tv Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi Says Sessions Recusal Shows Something is... CSPAN March 3, 2017 4:16pm-5:19pm EST
"the rise and fall of about the renegade," downfall of a former lobbyist for roche. >> i heard rumors about this guy's lifestyle for a while. so i wanted to wait and see if anything became public about this guy. a year later, i started looking into his life and into his campaign donations, into his spending, what made him one of washington felt top drug company lobbyists. q&a."nday on c-span's " >> of next, remarks from house minority leader nancy pelosi on the recusal of attorney general jeff sessions from any justice department investigation into russia and the 2016 presidential
elections. out thisyou for coming morning. thank you for everyone t uning in on livestream. >> there's no shortage of news for representative pelosi. is a great time. a couple days after trump's joint session and also after attorney general jeff sessions recused himself. >> we will talk about a whole host of issues from the first 100 days of the trump administration and congress. speciallike to extend a thank you to our partners for making this possible. also next weekend, a snake preview -- a sneak preview." you heard it here first. >> we will have mitch mcconnell next week. now here to say a few words, the president and ceo of the peter
peterson foundation, michael peterson. mr. peterson, thank you so much. [applause] this foundation is nonpartisan. [indiscernible] that's because we believe -- [indiscernible] let me start with the brief context of our fiscal situation. and007, we had a surplus, then we had the financial crisis which affects the budget in two ways. we had a significant revenue recalled due to -- so revenue
fell considerably. then you had unemployment. the deficit exploded to a high of $1.4 trillion in 2009. since then, 2016 last are, we had returned to a more normal economy. spending was relatively flat. the increases in discretion are spending offset entitlements and interests. a virtually the future is not nearly as bright. over the next 10 years, this is our deficit cap. 26 years now we will be back once again to a deficit that exceeds chilean dollars. frankly -- exceeds $1 trillion. frankly what we are focused on is the long-term, which is even more bleak. if you're looking at the long-term, the best way to look at that is as a share of the
economy. 60% is considered a reasonable maximum according to all general economists. this a 77%. this is the long-term path. 140% and anch unsustainable path to be on. what is causing this? one is demographics. baby boomers are beginning to retire in significant numbers. increasing longevity -- that means boomers are living longer, which is great, but it does mean more years of retirement. inefficient of your system. seniors consume a great deal of welth care and the system operate is inefficient. how does this data affect the economy? it starts by affecting the budget. these of the top seven budget
categories in 2016. i will leave the labels off for a minute. budget itemt becomes the third largest. when he 46, becomes the second-largest, 2050, the single largest item in the budget. anyone want to guess what that is? interest. will be thethe debt signal greatest priority in the budget. there is something called crowding out. discretionary spending are these investments in the economy -- education, infrastructure, research and development. in 20 20, most of the budget is discretionary, 61%. this year it will be 31%. 10 years from now, 21%. debt is on the squeezing discretionary spending. the other affect that the debt capital fromes we private investment. it takes away our fiscal
flexibility. if we have a crisis, we have less ability to handle it. and it risks the safety net. the safety net is in jeopardy. so, the good news before i departs -- there's a lot of solutions. there are many ways to solve this problem. as i mentioned, our foundation is nonpartisan. we did something a few years ago called the scholarship mission. we brought together think tanks. so, here's what they did. here is the path we are on. here's what the american action form did, the american enterprise institute, the center theeconomic progress, economic policy institute. they all successfully save the debt he clearly they get a lot of different things. they have different opinions on how to get there. this proves there are many way to solve his problems. before handing this up i want to the fiscal context for
you. health care and the aca are fairly front and center. health care them of the key fiscal issue. 77% of our spending growth is in health care. it's very important fiscally. it's a huge economic issue. spending has tripled over the last 20 years. it is significant growth path which has an effect on her wages, etc., and in terms of the generateoes considerable revenues. there are significant medicare savings built-in. the subsidies and the medicaid expansion costs about 1.6 trillion dollars. turns will see how this out, but there are significant fiscal components as they decide what to do. corporate tax reform, to put that into context, over the next 10 years, he total revenue base is about $46 trillion. corporate income tax is only about 10%, so only about $4
trillion over the next 10 years. there's a lot of discussion of potential reform. lowering rate is one of the significant goals for republicans. that would cost about $2 trillion according to some proposals. so offsetting the adjustment tax and the house republican plan calls for revenue neutrality. though to achieve revenue neutrality we need about a trillion more in the text budget. lastly, discretionary spending, a big part of the discussion. keep in mind what i said earlier. discretionary is only about 30% of the budget, so a relatively small piece compared to the rest . and it's also not a fundamental driver of our long-term debt. as i mentioned, the growth of security, medicare as a result of the demographic is where the growth is. discretionary spending is the long-term cap for that. it's not a fundamental driver of the debt. we can make challenges.
