CQ Transcriptswire

SPEAKER: REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE

[*] PELOSI: Morning.

This morning, President Bush signed the unemployment insurance legislation. We are pleased with that, but disappointed that we were not able to get a stimulus package passed by the Senate and signed by the president.

Every economist, I think, agrees that such a recovery package is necessary to grow our economy, to create jobs, to help us through this very difficult time in our economy.

The -- it’s been a week on the economy, that earlier this week, on Monday, the Democratic -- House Democratic leadership met with Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson. The purpose of that meeting at this busy time for all of us was to have accountability for the -- are we dancing in the streets?

(LAUGHTER)

I don’t think we have any cause for that right now.

The purpose of that meeting, as I said to them at the time, we’re all busy. Certainly the chairman of the Fed and secretary of the treasury and the speaker of the House and the Democratic leadership, with all the challenges that we are facing. But we thought it was necessary to have them come in to give us some accountability for what was happening with the rescue package that was passed by Congress.

Where was the confidence that it was supposed to instill? What were they doing for mortgage foreclosure mitigation, to keep people in their homes? i

They contend, as they did publicly the next day in the hearings, that things would -- the economic situation would be much worse, the financial crisis would be greatly deepened if they -- if we had not passed that legislation.

Was particularly disappointed, though, when they -- they had really done nothing in terms of the mortgage foreclosure mitigation. That was how we got the bill passed. That is what the American people were expecting. That is what we -- that was the intent of Congress. Just to (inaudible) that piece, unless you have further questions later, we, all of us, urged the administration to take a closer look at the chairman of the FDIC, Sheila Bair’s proposal for mitigation for mortgages.

PELOSI: They said they would look into it. We shall see.

As you all know, we also, in terms of the economy, dealt -- addressed the auto crisis as well. Before the chairs or the CEOs of the Big Three came in, we were poised to put a package together that would give a bridge loan until March for the auto companies to establish a path to viability. Viability being a condition under which they could survive as a company producing millions of cars with the revenue stream coming in to pay for them, and doing so without federal assistance for their operating cost.

The -- but the justification that we had hoped to receive at the hearings did not materialize. And so, as you know, yesterday, we -- we called upon them to submit a plan by December 2nd as to what the money they’re asking for would be used for. We still haven’t seen that justification. And with the hope that they would do so and the committees of jurisdiction will take it up in the House and in the Senate that week -- that first week in December. And I feel prepared to have -- call the Congress -- the House of Representatives back to act upon it in the second week in December.

I hope that our friends in Detroit and in auto country will consider this good news, because it is. It’s another opportunity for them to say to the American people, “Give us your money, because we will put it to good use.”

And I think that’s necessary.

PELOSI: It’s particularly necessary -- I will make this one other point on that -- I went to Michigan in the -- I guess September -- and at that time, I was asked for $25 billion for the 136 that -- the advanced technology manufacturing initiative. This really needs the loan guarantees for $25 billion in assistance. This is money that money that isn’t the energy bill of last -- not money, but policy that was -- authority that was in the energy bill last year. We put that money in the C.R., immediately responded to their urgent request for funds for the advanced technology manufacturer initiative.

Next, they called and said, we need to see you about -- and I said this to some of you yesterday -- we need your support for a merger within our industry, so we’ll come in and talk about it. That was one week to the next. The next week they came in and said, “We’re not here about that anymore. Now we need liquidity. We have a liquidity problem -- we need an infusion of cash.”

And so we said, well -- it was a very positive meeting. We wanted to help, they needed it, they understood that the taxpayers need accountability and a path, again, to viability. How are they going to stay alive as a company, and what does this money do to that end? It’s not -- this isn’t supposed to be life support for three more months -- this is about viability for a long time to come.

Next we hear they want the 136 money, but they don’t want to do advance technology manufacturing. They just want it to pay -- to do business as usual. So we have some problems, because they keep changing the request. We want it writing -- what is it that they want it for? And we stand open to be helpful, because we recognize that the auto industry is a critical part, and a central part -- fundamental part of our economy. It is also, it’s survival, is essential for the survival of our industrial and manufacturing base. And that is essential to our national security, as well as our economic security.

So we don’t have any intention of seeing the auto industry go down, but they have to come up with up with how -- how they survive themselves. Later today, we’ll release a letter, we don’t’ have it hear, a letter that Harry and I are sending to the CEOs of the Big Three, asking -- giving them some idea of what we do mean by viability and accountability to the taxpayer.

PELOSI: I’ll go into it more if you -- if you ask. But it’s what we’ve talked about before in terms of, on the accountability side, no dividends, no bonuses for people making over $200,000. It’s -- it’s the provisions that are contained in the bill that Barney Frank put together.

