Press Conference with Speaker of The House Nancy Pelosi - Transcript

Interview

PRESS CONFERENCE WITH SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI (D-CA)

SPEAKER PELOSI: (In progress) -- his view of the state of the union. Each year we go through this very important ritual for the American people. The president presents his views. Sometimes it's more rhetoric than reality. And that reality will come to us next week when we see the president's budget, to see if his budget numbers match some of the proposals that he put forth last night.

It might be good news to the president that some of what he was suggesting has already been passed by the Congress. In fact, the president called for GSE reforms for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and indeed that has already been passed by the House of Representatives.

He called for the modernization of the FHA. That has passed the House and the Senate and is ready for conference or a reconciliation, whatever the term is to come to agreement to make into -- in fact, it may become law before the stimulus package becomes law. And then the president has stated that state housing agencies -- called upon the ability of state housing -- to issue tax-free bonds to help homeowners refinance their mortgages.

This is an idea that the Ways and Means Committee has reviewed. We have been staunch champions in a bipartisan way for mortgage revenue bonds, which we had hoped would be included in a stimulus package, in fact, and the low-income housing tax credits, which accomplish a great deal in terms of increasing housing stocks.

So Congress has already well been on the path in terms of some of these reforms or initiatives that will help relieve the subprime crisis, which is really a very important part of the economic downturn.

I was happy to hear the president talk about the COMPETES Act. This is an act that we passed with strong bipartisan support on the floor of the House. Even though the Republican leadership in the House opposed the bill on the floor, we got a majority of Republicans to vote of the COMPETES Act. The president signed it into law. It became law this summer. It had been an initiative that we had been working on for a couple of years, and it took a majority -- a Democratic majority to get it passed and sent to the president's desk.

The president complained that not enough money was in the appropriations bills on it, and I share that complaint. And that was largely because instead of using the numbers that were in our House- passed bill, the omnibus bill had to come down, so the innovation agenda suffered cuts. But because the president is so enthusiastic about the innovation agenda, which is essential to our competitiveness, I hope he'll accept the supplemental containing some important funding for the National -- for all of the National Science Foundation and all of the others, where we have the NSF, the NIST, the Department of Energy, and their Science Division.

So we stand ready. We have already appropriated the money; the administration pushed us back. We look forward to working with the president on that.

I'm sure you'll have some other questions about the State of the Union address, but there were just some areas where we are in agreement, that they've already passed the House, and some in the Senate, and that we look forward to working with the president on in a bipartisan way. We look with great anticipation to his budget to see what he has for innovation in the budget.

The stimulus package. I'm very proud of the stimulus package that we're bringing to the floor today.

It will pass with overwhelming support. It meets our criteria and the top criterion, which is -- is its stimulus, and it does so in a manner that is timely -- we must do this immediately -- targeted -- it must be targeted to those who will put the money into circulation immediately to inject demand into our economy, to create jobs -- and it must be temporary. The business initiatives in the package will be -- those tax incentives must be acted upon by December 31st, 2008. So contrary to previous stimulus, where it had two years to act upon the incentives, this is temporary. So it would, I think, produce a better result than had been achieved in the past.

So the -- then we will send our legislation over to the Senate later today. We'll have more to say about that later. And I would hope that the timely aspect of this is recognized by our colleagues in the Senate and that the focus that we have on middle-income and low- income people, which makes this stimulus, will be retained in the Senate. Otherwise, it will, as I said, not meet our -- the standard that we have set here.

We did so in a bipartisan way, working with the administration. We know that this will be signed into law. We hope that what the Senate does is something that is compatible with what we have done, and look forward to working with them on that.

Last night, I think, the president missed an opportunity. I think the America people were hoping to hear about an aggressive initiative for the creation of jobs. Democrats are proposing just that. And we think, by meeting the needs of the American people, at the same time we can create jobs.

For example, if we have -- SCHIP, for example, one example, but many other initiatives on health care in America demand a trained, skilled workforce, create many jobs here at home; building -- rebuilding our infrastructure -- very necessary for us to rebuild our roads and bridges and our mass transit and go beyond with other initiatives, creating good paying jobs right here at home.