it is actually much lower than it has been and we are at historically low levels. that's not where you need to go to solve this problem. so, i found a few key takeaways. we have a very high historic level of debt and is growing on an unsustainable level. that has a huge effect on our economy, affecting incomes, growth, it said are many solutions exist. there are many ways to solve this problem. that policyul makers will consider these challenges this year. we would like to thank the leader for being with us today and welcome. [applause] much, michael. thank you to the peter g. peterson edition for making this possible. before we get started, i want to #playbeveryone to and without further
into, please welcome nancy pelosi to the stage. [applause] congresswoman, thank you for joining us. my pleasure. >> no shortage of things to talk about. we will jump right off. you began this week in kind of a spat with the president, but most notably -- [laughter] were one of the first people to call for jeff sessions to resign. yesterday, he recused himself. you're not happy with that. rep. pelosi: no, but first, let me thank the peter g. peterson foundation and michael for being part of hosting us this morning. enjoyed your presentation. it's really important for us to address the deficit, and the foundation has been in the lead -- all of thiss
challenging all of us to make our contributions to reducing the deficit. the only thing i would say about michael's presentation was that when president obama stood on the steps of the capitol, the deficit was $1.4 trillion. that now reduced by 70% of as he leaves office. -- but it wasing more than $1.4 trillion when he came i and. that is what democrats from the 1982, theearly as midterm convention, george miller, a progressive democrat in the congress went to that convention -- i watched it in congress at the time -- and he talked about pay-as-you-go. that was a resolution that was passed by the convention. pay-as-you-go. what ever you want to do, it must be paid for.
progressives knew from the start that interest on the debt was -- it wasn'ttally an investment. it was money down the drain. even when president reagan was president, they said we have to reduce the deficit because it is the opportunity cost for doing many other things that would create growth, that would invest in the future. walkernt george herbert bush was a little bit in the agreement they came right before president clinton became president, but when president clinton was president, it became pay-as-you-go. whatever you want, it was investment, pay as you was a tax cut, pay-as-you-go. president clinton's budgets, the last four or five budgets were either surplus or i and balance. in balance. and in we came to president
bush, tax cuts to the high-end, giveaway to pharma, etc., etc. medicare part the, and also -- two unpaidrt d, wars. the deficit soared. we went from the path of deficit reduction, debt reduction the opposite direction. when president obama took office, one point $4 trillion before he ever took office. now it is down 70%. the problem is, on the pay-as-you-go, republicans will say, you have to pay, if you want to invest in education, you have to pay as you go. what comes to tax cuts for the rich, we don't have to pay for those. that's really a >> that helps bureau and brings
money into the treasury. when our colleagues say we can't have grants and this, let's start, under their budget maybe when hundred thousand kids will be k-12 headstart, that is a false economy because the investment into education is needed to keep america economically number one. when we bring people to the table to negotiate, we save the agnostic, but it has to increase growth and reduces the deficit. i want to follow up on that before we get to jeff sessions.
because of one of president trump's priorities and one of the things of the city is interested in is tax reform. we do not know what the president thinks because he does not give any plan that he supports but we know what the speaker wants to do. the speaker wants to do something called the border adjustability tax, which for those who have not been following it like we have, it basically means that the country will begin taxing imports instead of exports. simplistic explanation, i know. they want to use that to pay for tax cuts. what do you think of that? rep. pelosi: it's a transfer of wealth, but they want to give tax cuts to the high-end as usual. it is in their dna. i grant people their position. their position if you want to create jobs, you give tax cuts to the wealthy. if you want to balance the budget, you give tax cuts to the wealthy. whatever you want to do, you give tax cuts to the wealthy and it trickles down. if it trickles down, good.
