Press Conference with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Statement
Press Conference with House Speaker 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: Thank you all very much for coming.
One year ago in the elections, the American people called out for a new direction for this Congress. Here we are, nearly one year later, and on the steps of the Capitol this morning we heard the American people speak as to what our Democratic new direction meant for our country; more importantly, what it meant for them personally.
We heard a young woman, a college -- excuse me, a high school senior, talk about her aspirations to go to college and how the College Affordability Act, the biggest bill since the 1944 GI Bill of Rights, was helping her to do that.
We heard from our first responders and how the passage of the 9/11 bill helped them to have interoperable communication in real time to help protect the American people.
We heard from a senior citizen talk about fiscal responsibility and how we should not be heaping mountains of debt onto our grandchildren -- in her case, her grandchildren; mine as well -- and how grateful she was to this Democratic Congress to be acting in a pay-go mode. She didn't say it exactly that way.
And we heard from an entrepreneur to say that our Compete Act and what it means in investing in education -- innovation begins in the classroom and what that investment means to keep America competitive. He thanked us for what we had done and looked forward to our doing even more.
The list goes on. We heard about how important it was for us to have an honest, open and fiscally responsible Congress, one that has passed legislation that is historic in its nature for breaking the link between lobbyists and legislators and maintaining a high ethical standard.
So whether it's keeping the American people safer, growing our economy, investing in the health and well-being of our families, preserving our planet, we have taken big, bold initiatives. Many of these initiatives have been signed into law by the president. Most of them have been passed with strong bipartisan votes on the floor of the House and the Senate.
I go from here to some business that is still unfinished. We haven't finished the energy bill, and we look forward to doing that in the next couple of weeks. We haven't finished the work on insuring 10 million American children, and we will hopefully complete that in the next few days. And we continue to take up the issue of consumer safety, whether it's the food our children eat, our families eat, whether it's the toys we buy them for Christmas, or whether it's the Halloween costumes they wore last night. The American people deserve more.
As a mom, I came to this Congress bringing with me an attitude that was -- I viewed my work in politics as an expansion of my role as a mother, things you just can't do for your family. You can't ensure the safety of the air they breathe, the water they drink, the safety of the food supply. We look to government to do that. And this government, this administration, is falling down on that. So we've been moving forward with initiatives to protect our families, especially our children.
With that, I'd be pleased to take any questions.
Mike?
Q Madame Speaker, the president just gave a very sharply worded speech just here on Capitol Hill at the Heritage Foundation. He says that he will veto the appropriations package if it comes out as he understands it's been reported. He says that he wants to see war funding in full before you leave for the holidays. He says that when it comes to the FISA bill and other things, MoveOn bloggers and Code Pink protesters are running the show with the Democratic Party.
I'm wondering if you can, first of all, respond. And second of all, are we heading towards a train wreck here towards the end of this Congress?
SPEAKER PELOSI: No. The president must have a great deal of time on his hands, because when he makes these statements about wasteful spending, what is he talking about in the Appropriations bill? He's talking about a nearly $4 billion increase over the president's budget for America's veterans. We will make that fight for America's veterans with the president of the United States.
He's talking about a $1.4 billion increase over the president's request for the National Institutes of Health. We will make that fight for the health and well-being of the American people.
He's talking about billions of dollars that we have for investment in his education programs for children and in ours for expanded Pell grants and other assistance for the education of our children.
So we're talking about the health, the education and promises kept to our veterans in some of the money that is over the president's request. So again, he must have a good deal of time on his hands if he would use it to fight a fight over our children's health and our promises made to veterans.
The president of the United States owes it to the American people to come to the table with the Congress -- most of these initiatives are bipartisan; many of them passed with nearly veto-proof majorities -- to sit down and say, "Let us discuss the priorities of our country. Let us pass legislation and get it signed by the president so that we can get on with the rest of our work."
Q And specifically on the war funding bill, is it still your plan to not fund it fully until next year?
SPEAKER PELOSI: We are in conversation about how we do that, but it would have nothing to do with any threats of the president of the United States. It will have everything to do about the safety of the American people, the stability of the Middle East region, and the capability of our forces. It will have everything to do with focusing on the real war on terrorism.
And when we see how this legislation that he's sending us meets any of those criteria, as I said to you before, we have to subject the president's request to harsh scrutiny. We have to hold him accountable, because over and over the president's budget on the war has contained money that we can't even trace.
So while the president says we don't want to spend $1.4 billion additional at the National Institutes of Health and calls that wasteful spending, one of the corporations that they hired, one of their friends of the family that they hired to do the training in Iraq for $1.2 billion, the money is totally unaccounted for.
So what we're talking about is a debate on the priorities of our country. And the president has fallen very short on meeting the needs of America's families, meeting the health needs of our country, and he is trying to call that wasteful. We disagree.
Q Madame Speaker, at this time of the year, obviously, time is running short toward the end of the year. You're trying to wrap up these contentious issues here. We have this daily volley back and forth between the Hill and the White House. What is that like at this point in time to wage that rhetorical war down in and day out with the president? He just spoke at Heritage and now you're speaking here.
SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, I think that some of what the president is saying is not even in sync with what the Republicans on Capitol Hill are saying. He is becoming more and more isolated. For example, the president complains about the tobacco tax in the SCHIP bill. Almost every Republican on Capitol Hill has voted for an increase in the tobacco tax, whether it was 45 cents in the original bill or 61 cents in this bill. And there are motions to recommit in the bills that have come -- that they have supported outright.
So, again, he's alone there. The president is putting the Republican members of Congress on a terrible spot by trying to have them join him in opposing health insurance for 10 million children. What we are saying here is we are standing from a position of great confidence and great bipartisanship on these fights that we are making. The president is not attuned to the majority of the country and the majority of the Congress.
So what is he to do? He's the president of the United States. What does he have to show for his presidency? He's the president of the United States already talking about his library. What is he going to have in the library -- a tax cut for the wealthiest people in the country at the expense of the middle class and a war without end that is a total failure? So he has to talk about something, and he stoops to a level that, in my view, is beneath the dignity of the office that he holds. And I don't want to go there with him.
I'd like to answer any questions on substance that you have.
Q Madame Speaker, do you intend in 2008 to bring to the House floor Chairman Rangel's broad-based tax legislation?
SPEAKER PELOSI: The legislation that will come forth will be debated within our caucus, as you know. It has principles that we all support, which is to grow the economy, to give a middle-income tax cut. It talks about fairness. It talks about simplicity in the tax code. And it is something that, again, the principles are supported by our members. The particulars will be debated. So it's fiscally responsible, no-new-deficit spending, grows the economy and gives a tax cut to the middle class.
Q Do you think it will reach the floor in 2008?
SPEAKER PELOSI: That would be the plan, yes.
Q (Inaudible) -- more than 80 House Democrats.
SPEAKER PELOSI: But I say a bill will come to the floor. As it is debated, we'll see what form it takes. But it will contain those principles.
Q More than 80 House Democrats are supporting the single- payer, Canadian-style, Medicare-for-all Canadian-style system. It's H.R. 676. I'm wondering why you don't support it.
SPEAKER PELOSI: I think that we have to move forward with comprehensive health care that's accessible, affordable health care for all Americans. I think it's an issue that is so big that we should try to do that in a bipartisan way, put everything on the table, talk about it, and see where we go from here. But what I really think --
Q (Inaudible) -- support single payer.
SPEAKER PELOSI: I've always supported single payer.
Q Why haven't you signed on to that bill?
SPEAKER PELOSI: I don't sign on to any bill. I signed on to naming a bridge for Ann Richards, but the speaker does not sign on to bills. So we can get that out of the way right now -- on any bill.
But here's what I see on health care. And I hope that we can turn this into the national debate. Instead of having the constant debate of how this is paid for, let us see what we need to give health care to the American people. And I'm so steamed up about this war and the opportunity costs of the war in Iraq that the president says we can't afford the investments at the National Institutes of Health, which is not even one week in Iraq -- not even one week in Iraq.
So what I'd like -- when these heads of agencies come to see me and say, "We need more money than the president has given us" -- mind you, they're appointees of the president -- say, "Tell me how you see the best possible health system for our country." And here's what it looks like. It's science- and technologically based -- science-based. We need much more research into the science.
It is personalized, customized care for every person. And that is possible, because the science and technology can take us there. There's a common record that everyone is one, and the technology is there for us to do that. And it's available to all -- available to all. We have to reach out to our community health centers to get people in the loop. But with the technology, with the science, with the customized care, we would have a healthier America. We'd have an America where we have prevention, nutrition, early intervention; as I say, customized care. It takes an investment. It takes an investment.
It might interest you to know that 550,000 people in our country each year die of cancer. Our commitment to cancer is five and a half billion dollars in research each year -- not even two weeks in Iraq. We could easily double that. The scientific opportunity is there.
So if the president wants to talk about priorities, let's talk about what is really important to the American people. I'd rather have a war on cancer than fritter away many more dollars in Iraq. And so it's not a question of how it's paid for. The question is, what are we trying to achieve? How much does it cost? How do we shift around the dollars to make that happen? It will be an investment well made because it will result in many more healthy people in our country.
So everybody has their position on how it's paid for, whether it's single-payer, employer-based, some combination thereof. Whatever it is, we have to address it. I think it should be addressed in a bipartisan way, but it also should be addressed in enlarging the issue -- not how we pay for what we have now but what it is that we need and how we have public policy that takes us in that direction.
Q (Inaudible) -- bill has the Senate language in it. Won't that -- and, of course, that isn't popular with Dingell and some other members of your caucus. Won't that make it more difficult to pass global warming legislation later on?
SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, we have to take these energy bills one piece of legislation at a time. The American people -- I just saw one survey that said that 82 percent of the American people believe that Congress should pass CAFE standards. That's an astounding number. It isn't that they support it -- they do -- but they believe that this is a priority that Congress should pass.
