CQ Transcriptswire

SPEAKER: REP. STENY H. HOYER, D-MD., HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER

KEITH HILL, NATIONAL PRESS CLUB

[*] HILL: Good morning. My name is Keith Hill. I’m an editor- writer with BNA and chair of the National Press Club’s Board of Governors.

What issues will be tackled first by the new Congress and President-elect Obama after January 20th? Today, we are honored to have Majority Leader Steny Hoyer here, and hopefully he will give us some clues.

In addition to representing the Fifth Congressional District of Maryland, Majority Leader Hoyer is the highest-ranking member of Congress from Maryland and the longest-serving member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Maryland in history.

And in the interest of full disclosure, I must tell you that Majority Leader Hoyer is my congressman.

So with that, Majority Leader Hoyer, you have the podium.

After Majority Leader Hoyer speaks, we will open the floor up for questions.

HOYER: Thank you. That puts added pressure on me, you understand, with having a constituent to my immediate left here that I need to please, as well as all of you. Keith, thank you very much for that introduction.

And thank you for giving me this opportunity to address -- address you prior to the next session and on the eve of perhaps a lame-duck session.

I say “perhaps” because we’re still figuring out whether or not we’re going to proceed with a lame-duck session, see whether we can do anything productive. We hope we can.

All Americans and people around the globe have recognized the magnitude of what happened in this country on November 4th. As I watched Barack Obama celebrating with more than 100,000 in Chicago and tens of millions across our nation, I had a sense that America was filled with a new hope and sense of confidence in our ability to meet our challenges successfully.

Obviously, expectations are high. Recent polls have shown that Americans do, in fact, believe that President-elect Obama can be successful in meeting the challenges.

It was, as President Bush recognized, a triumph of the American story. Our challenge is ensuring that we live up to the possibility of that day and the promise of this moment in history.

With that opportunity in mind, I want to talk as House majority leader about the shape of the new Congress and its work in the new year.

First, let me say a word about the opposition. George Orwell recognized that the difference between majority and minority is less a question of seats than of psychology. The majority, he wrote, and I quote, “is always faced with a question, in such and such a circumstance, what would you do, whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions.”

Having served in both capacities, I can share Orwell’s view.

That is now the Republicans’ strongest temptation: the unchecked chance to criticize. Republicans may choose to emphasize disagreement and practice obstruction, especially when so many are blaming the media, blaming moderates, blaming everyone but themselves for what happened on November 4th.

But we know what happened. Over the last eight years, Republicans had an unprecedented opportunity to put their philosophy into effect, and it was weighed, and measured and found wanting.

Some conservatives understand that already. As the National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru put it, “What we have seen over the last two election cycles, it should be emphasized, was not the rejection of one or another faction of the Republican Party, but of the party itself.”

In the immediate future, with no governing responsibility and with the moderate Republican virtually extinct, the other party is likely to move towards a more narrow agenda, even further away from the centrist and independent voters who sustained its majorities.

But that would not simply be damaging to the future of the Republican Party, in my opinion; it would be dangerous for our country.

Our country needs a loyal opposition to work constructively on legislation, to challenge the Democratic arguments, and hold us accountable.

Our country needs Republican leaders in the tradition of Bob Michael (ph), Everett Dirksen, and Howard Baker, who saw country first and party second, conservatives who are in the strong -- who are strong in their principles, but who would rather help shape legislation for the common good than reflexively obstruct it for partisan positioning.

At the same time, we should remember that minorities don’t win elections; majorities often lose them. Majorities lose elections when they pursue partisanship to the exclusion of common sense, compromise and accomplishment. So we must remember where our majority came from.

We did not just make a full-blown ideological conversion of the other half of the country. What we did do -- and this in and of itself was a huge accomplishment -- was convince majority-making independents, whether they be Democrats, Republicans, or actual independents, or declines, that we will govern responsibly and effectively at this time of national crisis.

For the 33 to 36 new members of Congress in the House of Representatives coming to Washington to swell our side of the aisle, they are pragmatic, not dogmatic. They were elected on promises of bipartisanship and fiscal discipline. They were elected, quite simply, to solve problems, not further politicize Washington.

Democrats won in every region of the country, and our nominee for president won more than 50 percent of the vote. For the first time in decades, we are a true national party. And if we want to stay that way, we must govern like one.

We cannot practice the politics of division in our own ranks. We must welcome debate and use regular order to build consensus.

As Speaker Pelosi has said, we intend to govern from the middle, not the muddled middle, but the principled, consensus-creating middle that has marked our country’s progress.

And as we seek agreement on our side of the aisle, we will continue to reach out to Republicans to build common ground on the challenges confronting our country.

As an aside, let me say that I regret that Roy Blunt has stepped down as a leader of his party. I think he will continue to be a leader in fact, if not in position, and I intend to continue to work with him and others, as well as the elected leadership.

That is not simply a promise for the future; it is what we did the last -- in the last Congress.

I know it perhaps from time to time did not appear that way, but over 70 percent of the major pieces of legislation passed in the House in the 110th Congress, more than 50 Republican votes were on each one of those pieces of legislation. It is what we did when we passed an economic stimulus, raised the minimum wage, and created a new G.I. Bill for our troops.

