Weekly Media Availability with the House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

WEEKLY MEDIA AVAILABILITY WITH HOUSE MINORITY LEADER NANCY PELOSI (D-CA)

June 24, 2004 Thursday

LOCATION: H-206, THE CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:

REP. PELOSI: We're starting on time, per your request. And we usually don't start on time because everyone isn't here yet, so if we start on time, then everyone will be here on time.

But thank you all for being here. This will be our last meeting before the 4th of July break. And in the spirit of our Founding Fathers and the great legacy of freedom that they bequeathed to us, yesterday I sent to the speaker a Minority Bill of Rights. This Minority Bill of Rights includes guidelines for a bipartisan administration of the House and for regular democratic order for legislation.

These principles contained in the Minority Bill of Rights are fair and will provide for the full and open debate that the American people expect and deserve. The people's business would be well-served if we followed these principles no matter what party is in control of the House. There should be more discourse and less discord in our proceedings.

Today on the House floor you will see a difference between the two parties, as Congressman Spratt will be offering a substitute that will contain the pay-as-you-go principle. This was what successfully took us through the '90s with offsets for spending. This pay-as-you- go approach is endorsed by the Concord Coalition, by a bipartisan group of senators in the Congress. That's why there is no bicameral budget bill, because the Republican-some of the Republican senators will not agree to the Republican pay as you go that is not real.

The pay as you go, as you may know, ended in 2002. That should have been extended because 2002 is when we turned the corner on record deficits. The Democratic pay-as-you-go proposal had a record of success; the Republican approach has a record deficit.

So we will have an opportunity on the floor today to discuss the Spratt substitute, which I think shows the two different paths. Our country is at a crossroads on this issue; in fact, on many issues. And the Spratt proposal is responsible and, again, has a record of success. Even Chairman Greenspan has said that it is important to have pay as you go as our approach.

Another example of our approach on the floor today will be a free-standing bill, the Obey bill. And Congress will in that bill have to choose between giving tax cuts to people making over $1 million a year-MAKING over $1 million a year-or making critical investments in homeland security, education, veterans and health care and the environment, while at the same time contributing to deficit reduction, reducing the deficit.

Democrats are focused on the aspirations of all of the American people. The Republicans are solely focused on tax cuts for the wealthy few, and many of those wealthy few-many, an overwhelming number of those wealthy few, from what we hear from them, realize that these tax cuts come at enormous cost to society. Many of them know they don't need the tax cut more than children need an education, and those are some of the trade-offs.

This morning I was at the White House and I spoke to the president at our leadership meeting about the situation in the Sudan. Yesterday, as many of you may know, we had a press conference with the Congressional Black Caucus, pointing out the challenge to the conscience that the situation in the Sudan poses. When I spoke to the president about it, it was in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation.

There's no greater champion on this issue in the Congress than Congressman Frank Wolf, a Republican as you know, of Virginia. He has been giving out the warning call on this for years. He knows of what he speaks, and I think he-I know that he's going to go there this weekend.

But when the president goes to Turkey for the NATO meeting, it is our hope-the hope of many of us that he will take a strong message to our NATO allies that they must do more to help in the Sudan in so many different ways. If we fail to act now, hundreds of thousands of people will die. Even if we're slow to act, hundreds of thousands will die. But if we don't move quickly, even more will die.

This is a tragedy. It's a disaster. It has been predictable, and I think that we should be able to, in a bipartisan way, send a message to our allies that Democrats and Republicans stand united in making this a high priority. I was confident from the president's remarks that he will make it a high priority in those meetings.

With that, I'd be pleased to take any questions that you may have.

Q Leader Pelosi?

REP. PELOSI: Yeah?

Q There is-news came out this week that Mr. Frost is now under investigation in Texas as well as Mr. DeLay regarding ethics-potential ethics violations, and this follows last week's filings by Mr. Bell, Congressman Bell. Is there an ethics problem in the House, number one? And number two, is it-are we growing into another series of the season of politically driven ethics charges and related problems?

REP. PELOSI: As you know and I've said over and over again, I keep an arm's length from the ethics process, as I think is appropriate. When I served my seven years on the Ethics Committee, I was offended by the fact that ethics complaints seemed to be emanating from the speaker's office or from the leadership office on the Republican side. It's simply not right.

Mr. Bell had a claim. He knows the merit of his complaint, and he filed that. Mr. Frost has put out his own statement saying that, unlike Mr. DeLay, he has maintained two separate accounts. That's up to those who make those judgments to pursue.

But I don't think the House of Representatives should ever take a vacation from a high ethical standard. The committee must act, the committee must perform, and if those outside the committee do not think that any particular complaint is getting the attention it deserves, it behooves them to make the complaint.

I don't-there has been no truce on filing legitimate, fact- based ethical complaints. There was in abeyance the filing of nuisance and frivolous complaints just to cause trouble, and I don't think that those are worthy of the time of the Ethics Committee nor of the public concern over them.

Any other questions?

Q Yes. I want to go back to the meeting at the White House.

REP. PELOSI: Yes.