When we talk about innovation, that is one thing the president -- it is our commitment to competitiveness, to keep America number one.

But innovation begins in the classroom, and we have to have a full commitment to education to do that. And innovation will change the classroom, all of it, creating good paying jobs here at home.

And the global warming issue -- this is the issue by which our generation will be judged by posterity. Posterity -- are we acting responsibly in what we are doing in meeting the global climate crisis? Good paying green jobs in rural America, in urban America.

So I think while we're talking about stimuluses to head off further downturn in our economy, we have to also be talking about what we are doing to grow our economy, to keep us competitive. And whatever we do in the stimulus cannot hinder our ability to grow the economy.

With that, I'll be pleased to take any questions you may -- yes, ma'am?

Q Madame Speaker, how do you describe the working relationship that grew between you and Secretary Paulson in the discussions on the stimulus package? And do you have reason to think that it might bear fruit on some other issues later this year?

SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, I certainly hope so, but I don't want to ignore the fact that we have worked together in a bipartisan way last year, right from Six for '06. Almost all of those initiatives had broad bipartisan support on the floor of the House. Most of it has been signed into law by the president -- raising the minimum wage, cutting -- reducing the cost of college education, the 9/11 commission recommendations, the strongest package for ethics reform and lobbying reform in the history of the Congress -- I just -- putting in historical reference, the biggest package for college affordability since the GI bill, this package for veterans' health in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration, the innovation agenda, the energy bill -- we've had more bipartisanship than one might think, and I think most of that has been eclipsed by the fact that the war is a major divider here. And so people look to that as the measure of whether we can work together.

As far as the model that this might present, the opportunity that -- I certainly hope so. Our deliberations were respectful. We listened and understood what the course of action was and took advantage of the opportunities that were there. It was very important for the Democrats to have a package that was focused on those who had been left behind before -- middle-income people and working people in our country who aspire to the middle class. They understood our value. We understood their interest in making a tax rebate package.

So yeah, I think the rapport has increased, but we've always had a respectful relationship.

Q Is Mr. Paulson's relationship, though, with the Democrats, with you in particular, any different than his predecessors'? The working relationship.

SPEAKER PELOSI: I'm sorry.

Q Is Mr. Paulson's working relationship any different than his predecessors', in terms of his style?

SPEAKER PELOSI: You mean his Republican predecessors, because we certainly have a good rapport with Secretary Bentsen and Secretary Rudman and Secretary Summers.

Q Under President Bush.

SPEAKER PELOSI: Under President Bush.

Well, we had an opportunity to work together, and I think that Secretary Paulson himself, coming from the private sector as he did, was a -- wanted to get the job done. And so we all knew, okay, at the end of the day, there is a need in this country for a stimulus package. Working families are experiencing a paycheck-to-paycheck existence with the cost of gasoline and the cost of groceries and the cost of health care. You name it: the uncertainty about their housing, the uncertainty about their jobs are such that they require us to act quickly and in a way that is relevant to their lives.

I think when the president finally admitted that there was a need for stimulus -- what would you say that is, a week-and-a-half ago -- something again any homemaker in America could have told him months ago. When he finally admitted that, that was the signal to the secretary that we needed to get a job done. He had laid some of the groundwork for that, so that we could immediately come together.

So I appreciate the opportunity to work with the secretary. He brings an efficiency and a professionalism to the process that, I think, was useful. We call that leadership.

Q How much has the Senate Finance Committee -- (off mike) -- slowed down stimulus? And what are the chances that you might not get stimulus because of that slowdown?

SPEAKER PELOSI: Oh, no, we have to have a stimulus. There's just no question. Once you, as I mentioned about Secretary Paulson, once you understand that, then we have a responsibility to work back from that and find our common ground.

