REP. LLOYD DOGGETT: Thank you very much. Thanks so much for your warm welcome. What a great turn out this morning. After -- after all that partying at Maggie Mae's last night, I didn't expect such a great crowd, and I am pleased you have taken a little time to learn a little about what our hometown has to offer. I also want to extend special thanks to Karl Thomas, to Matt, the Burnt Orange Report, and all the many others who helped bring you here.

You know the Burnt Orange Reports are often unavailable elsewhere leave some burnt -- very burnt. But most of us realize here in Austin that burnt orange is just another way of becoming a deeper shade of blue. You've -- you've come here to Austin at a time when you've recognized we only have two temperatures. Hot and hotter. But then in the Netroots you know a little about turning up the heat.

I salute you for providing information, for providing inspiration and for demanding accountability of every public official.

(Audience applauding)

REP. LLOYD DOGGETT: You're not just a part of the debate. You're important actors for the change that we so desperately need. And I think that because of your efforts -- your intensifying and growing efforts, both our Democratic Party and our democracy are stronger.

A depression err of mayor and Congressman from down the road in San Antonio, Maury Maverick, a genuine Texas maverick, not the strange type of pseudo maverick running for President this year.

(Audience applauding)

REP. LLOYD DOGGETT: Maury Maverick said that the meaning of democracy is quite simple. "A democracy is nothing more than liberty plus groceries."Well, I believe that that's the kind of democracy that we need to demand. One that gives full meaning to freedom whether it's in the net or anywhere else and one that encourages education and health care so that our economy provides growth and opportunity for all.

But, you know, that was hardly the spirit that I found in Washington the day that I raised my hand in 1994 and was sworn into office as Congress -- as a congressman for Austin. It was a day that Newt Gingrich was sworn in as Speaker, a fellow who had more wrong-headed answers than there are questions. And after he was deposed in a coup, we got Tom DeLay, the Texas Hammer, who seized control and hammered just about everything that we hold dear. And then the Bush chicanery administration took over the White House and led us into this wretched war. Those have been dark, lonely, long days that lasted for years. Not a few predicted at that time that Democrats would be either a permanent minority or extinct. The Republicans were determined to convince us that we needn't even try.

Well, many people worked to turn that around. But one and only one person had the vision and the strategy and the leadership to deliver us from the abyss. Speaker Nancy Pelosi provided the focus and the unceasing determination to break a 12-year Republican death grip on the people's House and on America. And what a difference her 18 months at the helm have made for our country, not just in what has been approved, but what has been defeated and avoided.

Long over due ethics reform could finally be enacted and last year I saw her moving around the Floor member to member, one by one, overcoming what seemed to be impossible obstacles to enacting a new energy bill.

It had been since 1975 when Paul Simon was -- began singing, "Still Crazy After All These Years," that we had had any improvement in vehicle fuel efficiency standards. Thirty-two years, it was crazy that it took that along, but it took Nancy Pelosi to turn it around and move us toward energy efficiency, and she's just getting started in this regard.

It was that same kind of determination that gave us victories on minimum wage, on college affordability and most recently on preserving Medicare. Finally, finally, in 184 days from this morning, Barack Obama will raise his hand to be sworn in as President.

(Audience applauding)

If we all do our job, that happy day is upon us.

And Nancy understands that if the Speaker's gavel slips into Republican hands, we will not be able to undo the great damage of the George W. Bush administration -- "W" standing for worst ever.

Well, on whatever difficult issues Congress confronts we always have vigorous debate and disagreement certainly as intense as anything in a Netroots conference within our Democratic caucus. And as long as that occurs in a way that recognizes that none of us have a monopoly on truth, that only makes us stronger.

Nancy Pelosi listens, she engages, and then she leads. Barack Obama, my colleagues in the House, indeed America could not be blessed with a better Speaker of the House than Nancy Pelosi, our friend. And she must be coming.

(Audience applauding)

REP. LLOYD DOGGETT: Please welcome Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House.

(Audience applauding)

(Standing ovation)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: Good morning. Good morning. Thank you-all for that very warm welcome. I hope that, though, spirit continues in the course of our Q and A.

(Laughter)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: I'm here simply to say thank you. Thank you to all of you for making our Democratic victory in November 2006 possible.

I would have -- I would have been here sooner but -- I was invited last year, but we had important votes on the Floor of the House. It was critical that I be there to make sure we have the votes, and so I got a rain check and here I am, no less enthusiastic about my gratitude to all of you for your help.

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: Applaud yourselves for that victory.

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: I want to thank Gina Cooper, Netroots Nation's executive director, for her invitation and her hospitality this morning, Jeffrey Feldman, who will be our moderator in a little while, who was already introduced. I know that two of my colleagues are here in the audience, Congresswoman Donna Edwards. Where is Donna?

