Nancy Pelosi

  • Aired:  11/09/11
  •  | Views: 36,666

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi discusses the Congressional approval rating and weighs in on how the super committee should handle America's debt crisis. (8:50)

>> Jon: WELCOME BACK.

MY GUEST TONIGHT SHE WAS THE

FIRST FEMALE SPEAKER OF HOUSE

AND NOW THE HOUSE DEMOCRATIC

LEADER.

PLEASE WELCOME BACK TO THE

PROGRAM HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADER

NANCY PELOSI.

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]

THANKS FOR JOINING US AGAIN.

>> MY PLEASURE.

>> Jon: HOW ARE YOU?

YOU KNOW, CONGRESS OH, FOR

GOODNESS SAKES.

THEY ARE SO SWEET.

THEIR APPROVAL RATING RIGHT NOW

IS SLIGHTLY BELOW, FROM WHAT I

UNDERSTAND HEPATITIS C.

>> AND YOU WONDER WHO ARE THESE

PEOPLE WHO APPROVE OF CONGRESS,

THE 9%?

[ LAUGHTER ]

>> Jon: WHY DO YOU THINK THAT

IS?

>> LET ME -- LAST TIME I WAS

HERE IN APRIL OF 2009 -- THAT

WAS THE LAST TIME I WAS ON THE

SHOW, DEMOCRATS WERE IN CONTROL

CONGRESSIONAL RATING WAS 40%.

40%, YOU REMEMBER THAT?

NOTE TO SELF.

>> Jon: NOT ONLY DO I NOT

REMEMBER THAT.

THE WHOLE 2009 THING YOU

MENTIONED THAT WENT PAST ME AS

WELL.

>> WE HAVE WORK TO DO.

>>.

>> Jon: IT FEELS LIKE THEY

TAKE GOOD INTENTIONS.

IT'S WHERE GOOD INTENTIONS GO TO

DIE.

>> NO.

WELL, NOT WHEN WE WERE IN THE

MAJORITY.

WE TOOK THEM TO A PLACE TO MAKE

SURVIVAL TO SUCCESS.

>> Jon: I UNDERSTAND.

WORKING CLASS FAMILIES.

LOOK AT ME PELOSI.

[ LAUGHTER ]

IT'S WE'LL USE THE EXAMPLE OF

THIS VOCAL RULE.

SO THE IDEA IS BANKS ARE USING

MONEY FROM CUSTOMERS TO FINANCE

THEIR SORT OF SPECULATIVE HEDGE

FUND ACTIVITIES, BUYING RISKY

DEBT AND ALL THAT.

SO PAUL VOLCKER WRITES A MEMO TO

THE PRESIDENT SAYS, WE SHOULD

STOP THAT.

AND THEN CONGRESS GETS IT AND

THEY SAY WE SHOULD.

THAT THREE-PAGE MEMO TURNS INTO

A 300-PAGE BILL THE SUMMARY OF

WHICH IS 41 PAGES TO THE POINT

WHERE PAUL VOLCKER SAYS, UH, I

DON'T LIKE THIS ANYMORE.

IS THAT WHY PEOPLE DON'T LIKE

ZMONG BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED IS

THE SIMPLE CLEAR RULE THAT WOULD

HAVE BEEN EASILY REGULATED IS

ATTACKED BY LOBBYISTS, BANKERS,

SPECIAL INTERESTS AND TURNED

INTO OATMEAL.

>> WELL, THAT'S ONE WAY OF

LOOKING AT IT.

THE FACT IS THE VOLCKER RULE IS

A VERY GOOD IDEA AS ORIGINALLY

PROPOSED AND HOW THAT TRANSLATES

TO LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE.

THAT SAY RESPONSIBILITY WE HAVE.

IT HAS TO TURN INTO

LEGISLATIVE -- IT DIDN'T ADD

PROVISIONS IT TRANSLATED.

YOU KNOW WHAT, THAT IS SO

INSIDER WHAT IS IMPORTANT.

