You can download an mp3 of the full breakfast program here (56:40 run time; program began at 9:10AM ET). The following is a rush transcript of the breakfast program. Please refer to the audio file before quoting from this transcript:
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: Welcome. Good to see you all again. It’s a completely different world since we last met here. We are very excited, I guess is the word, about the fact that we have a Democratic President who from the steps of this Capitol put forth an agenda for America that contained many of the issues that we have been fighting for over the years, and then just a few weeks later came to the Capitol and gave more of a blueprint of where we go from here and that is reflected in his budget.
What you have to know for us, to have a President stand up there and give an address to Congress and then have his budg- which is uplifting to the spirits of the American people, specific in some of the initiatives that it puts forth, and then have a budget come, an outline of a budget, come forth a few days later that is actually a reflection of that speech is very new. I mean, at least in the last eight years. Because usually we’d have all the rhetoric and none of the reality in the budget, but to see, well we knew it would be that way.
We are very proud in the House that the President stood on the steps of the Capitol and said we will harness the sun and the wind and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories, that we will invest in schools for the 21st century for our kids, that we will build infrastructure of America, we will invest in science to have the best health care, science, and technology, and others, just to name a few. And then one week and one day after that speech, this House of Representatives passed a recovery package that did just that. That did just that, and more, to create jobs, to lower taxes, and to build a foundation for stability in our economy. As you know, that is now the law, and it’s very exciting for me.
This weekend I was in San Francisco and I spent the morning on Friday morning with children in a childcare center which would be positively affected by the increased funding that we have in legislation for childcare and early childhood development. The next morning, I was at Doyle Drive, where we talked about an infrastructure initiative that will be able to move forward because of the recovery package. And by the way, because we can move forward sooner, a year earlier, we will save 90 million dollars on the private, so whether it's building human infrastructure or physical infrastructure in our economy, all of it creating jobs, growing our economy, building a foundation for the future. Whether it’s children learning so people can, so parents can be earning as the t-shirt said: “Children Learning, Parents Earning.” Or safety and strength of our infrastructure. The recovery package has the makings of real success for our economy and, more importantly, for the American people.
We are very proud because the first week he was President, he passed Lilly Ledbetter, signed into law. The next with the children’s health. I know I shared this view with you before: President Bush vetoed the bill we passed a number of times; he vetoed the bill, he said we couldn’t afford it. Forty days in Iraq, at that time we were talking about ten million children in America. Forty days in Iraq, ten million children in America insured for one year. Now we have a President who shares our values and has the right priorities. And that’s Lilly Ledbetter, children’s health, the recovery package, and we will have more for the President’s desk.
So it is a productive time. He has had these values, as you know, he presented them in the campaign. We have been working on legislation for years. Particularly interesting for me is the energy piece of it all because when I became speaker, I declared that the flagship issue of the new Democratic Congress. It was about jobs in terms of growing our economy with new green jobs, it was about the economy, it was about our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, it was about environment and health, in terms of reducing pollutants in the air, and it was our moral responsibility to protect the planet, God’s creation. And we worked with evangelicals and scientists, business and labor, environmentalists and everyone else around this table to develop our approach on energy. We passed a bill, we were proud of it, we needed to do more, and this President is fully committed to that; seeing it with a big vision. So, whether we’re talking about, as you know in his speech, he focused on three things: health care, that will be passed in this year he declared, energy, and education. Three key components of a domestic agenda. Again, help people reach their fulfillment, but grow our economy, and do it in a way that is of the future in terms of greenness.
In terms of the financial challenge that we have, that again he presented, and I don’t have to give you a review of his speech except to say how it is reflected in the work that we do here. The recovery package passed in record time. No President ever had his economic agenda, the recovery package passed in two and a half weeks from start to finish, or three weeks from start to finish, and of that substantial size. So the recovery package, the regulatory reform which we will be moving through Congress soon, the issues that relate to housing, and the stability of our financial institutions. We will work with him on all of those.
I happen to think, in my view, I support what he is doing on the fiscal soundness, PAYGO, and the rest in the bill. That has been very important to our House Democratic Caucus. The strongest message that we can send to the markets is one of fiscal responsibility. We are making these investments, but they are investments that will have return. Rather than having characterized as spending, these are investments. Nothing brings more to the Treasury, nothing, no tax cut, credit, or anything, than the investments in education. You can ask any economist and the rest. You invest in education, it grows the economy, but in addition to that, its more specific than that. It brings more money to the Treasury to reduce the deficit. So, that’s on the domestic side.
