Weekly Media Availabiltiy With House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

Federal News Service September 30, 2004 Thursday

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

BODY:

REP. PELOSI: Good morning. How are you all? Good morning. We had a little delay here this morning because of --

Q Small "d"?

REP. PELOSI: Yes, "d". (Laughs.) More on that later. More on capital "D" later.

Last week House Democrats proudly unveiled our New Partnership for America's Future, which focused on six core values for a strong and secure middle class. Today I'll focus on two of those values that-which the Republicans are undermining: prosperity and national security.

Instead of a robust highway bill and infrastructure bill, Republicans are failing by passing a simple eight-month extension of the bill. This is a defeat: a defeat for America's workers, for commerce, for the environment, for homeland security. Votes on highway spending bills may be delayed. May be delayed, while we take up issues on the floor of the House that will never become law: a waste of the taxpayer's time at the neglect of what they really need, which are jobs.

Democrats had a plan more than a year ago that would have created hundreds of thousands of jobs on this highway bill and help produce a marketplace and with increased homeland security. This is very unfortunate, and this is all because the president has said that unless he had a bill that reverted to the 1950s he would not sign the bill, which should be about this century, not the last.

And the Republicans-on the subject of jobs and prosperity, the Republicans are moving ahead with a FSC bill that contains $33 billion more in additional tax benefits for American corporations that send jobs overseas. No highway bill; a FSC bill that sends jobs overseas. We need to keep American jobs here, not export them.

In terms of our national security, House Republican leaders have isolated themselves from the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, from the families of 9/11, and from bipartisan majorities in the Senate and among the House Democrats. House Republicans stand alone as the only obstacle in the way of passing a bill that will make America safer. Instead,the Republican bill is weak where it should be strong.

We all know what the need is, and so did the 9/11 commission. It said that we need real-time communication for first responders; the Republicans said no. It said we need to secure nuclear materials; the Republicans said no, let's have a study. They advocated provisions for aviation security; the Republicans said no. The 9/11 commission asked for border security provisions; the Republicans said no. The bill the Republicans have cobbled together does not make us safer or freer. From day one, we have all said that 9/11 is hallowed ground and there is no place for partisan politics there. We must reduce risk to the American people. We must make our country safer. And we must give comfort to the families of 9/11.

With that, I'd be pleased to take any questions that you may have. (Pause.) Questions? No questions?

Q Will you vote for or against the reform bill that they're going to bring to the floor next week?

REP. PELOSI: We haven't seen the bill. But what the Democrats are advocating is we support the-it has three names now-Lieberman-Collins-McCain initiative in the Senate that has acted upon the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, which was bipartisan and unanimous in its endorsement. So we would hope-and Democratic members are trying to make the point in the committees of jurisdiction by advancing that Senate bipartisan legislation. Of course, it's been defeated in every committee. But we will persist and we will insist that the Republicans allow the 9/11 bipartisan legislation to be debated on the floor of the House and that we are able to take a vote on it. So far, we have not received a positive response from them.

Any other questions?

Q What do you think does more political damage to Democrats, a Rose Garden ceremony with Bush signing this thing, or Democrats potentially getting the obstructionist label by blocking it?

REP. PELOSI: We're not blocking it. We're not blocking it. The Republicans are blocking it. So let's get this dynamic in order. The Democrats and the Republicans in the United States Senate have come together around the proposal based on the 9/11 commission bipartisan, unanimous report. The House Democrats support that. The obstruction here are the House Republicans who have isolated themselves. And you could only-in defiance of the absolute vulnerability that our country has, in the need for real-time communication among first responders, securing the plutonium and uranium in the world, our ports, our airports, air cargo. The list goes on and on. The commission has real proposals to make America safer. The Republicans have said no over and over again.

