Weekly Press Briefing with Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Statement
WEEKLY PRESS BRIEFING WITH SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA)
Copyright ©2007 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Jack Graeme at jack@fednews.com or call 1-800-211-4020.
SPEAKER PELOSI: Good morning.
On October 1st earlier this week, President Bush declared Children's Health Day. In his statement in a proclamation for Children's Health Day, October 1st, 2007, the president said, "On this day, it is also appropriate to recognize the important role the State Children's Health Insurance Program has played in helping poor children stay healthy. To preserve that role and ensure that poor children can get that coverage, they need SCHIP. SCHIP should be reauthorized." Two days later, the president vetoed the SCHIP bill.
We are now in the process of striving to override the president's veto. I think that overriding that veto is the best thing that can happen for the country, first of all, for our children and, actually, for President Bush because this issue is not going to go away. We will continue to make the fight until the president signs the bill that we, in a bipartisan way, have sent to the White House.
I'd be pleased to answer any questions on that in a moment, but first, I want to take great pride in a report put out by the Committee on the Budget.
Democrats restore fiscal responsibility, the Pay-As-You-Go rule, in the 110th Congress. I call your attention to the part where it says that of all the bills that have come before the Congress and passed the House, some have revenue and spending implications, some do not, but every bill is 100 percent paid for, consistent with our PAYGO rule that we initiated the first day of this new Congress. And by the way, 80 percent of that PAYGO was from realigning priorities, no new taxes.
On another subject, yesterday I had the opportunity to visit with President Talabani of Iraq. I have met with him before in the U.S. as well as in Iraq. I asked him for an update on the security and reconciliation initiatives in Iraq.
And President Talabani was optimistic, so optimistic that he assured me that what was left -- what was needed for the U.S. to do, the training of troops, in many cases could well be done by the Iraqis themselves. That could only happen if they had more equipment, and he was asking for that. But apart from that, the mending of the constitution, he said, was moving forward. The reconciliation is moving forward, and that the need for large numbers of troops in the U.S., excuse me, from the U.S. to Iraq would be greatly, greatly, greatly reduced by the end of 2008.
I was very encouraged by what President Talabani had to say. It was not unlike what President -- Prime Minister al-Maliki had told me when I visited Iraq -- my first visit out of the country to visit our troops, to thank them for their -- my first visit as speaker of the House -- to thank our troops for their patriotism, their courage, the sacrifice that they and their families were making for our country. While there, I met with Prime Minister al-Maliki, and he said that with proper equipment paid for or provided by the U.S., that the need for combat troops in Iraq would be drastically reduced.
He actually said in this year. President Talabani is now talking about the end of next year. So I was very encouraged by what they had to say, well, especially yesterday, most currently President Talabani, and look forward to continuing that conversation with him as we make judgments about how we proceed on Iraq.
With that, I'd be pleased to answer any questions.
Yes, Mike.
Q Yesterday, the president made a speech in Pennsylvania where he seemed to make an overture towards you and congressional Democrats saying if you want to talk about spending a little more money on SCHIP, then he's willing to talk about that. First of all, what is your response to that? And second of all, you've repeatedly said you're 15 votes short. How short are you today?
SPEAKER PELOSI: Fewer than that. (Laughs.)
Well, I'm not here to make any announcements about that, but we're making progress. As I said, the best thing that could happen for the president is if this bill were overridden, this veto would be overridden. Because the issue is not going to go away.
The president calls himself the decider. Does the president want to decide which children get health care and which do not? His proposal -- what the president has proposed reduces the number of children in our country who receive health care. His proposal reduces the number.
Our proposal, the bipartisan, overwhelmingly-in-both-house-passed SCHIP bill, doubles the number of children from where the president is in his bill and in ours. So we're saying to the president, we've compromised all we can compromise. There's still more children out there who need this health care, but this is what can pass in a bipartisan way, in both houses in Congress. This is what the president should sign.
But don't take it from me; just listen to what Senator Grassley is saying, former chair of the Finance Committee, prominent Republican in the Senate, and Senator Hatch. This is the right thing to do. So we're not going to go down a path where -- reducing the number of children, even from what -- the number who are covered today.
Q (Off mike.)
SPEAKER PELOSI: It would be interesting to see. I mean, we're always willing to talk, and I wish the president had made some of those overtures earlier on. He might more fully understand what is in the bill.
