Nancy Pelosi I Would Have Been Gone By Now If Hillary Clinton Won... CSPAN March 10, 2017 3:35pm-4:56pm EST
won the election. reporters asked her this morning about russia's interference in the 2016 presidential race and the republican health care replacement bill. after the breakfast briefing hosted by the christian science monitor, she took additional questions from reporters. his is an hour and 15 minutes. >> ok. so i think we're going to start. good morning. i'm linda feldman, the monitor's washington bureau chief. dave cook couldn't be here today. he's a little under the weather so i am your substitute teacher, and i hope you all behave. thank you for coming. our guest today is house democratic leader nancy pelosi. this is her 12th visit to the monitor group. 12th. it has been at political conventions and in the speaker's office in april of 2009, complete with gir dele chocolate. we know -- ghiradelli
chocolate. we know the speaker is a chocolate fan. thank you for coming back. i will skip the bigraphical portions and get right to questions. in honor of international women's day i will point out that leader pelosi is the first woman in american history to lead a major party in congress and in january, 2007, became the first to serve as speaker and she has been minority leader since january of 2011. now, onto the operational details as always. we're on the record. please no live blogging or tweeting. in short, no filing of any kind while the breakfast is under way. and there's no embargo when the breakfast ends. finally, if you'd like to ask a question, please send me a subtle, nonthreatening signal and i will do my very best to call on as many folks as possible in the time we have. if i don't know your name i apologize. i am trying to learn that fast. we'll start off by offering
leader pelosi the opportunity to make some brief opening remarks. and then we'll move to questions from around the table. wand that thank you, again, for including us in your very busy schedule. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, linda. and thanks, david, for his invitation. thank you for your hospitality and thank you, all, for being here. 12 times i was thinking on the way in, i was chatting with linda on the way in, i think the first time i was here, it was a long time ago. and i was thinking, how could i have such a junior member be invited to such a prestigious breakfast, but it was about -- i was, shall i say, engagement with president herbert walker bush on the issue of human rights in china and most sovereign nations and the rest of that. i have pictures with three presidents in my office. one is barack obama on the 200th anniversary of lincoln's birthday. one is with john f. kennedy with me as a teenager. and the other is with president
george herbert walker bush, one of my favorite presidents. we were in contention at that time over china. it points out you can be in great disagreement, grant everyone their position, debate it out but still be very dear friends. the -- you mentioned, linda, some firsts. couple days ago on international women's day, of course, it was a day without women as well. so we had all kinds of activities on the steps of the capitol and the rest. but one that we had that was planned even before we knew about a day without women was he first woman ever sworn in congress, jeanette rankin, to observe the 100th anniversary of the first woman to come to congress. she was from montreal. she was a -- she was from montana. she was a republican and she came in 1917 to vote against
the war, our entrance to world war i. then she didn't come back. then she came in 1940 to vote against our entry to world war ii. she was a pacifist. and she was, i was told, since one of the people who was part of starting the aclu because of her pacifism and her right to speak out against that. so pretty exciting. so anyway, she's the first woman elected to congress, pretty exciting, before women had the right to vote in america but they had the right to vote in montana. she was talking about speaking out the right for people to speak out and that's what i commend all of you for. i always say the freedom of the press is the greatest guardian of democracy in the world and certainly in our country and as i said at the dinner the other night, this is the first amendment is there because it
protects all of the other freedoms and rights that are to follow. so thank you for what you do in that respect. so here we are moving on several different fronts. we have the affordable care act which is under assault. have the ban and the policy toward refugees coming into our country which is under assault and we have the russian connection which just intensified. in terms of the affordable care act, we're very proud of the affordable care act. it has three purposes. e, to lower costs, to expand benefits, and to enlarge the circle of people who participate. so better -- improved benefits and large access and lower costs. it has succeeded in doing all of that. it was a compromised bill to begin with, so i have my own ideas about how we could
improve it and i'd love to work with the republicans to do that if they didn't want to repeal the bill. it's stunning, though, to see their approach which is really effectively a tax cut for the richest people in our country. it is the biggest transfer of wealth from working families to the richest people in our country. the speaker says i am not concerned about that. i'm not concerned about that. well, it's a $600 billion transfer of wealth, robin hood in reverse. we don't know what the c.b.o. will report. brookings saying it could be 15 million people, at least 15 million people will lose coverage. and then the commonwealth reports 30 million people will be hit by the republicans' millennial penalty surcharge for re-enrolling after interruption in coverage. so if you're a child, a poor
child in our country, you're affected by medicaid. if you're a student, a millennial, a young person, you're affected by the penalty, the millennial penalty. if you are parents in our country, you just lose coverage. if you are taking care of your seniors in your family, they will be affected by medicaid and medicare and how it's affected. so families multigenerationally are affected by this. but, again, it doesn't has to be a poor child. it could be a child with pre-existing condition affected pre-existing condition. the republicans say they are going to keep that. well, you can't keep it if you can't pay for it and, of course, they are giving away $600 billion, mostly to people making over $200,000 a year. but just remember this, if you, the 400 wealthiest families in