so be it. but if it doesn't, so be it. that's the free market. we have a different view that you invest in increasing the paychecks of american working families to consumer confidence and eject it into the economy and to create jobs and bring revenue to the treasury to reduce the deficit. we have a different point of view and how we go to the table to debate that is the battle of the budget and congress. i say to my colleagues in congress, show me your values, show me your budget. if your values are tax cut to the rich and everything else has to thrive or not in that world and the deficit has to depend on that, then make your case and we will make ours. the border tax is a real regressive tax on working families and our country.
we have practically zero support in our caucus. they have not come forward yet. there's not a place to go. i don't know if it has any success on the republican side. you practically describe what it is. let us have a border tax to bring in money that is going to have to affect the consumer. in other words, we are going to pass it on to the consumer, again affecting consumer consumption in order to give a tax break to the wealthy or to lower their corporate tax. we all agree that we should love -- we should lower the corporate tax. the one reason to do that is to not make only our companies competitive but to get them to pay some taxes. the whole other not paying taxes is a whole another session.
and we want to get to -- jake: jeff sessions. [laughter] rep. pelosi: the recently recused jeff sessions. we need to do the tax reform. we all agree. how we do it should be in a way that brings some of that money home so that we can invest in infrastructure, bring it home at a lower tax rate so it will come home and pay taxes. the other part of that is several years ago, we did repatriate funds with the idea that the companies that repatriated funds with the use -- would us it to invest in jobs in america. they got the lower tax rate. they didn't turn around and invest in jobs. when they came back and said we need to repatriate funds, they -- we said but at the time you
didn't invest what's in it for the taxpayer. they said we didn't. this time we will. we have to be more firmly committed with the repatriation and a lower rate that they well, but the tax issue -- some of the things they believe in, addressing the climate crisis, gun safety, women's right to choose, immigration reform, all those kinds of things. they really care about the most when you see the election is they don't want to pay anymore taxes. all those things slip away. that's what happens in an election. people have to see that it's in their interest to have all these things, which keep america number one the education of our children, the safety of the neighborhood in which they grow, the discretion of the families.
the most important facing issues are children, children, children. their health, education, economic security of their families, a safe and clean area in which they can thrive and the world in peace with which they can reach their fulfillment in our country. it continues to be the great country that it is. all these things come back to the budget and what's important to you as a nation is how you invest your resources. the budget is a statement of your values. show me your budget, show me your values. now who did you want to talk about? anna: speaking of values, the news of the day or the week frankly -- jeff sessions. rep. pelosi: i keep forgetting that peterson foundation. they have done remarkable factual work on this. michael, thank you for your leadership and sponsorship today. anna: so, jeff sessions.
third time's a charm. jake: how about the budget? know i'm kidding. anna: you have called for him to resign. he has recused himself. is that enough? what can you do if you don't think it's enough? rep. pelosi: we talked about a budget being a statement of values. when we move into the leadership of our country, we had to talk not only about the authority of the person's position but the moral authority of an administration. and what we see is a very narrow recusal, a very narrow i'm going to recuse myself on the investigation of the election. know, there's a whole russian connection of personal, political, and financial connection of russia and the trump administration and his campaign.
if these meetings were innocuous, why did he deny he had them? the fact is he is the top cop. he is the highest law enforcement officer in the country. he is supposed to tell the truth. what does that say to the lawyers and the department of justice? what does it say to the american bar association? to have standards of professional of conduct, he is a lawyer there. this is totally unacceptable. the very idea that they are making excuses and splitting hairs, we have not seen the end of this. the recusal is an admission that something was wrong. as you see in some of the reports in the media, which you take it for what that is worth -- jake: oh no. [laughter] rep. pelosi: look, i think the president's attacks on the media are authoritarian, they are wrong.
