Weekly Press Conference with Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker of the House

Statement

Copyright ©2008 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 Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

REP. PELOSI: Good morning. How are you?

Yesterday Congress passed, once again, landmark legislation to address the concerns of the American people about the price at the pump. It's the same legislation we passed one year ago in our Six for '06 in the first 100 hours of Congress.

Under the legislation, $18 billion in subsidies for Big Oil would be repealed, and that money would be used to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to provide incentives for renewable energy resources, and to take us to a place where the price at the pump is lower. In the year since we first introduced the bill, and it passed in a bipartisan way in the Congress -- in the House, the price at the pump has increased by 75 cents a gallon. In the last two weeks, the price at the pump has gone up 17 cents a gallon.

So this legislation is important for us for national security reasons to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It's important to our economy and the budgets of America's working families. It's an environmental issue, to reduce the emissions in the air and to rely on cleaner technologies. And, again, it's a moral issue to preserve this beautiful planet, which is God's creation. In doing so, it will create good paying green-collar and green jobs in rural America and in urban centers. We're sending it over to the Senate. We lost by one vote before. We're hoping we can improve on that. We increased our numbers in the House yesterday. We hope we can increase the numbers in the Senate.

This happened -- this so -- just think of this -- at a time when Big Oil has record historic profits, and we said that before, and the profits have even grown still. ExxonMobil's profits were just reported for last year. They had a profit of $40.6 billion, the largest corporate profit in history. And yet the administration opposes removing subsidies to Big Oil, subsidies that we want to use to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and grow our economy and create good paying green-collar paying jobs in our country in doing so.

Today the House leadership is sending a letter to the president urging him to reconsider his previous opposition to fiscally sound incentives for America's renewable energy and lend his support to this historical legislation. As you know, he's having a conference coming up. I guess it's just an executive branch conference on the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference. And we are -- when he hosts that conference, we hope he would announce that he would support this commitment to renewable energy and lend his support to our historic legislation. I will be pleased to take any questions you may have.

Q Madam Speaker, so are you saying that with the passage of this legislation that consumers will begin to see prices at the pump actually come down? Because we've gotten reports that, with weather, April, May, June, as it gets warmer, the price of gas is going to increase.

REP. PELOSI: Well, what I'm talking about is an investment in the future. We keep -- our consumers are at the mercy of all kinds of factors in terms of the price at the pump, including world prices; and what we're saying is let us take a longer-term view to reduce our dependence on foreign oil so we're the masters of our own fate. And when we say energy independence, it doesn't mean we won't ever use any oil from out of our country. It means we're free to decide, depending on the price, as to whether we will or not, but that we will have plenty of alternatives which are more environmentally sound, and, in doing so, create good jobs in our country.

But no, no legislation can have an immediate -- of this kind, which is an investment in the future, can have that immediate impact, but it will send a message that change is here. And this was a vote yesterday for the future. That's why I was so pleased that we increased our numbers both among the Democrats and the Republicans.

Q Madam Speaker, there was an article in the Washington Post this morning about the -- this virtual fence along the Mexican- American border being delayed and problems with that. Tell us what you know about that, and what are some of the concerns about trying to secure the border and how this is a technological setback for the next wave of trying to secure the border.

REP. PELOSI: First, let me say that we all want to secure our borders. That's our responsibility. So any initiatives that we have that relate to immigration have to begin with securing our borders, protecting our workers, enforcing our laws, and having a managing of the issue of those who are here by having some path to work permits or something so that we can take advantage of those who are here in our workforce in a way that grows our economy.

I just learned about that this morning, quite frankly, that they were having I'm not surprised in terms of the public admission that the cyber fence was not well thought out, and that they would have to go back to the drawing board.

I visited the border a number of times, and I know there are opportunities for us to secure our border in a better way, and obviously, the Homeland Security Committee -- I mean, excuse me -- Department has to learn more before it commits the resources that it has.

Q And why were you not -- why were you not surprised there were problems?

REP. PELOSI: Well, because of the precipitous way in which the administration went forward with it. We really do have a number of tactics that we have to use to secure our border, and to go down the path that they did without, I think, more consideration gives you -- yields the results that they have received.

Q Ms. Speaker, are you concerned at all that a caucus that rose to power on a majority based on -- partially on ethics and the question of corruption seems to be so opposed to your ethics proposal -- your and Mr. Capuano's ethics proposal?

REP. PELOSI: No. I think that they want to learn more about it, and I think that we will pass it in the very, very, very near future.