america, the 400 wealthiest families in america will get a each a of $7 million year. t's just a stunning thing. the speaker says he's not concerned about that. o this is one fight. the president's taxes, i see 2/3 of the american people want to see the president's tax returns. why should he of all people when every president has shown them since general ford in modern time and, again, we can talk about the ban. 'm going here -- after session, to texas to the border to visit with the families and the religious communities that are working with the people there. so just about what's happening there. when you ask questions, i'll
talk about that. i've spoken beyond my time. linda: thank you very much, ma'am leader. i'll -- madam leader. i'll start off the first question and go around the table. given the republican majority, is there anything your caucus can do to stop the republican health care plan other than rail about it? ms. pelosi: it's not a question about rail. we think we're making a very studious contrast with it, just a choice of words. but president lincoln said it best, public sentiment is everything. and this is something that isn't theoretical. it isn't about philosophy. it's about what affects people very directly. tip o'neill said all politics is personal, it's local, but the fact when it comes to health care it's all personal and people are seeing very directly how it will affect
them. and that's what we are doing now, to make sure people know the consequences. it's a job killer. it's a job killer. hospitals will close. jobs will be lost in addition to the access to care that is there. the methodists have said people will die because of this bill. people will die. so whether it's the personal impact on your health, whether it's the impact on the economy in your area because of job loss and you are not going to be able to track business if you don't have medical facilities in your region, and areas will be very ery
directly affected. o this is [no audio] even though the affordable care act is a private sector initiative. market. arket-oriented don't underestimate the power of the electorate. one point, though, when we were talking about the taxes, you know where a lot of those wealthy people live who are getting the tax breaks? they live in blue states. you know where those poor people live? they live in red states. they voted for trump. they didn't vote to have their health care taken away. linda: robert from "u.s. news." robert: thank you for coming this morning. republicans said the measure or the bill is not about coverage but access. what do you make of that --
ms. pelosi: it's a ridiculous argument for them to make because they really do not -- d i say this understanding their philosophy, they don't want this, but for them to say access is so ill-informed or just they mean access for people with resources, they don't care about the 20 million who will lose their benefits. we get that. we get that. that comes through loudly and clearly. they don't really care about that. what we think they might care about is the 155 million people who get their insurance through their -- to the workplace, through their jobs, and those people will lose -- have a lot to lose in terms of the benefits. they will in a cosmetic way say, oh, well, we'll keep pre-existing condition, no discrimination, we are going to keep no lifetime limits, we
will keep your child on the program until they're 25, 26, but the fact is that is not affordable unless you have a big pool. and -- or else we would have had it before in the private sector. it was totally unaffordable. for insurance companies to cover that, they have to charge premiums that are astronomical. so it isn't about access at all. the only access it's about is lack of access, and you see one of their fights right now is about -- which is a stunning one is in order to, shall we say, litigate for the damage that they would do, they would have it be the end of 2019, that the expansion of medicaid would end. and now they're saying maybe the end of this year, because that's ideological. that's where the tea party is coming from. they don't like medicaid. they would like to block grant it. the bill does a per capita
which is very damaging to the initiative. and at the same time they are shortening the life -- solvency of medicare because they think in their philosophy that medicare, their statement is medicare should wither on the vine. so, again, it's attitude of what is the role of government, what is the public-private relationship and you've heard many people say, government, keep your hands off my medicare, just showing people don't understand some of them that this is an initiative of the public sector. so this is the only thing that relates to access in terms of what they are talking about is diminishing access. inda: fran seen. francine. francine: i wonder if
[inaudible] so americans can compare and contrast? ms. pelosi: well, certainly there isn't a bill that ever passed congress, whether it was social security, medicare, medicaid, civil rights act, voting rights act that hasn't en improved upon upon seeing implementation. so there are some things, yes, that the senate insisted upon and the -- but the fact is right now the fight is over repeal. and what they are doing and that's the fight that we're having. we'd love to sit down with them and say, when it -- whether it comes to the individual market, restrictions, giving more empowerment to insurance commissioners, some of the things we had hoped to get in the bill before. the issues that relate to risks that are in the bill but the republicans prevented from happening before. so, again, any bill can be improved. there's never been a perfect
bill. but right now the fight is that hey have to stop the repeal. u're talking about systemic, existential threat to a public role affecting the private market in terms of health insurance. inda: erin kelly, "usa today." erin: i know director comey was on last night. [inaudible] comey was giving a full briefing about russia. how do you feel about last night? ms. pelosi: well, as you well know, there's no way i can talk about what happened, but i can say that i call upon an independent commission outside of the congress to investigate the russian connection.
