Guests included Michael Tomasky of the The London Guardian, Adele Stan of The American Prospect, Ellen Ratner of Talk Radio News Service, Michelle Cottle of The New Republic, Walter Shapiro of Salon, Daniel Nasaw of Guardian America, Matthew Yglesias of The Atlantic Monthly, Christopher Hayes of The Nation, Michael Rogers of PageOne News Media, Brian Beutler of The Media Consortium, Elana Schor of Guardian America, Jules Witcover of Tribune Media Services, Garance Franke-Ruta of The American Prospect, Harold Meyerson of The American Prospect, Matt Stoller of OpenLeft.com, Jose Antonio Vargas of The Washington Post and Dana Goldstein of The American Prospect. A partial, rush transcript follows (provided by the Talk Radio News Service). Please refer to the audio file before quoting from this transcript:
Thank you very much Michael. Good morning. A pleasure to welcome you back to the Speakers office, last we met in July, a lot has happened since then.
As we reach the end of the session of Congress I thought it was important for us to take a look at what has been accomplished and talk about what needs to be done in the weeks ahead and in the next session of Congress. Thank you for what you do to inform interested parties, public and especially young people of what's happening and make the debate a very lively one.
I am very proud of this new direction of Congress and what we've been able to accomplish in the first session of Congress; I'll be very brief about that because I want to hear your questions. I always divide our work into four categories as some of you probably know. How we protect our country, we are very proud of our H.R. 1 , our first bill to keep America safe past the 9/11 commission recommendations. Have the biggest increase in veteran's benefits in the seventy-seven year history of the Veterans Administration. And just last night, passing our FISA bill which is a strong protection of our civil liberties as it enables our collectors to collect in a way under the law to keep our country safe. We'll go to conference and see what happens there but there was no way that we were going to put retroactive immunity in that bill under the present circumstances. We'll see what happens.
In terms of growing our economy, we are very proud of our innovation agenda, our commitment to competitiveness to keep America number one. I think you know about it, it's in our materials, but it is the Competes Act in which the President has signed. Part of that, how we grow our economy is how we have more people participate in the economic fairness of our economy, so raising the minimum wage was very important to us. Overriding the WERTA veto was important to us because that’s a strong environmental issue and economic issues and I was very proud of the House Democrats last Friday because of all the things I am proud of, I am proud of the courage it took to face down the Republicans on this earned income unfairness in terms of the tax code. It's just stunning. We'll continue to make that fight. They say they don't have sixty votes in the Senate to do it but we will continue to make that fight because that's tax fairness. Our bill last gave ninety million Americans tax relief and raised taxes on more and raised taxes on maybe fifty thousand of the wealthiest people in our country. So this is what we are about, a more progressive agenda and the tax code is a very important part of that. And the tax relief goes not only to the middle class on the AMT but also tax credit for children which is refundable, deduction of mortgage in particular. So there, I will not take all the time but it was very important statement on behalf of the House Democrats on behalf of the American people. Part of all of that goes into how we strengthen families and protect our people. How we grow the economy, how we strengthen families and children and of course our initiative on college affordability is one that we are very proud of. The biggest package since 1944, the G.I. Bill of Rights for college affordability and now of course we are engaged in the SCHIP fight with the Administration. We will not compromise on the ten million children. It's ten Republicans in the House standing in the way of ten million children getting health insurance. Forty days in Iraq and the President says we can't afford it. Forty days in Iraq and ten million children uninsured for one year in America. What do you mean, we can't afford it? And how we preserve our planet and our energy bill, which is my flagship issue. As speaker children are my cause. The future is what we are here for and central to that is how we preserve this planet, energy security and reversing global warming. We passed a good bill here, the Senate has two. We'll move forward and I hope we'll have a beautiful Christmas present for the American people in the form of an energy bill. All of this done, largely with bipartisan, strong bipartisan votes. All of it done fiscally responsibly, no new deficit spending. Pay as you go, no heaping mountain of debts onto future generations and living up to the highest ethical standard. I'm very proud of the bill that we passed, the ethics reform, the lobby reform. Historic and proclaimed so by outside reformers. For me, it was like liberation day because what I have to fight here all the time is the status quo, is the forces in Washington, D.C. dedicated to the status quo. And this emancipates, it free's, at least it gives transparency to the flow of money in Washington, D.C But we wont be able to accomplish a lot of what we want to do whether it's sub prime lending yesterday; unless we can break that link between lobbyist and legislation. We prevailed, hopefully the Senate will pass a similar bill but the industry came out hard against us at a time when Americans are suffering. So, I think we had a great week starting last Friday with the tax relief for middle income families, what we did on FISA this week. We passed a fabulous head start bill with overwhelming bipartisan support and again, let me get to the big issue that eclipses everything that we do. And again, I am very proud of our accomplishments; what we've done and what we have on the agenda to go forward, whether its consumer safety, products/ toys, food safety and medicine - you name it, that’s a big priority for us now.