I just came back from Afghanistan. I am very concerned what I saw on the ground there, I’ll talk to you about that if you want to go in that direction. Clearly, everything we hear, you’ve heard it before: a military solution alone is not going to resolve the issue. The tragedy of Afghanistan is that for seven and a half years, we have missed the opportunity to finish off the job there. When we went in in October of ’01, we routed the Taliban, we routed Al-Qaida, we did not defeat them. They headed for the hills, and now they are back. And that is just a tragedy. And the resources that should have been applied there were diverted to Iraq under the guise of the 'War on Terror' which it was not. And, again, people say don’t call it a blunder. I used to call it a historic, catastrophic blunder. But really, a 'blunder' almost sounds unintentional. This was an intended mistake. I don’t know if it was intended to be a mistake but it was intentional and it was a mistake. So, I will talk more on that if you wish.
We have a full plate, we have lots of ideas, we have established our priorities. It’s easier to do that with a Democratic President because we know what we will pass will likely become law, it still has to go through the Senate, but that’s getting better. I think we have to be hopeful. But I think that it’s all different because we have a President who has a vision for America that people are excited about. He has knowledge and judgment on the issues and has a strategic approach to challenges and he has an eloquence to attract people. So when he takes his message out there, I think it makes it easier for us to win votes here. I’ve always said, you really can’t do any great thing if you’re just depending on inside maneuvering. The outside mobilization whether its grassroots or message, hopefully both, is what produces the positive result here, and a better, stronger result here.
So, we are optimistic and hopeful that we will take the country in the new direction we have been working for for awhile. And I look forward to hearing any questions you may have.
[Cross-talk]
MICHAEL TOMASKY, DEMOCRACY: A JOURNAL OF IDEAS: I guess I want to ask a political question about the House Republicans. Particularly in the early years of the Bush administration, there was this narrative in the media that I think Republicans were very effective at building: that there were forty, fifty Democrats who represented red districts. And therefore, those Democrats, because they represented red districts, couldn’t possibly go against President Bush on tax cuts or this, or that. It built a lot of pressure on moderate Democrats in the caucus.
Now, Obama won, as I understand it, I don’t know the exact number but Obama won about forty red districts. Yet, I don’t hear any similar pressure coming from democrats directed at those Republicans maybe to pressure them into supporting some of his programs, because he won their districts. Is there any of that kind of leverage that can be deployed against House Republicans who represent districts that Obama won?
PELOSI: Well, the effectiveness of that happens in the district, and on the issue. I believe that when we come to health care, which every person in American wants and is an expert on, by the way, that message has to be taken to those districts. As I said in my remarks, I don’t think it will happen here.
I always believe that people vote in what they believe in. Now, I have to think that, you know, and I believe it is true. I don’t question anybody’s motives on their vote, I believe they vote in what they believe in. What you have to know about these Republicans is they do not believe in what we are talking about here, about an economy where the prosperity is shared by many more Americans and not just the few. Where we have access to health care for all, universal, as a right not a privilege. Because, they think that any advance in making that universal reduces private insurance. You see this in this Billy Crystal memo that is going around. That’s a reflection of what they believe. So I think that while people talk about the politics of Washington, inter-party bickering, and non-partisan, they believe what they are voting for.
That’s why they don’t vote for the recovery package. It has nothing to do with whether they were involved or not. They were involved, they had an opportunity to put initiatives into the package. They wanted hearings, they wanted markups. We gave them 27 hours of amendments in the committees, and then they had amendments on the floor. That wasn’t the point, that was a distraction. The fact is, they didn’t vote for it because they don’t believe in government making the investments in health care, education, energy, and the rest. They are agents of the status quo, and some of them are very ideological about the role of government. So, I don’t think it is about persuading them here, it’s about persuading their constituents and letting them feel that pressure and then taking it to the campaign.
But our members, our Democratic members, regardless of the districts that they come from, are committed to an agenda for the American people. They do not like the tax cuts, you know, our more conservative members. They want fiscal responsibility. They don’t want the tax cuts. So, whatever they were thinking would work in a time of this kind of fiscal crisis, budget deficits, from our side of it, I know you were asking from the other side, but from our side of it, the biggest opponents to the Bush tax cuts are the more conservative Democrats. You’d think the Republicans would be if they were dedicated to fiscal soundness as they say, but as I say around here, the Republican fiscal budget hawks have become an endangered species. They are just not to be found.