So the obstruction is on their side, and one would have to say, what would be the point? Why would they object to making America safer? Why would they put forth a bill that has so little in common with what other three of the quadrants of this Congress-House Democrats, Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans, House Republicans-why would they isolate themselves unless they did not want a bill to go forward at all? And it is that inertia in the House in the Congress in Washington that I think gives concern to the American people that nothing will ever happen if we don't move on these bipartisan recommendations.

Q Madame Leader, what is your estimation of the amendment on the floor today that would prohibit homosexuals getting married?

REP. PELOSI: My view of the initiative taken by the Republicans today is that it is their intention to despoil the Constitution of the United States. They want to taint that great document by enshrining discrimination in it. Regardless of what you think of the subject matter-and I know that it's a difficult matter for some people-it is wrong for the Republicans to use the Constitution of the United States as a political tool for promoting discrimination in our country.

Q Madame Leader, the Taiwanese defense minister says China will have 800 ballistic missiles by the year 2006, yet China will push the EU again to lift the arms embargo when they meet next week. What would you do to ensure the EU keep that ban?

REP. PELOSI: Well, that's an issue larger than China. Stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, stopping the mobilization that can endanger the world is something that all the nations of the world have to take very seriously, whether we're talking about China or whatever other countries we're talking about. So I have long been one who cautioned the world to China's activities, which did not make people freer, did not make the world safer, and by the way, did not make trade fairer. So I would hope that the resolve that we have to make the world safer would be consistent and that people would speak to China-speak truth to China rather than look the other way because of commerce.

And your question?

Q A follow-up, please. Are you worried at all that a possible imminent conflict between Taiwan and China with all the escalation of -- (inaudible)?

REP. PELOSI: Well, I would certainly hope not. I would hope that, whatever the resolution of the Taiwan-China issue is, that it is a peaceful one.

Q Madame Leader, when is it-when is it appropriate for a party leader to discuss ongoing ethics investigations with members of the Ethics Committee, and when is it inappropriate for them to do so?

REP. PELOSI: Well, it depends on what you're talking about. The rules of the Ethics Committee have stated that it is appropriate for the chair and ranking member to keep their leaders abreast of the-how things are proceeding not in terms of substance, but in terms of process. And when there's rumor, innuendo, press reports that seem contradictory to the regular order of the Ethics Committee, then it might be appropriate to-for a member at that point to inform the leadership of that.

Q Doesn't process and timing tie into the substance? And --

REP. PELOSI: No. No. No. No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't at all. What-as you know, I spent a long time of my life in Congress on the Ethics Committee. It's an important matter to me, a high ethical standard for Congress and the-and how the public perceives that being ensured and the role that the ethics committee plays on it.

I always say to people when they're appointed to it, it's about three things: It's about the law; it's about the facts, and it's about the rules of the House. Those are the bases on which you would make determinations to go forward.

When rumors start flying about events taking place that-and press reports come out that decisions have been made that members have questions about, then if the committee wants, they have two tools at their disposal. They can publicly go forth and say what is happening or they can give a heads up; or they can do both, as they have done.

Any other questions?

Q Yes, ma'am, I have a question. Could you give us a little pre-game analysis of the debate tonight? What do you think John Kerry needs to do to win and to score points with the American people?

REP. PELOSI: You know, going onto the stage with the president of the United States is quite the formidable challenge because all Americans like to grant to our president authority on issues, standing on issues. So when he speaks, they trust what he says. So if you have some, shall we say, differing view of the facts, it's very hard to say that the president is misrepresenting the facts. But in fact, that is what the president has been doing.

So I think the challenge for John Kerry is to show his own strength and to keep it simple -- (laughs) -- and to be himself-a committed, dedicated patriotic American-and to speak truth to the American people-and has to do it in a way that may differ in terms of the facts from what the president is presenting. But I think that it will be interesting to see.

It's no small thing to go on the stage with the president of the United States. So the president will have an enormous advantage in that regard. I might add that this president never had to debate a president to become president of the United States.

Q Madame Leader, will Democrats win control of the House of Representatives regardless if Mr. Kerry is elected?