But the issue that eclipses everything is Iraq. We made a very strong statement two days ago about a really new direction; different from the President's own and different from really what we have done before. Similar to resolutions in terms of timelines and this and that and different in terms of strategy to attach funding to a strategy for redeployment with a short time frame, just these three months. And if they don't want to support it with those conditions, which they probably won't in the Senate - we'll see. I am hopeful that they will see the light there but if they can't get sixty votes then I am not bringing up any more funding this year; this is it. They have a quarter of the money for a quarter of the year and it has to go with those conditions. You know what it is? It says in thirty days, it says immediately, but that means thirty days you bring the redeployment to be completed by December of 2008. What it also says is that our that every person or agency of government every U.S. agency has to comply with the Army field manual on interrogations - no torture. A person in uniform who goes into Iraq has to be trained and equipped; they can't keep the war effort up if they do that. So, in any event I just wanted to give you a picture of how I saw this time; I'm very proud of it. It's not well known to the public as I said because the fog of war has eclipsed a great deal of it. But I'd be pleased to take any question on this or anything else you'd like to talk about
Q&A
Q: I'd like to ask one of those "anything else" questions.
A: Assuming I've answered your questions on the topic already.
Q: (Michael Tomasky) I assume you saw about Judith Regan's lawsuit this week against Fox News. Now, we don't know whether her allegations are true; but we all know what Fox News is. So, this occasions me to wonder, which I've always wondered, why don't Democrats on block just refuse to go on Fox News, like the presidential candidates have done?
A: I am so far away from reading that in the paper. I think we have to reach out to all the viewers and listeners our there. I'm for openness and I don't see any reason for why we shouldn't go onto Fox News or others. I don't think that you should go on to be exploited or be a martyr on some of these shows that you know there's not going to be anything constructive or give you any opportunity to talk about tax fairness or really protect our country or global warming and issues like that or the war. I think that on news shows, it's okay to go on. I think people have to be discrete and discerning about what shows they go on whatever the network or cable channel. But again, I always come down in terms of openness.
Q: Speaker Pelosi, the U.N. High Commissioner on refuges has talked about the refuge situation in Iraq, particularly with external refuges and women having these Islamic "weekend marriages" as a way of supporting themselves. The United States has not taken in many refuges, in terms of our exiting from Iraq or trying to have a lower footprint in our responsibility. Are you going to put in any legislation and what are you doing about that particular problem?
A: Well, it's important to note the displacement of people in Iraq for a couple of reasons because they are saying that civilian deaths are down and that causalities are down among civilians in Iraq but Ellen, as you point out there are well over two million people that left Iraq and two million people who are displaced within Iraq and the neighborhoods within Baghdad where they are saying all of this lowering of casualties is coming, they've ethnically cleansed the neighborhood so the Sunni's live in the Sunni neighborhood and the Shiites live in the Shiite neighborhood and they built walls between them and tens of thousands of troops to keep people separate. So, we haven't really accomplished a great deal. In the defense bill they will have some issues that relate to refuges but we are going to have to deal with the people; the women certainly always. Some people have taken risk to help the Americans and I think that we have to have some opportunities for them; whether we like the war or not - and we don't. It's a responsibility that we have, wherever it happens. But the fact that we caused a lot of this situation, created part of this situation, we have an additional responsibility. I don't know a great deal about what we can do about the weekend marriages. I am appalled to see in the paper this morning that a rape victim was getting lashes in Saudi Arabia. I think we have to protect the women and enlist as much help from others and try to change the way that people think about these issues throughout Africa, throughout the Middle East and other places. But, I'd be interested to know what you know about what we could do about that. But you know, that’s a women's issue throughout the world.
Q: Good morning, Walter Shapiro from Salon (.com). It’s a two part question, first part is; did you watch the debate last night?
A: I saw some of it because we were doing FISA on the floor and a labor HHS.
Q: Any quick impressions?
A: Well I thought from what I saw, I thought they all handled themselves quite well. It validates a statement that I make around here all the time, which is that," The best preparation for combat is combat." I think that they are out there aggressively defending their positions and advocating their points of view and I think it's healthy. I think it's good. And I think any one of them would make a great President of the United States. And I know, whatever you think of the debate that last night we heard from the next President of the United States.
Q: Now, I heard you say that exact same line in Iowa last Saturday night.
A: That’s why I introduced each one of them as the next President of the United States.
