about it?

Leader Pelosi. Well, what I would think about it is what would I vote on it, and I will not vote for combat troops to engage in war. And so whatever he intended and however they have characterized it -- and I'm sure in the military they always reserve the right to review a strategy or certain tactics within it -- all I can say to you is I'm -- and I told this to my Caucus and they told it to me: they are not there to support combat troops in any of these engagements.

Q: What about the two shades of this statement, for the President to make, in primetime, to say "This will never happen," and then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to say: "it won't, unless the President changes his mind?" I'm interpreting, of course.

Leader Pelosi. You are putting words in different mouths, and we will have to…

Q: He said it was case-by-case.

Leader Pelosi. It doesn't matter. What matters to us is that we are not -- the House Democrats, by-and-large, and I am not saying that everybody single person subscribes to this; somebody may come forth -- but the sentiment of our Caucus has been that we are not supporting combat troops in how we solve this problem. We believe that the President has taken us on the proper course, which is humanitarian, which is diplomatic, which is political. He needs some leverage from military strength; therefore, train the moderates in order to have them make the fight.

But one of the explanations I heard is they might need to put somebody on the ground to advise on the air strikes. And if that is what they are talking about, I don't know if anybody has a big problem with that. I'm talking about combat troops on the ground to engage in battle.

Q: Obviously, you say this is the general position of the Caucus not to have these troops, unless -- the caveat you gave about calling in air strikes or something like that. But if the President were to come forth with a plan that said: "Look, we really need to have a broader…" -- in a briefing, a more intimate briefing that you had a couple of weeks ago, and said: "Look, we really have to get after this, this challenge," is that a blanket "No, we are not going go there?" And can he make that case if it comes to that?

Leader Pelosi. It is, for me, a blanket "No." I can only speak for myself, as I did in 2002 when we took this vote. I was the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. I told my colleagues that, as one of the Gang of Four or Gang of Eight, whichever briefing arena we were in, that I saw everything that the Administration had to offer the Congress in terms of intelligence. And the intelligence did not support the threat -- did not support the threat, and that's why I was voting against it.

I never say to people, This is why I urge you to vote against it. I just say, This is why I am voting against it. Overwhelmingly, the Democrats voted against it because there was no intelligence to support the threat because the threat as they described it did not exist. And, you know, we could spend a lot of time on this. But I think that what is important here is the President is trying to make the political change -- support the Iraqis to make the political change that they need to make to have an inclusive government. And that's what we have to be doing, to use our leverage -- and some of that may be training of troops -- in order to stop an organization like ISIS in its tracks. But I don't think the American people are up for it. I don't know that it would even achieve success to send troops in. But whatever it is, I'm against it.

Q: So you can't envision any scenario that you would say: "Look," if we get down the road on this three months, a year, and say: " Look, we have to…"

Leader Pelosi. Well, what would be the purpose? What is the purpose? Our purpose is not to engage in civil war in Syria. And our purpose is not to continue the war in Iraq. Our purpose is to stop ISIS from its brutality. ISIS has performed outside the circle of civilized human behavior. It is a threat to our friends in the region. It is a threat to us and a threat to stability, and it must be stopped. But it doesn't mean that we have to -- we have other options. I told my colleagues yesterday, the quote by Hannah Arendt. I don't have it exactly here, but in effect, people think that one more act of violence is going to stop violence, but instead, it is like a flywheel that just keeps producing more violence.

I think that we have the strength of ideas. The people of the country, they have their own self-determination to weigh in here. And I do not support -- the worse it gets there, the less reason I think we should send in troops. It's just an endless flywheel.

Q: Madam Leader, when was the last time you spoke with President Obama about this issue? And what is the President doing right now to make sure that he gets the support he needs when this goes to a vote?

Leader Pelosi. Of course, I was in the room with the Gang of Four. I chatted with the President on other subjects. I speak to his advisors pretty regularly. But I think our view is well known to the President. And I believe that the President does not want to have troops on the ground.