In the next Congress, our first focus must be on efforts to restore the health of our economy. They will include funding to create jobs by rebuilding our worn-down infrastructure, for roads, bridges, pipes, tracks that serve our communities and our commerce.

In addition, we must ensure that all of our people have access to broadband.

Economic recovery will also mean helping hard-pressed states with federal Medicaid assistance so that workers who have lost their jobs and their health insurance will still have access to health care.

Conditions also warrant temporarily increasing food stamp benefits and extending unemployment insurance. Those measures do not just help those who are hurting most; economists consider them some of the most efficient kinds of stimulus.

It was our hope that we could do this, this week. That does not appear to be the case. Senator Reid does not believe that that is possible in the Senate. We will see.

We will continue to be committed to the principle of pay-as-you- go, as well. The reality, however, is that recovery legislation will raise the deficit in the short term. Fiscal hawk that I am, I still believe that that is the right course, because a wide consensus of economists tells us that deficit spending is both the way out of recession like this one and the way to prevent even more catastrophic decline.

In the long run, fiscal responsibility can and must be a watchword of our majority. For eight years, the administration lived by the proposition summed up by Vice President Cheney when he said, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”

Businesses, consumers pursued that siren song to the brink of financial destruction, and some, of course, have gone over that brink. We are now experiencing the stark, painful reality that debt does, indeed, matter.

I’ve always believed that fiscal responsibility is at heart a moral proposition. It means that we do not indebt our children to finance our own immediate demands and desires.

It means that we must pay for what we buy, but more than that, we must buy the right things. Wise investments will grow our economy, guard our national security, and protect the health of our people.

Smart spending can help us get back to long-term fiscal health. Spending wisely today can save us money tomorrow. That is why our country needs far-reaching proposals, even in this recession.

In the broad sense, fiscal responsibility should be at the core of our entire governing philosophy. On energy, for instance, a fiscally responsible strategy should invest in new technologies to bring the price of energy down in the long term, because there is nothing more short-sided than acting as if our foreign oil addiction is a problem only when gas costs more than $3 a gallon or only during on oil shortage or only over the summer.

Ending that addiction would halt what T. Boone Pickens rightly calls the greatest transfer of wealth in human history from America to the petro-states of the Middle East.

Our energy policy must also include long-term investment to modernize our national grid. If we fail to match 21st-century energy technology with 21st-century distribution capability, we will waste energy and money every day.

On global warming, one of the critical issues we will confront early in this session, inaction will cost us greatly -- inaction will cost us greatly and is not an option.

The latest research from the National Resources Defense Council estimates that the total cost of global warming from impacts like hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs will be as high as 3.6 percent of gross domestic product. The longer we wait to act on emissions, the more painful and expensive the consequences will be.

When it comes to defense, one of our most pressing priorities is rebuilding our Armed Forces, which have been worn down by years of war. Failing to go restore readiness will jeopardize our security in the short term, but financing it with even more debt will threaten our ability to support a world-class military in the long term.

That is why we must help phase out wasteful spending that contributes little to our nation’s safety.

As a senior Pentagon advisory group wrote, and I quote, “We cannot reset the current force, modernize, and transform at the same time. Choices must be made.” We must be prepared to make those choices, confident that wise defense spending is the best security.

On health care, fiscal responsibility will mean investing in information technology to help make our health care system more efficient. It will mean supporting efforts to ground medical decisions in statistical and empirical data, as the odd bedfellows John Kerry and Newt Gingrich argued in a recent piece in the New York Times, and it will mean expanding access, because the highly inefficient way in which Americans pay for health care is harming businesses, productivity, and imposing huge costs on them during a recession.

As Kerry and Gingrich point out, and I quote, “The United States spends more than twice as much per capita on health care compared to almost every other country in the world and with worse health results and quality than most industrialized nations.”

From that perspective, the most wasteful alternative is doing nothing.

Health care is an urgent priority. President-elect Obama has indicated that; Senator Kennedy has indicated it; Senator Baucus, Chairman Dingell, Mr. Waxman, and others have all indicated that conclusion.

Health care, although an urgent priority -- and we must move on it with dispatch -- but doing it right will be far more important than doing it within an arbitrary timeframe. A consensus of the American people on how on health care is critical to our ultimate success.

Finally, we have a window to truly set our fiscal house in order, ensuring the public and the markets that, even as we make necessary investments today, we are prepared for the years to come. A key priority in the next Congress must be entitlement reform, as well.

The term itself is a little bit misleading. When it comes to health care, we can no longer think of entitlement reform and expanded access as two separate issues. In fact, they are two facets of the same issue.

We will never be able to cut the cost of Medicare and Medicaid as long as they are serving unhealthy patients, as long as they are the first consistent source of insurance for tens of millions of Americans. But even with expanded access to health care and even with savings on Medicare and Medicaid, we still will have to make tough choices on entitlements. But making them we must. The longer we put these choices off, the more our priorities and our possibility -- and possibilities will be constrained, year after year. So let us face those choices sooner rather than later.