what do the russians have on donald trump that has him talking about flirting with the idea of not having sanctions on russia, undermining the stark treaty, glorifying putin and even belittling the greatness of america as he does so? what's that about? so what are the political, personal, financial connections to russia, we want to know, and one of the first steps we can have is for the president to release his tax returns. but i think the best thing we can do is have an outside commission to do that. again, we come back to linda's question. it's about the public. the public now, 2/3 say -- in other words, what do you do? this is about undermining our system, our electoral system. if hillary clinton had won,
even though they had disrupted the system, we still would need to have an investigation of the russians disrupting our election. this is -- and it's not just about this election in this country. it's about what they could do in the future that we know they're ready to do and it's about what they're doing in other countries as well. putin had a vendetta against hillary clinton. that's a word people who know him use because she spoke out about democracy. but apart from that, he is trying to undermine democracy in other countries, and that has to be -- that has to be -- we need to know the truth about that. what's with the president praising wicky leaks? what was that about? remember when he was praising wikileaks?
doing damage to our intelligence gathering now. but i don't see him say anything negative since he had been on that pedestal praising wikileaks before. so i can't really talk about what we talk about there but i will just say i think we still need to have the outside investigation. we need the truth. we need the truth. i don't understand why our republican colleagues are so afraid of the truth. what is the truth about those tax returns? we had a number of votes in committee and now on the floor where they had just come to the defense of this president that they don't have to see the tax returns. 2/3 of the american people think differently, and we will be putting them to that vote each week as we lead up to april 15. linda: ok. john of "news max." john: good morning. ms. pelosi: nice to see you
again. john: nice seeing you again. thank you, linda, for having this. you mentioned some of the great legislation, civil rights, social legislation, all of which was passed with bipartisan support back -- going back to the new deal. my question is twofold. first, do you see any democratic votes at all for the ryan measure that is coming up? second, immigration. is there any chance of a compromised bipartisan package on immigration with this administration? you recall a few years ago senator schumer, senator rubio had a package that almost passed. do you see the possibility of that? ms. pelosi: first question, no, i don't see any democratic votes for what they're doing. none. it isn't about democrats and republicans. it's about meeting the needs of the american people. so when they say, whose side
are you on? are you on the side of trump or the republicans? it's on the side of the constituents and meeting their needs. medicare had a problem. the republicans were not crazy about medicare when it came forward. in the end some of them voted for it but that wasn't before they tried to block it every step of the way and, again, medicare should wither on the vine, had been a continuation of their anti-medicare. but having said that, yes, indeed, i do see plenty of opportunity to work on the immigration bill. it passed the senate in a bipartisan way as you indicate, john. but they would not bring a vote in the house. the republicans in the house would not give it a vote. i think if they had given it a vote it would have won. that's why me didn't give it a vote because they knew it would win. let me say, president george w. bush, i praised his father earlier, was a great president.
president george w. bush, 43, he was a great president on immigration. when we won the majority, i remember being in a meeting, early meeting with the leadership, just a small leading, the top leadership with the president bush. he said, now we can pass an immigration bill. but he couldn't persuade his party to come along. and i think that was a disappointment to him. and the more recent was under president obama but the house republicans wouldn't just come along. let me say how different the attitude is of president trump on immigration. the republicans in congress and the president criticize the executive orders of president obama, whether it was dreamers or some other protection for their parents and the rest, but president reagan, before some of you were born, president reagan with his executive
orders protected a higher percentage of people than president obama has done under his executive orders. president obama acted when president -- excuse me -- when congress would not act. president obama said, you haven't acted. we did pass the dream act in the house, but the senate couldn't get the 60 votes to pass it. so it didn't become law. so president obama did his executive order for the reamers and their parents. and the republicans railed against the -- [laughter] expressed their opposition to that particular policy. but i remind you when president reagan acted, congress had acted. they passed the immigration reform bill of 1986, and president reagan said, you haven't gone far enough. so we're going to incity tute
family fairness -- institute family fairness so his family fairness which he and herbert walker bush protected a higher percentage of people than president obama's initiative. reagan, bush, clinton, bush again, obama, all the presidents of modern time, have been -- you can go back further than that, but i'm telling this legislation and this executive action in this time period are completely different. and so president trump's words and actions or whatever you want to call them, are contrary to the three most recent republican presidents, not to mention the democratic president. so, yes, i do see a path in terms of having comprehensive immigration reform which is the answer to all of the problems -- challenges that the president defines, he sees, to
have comprehensive immigration reform. and the senate has shown they can come to that agreement. the house can if the speaker would give us a vote, and that's all we ask for, give us a vote. give us a vote. what are you afraid of? why don't you give us a vote on a bipartisan bill that has passed the senate? with all the compromises that a bipartisan bill would have. . i'm hopeful. president bush president bush, e were closer to him in that attitude. even now president george w. bush has spoken with dignity about streeting immigrants and the immigration issue treating people with respect and dignity.