i can't even imagine what our founding fathers would think of it. my point on this is that the media has reported that they have called the number of members of the armed services services committee and haven't found anyone yet in addition to sessions who was visited and asked for a meeting by the russians. jake: 26 members of the senate armed services committee and sessions is the only person who has met with them. let's drill down on that, you have been in congress a little bit and have been in leadership. have you ever met with the russian ambassador? rep. pelosi: not what this russian ambassador. jake: is it normal to meet with ambassadors? help us understand the process. rep. pelosi: let's just say everything is about timing. the fact is that when these meetings were occurring, not
just with attorney general sessions, but others in the administration, it was very clear since the summer that the russians were hacking our election system. it wasn't as if they were saying, nevermind about that. let's talk about the ukraine. ukraine that's a very serious , matter. so here's the situation. first of all, i keep saying every week let's take a deep breath. this is about america. it's not about democrats or republicans. it's about our country. is about our national security, which we must protect and defend, our nation and our constitution. is about our values, our moral authority, how we are perceived in the world. when we find out that a country -- and i said at the convention,
and some of you might've been at the christian science monitor is a the first day of the convention -- the russians are hacking our system. i don't know this from an intelligence point of view because i couldn't talk about it if i did. but i know because it would cost me a lot of money to investigate it, their hacking of the democrats campaign committee. they were doing the democratic national committee. it is the russians. and took a number of weeks before the highest level, but that was self-evident and everybody knew it that the russians were hacking our system. in the fall and before the election, the highest level of confidence of our intelligence agencies said that the russians are hacking our system and it's a disruption to our election. everybody signed off onto it except the fbi.
the fbi said it's too close to the election. this is the first week in october. it's too close to the election. it might affect the election. what? two weeks later, fbi director comey sent a statement out that they were investigating emails of hillary clinton like 10 days before the election. i don't know if he was going backward in time. i don't know how you can say it's too late the first week and yet 10 days before the election he could make that statement. it had an impact on the election, too. two days before that, rudy giuliani said it was coming. everybody knew that there was something completely out of order that was going on. for him to say, i was just meeting with him what the normal course of a senator meeting and
ambassador, the russian ambassador who everybody knew was hacking our system, is beyond naive. it's almost pathetic. for him to go before the -- you did you talk to them about the election, no. maybe he did, maybe he did not. but the other question was, did you meet with them. he did not tell the truth. now it is come out that he was not telling the truth and you can see there are other people in the trump administration who have met with the russian view -- onen some of the biggest intelligence officer of the russian government in washington dc. this is a very big deal because at the same time the present of the united states is saying i'm not sure about the sanctions. he is flirting with removing the
sanctions, which for a time all of us have been trying to strengthen the sanctions and talking to heads of state in europe, saying we had to stick with the sanctions in order to change the aggressive behavior of the russians. he is flirting with that -- a historic treaty, undermining that. at the expense of who we are. the list goes on. what do the russians have on donald trump that he would do that? we must have an investigation. the very idea that top cop would go to his colleagues in the senate and withhold the truth -- this is not an unsophisticated person. this is a prosecutor himself. he knows what is there. it is just a reflection of the
week moral authority of this administration if they support what he is doing. this recusal is an admission that something went wrong, but it's not sufficient. and there are two things. one is the recusal as a surrogate of president trump's campaign, then candidate trump's campaign and having communication with the russian government, knowing that they were hacking our system. that is one thing. that is what the recusal is about however narrow it is. the other part of it is the possibility of perjury, which is punishable by law for anybody else. certainly we should have that standard for the highest ranking law enforcement person in our country.
is not justuence about the selection. it is about what they want to continue to do here. and what they are doing in germany and france. they are undermining democracy. these actions by the trump administration make them accomplices to it and let that they help us to get to the bottom of it. what are the republicans in congress afraid of? they don't want to see the president's tax returns -- the first time since gerald ford. since gerald ford all presidents have put it out. they don't want to investigate in a wholesome way, the disruption of our system. what are the republicans afraid of? this goes right to the republicans in congress, to their doorstep. the public sentiment is everything as they hear from their constituents. perhaps maybe they will be more inclined to seek the truth. anna: talked about the moral fabric of this administration. certainly donald trump has a few
interests about you and your leadership. let me read a few quotes. " while i've been watching nancy's tape, i think she's incompetent actually." when he talks about fight on capitol hill the other night a says it's time to do away with those and come together with bipartisanship, what do you make of that? jake: he appeared to point your way. did you notice that? rep. pelosi: i have a hard time just watching what's going on. i'm going to have to look at a tape of that. but other people have told me. jake: i thought your head was kind of down for a little bit of that. rep. pelosi: first of all, i said he has done nothing. nothing for jobs. nothing on infrastructure. nothing on tax reform. he is going to renegotiate nafta.