I think they're very concerned about CAFE standards because it's an economic issue with them. They want more miles per gallon. It's an economic issue as well as being an environmental issue, as being a global warming issue. So that is a fight that we will have in the Congress, and I strongly support the CAFE language as it is in the Senate bill. I think it's all of those things -- an economic issue, an environmental issue, a national security issue for us to have energy security, and a global warming issue.
Q What are you doing on Iraq?
Q (Inaudible) -- any more votes for SCHIP?
SPEAKER PELOSI: Hmm?
Q Can you talk about the end game for SCHIP and why you haven't been able to get -- if you think you're going to be able to get more Republicans to join you?
SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, the conversations continue on that subject. The Senate authors of the bill, Senator Grassley, Senator Hatch and Senator Baucus, have been in communication for about two weeks now with the Republicans in the House to see what their concerns are and how we can address them. We tried to do that last week in the bill that passed the floor about illegal aliens and about a cap and some other initiatives that they suggested which were constructive. But that still wasn't enough for some of them. So those conversations continue.
Q Madame Speaker, in your priorities at the beginning you mentioned energy, health care and consumer safety. What are you doing on Iraq now?
SPEAKER PELOSI: We will be putting forth legislation on Iraq. I mostly was referencing what we talked about this morning. And this morning, in my comments, I said that we will work every day in order to change the direction in Iraq so that it's a direction that makes our country safer, the region more stable, and does not further harm the capability of our military and that we are calling for a redeployment of our troops out of Iraq as soon as it is safe, honorable and soon.
Q There just doesn't seem to be anything on the table in Congress right now.
SPEAKER PELOSI: There will be. There will be. I'm not prepared to announce that right now, but we will be bringing forth legislation on Iraq that address the policy.
Q In your event this morning, you and your colleagues touted all the accomplishments so far.
SPEAKER PELOSI: Yes.
Q But polls are showing that the American people aren't convinced you're doing a good job. In fact, one poll said that a majority of Americans don't believe the Democrats -- don't approve of the job the Democrats are doing since you've taken office. Are you --
SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, that -- I haven't seen that, but the polls that I have seen that are most current -- in fact, today -- talk about a record number. Listen to this. This is the largest gap in 20 years.
"What is your party identification?" Democratic, 50 percent; Republican, 36 percent. That's the biggest gap.
I know that Congress has low approval ratings. I don't approve of Congress because we haven't done anything -- we haven't been effective in ending the war in Iraq. And if you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well.
But the fact is, "Which party is concerned about people like me?" November 1st, 2007 -- 54 percent Democratic; 25 percent Republican. "Which party can bring needed change?" Forty-eight percent Democrat, 26 percent Republican. "Which party can better manage government?" Forty-four percent Democratic, 32 percent Republican. "Which party is more honest and ethical?" Forty percent Democratic, 28 percent Republican. Not all those figures are over 50 percent, but whatever they are, they're double-digit or two times as good as the Republican numbers.
So I'm very proud of what we have done. This isn't about looking for the next headline. This is about making the biggest difference for the American people. This is about a legislative process that has its ups and downs. And again, I stood there with great pride and great confidence about what the Democrats had accomplished.
And now, as we go out to talk to the American people, to get through the fog of war -- because there is no question that the war in Iraq has eclipsed much of what we have done -- but still, with all of that, these numbers for the Democrats are approximately the same as they were at the time of the election last year; and again, on the party identity, the largest gap in party identification, 50 to 36, in 20 years.
Q Who took this poll?
SPEAKER PELOSI: Hmm?
Q Who took this poll?
SPEAKER PELOSI: The first poll -- this is Pew, the Pew poll, and then one was USA Today, favorable view of parties. "What is your favorable view of the Democrats?" Fifty-three percent -- is that a 5 or a 3? Fifty-three percent. "And what is your favorable view of Republicans?" Thirty-eight percent. That's in today's paper. This is all November 1st. And we can get -- the first numbers that I gave you that I ran down were the Pew Research, including the party identity. The last figure I gave you was USA Today.
So, again, we're never satisfied. We're proud of the work that we did. We know there's much more that needs to be done. But we're proud of our record and proud of our members. And we look forward to moving on, to finishing the energy bill, finishing SCHIP, proceeding with, again, legislation on product safety for our children and another array of issues that relate to fairness in our economy, competitiveness for our country in the world, and health care for as many Americans as possible.
STAFF: Thank you all.
Q Please.
SPEAKER PELOSI: One more.
Q I'm subbing for Molly here. Wait, wait. (Laughter.)
Madame Speaker, do you think employees of the federal government should be forced to work in Iraq when they don't want to? And I'm referring to the Foreign Service people down at the State Department, who either don't want to go there because they don't like the war or they're afraid to go there. Have you thought about that? And what is your position on that?
SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, I think it's an indication of the failure of this Iraq policy, that five years -- that over a year longer than we stayed -- than we were in World War II, no signs, no light at the end of the tunnel.
People are patriotic. They take hardship duty all over the world to represent our country, and we're very proud of them when they do. And so when they resist, it's very unusual and should be a very clear message about the direction of this war, the prospect for success in it, and the lack of interest in people in saving our country in that way.
Thank you all very much.
Source