>> barbara, bbc. question on the state department. there was a letter sent to mr. tillerson in which they said the state department was having foreign policy decisions and budget cuts could undermine -- and it was near a tipping point after which its ability to function would be severely eroded. strong language. i want to get your view. do you think the state department is in danger of being significantly side lined? and do you think the budget cuts that mr. trump has proposed for the state department would pass in congress? ms. pelosi: you have come to where i have come in congress.
i was the top democrat on in ign ops subcommittee appropriations where we did so much of this and commerce-state and i was on that committee as well. i understand that budget very well. and forged in the intelligence committee which our national security depends on. most of those were bipartisan arenas, appropriations left to their own devices, appropriations can get the job done. and raising the bar to the intelligence committee is acting on intelligence. so when you see what they are proposing with this big tax -- big increase on the defense side which seems to abandon the
parity we have domestic and defense, it's very disruptive to the subject you mentioned, while defense is defense, security is a big piece of the domestic udget. the department of state, foreign assistance, veteran affairs, homeland security, they come out of the domestic agenda that security functions. so the president, while he needs that, he needs diplomats. and to undermine the diplomacy and all of the other softer power that we need to keep the american people safe is a very bad mistake. again, we take an oath to protect and defend our country, our constitution. so if you do so in a way that
values the balance between security and liberty. but we have to -- this is a very bad idea, the path they're going down. i think you will see a whole swath of nonpartisan diplomats, generals, security experts saying this is no way to protect the country. [inaudible] ms. pelosi: be hard to tell, congress understands the importance of diplomacy and soft ower and say for example, -- how complete his knowledge is of the subject -- [laughter] plose ms. pelosi: i'm being
diplomatic. the thing is he has to understand that when you say he comes out and says i'm not going to cut veterans and i'm not going to cut homeland security -- so now you have a big chunk over here at defense at the disadvantage of the domestic budget and hold harmless some of the security functions, you are really diminishing other sources of strength in our country, which is the education and well-being of the american people. and so the republicans on the appropriations committee know that. it becomes almost impossible to meet the needs of the american people if you do that. and it isn't an opinion. it's an objective fact -- even if you are just talking about soldiers. you have to educate people.
you have to meet people and have them live in a place where they can succeed in order to one day join the military if that's your only purpose. but in terms of everything about our country, keeping america number one economically, keeping our country -- the security of our economy, the security of our country and global security beyond ourselves and the security of our democracy requires an educated well-informed, well-fed population. so this is really a weakening of meeting our responsibilities. i just remind you, a few years ago when they shut down the government, the number that republicans put forth was their number for the budget, even their appropriator said this will not enable us to meet the
needs of the american people. and what they are doing now is much worse. let's see if it's worth knowledge and information the decisions of the white house can be better informed. >> reuters. >> lindsay graham had lunch on tuesday with the president and when he came back to the hill, he told reporters that he believes that the president is now in a deal-making mode and that he realizes that in order to get deals, democrats have to get something. so i'm wondering if one, if your phone has been bringing from the white house and whether you could foresee the possibility of him approaching you on the health care deal or is the die cast for the year based on the first couple of months? ms. pelosi: does that mean bowling at the white house in
return for support for legislation? i find the charm offensive. i really do. you don't agree philosophically what the legislation is, let's go bowling at the white house. come on. the president of the united states is the most powerful person in the world, what does he know to be able to make the difference in what we can talk about. if they want to talk about is the threat to the idea of expanding access to care, that's not a negotiable thing. if we are talking about particulars, let's see what he has to talk about. but so far, we haven't seen it. i do see opportunity on
infrastructure. 50 i remind you, 49 days, days. we have seen no jobs bill, no infrastructure initiative, we have seen no initiative of renegotiation of nafta, some of the things he has said. reminding you president obama four weeks into his term, he already signed the american recovery and reinvestment act which created far more jobs. he is way behind in terms of legislation to create jobs, which he promised, which is what we all want to do and eager to see what he may want to do on infrastructure. and as i said to him, if this is an infrastructure bill, it is bout investment -- infrastructure, broadband infrastructure that investing in the future, that's something we
can talk about. if this is yet again another tax break for your friends disguised as an infrastructure bill, then we are not going down with that path. the health care bill is lowering taxes for the wealthiest people but reduces jobs but it's what is in the d.n.a. of the republicans to reduce taxes for the high end, trickle-down economics. always open, yeah. >> abc. >> i want to ask you on the russia story and knowing that you are limited in what you can say in what you hear in classified briefings, have you heard anything that professor disproves and do you think it is incumbent on director comey if there is a disconnect and
reality of what the president said over the weekend? ms. pelosi: oh, gosh. theoretically, do i think that a director of the f.b.i. who knows for a fact knows that is misleading to the american people and he should set the record straight, i think he should say that publicly. but that is really, it's almost like -- forgetting comey, just going to the president, what is going on there? i mean, really. i think he crossed the line with that. and it's red meat for his base and believes anything that he says that he could shoot somebody on fifth avenue and nobody would care. this is one example of that. shooting someone in new york or