Q I wonder if when you listen to the president or when you hear from the administration officials on the transition if you sense any lack of credibility, given the record of the administration on the war to date. Do you feel like you can trust-that what you're hearing is the full story and that they're being up front and that they're being candid, or do you have your own doubts about how this is going to go?

REP. PELOSI: My views on the administration and the war in Iraq are clear. I think that they're characterized by incompetence and lack of credibility. The credibility speaks to the lack of preparation for postwar Iraq that we've spoken of. They said we would have rose petals; instead we were met with rocket-propelled grenades. They said this is a country that could easily provide for its own reconstruction and soon; and this is going to cost us, war and reconstruction, about a quarter of a trillion dollars and growing. They said that the security forces could take a big part of securing Iraq; and they have, in Ambassador Bremer's own words, been a dismal failure. The list goes on and on.

Their lack of preparation for the war and credibility in that regard is also well known. The Department of Defense report that they commissioned said that a quarter of those who were killed or wounded could have been saved if they had had the proper equipment, 25 percent of them. Now it's well over 800 of our men and women in uniform who have been killed. The others would have been saved if we had the proper intelligence or anticipated more clearly what they would have expected and been better prepared for the conflict. They had a report they have commissioned now that says, who is the adversary? So I believe that, whatever the outcome of the transition in Iraq, the cost has been far higher in lives, in taxpayer dollars, and in the reputation of our country throughout the world than it needed to be.

Having said all of that, just as with everyone else, we're very optimistic that the transition will improve the situation in Iraq. Essential to that success, though, is security. You cannot have construction-reconstruction without security, and the security situation is very uncertain there. So again, many of us have been calling on the administration to make our case to allies and others to help train the troops, to have more boots on the ground from other countries because under the present situation it's hard to envision a security situation that will enable the reconstruction, which will in turn make the country more secure and more safe and more democratic.

As lacking in confidence as I am in the credibility and the competence of the administration, I am always optimistic that some good will come of this in the transition. Will it have been worth all that was expended? It didn't have to be that costly to the American people.

Q Ma'am, have you seen Michael Moore's film?

REP. PELOSI: No.

Q And are you worried that Democrats are going to be tied to the film's claims based on the news conference that some Democrats are having with him this afternoon?

REP. PELOSI: I haven't seen the film and I don't know what they're going to be saying at the news conference, so I can't speak to it. I just have this nasty habit of not speaking about something I haven't seen and don't know about. (Chuckles.)

Q Do you plan to view the film, Leader?

REP. PELOSI: I've been planning to see a lot of movies; I just really haven't had a lot of time. I'm very curious about it, that's for sure. That I know. I'm sure I'll have some reviews from my-I don't know if anybody saw it last night because we were in session until late, so I don't know.

Q Ma'am, a number of Ralph Nader's original raiders are signing a letter today urging him to get of the race. The CBC did the same thing this week. I'm curious to know where you are on that issue, but I'm also curious just to gauge your thoughts on Ralph Nader. I'm sure you've been a fan of his in the past.

REP. PELOSI: Are you?! Really!

Q Well, I've -- (inaudible).

REP. PELOSI: Why would you say such a thing?

Q And I'm just curious to know, what do you think now about where he is and his current run for the White House?

REP. PELOSI: Well, as I've said directly to Mr. Nader, I think that his presence in the race will jeopardize the election of a Democratic president; that all the things that he has fought for and speaks out on will be ill-served by the reelection of President Bush. I've said that I think that he should not be in the race.

I have not been a major fan of Mr. Nader over the years, but it's interesting that you would have that observation. I do admire many of his efforts on behalf of consumers in America, but I have not worked closely with him over the years. So I don't know whether he's a fan of mine. I don't understand where the word "fan" comes in here.

But in any event, I think he should get out of the race. I think the issues that he cares about and knows about and has taken the lead on in our country will be better served by his stepping aside.

Q I guess I'm clearly missing something. Is there something-is there a split between the two of you that I'm not aware of?

REP. PELOSI: No. It's just that I have been my independent person, and you were predicating it saying, "I am sure that you have been a fan." And I'm trying to think of the persons that I am a fan of, and I don't-it's not a group that you might be familiar with, but you spoke with such certainty in that regard.

So it isn't that-it's just that he has been an advocate and one who has been respected by many people in our country for the work that he has done. I believe the most important change that must happen in our country in furtherance of all the issues that he has fought for would be for him to step aside. I think that he contributed to the defeat-well, it wasn't really a defeat, but the outcome in the election in 2000, and I think that that should be instructive as to how we go forward and how he goes forward.

Yes, I respect much of the work that he has done, but was very disappointed in the outcome of the 2000 race and think it would have been different without him being on the-in the race.

Q I had a follow-up to the White House meeting, if I can.

REP. PELOSI: Okay, any other-ones who don't have-okay. Thank you.

Q Just one other thing. I was wondering if the president asked for the patience of the congressional leaders as we go through the transition? What was his appeal to you all?