he has not notified congress to that effect, which you have to do to trigger the clock ticking. he said he would do it in the first 100 days. even after the clock starts ticking, it takes about 90 days. he is 42 days into it. he has done nothing except put wall street first, make america sick again, instill fear in our country and our communities with his immoral and in some cases unconstitutional issues related to immigration with deportations and the ban, and done nothing to loosen the grip of russia on our political process, letting them get away with that. that's all he has done. when somebody asked me about what i think is his agenda, i use the word loosely think about these things.
i said at the press club when we did our pre-buttal. i said he reminds me of the story about yogi berra. in those days, you had the mother and father sign the report card with mother being more lenient and the father being more demanding. it was a terrible report card. and he says, yogi, don't you know anything? yogi says, i don't even suspect anything. i just don't know what he thinks and what he knows. what i do know is that got under his skin and that was his comeback. jake: does this get under your skin? rep. pelosi: not at all. anna: have you had any interactions with trump? what has it been like since he moved into the white house? rep. pelosi: i spoke with him right after the election, but in
terms of when he went to the white house, you know what happened. we go to the first meeting at the leadership house and senate, democrats and republicans. i will skip to the meeting part of it. the meeting started with him saying that he won the popular vote. what? even if you thought you did, we are talking about a legislative agenda. we are talking about a new president of the united states. show us your values. i won the popular vote. jake: he didn't. rep. pelosi: it doesn't matter. it matters that he thinks he did. here's the thing. i mean, look, this is trivial. it is just a reflection of what is important to a person -- the size of the crowd, the size of the vote. neither being factual statements. this is what we have to deal with.
when a person who doesn't know the size of the crowd or the size of the vote makes a statement about my leadership, i don't trust his judgment. here's the thing. he says i won the popular vote. that's not true and there's no evidence to support that. we knew somebody was standing in line, which turned out not to be true as well. he said that doesn't even count california. three or 5 million who voted illegally and that doesn't count. you know what? that's what was important to him. that's how he started the meeting so this is a problem. what we need to do is talk about how we do go forward to grow our economy, and to reduce the deficit, to have america be respected and preeminent in the world.
and we are not going to have -- it's amusing, but it really isn't. it is not funny to see how he prioritizes things. again, nothing. i remind you that when president obama stood on the steps of the capitol in 2009 january 20, i want swift, bold action now to create good paying jobs, train our kids for jobs in the future, the list goes on. one week and one day after that speech, we passed the recovery act. one week after that, the senate did. four weeks after the inauguration, february 17, the president signed the recovery act, creating or saving 4 million jobs. the already signed the lilly ledbetter act. a states health insurance program. even president bush, though i didn't agree with him, when he took office and made his speech at the joint session, he had a tax plan that he had created and presented.
