Weekly Press Briefing by Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Interview
Weekly Press Briefing by 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. Good morning.
Q Good morning.
SPEAKER PELOSI: (Laughs.) I knew you were there.
Last week this time we were urging the president to sign the SCHIP bill. He decided instead to veto it, to say no to the children, and we are still continuing our effort to try to override that veto. At the same time that the president is saying that we really can't afford to insure those 10 million children, he's asking for a $200 billion supplemental for Iraq, and I think it's important once again to note that for 40 days in Iraq, we can provide health care for 10 million children -- (pauses to adjust microphones) -- oh, this the real one. Well, I think it's important to further note, now that I have the microphone, that while the president has said we really can't afford insure these 10 million children, at that same time he's asking for a $200 billion supplemental for Iraq. It's interesting to note that for 40 days in Iraq, we can have health care for 10 million children in America.
It's actually fewer than 40 days.
Next week, we will be taking up legislation on the spending in Iraq. Mr. Waxman's committee, the Government Reform Committee, has been having extensive hearings on the subject and has exposed a great deal of waste, fraud, abuse, real and deep corruption. As I said before, I've asked the appropriators, before they consider any further appropriations, to subject the president's request to some very, very close scrutiny, in terms of the mission and in terms of the money. Next week, we'll be taking up Mr. Waxman's legislation, demanding some documents from the administration regarding Iraq.
Might be interested -- of interest to you and the media to know that -- perhaps you already know this, is that the administration was so unhappy about what was happening in Iraq, and the State Department reports on it, that -- which were a matter of public record -- that they reclassified the information. It's already been on the Internet, on their website. They have reclassified the information, now saying that people can't talk about the bad news in Iraq; they can only talk about what they present as the good news in Iraq.
On the subject of what is available to the press, I'm very pleased that next week, we'll be taking up the shield law. This is something that's been of personal interest to me from my many years serving on the Intelligence Committee. We have resisted some state secrets kinds of laws that the Republicans in Congress tried to put forth in earlier Congresses and now, we are able to put forth the other side of that coin, a shield law. You'll see the particulars of it. The Senate has passed theirs out of committee. Ours was passed out of committee a while ago, but we're bringing it to the floor next week.
We're also bringing the FISA bill to the floor. I know you know our schedule. I just wanted to be available to answer any questions you might have on it or any other questions.
Q Madame Speaker, on the -- I just understand that the Architect of the Capitol's office has revised the flag certificate rules here.
Can you outline what you think the rules will be now, and also tell us what led you to ask them to do so?
SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, as a matter of fact, they came to their own conclusion, the Architect of the Capitol. I don't know how many of you are aware of this issue, but the Architect of the Capitol certifies that a flag is flown over the Capitol in the name of a person at the request of a member of Congress. There had been some requests to the architect to have religious messages on there and also sometimes political messages.
In 2003, the architect put through regulations that said that he would only certify the date, the person who asked and the person in whom the flag was being -- in whose honor the flag was being flown. That had not been much of an issue until now, when he has refused some of the requests. But I don't think that the Architect's Office should be in the role of censoring what members want to say on those documents. (Inaudible) -- I spoke earlier to the minority leader about this issue and said that it was my understanding that the Architect's Office was going to put forth this statement. They had been in communication with the committee of jurisdiction in the House, the House Administration Committee, and I think they came to their own -- the Architect's Office came to its own conclusion.
Q What is the new rule?
SPEAKER PELOSI: The new rule is that it would overturn the regulations of 2003, which limited the messages that could be on the flag certificate.
Q Madame Speaker, can you tell us when you'll bring the Armenian genocide resolution to the floor of the House? Do you have a date in mind now?
SPEAKER PELOSI: I don't have a date in mind. We have next week set up. But it will be before the end of this session.
Q Some people think that you may not do it now, that you let the committee work its will and that will be the end of it. Can you tell us that that's not the case?
SPEAKER PELOSI: No, I said if it comes out of committee, it will go to the floor. Now it has come out of committee, and it will go to the floor.