Q Madam Speaker, what would you pass when, clearly, the bill that you were hoping to do was just yanked? There's talk of compromise.

REP. PELOSI: No, no, no. We'll pass that. Let's just go back a year -- one year ago, I -- we formed this task force, a bipartisan task force which has worked over time in a bipartisan way, to come up with the initiative that Mr. Capuano was putting forth. At the end of last year, he shared that final product with the Republicans and it did contain many of the proposals that the Republicans had suggested. Yesterday, the Republicans, right when the bill was planning to come to the floor today, put forth their own proposal.

I'm pleased to take a look at it. Our members want to see it. We'll look at it, and next week we'll vote on it.

Q So you're saying there's not going to be any changes to the -- you proposal, do I understand?

REP. PELOSI: There may be some tweaking. There may be some tweaking. And many of the -- I must say, I got last night finally saw -- we finally received a copy of what they were proposing, and it was -- there's things that we talked about that are part of the Capuano report, which is to make the Ethics Committee more transparent, more accountable and the like. Those initiatives are part of what we're putting forth, and if there are any new ideas there, we're welcome to see what they are. But that does not take away the need for the outside panel that we are proposing in the Capuano report. So we'll be bringing that up.

Q Madam Speaker, the president said once again this morning that the failure to pass an updated FISA bill does place the country in jeopardy, places the country in greater jeopardy for terrorist attack. Can you say today that you are 100 percent confident that the inability of Congress to pass the PAA or an updated version of FISA can't be not placing the country at greater risk?

REP. PELOSI: Yes, I can, 100 percent, or else we would have taken a different course of action. But don't take it from me; the president's own people have said this is not about national security. This is about immunity for the telecom companies. You know, intelligence is part of where I was forged in this Congress, and I know these laws full well. The underlying FISA bill -- legislation gives the president much of the power that he needs, and the authorities that he has received in the six months of the new legislation and the orders that have sprung from that have given us the protection that we need. The President must know this, because if he thought it would jeopardize the safety of the American people, why would he not have agreed to a 21-day extension of the bill?

Q That 21-day extension would expire a week from Saturday. Do you think you'll have an agreement by then?

REP. PELOSI: Oh, I think so. We're hoping so. Ever since the president refused to -- the Republicans refused to accept that, we've been having meetings in a bicameral way. Today there will be some meetings, bicameral, bipartisan. We asked the president to have the administration participate in that, the meeting that's coming up, and the meetings on the ongoing. The president has said he wants to work with Congress on this, so we're hoping that now he will.

But there are a couple of issues -- one -- three that I think are very important that you should know. One is exclusivity. One of the big differences between the Democrats and the -- not the Democrats -- but the White House and the Congress -- first of all, we all agree that protecting the American people is our first responsibility, and gathering intelligence is a very important part of that not only responsibility, but the ability to carry out that protection.

B, that the underlying FISA law is the law which governs how intelligence is collected in our country. More than you may want to know on the subject, but in the late '70s, largely in response to what President Nixon was doing, spying on the American people, a reaction a few years later under President Carter, the FISA law was passed; and with the passage of the law, it recognizes Congress' authority to establish the terms under which collection would take place. It was signed by the president, an admission of Congress' role, and the power was given to the courts. This is the constitutional way.

This president is saying it's not about the law and it is not about the courts; it's about the president deciding that he has inherent authority to spy on anyone. We don't want any president, Democrat or Republican, to have that authority, and that is why we're making this fight on protecting the American people and protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States.

So the first point is exclusivity. We're saying the FISA law and this new law, whatever this law will be, is the -- has the exclusive responsibility for the collection of intelligence, and that the terms under which this will be collected must be agreed to in advance. The courts have to approve in advance how the executive branch collects that intelligence.

And then the -- separate from that, the issue of immunity, what is it that they are asking immunity from? Now, they've finally yielded and are allowing members of the Judiciary Committee to read the reports on it, and we'll see what the outcome of that is. But the fact is that you can't give immunity for something if you don't know what it is. But in terms of how we go forward on exclusivity and the prior agreement of the courts is the essential part of honoring our Constitution. So I say without any doubt, and the president knows, that if he thought the country were in jeopardy, he most certainly would have agreed to a 15-day -- 21-day extension.

Q What do you make of this Republican commercial campaign against the Democrats on this issue, and is there anything that you are already thinking about to deflect it?