this president has nothing to present and it's a stunning thing. the republicans have been baying at the moon for seven years about the affordable care act and we still haven't seen a plan in heaven years except to repeal and cut it back. show us something. why wouldn't he have something? he talks about infrastructure in his speech. he didn't even offer particulars. this is where we go from here. he says we are going to do these things but not an initiative. when people say can you work with them? show us something to work with. so far we haven't seen it. jake: let's talk about that. one thing that anna and i have been talking about with democrats and republican's on the hill, and it's funny because a lot of capitol hill republicans recognize that
despite your disagreements with george bush and john boehner, and there's been many occasions in the last decade where you have had to bail them out on votes on a whole host of issues where you have kind of done so begrudgingly at times, but you have done it. i want to ask you on issues like the debt ceiling and government funding, which are both two big issues that we see coming up here in the next 4-6 months, talk about your mind and how you see this state of play and how you see the mood of democrats about cooperating with the president on such huge issues. rep. pelosi: i'm glad you brought up president bush. even though i disagreed with president bush profoundly on the war in iraq and what could be worse than that, we worked very much together on so many issues. we passed the biggest energy bill in the history of our country, a stimulus bill relating to refundable tax credits for poor people, you
-- he wanted pet far, and we did a number of things together including the dreaded tarp, which his members abandoned him on. we tried to work together on immigration. president george w. bush was the best president on immigration in terms of respect he had for the people the policy advocated. he could not persuade his party. this is not republicans and democrats not working together. we had a responsibility to find common ground. i did was speaker boehner as well. on the subject of the debt ceiling, this shouldn't even be a question. this is in the constitution. you take an oath to protect and defend it. america is not in
question. i don't know how much is in the leadership of the committee on the democratic side of ways and means and finance, but they are making it clear to the administration that we want a clean debt ceiling, lifting of the debt ceiling. that doesn't mean that we are going to have a debate about whether we're going to let there -- whether were going to lift it or not because even a debate lowered our credit rating a few years ago when that debate took place. we can't have that. we can't have that. so from a standpoint of that, we , stand ready to work with the president to lift a clean debt ceiling, not one bar down in -- one that is not bogged down in ideological who knows what? i don't think anyone knows what. just clean. congresstwo places in -- the appropriations committee
and intelligence. two places where we really largely worked in a bipartisan way. the appropriators will be able to come to terms, i think, for the appropriation bill. it's just a question of what comes from on high. what's coming from on high when you see the president say we will do $54 billion on defense -- well we all want to have the defense we need. what is your mission? what is in this for? we also measure our security and the health, education, and well-being of the mercantile and -- of the american people and that is a source of our strength as well. in terms of our military strength and in terms of our economic and the health of our people. you cannot take $54 billion out and upset the agreement that have been carefully crafted of parity between domestic and defense, but also recognizing
that on the domestic side, it's included homeland security, intelligence, state department, veterans affairs, some of them may going to the defense side, but some on the domestic side. we have all of the domestic agenda but is really a defense function. if you say we are going to hold that harmless you have very , little to invest in education, research and development, science, judiciary, transportation, housing, all the other responsibilities to meet the needs of the american people. again the battle of the budget , is a fight that we have to have. i have a lot of confidence in some of the republicans on the appropriations committee as they know what are responsible these are. >> we are running short of time so we will move on to legislative priorities. clearly not a lot of agreement with donald trump on a lot of
things he said so far. august, a package on obamacare by early spring do , you think he is unrealistic in terms of how fast he thinks things can actually get done? [laughter] rep. pelosi: well we have to start. that would be a good place. if he had started at the election. i talked about president obama from inauguration day. we did not start on inauguration day. you start the day after the election, that is to full months or more in advance to get ready. it would be unrealistic to say things would happen quickly if you never start. [laughter] jake: makes sense. rep. pelosi: the thing is just to go to the affordable care act, because somewhere in the bowels of the capital, there may be a proposal for the affordable care act. jake: the republicans have put their alternative health care
room soa closed, locked their members can receive it. by the way, to be fair, they knocked you guys for being secretive and now they are doing something similar. rep. pelosi: it didn't happen. we had scores of hearings. jake: i remember them. rep. pelosi: we did not have anything locked down any place. we had public markups. the senate marked up for 22 days. that is one of the longest markups in history. but in any case, give me a chance to point out the difference and i thank you for that. [laughter] the fact is we had regular sessions where we were required, mandated that we drilled down every word in the bill so that people could understand, comment, i meant whatever it was in it. that was then, this is now.
now we have a situation where they want to repeal and replace. the only thing repeal and replace have going for it is alliteration. they don't have the votes. how are they going to replace? >> you don't think it will happen. rep. pelosi: they may come up with something, but here's the thing. we have said the purpose of doing of the affordable care act was into lower-cost. the rising costs of health care in our country was totally unsustainable to individuals, to families, so small business, corporate america. it was totally unsustainable to sector,ate section -- the local, state, and federal government.
michael pointed out the continuation of that path is largely the biggest contributor -- prescription drugs. our point was to lower costs, expand coverage more benefits, , and increase access. people didn't have health insurance before. what was really important and what republicans may care about will not carry much about the 20 million is in the 155 million people who have more benefits at lower cost through their employer. 155 million who get their health care from their employer -- many of them have pre-existing medical conditions. they say we are going to keep that. we are going to keep the cap and the 26-year-old. you can't do that unless you have an insurance plan that has
money coming in to do it. this is a free market initiative. romney care, heritage foundation, individual mandate. you have got to have the pool in order to have the resources in order to be able to afford the coverage. now one of the things that is endangered by going down this path is all the above, but also what the affordable care act did was take a hundred billion dollars in savings from medicare program -- $800 billion in savings from the medicare program and applied it to the longevity of medicare, the prolonged solvency, maybe 10 more years. it also close -- striped to close the donut hole. it has the free checkup in the beginning.