wherever he needs to be. >> you don't believe it to be true? ms. pelosi: of course not. i was part of rewriting the law of how one gets a fisa, but what you have to go to through. it's the character of the person. president obama would not do that. we don't use fisa against the american people. the we heightened administration, vice president cheney was in my view -- we had some tightening on how we protect the american people. but the relationship of the executive branch, the department
-- theree and congress is much more accountability now. the fisa court judges are all choicen by the chief justice of the united states, john roberts. >> tom from cnn. >> question about contacts between trump campaign and any russian officials. have you seen any evidence of that directly yourself? ms. pelosi: any contacts between the trump administration or campaign? >> evidence of this directly by yourself. have you actually seen this yourself and have you been informed of this yet? ms. pelosi: i can't answer that we question because i would have to filter out what i know from a
intelligence standpoint. let me know what is in the public domain and that's what i know and what we suspect. >> there has been the reporting on manaforte regarding the r.n.c. platform. all that has been reported out from our intelligence sources. ms. pelosi: manaforte was fired and there is some evidence there was connection there. this is a very sensitive issue as you know at this time and may be in a short period of time. and much more will be in the public domain. but let's have an outside investigation so everybody knows the truth about what happened and the campaign and the president's personal connections to russia. >> are you prepared to subpoena
his tax returns if he will not release them? ms. pelosi: am i prepared to subpoena his tax returns? i would do it in a second, but i don't have the power to do it. how it all works and you want to know everything but the teapot dome scandal, a law that was used when president nixon was president and how his tax returns came out. the way it works is that the chairman of the ways and means committee or the chairman -- and that would be brady or the chairman of the finance committee, that would be hatch, or the joint committee on taxation which is one of those two between the house and senate, can ask the secretary of the treasury for the tax returns and then the committee can decide whether to make it
public. and that's what we're calling upon in committee for brady to -- and the house for brady to ask for that. he happens to be the chairman of ways and means and the joint tax committee. so that's where the action is now is to say why aren't you doing this? why are you hiding? why are you an accomplice to this. the american people have a right to know. the american people have the right to know. why should this president be and solved from this while he has all these other suspicious relationships to russia. so we will each week have a motion, a privileged resolution on the floor. so far the republicans have tabled it because they don't believe the president should release the tax returns. but the american people do. so we'll see how long that
works. of course i would subpoena them, but we don't have the power to subpoena them. democrats get in power next time 18 months, 20 months, then that's a different story story. but we want this to end so much sooner than that. it may be an embarrassment that he didn't pay any taxes. we'll see. they ople, they just -- are competent in their judgment and they made the judgment. and until they see otherwise, it's not about him, but about them. they vote. that's one place where they depart. you see those numbers. a number of those people are trump supporters. why wouldn't he? because they have confidence in him. >> we have 17 minutes left.
lots of questions, if could limit it to one question. ms. pelosi: i guess that means i should keep my answers short. >> i know you hate hypothetical questions. ms. pelosi: let's try it. >> let's say for a moment that the american health care act fails. if later this year or early next year republicans came to you and you said ok, we are not trying to kill it, what improvement -- if there were some areas that you could work with them to improve, as you said, major pieces of legislation, always an improvement, what are the legitimate areas that you think that common ground could be from? ms. pelosi: understand -- and i always grant people their
positions. they are fill could havically opposed to government. and that is the history of our country. what is the role of the central government and what should they be able to do. and that is a legitimate debate, unless you're saying, health care as a right and not a privilege and not a value that we should and we don't have much to talk about. but i could grant them some things that they want that i don't think are such a good idea that they want to have health savings accounts. in keeping with -- i think it's a bad idea. but again, if you are making a ompromise, if it's to preserve the idea of affordability, access and improved benefits. there are some things they might ropose that i think really are
oriented, but a price to pay to get the rest of it. as i said earlier. because -- because they went out there in a negative way to attack the affordable care act, some of the participation isn't as great as it might be. and because they took it to court and the supreme court said states don't have to expand medicaid. states have given up the right to have 100% of their coverage by the federal government and 90% later, millions of people on this, would they then accept the expansion of medicaid and that would be important and more people would be covered. and some obstruction that they had to the private market, whether it's high-risk corridors that impact the individual market. these are more technicalities, but they have an impact on the number of people who are covered and at what cost and what does
it do to the private sector because this is a private sector initiative and there are certain predictbilities they like to see. if they have some suggestions to improve predictability, fairness to all the participants including the insurance companies, then we have something to talk about. i mentioned the individual market, availability of commissioners to have to be able to pass on wage increases and the rest. and part of the obstruction they have given to it have led to some places of not having as many competitors for the marketplace. so how do we infuse the private sector with competition because competition of course lowers costs as well. >> -- ms. pelosi: suffice it to say, some things they may think are a
good idea which are too costly and give to the rich, but that's the price to pay to do something else depending on what else they are willing to do not just on its own but what else comes with it. >> "the daily mail." >> i want you to expand on rick's question. have you seen anything that would lead you to believe that the obama administration was involved in any kind of surveillance not just of president trump but possibly of his businesses during the campaign and do you agree that these charges are the house intelligence committee should be investigating as the white house is requesting? leader mcconnell -- they should be investigating the