And then, in addition to that, on the viability side, it talks about, as they go forward, how they plan to make investments in the advanced technologies, so that they can compete in the marketplace, so that people will want to buy their cars.

We’re all in this together. I reject, as I said yesterday over and over again, I reject those who say let them go bankrupt and then we’ll deal after that. I just think that would be digging a hole far too deep and just have devastating impact on the workers, on the economy, on the manufacturing base, and on the confidence of the country. And I do think we have much more confidence in the auto industry than an action of that kind would indicate.

Then -- then again this week, while we were doing all of this and more, we had the opportunity to welcome a brand new class to the Congress of the United States. This was supposed to be orientation week, but with the crisis in the economy it became much more than that.

But the orientation was one that was very encouraging. I for the first time (inaudible) maybe in history, but in a very long time, welcomed them as speaker of the House at a bipartisan occasion, dinner in their honor, and took them to the floor of the House together, Democrats and Republicans alike, told them become friends, work together.

This class could be the class from which a spirit of civility and bipartisanship is strengthened in the Congress of the United States.

I look forward to working with all of them to have them reach their fulfillment to represent their constituents. That’s their job. I keep saying, “Your job title and your job description are one and the same --representative -- and we want you to be independent representatives of your district, and we want you to act in a bipartisan way.”

So in that spirit of optimism, it was a good feeling about how we will go forward.

PELOSI: One, we -- one of the things we will be doing between now and when we come back in December -- if, God willing, the plan that they propose is one that justifies calling another session of Congress -- is to work on a recovery package -- we’re not using the word “stimulus” -- a recovery package to be introduced in January.

The economists tell us we need a very robust recovery package. We’re working on that, building on our $61 billion package, but having something much bigger than that and also having a -- a revenue side of it, some tax cut side of it.

So that’s what we will be doing. Obviously, we’ll be meeting on all of these issues whether we’re in session or not.

But our focus for the first week of the new Congress will be to have -- to introduce a strong recovery package to create jobs, good paying jobs in our country, and to bring confidence -- bring more confidence to the financial -- financial crisis -- to undermine -- to turn around the financial crisis.

It’s a good -- I don’t know that a recovery package can do all of that. I know it can create jobs. I think it can be a step toward improving the financial situation. But we have to do much more.

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

QUESTION: Are you looking for the auto industry to give you one plan -- the three companies to come together with one plan for the industry? Or are you looking for each company to give you a viability analysis?

And the idea of bankruptcy is rejected, but what about a pre- packaged bankruptcy that some in Congress have said might be viable?

PELOSI: Well, it’ll be up to them on how they respond. Some -- if one company wants to respond and another does not, I don’t think that company should be penalized. So (inaudible) can do it singularly, jointly or severally, however they wish, but we need to have that response.

Let’s be more optimistic than some other form of a structure whatever comes next and hope that the plan that they bring forth is one that is consistent with our responsibilities to the taxpayer, accountability, and demonstrates their commitment to viability for their companies.

So rather than going to that next step, let’s hope that we can solve it one step before that.

QUESTION: Madam Speaker, good morning.

In light of the new chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, two questions on climate change legislation. What are your plans and expectations? How quickly do you think Congress -- in the new Congress can there be action?

And number two, will there still be a need -- what are you plans to continue the select committee that Mr. Markey has chaired?

PELOSI: Well, taking the second one first, it is my intention to put forth the -- a renewal of that committee in the new Congress, in the rules for the new Congress. I’ve consulted in a bipartisan way on this subject and intend to put it in the rules.

I think we do have need for one more term, because our work is not finished. We don’t have the climate change legislation that I had hoped we might be closer to, at least at this point.

The committee serves a tremendous intellectual resource purpose for me to get the scientific basis for how we go forward. And it’s a big problem. It’s as big as the world, literally and figuratively. Chairman Markey has done a magnificent job -- to use the word again -- and I hope that he will agree to serve in that position.

In terms of the timing of climate change legislation, we would be working closely with the Obama legislation -- excuse me -- the Obama- to-be administration on the nature and timing of it.

But many decisions have to be made about it yet. We know what our principles are that need to be followed. They have been established largely through the work of the select committee. But then there are some decisions in terms of implementation, and we want to do it right, and we want to do it in a bipartisan way, and we want to do it working with a new president of the United States.

QUESTION: Will they have any additional legislative authority...

(CROSSTALK)

PELOSI: No. No.

QUESTION: And who would you -- who would you see chairing Oversight and Government Reform now that...

(CROSSTALK)

PELOSI: That -- that comes next. I don’t know that anything would be outside the regular order. But we’re just getting used to the idea of what happened yesterday, and so (inaudible) to the next...

QUESTION: (inaudible) UAW may be considering making changes to its (inaudible)?