Q Madame Speaker, given the mounting war of words over this issue and the pressure from the Turkish officials, why press this issue now?
SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, you know what? I've been in Congress for 20 years, and for 20 years people have been saying the same thing, that Turkey's strategic location in the Cold War -- that was before the Soviet Union came down; that's -- so at that time they said, because of their strategic location and our relationship, we couldn't do it then. Then after that came Gulf War I. Then in the Clinton years it was the overflights and the pipeline. And now it's the -- and now they're saying Gulf War II, so it -- why do it now? Well, because now -- there's never a good time.
And all of us in the Democratic leadership have supported our reiterating Americans' acknowledgement of a genocide. In the earliest days of -- when the genocide was happening, our diplomats there reported a plan for the elimination of a race of Armenians, one that was planned ahead. Ronald Reagan in 1981, President Reagan, referred to the Armenian genocide and said that we must not ever forget that or other persecutions of people that have occurred.
And while that may have been a long time ago, genocide is taking place now in Darfur. It did within not such -- in recent memory in Rwanda. So as long as there is genocide, there is need to speak out against it.
Q Madame Speaker --
(Cross talk.)
Q (Off mike) -- are the consequences that Turkey talks about, the negative consequences, worth it?
SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, the U.S. and Turkey have a very strong relationship. It is based on mutual interest. And I, with all the respect in the world for the government of Turkey, believe that our continued mutual interest will have us grow that relationship.
This isn't about the government -- the Erdogan government. This is about the Ottoman Empire.
Q Madame Speaker --
Q Madame Speaker, on children's health, what's your latest count on votes? And how does it look for your chances to override?
SPEAKER PELOSI: We're not there yet, but we're still working. It's important to know, for us who spend so much time in Washington, D.C., that across the country members of Congress and members of the United States Senate of both parties are working with governors across the state (sic) to try to get House members to support the override of the president's veto.
And so it is -- there's a drumbeat across America for children. It's a strong drumbeat because it is a bipartisan one. And this was a bill built of compromise, bipartisan, bicameral, and the -- and so there's a great deal of activity in the rest of the country.
Q How close you think you might be.
SPEAKER PELOSI: Yeah.
Q Madame Speaker, on the FISA bill, on the FISA bill, Jerry Nadler said that if the telephone companies want to avoid liability they should fight it out in the courts. Mr. Hoyer has said, well, if the White House hands over documents relating to his warrantless wiretapping program, it might be appropriate to give those telephone companies immunity. Where do you stand on the issue?
SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, I think that you have to proceed very cautiously with retroactive immunity. Mr. Hoyer's statement was very careful, I think. It did not say if they give us these papers, they will get immunity. A lot depends on what those papers say. But these are not individual citizens without their resources. These are major telecom companies with a phalanx of lawyers who understand the Constitution and the law, and if they have exposure, the courtroom is the place to go.
But we do have prospective immunity in the legislation that we are putting forth with a court order, and that is something that the telecom companies wanted. At first the administration didn't want to have to have a court order, but the telecom companies decided they couldn't go forward without that.
Q Looking toward the future, with No Child Left Behind coming up towards the end of the month, there's been a lot of criticism from labor unions and from the California Teacher Association on linking teachers' pay to test results. How is the leadership, how are you going to deal with that?
SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, I'm a strong supporter for the approach that Chairman George Miller is taking on this. I appreciate the leadership and the work of the teachers across the country, teachers unions across the country and especially in my state of California, where I have a close relationship with them. We have to go forward in a positive way that's about the children, and I hope that they can come to agreement on that. I think they're close; they're working very hard on it. But it's about the children.
Q Madame Speaker, today the prime minister of Turkey said that he will ask the parliament for permission for an incursion in Northern Iraq. Do you think that this will affect the U.S. troops in Iraq? Do you think that getting resolution to the floor, the Armenian resolution, would impact the U.S. troops in Iraq?
SPEAKER PELOSI: Do you think that the prime minister of Turkey asked the parliament of Turkey for permission to have an incursion into Iraq because of the Armenian resolution? I don't think so. This is about Turkey's plans; this isn't about our resolution about a genocide.