>> STEPHEN: WHAT YOU CALL

INSIDER WE CALL THE BUSINESS OF

CONGRESS.

IT'S NOT JUST PUTTING IT IN

LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE IT'S PEOPLE

FINDING WHAT THEY CALL

EXCEPTIONS, WHAT WE WOULD CALL

LOOPHOLES.

YOU HOW DOES THAT GET IN THERE

TO CHANGE WHAT IS A PRETTY CLEAN

RULE?

>> EVEN PAUL VOLCKER AS HE SAYS

IN TERMS OF HOW YOU RIGHT THE

RULE AND WHAT THE RESULT WILL BE

HAS A PERIOD OF PUBLIC COMMENT.

THAT'S THE WAY IT IS.

PEOPLE HAVE MADE SUGGESTIONS TO

SAY THERE MAY BE UNINTENDED

CONSEQUENCE.

WHY I SAY IT'S INSIDER, THE FACT

IS WHAT THE END PRODUCTS THAT BE

IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT

HAPPENS BY SOME -- NOT TO PAINT

EVERYONE WITH THE SAME BRUSH, BY

SOME ON WALL STREET, THE

RECKLESSNESS CAUSES JOBLESSNESS

ON MAIN STREET.

WHAT THEY WERE DOING IS NOT

RIGHT AND THAT IS THE

LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.

>> Jon: I COMPLETELY

UNDERSTAND.

MY POINT IS BY ADDING THE

EXEMPTIONS BY ALL ACCOUNTS IT

HAS MUDDLED THE PURPOSE OF RULE

TO THE POINT WHERE HE THINKS

IT'S NO LONGER QUITE EFFECTIVE

AND MAKES IT HARDER TO REGULATE,

HARDER TO ENFORCE.

>> I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE HIM

ON THE SHOW BECAUSE HE WOULD

EXPLAIN TO YOUjF VERY CLEARLY WHY

HE DOESN'T LIKE THE WAY IT IS

EMERGING BUT NOT WHAT HIS

ORIGINAL INTENTION WAS AND HOW

CONGRESS WROTE THE BILL.

>> Jon: HE FEELS THERE'S

LOOPHOLES THAT MAKE IT DIFFICULT

TO RECOGNIZE.

HE FEELS NOW IT'S THAT OBSCENITY

RULE I'LL KNOW IT WHEN I SEE BUT

IT'S NOT AS CLEAR.

IT'S BEEN WATERED DOWN.

IT SEEMS LIKE -- I MEAN, WOULD

YOU -- LET'S BACK IT UP FOR A

SECOND WOULD YOU SAY IT'S A

VALID CRITICISM OF CONGRESS THAT

LOBBYISTS THROUGH THE POWER THAT

THEY EXERT ON LEGISLATORS OFTEN

TAKE CLEAR CUT LEGISLATION AND

MUDDLE IT TO THE POINT WHERE

IT'S DIFFICULT TO IMPOSE.

>> LET'S INLARGE THE ISSUE FROM

THERE.

>> Jon: I DON'T WANT TO BE

UNFAIR TO CONGRESS.

THEY ARE AT 9%.

YOU DON'T WANT TO KICK SOMEONE

WHEN THEY ARE DONE.

>> WE WERE AT 40 WHEN I WAS

THERE LAST EAR TIME.

>> Jon: THAT WAS A SOLID D.

>> WE WERE THINKING HOW CAN WE

GET MORE?

AS YOU SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW

AT THE SUPERCOMMITTEE.

>> Jon: SURE.

>> THERE'S A PROCESS.

WE DID NOT HAVE THE 60 VOTES IN

THE SENATE.

WE COULD NOT WRITE EVERYTHING

CLEARLY THE WAY WE MIGHT HAVE IF

WE HAVE THE 60 VOTES.

YOU HAVE TO COMPROMISE.

>> Jon: YOU SAID THE

SUPERCOMMITTEE.

AS AN OUTSIDE OBSERVER WHO

DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WHAT

VEALY GOING AND CAN'T CALL PAUL

VOLCKER.