Q: Yeah, exactly! (laughter) I wanted to just follow up on that, given what you have just said about combat and that it is healthy. Do you think it's healthy for the party when Hillary Clinton turned to John Edwards and accuses him of mud-slinging? And later in the debate, Barack Obama turned to Hillary Clinton and I think likened one of her answers to something that you'd hear from Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani?
A: What I was referencing is how they espouse there own positions and defend their own positions. But I think what you just mentioned are probably the exceptions over a long period of time in the debate and people have to differentiate. You want to run for President? You jump in that arena you give and you get and you have to be ready for it. As I say around here, "You throw a punch; you better get ready to take one", because that’s the arena that we are in. So, I am a combative politician - that to me, that wasn’t too big of a deal. There are distinctions to be made and it will either be valid and take or it won't; but we're in a fight. They're in a fight and then we are in fight. We have to win the White House. And just as long as everybody knows that all the enthusiasm that they have for their own candidacy and their own candidates; that same enthusiasm has to be a force for unity when we come out of the campaign. Everything is at stake. The Constitution, the one in five children living in poverty in America. The twenty percent in America at one time or another in a given year that go to sleep hungry, without the proper food. Everything is at stake in our country; fairness, the environment, you name it. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat and again, the Constitution that we pledge to uphold is all at stake and we absolutely must win the general election.
Q: Good morning Madam Speaker, Brian (inaudible) with the Media Consortium and Grist Magazine. Last week there were some reports that perhaps renewable energies and the tax title might be stripped from the energy bill and there were other reports that perhaps the bill might be trifurcated or bifurcated into distinct parts. Where is the bill now and if the renewables are at risk what's been done to keep them alive?
A: Let me be really clear. As I said at the beginning, this is a flagship issue for me. My position is that I will defend the house position on the renewable electricity standard in which I took the lead in making sure that it was on that bill. I think we absolutely have to have a CAFE standard that is similar to the one that is in Senate bill, nothing weaker than that. And that we want this to be accomplished by December. How we get it done remains to be seen because we have to deal with sixty votes in the Senate; but we will get it done. There is absolutely no - - I don't know where these things come; I honestly don't. But we have to have a fuel efficiency, café, whatever you want to call it. Eighty-two percent of the people support a café standard as an important priority. Probably everybody does, but as a very important priority. Seventy-two percent of the people in Michigan support café standard in the Senate bill as opposed to some of the other proposals that are out there. So, that is essential to a strong energy bill. The renewable piece is how smart we are about going into the future. In order to have the renewables prevail, you have to have two things, you have to have a standard; which you all know and you have to have some incentive with tax credits. And we intend to have those in the legislation that we present. Whatever form it takes is up to us to decide how we can pass it. But these are essential if we are going to have anything that is real. And what we want to do is to give business what they always say they want; certainty. Certainty in terms of a café standard, certainty in terms of a renewable fuel standard, certainty in terms of a renewable electricity standard. So they can work a market so that the private sector can do what it does; whether it’s investing in the solar, wind, biofuels and all the rest of that.
So, again Brian, I can’t tell you where these rumors start, but again, this is what we are proposing, this is what we hope to achieve – how we get from here to there will be up to us to decide how we do that – whatever number of bills it is. My goal is to have it as one bill but of course I can say that because I am in the House and I am the Speaker of the House and I can put whatever I can put on the floor. But we still have to get past that sixty vote in the Senate.
Q: Why do the American people seem to hold the Congress in such low esteem, especially after the Democrats did so well in November ’06?