And also, how much (inaudible)?

PELOSI: Excuse me, could you repeat the first the first part of the -- the auto workers are doing what?

QUESTION: (inaudible) considering making some changes to their contracts to make some sacrifices (inaudible)?

PELOSI: Well, let me say this: I think that everybody has to participate in the -- ensuring the viability of the auto industry. And I understand the important role that our workers play, that they are the most productive workers, prepared to be the most innovative in the world.

Some of the issues that relate to the workforce have to be part of the consideration. But that isn’t any reason why these auto companies have not innovated. You know, they may say, well, we have legacy and health care costs -- yes. And so we’ll -- deal with that, but you still have to innovate. That’s no excuse not to innovate and compete and have people want to buy your cars.

So their viability is not just about tightening the belt, which is important, it’s about a decision to compete and to innovate. And that’s what we’re concerned about when they say, “Well, give us the money from 136, but not make us have to get engaged in the advanced technology manufacturing.”

Well -- well, how are you going to get this done if we’re just giving you money to proceed, business as usual? I don’t mind doing that, as long as you, at the same time, are doing the innovation.

QUESTION: (inaudible) you would evaluate the viability plan that the industry sends, and decide if warranted calling Congress back into session. Does that mean that the -- the quality of their plan will determine whether or not your reconvene, or will you come back and legislate, in your own way, even they give you...

PELOSI: That may be the case. It’s probably closer to the latter, because we can’t do nothing. Nothing is not -- we can’t do nothing, because that -- I don’t know if that works. But doing nothing is, I don’t think, an option. But what we do will be determined by what they do. And again, it’s only a couple of weeks from then, from ninth or tenth of December until when Congress comes into session in January.

It would be my hope that -- looking at what they present to us -- and I’m very optimistic and hopeful that they have gotten the message that they just can’t come as they give us this and maybe that -- No, wait a minute, we changed our mind, we want that.

What are they going to do with the money? And how is -- how do we tell the American taxpayer it was worthwhile to put this in, not as a life support for a few more months, and then they’re back again, but as an investment in their viability.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) determine whether or not you’ll legislate the week of December 8th or say, back to the drawing board; legislate in January?

PELOSI: Let me -- let me -- yes, both of those. But let me also say this: Right now, the administration has the authority under the rescue legislation to make this infusion of cash into the auto industry. It is allowed under that legislation -- and they know it.

And so, should there be an emergency situation that would spring up between now and December 10th or between December 10th and January when we come in or when we have a new president, they have the authority to make -- to make an infusion of cash.

It would probably take the form of what we had talked about, a bridge loan until the end of March, to see -- to evaluate at that time what the decisions should be, whether in terms of viability, accountability, restructuring, whatever that may be. Let’s hope it’s the minimal, but be prepared for whatever it is.

But there is no place where at this time when we leave and then engage in out other meetings to get the best possible information about how to go forward that they’re left high and dry. The administration has the authority to make the infusion of cash out of the recovery package legislation anytime they want.

QUESTION: Madam Speaker?

PELOSI: You want to tell that Detroit?

QUESTION: Yes, I just -- on the automakers, if they come back with this plan for viability, how they’re going to use the money, and you’re satisfied with their plan, are you open to the possibility of using that DOE money?

PELOSI: The point about -- you asked about this yesterday; I know this is (inaudible). The point about the DOE money is its purpose is advanced technology. It isn’t cover my shortfall. And so, unless you’re going to use that money for its purpose, you almost cannot get to viability. That’s why we’re saying let that money be used for its purpose. We fought hard for that authority, and we put the money -- upon request, this was their first request, and we gave it to them. Now their requests have changed.

But there are other pots of money from -- they can do that and then we in addition -- let me just say, they have about three places right now they can go. They can get advanced technology manufacturing assistance in that initiative, and that’s $25 billion -- the loan guarantee is for $25 billion.

They have -- they have -- they can, under the rescue package -- and I think they will -- have their credit entities receive something like $25 billion for credit, GMAC, for example.

So you can get $25 billion for advanced technology; they can get $25 billion for credit, so that they can sell cars and people can have money -- get credit to buy them.

And then we’re talking about a third $25 billion, which is to help -- to infuse -- to help with their liquidity problem now, but not to take the future money to spend -- it’s like taking your kids’ college education fund and spending it on your credit card bills. Then, how are you going to send the kids to college? They have -- that has to be there.

And then, again, their willingness to innovate is a reason to give them money, to believe that they will be viable.

Now, I’m not here to talk about money. I really am not. And as I mentioned to you yesterday, let’s just see what they have.