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: And your friend for a long time, Congressman Brad Miller of North Carolina. Where is Brad?

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: Shouldn't Austin be proud of Lloyd Doggett.

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: Isn't he great? Isn't he great? Whether it is fighting corporate tax evaders, fighting for affordable college for all Americans, including our coming -- our returning vets. You name the subject: the environment, the economy, health care for all Americans, honesty in government, integrity, openness, transparency, Lloyd Doggett is in the lead protecting our Constitution every step of the way. And so it is a great honor for me to be presented to all of you by him. He is my friend. He is greatly admired in the Congress. Bless his heart, he is a great Texan.

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: I want to acknowledge Jesse Lee and Karina Newton of my staff -- they're here someplace -- for keeping us in touch.

And my daughter, Christine Pelosi, told me last night you had a rip-roaring time with some Democratic candidates who are soon to be members of the House of Representatives. They are so great. They are going to make even a greater difference in the Congress and for our country.

I particularly want to acknowledge Darcy Burner who has gone through so much personally.

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: I know we want to get to the questions, but I just want to make a couple of points. After our election the first thing I did when we -- after being sworn in as the First Woman Speaker of the House, was to establish a special select committee on energy independence and climate change recognizing that this is the challenge of our generation and certainly of yours.

Making us energy independent is a national security issue, is an economic issue creating good paying jobs, green jobs in our country, a revolution in our economy. It's an environmental health issue in terms of clean air, and all that that implies, and it is a moral issue. The responsibility we have to pass this planet on to the next generation better than we found it.

It's a moral responsibility, too; that is, because it is God's creation. Therefore, we work with the Evangelicals to preserve God's great garden, this planet.

In working with them, they have two stipulations. One is that we protect the -- preserve the planet; and, two, that we do so without harming the poor. I think that's a pretty good agenda.

And so with that as the framework of our priorities, our national security, our economy, the health of our nation, the -- the responsibility to the future, so many issues fall under that; and I know we'll be talking about some of them during the Q and A.

I do want to also make another point. After I was elected Speaker, I traveled to some countries, and I was criticized for having conversation and communication with -- with people.

This is so unbelievable. And, certainly, you who are masters of communication know that that is about the past and not about the future.

The point I want to make though is that in all the countries that I traveled to, whether it was talking to kids on the streets in Damascus or post-doctoral students from Harvard in Saudi Arabia, or kids on the West Bank or in Lebanon, you name it, every place I went the young people all had the same message. They are tired of war, a message that is similar to our message here.

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: They want to know -- they want to know are their leaders just using war as an excuse not to address issues that relate to their futures: the economy, education, the environment, stopping global warming, you name it. Does that sound familiar to you?

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: And those young people I shared with them one of my favorite quotes. It's from the philosopher, Hannah Arendt, I want to share it with you. She once observed that nations are driven by the endless fly wheel of violence believing that one last, one final, violent gesture will bring peace, but each time they sow the seeds for more violence.

I say words, not weaponry are the tools of the new civilization, and you are in that, engaged in that conveying of words.

Young people we know are communicating with each other, texting, you name it every possible kind of way, internationally. So the communication will take place.

The question is, What will the policy be to match the enthusiasm, the insistence, the impatience? God bless the impatience of youth, that is what gives me hope.

And so I come here today knowing the frustration that we all have about not ending the war in Iraq. It was what we went to Congress in this -- in the majority to do.

I am very proud of the Democrats in the House of Representatives, because on more than five occasions we have sent over to the Senate legislation with a date certain or a goal, if that's what they insisted upon, for our redeployment of troops out of Iraq to begin within 30 days and to end within one year or 13 months. We did it over and over again.

Only one time did it reach the President's desk, he vetoed it. The Republicans in the Senate determined that that would never happen again. They used that 60-vote requirement in the Senate to stop any end to the war from ever going forth.

Now, the American people and you are not interested in process, but that is the fact of the matter. We need a new president who will bring an end to the war in Iraq and we will have that president with Barack Obama. We will have that president with Barack Obama.

(Audience applauding)

This war is probably the biggest national security blunder in the history of our country and you know all of the reasons. You know all of the reasons why. But please know that I share your frustration in it not happening.

We even sent the bill, as some of you suggested, without the money. We sent with policy, for how we would redeploy out, but no money. The bill came back without the conditions, but with the money. So that's what we're dealing with. But it wouldn't be long now.

107 days until the election. 107 days until the election.

And that seems like a lot of time but it really isn't. And, in fact, I don't want to take anymore time speaking to you from here, I want to take your questions from there.