A: Well, a couple of things. First of all, I think that it’s time for the American people to take another look at the Congress. We went out there to do our work, maybe we should have been flacking (19:43) for what we were doing but we were doing our work. Getting our work done, to protect the people, grow the economy, to strengthen families and to preserve the planet in a fiscally-sound, highly ethical way with the most bipartisanship we could muster. Much of what we have put out there has been signed into law by the President. But as I said before, the war has eclipsed a great deal of that, and we are all disappointed. What happened was, we came in, we thought with the show of support from the public and a proposal to responsibly, honorably and safely and soon bring our troops home, there might be some opportunity with the Republicans in Congress, if not with the President of the United States. What has happened is, the President has made it very clear since the last election that he’s not interested in that or anything like it. He is interested in a 10-year-commitment at least to the war; tens of thousands at least more troops being sent there, trillions of dollars being spent and a Korea-like presence for in perpetuity. And that is very different from what we are proposing. The President says, “Well we want the same thing, it’s just a question of pace.” Pace? Glacial? In terms of his, maybe not in your life time, maybe of some other people; but not me, not my life time. It’s not pace, if he is talking about having – his people are talking about having that we are going to have 30,000 reduction by next July. They are going to take it down by 30,000 by next July. So, by next July, 08, we will have more people in Iraq than we had in November of ’06. So, what we need is for people to get behind what we are doing to say, “This is a distinction that is clear. Ten years, one year. More like ten months. So, I think that the lack of success of ending the war is part of it. I also think that the immigration issue is such a big issue in that country and the climate that has been created around it which we must reverse. That wasn’t an issue in the campaign in terms of people saying, “If elected, we’ll be able to have a magic wand and solve the immigration issue.” But since the Senate took the bill up and then raised expectations and then failed then people saw that as a major disappointment. So, two things they are very aware of the war and immigration; but let me say that war is in a category all its own, immigration would be very secondary to it. But nonetheless, I think that’s part of the reason Congress…but I am very pleased that the Democrats are not in low esteem in any issue that you can name; almost every issue you can name. We are double digits ahead, I won’t name them because I have been naming them and also in our candidates in our races we are in a very secure position with our marginals. Our thirty marginal races, we are way ahead – a double digit in all of those races. The candidates that we have attracted for the next election are fabulous and know who they are and why they are coming to Congress and I think, help us have any even more progressive agenda. And that will enable us to move forward with what we always want to do. A much more progressive economic agenda for America, end the war – do all of these things. Why should it be such hard work to insure ten million children in America? Why should it take so long to have so much debate and the rest? So, we want to have a bigger, stronger majority to do that and that all bodes very well for us. I always say, and some of you have heard me say, “Tell me where we are one year before the election. That’s almost as important as Election Day because that’s when people decide to run for office.” We get the A-Team; they are getting their retirements and a lot of people walking away from races on the Republican side. The candidate makes a very big difference in how you do an election day and I think this bodes well for us for a much stronger majority next year. So, as Speaker of course, I want to turn around the impression of Congress, that’s important. But, I don’t take it as an offense to the Democrats because our numbers are very, very good.
Q: Hi, I’m Dana Goldstein from the American Prospect. You began by talking about children; I am wondering if you can speak about what your hopes are for “No Child Left Behind” in 2008, since it seems the reauthorization has stalled for this year?
A: Well, the committee that puts forth the “No Child Left Behind”, the chairman George Miller. He’s one of the biggest champions in the history of Congress on children’s issues, whether it’s “No Child Left Behind”, childcare, early childhood education, biggest package for college affordability – children from their earliest moments until they go off to college and continuing on. The “No Child Left Behind” responding and proactively taking action on that legislation. He listened to people all over the country on the bill and, I think, has made a much improve product in terms of the bill. Whether you are talking about yearly annual progress that is one measure this or that, but using other things other than test scores and the rest of that. He is committed to qualified teachers in every class and one of the issues that is a controversial one is paying for performance, as you know, and hopefully they will get that resolved. Because it is important for all of these children to be lifted up. Today I am going to the funeral for Gus Hawkins; I have to speak at his funeral later this morning. This man was the champion for Title I, he’s so far before your time that it would be almost like my talking about Abraham Lincoln. You remember him Jules, don’t you? (laughter) Gus Hawkins, the Humphrey-Hawkins Act, or as they say in California the Hawkins- Humphrey Act (laughter). That full employment and all the issues that relate to a progressive economic agenda and accountability of the Administration and the Federal Reserve in that regard -Title I, all of this. So, “No Child Left Behind” is sort of another name for a big part of Title I and how we address the needs of these kids that have some disadvantages and their schools have some disadvantages. But, as I said to President Bush, “Your holding these kids, their schools, and their school districts accountable and you won’t hold the government of Iraq accountable. This is just not right. ” So, there has to be a change in what this is. And with the veto of HHS and the President’s rejection of more funding – you can’t have these mandates, however improved they may be unless you match them with the money to make them happen – and the President simply hasn’t done that. So, there were some good intentions behind “No Child Left Behind” but there was a promise, also from the President; that the money would be there. He reneged from day one on the money and so it’s hard to implement and now George Miller is trying to make it much better. The pay for performance is a stumbling block. It won’t come up this year because everything that will come up this session had to come out of committee by, I think, yesterday. So, yesterday – or two days ago, they brought to the floor the “Head Start” and that was the priority. That same day they took up the “higher ed” bill. They have a very busy agenda and they have not resolved the issues of “No Child Left Behind”. But, I’d be happy to put you in touch with George Miller because he understands the challenge, he is a champion of the children and he wants them to have all of the opportunity. He has the respect of our teachers but wants pay for performance. But it’s a funny thing, you know our teachers go into these poor neighborhoods and these schools and they are the most idealistic because they choose to go, or in many cases choose to go, into these place s but there has to be some recognition for what they are doing.