I would hope that what the Senate does would be respectful of the focus that we have on the middle class and lower-income people. The rebate is finally going to people in America, even if they don't pay income tax, but recognizing the FICA tax and the rest. So we want that to be intact in their bill. Whatever they can -- if they can come to agreement in a bipartisan way and with the administration on some additions to that, we're happy to look at that as we reconcile the two bills.

But the package that we have, I'll say it again, is timely. We're going to pass it today. It's targeted to middle-income and lower-income people. It's temporary in terms of the business incentives, so they have to be acted upon now. And this will be different from previous stimulus packages, which were longer-term duration and had no cap. So a third of the money in any rebates went to people at the high end, who didn't even spend it, the record shows, instead of to those at the lower end who would infuse it into the economy immediately. So we will have a stimulus package.

Q How respectful do you think they're being of your carefully crafted negotiations?

SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, we'll see, won't we? I think they understand --

Q (Off mike) -- included the Fannie, Freddie loan increase over the administration's objections. One of the key issues, of course, is unemployment insurance. They don't want that included. I mean, do you think maybe that's too much freight for the agreement to bear, that unemployment extension? Are you willing to --

SPEAKER PELOSI: Excuse me, I'm sorry, what's the question?

Q Sorry. The unemployment benefits --

SPEAKER PELOSI: I mean, I heard the preface of it.

Q Yes, ma'am.

SPEAKER PELOSI: But, what's the --

Q The unemployment benefits, is that too much freight for this -- for your agreement to bear? Would you be willing to go against the administration wishes and back -- (inaudible)?

SPEAKER PELOSI: We're going to have unemployment insurance. It's a question of whether it's in this bill or we have it in other legislation. But to the extent that the administration wanted to have strictly a rebate package and the business incentives, just two features, then they had to come down lower in who benefited. So, in other words, we went from $26,500 for a rebate to $3,000. So I think that was worth a great deal. But if the economy requires us to have unemployment insurance extended, we will most certainly have to do that.

I don't want anything that's done in the Senate, as much as I would support many of those initiatives, to do any harm to what we have done in our rebate package. If they add, and there's a finite number, say it's $150 billion, how do they pay for that? But I myself am a strong supporter and advocated for the unemployment insurance.

Q The price tag coming out of the Senate Finance Committee is about a $160.5 billion, and some senators are saying they're going to add to that even more. Where is the -- where do you think is the upper limit of --

SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, I don't even know. You know, I mean, I don't know that the package is $160 billion. I think they're still running the numbers on it.

But I made one point at the end of my comments about the stimulus, and that -- in my remarks earlier; and that is, whatever we do in the stimulus package should not hinder our ability to move to recovery.

The way we talk about it is that these are countercyclical measures that should not hinder the regular cycle from recovery. So we don't want to go deeply in debt, except as it relates to how this is going to stimulate the injection of these rebates into the economy, will further the economy, increase revenues back to the Treasury. So we don't want to go deeper in debt. It doesn't mean that all of those initiatives are not worthy, and in fact, I advocated for them myself. But instead we got a package that we could agree upon and move quickly with, and then we'll deal with these issues.

Q (Off mike) -- 150 billion -- (off mike) --

SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, as I said, we want it to be timely targeted, temporary. We want it to be stimulus. That's the standard that -- for putting something in the package -- is it stimulant? There are many good ideas -- is it a stimulant, and does it do harm to our ability to recover from trying to head off a more serious downturn and move into recovery. And we don't want to go in -- you know, we've had our own discussions about PAYGO, and the -- (word inaudible) -- was made that if you're going to -- it's going to be stimulus, you can't really do PAYGO with it. But if you're going to Christmas tree it, then there's really no rationale, no justification to do that and to the extent that it can harm the recovery because of the increase in the deficit.

Q Madame Speaker, when do you think the U.S. economy will be able to pay back the loans that we're borrowing to pay for this stimulus package?

SPEAKER PELOSI: Excuse me. I'm sorry?

Q You mentioned that the strategy is that the stimulus package will grow the economy and revenue will go back in the Treasury. How long do you think that will take?

SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, I hope that it will signal change that the -- first of all, we want to meet the needs of America's families who are struggling. Let's get back to what this is all about.