On Social Security, the path of reform is, relatively speaking, more easily defined, but we will need a bipartisan consensus to move forward. But now that privatization is essentially off the table, that will be, I hope, possible.

Helping to reform Social Security would be an excellent way for Republicans, in my opinion, to demonstrate that they’re serious about working towards solutions that are politically doable and fiscally responsible, not just ideologically defining.

As I’ve said, governing as a national majority does not mean simply setting modest, middling goals; it means ambitious goals, pursued thoughtfully, with time taken to win arguments and build the agreement that has so far eluded us.

As our next president said at Grant Park, and I quote, “While the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.”

I believe the president said that in a considered and determined way. I believe that’s his intent; it must be ours, as well.

Now our work is to turn from promise to progress, from speeches to statute. We will take counsel from every part of our party, from our Republican colleagues and from the White House, and we will then work to make concrete the change that America has chosen.

Four years ago, the last time a party won control of the presidency and the Congress, President Bush reflected on his victory and said this. Quote, “We had an accountability moment, and that’s called the elections.”

But that was an incomplete observation, in my opinion. We know what happens to a party that thinks it’s only accountable once, because no election delivers a blank check. In truth, elections give us something subtler, a chance to earn the confidence of the people we serve, a chance to build on our vision for this country, brick by brick, an accountability moment that comes again and again.

That’s what elections give us: the opportunity to effect change. In partnership with the American people and with all of our colleagues in the Congress, we will embrace this opportunity, the chance for a nation to be renewed and reaffirmed.

I know the speaker and I, the leadership in the Democratic Party, the new members of the House and the Senate welcome that challenge and welcome the opportunity to work together to effect the change that was voted for on November 4th.

Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

QUESTION: Mr. Hoyer, could you articulate a little bit -- a little bit more on the energy objectives for the 111th Congress, at least in the House? And in particular, would you advocate or support a restoration of the off-shore drilling ban?

HOYER: I think the -- first of all, overall, I’ve mentioned global warming. Obviously, I think there is a consensus certainly in our party and between the administration that we must address that issue, we must address it in a decisive and effective way to substantially reduce the carbon footprint and to address the global warming crisis that confronts us.

As you know, Chairman Dingell has put out, along with Rick Boucher , a proposal. As you know, 115 Democrats, led by Jay Inslee and others, have put out another proposal.

There will be extensive discussions on how to effect the reductions that we seek, both in the short term and to the half- century mark.

So I think we will proceed on that with, as I said, dispatch. There is not a timeframe for that, but we’ll proceed on that.

Secondly, we will defend the legislation that was passed last year and the energy bill, as well, which effects greater efficiencies in automobiles. We have proposed and adopted a loan guarantee program, as you know, of $25 billion to effect the retooling of the automobile industry to provide for efficient technologically efficient automobiles. We’ll continue to support that.

And we’ll work with our Senate colleagues to look towards expanding the reliance on alternative energy sources, we believe -- renewables and alternatives.

We believe it is absolutely essential to have an energy policy which is, as I said in my speech, not driven by the temporary reduction of prices at the pump, which are hard to explain, hard to explain how you go down about half within a very short period of time and spike up in that short period of time, as well.

Now, as it relates to the moratoria, which was not renewed, as you know, in the continuing resolution which was passed in the latter part of September, I think there will be efforts to look at further ways to delineate areas available for drilling.

I do not believe at this point in time that there are any proposals being made to reinstate the moratoria across the board.

QUESTION: Mr. Leader, you’ve been devoted to Congress and government your whole life. Despite the many bipartisan bills of the last Congress and the polls now with high support and hope for Obama, those numbers are the opposite of the 12 percent to 23 percent favorable ratings for Congress, lower than Bush and the lowest in history. If the Republicans continue to obstruct and claim one-party rule, which is pretty predictable, what can you and the leadership do to restore respect for Congress so it’s not just a legislative grinder, but an institution respected by Americans?

HOYER: Well, of course, let me, first of all, observe why I think the numbers for Congress are so low. There was, of course, a contradiction in the numbers, as well. Those contradictions I’ve discussed with a number of members of the press.

First, the numbers are low for Congress. Secondly, the numbers to have Democrats running the Congress were high, relatively speaking, in the polling data prior to the election.

We have now done something that’s historic, hasn’t been done since 1932, and that is expand our majority in two elections in a row to now over 50 new members in the last two elections.

That is an historic accomplishment; with it is an historic responsibility.

We will restore the numbers for Congress generically, which does not have generic support. There are -- nobody going around and saying, “I love the Congress.”

And as a matter of fact, people are inundated in every congressional district with ads that say specifically the opposite, “I’m going it reform Congress; I’m going to make Congress better; we’re going to restore integrity to Congress.” Both sides do that, and the people watch these ads, and they take it for granted that what they mean is Congress is not so hot.

The way we will restore that is action, accomplishment. We have now the context in which that can be done. We have a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress who largely agree on the directions that we ought to go.

If, in fact, we effect that change, then I think the country will reflect the respect -- a restored respect for Congress as a result of its product.