russian connection to undermine our democracy, that's what they should be investigating. you throw out something and waste your time investigating. it couldn't possibly be true. because that is not how our system works. now if the f.b.i. -- if they have reason to do investigation, that's their -- i don't call it the obama administration and we are hoping they are doing investigations. but we really don't know. here.e no way i can say but nothing that you have described that had anything to do with the obama administration. the do not investigate fisa court, here or abroad, here or abroad. fisa and the president, i'm not
even sure he understands fisa. but maybe he does. but it's complicated. and if he does, good for him. that would be one. [inaudible] ms. pelosi: the public outcry on it is significant in their districts, so if they were to prove it, i think it would be a cost to their own constituents. that's the judgment they have to make. but they have the majority, both houses. they have the white house. i just don't know and i don't think they know. i don't think they know. they talk about it, but i don't think they know. and to have a bill that you start off with a $600 billion transfer from middle -- working
families -- not that everybody isn't working but working-class families to the richest people in america and say i'm not concerned about that, well, people are concerned about it, because it comes down to the deficit and the budget. it's about jobs, it's about the deficit and about the health, not the health care, but the health of the american people. >> emily of the "new york times." >> i'm wondering, is there a point you would advise people in the house intell committee to pull away of an investigation -- ms. pelosi: you described it as a bipartisan investigation? >> we've agreed to the -- is there a point in which would you say this investigation has lost credibility and urged them to
pull away? ms. pelosi: they in the committee would have to make that judgment. one of the problems is though, fighting this in the clinton administration, bush administration and obama administration. one of the challenges with the intelligence community, you cannot share information with members of the community. when i was the ranking member democrat, i was a gang of four and part of the gang of eight. and i could not even tell a staff person, my chief of staff or any colleague what we were told. and that's the situation now, too. so what we would like to see is all the members of the committee, democrats and republicans to have more access to the intelligence around these subjects. we certainly would protect sources and methods. that's a given. but it's hard to have those members make a judgment, democrats or republicans if they
don't have the intelligence and departmentized by their leadership on behalf of their caucus to go in that small committee and make those decisions and yet they are deprived of that information. mr. nunes and mr. schiff cannot share that information and are forbidden to do that. we need more information to committee members. march 20, they will have an open hearing. i don't know how much information is going to be given out in open hearing but there will be some discussion and you will see where that demarcation is. i do think for a moment, i would like to say another place where we could work together. we have for a long time have almost 10 years an innovation
agenda. we travel the country, labor unions, work force people, venture capitalist to say what would be an innovation agenda to keep america number one springing from president kennedy who said about the moon shot in order for america to be preimminent, we must be first and intend to be first. he said it in a much larger sense. 10 years later with the advances in technology and all the rest, we are having innovation 2.0. members have had scores of meetings around the country. they received the benefit of objective facts about what the technologiesr how we train our work force for what's coming as far as artificial intelligence and about the future and my
republicans haven't participated as members, republicans from the community have participated and i think there may be some members on the republican side who would be receptive to this. and i would hope the president -- in fact, what was i thinking, i thought maybe the joint session would say we have an innovative agenda for the future and this is what it entiles for the education of our children and work force and investments in research and development and this is what it entails and rethinking of how we compensate people for work. but that's where we have to be taking this debate because it has to be about jobs, good paying jobs, increased paychecks, increasing consumer confidence in what people spend and inject into the economy, create more jobs and recognizing in our deficit consideration,
nothing brings more money to the treasury than early childhood education, lifetime learning of our workers. and when the republicans say we have to cut pell grants because we have to reduce the deficit. those kinds of subjects where the american people -- it's not political and not even partisan and hopefully that debate can emerge in the congress about jobs and i say the answer to so many of our challenges is one word, science, science, science. science for good health. science to present vemb our planet, science to keep us safe in terms of investments in the technologies for our advantage in the military and again science to keep us number one in terms of our economy, our health, our planet and our security. so hopefully -- i don't see any
partisanship out there on these subjects. hopefully we can see -- having seen it in the administration. you see what is happening at e.p.a., but nonetheless, hopeful, because it is absolutely essential we move forward on that. >> dan, you are up. >> can you talk about the republican repeal bill fails and whether they would work more with democrats, what would you think if they don't pass this? would they cater more to their conservative members or work with you? what is the fallback? ms. pelosi: the president said it fails, let the affordable care act just implode and the democrats will pay the price which is indicative of his lack of knowledge of the affordable care act. so that's -- to answer your
question, that is what the president is supposing to the members. as you point out, within their own caucus, they have a challenge if they go too far to the right to get those votes, they lose votes, especially in the senate, the more moderate, such as that is and their own caucus. i think if it doesn't pass that you will see perhaps, i would hope an overture as charlie mentioned and others mentioned as well, let's see how we can address some of the issues that you may have philosophically, but we have to measure them practically in how theyly affect the american people. but they may not give up. ok, we didn't pass this, back to the drawing board, let's see.