Recognize this. In this bill that the president said, "I forbid 10 million children to receive health care" -- in one year, insuring 10 million children costs what it costs to stay 40 days in Iraq; 10 million children, one year -- 40 days in Iraq. Also, in this legislation that the president vetoed, the president vetoed the family and medical leave for caregivers to our returning troops who are injured. There is a provision in the bill that gives a six-month unpaid leave -- family and medical leave for the caregivers for our wounded troops; the president said, "I forbid." The president said no.
So this is not -- the president is in a difficult place, which is very hard to understand or explain. But one thing is for certain -- we will fight for as many children to have health care in our country for as long as it takes. And as I said, it would be more efficient if the president would just accept the fate that the bipartisan majorities in the House and the Senate have sent to him in this compromised bill in this week of the proclamation of Children's Health Day.
Q Republicans this afternoon are going to look at your PAYGO report and say that you all have used --
SPEAKER PELOSI: I'm sorry?
Q Republicans this afternoon are going --
SPEAKER PELOSI: Oh, Republicans.
Q -- to look at your PAYGO report and say that while you may have stuck to the letter of the rule, you violated the spirit, if you used, you know, gimmicks, you know, assuming the college interest rate will expire, having some of the Medicare, the SCHIP revisions phased in then back out again. Do you feel like you've complied with the spirit of the rule? You know, do you feel like --
SPEAKER PELOSI: Yes.
Q What about --
SPEAKER PELOSI: Right. I'm very proud of how the Budget Committee has taken the responsibility, the responsible approach to giving us -- and let me say this -- Chairman Spratt is a very tough taskmaster. He is a sincere fiscal hawk in terms of bringing the deficit to an end and starting to reduce the national debt. So he is a very -- and he keeps everybody on the straight and narrow when it comes to having offsets, other spending -- realignment of priorities on how this is paid for. Mr. Spratt is not into gimmickry. While the Republicans may be into the public relations on this, we're very solid on what we are doing.
It is a central principle -- fiscal responsibility is a central principle of the House Democrats. That's why on the very first day we passed the rule. That's why I would like to see it become the law of the land if we could get it passed the obstacles that may exist in the Senate and signed by the president.
But for the time being, answering for our own budgeting, the Pay- As-You-Go is not only good for us now in terms of fiscal responsibility, it enables us to avoid heaping mountains of debt on the future generations. And any economist, I think, will tell you that fiscal soundness is good for the economy.
Q (Off mike) -- pre-Iraq-related bills.
SPEAKER PELOSI: Yes.
Q What is next in terms of legislation on Iraq, and what would be your absolute goal in terms of Iraq in the next set of legislation --
SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, I won't -- I'm not going to be making that announcement here today, but we do have legislation next week, because, as I said, this House of Representatives will hold the president accountable every chance we get and on a regular basis for the misconduct of the war in Iraq. Next week, we will have an Abercrombie resolution that will relate to contracting again, and as you know, we had one this -- we're continuing from yesterday to today on the Pryce resolution.
Q (Off mike) -- you're expressing concern that the Senate's not -- (off mike) -- of legislation, whereas you are over here.
SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, it's important for the American people to know of the fiscal mismanagement, that the taxpayer dollar is not accounted for in Iraq. They went into Iraq without -- again, without a plan, without a strategy for success and without a plan to leave, and they did the same thing with the spending aspects of it. They've heaped billions of dollars onto a system that was no system. They didn't have accountability, and there are standards by which we spend our defense dollars, in terms of who decides what that is -- they completely ignored all of that. Therefore, it's important for the taxpayer to know that in Iraq tens of billions of dollars have been -- well, have been part of waste, fraud, abuse and corruption, and corruption.
So the cost of the war in terms of dollars is a very important issue for the American people, especially when you think that we can ensure ten thousand -- excuse me -- 10 million children in America for one year for 40 days in Iraq; especially when you think -- that there's 550,000 people in our country die each year from cancer, and we spend -- what we spend in two weeks on cancer research. We spend in one year what we spend two weeks in Iraq. Let me say that again. Five hundred and fifty thousand people die each year from cancer. All cancer is taken into consideration. We spend 500 -- 5 million -- five-and-a-half billion dollars, that's two weeks in Iraq.
Q If you say you're encouraged by President Talabani had to tell you about most troops could leave by the end of 2008, does that mean that the surge is working and does that eliminate the need for legislation in the House for a withdrawal timetable?
SPEAKER PELOSI: No, it doesn't. I don't know if it means the surge is working. It means that the -- what he's saying is that the Iraqis are prepared to take responsibility for their own security. And that was what the surge was about in the first place. This was the surge that was supposed to be an Iraqi surge. Then it became a joint effort, and then it became a U.S.-led effort. What I heard from him is that the Iraqis can deal with this themselves. That's what the American people want.