What I think the low numbers reflect is the fact that America believes that the country is going in the wrong direction. The election reflected the affirmation of that polling data. And, as a result, they looked to the policymakers -- that is, the Congress of the United States -- as not doing its job. They were largely correct in that.

Not that we didn’t do our job -- that is to say, in the House of Representatives, we passed most -- almost all of the legislation that we said we wanted to pass dealing with the economy, dealing with fiscal responsibility, dealing with energy, dealing with restoring our economy.

But we fell too often on the shoals of obstructionism and the failure to get 40 votes in the United States Senate. I’m hopeful that, whatever the number is in the United States Senate, 56, 57, 58, 59 -- 60, I suppose, is possible, mathematically, probably not probable -- that we will pick up a number of Republicans who themselves will want to see action after having reached consensus.

I think that’s possible and hope that will happen. And I think the numbers will improve if we produce product that make the country feel better and be better.

QUESTION: Mr. Leader, thank you. President Clinton found out that when -- just because he was in the White House and had the party -- his party in control of Congress didn’t necessarily mean he was going to get everything he wanted.

Is this president-elect doomed to repeat the same lesson? And is there anything about this transition that gives you more confidence that the dissension we’re used to seeing in the Democratic ranks won’t erupt this time?

HOYER: Let me say that there is a difference in ‘09 and ‘10 than ‘93 and ‘94. And the difference was 12 years in the wilderness, 12 years in the minority.

We had been in the majority for 38 years in ‘93 and ‘94. And there was a sense that we would perhaps always be in the majority. And, therefore, I think we did not focus enough on reaching consensus, not only within the Congress, but also between the president and the Congress.

Although we were successful in that Congress, and we adopted an economic program that had no Republican support and the public was not very convinced it was the right thing to do, but as the years went by, it helped produce four years of surplus, which had not been done in the lifetime of anybody in this room before that, so that the program that was adopted economically and some of the other programs that were adopted and sent to the president to sign made real progress in our country.

But I think we understand President Obama, who has demonstrated a keen awareness and grasp of the challenges and of ways and means forward -- I think that’s why he was elected. I think he projected confidence and engendered confidence, and I think he’ll continue to do so.

I also think that the administration, many of them went through the ‘93, ‘94 period, as I did, as many of us in Congress went through, including the speaker and myself, and will understand the necessity for consensus and the necessity to build public support. And I think we’ll do that.

QUESTION: I think you didn’t mention immigration reform in your speech. I’m wondering if you’re ruling out considering it in the first year of the next Congress, despite the fact that Mr. Obama promised to do something within that time period?

And since you mentioned that the Republicans are moving to a more narrower agenda, what are the real chances of passing immigration reform next year, this -- yes, next year?

HOYER: Well, I think that we -- surprisingly, immigration was not a major issue, as we know, in this last presidential campaign. It was an issue, and it remains an issue, and it remains a challenge for us in this country.

But I think -- I don’t know specifically what the conversations were between Mr. -- Senator McCain and Senator Obama yesterday, but, clearly, I think one of the reasons it wasn’t a major issue is because Senator McCain and Senator Obama had similar views on comprehensive immigration reform.

I think that it is interesting that you have the Chamber of Commerce agreeing more with the Democratic position and the McCain position on comprehensive reform than many Republicans in the House and in the Senate.

I think President Obama will want to move forward on that; I think we want to move forward on that.

I think there are two premises, number one, that our nation must be secure, our borders must be secure, and those who come into the United States need to be those that we know are coming into the United States and are authorized to come into the United States.

Secondly, the premise is that we have a large number, in the millions, of people who are here who are working essentially or operating essentially under the table, out of sight. That’s not good for our economy; it’s not good for them; and it’s not realistic, we think, to take effort to kick all of them out. That’s not possible, nor is it advisable.

So I think the answer to your question is that that, although I didn’t mention in my speech, will certainly be an item on the agenda, but it will not be the first item on the agenda. The economy will be the first item on the agenda.

And as President Obama -- President-elect Obama said the other night, also first -- I think we’ve got two tracks at the same time -- will be ensuring America’s security.

As President-elect Obama observed last night, and as Senator Biden -- much was made in the television ads about that, as Senator Biden observed, it is a time of risk when you have a transition and you are tested by those who would wish you harm.

So I think those two items will be priorities. But I think that immigration certainly is on the agenda.

QUESTION: You’ve advocated for many, many years about -- for federal employees and been -- been somewhat critical of the current administration in regards to the way that federal employees are -- are treated.

Could you talk to me, sir, about what your hopes are for the -- for federal workers under the Obama administration and talk about maybe some of your hopes for what you hope to accomplish on -- on the Hill for -- for federal workers?

HOYER: Well, we have been very successful with federal workers, as you know, notwithstanding the administration’s position. We even came to a point this year where the president submitted a budget which adopted the congressional premise of parity between the military and civilian pay treatment.

That was effected this year by the Congress. We -- we increased by some measure the recommendation of the president.

Other items that I have proposed and will be working with President-elect Obama, at a time of energy crisis, the state of Utah and others have adopted a premise that I think makes sense, and that is to make more available the opportunity for a longer day, but maybe a four-day workweek, with a 10-hour day as opposed to an 8-hour day.