But please know how much I appreciate what you do. And what you do you make our democracy stronger, you make America more American, because of the vital participation in the process.

And as Mr. Doggett says, "to hold elected officials accountable."

While we may not always agree on the resolution in what we have to deal with, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be persistent, dissatisfied and relentless in making us, taking us, pulling us over to where you believe our government should be.

So in that spirit, let the questions begin. Thank you-all very much again.

(Audience applauding)

Q & A:

MS. GINA COOPER: Thank you again for your -- works. Thank you so much for joining us here today. So without further adieu, the first question: The subject is inherent contempt.

Our first question today -- we'll just get into it. Our first question today was submitted by Alisa Roost and was voted to number one out of hundreds of questions posted to askthespeaker.org.

In 2006 you said, "impeachment was off the table," to focus on gains for the American people, but the Bush White House has been such an obstacle in -- to getting things done, wouldn't it pave the way forward if the people's House was seen as holding them accountable for their contemptuous behavior, letting them know that we are just not going to put up with their nonsense?

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: I agree. And that is why I support what Chairman Conyers has done and Linda -- Congresswoman Linda Sanchez and her subcommittee in issuing a resolution of contempt, which we passed on the Floor of the House. This was historic. People didn't want us even to go forward with that.

But I was very, very proud that the -- imagine we're talking about the Constitution of the United States. You would think we would have gotten 435 votes on the Floor of the House.

Article 1 establishes the Congress of the -- the Legislative Branch and its powers. What the Administration is doing is tearing up the Constitution in saying, "We rule. This is a monarchy. We don't have to answer to you for anything."

Well, I was very proud that the Democrats -- I think almost everyone voted for the contempt resolution, Republicans didn't.

Now that has gone to the Court, but that's not the end of it. We have other contempt now. That was Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten. And now the Committee is considering the contempt for Karl Rove.

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: And that -- and that will be -- and that will be up to the Committee to decide. Mr. Conyers just says, "I'm in charge," and I accept that.

The -- understand this, though. It's so important to have a Democratic President, not only so that he will respect the first branch of government, the Legislative Branch, the Checks and Balances, the Constitution of the United States, but also he appoints the judges. So you can have all the contempt, citations and resolutions. And what -- after the resolution, the Speaker decides how to proceed and we have proceeded in sending this on to the next step, which is the U.S. Attorney to prosecute the case.

The Justice Department has advised the U.S. Attorney not to prosecute the case. Imagine that, defying the law and the Courts -- the judges who are in place in Washington D.C. are appointed by -- largely by those who would not be sympathetic to the respect for each branch of government, let me say it that way.

But I think we're in good hands with Mr. Conyers and Linda Sanchez and our Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. And in the next days, weeks ahead they will take us -- they'll lead us down our path.

MS. GINA COOPER: So thinking about Karl Rove here, if he continues to be, I guess, be in contempt of Congress, can we expect that you-all will arrest him and put him in that little jail cell that's in the basement of the House until he grows --

(Audience applauding)

MS. GINA COOPER: I would have been remiss if I didn't ask that.

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: That's certainly where he belongs.

As Mr. Conyers said, "Leave it up to me." So that's where we are on that.

MS. GINA COOPER: Thank you very much. Let's turn to telecom immunity. If FISA was a compromised bill as so many in Congress have said, what was the gain that balanced out giving the telecoms immunity?

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: Yeah. Let -- let's just talk about that issue. Let me give you my -- my credentials on this for a moment.

I've been on the Intelligence Committee longer than anybody in Congress, and I -- both as a member and ex-officio as the Leader and now as the Speaker of the House.

I have -- know full well -- I went there actually because of civil liberties that was stopping proliferation of weapons and mass destruction and protecting our civil liberties was why I even many years ago wanted to go to the Intelligence Committee.

So when the Senate sent us over this legislation -- now -- now, I'm not one to criticize my colleagues; I respect them all and I understand. But I'll never understand how 17 Democratic senators gave the Republicans the 60 votes they needed to take up the Senate bill.

They send that bill over to us, we send them back our bill with no immunity and then the discussions begin. But our hand -- our options were very limited. And I say this not in any defensive way, but as a statement of fact. Our options were very limited once 17 Democrats enabled the Republicans to send -- put that bill – send that bill to the House. So now we're not dealing just with the Administration, we're dealing with how do we stop the Senate bill.

Well, I had five -- five requirements that were my threshold. It didn't mean I would vote for the bill, but it meant I couldn't even consider.

Exclusivity. That the FISA law is the exclusive, exclusive authority under which the surveillance would take place, protection of U.S. citizens overseas, which didn't have the protection; third, that all electronic communication would fall under FISA.

