Weekly Media Availability With Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), House Minority Leader
Federal News Service September 15, 2004 Wednesday
HEADLINE: WEEKLY MEDIA AVAILABILITY WITH REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER
BODY:
REP. PELOSI: Good morning. (Pause.)
Q Good morning.
Q Good morning.
Q (Chuckles.)
REP. PELOSI: All right! I knew you were out there. I could see you -- (chuckles) -- could hear you breathing. (Chuckles.)
Q (Off mike.)
REP. PELOSI: Here we are, in the middle of September, three years after the tragedy of 9/11, one of the saddest and most agonizing days in America's history. The best memorial that we can give to those who lost their lives, who were injured or who lost their loved ones is to maintain a laser-like focus on ending the war on terror.
The 9/11 tragedy was a dramatic wake-up call to the nation, yet the House Republicans continue to snooze. Congress must use the little time left in this session to act upon the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.
Yet two months after the 9/11 commission issued its unanimous, bipartisan report, recommending sweeping changes, the Republican leadership in the House has failed to act in a manner that reflects the urgency that the commissioners presented, and in a manner that would give solace to the survivors and make the American people safer.
The Republican leaders in Congress have also done nothing to create jobs and make health care more affordable and available. They have not passed a budget bill. They have not passed a highway bill. They have not passed an energy bill. And they are woefully behind on the appropriations bills.
Instead the Republican leadership is more interested in using the scant remaining days on the House floor to make partisan political points, instead of progress for the American people. The American people deserve better.
Any questions?
Q What are those "partisan political points" that they're making?
REP. PELOSI: Well, you hear next week they may bring up another court-stripping bill on the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. They're going to bring up the defense of-whatever-the constitutional amendment. It's very curious, because Republican Leader DeLay has said he didn't bring up the assault weapon ban extension because it wouldn't pass the House, and yet he's going to bring up the constitutional amendment on gay marriage, and he knows that that's not going to pass the House. Some examples.
Q Madame Leader, one day ahead of the Chinese Communist Party's central committee meeting, the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, says Western-style democracy would lead China to a dead end or blind alley. What's your take on that, Madame Leader?
REP. PELOSI: Well, I believe that-of course, as you know, I've had a long-time dedication to promoting freedom and human rights in China. I know-I'm among others who were very inspired by the Goddess of Democracy in Tiananmen Square, and I know that the American model that this is, again, inspired the Chinese students and workers there.
The Chinese people will develop their own form of freedom of expression and freedom of religion and freedom of speech and press, and an American-style democracy is not what anyone was forcing on them or urging them to adopt. It was about the people of China being able to freely express their views without going to prison. So again, it's up to the Chinese people to decide the form of freedom that they want, and I know-because they are really in some ways very legitimate heirs to our own founding fathers, who believed that every person was entitled to freedom.
Q Madame Leader, a quick follow up. Members-some members of this body believe that trade with China will lead democracy in China. What's your belief in that?
REP. PELOSI: Well, I'm a big-I believe that we should do-our policy in the United States with any country is to make the people freer, the trade fairer, and the world safer. I do not believe that our policy with China has done that. Fifteen years ago they told us that we could not use most-favored nation status as a lever to free the prisoners arrested at the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre, and that time would-peaceful evolution would bring democracy and democratic freedoms to China. It certainly has not, but we're ever hopeful. The struggle in human rights is always a long one. And God does not always expect us to be successful, but he does always expect us to faithful.
Q Madame Leader, you and other Democrats have been critical of the Republicans-the administration and congressional Republicans-for running up the large deficits which have occurred on their watch. It's possible that in the next week or three or four, whenever -- (chuckles) -- that comes along, there will be a bill before the House to extend the three middle-class expiring tax cuts, the per- child, marriage penalty, and the other one -- (chuckles) -- the three of them that are not offset. Will Democrats go along with that, even though it would increase the deficit, for five years?
REP. PELOSI: Some Democrats will and some will not, but we will be taking up the issue of the debt ceiling. And the next-let me just tell you so that you know this. Perhaps you'll join us. This afternoon at 1:00 --
(To staff.) Is it 1:00, Brendan (sp)?
STAFF: Yes.
REP. PELOSI: -- we'll be having a press conference --
(To staff.) In the gallery?
STAFF: Yes.
REP. PELOSI: -- in the gallery on the issue of the increase in Medicare premiums and the resolution of inquiry that we will be introducing today. We'll be joined there by Congressman Rangel, Congressman Dingell and a number of other members who have been active on this issue.