seniors are healthier because they have that free checkup to begin with. that lowers costs. the sooner you intervene, the healthier and lower the costs. that's at risk. the biggest problem i think they will face is what happens to expanded medicaid. medicaid is where a lot of expansion was for lower income people and it's an initiative that people think of as poor children, which is important, but the largest amount of money is spent on seniors and people with disabilities, that would also be people who need rehab, opioids, the rest of that. almost -- over 50% of the money spent on long-term health care for seniors either in nursing homes or daycare, etc., is for medicaid. i will just close by saying kasich said thank god for medicaid.
that's where were going to get the money to deal with at the rehab and the opioid issue has intensified the need for those resources. they have always said medicare hter on the vine. on the vine. the speaker has had in his budget the removal of the guarantee of medicare. you remove the guarantee, you don't have medicare. you say to seniors, remember when we didn't have medicare and you had to shop or health insurance? your grandparents or your parents did, well, here's a small voucher for you to go do that again. they have big challenges because this legislation was not just about the affordable care act and health care. it was about the good health of america -- prevention, early intervention and the rest. as i said, they have been baying
for seven years and have nothing in the basement. that is not how we did it even if that's how they want to characterize it. we will see what they have to offer. if it continues to lower costs and expand coverage -- or let's say it in another way, if it does nothing to harm the path of lowering cost, increasing coverage, and expanding access, we have something to talk about. jake: let's do a rapidfire because we're running out of time. tax reform by august -- that's what the speaker says. is that possible? rep. pelosi: it's very hard. we all think we should have that but we haven't seen any initiative to go to the table. as i said, president bush had his tax proposal in the address -- indie joint address. that would've been a few days ago already to be on the path.
we will see what the half to offer, but they have a kettle of fish. they probably should not have kicked the can down the road on the debt ceiling and doing again the budget bill, the appropriations bill just until the end of april. they have to do that or there will be a shutdown of government. and the head of the office of management and budget was the leader of the shutdown and voted against opening up government at the time, so we will see what value they place on that. anna: you not talked at all about the border wall. will democrats oppose any funding package in any shape or form that includes money for building a wall? rep. pelosi: the border wall is unwise, immoral, ineffective, enormously costly. how are they going to pay for? you know the mexicans are not paying for it. if we had some additional money
to spend, technology, personnel, and the rest, there's a better place to go. i just don't see that. he talks about it like he's building a wall though. we will see what he has to say, but i don't think he has too much support on the democratic side. the republicans will be chairing -- cheering away at it as they were cheering away the overturning of tpp which over 200 of them voted for. [laughter] jake: something that you guys cheered for at the state of the union, one of the few things in -- things democrats cheered for in unison -- rep. pelosi: mrs. trump? >> the infrastructure package. no, the infrastructure package. rep. pelosi: no, no. the president, in addition to being a fear monger is a notion
monger. there is an idea that comes forward, someone who says this is our goal, vision, these are the ask about it. he just says, we are going to have an infrastructure. when he said there's going to be a public-private partnership, that wasn't anything. the speaker is quoted as saying there has to be a 40-1 ratio of private investment into the infrastructure. 40-1 -- $40 from the private sector for every one dollar of the public. that's not going to have the impact we need to build our infrastructure. i said to the president from day one in every conversation, which hasn't been many. jake: how many have there been? rep. pelosi: depends on if you're talking on the phone or one thing or another. i made it clear to the in administration that if this is a real infrastructure bill, let's talk. if this is a tax bill disguised as an intersection bill, that's
-- as an infrastructure bill that's not going to happen. , when he says public-private partnership, that could be a good formula. let's see what is. if it's what we suspect what it could be, which is what the -- which is wealthy individuals getting tax credit for which is they will own and charge tolls, that is not a goat. taxpayers are funding it and paying for the maintenance and somebody making a profit off of it under the tax plan. that's not going to happen. we have a several trillion dollar deficit in our infrastructure which has never , been partisan. we have always worked together in that way except when president obama proposed something and we no longer have the majority. they fought that and we did get an infrastructure bill but not as big as the shed and that is we need more, whether it's transportation or highways are high-speed rail, we can probably spend as much money on water
systems, which some are over 100 years old. d, have a glass of water on that one. broadband infrastructure for the future. jobs, jobs, jobs. we have to have some repatriated. and perhaps a public-private partnership. but it can't be something that transfers wealth to the president possible the friends and then charge tolls for consumers to pay for something they are defunded for a tax credit. but he did mention it. why doesn't he have a bill? anna: so we are definitely going to need to rep. i cannot let you off the stage. you have oftentimes been critiquing the donald trump. you have a new leader at the dnc under tom perez.