The Republicans who are trying to say, Well, this is electronic, and we're not sure about this, and this we don't understand so we'll just have these two under inherent -- under FISA courts, and the rest of it we'll just handle ourselves. Well, that was absolutely ridiculous. Then the idea -- the Inspector General, which was very, very important to the finding out what's happening later.

On -- in terms of -- you know, our bill was the good bill. It protected civil liberties of American people. It protected first and foremost the American people. We all know the role Intelligence should play in protecting the American people, but they agreed on all of these scores. And it comes down to one thing, how do you find out more about what the Administration did by having the -- not having immunity and going to court where you will not learn much?

Sad to say, even my very Left advisors have told me you won't learn much from that, but you can learn something from the Inspector General.

Now, is it a bill that I would have written? Absolutely not. Is it infinitely better than the Senate bill? I believe so.

I was pleased that Mort Halpern who is the -- works with the Open Society Foundation wrote it up to this effect. And let me just say this, you know, people said, Oh, don't do anything. Wait until we have a new president. It'll all be different.

We still have those 17 Democrats who are willing to give 40 -- give those votes to the Republicans for the FISA bill. And even if they saw the light, we're still in a place where 40 -- 41 Republican votes can hold up change because now we need the 60 votes in order to change the FISA bill.

It doesn't mean we won't continue to make the fight, because we will. But the fact is is that the telecom -- I said this should not be considered any successful day for you. This is a day of taint for how you cooperated with this administration.

MS. GINA COOPER: I have -- I have a question. I wanted to like share something interesting with you. The askthespeaker.org website ended up being posted on both the progressive and conservative blogs, and I could always tell when it got posted some place because there would be a big spike of questions.

And what I -- one thing that I found really interesting was that even when it was posted on the conservative websites, the questions that they would come out with were -- they had just as much outrage at the overstepping of bounds. They had just as much outrage as the telecoms getting away with -- with being able to spy on Americans with no accountability.

Can you tell us -- I mean, these 17 Democrats that voted against it and the Republicans that also are, who of course are the big enablers of this, who exactly is supporting this? Neither -- this is a bipartisan agreement -- I mean, you know, among the American people.

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: I am not surprised that you have heard from the Right on this.

Some of our best allies on protecting the Constitution are conservative Republicans who support the Fourth Amendment. They have been -- you see Bob Barr, who would have thought? Who would have thought? When we were serving with him, who would have thought? But there is -- there is no question in terms of protecting the privacy of the American people there is an alliance between the progressive Democrats and -- and some of the conservative Republicans.

But in terms of who is in Congress right now, the -- the choice was the Senate bill, yes or no. Or if we could do something much better that said to the President, you do not have inherent authority to spy on the American people. They truly believe that. That you cannot -- that you must obey, follow the Constitution and the FISA laws when American citizens are overseas; that, yes, all electronic communication is included under this law. Yes, that we have an Inspector General who will find the truth about this.

It's a very, very big issue. We have our disagreement at the end of the day, Do you come down on it and say "yes" or "no"?

I thought that since we were able to get -- and you heard my statement. When I made my statement I said these are the reasons that I am voting for this bill, but I am not asking anybody else to do that in my caucus.

So this was -- everybody was able to express themselves, have the freedom to -- to vote any way they want, which is usually the way it is in Congress, but I didn't want anybody to think that I wanted them to follow my lead on it, but I did -- I did have a responsibility to stop the Senate bill.

And I have -- I have serious sadness over two things in the Congress. One is that they sent us the FISA bill, and the other is that we -- we couldn't overcome the 60 votes in the Senate to -- to end the war in Iraq.

I know they're the two biggest issues that you are concerned about and -- but 107 days until the election, or maybe it's 106 by now, and -- and things will be different.

MS. GINA COOPER: Sounds like -- sounds like some of your colleagues need to get with the program with the American people.

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: Now, let me say this, my Democrat --

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: My House Democrats -- my House Democrats voted in unison. We had --

MS. GINA COOPER: Right.

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: -- very few people. Some on the Right, equal number on the Left who didn't vote for what -- how we advanced ending the war in Iraq.

So this wasn't the Blues aren't with us, they were always with us. Same thing on FISA. They voted overwhelmingly for the House -- for the House bill.

MS. GINA COOPER: All right. Let's turn to -- we're going to turn to our first audience question from Jeffrey Feldman. This one's on governing vision.

MR. JEFFREY FELDMAN: This -- Madam Speaker, this is a question that's synthesized from a lot of different questions out there: Republicans say that government should be small enough to drown it in a bathtub, and we have seen the results of that. The food we eat sends us to the hospital, people are drowning in their own living rooms, and faith in government is at an all time low. We know Democrats want to reverse all these bad trends, but can you tell us the Democratic Party vision of what government should be?