And you could take a quarter or thereabouts -- maybe a little less than that -- or a fifth, 20 percent, off the road in the Washington metropolitan every day. That would be an energy savings, a time savings. It would affect, I think, as efficient a workforce as we now have.

And initially, the Office of Personnel Management, as you know, responded relatively negatively to that proposal, but subsequently, when I pointed out that their own office had issued a regulation or an advisory which seemed to encourage a similar step, they’ve become more moderate on their view on that issue, and I hope to pursue that with the Obama administration.

I’ve also had a proposal in for a number of years, as health care costs have escalated, for a greater contribution by the federal government towards the health care of -- health insurance of our employees.

They now pay about an average of 73 percent -- excuse me, the government pays an average of 73 percent, and I’ve suggested we go to 80 percent, and that has been a bipartisan proposal in the Washington metropolitan area and around the country. We have bipartisan support for that.

So there was a couple of things that I’m going to pursue.

QUESTION: You know that the White House and the Republicans want to use the $25 billion in energy retooling loans for the auto companies instead of TARP money. If the situation for the automakers is as dire as they say it is, why not just go ahead and do that and then authorize or re-allocate the $25 billion in energy loans next year?

HOYER: The -- one of the reasons not to do that is, if the premise is we’re going to do $50 billion anyway, and I think that -- the question’s underlying premise is that we’re going to do that or would do that under your suggestion, we have in hand a piece of legislation that we have passed providing for retooling, providing for technology advances in retooling to provide for the production of different and more efficient automobiles. That’s in place. We don’t think there’s any need to repeal that in order to move forward with the automobile companies.

We, therefore, are suggesting that we not have $25 billion new dollars, but take $25 billion out of the $700 billion that was appropriated for the purposes -- or authorized for the purposes of the troubled assets recovery program, which, of course, are now not so much troubled assets as they are opportunity investments, I’ll put it that way.

I’m pleased that some of you are here. Mr. Paulson, I know Secretary Paulson is testifying before our committee, but we discussed that briefly yesterday.

So our position is simply that that really is a distinction without a difference. If you -- unless you believe that we’re going to kill the technology program, which we’re not going to do, then it seems to be not a worthwhile effort of repealing a program that’s already been passed, signed by the president, into law.

And what we simply ought to do is take $25 billion of the $700 billion and apply that to stabilize the automobile companies in the short term.

QUESTION: If I could follow up on that, what is your sense that there will be some sort of compromises this week on the auto industry package?

HOYER: Well, we -- we -- we hope that there will be. Senator Reid is not very confident of that. I think we could pass something through the House of Representatives. As you know, the Senate began its efforts yesterday.

The base bill being the extension of the unemployment insurance that we passed before we left and broke for the election. We hope that the automobile provision will be added to that bill and sent over to us, in which case we will have the opportunity to pass it.

But it really is contingent upon whether or not Senator Reid can get the requisite number of votes. We would hope we could work with the administration.

The administration, as pointed out in the previous question, has taken the position that we just ought to use the $25 billion in section 136, which is the section that sets up that particular $25 billion for the technology retooling, for the industry.

But we’re hopeful that the Senate can come to an agreement. And we’re prepared to work with the White House and with the Senate, with our Republican colleagues, to try to come to such an agreement.

The White House is now, as I understand -- what Ms. Perino said yesterday -- willing to -- they want to help the automobile companies. It’s just a question of how. Hopefully we can reach that. Of course, I think there seems to be a growing consensus that that’s necessary. QUESTION: And if we don’t get an agreement this week, does that mean this process continues into December in a possible -- possible lame-duck?

HOYER: Possible. Possible.

QUESTION: Well, first, before my question, could you expand on the idea of going to December. And then, second, can you looking into the...

HOYER: You have a personal concern about that?

QUESTION: Yes, a very personal concern.

HOYER: So do 434 colleagues.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) on the question of PAYGO, you mentioned doing health care and doing it right being more important, but can you address the growing sense in the...

HOYER: I just -- let me just clarify. I discussed doing it right not in the context of PAYGO, but in the context of doing it right rather than doing it within a set timeframe.

QUESTION: Let me put it in the context of PAYGO.

HOYER: OK.

QUESTION: There does seem to be -- you know, every time a large- ticket item comes along, a reason not to do it in PAYGO, not just according to Senate Republicans, but according to many people in the Democratic Party.

Your point person, you would say, on health care reform, Pete Stark , has said he doesn’t think and has been talking to Blue Dogs -- he doesn’t think you need to do -- or abide by PAYGO for either the position of reimbursement or health care reform in general.

So, I mean, is there -- is there really the political will to bring health care reform back, something that expensive, back under PAYGO?

HOYER: I think that there is the political will to ensure that, over a period of time, we have a plan in place that will get us to a PAYGO-compliant place.

Unfortunately, we have pursued such a fiscally irresponsible policy, where we’re going to have perhaps as much of a -- as a trillion dollar operating deficit in fiscal year ‘09, that we have been put in a very, very difficult place.

As I said, there are some things that we need to do which will have effective savings, not immediately, and may not be immediately PAYGO-compliant.