PELOSI: Their plan may justify almost anything. You know, as you say, when you see the plan, well how does the plan connect to different pots of money, and let’s make sure we can make whatever compromises are necessary to remove all doubt that the U.S. auto industry is not going down. But that -- but it has to be accountable to the taxpayer for the money that we give, by demonstrating that they can survive in the marketplace.

Yes, sir?

QUESTION: (inaudible) there’s talk about -- you know, you’ve been talking about whether the auto industry would go down or not, you’re talking about difficulty in financial markets -- and there are -- there are many people who are talking about a psychology of fear that is taking hold in the country. And I’m wondering, as a leader, what can you do to address that fear that’s taking hold, and what can Congress do about it?

PELOSI: Well, first of all, we passed the rescue package, and that was a package that was intended -- and we were told, to instill confidence. And again, it -- your 401(k) may not reflect all of that confidence that we had hoped would come, but as I said, we are told that it -- matters would be much worse without it.

So we have responded in record time; two weeks and one day from the fateful night they came and told us the dismal state of the economy. Two weeks and one day later, the president signed the legislation. So we moved with -- with speed to -- to remove all doubt that we would do that.

In terms of the auto industry -- that’s what I’m saying to you -- we are going to be there for the auto industry. But we have to come together in a way that makes it viable. So I, again, I hope this is good news to the auto industry. There’s a chance for us to work together.

And we consider this an opportunity for a stimulus recovery package for the auto industry, from which they can emerge, preeminent in the world. This is not piece-meal, this is not incremental -- this is different. This is different, because the behavior of the past generation, in terms of Detroit, has not produced the preeminence that we would like to see. And we’re saying, “OK, here we are, there’s an opportunity to do something very dramatic, very different, very innovative, very substantial -- to let -- to have Detroit emerge.”

And so -- so when we talked about this yesterday it was not to be (inaudible) people said, “Oh, gosh, this is -- what does this mean for Detroit?” It means they have a chance to do something really great and that our commitment to that industry, to that industrial base, and very importantly, to that workforce is unequivocal.

But we need their cooperation one way or another and that’s -- as the gentleman asked earlier, what are some of the options if it isn’t one way? Well, let’s just hope that it is.

QUESTION: I’m tempted to ask if Mr. Waxman has expressed any interest in the select committee, but I’m not going to ask that.

PELOSI: I think he knows my view. We like to have economy use -- in use of time here, and I think that he knows my view.

QUESTION: The letter that you’re sending out today, do you address this whole issue of CEO travel, the corporate jets?

PELOSI: I don’t know that we get down to that, but I think that by inference it is -- no, by implication, not inference, it is there.

But, you know, the corporate jet issue is anecdotal, it’s interesting, it resonates with the American people. I’m more concerned about the lack of innovation and willing to compete in a way that will prevail. That’s really the issue.

But CEOs getting off a corporate jet, rattling a tin cup is not a good image.

Thank you all very much.

QUESTION: (inaudible) Senator McCain came back to the Hill...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Senator McCain came back to the Hill this week. At the end of the campaign he called you part of the dangerous threesome. But he had much nicer things to say about your earlier in the year.

Which McCain do you think is going to be part of the next Congress? And is he somebody you could work with next year?

PELOSI: Of course. Of course. As you say, he’s had very complimentary things to say about me.

PELOSI: Did you look it up? I’m “an inspiration.”

(LAUGHTER)

Well, I think that’s a compliment.

(LAUGHTER)

But in any event, I’ve worked with Senator McCain in the past. I look forward to continuing that. And you know what it is in a campaign -- I don’t have to tell you the kinds of things that are said.

It was a compliment in some ways to have him use me. I mean, it was really almost bankrupt that he would have to resort to something -- most people don’t even know who I am, so.

In any event, my daughter, who was covering McCain on the campaign trail, she said, “Mother, you should hear the boos you get when your name is announced.”

But, in any event, I’ve no interest in a -- it’s part of the campaign. He’s back. We have to look forward. And perhaps because I’m so satisfied with the outcome of the election, with winning over 20 seats in the House and so many in the Senate, yet to be determined, and electing Barack Obama as the next president of the United States, all of that is incidental.

And when -- and when he is president and in preparation for that, we will grow the economy with good paying jobs in America. We’ll end our dependence on foreign oil by investing in renewable energy resources and have a new green economy. Again, to create jobs, we’ll move forward with making health care accessible and dependable and reliable for -- for all Americans. We will build the infrastructure in America in a way that, again, creates jobs, but also does so in a very green way. And we will end the war in Iraq.

And so, I’m very happy about the outcome. And in that spirit, I look forward to welcoming back Senator McCain.

Thank you all very much.

END

.ETX

Nov 21, 2008 11:48 ET .EOF

Source: CQ Transcriptions

© 2008, Congressional Quarterly Inc., All Rights Reserved