REP. PELOSI: Well, first of all, Mr. Kerry will be elected. I have every confidence. I travel constantly, as you know. Where was I last week? Iowa, New Jersey-well, so much for my itinerary. (Laughs.) But nonetheless, the enthusiasm for him out there, the fact that so many people are flooding registrar offices to register to vote-these polls of likely voters, in my view, are about the past. The electorate that is going to participate this year is a much broader universe, and I think that the enthusiasm that his candidacy has engendered will produce a victory in November.

I always talk about my-our own House races on a day to day basis, and if the election were held today, I believe that the Democrats would take back the House. And once again, I'll say that I'd rather be in our position than theirs.

Q Senator Hatch has finally scheduled a hearing on this --

REP. PELOSI: We have all these double-ups on this, but anyway. (Laughs.)

Q-has finally scheduled a hearing next week in the Judiciary Committee on this proposed amendment to allow non-native citizens to run for president. What's your position on that idea?

REP. PELOSI: Well, I have long thought that we could revisit that issue. I think there has to be a reasonable length of time that the person resided in the country. And 20 years, I don't think that's long enough. It takes some people that long to get their Ph.D. I think you have to go a little longer to be president of the United States. But I do think that we should not exclude from the highest office in our land extraordinary talent that is in our country that we are barred from appreciating by dint of birth.

Q How long has Governor Schwarzenegger lived here? (Laughter.)

REP. PELOSI: Oh, he's lived here a long time.

Q Do you mean live here or been a citizen? I mean --

REP. PELOSI: Oh, I don't think that matters. I think that it has to be residency, I would think. I mean, somebody can't be a citizen yesterday. But people who run for office meet the qualifications of running for office, and whatever that is. If it's five years to be president of the United States, then that should be it. But if it's about residence, I think the 35-year provision is-probably makes more sense. If somebody is raised in our country or has lived here long enough to have an appreciation of the culture and the diverse-the beautiful diversity of a country, to serve as our president. But I have no problem with removing the-what are we calling it? Nativity? Birth? (Laughs.) Birth in the United States requirement.

Yes, ma'am.

Q Madame Leader, on the Kerry debate-or the Kerry-Bush debate tonight, Kerry has been criticized for-you know, by the Bush administration for flip-flopping and not having a message. How critical is it tonight that he makes it clear what his position on the Iraqi crisis is, or conflict is-excuse me-and laying out to the American people what his message truly is in this campaign?

REP. PELOSI: I think it's important -- (laughs) -- to reiterate what you said. I think it's very important for Senator Kerry, and I have every confidence that he will convey to the American people that he is a person of strength, of commitment to our country, and that his-"flip-flop" is a characterization of the Republicans. I don't even want to go to that place. But I do think that in our system there is room for growth, and when you have more information, or the situation changes, that you may take the issue to a different place.

But I don't see any flip-flop as far as Senator Kerry is concerned. As one who has been firm on this war from day one-as you know, I voted against it, I didn't think the intelligence supported the threat, and I, unlike Senator Kerry, did not believe that the president should have the authority to go forth.

He had more respect than I did, and so he said that he would grant the president the latitude to use his good judgment. Again, we disagreed there, but I think that he should not be faulted for investing in the office of the president the authority to use his good judgment to go forth. That's a lot different than saying later, though I gave him that latitude, that I therefore approve of every action taken.

And I think that the president tonight, by Senator Kerry, must be held accountable for this war. Over a thousand of our men and women in uniform have died-thousands more injured, thousands of them for life, hundreds of billions of dollars in cost to the taxpayer, enormous cost to our reputation in the world. Senator Kerry has to make the distinctions about where he would take us to.

And-now, first thing you have to do about Iraq is get the truth on it, and I think Senator Kerry has to make that clear. He can't stand up there tonight with a plan about Iraq to-in-down to the chapter and verse, until we know the truth. And the president has withheld the truth from the American people. The president is in denial on this.