That is number one.
Number two, next week we will be talking about the Republicans' sales tax. It doesn't matter what tax proposals they make now. By their own admission, if they had their own-left to their own devices and if they win the majority again, they'll be wiping all of these out. Because their sales tax, which is their proposal, which many of their incumbents and candidates are advocating on the campaign trail-if you can wonder about that-that sales tax would wipe everything out. It would be the most regressive tax-the graphics on it are so eloquent that even the Reagan administration discarded the idea. But-so we'll be talking about taxes in a larger sense next week.
This week we'll be talking about a Medicare prescription increase-the Medicare premium increase. And then we'll be talking with Mr. Stenholm and Mr. Rangel about the debt ceiling. So all of these are related.
So rather than answer who's going to vote for which discrete little bill, Democrats are taking a comprehensive approach to this. Our distinguished whip, Steny Hoyer, has been talking about tax reform and simplification. The Republicans talk about it, but they-talk about simplification but they complicate the tax code. They talk about these tax cuts in the pre-election phase, but their plan is, if they had their druthers, would be to have a national sales tax, which would be very oppressive to most people in the country, and a tremendous gift to the wealthiest Americans.
Q Let me just try and refine the question a little bit. Will there-sometimes there are party positions on issues that come before the House. If the five-year extension, which is being talked about, of these expiring tax cuts come along and it's not offset-would increase the deficit if passed-will there be a Democratic House leadership position --
REP. PELOSI: No.
Q-on whether to support or oppose-you let members do what they please.
REP. PELOSI: No.
Q No position?
REP. PELOSI: No. We have our deficit hawks who are not going to vote for any tax cuts because of the-because they increase the deficit. And we have others who will weigh this in terms of their concern about the deficit or their concern about the middle class tax cuts.
Democrats support middle class tax cuts. They-if that had been where our focus had been, absent giving tax cuts to-in a disproportionate way to those making over a million dollars a year, for example, our budget would be more in balance in terms of dollars, and it would be more balanced in terms of priorities. We would be able, for example, to put money into Leave No Child Behind.
And we would, for example, be able to provide the military housing that our troops need. We'd be able to give a $1,500 bonus to men and women coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. There are plenty of things that we could do in balancing our priorities, as well as balancing financially, fiscally, the budget in a different context.
So, members support middle-class tax cuts, so many of them may vote for that bill. I don't know how many. Some may vote for that.
Q Madame Leader?
REP. PELOSI: Yes.
Q There's a report today that Hefley and Mollohan have been unable to agree on how to proceed with the DeLay ethics charges. And this has been placed on the agenda of the full committee, which of course is split between the two parties. Have you been notified of this?
REP. PELOSI: No.
Q And what are the-what do you think are the implications of this?
REP. PELOSI: Well, first of all, I just don't know. You know-as you know, I have a hands-off approach to all of this. But knowing what I know about the framework, being one of the people who wrote the rules under which the ethics committee functions, and from the way-and maybe we need to revisit those rules-but I don't think that it-I don't see how in the time frame and the framework that is there that what they are doing could have ripened to the point that was reported in the paper today. But I just don't know.
Q Madame Leader, this morning Republican leaders in the House have announced a timetable for consideration of 9/11 legislation-back to that. They say they'll have a markup, I guess, next week, and something out of the House of Representatives by the time Congress leaves for the election. Is that satisfactory?
REP. PELOSI: Well, quite frankly, this is a very important issue for us, and it would be very nice if we could as a body be addressing this issue in an open way. If there's one thing that 9/11 speaks to, and the war on terror speaks to, it's to be having more public involvement in how we come to some of these conclusions.
So I don't think it would be appropriate for the Republicans to hand us a bill at the end of the session. We've had three years, and now it's been a couple of months since the commission put forth its report. It would have been appropriate for the activity that is taking place now to act upon the commission report-accept some of the provisions, improve upon them, change some, but to have the public understand why it was a better idea to go a different route, if that is so.
Because this bill-I don't know if it's okay, I haven't seen the bill.
Q They don't have a bill.
REP. PELOSI: Oh, they don't have a bill? That's what I'm saying. So how can I say it's okay if we don't even know what the bill says?
But the point is, is that a bipartisan commission unanimously proposed recommendations to the Congress. Congress should have immediately taken up those recommendations and acted upon them to accept, reject, debate, improve upon-have Congress work its will. There's enormous talent in the Congress. And it should have been done in the most open way.