And to the extent that the money is placed into the hands who are living paycheck to paycheck and will inject it back into -- demand back into the economy and help create jobs, we hope that then the economy will turn around. We want to restore confidence in the consumer, and we want to restore confidence in the markets. And so I can't tell you when that is because of the other factors that are involved in all of that. The markets are waiting to hear what Chairman Bernanke is going to do next and so am I, but there are many factors that will contribute to restoring of consumer confidence and confidence in the markets.

I just want to say one last thing because I thought you'd ask about it. On Iraq, the president's comments last night in his speech were yet again another example of the lack of reality that he brings to this discussion. For a president of the United States to come before the Congress nearly five years after this war and deem it a success is just hard to understand. We salute our troops. Their success in the surge is what we expected and what we prayed for. But what was supposed to happen was that the surge was supposed to create a zone of calm and security for the Iraqi government to make the political change necessary to bring reconciliation to Iraq. That did not happen. Thirty-nine thousand 40 people have died of our troops; tens of thousands injured, thousands of them permanently. The cost in reputation in the world is such that it hinders -- it hinders world peace.

The cost of readiness to our troops, cost in readiness to our military. This war has diminished our capability for our military to meet threats to our security, wherever they may occur.

And of course the cost in dollars. Nothing compares to the cost in lives, our precious treasure. The cost to the -- and when the president says we can't afford to do SCHIP -- 40 days in Iraq, 10 million children in America insured for one year. We have a list of what you could do for one day in Iraq and what you could do for one week in Iraq and what you can do for one month. Well, but the fact is -- is that we have serious challenges in our own country, the opportunity for which are lost because of the president's myopic view of what is being accomplished in Iraq.

And again I'll say what the general said. The biggest obstacle to reconciliation in Iraq is not the Sunni insurgents. It's not the Iranian militants. It's not the al Qaeda terrorist. It is the government of Iraq. Our troops have made an enormous sacrifice. They deserve better than the actions taken by the Iraqi government.

On March 19th, five-year anniversary of this war. Not a cause for celebration. More than a year and a half longer than the -- World War II, and then we'll be entering the sixth year of the war.

And what does the president want to do? He wants to prolong, he wants to tie the hands of future presidents to bring reality to our Iraq policy. What -- he's talking about his status of forces agreement, principles of which were set forth in the November meetings with the Iraqi government -- supposed to be negotiating them in February to be ready in July.

Status of forces agreement really relates to if forces are present in the country, what are the parameters of their activities there?

What the president is talking about under that name is something quite different. He's talking about principles that say that we will take responsibility for protecting the Iraqi government from threats internal and external. That's a treaty. That must be approved by the Congress of the United States.

MORE

So we have to watch him carefully, the president carefully, because he wants this war to go on and on and on, for a very long time to come. And by entering into something under the guise of a status of forces agreement, which is really a treaty. It's similar. We have these arrangements with New Zealand, with Korea, with Japan, with NATO. This is a defense treaty, and I would have to stay very alert and vigilant as to what the administration is doing in this regard.

Thank you all very much.

Q What are you going to do about the status of forces agreement? Can you do anything?

SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, we want to make sure that the president understands that if this is a treaty, it cannot be entered into unless Congress agrees. And I'm sure that when that happens, Congress will have a great deal to say about that treaty.

Thank you.

Q (Off mike.)

SPEAKER PELOSI: No, I didn't say I was surprised. I said I thought you would ask. I'm never surprised. (Laughs.)

Q Do you think that there's a perception that there is a stalemate between the Democratic Congress and the president on this issue?

SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, I do think that the economy is an issue that is emerging, because of the realities in the lives of the American people. Paycheck-to-paycheck: Groceries, gasoline, health care -- you name it. But I also do think the American people have this as a very high priority, but they don't think that much can be done about it with this president of the United States.

Thank you all very much.

Q Haven't we had reconciliation, with the oil law and de- Ba'athification?

SPEAKER PELOSI: No. No, no, no.