and i won't go into the process stuff. i just wanted to say to you when we did the affordable care act -- is it in here the letter? the speaker of the house wrote to us. the speaker of the house wrote to us and the chairman of the budget committee and the three committees of jurisdiction saying the speaker is intending to bring this to the floor before august. we must have a report from the c.b.o. on the number of uninsured people and the list goes on. and i won't read it. and those are legitimate questions. but we already had our request into the c.b.o. we were not going to committee or the floor without the c.b.o. report. they don't have a c.b.o. report. and it's not important. and the speaker wrote the letter
then. we have scored scores of hearings and markups, public. we had so many amendments, dozens of republican amendments were accepted. and some of the colleagues were saying, now you are doing that. that wasn't true. this was a very important process. and president obama kept inviting them saying what are your ideas, what would you like to see in the legislation? this is quite a different process where they have been banging baying at the moon for seven years and couldn't come up with any public discussion about what to do with it except in the moonlight coming up with something the other day without a c.b.o. report. i only care what this means to
me. am i go go to have my health insurance? am i go go to have financial and health security? i don't care about process. but interesting that they have been saying socially saying, inconsistent in their attitude toward that. so where do they go from here? do they want to rush this out before the c.b.o. comes out? it's not only the impact on the deficit but impact on how many people are covered or loses. they are afraid of a lot of things. the president's tax returns, the c.b.o. report, the truth is something that is not their friend. aybe it is and are just have a different timing than we have on this subject. they shouldn't be marking up the bill without the c.b.o. report.
they do not know what they are talking about. they do not know what they are talking about. when we see the c.b.o. report, we'll see what they do. i figure they will go back to the drawing board. some of our colleagues have said this is no longer about how would you do the particulars of a bill. this is ideological. we just do not believe in the public role. medicare should wither on the vine. how about their voters? how many voters think they should wither on the vine? i don't think so. three options, one, they do nothing and that's what the president says, do nothing and the affordable care act. two, they go back to the drawing board themselves, let likely to come to us and say. >> we have reached the end of
the hour, my apologies to the people still on the list who didn't get to answer their questions. i thank the madam leader for coming. and i hope we can meet again. ms. pelosi: maybe we can talk more about what is going on with russia at that time. and i'm going to texas and the border tomorrow to visit with the people in religious communities. so we didn't even get to that subject. as a mother of five and grandmother, you can imagine what i think about the immigration policies what i think about separating mothers and children. we'll y say it was great put those children in foster homes or institutions when we separate them. they don't even deny it. they don't even deny.
we have differences of opinion. but america is a great place. america is so great, it can withstand everything, even this. and god is always with us. and my view is that god wants us to work harder to rid our . untry of some of the and that's part of our job to do. so not only work together but we can pray together because this is -- the world is looking for us. we have always been the adult in the room and we have to maintain that for the security of the world. there is so much at risk and so much opportunity. but again, thank you for being the guardians of our democracy. won't even go into some of the things being said, but to say all the more reason for all of us to rally. and as one of the secretaries
said to me, you shouldn't believe everything you read in the paper. i said i don't, especially about myself -- [laughter] ms. pelosi: but what you are doing -- i'm not saying it on the basis of what i read in the paper, it's what i have seen with my own eyes. thank you for giving me the opportunity to share some thoughts. and my best to david is feeling ell. thank you all. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org
>> things that you might not be doing for a while. now one of the things that is dispositive of recruitment, what are the president's numbers. when we ran in 2005 and 2006 and took it to congress, president sh at this point say january or february, with a 58%. 58% when we launched our initiative. 58%. 45% ent trump is at what on his best day. 45% on his best day. so he is already way down low and that is an opportunity for
success and it has an impact. if you are going to run for congress and you are a democrat and president trump was at 58 mrs you might rethink that. but at 45%, you are ready to go. >> what do you mean by accelerated? ms. pelosi: they want to go. usually by like september -- by the way with our initiative with president bush two differentiate and call him out for his privatizing of social security and this, by the fall he was at 38%. he was at 38%. but in the 40's is really not a good thing for the party of the president for him to be in the 40's. >> usually september? ms. pelosi: people usually start to say i'll make a judgment. and then thanksgiving.