Q: But he has not called you in the last couple of days ahead of this vote?

Leader Pelosi. I've had communication with the President's people, shall we say, on the subject. But it's not, you know, it's not a whip operation. So it's a little bit different. And Members will do what Members are comfortable with doing.

I happen to view every vote in Congress as a vote of conscience; so when people say: it's a vote of conscience, yes, they all are. But this is in a category where people are just going to have to weigh all the equities. And all I have said to them is that I support this because I weigh heavily the equity that the President of the United States has put forth a strong initiative, founded on non-military strength, a new government of Iraq, humanitarian assistance to people affected by ISIS, diplomacy to build a coalition of support in NATO and in the region, and that this discrete piece of training moderates outside of Syria -- [it's] very important to me that it be outside of Syria -- is worthy of support. They will make their own judgment about it.

Q: Madam Leader, what do you make of concerns expressed by some progressives and I think libertarians that weapons or other resources sent to Syrian rebels might make their way into the hands of ISIS and might be used against the Americans?

Leader Pelosi. Well, the vetting is a very important part of this. I know people have that question because it has happened before. The program will train vetted fighters outside of Syria to defend the Syrian people against the tyranny of ISIS. They have to be very vetted -- and obviously, if there is one person who might make off with something. But really we have we have the capacity to vet and to identify. It is a challenge. There is no question. And I know that people ask the question.

And that's why I think that the bill that people are being asked to vote for has every -- have you read it? It has every check and balance in it along the way in terms of who, what, when, and why. And I think it has a timetable -- I know it has timetables in it for reporting back to Congress.

It's very sad that we find ourselves in this situation. That, again, ISIS is acting outside the circle of civilized human behavior as I said.

I went to 9/11 Thursday night when I was up in New York. As it got later I showed my grandchildren -- they see it because they live in New York -- the lights, the beams that are there. It's so, so clear in our minds that we can never allow anything like that to happen again in our country. It is a scar, and we have to protect the American people. And we take an oath. That's what we do. You want to be a Member of Congress, protect and defend. That's the oath we take, and that's what we have to do.

But I believe that we have to be leaning more in the direction of political, diplomatic, and humanitarian solutions. That doesn't mean we take all military strength off the table, but it means that we are going in a different direction and that, I think, is possible.

But, again, we could chat about this all day and if you keep me at it, I will go into all the misrepresentations that came forth in 2012. If you read that authorization, you will see that they blamed Iraq for 9/11. It's stunning. When I went to Kuwait a few weeks before the initiation of hostilities into Iraq and I talked to the soldiers to see what they needed -- I went with Jack Murtha to see what their concerns were, what their morale was like -- and they said: "We are ready for the fight; they hurt us, and now we're going to hurt them." And I said: "When did they hurt us? When did Iraq hurt us?"

"They hurt us on 9/11." That's what they were feeding our troops.

So I think the American people are very burned by that experience of Iraq. We had authority to go into Afghanistan in terms of 9/11. We sent the Taliban running, heading for the hills, but we did not defeat them; and they came back because we left and went to Iraq for reasons that were misrepresented to the American people and as a disservice to our troops. We are now dealing with all the aftermath of war, which we should consider right up front, and that is the impact on our veterans.

Protect and defend. That is our responsibility and not all of this has to be military. It can be political, humanitarian, diplomatic. The President is doing that. I'm going to have to excuse myself now -- you already had one.

Q: On the NFL, they are facing a firestorm over their handling of players who have been alleged or charged with crimes…

Leader Pelosi. Do we have any questions from women? Don't women have any questions?

Q: I guess I will ask you about the NFL since you have spoken so much about Syria already.

Leader Pelosi. What about it?

Q: Go for it.

Leader Pelosi. It's all about respect. Respect for women.

Q: You are a big 49ers fan. You go to all the games.

Leader Pelosi. Yes. Don't remind me of Sunday night's game, the second half.