Q: Hi, Alana Shore with Guardian America. I’m wondering, since Democrats have made it a major priority this year to reassert Congress’ role as a co-equal branch of government and since Michael Mukasey, the new A.G. hasn’t really yet indicated how he will fall on it, will you commit to bringing up contempt votes in December before you guys leave on (inaudible)?
A: That is the plan. That is the plan. We have been whipping it. Our freshman class, they came in and they are so fabulous. They came in and they had their own campaign, Article I. Article I, first branch of government addressed in the Constitution. So, I said “We have a perfect issue for you, contempt of Congress” Because if we let the status quo stand on their refusal to give us the documents or have the people show up to answer the questions of the Congress – we might as well just void, invalidate, our oath of office, to uphold the Constitution of the United States. So, whether it comes up this December, I don’t know – we’ll see how that goes because we have a lot of things to do. It would be my hope to have it done before we leave. And I’ve assigned a task to them (the freshmen). Let me say it, they wanted to be tasked to lead the whip operation on this. And they are the new members; I hesitate to call them the freshmen class, but the new members are taking the lead on whipping the members so that we have the votes we need for it. But again, this is fundamental; this is the Constitution of the United States. We cannot walk away from this. The timing will depend on when we can be the most successful. I don’t know, I mean you would think that the Republicans would say, “Of course, of course.” Why is this even something that has to be along party lines? Hopefully it won’t be, but right now it appears to be.
Q: So when you say if it can’t happen in December, it will happen in early 2008?
A: It is my plan, I would hope to bring it up in December.
Q: Jose Vargas from The Washington Post. I’ve actually been in Iowa and New Hampshire following the campaigns and immigration is certainly a big issue. Not for just Republicans, but for the Democrats. You mentioned, and I’m just curious, how do you rephrase and reframe the conversation around immigration? So, that for example, Tom Tancredo, just yesterday released a new ad basically equating crossing the border with terrorism. I mean, there is just this intrinsic, and in states such as Nevada, Florida, and California of course with large Latino populations. And I’m just curious, especially the Democratic point of view – how do you reframe this conversation. Is this a plan to reissue a comprehensive immigration bill?
A: First and foremost, we have to have comprehensive immigration reform. The church, the bishops and cardinals – they come into here and talk to me about reframing the issue in a way that is more respectful and I said, “You know what? I’m with you all the way. Why don’t you tell the priest to do that from the pulpit in the church?” I go to church all over America because I travel all the time and I am a devout Catholic and it’s rare - in my church, [St. Alina’s] in Napa Valley or in San Francisco. But you don’t hear it a lot of places. And people have to hear it as a value. This is so disrespectful on how this debate has gone forward. So, all of the stakeholders in this; people who value people, people who understand the value of immigration to our country, the constant reinvigoration, people who recognize that we have to do something about the people who are here on a path of legalization. So, here’s where we have always sat. Coming right in, it has to start in the Senate because they can start this. Most stuff we have to start because its tax or appropriations or something like that. They have to start this to show that they can get something done. We have to have the leadership of the President and his own party. We have to get something done. I think that’s where this thing fell apart before. But, all of these things that people talk about are fine. We have to control our borders, that’s something that is a responsibility. To control our borders we have to enforce our laws , we have to protect our workers , we have to stop the exploitation of workers coming in to our country and we have a path to legalization. And one of our Democratic principles is placing a value on family unification. When these issues come up in isolation, why don’t we do this, why don’t we do that – we say we are talking about comprehensive reform. If we can’t get comprehensive reform, this is going to be like Noah’s Ark. If people want H-1B visas, we have to do something for the undocumented. There’s nobody going by themselves on this, people on H-2 visas, we have to have worker protections for those workers coming in, but even with that we have to have something for the undocumented. We want, like I said H-1B, we want DREAM act in other words if that’s an education issue and so the way I see it is that hopefully we can make some progress if not with now there’s Congressional Hispanic caucuses up until recently not even thought in terms of anything other than comprehensive reform. But one thing we know is if we can't get the comprehensive reform, we cannot let, how can I say this without sounding antagonist, the business community get the visas that they want, without our getting undocumented. We want those too, they are very important visas they have to H-2, the ad jobs, they are very important business benefits from them some work from our countries do too, but we have to have this way I can say this Noah’s Ark approach; you get this, we get this, we work together to get them both, but there’s not going to be all these stuff leaving the station of border control and H-1B and H-2B and all these other things without something commensurate to address the issue; because you're never, ever, ever, going to address the issue and all the discreet issues that flows from it unless you have a path to legalization for the undocumented. Coming from California majority, minority state coming from my city practically a minority, majority state of people who weren’t even born in the United States, I always say the beauty is in the mix. I feel sorry for people who go home and don’t see the diversity that I go home and see every week, because I think they don’t understand what the future is going to be for our country when they see this beautiful diversity. But our country is strong because unlike most countries in the world, we were constantly reinvigorated new commerce bringing their hopes, aspirations and dreams to their families and every immigrants who comes whether it’s yesterday or 400 years ago makes America more American in that respect. So, I think we have to change the debate to what who we are as a country, respect for people, plain and simple. This terrorist thing, it’s cheap, but they do it and it has a market; but having said that about immigration let me say this and this is what I tell my caucus all the time: Until we have a progressive economic agenda which takes away some of the apprehension