• Election 2008
• National RCP Average
• Electoral Maps
• Battleground States
• Latest Polls

March 12, 2009

Speaker Pelosi's Weekly Press Conference

Nancy Pelosi

PELOSI: Congress is moving aggressively to address the economy. This is a very grave concern to people in our country. The economic security of America’s families is important to them, to their children, and the well being of their communities, and the strength of our country. We’ve responded with significant funds for jobs and health care and infrastructure and science and creating and saving millions of jobs in record time. We need for urgency both at the state level and at the local level.

As you know, we have moved forward quickly one week and one day from the time the president requested quick fold action to the steps of the Capitol to pass the recovery plan. The president has put into action his housing -- his initiatives to address the housing crisis. We are in the midst, under the leadership of Barney Frank , of moving forward on the regulatory reform.

PELOSI: The administration is putting the final touches on the financial services stabilization aspects of the legislation -- of the initiatives. This week, early this week, we had Secretary Geithner come speak to our members. We had a very productive session with him, increasing our understanding and his of how we go forward in the Congress if we need to go forward in the Congress.

The next day, under the leadership of Rosa DeLauro and George Miller , we had an excellent presentation by economists from across the spectrum. Some of you spoke with them after the meeting.

What came out of that conference for us was the spirit of confidence that the economic recovery package will work. It’s only been there for a few week and, already, it is working but we will see more results as more time goes by. We have a great deal of confidence in that.

Today, we’ll be -- yesterday, the president assigned the Omnibus bill which, too, will generate jobs and, as you know, also made a statement about earmark reform which we are in synch with the president on. And, today, we will hear from Peter Orszag to go over issues relating to the budget.

So every day in every way that we can, whether it’s in small meetings or in presentations to the caucus or in our -- when members are in their districts communicating with their communities, they are hearing from their communities about concerns about the amount of money that has been spent on the banks for lack of results.

It’s important to note how we got here. President Obama took over and he got a $1 trillion deficit handed to him. In addition to that, we had a TARP initiative that passed this Congress with the prospect that it would address the toxic paper -- I don’t call it toxic assets because, to me, that’s an oxymoron-- the toxic paper issue. And it would address mortgage foreclosure forbearance that was written into the bill.

Under the Bush administration, neither of these things were done. And so now, in order to address the deficit, to turn the economy around, and to stabilize the financial services industry, we have to take bold action. And we are, again, doing just that.

With that, I’d be pleased to take any questions.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) second stimulus bill? Yes or no? PELOSI: I really would like to focus on the first one. I know that people have made suggestions that we should be ready to do something, but I really would like to see this stimulus package play out. I think it’s important that the American people and the Congress of the United States have confidence in the recovery package that we have passed.

We believe that it has the right components to take the country in a new direction in terms of job creation, tax cuts for the middle class, investments in the short term for job creation and longer term stabilization.

So I’ve always been trying to be fiscally responsible about doing -- getting the most for -- I won’t say a small amount of money because we’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars.

As we go down that path, as people make judgments, I would hope that we get the results that we need from this package. But that doesn’t mean that people won’t talk about it, as one of our economists suggested the other day. But not from my initiation.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) earmark reforms. Some of the earmark (inaudible) complained yesterday that they like the provision that requires competitive bidding for earmarks (inaudible) profits.

PELOSI: Right.

QUESTION: But that it wouldn’t do anything for earmarks that go to non-profit (inaudible) like one in Pennsylvania in Penn State. Was that an oversight or do you plan to address non-profits?

PELOSI: See, this is -- this particular piece which I think is an excellent improvement is part of something that we have already done which is to cut the earmarks in -- the number of earmarks in half, to make them transparent, and to hold members accountable in the transparency as well as accountability. Members have to sign a paper that there is no personal (inaudible) to them or their families in any of these earmarks.

That is a giant step forward that we already have done. In addition to that, now, we are saying no earmarks to for-profit unless there is competitive bidding for it and that the earmarks will be no more than 1 percent of the budget that we are dealing with.

PELOSI: So I think, as we go forward in a regular order of the appropriations process, there’s going to be more transparency and -- if I just may on an aside to the premise of your question about the earmark hawks, when the Republicans were in power, we tried to get some of these reforms passed.

I remind you that when the Republicans took over, there were about 3500 earmarks. They quadrupled -- quadrupled under the Republicans. And so now we’re saying cut them back, make them a small percentage of the total, make it transparent so everybody knows what it is, sign a paper that you have no personal gain from it. And this, I believe, addresses the earmark question.