Q: Has the League handled this appropriately? Is it time for the commissioner to step down?

Leader Pelosi. I think it's appropriate to have an investigation of who knew what and when. I'm glad they have some women now in an advisory capacity. Maybe it has all along, but that is beefed up. But I think it's important to see what the investigation will yield as to who knew what and when.

But it's a bigger issue. It's about respect for women. It's about respect for women in the workplace, equal pay for equal work. It's about respect for women's judgment about their own health in terms of a women's right to choose. It's about understanding that when women succeed, America succeeds. We have to have affordable child care and paid leave and the rest of that, recognizing the role that women play.

So as we deal with violence against women -- whether it is in the military, in the home, whether it is on campuses -- we have to take a look at this in a bigger sense.

And since you asked, I'll go back to the Violence Against Women Act. Twenty years ago this past Saturday -- we have lots of dates and times tomorrow -- this past Saturday, we passed the Violence Against Women Act 20 years ago. Joe Biden was our hero, chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate at the time.

We've had to reauthorize it at some point over time, and when it came time to reauthorize it again under Republican majority in the House -- even though it had passed the Senate in a bipartisan way -- the Republican majority in the House refused to bring up the bill for -- about 600 days -- because they didn't reauthorize the bill. And when they finally brought a bill to the floor, they said: well, we have to have our bill and your bill. Our bill was the Senate bipartisan bill that had passed the Senate, and they had their own bill that said we're against violence against women, except if they happen to be an immigrant woman, a Native American woman, an LGBT woman.

So when people talk about the differences in Washington, D.C., and why can't we get along, well, we can't get along on a bill that says no violence against women, unless you are LGBT or unless you're an immigrant or unless you're a Native American, then you don't have those protections. We don't want to have -- the economic policies that we had six years ago that led to a meltdown of our financial institutions and scared the American to a point where we still have to instill confidence in the economy to take us where we need to be. So there are differences between us in policy, and sometimes we cannot find common ground.

Q: Just to follow up, because the League does get special protections that are given by the government. Is it just being investigated essentially by itself. Does Congress need to pick up this issue?

Leader Pelosi. As I say, let's see what it is. I mean, it's hard for me to understand how people are punching out their wives at home and the rest of that, or their kids and the rest of that. But it does happen. And it is an issue that we have been working on for a very long time, violence against women. And sometimes it's violence against men, domestic violence. So we have to stop that. We have to stop that. We have to recognize that sports figures are in a special place in our country, and young people look up to them as heroes and what they do. So everybody has to take responsibility for their role in it.

I don't know how long the League investigation will be. I think Congress always has a role. But, again, if you're talking about antitrust privileges and the rest of that, that certainly is a big issue, and it cannot be done, except by the Congress. But let's take it in terms of what they tell us back. And I would think that depending on what that data is, or what that evidence is, what that information is, that the outcome will be self-evident to the NFL. It doesn't mean that we cut ourselves out of the game, so to speak, but it means -- I have to speak on the floor on child…

Q: Really quickly. A number of teams have cut players specifically because of these allegations or charges, but the 49ers specifically, which is your team, allowed Ray McDonald to play over the weekend even though he was arrested in August for domestic abuse. He hit his pregnant wife, allegedly. Do you think the 49ers should have let Ray McDonald play over the weekend?

Leader Pelosi. No.

Q: Why not?

Leader Pelosi. For the reasons you just spelled out. I don't. But I think the silver lining in all of this is that people are getting a better understanding of what is happening. And a disrespect -- it manifests itself in many ways, and I spelled some of them out. But violence? Oh, listen: this is something that we have all been working on for a very long time. As I said, 20 years ago, we passed the Violence Against Women Act, so we are passionate about this issue. We are passionate about how we deal with it. Let's see what they do. No. A coach says that innocent until proven guilty, due process, all of that. But the fact is, he shouldn't have played.

Thank you all very much.

Source