that people have about their own economic security, it’s really hard for us to do the rest of it. That’s why I say we have to have the Trade Adjustment Act, we have to have the tax fairness, we have to have a more progressive economic agenda that we put out there because some of this, how many people in America think they’ve lost their job because of trade and immigration? Many more than who have, but doesn’t matter, that’s what the perception is. The perception is that people are getting left behind and for some reason they think these immigrants are taking their jobs and then they have the exploiters to say well, with all these terrorists coming across the border and the rest of that, so it’s not true. We have responsibility to protect the American people wherever these threats are coming from, but to use that to paint immigrants with that brush is something that we really have to fight. So, any change in the debate I think is important for our country not only for these immigrants, these people coming before our country; and I think the President on this issue knows what the right thing to do is. I think he’s very disappointed that it didn’t happen before but you see he had a rubber stamp congress who gave him everything he ever wanted and then the Democrats came in and we gave him some, with oversight and this and this have our challenges but we were with him on immigration; he couldn’t bring his own people along but he was so used to their just following in mock step that he didn’t understand what it took to get a bill through Congress even with his own party being the obstacle. So, I think we have to work trough our stake holders though the churches through all those people who care about the dignity and worth of a person, everybody who truly cares about the vitality of America and what our future will be like to change this worse than negative tone of immigration debate.
Q: I want to ask a question that’s partly about trade but also about process I think was a report on the Hill about whipping the Peru free trade you addressed the Caucus and urged them to vote for the Peru.
A: No, I told them why I was voting for it, why I was voting for it. I didn’t ask anybody to vote for it; I just said this is why I’m voting…
Q: Okay, so I’m curious as to as a general matter, you know obviously there’s lots of bill that move through, how do you decide where your spending your political capitol in terms of whipping votes?
A: Well, the whipping is really a Caucus position and we have a Caucus position on an issue and everything we have done has had a Caucus position. On trade traditionally, the Caucus has been split; but let me tell you why I told them I was supporting it. For years, all through the Clinton years we try to get labor and environmental principles as core of the trade agreement central to the not a side bar, not a side letter, not a commitment, not a good faith; core and central to the agreement; we never were able to get it. We fought Bill Clinton for eight years on this; we were never able to get it. I lost my innocence on trade and human rights on China in the Clinton Administration because the bipartisan was what it was Bush, Clinton, Bush. Washington is owned, no, this special interest control that trade policy and look where’s it at. Let me just talk to you for a second when we were making the fight on China trade; Jules remember this I’m sure. Oh my God, it was such a terrible fight and our trade deficit was say three to five billion dollars a year--three to five billion dollars a year. This was go back 15 years or so, three to five billion dollars a year and we had three goals; to free prisoners arrested at Tiananmen Square, to lower barriers to our products going into China and stop their piracy of our intellectual property. So, the human rights a trade and stop their proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to Pakistan where they are actively engaged in helping them build a nuclear and missile program and they’re going to Iran and every other place but we could document Pakistan. Well, I mean every law firm, I could give you pages this big of list that goes on and on and on single spaced, of the law firm or lobbyist and everybody else in Washington's doing hired by the Chinese government. I sent more kids to college on this anti-China thing (laughter) and the lobbyist would say to me keep it going, keep it going. This is a lot of money for us and we had to fight Bush Administration and then the Clinton Administration. It was heartbreaking on the Clinton administration because they had said we’re not going to coddle dictators and all that in the campaign and the minute they were in; that was over. Three to five billion dollars a year we thought with this leverage, Chinese with the threat of not granting most favorite nation as it was called the most favorite nation - they’re definitely going to have to pay attention to us and free these prisoners and lower their barriers and stop pirating and stop proliferating. We
8:12 were [luddites], we were, we didn’t know what isolations is and all the rest of it. The trade deficit today is five billion dollars a week. This great enlightened trade policy that we have with China, five billion dollars, five billion dollars a year, oh no, no, no, if we do it this and we do it that and they do it this and WTO and this and this is all going to be good for the American consumer and business; five billion dollars a week. It’s a stunning transfer of money to the Chinese and it strengthens them in terms of their reserves and how they spend that money buying political support in the rest of the world. So when it came to Peru, it was a question of we can make a distinction and there are trade agreements and there are trade agreements. This administration has given us the opportunity to put this labor and environmental principles and as the core and enforceable part of the trade agreement. Unless that was so, we couldn’t consider any trade agreement but even if it is so, we still have to set other standards for what we would do. We set those standards, Peru met them. Now, so I think that when we can make differentiations between countries the fact that we have that change and the country complied over and above that, met the standard we set for them, we go to that place; it doesn’t mean that Columbia or Korea complies or anything like that but I think if you’re going to fight these fights you have to make a differentiation for where there’s some people who don’t want any trade agreements, I don’t fall into that category. I don’t think that’s a legacy of a Democratic party but I do think we have to set standards when they are met recognize that and if they are not met then don’t support those and that’s what I told my colleagues. I did sometimes go into the China thing because this is so big and so consequential to our country and so predictable and was happening with a Democratic administration which I completely respect the Clinton administration did great things for our country; trade with China was not among them.