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: I appreciate that. My colleagues always start to squirm in their seat when I stand up, when we're in a meeting, because it means (indicating). But if I may, I don't know if this works for all of you.

But this -- I really appreciate this question, because this is why we must all try to stick together. It doesn't mean we all agree on everything but we must stick together because the possibilities for our country are so great, and we have big visions in the Democratic Party about how we go forward to meet the needs of the American people. And that's why last November was step one for us, to win the Congress. Now we must win the White House and then continue to grow our majorities in the House and Senate. And as I say, the bigger our victories the more bipartisanship in the Congress. But here's the thing --

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: -- I see an America with a -- a big vision on how we deal with four domestic issues recognizing, of course, that first and foremost our first responsibility is to protect the American people, to keep them safe in their homes, in their communities, in their towns and states and as a national security item; and I'll come to that, I'll work up to that. But in terms of a vision for our country, it's only a decision. Just think of this, health care. In the presidential campaigns we heard about -- we heard about access to health care and one plan and another plan, all of it, about how we get more Americans with health insurance.

Democrats in the House are saying, We're talking about access to what? We're talking about a big vision, major investment in basic biomedical research and the benefits of that research benefiting every person in America because that research came from taxpayer dollars. We're talking about customized, personalized care so that two people with the same diagnosis are not getting the same treatment when science can tell us and technology that they need something different. We're talking about a common electronic record that every person in our country is -- is in the mix. It's predicated on the idea that the most privileged person in America, the most privileged person in America, wealthy, access, whatever, his health care is better if the poorest person in America has access to quality health care.

So it's bigger. It's about prevention. It's about diet, not diabetes. It's about lifestyle and exercise and the rest, and how we raise our children and how families and schools and -- and -- and other opportunities help them before people even get sick. Science is the answer, basic biomedical research and investments in technologies, physical sciences to -- to make it available to all.

Secondly, innovation agenda. Again, science. I can say four -- remember four words, science, science, science, and science. Science is the word.

Innovation agenda. We have an innovation agenda that says while we may have our differences on issues like trade and we certainly must protect the American worker in our -- as we engage in the global economy, let us invest in science which begins in the classroom; strong commitment to education for innovation for us to compete, for us to prevail, for America to be No. 1 creating good paying jobs here in America, good successful businesses.

President Kennedy, when he did the moon launch he said, "If we are to honor the vows of our founders, we must be first and, therefore, we intend to be first." And a good deal of that happened right here in Texas.

Third, building the infrastructure of America. Big vision. Big vision.

Two hundred years ago Thomas Jefferson had a gallanting project as Secretary of the Treasury, to build the infrastructure of America. He saw the need for building into the Louisiana Purchase, the -- following the Lewis & Clark expeditions, the Cumberland Road, the Erie

Canal, went on and on about building the infrastructure of America. A hundred years later, Theodore Roosevelt -- Theodore Roosevelt in the Centennial of the Jefferson initiative, he had his own initiatives for infrastructure -- this is very bipartisan. And he said at the time the -- the cornerstone of his infrastructure agenda was the establishment of the National Park Service to protect the green infrastructure of America.

A hundred years later, George Bush is in the White House, but we cannot be deterred by that in 2008. We have our infrastructure agenda.

I said to the Administration, just spend as much on infrastructure here as you have spent in Iraq. Just send that much.

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: But it's a major, it's a -- and it too depends on science and technology and engineering and the rest, whether we're talking about roads, bridges, mass transit, mass transportation, broadband, the electricity grid, sewer and pipelines and all the rest, and in schools and housing, all the rest -- America has an infrastructure deficit. We can do it, it's only a decision, and we can pay for it and not heap mountains of debt as we build this infrastructure on the next generation. It's just a realignment of priorities.

And the fourth is energy security. Energy security. And wedded to build the infrastructure in a green way. I talked about it before, a national security issue, an economic issue, an environmental health issue and a moral issue.

But those four things and how we invest in science, science, science and science -- and I ended when I talked about greening earlier about how this working with faith and believing in the American people, in our country, in that this is God's creation, we have a moral -- so faith and science -- right now in Washington it's faith and science take your choice. We're saying no, they are compatible searches for truth.

So as we build our country and we give the American people confidence in their future and -- which is in the tradition of our founders that every generation had a responsibility to make the future better for the next generation, we can again create good paying jobs in our country, be internationally competitive, have access to health care, not only health care, but the health -- the good health of America, and to do so in a way that is fiscally sound, developed and created with the most open and honest government, and again honors our responsibility of the future.