So, to hand us a bill at the end that is a reconstruct-starting from scratch, we don't know what it will look like. What will we do, go to the rule with an hour of debate and up or down the bill? No, this is far too important. It's about our safety, it's about our civil liberties, it's about how we give comfort to the families who have lost their lives-their loved ones and their health, and how we give safety to the American people. A broader debate than handing down a bill at the end of the session is what was in order.
And we squandered six weeks when we took the big recess, and now we're here doing these bills that we did yesterday for a political purpose, in my view, instead of saying-is that our focus in a bipartisan way should have been to move this forth with the most legitimacy possible and the least partisanship possible.
The Senate acted in a different way. The Democrats and Republicans worked together. They have a bipartisan bill that now can be acted upon. It has been introduced in the House. I suggest that everyone cosponsor it. It doesn't mean that that's the bill that has to pass at the end of the day, but it means it's a place to begin. And it isn't a place to begin to hand us a bill at the end of the month that we don't even know the provenance of. This we know where it came from; it came from extensive inquiry by the 9/11 commission.
Q The Republican leaders say that they're reaching out to --
REP. PELOSI: Excuse me, can we just have someone else and then --
Q This is a follow-up on that.
REP. PELOSI: Oh, it's the same question. I'm sorry.
Q They say they are reaching out to the Democratic leadership and that any Democrats who would like to be a part of this process are welcome to come join in in crafting this bill. Have they called you? What have they done to reach out to you?
REP. PELOSI: Well, we-as I told you, we had our meeting last week after Mr. DeLay made his hysterical statement-that's what they would say if a woman had said it -- (chuckles) -- that-then we had our meeting the next day with Condoleezza Rice. And it was interesting to hear, after saying that these commission recommendations were laughable and irresponsible, the next day hearing the leader say we're going to work together to do what we can do.
I only know-and I'm not completely-I may not know it all, but I only know of reaching out on the International Relations Committee. That's all I'm aware of.
Q Madame Leader, speaking of international relations, what is your take on President Putin's proposal to centralize his authority, which he says he wants to do to fight terrorism? Do you think it's a good idea, a bad idea? And do you think the administration has been engaged enough on Russia?
REP. PELOSI: I really do not-I can't speak with any authority, have not been briefed specifically-perhaps on Thursday-on some of the ramifications of President Putin's proposal. There's always a tremendous need for a balance between freedom and security, and I would hope that that balance would be maintained in Russia the way it has to be in every other country. So when he says centralized control, I'd like to-you know, it would be interesting to see. I just don't know enough about the particulars to comment on it. Perhaps, as I say, after Thursday.
It was interesting to me during the vote on the war in Iraq that an administration that had come into office with supposedly such strong credentials on the Soviet Union and then therefore Russia was so taken by surprise by what the Russians did at the U.N.
The representation that we were getting from the administration was they know Russia, and they-Russia was going to be with us. And then they weren't.
So Russia is always an important issue to the United States. Again, I thought that they came up short in their understanding of Russia in what they were telling us about the vote. And in fact, any measure of how seriously-no-how seriously-I'm sure they take Russia seriously-how up to snuff they are on Russia, then that wasn't a very good sign.
Q It looks like a national sales tax might develop into a campaign issue this fall.
REP. PELOSI: Yes.
Q And in response to Democratic charges that a sales tax would press on the poor, Republicans might say that almost every state has a sales tax, and people don't seem to be up in arms to reject it. How would Democrats respond to that? And are Democrats saying that all state sales taxes are equally oppressive to the poor?
REP. PELOSI: Well, we're not talking about a sales tax-a national sales tax. We're talking about a national-like a state tax. We're talking about a national sales tax instead of a progressive income tax in our country. And we're talking about going from one of the fundamentals of the 20th century in terms of the public treasure in order to meet the public's needs-and that was a progressive income tax-we're talking instead about a regressive-turn it upside down-a totally regressive proposal that is unfair and will not sufficiently fill the public treasury so that the public can honor its commitment to the private sector, which is to have an educated workforce, to have public safety, to have infrastructure and transit and all that helps commerce grow, people thrive, our population be educated.
It's this public-private relationship that has been the success of our country, and for us to toss that out the window and-instead for a national sales tax, which is regressive in a way that rewards the rich in such a phenomenal way, is-it certainly will be a political issue in this campaign, because this is a values debate about what is important in our country and how we invest in it.
Q If Republicans proposed this tax along with the income tax, would Democrats be more likely to support it or consider it?