Q“We want to get to the people because we only have a few minutes left to have not asked a question before”
A: I know my answers are too long u had to get the history of all what got me to this place what our fights have been here on this. (laughter)
Q 10:56
Hi I’m Garance Franke-Ruta with the American Prospect. I was hoping you could talk a little bit about to what extent the low approval rating that congress has as a reflection on what's been happening in the House versus what’s been happening in the Senate if you have thoughts on that, and also if you can talk a little bit about your relationship with Majority Leader Reid.
A Well, taking second part first. I have an excellent working relationship with Harry Reid; he’s a rough and tumble guy you know, if it can get done, he will get it done but having to deal with that 60 vote barrier in the Senate is almost an impossible task and for a long time now we try to be patient about how some of these things have gone. But there is just no question it is an obstacle whether we’re talking about Iraq or anything as we could be putting things on the President’s desk that have a bipartisan majority in both houses but that do not have 60 votes; so effectively in the Senate you have minority rule. American people don’t care. They just want the war to end. They want their issues addressed so we talk about process it’s overcoming, get it done and its hard because of the rules of United States Senate which without casting any aspersions on how they do their rules in the Senate; it’s really an obstacle to progress in our country. Where respect for majority rule and respect for minority rights, that’s very important too but for every bill that we have to take out we need the permission of 60 people in the Senate to take up the bill, just makes it almost impossible. So, that’s why I’m really proud of what we have passed that agenda that I’ve told you because in light of that 60 votes still and all we were able to get all of that passed and hopefully we will be able to get an energy bill passed. What I think of it is, is that the American people have to weigh in more at least the American people who are paying attention to these things, care about, everybody cares, but cares enough to pay attention because otherwise we will right now, we have the votes to pass middle income tax relief and have a fair way to pay for it. Ninety million people get relief, fifty thousand people get a tax increase, the wealthiest people in America who make millions of dollars a year and we can't get that pass the Senate? And we have a majority in the Senate who would vote for that? So, it gets to the fabric of our country- fairness, opportunity; those kinds of issues that are being disregarded by what’s happening there. So, I think we’ve done well all things considered to have a sort of a diplomatic attitude toward this Senate as an institution; but I have a great working relationship with Harry. But I don’t think a meeting begins between this that he doesn’t say, well not with me but, “When I have other people and let me tell me what I remind Nancy all the time whatever it is you’re putting on the table I need sixty votes I need sixty votes to now we can win many more seats in the Senate I don’t know if we can get up to sixty but if we get closer to sixty that might change.” Now, I just, here’s what I’ve been thinking bout lately when we have a Democrat in the White House and all these things we want to do progressive economic agenda, 1 in 5 children living in poverty, ending the war in Iraq, not even having to explain to people that global warming is happening and human behavior have an impact. You know just having the debate be it a different discussion being so far down the road. Are we going to be constraint then with the Democrats and White House and majority in the House, majority in the Senate, by the 60 vote; how will the American people take to that with elected a President and a Congress and a majority in the Senate is not enough to the extent that people are made aware of it. They’re more sympathetic; they still want the war to end and everything else to happen. So, what I think we have to do is to, as I said we have been very responsible and hardworking in getting a job done for the American people and I’m very proud of the product and when millions people get a raise and with a raise in the industry and many more kids can go to college and all that. But we haven’t communicated it well enough past the fog of war and when people see but for the sixty votes we could have this and we could have that and we could have that maybe, maybe when they know that the bright light is being is shining on them some of these people in the Senate will act in a different way; maybe especially as we get closer to the election. Harry’s a great guy; he is a tough guy…
“This is our last question”
Let me just tell you this, I don’t know if you just saw him on TV, but he was the one being interviewed and they said two things to him. They said in this poll you’ve gone down from forty something to thirty-two percent in your own state of Nevada; what do you have to say about that? He said, “That poll was worthless (laughter), they didn’t even know in the poll who Obama was.” He said, “That poll is worthless”, then they said, “Do you think - you’re a Mormon do you think that Mitt Romney should make a Kennedy-like speech Catholicism about being a Mormon; do you think he should make a Kennedy-like speech about his Mormon faith?” He said, “Mitt Romney can make his own decision about his campaign.” (laughs) He’s so, shall we say, sometimes just say it the way it is that it’s so refreshing
Q: Hi Madam Speaker; my name is Mike Rogers from Page One. Next week twelve thousand flags will be planted on the mall outside your office to signify the thirty-five million dollars a year we’re spending to discharge folks from the military who want to serve their country but for the fact that their gay or lesbian. Fifty-nine of those discharged are fluent Arabic translators at a time that we’re in war in Middle East. What do you see as the future for the military readiness enhancement act and the repeal of "don’t ask don’t tell" in Congress how it will play out in the house and then the Senate.