But they didn’t -- but they didn’t -- but they didn’t do it when they were in power. And we tried to when they were in power; we did it when we were as we are...

QUESTION: (Inaudible) a lot of talk this week about the prospect of doing away with automatic pay raises for members of Congress. And I’m wondering what your thoughts are about the timing, whether this might be a good time for members to vote on their (inaudible) and whether you would commit to bringing up a bill (inaudible)?

PELOSI: First of all, at the beginning of the year, I said to the leadership -- announced to our caucus -- and I consult with Mr. Boehner on this. I called him before I mentioned it to my caucus that we would not have a cost-of-living adjustment for this year.

The American people are facing severe economic pain and uncertainty. We did not -- we should not have a cost-of-living adjustment this year. The other fact is that, every year, there is an opportunity to vote on the COLA.

QUESTION: Will you bring up a bill in the House that passes a bill that ban the automatic...

PELOSI: As I said, under the current system, members have an opportunity to vote on that each year. It’s a lively vote on the floor of the House. We will continue that tradition in the regular order of the House of Representatives.

QUESTION: Back on the second stimulus...

PELOSI: Second stimulus and then...

QUESTION: OK. Thank you. You did say the other day that you wanted to leave the door open to it.

PELOSI: Sure.

QUESTION: And not just that, the House Appropriations chairman said that he is starting to work on it. Alcee Hastings, another member of your caucus, told us that there’s active dialogue already going on about another stimulus. So what’s...

PELOSI: Well, I don’t know -- you know, the House Appropriations Committee is ever vigilant. They’re always ready to pass legislation. If could be in the form of a supplemental that might come down which may have to happen for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And so they have to be prepared for that.

At the same time, we’re going under the regular order. My preference is that any appropriating that we do henceforth be in the regular order under the regular hearing process, markup, and the rest and that -- so that people can see discreetly within the appropriations bills what the outlays are and what you get...

QUESTION: That’s from regular order appropriations. This is specifically about another...

PELOSI: I understand. I understand. But I’m saying to you what my preference is. We’ve done a big package, several hundred billion dollars, which I never thought I would see the day that we would have a package that big.

We’ve done that. Let’s see how that works. Again, we have our regular order. In addition to the recovery package, we -- the president assigned yesterday, the Omnibus bill which, again, will put more jobs into circulation. We have the highway bill which we’ll take up, probably, in May. The surface transportation bill, again, another job generator.

Today, on the floor of the House, we have a water bill which is a job generator. And our purpose was to create jobs, to give middle- income tax cuts, and to pass economic stable -- stability.

I don’t think you ever close the door to being prepared for what eventuality may come, but I think that is not a near, near thing. I don’t know whom Alcee is dialoguing with, and I’m sure -- I mean, all members talk all the time about what they’d like to see that wasn’t in that might be or grow bigger.

This is one of those times where our -- the success of the package will speak to whether...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

PELOSI: Well, if it is creating jobs, which we anticipate that it will, that it will create jobs. And that may be that, combined with a highway bill, a water bill, an omnibus bill, the regular order of the appropriations process, I think, should be able to contain -- contain all of this.

PELOSI: But you don’t close the door to some other things. It’s just not something that, right now, is in the cards. We have a big -- we have the budget coming up. We have health care reform that we’re going forward with. We have a big energy initiative combining climate change, rebuilding and modernizing the grid, and have been the efficiency standards and renewable electricity standards. We have a tall order of initiatives that will inspire confidence, that will create jobs. And that’s where I want to keep the Congress’ attention.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

PELOSI: I said Al would be next. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Madam Speaker, do you expect a package of rescission from the White House? And if there is one, would commit to allowing (inaudible)?

PELOSI: Yes, yes. Oh, yes to the second. I don’t know about the first. You’d have to ask the White House about that. But the rescission is part of the regular order.

Yes?

QUESTION: (Inaudible) to the House. Would the House vote on it this year after withdrawing it last year?

PELOSI: Well, last year was a big victory for those who are concerned about history recording that there was an Armenian genocide. And the full committee of the Foreign Affairs Committee voted that resolution out.

It was a source of comfort, I think, to people who are still survivors of that genocide and, certainly, to their families as well. I think not had a communication with Schiff on this introduction. When they have what I would consider a critical mass of votes to -- I’m sure they will come talk to me. But I’ll look forward to having that conversation with him.

But my position is clear about the Armenian genocide. Whether the House votes on it or not, that doesn’t make it so or not so.

Thank you all very much.

About Us | RSS | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy         © RealClearPolitics 2008