So fortunately for the Democratic Party, Senator Kerry will-in his diplomatic way, will be making this point, rather that some of us, who have a harsher view of where the president-what the president's intentions were to begin with and where he's taken us since then.

Q So do you-just to follow up, do you see him going on the attack tonight, going on the offensive, trying to --

REP. PELOSI: Well, I think he has to state his own case. He has to convey a level of confidence to the American people.

As you all know, the camera is a very, very harsh tool. I mean, I think that when it flashes on to someone, people want to see qualities. They want to see the quality-a person with a vision for our country and how does the national security issue, which is fundamental to our country's success-how does he address that. They want to see the level of knowledge that he has, which is very extensive-the knowledge and judgment he would bring. They want to see a plan for how we would go forth. I don't say down to the last detail, but a plan about how to make the future better and how to protect our country better. And then they want to see the conviction and the commitment that he has to his own point of view and certainly to our country.

So I think they're looking for a vision. They're looking for knowledge and judgment. They're looking for an approach, a plan. And they want to connect with him.

I have no doubt that he will measure up. I think he just has to-I would say just be yourself. This is a very strong, strong leader in our country. Some of my other colleagues have said if I had to give him advice, I'd say, "Keep it simple." Very hard for a senator to do that! (Laughs.) But that's just my House bias.

I'm very optimistic about tonight. I think he's going to do great.

Q Ms. Pelosi, as you know, the conference-the House-Senate conference on the FSC bill, the international tax reform bill, began last night. And Chairman Thomas of Ways and Means, who is chairman of the conference, expressed optimism that they would get a conference report that Congress could pass before the scheduled October 8th adjournment. Do you share his optimism that Congress can complete action on that? And do you think they can come up with a bill Democrats-most Democrats could support?

REP. PELOSI: Did they say before the election?

Q Yes. By the end of next week. I think the target adjournment date is the 8th, so --

REP. PELOSI: By the end of next week? Well, we'll see. They started yesterday, as you know. We had our motion to recommit that would have created jobs, helped small businesses, improve the health of our children-of course it was rejected by the Republicans. They do not share our values in that regard.

We'll just see. Mr. Rangel reported this morning that they're moving forward on it. There are some major obstacles for Democrats to support such a bill. We have a problem that is small that needs to be addressed in terms of WTO, in terms of some few billion dollars that is going to get a fix, giving like $18 billion more in tax breaks to corporations who will be moving jobs off shore. So that's going to be a very contentious issue in the conference.

But if the Republicans are consistent in their wish to give tax incentives to companies to move off shore, they have the majority of the votes and, unfortunately, that would prevail, but not without Democrats calling to the attention of the American people how their tax dollar is being used to send their very own jobs overseas.

Q So is it your view that if this provision-or some version of this provision were to remain in the final bill, that the FSC bill would probably pass on a mostly party-line vote, with Democrats in opposition?

REP. PELOSI: At the present time. But we have to see what the-you know, there is some language I think on the Senate side that does not support-you know, it just depends who prevails in the conference. But you have to-you're asking me a question about a bill that is so bad, so far down the road-billions and billions of dollars of tax breaks for corporations to solve a problem that is one- fourth of the magnitude of the bill, so it's not a good bill to start out with.

Whether it has the provisions at the end of the day that ship jobs overseas, of course that would be a complete poison pill for most Democrats, but it may have other provisions that make it unacceptable as well.

Q You know how the bill moves-supports giving $18 billion in tax credits to corporations that move jobs overseas? But it sounded like from yesterday's proposal that all of the tax benefits would go for domestic production.

REP. PELOSI: No, they added that, but they didn't subtract the other. They added part of it, but they didn't subtract the other, is my understanding of what is in the bill, in the different versions of the bill. They still have provisions in there that have incentives to move jobs offshore, while they also have incentives for jobs here. So.

Any other questions? No? Thank you all very much.

Q Thank you.

REP. PELOSI: Thank you.