ELLEN RATNER, TALK RADIO NEWS SERVICE: Madam Speaker, before we start, I promised that I would give a little press for Mike Lux and his new book, “The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be,” he signed it for you so here it is.
PELOSI: Thank you Michael. Congradulations on your book.
RATNER: We were thinking about giving a little book party at some point for him.
[Cross-talk]
I actually have two questions, and they’re related. Both have to do with the stimulus package. The broadband technology which I think could help grow wealth in this country, it gives it to the FCC to report on Congress in a year. I mean, the lobbyists have been up here like Verizon and all the big people like ants to a sugar cube on this issue and my concern is that its gonna go [to the] big and not to the smaller entrepreneurs, etc. and secondly, in there is 15 billion dollars to, you know, grow green, etc. I mean, that’s hardly enough money to move us to a position of wealth, I think.
PELOSI: 15 billion dollars for...?
RATNER: For green technologies or alternative technologies. It’s not a lot of money.
PELOSI: Well, no, 15 billion dollars is a lot of money. It is a lot of money. But the fact is, all of it is an impetus. The thing is, look, in this legislation there are 700 billion, forget the AMT, 700 billion dollars for initiatives that we have been fighting for for a long time. I never thought I would see the day, as I said to my colleagues when we brought this bill, when we saw the final product we’re looking at with the Senate. Yea, we had to cut back on some things, they put the AMT in there.
700 billion dollars to talk about rebuilding infrastructure of America in a green way, investing in science. I always say four words to describe it: science, science, science, science, whether you’re talking about health care or broadband or the technology due to the infrastructure in a strong way. And so you have to allocate priorities.
RATNER: But do you think it will even get started?
PELOSI: Yea, with the broadband, it won’t have to be a year, it could be something less than that. But our point was, you must have universal, 100% access for every American to high-speed, always on, broadband. And yes, the biggies were here, you know, there was a school of thought: the fastest way to do it is through those who are out there and this or that. And we said, well, you know what, we want to move this bill. We want to make sure people know the resources there. We had to fight, you know the bipartisanship was producing broadband not in rural areas. What did bipartisanship bring, what were some of the questions that arose? Cut out rural America, because that would be a savings and we insisted that that not be the case.
But whether you’re talking about broadband or you’re talking about the grid, or you’re talking about the health IT, all of these things in the period of time that we’re talking about could not be spelled out chapter and verse. And so the idea was, okay, let’s get the best thinking we can on this, how we go forward with the idea that it would be universal. And in terms of the broadband. We’re very pleased with how it turned out, because as I say, when it was going through some of its manifestation, you’re right, the biggies were weighing in and then the Republicans were cutting out rural. How can you cut out rural? That’s most of the point, rural, inner city, and the rest, some of the under-served areas.
As far as 15 billion dollars, much of this just has to get the jump start. It’s not going to do everything. It’s the jump start to get people used to the idea that we will be reducing our dependence on foreign oil, that green is gold, that we will be establishing a new economy around green jobs. And I believe that the bill has a oneness, that many of the pieces of it that come together. As I said, science, science, science, science. The science for the innovation to keep us number one, competitively in the world. The science to do the best possible health care for all Americans. The science to reverse global warming. The science, again, and the technology, to build this new economy through infrastructure and the rest. That relates.
Part of the green piece of it is part of the infrastructure of it, to do the infrastructure in a new, green way. This isn’t dig a hole, fill a hole. This isn’t just build highways, bridges, high speed rail. All of that very important. It’s about doing it in a new, greener way. So that permeates almost everything that is in the investments in the legislation. And it has to happen. And as I say, it’s our flagship issue. We will have an energy bill that goes farther. I would like to see one bill which is the energy bill with the cap and trade and the grid piece. They’re the three elements that we have to pass more fully. I’d like to see it as one bill. I don’t know if that will be how it comes forth legislatively from the Senate but I think having it as one bill shows the integrity, the oneness of it all, how it all relates to each other. And so this is a giant step that we’ve taken with this bill, but it is not even the second step. The second step will come now to address more of the green initiatives.