REP. PELOSI: No. Well, that's not the point. The point is the bill that they are proposing-so I don't know if you are their devil's-I mean, I don't know what the point is if they do it this way, if they do it that way. The point is the way they're doing it. They're doing it in a-with a sales tax.
That's what's on the table. That's what we're criticizing. And it's written down, so we know what it is that they are proposing. And that's what they are proposing and that is what we are opposing.
So in other words, instead of creating scenarios that don't exist, why don't we just talk about the one that does exist, which is regressive and turns our whole system upside down in terms of the relationship between the public and the private sector and each of us honoring our responsibilities.
Yes, sir?
Q Back to the Congress's role in translating the 9/11 commission into hard legislation, what are you hearing from your ranking members on the committees' role as far as jurisdiction? Are you getting unanimity, any defection? What are they telling you?
REP. PELOSI: No. Well, in terms of their communication with the Republicans?
Q No, in terms of what the ranking members on relevant committees-what sort of conversations they're having with you about Congress's role in crafting this legislation.
REP. PELOSI: Well, as you know, we came back on August 10th, around 100 members of Congress came here, to say that we have to get behind the spirit of these 9/11 commission recommendations. It was not to eliminate any congressional role of weighing in on them. And so I think our members are enthusiastic about having a product at the end of the day that will keep America safer and give solace to the families of 9/11. They, of course, have their ideas and they will weigh in on them.
Q Madame Leader, can I ask you strictly a process question? What do you expect to happen between now and Election Day? Are you expecting a lame-duck session? Do you expect an omnibus spending bill? What are you telling your members to expect between now and the end of the year schedule-wise?
REP. PELOSI: What I'm telling my members is to prepare for victory. We have a plan, we have the candidates, we have the issues, we're ready to go. And when we win on November 2nd, I would imagine that the Republicans will want to have a long lame-duck session. And so when they ask me how long will the lame duck be, I'll say it just depends on how big our victory is.
So that's what we're prepared for. We have no idea. You know, we're at the mercy of the majority, and there has been no-contrary to my principles of minority rights, which we'd have bipartisan administration of the House-that's my pledge-we don't have that. We don't know how long it will be. But I would say that when we win, they'll probably want to get some work done in a lame duck, while they're still in power.
Q If in the slim chance that you don't win back the House --
REP. PELOSI: Okay, I'll buy that. No.
Q All right.
REP. PELOSI: It's hard for me to deal with that, but --
Q (Off mike.)
REP. PELOSI: -- just speaking in a theoretical --
Q Theoretical. Do you expect that there will be a true lame- duck session, where Congress is back here in November?
REP. PELOSI: I said to you at the beginning of my remarks that this is a Congress that has been delinquent in its duties to the American people. Our men and women in uniform are at war. People are in need of jobs, access to health care, better quality education, a safer environment, a sense of security at home. And we are fiddling while Rome-hopefully does not burn, but you know the analogy.
So they have so much work that isn't done. I mean, for an organized person, for a mother who has a routine, to think that they would have such a backlog of work when we're talking about 13 appropriations bills, of which they may finish work on two; where we're getting to the last days of the session and they haven't passed a budget bill, which is the first order of business at the beginning of the session-the blueprint from which to go forward. No energy bill to create jobs, no highway bill to create jobs. They have so much unfinished business.
I would expect that the question you would ask is of them-How do they answer to the American people? How are they accountable for doing the people's business when all they do is kick the can down the road?
So they have two options. Go to-well, there's not enough time to get the work done. A six-week recess eats up a lot of that, plus frittering away time early on. So now we're talking about either a lame duck session or a CR until next year. This is a session of Congress that is coming to an end, and not only that, it's a Congress, it's a two-it is the end of this Congress, not just the session, but the entire Congress coming to an end. New people will be here next year.
So I just think that they have to be held accountable for that.
So what am I telling my folks? I'm telling my folks that while they may not be working, we are, and we have a very positive agenda that we would love to share with them and work in a bipartisan way to find common ground with Republican people-with the Republican Party for the American people so that we can get the people's work done.
But this is no way to run a Congress. This is no way to run a Congress. And that's why today when we talk about our Resolution of Inquiry, we're talking about an official withheld information from Congress. You'd think that Congress would be outraged. You'd think that Congress would be outraged. Instead, some of them are going to work for the same people that the person who withheld the information are going to work for. It really is a corrosion of the ethical standard in the Congress of the United States, in addition to being delinquent in fulfilling its responsibilities to the American people.
Thank you all very much.