WE HAD SIMPSON BOWLES AND

ANOTHER PROCESS AND THE GAPING

OF SIX.

NOW THEY TELL US THE

SUPERCOMMITTEE IS GOING TO DO

THAT.

IT SEEMS LIKE AGAIN, LIKE, I

DON'T KNOW AT WHAT POINT DO WE

DEMAND -- YOU LEAD THE PARTY

THAT BELIEVES GOVERNMENT CAN

TAKE EFFECTIVE FORCEFUL ACTION

TO CHANGE PEOPLES LIVES.

AT WHAT POINT DO THE DEMOCRATS

HAVE TO PROVE THAT, PROVE THAT

GOVERNMENT CAN BE AGILE AND

EFFECTIVE?

>> WE DON'T WANT ANY MORE

GOVERNMENT.

WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE WE HAVE TWO

PATHS.

BLESS THEIR HEARTS SHALL THE

REPUBLICANS, THEY DO WHAT THEY

BELIEVE.

THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN SOCIAL

SECURITY, MEDICARE, MEDICAID,

CLEAN AIR, CLEAN WATER, PUBLIC

LEGISLATION --

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]

-- THERE ARE SOME.

>> Jon: THEY WOULD SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE WITH THAT

CHARACTERIZATION.

>> MAYBE SOME OF THEM WOULD.

BUT I'M NOT PAINTING THEM WITH

ALL WITH THE SAME BRUSH.

A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF THEM

WILL USE THE DEBT THAT WE ALL

WANT TO REDUCE THE DEBT.

IT'S A LEGITIMATE CONCERN WE

HAVE.

QUITE FRANKLY IF THEY CARED

ABOUT THE DEBT THEY WOULD HAVE

SQUAWKED WHEN PRESIDENT BUSH WAS

AMASSING IT.

>> Jon: NO QUESTION THERE.

>> SOME OF THEM WILL TRY TO USE

THE DEBT AS AN EXCUSE TO

ELIMINATE THE PUBLIC SPACE, ALL

THE THINGS I JUST TALKED B. WHAT

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE -- WHAT IS

THE POINT.

THE POINT IS NOW TO SAY TO THE

12 PEOPLE ON SUPERCOMMITTEE GET

IN A ROOM, SIT DOWN, REACH

AGREEMENT ON PUBLIC TELEVISION.

LET'S HAVE THIS TRANSPARENCY AND

OPEN MEETING WHERE WE SEE

EVERYBODY'S PROPOSALS AND

SUGGESTIONS ON THE TABLE, AN

EXPLANATION OF THEM, WHAT THEY

WOULD MEAN, TO NOT THAT TABLE

BUT THE KITCHEN TABLE OF ALL OF

AMERICA'S FAMILIES.

>> Jon: THANK.

THIS IS WHERE IT'SĂșIb DIFFICULT.

WHEN THE DEMOCRATS WERE IN

CHARGE.

THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT

FORTH A BUDGET.

AND THEY DIDN'T TAKE IT.

THEY DIDN'T TAKE THE SHOT.

RIGHT BEFORE THE DEBT CEILING.

REMEMBER HOW RIGHT BEFORE IN THE

SESSION THEY COULD HAVE PUT

FORTH A BUDGET THE SPECIFIC

BUDGET LIKE THE ONE THEY PUT

FORTH THAT TRIGGERED THE

GEPHART, DEBT CEILING RULE.

>> THE REPUBLICANS WOULD HAVE

FILIBUSTERED.

LET'S GO TO THAT PLACE.

THAT WAS A TIME.

>> Jon: YOU KNOW WHAT WE

SHOULD DO.

CAN WE -- LET'S TAKE A

COMMERCIAL BECAUSE I THINK WE

HAVE A BEER TO SELL.

[ LAUGHTER ]

AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK.

YOU CAN EXPLAIN IT TO ME

BECAUSE, AGAIN, I'M PURELY AS AN

OUTSIDE OBSERVER IT SEEMED

FACATA TO ME AND THAT'S JEWISH

Loading...