REP. PELOSI: Well, it isn't -- they know that it isn't true. But again, this is a very serious issue, protection of the American people, how we protect and defend the American people, and how we protect and defend the privacy of the American people as we do so and the constitutional and civil liberties that are contained within that Constitution. So for them to be frivolous about it and to make it a political issue is most unfortunate. Even the president has said that this discussion is about immunity, it's really not about politics.

Q Madam Speaker, as a superdelegate, how do you see your role in the contest between Obama and Clinton, and if things are to go past next Tuesday without a clear result, is there a point that you see in the future where you might have to intervene for the good of unifying Democrats and getting on with the process? Do you see that as part of your role?

REP. PELOSI: As a chair of the convention, I, myself, am neutral. And when I say neutral, that is I'm neutral in terms of taking sides myself or encouraging anyone else to take sides. And so I don't know what will happen next week. I don't know that anyone can tell you that. And I don't know that it will be dispositive of the race. It may be that whoever wins one state or another doesn't do so in a dramatic enough fashion to say a trend here has been created. So I think this thing could go on for a while. I don't see it going to the convention.

And the second part of your question is that -- I would respond to is that I would hope that at some point down the road, when there is a clear path to the nomination for one of the candidates, that we will all rally behind her or him and that we go into the convention unified so that we will come out of the convention unified to elect the next president of the United States.

Q Back on the ethics issue. Yesterday it seemed in the Rules Committee and elsewhere most of the critical comments from Chairwoman Slaughter and other Democrats and the Republicans was on this very issue of outsiders coming in to have a role or take over the ethics process. They all said, why do we need that? We should be able to do that ourselves. You seem -- you say that there is a majority for an outside --

REP. PELOSI: Yes.

Q But they are -- all these members of your own caucus, ranking members --

REP. PELOSI: Yes, and I said yes.

(Laughter.)

Q Madam Speaker, I was wondering on a different note, on lobbying reform, we're about a year into a major effort in that. What specific examples can you point to to say that, in fact, the rules have changed how business is run?

REP. PELOSI: Oh, I think the lobby reform legislation -- for me, it was liberation day, because here we could say we now know -- people can see -- the American people can see where contributions are coming to, especially in the bundling provision of the legislation.

It's new. We're still in the legislation cycle, but I think just the tone that was set by the legislation on how it will add to the transparency of the process here is a giant step forward, and it may have some kind of an impact as to how people raise money and contribute money going in. But it will certainly have an impact on how it is reported, and honors the public's right to know where contributions are, and break that link between lobbyist and legislation.

Q You mentioned on the farm bill, do you expect to appoint conferees today or tomorrow?

REP. PELOSI: I don't know if I am appointing them today or tomorrow, but negotiations are moving forward and I'm optimistic that we will have a farm bill if it honors what we want to do in terms of nutrition and fresh fruit and vegetables and healthy snacks for our children and the conservation and environmental priorities that represent real change in this farm bill. But Mr. Collin Peterson, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, is taking the lead for the House Democrats on this. I believe that there will be bipartisan support for the product that comes forward, and I will know when I'm going to appoint the conferees.

That's it. David?

Q On the issue of the outside ethics, the issue people raised about there is not a full majority to instigate an investigation. If you were to change that formula, would you regard that as a tweak, or is that serious?

REP. PELOSI: No. I don't know that that would be changed. I see that completely differently. I see the outside entity as one that can get rid of nuisance filings and also say to those people, don't do this too many times or else you won't be able to do it again. And if you have -- I think the thinking was that if you just have two, then it's not a consensus that something had to go forward. It is just a couple, you know, two people on the committee to go forward. One area there might be a called a tweak, but a change is that instead of just having two members, have it be two members, one of each party, go forward. But those are the kinds of the things -- some of the things that members want. But I have no doubt that we will have a bill.

Q In the two, does it have to be a bipartisan two?

REP. PELOSI: Well, I don't know. That's part of the discussion. You're asking me what some tweaks might be, that might be one of them. I could argue it both ways. But the fact is that I think there is no doubt that for reasons that are unfair to many -- the majority of the members have conducted themselves living up to the highest ethical standards, but because of those who have not, especially in the previous Congress where there was a culture of corruption, cronyism and incompetence, the public cynicism is such. And the question about whether the Ethics Committee should just be the only entity making determinations about high ethical standards, I think it's necessary for us to do the outside group, with all due respect to the Ethics Committee, and with a big focus on transparency and accountability from the Ethics Committee, but not foreclosing the option of having an outside entity.

Thank you all very much.

Source