Q (Off mike) -- withdrawal deadline if you could get it? Withdrawal timetable, rather.
SPEAKER PELOSI: Are you asking me personally? I definitely do. My withdrawal deadline would have been before we even went in. But yes, I do think that that would be important. What can pass the Congress is another issue, and I think it's an important to note that the presence of our troops there, even on the part of the Iraqis, is not necessary.
Q Back in May, the House voted down two amendments that essentially would have told the president he did not have authority to use military force against Iran.
SPEAKER PELOSI: Yes.
Q What's your understanding now -- I mean, what -- do you think the president does have authorization or the power to use military force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?
SPEAKER PELOSI: No, I don't think that there's any of -- a law that has been passed by the Congress that the gives the parent -- the president the authority to take military action into Iran. I do -- the only military action a president can take without an act of Congress is if our country is attacked, and then he has extraordinary powers to act.
The president assures me on almost every meeting that this subject comes up over the past couple of years that he intends to use robust diplomacy to deal with preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Let me say, very clearly, Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon. We cannot have this proliferation of nuclear states. It's just not safe for the world.
But we have to use diplomacy, economic sanctions, every other arrow in our quiver to impress upon Iran that this is not a safe course of action.
The amendments that came up were part of a -- one of the bill -- was it a supplemental? -- Defense authorization bill. And there was -- they were fairly spontaneous amendments that weren't necessarily whipped and the rest. I think that the sentiment of the House would be to retain Congress's prerogative when the use of force is called for.
Q (Off mike.)
SPEAKER PELOSI: Let me think. I don't want it -- yes, it did come up with President Talabani, and just briefly toward the end of the conversation. And I'm not -- I won't go to that place, because that would be his information to divulge.
But let me say there is not a big appetite in the Middle East or in any place in the world for the initiation of hostilities into Iran. I hope that there's not a big appetite for it in the Pentagon and in the White House.
Q Iran. Madame Speaker, the House in June passed a measure 411 to 2, with 8 nonvoting. The Senate passed a measure 92 to 3 condemning Iran's president. Can you anticipate that there is not the will in the House and the Senate to authorize military action against Iran, should the president request it?
SPEAKER PELOSI: I think the strength of those votes really spoke to the emphasis on using other means to stop Iran from obtaining a weapon of mass destruction.
We will have more legislation on Iran sanctions. Mr. Lantos is the preeminent authority on this subject, very concerned about a nuclear weapon being in the hands of any more countries and in this case a dangerous person in a very dangerous neighborhood, in terms of Iran.
So I think that I would say that those resolutions and the bipartisan and strong votes that they received were to send a message to Iran that -- not even to think about continuing a nuclear program, and that there's an upside to cooperating with the world community, and that there's downside in terms of diplomatic, economic and cultural sanctions if Iran chooses to go the other route.
One more.
Q There's been a lot of coverage recently about Republican retirements, and I just wondered what your thoughts were about the Democratic prospects for the next election, in terms of maintaining the majority, expanding the majority.
SPEAKER PELOSI: It makes me very happy to see my good and dear friends spending more time with the families. (Laughter.)
(Chuckles.) They've earned it. (Chuckles.) They've earned it. Yeah.
No, I think that -- as many of you -- we're going to talk politics for a moment. As -- many of you have heard me say over and over again that Election Day is a very important today in determining who will control the Congress or who will win the election. But as -- equally as important is the political climate one year before, because one year before is when people decide whether they're going to run for office or not. And I can tell you, nearly one year before Election Day, that we're very proud of the leadership of Chris Van Hollen. He has recruited superb candidates. So our recruitment -- we will have an A-Team of candidates in a large number of states to not only strengthen the majority we have but to increase it.
And so, again, when these decisions are made, usually Thanksgiving is a time when families come together and the prospective candidates will talk this over with family. Usually they have a good idea of where they're going.
But when the president's numbers are very, very low and the prospects for the Democrats are very, very high, that means we get our A-Team -- I don't want to speak to what they get, but I wish my colleagues well. Most of the ones who are leaving are people -- have been here a while, so I served with them for a long time, respect their service to our country and sincerely wish them well. I'm not sad to see them go.
Q (Off mike.)
SPEAKER PELOSI: Right now? Today? Here? Oh, I have my ideas about it, but we'll probably save that for another day. We'll probably one day just go down to the DCCC and just talk politics the whole time.
In any event, thank you all very much. Good morning.
Source