All the economists we talk to -- Alice Rivlin, in particular -- says that, in the short term, we may not be able to comply with PAYGO, but we must comply with PAYGO in the longer term, which is to say, similar to dealing with the fiscal -- excuse me, the financial crisis that confronts our country, the economic crisis that confronted our country, we did not believe it was appropriate to try to stimulate and depress at the same time.

So I think the answer to your question is, our objective is going to be have a PAYGO-compliant policy over the longer term. That may not be possible in the short term, given where we are.

QUESTION: Would you go ahead with the reform? Do you -- would you go ahead with it, noncompliant in the short term?

HOYER: Yes, I think that we -- we believe that moving ahead on health care reform is critically important, as I said, not only within the context of making health care affordable and accessible to millions of people who do not now have that access, but also in terms of making our system more efficient and less costly.

QUESTION: Mr. Leader, I’d like to follow up on an earlier question, with E-Verify about to expire in the first week of March, when do you think Congress will reauthorize that legislation next year?

HOYER: Well, I think we want to move on that relatively quickly because it expires, but I don’t -- I have not talked to the chairman. I’ve asked all the chairmen to give me a list. As you know, I sort of coordinate the -- when we put things on the floor, but I coordinate with the chairmen when they have things ready to go to the floor.

So I have not yet gotten back from the chairmen their proposed schedules for next year. But certainly I think that will be an item that we will want to give early attention to. But I don’t know specifically when.

QUESTION: Mr. Leader, how will Congress ensure accountability, transparency, and congressional oversight of existing and future bailouts? And sort of as a follow-up, will protectionist of federal and corporate whistleblowers be on the House’s must-do list?

HOYER: I think the latter question is, yes, that will be on our agenda.

On the first, on oversight, I think that all of you have seen our intent to have vigorous oversight during the last 45 days. We left at the end of September or early October. When was the first day we got out? The 29th, I think.

In any event, we’ve had a large number of hearings -- I think some 20 in all -- in that period of time, notwithstanding the election was ongoing. Mr. Frank, Mr. Dodd, both had significant oversight hearings. Mr. Waxman has had significant oversight hearings. And we intend to continue to do that.

We’ve met with Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke on a number of occasions since that time. And last night, we raised the issue once again of transparency and oversight and accountability, which we believe are critically important given the status of the dollars and the status of the crisis.

So we have been pursuing that and will continue to do so.

And, as you know, we are still waiting -- Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell have two people to appoint to the legislatively created oversight, congressional oversight.

QUESTION: Good morning. This is going to be the first time in a while that we’ve had a president who comes from the legislative ranks. And I wondered if you could maybe talk a little bit about that dynamic.

I could see it being helpful to relations, but it may be also helpful if you all feel that you are entitled perhaps to more than you actually are, given that he is no longer one of you or will no longer be one of you. Tell me -- tell me a little bit more about that.

HOYER: Well, I’m not sure with the promise of that question is, as what we’re entitled to. We are, under Article I, the policymakers of this country. That’s what the founding fathers said; that’s what our Constitution sets forth. And, of course, President-elect Obama was elected to execute the policies of our country.

Now, having said that, we all realize that the president has, over the last century, become the principal policymaker, as well, and proposer of policy. And we expect that to continue.

But we are a coequal branch. Those of you who’ve heard me discuss in the first six years of the Bush administration, I said that it was a very complacent, complicit Congress that neglected its oversight and essentially would not pass anything that President Bush did not want to sign. And, therefore, he didn’t veto any bills, save one, that we passed in the last days of the -- those six years, stem- cell research.

The fact is that President-elect Obama I think is an extraordinary individual. And I think that’s why he was elected with a majority of the votes. I think he reflected to the American public a thoughtful, considered, consensus-seeking demeanor and intent.

And I think he’ll continue to be that way as president. He has his role as president. He has individual views as president. He was elected by all the people. We were elected in districts to represent, however, all of the people collectively. And I think we will come to an agreement.

I think the fact that he comes from the Senate will not necessarily make that much of a difference. I, frankly, think in my lifetime the only president that’s made a real difference is Lyndon Johnson, who had such a long career as the majority leader of the United States Senate and close relationships with members of Congress.

And, of course, he took the presidency at a time of national tragedy, and there was a tremendous consensus that action was -- that engendered action.

But other than that, I don’t think that the fact that he is -- comes from the United States Senate will make the difference. What will make the difference is his personality and his determination and ours to work together to effect the change that America wants.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that question, Mr. Hoyer?

HOYER: Sure.

QUESTION: Thank you. In terms of working with the new...

HOYER: (inaudible) though.

QUESTION: ... the new Obama administration, will -- will the Democrats will you Democrats always be awaiting direction, suggestions from the administration, including areas where you want to act, as you described, on global warming or health? Or could you imagine situations where the Democratic-controlled Congress takes the initiative without a lot of guidance from the administration?

HOYER: Well, I certainly think there have been a lot of initiatives on the table over the last two years and for a longer period of time than that. And we have some very senior members of Congress and new members of Congress who have some very good ideas and thoughts as to where they want to take this country and how they want to respond to the challenges that confront the country. I think it’s our responsibility to initiate.