[Cross-talk]
MICHAEL LUX, AUTHOR: Madam Speaker, several times in American history, we’ve had what I call in the book “big change moments.” 1860s, the early 1900s, the New Deal, the 1960s, and I argue that we need another one now, and that’s the path it looks like President Obama wants to go down. A lot of folks are talking about big gambles, he’s pushing for all these huge pieces of legislation and a fundamental restructuring of the budget. The pundits conventional wisdom is saying, 'oh, this is too much for Congress to handle this year, they can’t get it done.' I’d like to know your reaction to that. Clearly, you have some of the same ambitions. Do you think Congress can get this big agenda done this year?
PELOSI: Well, we will hopefully get it done this term. What he has said was that the agenda for this year would be the three things: education, yes, health care, yes, and the energy piece, yes. He’d like the energy piece by the time he goes to Copenhagen at the end of the year. That is all possible. I can only answer for the House of Representatives. I know that we can get this job done. We will have our cap and trade/energy bill out of committee by the end of May. Healthcare is a bigger ticket but everybody’s ready. This isn’t like, oh, let’s talk about healthcare. Everybody is ready for that, it is something that all of this has to be done to the extent possible in the strongest bipartisan way. There’s a lot of money, people, and future involved in this, so we want to have the best possible ideas. And then, we have to make the decision to go forward. Now, we know we can pass these initiatives in the House. So, education, health care, and energy. the three top initiatives the President set.
The budget is difficult, it's very challenging. We will be working on that with our members. To have a budget that is a statement of our national values at long last that really reflects the priorities of the American people, to do so in a fiscally sound way, that he’s building in, you know, at the end of his term, we’ll reduce the deficit by half. Very important.
Let’s not forget what we were left with. He comes into office with a trillion dollar deficit. Stunning. George Bush came in on a path of 5.6 trillion dollars in surplus. For the last Clinton budgets were in surplus, in surplus. So think of the difference of the start. The President has said we must take risks, and we are. But they are well founded, you know, they’re not because, again, it’s what the American people need. These are issues we’ve worked on for a long time.
But this is the debate. This is what we’ve come to Washington to do, to have the debate on what is the best possible way to go forward on health care. If you want more on health care, you’ll ask, okay? Ellen seemed to think that I shouldn’t go into health care more specifically right now. I want to hear your questions.
[Cross-talk]
EZRA KLEIN, THE AMERICAN PROSPECT: Speaker, thank you for being with us.
PELOSI: Hi Ezra.
KLEIN: So, Chairman Waxman has indicated, as has the President’s budget, that passing health care reform is to be a 2009 goal for this Congress. And I’m curious that when you look back on the chamber’s performance in 1994, what are the lessons you take from that experience going forward into this fight?
PELOSI: The what performance of 1994?
KLEIN: The Congress’s performance in 1994 and that health reform effort.
PELOSI: Oh, Congress. I thought you were talking about the Chamber of Commerce.
[Laughter]
PELOSI: I don’t know what chamber we’re talking about! I know you all hang out with the Chamber so I didn’t know.
[Laughter and cross-talk]
PELOSI: Well we’re talking to [the U.S. Chamber of Commerce] because they helped us on the stimulus package, the recovery package. And we’re saying there are some other things that we should be able to find some common ground on. Not that, again, common ground to me doesn’t mean do it their way, but some common ground.
Here’s the thing. It’s a whole different world that we live in since the early ‘90s. There is no question that the urgency of health care is felt very strongly by the American people. They know that even if they have health care, that the cost of it, and the availability of it is not certain for them. That’s what they know. They also, I think we have to take into consideration, the appeal that we will have with this is not to say, the 46 million people or now 48 million people in America who don’t have health care. That’s important to us. It’s important to those 48 million people. But what is important to the bigger population is their own health care. The biggest issue for our budget, for entitlements, and for health care, is the fact that health care increases faster than any other cost. The fast growing cost of health care in our country has an impact on our economy, on how businesses can provide health care, and on entitlement reform. Health care reform is entitlement reform. So this is a central issue to our economy, our fiscal soundness, and most importantly the personal well-being of the American people.
Science and technology have taken us to a different place since ‘93, '94. And I’m a big believer in technology and science and to task for it. What we’re talking about now, major investments in biomedical research. That has bipartisanship for it, to get back to your question about the Chamber or the Congress. Major investments in biomedical research, we have to have the best possible answers for the challenges that we have. Universality which is served by using the technology for a common record. When the President talks about electronic medical records, that’s very important. As part of that, or that should be part of, a universal record for all Americans. In order to get them in the loop we have to use our all the outreach at our disposal, including and focusing on community health centers to bring people in. Otherwise, if you're not reaching out, you are not going to achieve universality.