A: Let me say that I think the issue has to be revisited in a broader way before it is brought up in Congress. General Shalikashvili, the former head of the Joint Chiefs, has said we should be revisiting this. First of all the discrimination is something that’s repulsive but let’s just put that aside for a moment and say we have to fight that; but in terms of our readiness which is your question. Why should, we’re a wealthy country, we’re a great country, we can, no matter how great or wealthy we are, we cannot afford to squander the resources that are available to us for any reason, especially our first responsibility to protect the American people. So, I think we have to take it to a larger place if we’re going to succeed legislatively to have this discussion in our country. This is so stale you know, the idea that they would "don’t ask don’t" it’s so stale, it’s so old, it’s so anachronistic.
(clip)
Q: … How does that happen?
A: Well, again I think we have to just as we talked about immigration we have to create a different discussion about these issues and just as you said some of the skills, that some of the capabilities that the community has to contribute to this that we’re severely lacking It should be argument enough from a practical standpoint if you can't take people there from a decency standpoint, but I don’t know that something will happen right now, soon. I think though that we owe it to the members if we ask them to vote for something to create a climate in which that is much more of a reason and less of an emotional debate on the part of those who carry these discrimination inside of them but I’m hopeful, I’m always hopeful because you know I’m from California and I know in my community as I said on the floor during the ENDA debate. It’s not about tolerance; people say to me it’s easy for you and all these things you’re so tolerant you come from San Francisco. It’s such a tolerant place; I say you know for me tolerant is a nice word but it’s a condescending word and it used to be a good word, tolerance, right, but it’s a condescending word when we‘re talking in certain respects. We think of it differently we think of it as respect and we think if taking pride and that’s where we want to take this I mean they get irrelevant who cares? Why is this an issue to you when we try to defend our country and everything else we do, everything else we do , whether human rights or whether it’s this or whether it’s that everything else you heard the debate I did hear that part of the debate whether it’s the human rights more important than national security. Well they’re related; but they put national security, everybody puts national security first because we have to defend the American people. We have to protect them so why can't we just do so in this case too? What we want to do is make all the decisions and furtherance of protecting the people and this isn’t furtherance of doing that now. You got something to say about that? Not you but, please. (Laughter)
Speaker Pelosi: Okay, well thank you all very much it’s great to see you it’s great to again welcome you back to the Speaker’s office it’s pretty exciting for me to be able to do that because first of all it means the Democrats are in the majority. It’s one year since that last election which means it’s less than a year until the next one and with your help we’re going to be able to break the chains - break the chains that just make Washington a monument to the status quo. Free everybody from that and that light of communication is what can do that. I think our reform bill helped to do that as well and anything is possible for our country; anything we can imagine. Why can’t it be this way? It can be, it’s just a decision, it’s just a decision and to the extent we can help each other do our jobs about giving people that hope that it doesn’t have to be this way; the way it is. And I fully you know when I hear this campaign speeches of these presidentials, I can really identify with some of that anger that the American people have about what does happen here, stuff that should be easy. We’re here for the people’s interest not the special interest but the special interest have a strangle hold on a lot of what has happened here and that’s what we’re trying to break so thank you all for your role and breaking that strangle hold and making something quite different possible for our country I’ll see you soon again I hope thank you Ellen and wouldn’t Maria be so proud that we’re just meeting on a regular basis and that you all are doing incredible things most importantly that but that we have a regular meeting in the Speaker’s office."