On the other hand, as I have said throughout my brief talk, the creation of consensus we believe is very important to move forward to actually make change happen.

You don’t get consensus without giving consideration to the president, the Congress, and, frankly, to the other side of the aisle. I think we’ll do that, and I think we’ll work together, and I think that’s the president-elect’s intention. I think it’s our intention. So we’ll work towards that end.

QUESTION: On the PAYGO issue, how -- how do you expect to square PAYGO with extending for the long term the tax cuts for people making less than $250,000?

HOYER: We’re going to have to -- again, let me make it -- reiterate. That’s going to be tough, and it’s certainly going to be perhaps not possible in the very -- in the short term, because we are in a position that has placed us in a very deep hole.

We’re also in a position where we need to do some things, notwithstanding the fact that we’re in that deep hole.

So the answer to your question is -- we’ve already talked to Mr. Furman, who, as you know, is advising and with whom I’ve worked before, talked to him about how we get from where we are to where we need to be. And we’re going to continue to discuss that. But, again, our overall objective is going to be pursuing a fiscally responsible policy, but within the framework of having to address certain critical issues in the short term.

QUESTION: What are your plans in terms of reinstating an off- shore ban on oil and gas drilling, number one? And then also the timing on climate change legislation, number two.

HOYER: I think I answered both those questions in response to your question. But having said that -- that’s all right.

Having said that, I don’t think there is any intent at this point in time -- there are no -- nobody is suggesting that we return to the same position we were in on September 28th or 27th or 26th.

But I think there will be real discussion on the parameters in which drilling will be pursued.

There was a GAO report out, by the way -- I think maybe some of you saw it not too long ago which raised the same question that we had raised about the 68 million acres that are currently authorized. Now, of course, all the acreage is open over -- outside the 3-mile or 12- mile limit.

So I think the answer to your question is, we’re going to be looking at parameters, not necessarily reinstatement of the existing moratoria prior to the president’s lifting it and then the restriction that was in -- in the interior appropriation bill of ‘08.

On your global warming, the timing is that there have been a number of proposals out. I think we will work with the president- elect, Obama, when he becomes president, to determine the timing.

Again, I want to stress I believe the economy and, as President Obama said, national security, ensuring during this transition period that we are secure as a nation and as a people will be the two main priorities to get immediate attention.

But I think global warming is certainly on the agenda for this year in the near -- near term.

QUESTION: Mr. Leader, how high a priority is the Employee Free Choice Act? And on that bill, are you going to negotiate with Republicans?

HOYER: The Employee Free Choice Act is high up on our agenda. We passed it early in the last session. It languished in the Senate. We believe very strongly that employees have not only the right to organize and bargain collectively for pay and benefits and working conditions, but that our economy is better off when that happens.

We also believe that it’s been very difficult for employees to get elections. There have been great delays, not enforcement of -- by the NLRB of --- against unfair labor practices.

So we -- that’s an agenda high up on our -- that is an item high up on our agenda. And we will be giving attention early on.

Will we discuss with others their views, including Republicans and the administration, their views on that? The answer is yes; we will be discussing that. And there are obviously various different views on that issue, but we intend to pursue it.

QUESTION: Talking about the agenda, what do you see coming out of the gate? I mean, we’ve got the economy to work on. Where do you see the health care debate starting to come up? Can you talk a little bit about what your crystal ball timeframe is?

HOYER: In the short term, obviously, to some degree, it will be affected by what we’re able to do this week or in the next few weeks.

Senator Obama, as president-elect and as a candidate, and Democrats all talked about essentially four main components of a stimulus package that we think that members of the administration, or at least Chairman Bernanke has talked about the need for stimulus package, others have talked about. We think there’s a need for a stimulus package.

We passed a $61 billion package that was offered by Senator Reid and objected to by the Republicans during the last days of the session before the election. We still believe that’s important. If we can’t pass it now, then we will certainly -- that will be one of the early items on the agenda.

As you know, there are nine appropriation bills which have been included in the C.R. but need to be finally passed. That will be early up on our agenda.

Children’s health insurance, as you know, is an item that we feel very strongly about. And we passed it with 45 Republican votes in the House, 19 Republican votes in the Senate. Two-thirds in the Senate, we didn’t have -- we fell 12 votes short of two-thirds. That will be an item early up.

But those are -- and, of course, further actions on the economy, depending upon what the -- where we are with the auto companies and depending upon where we are with the rescue package at that point in time.

So it’s -- those will be the early items. Longer term, we’ve discussed a lot of the longer-term items already.

HILL: The woman with the laptop?

QUESTION: I’m wondering if you could expand...

(CROSSTALK)

HOYER: The one with the laptop. You will forever be known now as the one with the laptop.

QUESTION: If you could expand a little bit on the possibility for December -- a meeting in December and as part of the economic... (CROSSTALK)

HOYER: Chris, you got me down this road.

QUESTION: Could you talk a little bit about extending the GSA and FHA loans?

HOYER: The -- what I have responded -- when I responded to Chris’ question, what -- he said, well, could it be done later? And the answer to that is yes. We do believe, as we have articulated, that dealing with the automobile crisis is a -- is a pressing need, not only in terms of the automobile industry, but also all of the related industries.