REP. PELOSI: Well, the president will speak to, I'm sure, the media directly as to what his approach to us was. The very fact that we were there and that we had an opportunity to share our perspectives on what is happening in Iraq, and as I said, in my case I used my time to talk about a further issue important to our national security and in ending violence, which were part of the president's issues, was the Sudan. But the-it was more of an informative, notifying meeting. And the president got very positive feedback from many of the people who were there for staying with the date, June 30th deadline.

I was not there at the very beginning of the meeting, so if he asked for patience, I wasn't there at that part of the meeting.

Q Madame Leader, I think Speaker Hastert said he's not responding to the bill of rights that you guys submitted. Do you have a reaction to that?

REP. PELOSI: Well, all I can say is that I'm disappointed that he would not respond to what is just fair, bipartisan administration of the House and in furtherance of a democratic regular order for considering legislation. These are fair principles. There's a very excellent chance that the Republicans will be in the minority next year. And what I'm saying is this is the way the House should be conducted, in a bipartisan way. And whether he agrees to it or not, that is the course of action that I will take.

But I don't know how someone can say I'm not going to respond to principles that relate to fairness and-you know, what's the problem? What is the problem? You have a copy of the principles. Do you? So it's pretty fundamental. But it was not to say if you go along with this, I will go along with this; it was to say this is how Democrats will conduct the House in a bipartisan and fair way; we would hope that you would subscribe to it. What you're telling me is that he has said no. He hasn't told me no yet. I saw him at breakfast, as a matter of fact.

Q Ms. Pelosi? Back here.

REP. PELOSI: Yes. Yes.

Q Two House members' names have sort of surfaced as possible CIA directors-Chris Cox, Porter Goss. Ideology aside, do you think either of them would be competent to fill that role?

REP. PELOSI: Well, it isn't a question of ideology when you go to the CIA, it's about objectivity and intelligence. I don't know that-do we know that they both are interested?

Q They haven't consulted me on it. I don't know --

REP. PELOSI: But I didn't know what the basis of your question --

Q Well, I mean, Porter Goss's name has been out there --

REP. PELOSI: Right, it's been out there.

Q And I just saw Chris Cox's name --

REP. PELOSI: Yeah. I think that-what I heard-the Chris Cox comment was that he thought that it should not be filled now. But I don't know if that's the case. I've worked closely with both of them for many, many years, as you know-on the Intelligence Committee with Porter Goss, and on issues that relate to international human rights with my fellow Californian Chris Cox. So I know them well. I respect both of them and know that Mr. Porter Goss would bring his experience from the CIA to the job.

But quite frankly, I don't-I didn't get the impression on the floor yesterday that Chairman Goss was somebody who was putting himself in line for the director of CIA. I think that what happened on the floor yesterday was a real disservice to intelligence. We had a situation where Democrats-for the first time, the Rules Committee prohibited Democratic amendments to come to the floor. Usually all they had to do was be printed in the record; and before that, you didn't even have to be printed in the record. But the Republicans instituted a plan that had to be printed in the record the day before. But this year, for the first time, they said that the Rules Committee would determine what amendments came to the floor. And the Democrats unanimously-all nine Democrats supported amendments in subcommittee-excuse me, in full committee-and they were, except for one of them, they were all not allowed to come to the floor yesterday.

I think-a real disservice to the debate. Intelligence matters are usually dealt with in a very bipartisan way. The fact that they would not allow an amendment that fully funded our counterterrorism was, I think, very unfortunate. But I think the crowner for me was when Porter Goss held up something about John Kerry that was, I think, supposed to be clever, but I thought really said-to me when he held that up, I thought this is not a man who wants to be in line for the CIA.

Q Do you-the Democratic platform committee finished its hearings this past weekend, and one of the issues that's going to be different in 2004, going to get more attention is gay marriage. Do you believe that the platform should endorse gay marriage, or oppose the federal marriage amendment? Or what should the platform say on that issue?

REP. PELOSI: No, I think the platform-as one who has chaired a party in my state of California and has chaired a platform at the national level in 1992, if you look at any of the platforms I have chaired you'll see that they're rather brief. I think a platform should be about ideas, about values, and it should be very comprehensive in terms of our theme. Of course, in '92 it was opportunity, responsibility, community and security-and that those are the kind of overarching categories that we should have.

I'm informed that, in the record, the Democrats instituted that in 1993; putting it in the record for appropriations the night before, excuse me. So my view of the platform that it would speak more in terms of values than into specifics of --

Q But that issue would be too minute an issue or too --

REP. PELOSI: I don't think it's an issue that should be addressed in the platform. But I do think that we will see whether it will come up here in the House, and I don't think that amending the Constitution will be something that will be successful here. But my concern about platform is that it should be more general. It's not just sticking out that particular issue that shouldn't be in there. It's not-again, I want to make that clear there are many specific issues that I don't think should be addressed in the platform in a specific way. In terms of opportunity and fairness and civil liberties and rights of privacy, I think those are properly addressed there.

Any other questions? If not, I hope you have a glorious 4th of July and look forward to seeing you when we come back after the holiday. Thank you so much.

Q Thank you.

Q Thank you.

REP. PELOSI: Thank you.