So investments in biomedical research, investments in the technology to have a common record, the medical research by the way would take us to a place of customized, personalized care. Two women the same age with the same diagnosis, one might thrive on one therapy and the other not, same thing with men. We see this all the time for example in cancer treatment, so anyway, personalized, customized care, springing from the investments in science, a universality achieved through technology and common record and reached out through the community health centers and other ways. Again, we have to strive for, as soon as possible, universality. Everybody’s health care is better if everybody has health care, and that has to be our guiding principle. What we know, having a common record, tells us about disease and how its spread and all the rest of that.
The wealthiest person in America has health care is better if the poor people in America have access to health care. So I think we have a- I thought the perspective was very values based and very intellectually sound in the early 90’s but technology has taken us to a different place. We know so much more, and if we don’t have the information we can task for it so that the technology can be there for us to achieve it. So we're talking about higher quality, the technology, fewer errors, lower cost, and again, many more people with access to it. The coalition that will be built around it will be a coalition that may appear to be odd fellows whether because corporate America pays a big price in terms of health care in our country. They provide a good deal of the employer-based insurance.
Whether we have an employer-based system as we go forward is one thing but what we do know is that they will be partners in changing the system since they are picking up most of the cost. So I feel confident that in any one of these areas that you’re talking, any one of these areas, we will have success in putting a package together like that. I didn’t define how that’s paid for, that’s what the President will be putting forward but it has to happen, it’s again because the people need it, because it’s the right thing to do, a healthy America.
Let me just make one more point, I’m sorry Ellen, essential to all of this, and I should have said this first, is prevention. We’re talking about the health of America. We’re not necessarily just talking about the health care in America, we’re talking about a healthy America, and prevention is a major piece of that. We’re talking about diet, not diabetes. We’re talking about prevention, not amputation. We’re talking about how children, well, it will be too much to go into, the statistics on children and juvenile diabetes and even symptoms in teenage years of heart disease because of diet, so the prevention piece of this is huge. I was disappointed that millions, billions of dollars were cut out on the Senate side on the prevention piece of this package, but we’ll get that back. We'll get that back because that certainly lowers cost and improves health, and is the really only smart way to go is to focus on prevention as we go into these. We don’t have to be always treating disease that we can prevent. So I’m optimistic.
[Cross-talk]
CHRISTOPHER HAYES, THE NATION: You talked before about principle and how you sort of feel that most members are voting based on what they believe and it’s been my experience that members tend to get very prickly if you suggest otherwise. So I wanna, and understandably so, I’m curious what you, given that what you think the message is sent about the sort of Democratic caucus and that degree of principle when there are articles around say the cramdown legislation, the judicial modification, that says basically it was gonna be brought to a vote and the banking lobby brought the hammer down and members backed away and now it’s pulled.
I don’t know if that’s the correct story or not, I didn’t do the reporting on that, but do you think that the members who are hesitant about this judicial modification legislation have a good argument? And politically what messages are communicated about the nature of the Democratic caucus and its relationship with those principles when there are stories in the paper that suggestion essentially there are some section of the caucus that is more or less essentially doing the bidding of the banks?
PELOSI: I don’t subscribe to that Chris. Here’s the thing. You have to view the cramdown, and believe me I have been for this how many years now, starting when they did the original bankruptcy bill, I didn’t like that; and we wanted to have this in the TARP bill, no we could just fall short of it, now we’re here.
The concerns that I here from my members on how we go forward on this, and we will go forward on it, is not actually what is in the bankruptcy bill, it what is the bankruptcy bill a part of. Our members are not saying “I’m not going to vote for this because of the bank.” The banks are the least popular, I mean they are one of the worst brands in America. They’ve uh, we’ve cost tens of, uh, they got us into this fix, they’ve tens of billions of dollars each in bailout, and what are they doing? Giving out bonuses to their, what $18 billion in bonuses from people who have gotten TARP funds so they don’t have a big reputation on Capitol Hill right at this time. But having said that, put that aside.