All of that makes us a stronger nation. And our strength cannot just be measured in a -- in our military might, that's important, but in the health, the education, the well-being of the American people, our competitiveness internationally enabling us to take our rightful leadership role in the world. And aren't we proud of Barack Obama going overseas today where we can --

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: -- we can because of our strength and our confidence take our rightful place to fight terrorism, to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, eradicate disease, alleviate poverty and reverse global warming. We're just chomping at the bit for a president who understands the future, who is willing to break -- break with the business as usual in Washington D. C., and we're able to do that because Barack Obama took the lead on passing the biggest ethical -- ethics reform bill and that, if you want to change policy, you must change Washington, and that was a very important leadership role that he played in that.

MR. JEFFREY FELDMAN: Thank you very much.

MS. GINA COOPER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As a former -- as a science teacher, I taught high school math and science for 13 years, and so for you to say "science, science, science, science," that's just a -- I like hearing that. We definitely need that.

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, I'm a big believer in technology.

MS. GINA COOPER: Obviously so. We appreciate -- we appreciate you being here. Let's turn to the economy, General Motors. Thirty years ago a Democratic Congress bailed out Chrysler. Should this Congress step and help GM this time around?

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, I don't think that that is going to happen. I think that what we have -- what we have to do is to innovate and compete. I mean, this is -- we're spiraling downward. We should be expanding our universe instead.

And that's why I was so proud, and I thank Lloyd Doggett for mentioning, that we were able to pass the first CAFE Standard bill in 32 years. This is related to what's happening at General Motors, because people were not innovating and competing in terms of fuel efficiency and other things that are not only important for the environment, but in terms of the -- of the consumer. So I think that we should, again, use our resources to help this industry in our country, the auto industry, which is a very important industry in our country, help them with the science to help them be competitive in the world market; and many of the things that we want to do, whether it's flex-fuel cars, or many of the cars of the future are being built by the U.S. manufacturers. But for some reason they have not gotten it together to say we are going to take the lead on the future.

I believe they're having these problems because they have not done that. I think we should help them be part of the future rather than bailing out failed policies of the past.

MS. GINA COOPER: Well, but what about -- what -- I mean, but what about all these retirees whose pensions are tied up in GM? How are we -- how are we going to help those people? You mean -- you know, GM failed -- you know, if we're saying that they failed to innovate and that's part of what led us to this point. But what -- what about the people who, you know, who are counting on this?

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, I make a distinction between helping the pensioners and the workers and helping the shareholders who took a risk in investing in these companies.

(Audience applauding)

MS. GINA COOPER: But --

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: But that's one of the reasons that we have to have universal access to quality, reliable, affordable health care so that every person -- that's only one part of retirement legacy costs for these corporations, but it is an important thing. So if every American had that, then our workers when they go to the negotiating table for -- in a negotiation, to use the word again, they don't have to worry about health care. It's something that is a given. It's a given for these workers in other countries. It's a competitiveness issue in addition to being a moral issue to provide health care. So, if we take these pieces of it, our worker should never be left hanging with their pensions, what they've paid into, to be in doubt and their health care, which is a really important part of that.

So, yes, if we want -- if somebody wants to talk to us about how we help with the legacy cost to these workers and their pensions and to make sure that they're first in line not -- they are the preferred shareholders of these companies. They should be rewarded first.

(Audience applauding)

MS. GINA COOPER: Thank you very much. Related to health care, Jeffrey has a question from the audience on abstinence-only education.

MR. JEFFREY FELDMAN: This question comes from Natasha Chart.

MS. NATASHA CHART: Thank you for coming and taking our questions, Speaker Pelosi. Experts have shown that Republican-abstinence-only sex education wastes taxpayer money because it results in more irresponsible sex and more unwanted pregnancies. Will you take steps to end these failed programs and redirect funds to effective sex education centered on prevention and responsible behavior?

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: Yes. Yes.

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: Let me remove all doubt in anyone's mind. Abstinence-only is not only a poor and a bad policy, it is dangerous to the health of our young women in our country.

(Audience applauding)

And so, mindful of their health and not holding them hostage to political considerations, we must have appropriate sex education for our young people and abstinence-only is an idea that is, as I said, dangerous to the health of our young women in our country.

MR. JEFFREY FELDMAN: But if that's the case, why is it that abstinence-only earmarks seem to be holding their ground in the Senate and the Congress? It seems that it's difficult to got those off the table despite --

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, we need more pro-choice members of Congress and I hope that you will help us get to that point, because this is a false issue. You see it now with the new rules that the Administration is -- is putting forth. Very, very dangerous. They are practically equating -- terminating abortion and contraception.