Q But he is threatening and he's angry over the resolution, and he could plan to --
SPEAKER PELOSI: Did the prime minister wish to imply that but for the resolution, they wouldn't have this incursion?
I don't think so. But as I said, we have a respectful, strong and long-term relationship with Turkey -- very respectful of the fact that it is a democracy. It is a friend, and we work together in our mutual interest.
(Cross talk.)
Q On taxes, can you explain the Democratic opposition to repealing the death tax?
SPEAKER PELOSI: The Democrats -- we have our own proposals on the estate tax, as we call it. And it is one that would cover 99-and- a-half percent of filers for -- of estate taxes. Excuse me, I'm losing my voice. And it is a -- and we would go in that direction.
The -- it's costly. I said everything we do is going to be paid for one way or another. We are not increasing the deficit -- no new deficit spending. Pay as you go. And we will be taking to enlarge that issue from the estate tax. Whatever we take up on our taxation will be about simplification. It will be about fairness; it will be about strengthening the middle class.
(Cross talk.)
Q On the energy bill --
SPEAKER PELOSI: I thought we said that was the last question. I'm okay if you're okay.
Q We just want to know, what's this process going forward on the energy bill? Do you plan -- has this conference been completely ruled out at this point?
SPEAKER PELOSI: I would hope not. I have been a strong advocate for us having a conference on the bill. I -- this is a -- as you know, this is a flagship issue for me, the energy security and reversing global warming. I'm very proud of the work that we did in the House and I stand ready to stand by it in conference in terms of what it does for those two ends, energy security and reversing global warming. Unfortunately the -- it doesn't appear that we will be able to get a conference. But we -- that doesn't mean we won't be going forward.
Q Are you confident that Senator -- we've sort of covered -- (off mike) -- but I've never asked you this question. Senator Reid on SCHIP has said flat-out, no deals; if you won't be able to override, no deals; we've done as much as we can. Is that your position as well, no deals with the White House?
SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, I haven't had any overture from the White House on what they might consider an appropriate next step. What I do know is that in the House, we compromised from a $90 billion bill to a $35 billion bill in order to have bipartisanship and to have it pass the United States Senate. What we did all agree on is that 10 million children would be covered. With that as a starting point, we'd be happy to have any conversations, in my view, to insure the 10 million children.
Q In the Senate, there's a GOP compromise being offered for $10 million -- I'm sorry, $10 billion extension. Would that be enough?
SPEAKER PELOSI: Does that cover 10 million children? We're talking about the children. That's really what our focus is.
This will be the last.
Q On the energy bill again, you say it's unfortunate that the Senate doesn't look like it's going to be able to conference the bill. But didn't you set up this situation by giving the House bill a bill number that's different from the Senate bill?
SPEAKER PELOSI: Actually, I think the -- didn't the Senate start with a House bill to begin with? It was our H.R. 6 that we started with in the House. But then -- and that was just on one part of the bill, about repealing the subsidies to big oil and to create a renewable energy fund for renewable energy -- development of renewable energy resources. That was the basis of their bill.
We -- I asked 10, maybe now 11 committee chairs to give me their best legislation for energy security and reversing global warming that could be given to me by -- so that we could introduce it by the 4th of July. And by the way, I never said it would pass by the 4th of July. I said we would introduce it by the 4th of July. We passed it within a matter of weeks after that.
The -- and so it -- I'd be happy if we used their number, but that isn't a reason why we don't have a conference. That has nothing to do with not having a conference. Let me be very clear. There's nothing I would like better than to have a conference to have a full and open discussion of the issues that are in the bill, in the House bill, in the Senate bill, and come to resolution in a bipartisan, bicameral way on it. We're hoping that this is a bill that the president can sign.
So no, I would like to see a conference on the bill. But if not, we cannot have a situation where if they don't give us a conference, we don't have a bill. Without a -- with or without a conference, we will proceed.
Thank you all very much.
Q Thank you.
Source