The concern that members have is the following: In their districts, people are really suffering. Mortgage foreclosure rates are going up, the cost of the, the value of the homes are going down, the uncertainty about people staying in their homes is intense. And they’re saying, we don’t wanna just go home and say, “good news, you can declare bankruptcy.” What they’re saying is give us a fuller picture, so that we can go home as saying “this is what is happening on the mortgage foreclosure.” So tonight I’m having, it was supposed to be last night, but weather prohibited it, having the Secretary of HUDD later today, I don’t know what time, come and talk about giving, equipping them with what the housing agenda is of the Obama administration. What is happening to what we have passed, or what we are being asked to pass in terms of a more comprehensive view of "this is what I can take home and say." This is what is happening to help people stay in their homes. This is the incentives that are given to lenders to negotiate. This is the fairness that we wanna see in any forbearance. And I think when we have that picture in place for members, then the housing bill, which has many other features other than the bankruptcy bill, will go forward.
Some of the suggestions that have been made by our members have been very constructive and positive, and have improved the bill, as a matter of fact. So they just needed more time to understand what this was. But more important than that, is to, clear understanding of what it is we can take home to our members to say, “this is what is different now from before.” So this is a very constructive conversation that we’re having among members. It isn’t as you described in any way and some of the, Ellen Tauscher for example, is one of the leaders of the new Dems working with Zoe Lofgren who has taken the lead on this, has been great. Zoe could not be more complimentary of the constructive nature of the discussion she’s had with Ellen and Ellen has always said she would support the bill, and the new Dems have said they would support the bill.
It’s a question more of message, about what we are doing for people and giving them some hope about how they can stay in their homes beyond saying to them "you can declare bankruptcy" because not all of them can and it’s not a good, its not a good option. But it should be an option, and that’s what we are saying, it should be an option. Why should it be that a wealthy person could declare, or not even wealthy, a person who has a second home, or a boat or a yacht or jet or whatever can declare bankruptcy on that, but not on the strength of their primary residence. It’s just not right. So I’m positive about- some of these issues will require, you know we make it look easy when we come in a week and a day later and do a recovery package, but some of it requires more time and we have time.
KIRK TANTER, SYNDICATION ONE: I’m getting tons of e-mails from small business associations who feel that they’ve been somehow left out of the recovery bill; in the form of taxes, as well as investment into small business. That’s one question. The other, is, in so far as education being taken out of the recovery bill, were you satisfied, not taken out totally but cut down, were you satisfied or dissatisfied that education was cut down out of the recovery package?
PELOSI: Well, I’ll start with education. What happened on education was, school construction for us was a very important element of the recovery package. For reasons that I said before about education bringing more money to the treasury than any other initiative. School construction created jobs immediately, and contributed to a better learning environment for our children to get the other result. This was largely by the way rehabilitation money. It was money that could
go in really fast and rehab schools and new construction, so this was fast money out there to do this. We had it as a line item. The Senate resisted that because they didn’t want to establish a line item for school construction. So, how we compromised was to take that same money and put it in the aid to the states, the state stabilization fund, with direction that the money would be used, could be used for school construction, and certain amounts of it would be almost automatically going to the district. Some of it more discretionary. But that was fine. I preferred our way of doing it, but we had a good outcome. We had a very positive outcome. And we are talking about a great deal of money. Kids are very smart. You, uh, uh, are close to being kids. You know you can’t go to kids and say education is very important, it’s about you reaching your own self-fulfillment, it’s about the role you play in your community about the strength of our nation, education is very important, and send them to a dump to go to school. They get a a mixed message. If it’s so important, why are they not making it important, you just want me to make it important, and while there’s some magnificent schools in our country, probably most are, a lot of the children that we are trying to reach don’t have access to those kinds of facilities, and that should never, never, be the case. And that’s why in the bill, instead of having a lot of the discretion go to governors, we had a lot of the education money flow directly to districts. That was one of the insistences of the House, were they just said, we cannot just let it be, that it goes there, it sits there, they make decisions. We want the money to go, and so a lot of the formula related to Title 1, where the children and economically
disadvantaged areas, and uh, IDEA children with disabilities, which has been seriously underfunded. In terms of the small businesses, they’re affected by everything in the package, by the fact that, you know, tax cut is in the bill for 95
per cent of the American people, of the great middle class and those who aspire to it. You know, they are affected by many of the things we do on unemployment insurance and food-stamps and all the rest to get people purchasing power. We do have what the, House Banking, excuse me, House Small Business Committee wanted us to do in the bill. Clearly, it is not enough because you are getting these e-mails and we want to do more. Some of the things, that, that will take a little more time to explain and to pass and the rest, that, really don’t have