Now, I have known for a long time that the Republicans in Congress do not support contraception. You would think if you don't like abortion and -- and we all want to reduce the number of abortions in America, make them unnecessary -- so if you don't like abortion, you should love contraception. Is that hard to understand?

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: And -- and I as a mother of five, five children in six years, my daughter Christine, number two, is here, second in line there, my second daughter. As a mother of five, I think I have -- I can speak with some authority on this subject to my colleagues and I'll engage them in this conversation any time they want. As a devout Catholic as well, this is absolutely wrong, it's idealogical, it's political, it's catering to a radical right-wing view and it should be stopped.

MS. GINA COOPER: Thanks, Madam Speaker.Let's return -- let's return back to the subject of telecoms. And I'm going to quote -- I will mention something about the Constitution, of course, you know what's in there so just for all of us. And I don't want to come off that way.

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: I'm trying to keep my answers short. I'm trying so I can hear many more questions. So just say stop if you've heard enough on any subject.

MS. GINA COOPER: That's -- that's -- that's difficult. You're an intimidating force, okay.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives power to Congress to establish post offices and post office roads. What it seems like the framers had in mind was a system that kept people in touch with their government despite great distances. We carried this principle forward with railroads, telephones, highway, radio and television.

On askthespeaker.org, Tom Poe writes, Will you Madam Speaker, bring forward a bill to -- to support local broadband infrastructure for our communities?

And I'd like to add to that: If technology is the key to -- to decreasing -- or is a key to decreasing the distance between people and their elected officials, what can Congress do to remedy the blackout zones, these very large areas of the United Stated that don't have broadband access because it's not profitable for telecoms to -- well, it doesn't seem like it's profitable but, you know, this is something that's very necessary -- a very necessary part of our infrastructure.

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: Let me hope that I can be short on this answer. Here's the thing. The beginning of our country -- I have so much love of this country and the genius of our Founding Fathers that we go back to the beginning of our country and you reference it in the Constitution, that communication.

In the beginning of our country, the times of the Lewis and Clark expeditions, for example, communication and transportation were the same thing. A message could only travel as fast as a horse could gallop or a boat could sail. And our founders put in the Constitution a facilitation for that communication among people. With the genius of technology 200 years later, probably more difference has been made in the last 10 or 20 years than was made from the founding of our country until the, say the 1990s, the Telecommunication Act that happened there.

Here's what we can do. First, we have universal broadband is part of a high speed always on broadband is part of our innovation agenda. You -- in order for our country to be fair, we must have it be universal.

My colleague Bob Matsui --

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: -- who passed away, had initiatives -- led us on this in the Congress and others do now, and Lloyd Doggett is a champion on this. We must have in rural areas or in inner cities there should be no difference. It's just like saying only some people will breathe air and other people won't. Everybody has to be in on this. And it's an absolute must that it be universal. It involves a realignment of priorities. It's going to take some money to do that, and we've been fighting for that. But also to invest in the technologies and the science to improve the technologies so that it's easier to do all of this. You see some cities try.

My own city of San Francisco, we're almost there. Maybe so, and the rest, but the whole country has to be wired. And kids in inner city neighborhoods or kids out in rural areas or seniors or whatever, there should be no doubt that everyone is in the discussion in our country.

It's about the economy. It's about health care. It's about family values of people communicating with each other. It's how our children learn. And our children shouldn't go home from school with some of them going home to the opportunity for always on high speed broadband and other kids not having that opportunity, not even in their neighborhood, if not in their homes.

Another issue is net neutrality, which I am a strong supporter of.

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: If you promise not to tell anyone.

MS. GINA COOPER: We won't blog it, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: I will say this. I have my disappointment with the telecoms in this recent legislation. But my bigger disappointment with the regional Bells was their objection to net neutrality, because actually they were not the entrepreneurs. They were not the thinkers. They were not the innovators who brought us to where we are technologically. It was a lot of the other smaller entrepreneurs who got us where we are.

So for us to be at a place where we could have net neutrality and people standing in the way, are the same people who didn't innovate in the first place, I think is a problem, and we -- we have to continue that fight until we have net neutrality.

MS. GINA COOPER: Thank -- thank you very much. Going back to the audience, Jeffery has a question about our vets when they come back from Iraq.

MR. JEFFERY FELDMAN: This question comes from Tim Roth.

(Audience applauding)

MR. JEFFREY FELDMAN: Thanks.

MR. TIM ROTH: Thanks for -- thanks for doing this, Nancy. I appreciate it. You mentioned that we're spending billions in -- in Iraq right now. But what I want to know is why are our soldiers forced to beg for care packages that include such basic sundries as toothpaste, protein bars and tampons.