There was some debate about how many people we’re talking about, but we’re talking about a lot of people. Whatever the number is, we’re talking about a lot of people and great consequence to our economy.

What my response to Chris’ question simply said, that obviously we’re going to be back here, we think, in December, not necessarily in session, but, as you know, we had an economic conference two years ago as we started the session, which ultimately led to, as you know, the rescue -- the rebates in January, working hand in glove with the Republicans, overwhelming bipartisan action that we took, signed by the president.

We expect to have another one of those conferences the week of the 8th of December. So that is available -- as this week was available to us, we’re doing the organizing. This week was available to us, as well.

So I’m simply reflecting that we’re not -- the year has not ended. My expectation is the speaker and I will agree we’re not going to adjourn sine die if we have not completed our work. And it will be, as we said before, subject to the call of the chair.

QUESTION: Mr. Leader, back to the automakers bailout, since we may be working with that later this week, over the weekend, Chairman Frank said that some of the strings that should be attached to the $25 billion would be the no one in management would make over $200,000. Do you think that the unions ought to also be required to make concessions? And if so, what should those concessions look like?

HOYER: Well, I’m not going to get into what concessions or constraints ought to be placed either on management or on labor.

But I will say that, obviously, Chairman Frank is looking at requirements that we not follow the same business model as has been followed which has led us to a place where we are not as successful in the auto industry in this country as we need to be. And there will be requirements for new models, reorganization, and requirements that such a plan be submitted in consideration of dollars received.

But I’m not going to get into specifics, because the bill hasn’t been reported out at this point in time. But, clearly, I think the unions have already had some renegotiations at this point in time. So it’s not as if they’ve been simply saying, “Well, you’re in trouble, and we’re not going to do anything.” They’ve already done some substantial things.

One of the reasons for the short term, as you know, there’s going to be a transfer of health care obligations next year. I believe it’s next year. And so there -- both sides have taken some steps. By the way, I think it’s $250,000, but be that as it may.

I think one of the things that we’ve been concerned about, as you know, as a Congress -- and I will tell you, taxpayers are very concerned about -- if they’re going to come up with money to try to stabilize enterprises, they don’t want to see their tax dollars used for large expenditures to people who have not led their corporations to very successful places.

They don’t want to see large handouts to people who retire in the millions and millions of dollars their tax dollars. That makes them very angry, rightfully so. And I understand Secretary Paulson shares that view.

QUESTION: There’s been some chatter, especially on editorial pages, about now that energy prices are way down...

HOYER: You can’t trust those editorial pages.

QUESTION: ... having a -- having a gasoline tax to fund some energy research and so on. Does that have any support in Congress?

HOYER: Oh, I think it’s fair to say it has some support in Congress. Whether it has -- that is not on the table. We’re not discussing that at this point in time.

I did read the Washington Post editorial on that effort. I think that clearly, as we look at -- and this is Steny Hoyer speaking. This is not any consensus. But as we look at the needs for infrastructure and we talk about PAYGO, we’re going to have to look at ways and means to pay for infrastructure improvement.

We’re also going to have to look at ways and means to ensure that we remain cognizant of the expense of our addiction to oil.

So I think there are obviously, as you know, members who believe that’s a way to go, but that’s not on the table at this point in time. There’s no discussion of that.

I say no discussion. There’s no formal proposal to do that, nor to, as Mr. Oberstar or anybody else indicated, that they intend to make that proposal in the -- in the near term.

I happen to believe, personally, that we’re going to have to look at ways and means to fund the absolutely essential infrastructure needs of this country.

HILL: I’m going to use the moderator’s prerogative to ask the final question. And it kind of piggybacks on Mr. Kondracke’s question.

In the area of energy independence, do think that President-elect Obama should make a Kennedy-esque statement that we will curtail all our oil imports in 10, 15 years?

HOYER: I don’t -- the answer to that question would be no. I don’t think you ought to make that definitive statement, because I’m not sure that that’s possible.

What is possible, however, is to very substantially reduce our reliance on petroleum products which will ultimately, for my great- granddaughter, perhaps, disappear. We don’t know. Maybe we’ll discover great new supplies.

But we do you know that we have a very substantial global warming problem that we need to seek alternative energy supplies. As T. Boone Pickens says, you know, we’ve got 3 percent of the supply, 25 percent of the demand. That’s not a sustainable policy for us.

So while I would not recommend that he make such a definitive statement, I think that he certainly has made a very strong statement about reaching the objective of energy independence and very substantial reduction of reliance on petroleum products.

And we talked about the $25 billion that we put for the technology retooling of the automobile industry to move to alternatively powered vehicles.

And, of course, one of the things that we need to look at, battery technology, and we need to have that here in the United States.

So all of those things are, I think, items that we believe are very important. We need to pursue them in the short term. I think President-elect Obama agrees with that proposition and will be pursuing that objective.

Thank you very much.

END

.ETX

Nov 18, 2008 13:32 ET .EOF

Source: CQ Transcriptions

© 2008, Congressional Quarterly Inc., All Rights Reserved