to do with money so much as they do with policy. But there are debates going on. Do you subsidize the seven day loans, the loans, that go to small business. Do you, what else do you do? One of the things the small business wants us to do is, not tiny small business, but small business by, by some definition, is to lift, a Sarbanes Oxley from them. That is one of the biggest requests we get from small business, is that. That, why should they have to, we know who caused the
problem. There should be that kind of oversight and, and, and, supervision. But why should small businesses be paying that price. Depends on how you define a small business, I mean we are talking about the corner grocery store, which we think benefits from injecting money into the local economy, to increase demand and therefore create jobs. But we are talking about the next layer up. We are looking at other tax treatment for investments in entrepreneurial ventures that could, could, free things up. And one of the things, that, that as, far as like the stock market is concerned, I know you don’t ask about that; I was just watching
this morning, all the accounts of a historic nature, of going under seven thousand, is, one of the biggest messages I think we can send from the Congress, with our values in order and our priorities very clear, is the additional peace of fiscal soundness. I think that, that is very, very, very important for that to emanate from here, so that it isn’t characterized from the other side saying, their just spending, their just spending, their just spending, it doesn’t have a course of action. It does. It has a vision, it has an integrity to it, but it also has fiscal soundness tied to it and I think we have to get that message out more, more, clearly. Again, back to your small business. We reviewed many options in, in, that we could consider. We took what, where, we had consensus and some of that some of that springing from our house small business. So if they’ve suggested some things, I’d be, eager to, to, hear what they. We planted two poles when I became leader; one was veterans and one was small business. These were two areas where they were being under-served by the Federal Government, and, we made a big difference for veterans. We, had the veterans in here yesterday, the American Legions and the rest. They were so thrilled because of what we had done. We promised, we did what we promised, and now the President is even going to, going beyond that. For small business, we have them here all the time, and manifestation, whether it’s small business, small businesses run by
women, minorities, whatever, entrepreneurs. So, so, just so you know, what we did. We eliminated all fees on SBA bank loans and established a new program that will make SBA interest loans to firms who are struggling with payment on existing debt. Based on five, from five, to ten per cent, well why don’t I, why don’t I just give you this because it’s a longer list. {Gives Fact Sheet Handout} But it’s, it’s a whole, American investment Act recovery and job creation by American businesses large and small. But that’s, that’s a very important priority for us, the small business.
(Interruption)
Jane Hamsher: Thank you very much for having us here today. There was an article in Newsweek yesterday that indicated that you would fast track the stimulus bill over the objections of the White House. Is that true? (Interruption)
Pelosi: No.
Jane Hamsher: And also, (interruption) Is that true and also how would you respond to Senior White House (microphone to far away to hear questions clearly)
Pelosi: For some reason, it serves somebody’s purpose to put this kind of thing out there. Let me get this straight. Your the President of the United States, you have a recovery package that you want done by the, the, President’s break. We get that done and we fast-tracked it over the President’s objective, it couldn’t be farther from the truth. But you will see a series of article now, that serve somebody’s purpose and it’s, it’s, what they’re saying, I keep a list of members, couldn’t be farther from the truth. My commitment is to all of my members and every day is a new day for me. They voted wrong one day, I need them for another vote the next day. So I don’t have any list. Another one said that, I said, to the White House, you can’t talk to any members unless you talk to me first. I don’t have that kind of time, nor do I have the interest. What I said to the White House was, talk to the members, talk to the chairman, talk to the different
caucuses, they have a lot of ideas that you all should be communicating, them on. So, but again, it serves somebody’s purpose to put out that we have this division with the White House. We absolutely do not, and in terms of, to tell you the truth I could have fast-tracked this much faster but, (laughter). No, we did it one week and one day, but we didn’t start on Inauguration day. We had the hearings – this is a false claim on the part of the republicans – we had the hearings, the Republicans said we had… wh at is that thing called? The Operating loss carryback. They wanted that in the bill. And they wanted hearings. They wanted markups for that bill. We gave them they operating loss carryback. And hearings. We had hearings, but we also had hearings/markups on the amendments. They had 26/27 hours of markups. And then they went to the floor, they had their amendments, they won some. We won some. The Senate actually took out one of the Republican amendments – that one – which was the Whistleblower one. So, we gave them the regular order in order to go forward. We were not going to go backwards and adopt their economic failed policies, and that’s what they’re upset about. So operating loss carabat is no longer in the bill – we didn’t get one Republican vote. That was their priority, that’s what they wanted, it may have some merit, maybe we’ll see it again another day. It’s in there for smaller businesses, but no across the board. But that’s no longer in the bill, because the Senate wanted the alternative minimum tax, and that prevailed. We are an independent branch of government. We have our own process as to how we can bring legislation to the floor. We work closely with the obama administration to move their priorities forward. Not without Congress working it’s wheel on certain aspects of the bill, and as you saw, in the reconciliation with the senate, they prevailed on some points, we prevailed on others. But, I don’t think the President wanted…. He wanted his bill passed, and we got is passed.