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: I'm sorry. I just couldn't hear --

MS. GINA COOPER: They're asking -- can you --

TIM ROTH: I'll be a little clearer. Sorry. Why are our soldiers being forced to beg for care packages being sent from us here at home? Why are they begging for care packages that include sundries, like toothpaste, protein bars and tampons? These are all things that our government are not providing to our solders right now. It's completely unavailable to them. Why do they have to beg for these sundries?

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: They should -- they shouldn't have to be. But, again, we haven't -- as a matter of policy up until now have been fair to our men and women in uniform and our veterans, in many, many respects as well. For them to have to personally underwrite the cost of these things is just not right, but they're bigger -- they're all -- there is that, but it's emblematic of -- of -- of other needs that are not being met for our vets.

I travel all over the country and I go to Veterans Hospitals wherever I go, or when I travel throughout the world visit our troops and thank them for their patriotism, their courage, the sacrifices they and their families are willing to make for our country. We do not -- we owe them better than the policy that we have and the attitudes that we have about -- about cost that they have to bear whether it's, as you describe, in the sundry package or when they come home.

And that's why I was so pleased to -- when -- when -- I was so pleased that we were able to pass the biggest -- I think Mr. Doggett mentions, the biggest health care package for our veterans in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration. That we were able to pass the GI Bill that said to our veterans, We say thank you; and when you come home, we will send you to college.

(Audience applauding)

That's why we recognize that, you know, maybe a million -- a hundred thousand -- a million hundred thousand people have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly a third of them are seeking mental health counseling. Three- to 350,000 of them have post traumatic stress disorder. And yet we have an administration that resists the adequate funding that we need to, first of all, recognize that, which they are in denial over, and to treat them.

So it is -- it is really a very sad thing, because the long-term -- over the long haul, the cost of this war, which you know very well, the loss of life, the loss of
so many of our kids wounded, many of them permanently, the loss of our reputation to the world, the trillions of dollars in cost, the diminishment of our capacity to fight -- to protect America wherever we may be threatened, the diversion from our attention on the war on terrorism which is in Afghanistan and not in Iraq and
now matters are made worse in Afghanistan because of -- of the President's blunder of going into Iraq.

But the long haul to these families of these young people second, third, fourth deployment -- see the article in the paper -- and we all know this, but of children who have lost these years with their parents and why. And why? So this war must end, but as it does we must recognize our debt of gratitude to our veterans while they are there.

And one of the biggest things we can do to honor them is to build a future worthy of their sacrifice, and that's why we have to win this election in November as well.

MR. JEFFREY FELDMAN: Just a quick follow-up to that. Honoring them, obviously we all support you in that. But it still seems it's necessary to bring a bill that symbolically shows that we support those troops over there with basic necessities that they're not getting --

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: Yeah.

MR. JEFFREY FELDMAN: -- as well as something that brings the nation into a conversation about taking care of those vets when they come home, because Democrats are leading the country in that conversation about bringing them home, but there seems to be an absence of that broader talk about taking care of them now and what's going to happen to them when they come back.

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, you talk about these amenities --

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: -- that they need and they should have.

What -- what more did you need to know about those who were advocating the war than that they were willing to send our troops there without the proper equipment and that some of their parents had to send them, at their own expense, equipment to protect them? Something is very, very, very wrong with this picture. And I will look into what you've talked about.

Mr. Murtha, Jack Murtha who is the chair of the -- you know Jack Murtha.

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: I've been to the Theater of War probably five or six times, a few of the times with him, and he constantly has his finger on the pulse of the needs of these troops. I will ask him specifically about what the status of your -- your question is. But there is no question, we owe it to them.

MR. JEFFREY FELDMAN: Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: Thank you.

MS. GINA COOPER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
One more question. It's the last question from up here, and it's going to -- we want to turn to the energy and the environment.

Vice President Al Gore has called for us to produce 100 percent of its electricity from renewable --

(Audience applauding)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: Is this the question?

(Audience applauding)

MS. GINA COOPER: -- non-fossil fuels by 2018, ten years from now. That's just ten small years from now. How are we -- how are we going to accomplish this?

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: It's funny that you ask that --

MS. GINA COOPER: Are you pulling a Giuliani? Are you -- I'm sorry.

(Laughter)

MADAM SPEAKER PELOSI: No, it's funny that you ask this question because I have this e-mail from a friend, and it says that in relationship to the question on energy that --

VICE PRESIDENT GORE: Dear -- Dear Nancy, Thursday I issued a challenge to reset the way America makes our energy policy. We have to have a new commitment...

(Standing ovation)