i have seen this over and over. and then get ready to go forward . but they go through talking about it with my family, my this, my that and over the holidays and make a decision. yeah, it's very much like what's the lay of the land and make decisions and get out there early and the rest. so again, it has its own momentum. you asked the questions, what would be the agenda for the campaign. no. it's what happens in their districts. almost all of here were here not because of a national issue but because of how we relate it to our members, our constituents in regard to what was happening. and some of it -- whether it's about the environment, health care and how it plays out in our district that has a federal
connection, but more about what goes on at home. >> the health care bill, should we expect any other delay tactics next week as it goes before the budget committee? ms. pelosi: they are tactics to make sure the american people knows what's in the bill. they aren't delay tactics. but it takes time, if you want to call delay, i understand. that takes time and especially if they want to mark up the bill without a c.b.o. report. and that will be very telling that they want to get it through committee, which they did. so we'll see what happens next week. now they are seeing a campaign o undermine the budget office. speaker boehner appointed the republican -- the people of power in the majority appoint
the head of the congressional budget office. this is their congressional budget office. it isn't about the c.b.o. report or congressional budget office. >> how much of this would be about the cnn question. since the dosier report there have been attempts to cor borrow ate it and talks about dates and russia and potential sources hat have been neutralized. potential sources or alleged potential sources. in your view, what is your take there has been some time to digest what is in this dosier.
financial ties, whatever. ms. pelosi: we have the investigation. the american people know what the truth is. and any attempt on the part of republicans to say we shouldn't have an investigation is incriminating i think. what are they afraid of? what are they afraid of. i can't go into some of it, but suffice to say, let's just be otal naive about it all. -- totally naive about it all. those things in the dosier are terrible. so let's get rid of them. i served for years on intelligence and ethics and find something that is exculpatory because this is so awful and let's find out that it isn't
true. that is discovery in itself. so you really do have to rid the record of some of that. but that doesn't mean you should make charges and then say -- you know, you have to have some basis for what you are talking about. and there's enough that we justify an independent commission. now if they don't have one, a special prosecutor is the route to go as well. >> schiff and nunes said they have concerns they are not getting information. and director comey said yesterday. assuaged at erns this point? ms. pelosi: you have to ask them. they made that statement. >> yesterday on the health care bill, are you more or less
confident that republicans will be able to -- ms. pelosi: i'm the last person you should ask about what goes on in the republican caucus. who knows what sway they may have over their members on this. but as you see, if you are a moderate in their caucus, it still is unacceptable. and what do they call themselves now, the freedom caucus. what name are they using today? they don't think it goes far enough to eliminate it. so they have a real problem and i don't know what their numbersr what their persuasion is or if they say let us pass it in the house and put the burden in the senate to do the right thing in my view. i cannot tell you. i have no idea.
>> you had support for obamacare, knowing this goes into it. does it -- ms. pelosi: we took a long time to do our bill. we had scores of harings, bipartisan hearings and markups and members bill beinged the bill. and we did in the house. we had public options. and that's where the senate did not, but we didn't know what that would be. i said see when it passes. we didn't know what the senate had. we hoped to have a public option. you have established your values that unite us and have a bill, how we will be going to public option, what would be the affordability of the subsidies that we would need in a private market initiative.
so we actually built our bill together, a. and b, everybody knew what was in it because they had it for days and days and days to read on it and drill down on it to make further comments about it. this is something that is coming from on high and that is not a way to sell a salesman, shall we say. that you come up with something from on high and take it and love it and only shot and this is what the president wants. maybe that works in the republican party. but that would not work on the democratic side. > thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org
>> here's a look at our prime time schedule on the c-span networks, starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, remarks from president trump and vice president pence and congressional leaders on republican efforts to replace the health care law. on c-span 2, travel groups gather here in washington for a rally in response to the dakota pipeline and keystone pipeline. customs ing on a enforcement agent by a cartel. >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span 3, saturday night, on the civil war, what
might have been had he not been assassinated. >> we would have to assume he would follow a very carbous plan and might not have been willing to have black codes implemented, but he certainly would have been much more conciliatory to the south. >> at 10:00 on "real america" the film "round trip." >> and gets to where they need it. 10,000 tons from this yard alone. going to 25 different countries. >> sunday, we'll tour philadelphia carp enters hall and served as the meeting place as the first continental congress in 1774. >> youally remember patrick henry of give me liberty or give me death. even more significant was his remark made here in the early days when he looked around the
room and he said gentlemen, we are no longer from massachusetts . we are no longer from pennsylvania. we are no longer from virginia. we are all americans. >> and at 8:00 on "the presidency" ronald reagan. >> the reagan administration was aware of violations focusing on the polish to impose martial law and the trade union movement there. >> for our complete schedule go to c-span.org. >> sunday night on "after words" richard haas examines challenges to foreign policy and
interviewed by the former undersecretary of state for global affairs in the bush administration and senior fellow at harvard university's future of diplomacy project. >> you say there was considerable continuity in how the world worked during this period. describe that. >> a lot of the structures of the world such as it was was based on this idea of sovereignty, the idea that borders were significant, that they defined nation states, countries and that there was a deal out there, that we won't try to change your borders by force if you don't change ours. >> sunday night on "waff words." >> senator graham held a town hall last saturday and took several questions from constituents on republican efforts to replace the health care law.