Ratner: I think next time the only fair way to do it is by lot, which we will do next time and hopefully….
Pelosi: (interrupting) what Ellen wants me to do is to have shorter answers. I get it. (laughter)
Kerry Eleveld with the Advocate: A bill to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was reintroduced. Given the mountain of research that shows that the policy has hurt military preparedness, and quite honestly, polling numbers off the charts that should inspire political courage, will you move on the bill before the end of the year?
Pelosi: We want to win. We want to win on this. We want to get it done once and for all. We want to win on this. So we’ll have to create an atmosphere, create an environment in which we will win. Some of that will be done outside, and as you correctly say, the public really understands and supports us on this issue. We have to make sure we have the votes. Ellen Toucher, again, has taken the lead on this. Marty Millian was our guy, and he’s gone now. Ellen is… but she’s always worked on the issue. It’s a priority for us, and we’ll bring it to the floor when we think that we can win it. And also win it in the Senate. But we will, again, be working to create that atmosphere. Now I work with Barney and Tammy Baldwin on these issues, and now we welcome Jared Polis to taking lead on some of these. Not that other members don’t participate, but those members take special ownership of those issues. The priorities have been hate crimes and enda. Fully inclusive legislation in those two areas. So we’ll have to have our strategy work around how we can have those passed, as well as move forward on the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which now, has become almost self evident that the American people want us to have the best possible defense. Colin Powel, Sam Nun, some of the people who might have before – I don’t know who the others were, but the others who might not before had been allies at least saying that we should review the policy. Some of these things are the tail of the tadpole – they’re remnant of another piece of evolution. They will be gone. And thank you for your advocacy. I come from San Francisco. This isn’t about… they say “it’s easy for you – you’re so tolerant because you come from San Francisco. I said “tolerant to me is almost a condescending word. It’s not about being tolerant, it’s about being respectful, it’s about taking pride.” They’re on a different place on some of these issues, but they’ll catch up, and we’ll all be leading the way and taking pride.
Ratner: Madame Speaker, I’ve been told that we do have to cut off. I just wanted to say that next time we will get everybody’s questions that we didn’t get last time. I hope that there is a next time very soon.
Pelosi: Well let’s do this soon. We can do this regularly. This is fun.
Ratner: And then everyone will be able to ask questions, and then maybe we’ll do it out of a hat, so it’s fair and whatever.
Pelosi: Well, what we do is we have a rule that says if you asked a question the last time, then you get to the back of the line the next time, because somehow or another, the same people always seem to be the first one.
Ratner: So we’ll work with your staff, and we’ll do it quickly, and thank you very much.
Pelosi: Well may I just thank you all for what you do, and for the role that you play. We’re hoping to have a good shield law. We’re working with the Senate to make it closer to their language on who is a journalist. I know that is of interest to some of you, many of you I’m sure. But it is an exciting time. And Michael, I hope it turns out to be a productive time in our history. We are really blessed with a great president. We really are. There is something just beyond the resume, in terms of the commitment. I couldn’t be more pleased with the, shall we say, progressive priorities that were in the Recovery Package, at the initiative of the White House. I mean, we knew we wanted those things, but at the initiative of the White House. And where we will go on some of the other issues in a way that will require us working together. Again, when you establish priorities, not everybody makes the top list, but we will get around whether though the bill we passed, which gives momentum, and then the follow up legislation which we have. I like to think in terms of a Congress, because, again, I can only speak in terms of the House, but if we are talking about the Senate too…. In this congress, you will see a new direction, real change, because we will have the signature of the president. But in his term, in that four years, really, the ship of state will have very fully made a term for the better of our country. To the extent that we can help you do your jobs by giving you information or heads up or anything like that, please consider us a resource, and I certainly will consider you a resource on how we reach out to the public on issues like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Health care for all Americans that is university and quality for all Americans, and some other priorities which we have in our progressive agenda. Thank you all very much for coming.