there has been some criticism of stagnant leadership under house democrats. do you have a strong 2018 ahead of you? what is your message to rust belt democrats? rep. pelosi: is that stagnation referred to me? [laughter] rep. pelosi: it really is amazing to me because the beauty of the democratic party is that we have diversity in our ranks. who would want to be the head of a party that is a rubberstamp? when the press is saying there is division, well, we have competition about leadership and approach and style and the new realities in terms of technology and participation from outside. we have always been a party that has been from the bottom up. what is exciting now with tom perez and keep working together
is a good thing because they bring their talent to it, but it's not about the democrats. it's about america. and what we see that gives us of its hope is that people see the urgent the, understand elections have consequences. since the election, i don't know if you hear it, but we hear it all over the country. what can we do? never have seen anything like that after an election in a manner in which we are saying it. urgency, taking responsibility, that gives us opportunity. our members are united regardless of who runs and personal ambition, which is part of a political party. they are united and they may have some differences about one subject or another in terms of their enthusiasm for certain things, but they are united by our values that center on america's working families. that is why they are democrats.
that is the fight that we have with the republicans. trickle-down versus the middle class bubbling up. that is the debate. that is why we all come together. we may have less enthusiasm than i may have on one subject or another but our unity is about those working families and that is our purpose. it has always been our purpose long before any of these other issues came along. these other issues are part of our value system and we have the strength, the talent, etc. to accommodate all that. it amuses me to see the president -- oh they have a division. not a division. we are the democratic party. we are by definition diverse. we are by definition always challenging how we go forward. i feel very confident -- i don't know if you want to talk politics. we feel confident that we know how to defeat a republican white house.
we did so when president bush was there because we had a plan that will unify. we will put together a game plan -- no, are playbook of listening to the people. people say where is your plan? if i came to you with a plan, you would say, why did you make a plan without talking to me? listening to all the new possibility since we won in 2006, the technology opportunity is so great. putting together the playbook. that will be put together in a grassroots, consensusbuilding way. we will to do that. then we will put together the game plan. and we will show you that. just as it unfolds. anna: thank you for joining us. thank you to the peterson institute for making this possible. join us next thursday for our
playbook interview with the next installment with senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. rep. pelosi: thank you. [indistinct conversation] announcer:
and looking now at our primetime schedule. , vice president mike pence will join house speaker paul ryan in his hometown of janesville, wisconsin. senator ron wyden
discusses corporate tax policy and on c-span3, we look to the future of afghanistan. washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. the americaning, civil liberties union discusses the recent justice department decision to reverse course on an obama administration plan to phase out private prisons. then john locke, president of the crime prevention research center will discuss the trump administrations move to roll back and obama era background check rule. we discussed a recent article on how employers and other entities are using big data and how the relationship between workers and technology is changing. be sure to watch c-span's
washington journal beginning live at m&a and eastern on saturday morning. join the discussion. in-depth willday, feature a live conversation with was a prize-winning author dave barry. discussion, we will be taking your calls, facebook questions and emails on his literary career. miami and imoved to have been there ever since. it is really a good place if you are going to be a humor writer. excellent place to go. announcer: dave barry has published over 30 books barry'sg " dave greatest hits" and the most recent " best day ever." from an into 3 p.m. eastern on book tv on c-span2.