tv Washington Post Discussion With House Speaker Pelosi CSPAN May 8, 2019 8:01am-9:03am EDT
two years of exhaustive investigation, and nothing to establish the fanciful conspiracy through the democratic politicians and tv talking heads had treated like a foregone conclusion.ru they told everyone very that ba conspiracy between russia and the trump campaign. yet, on this central question the special counsel's finding is clear. case closed. case closed. this ought to be good news for everyone, but my democratic colleagues seem to be publicly working through the five stages of grief. first stage is denial. a member what happened when the attorney general released his preliminary letter describing --
>> we believe these remarks by the senate majority leader to go live to a "washington post" discussion with house speaker nancy pelosi. she's expected to talk about her priorities under the issues facing congress. >> what americans can expect from the lawmakers in the months ahead. these conversations explore the fate of the nation's policy agenda where compromise is possible and where it's not. and now the politics of 2020 will affect congresses legislative work today. this morning were fortunate to have the most powerful member of the 116th congress, house speaker nancy pelosi. speaker pelosi has a habit of making history -- [applause] she has a habit of making history and breaking records. she's the only woman ever to become speaker of the house. she's the first californian to service speaker. she is a first person in more than six decades to reclaim the speakers a gavel having held the office before, and she's in
charge of an energetic caucus of 235 members with a record-setting 2035 different opinions. [laughing] speaker pelosi's leadership gives her unparalleled insight into the changing nature of america's politics as well as a deep understanding of the most pressing policy challenges facing the nation. today we will have a chance to hear from the speaker about why she's against pursuing impeachment charges. we will help -- water water ba, where she believes democrats and republicans can work together, the "washington post" robert costa will talk to about immigration, border security, climate change and infrastructure. and we may even get to the subject of next years postinjury elections and what quality she would like to see from her parties standardbearer. it's now my pleasure to welcome the speaker of the house nancy pelosi and robert costa. [applause]
>> thanks again, madam speaker. pleasure. thank you. >> good morning. thank you so much for joining us here in "washington post live" in speaker pelosi, really appreciate your time, never busy or to come into the "washington post" to have a conversation. let's start from your some of you as saying has had a remarkable career. you understand our, and the power of congress. and you get pressure from the executive branch in recent weeks especially from attorney general william barr. today's house judiciary committee is considering possible contempt proceedings. do you believe he should be held in contempt? >> well, first let me thank you and thank fred for his kind words of introduction, for the opportunity to chat with you. understand some people from trinity college might be in the audience.
[applause] >> a great school. >> i want to acknowledge that fred's mom, excuse me, bob's mom -- there's some overriding principles and one of them is the guidance from our founders, e pluribus unum, from many come one. they couldn't imagine how many we would be or how different we would be from each other but they guided us to remember where one. when we make decisions and prioritize actions and consider options that oneness, what keeps us together as a nation is a very and compelling imperative for me and for house democratic leadership. so impeachment is a very divisive, very divisive course of action to take. we shouldn't do it for passion or bias. it has to be about the
presentation of facts and an has to be about patriotism, not about partisanship. so when you talk about, and fred talked about the diversity in our caucus, i always say diversity is our strength, our unity is our power. so get to your point about power. yes, i think attorney general should be held in contempt. this content is about the withholding of the mueller report in an unredacted way. the accommodations that the committee has tried to make, whether it's about sources and methods. i appreciate protecting sources and methods, how law enforcement concerns. that's not a reason to give us the report. it's an excuse not to give us the report because we all agree that certain things should be redacted. but in the course of accommodations and, boom, the
administration just said if you don't, we're going to make this executive privilege, more on the subject and you want to know, yes, should be held in content. that doesn't include his not showing up to testify before the house judiciary committee. republican majority and dissent, it doesn't include a misrepresenting withholding the truth from the congress. some would call that line. i don't like that word, but you can't do that. you cannot lie under oath to congress because you are line under oath to the american people. so that's a whole other thing, but for the purpose of the course we're on right now in terms of withholding the information, unredacted version of mueller report for the american people to see and to know. and again, the accommodation that the committee was putting forth, i don't know if that's in
the public domain but it was very accommodating. i would've wanted more but the committee in its wisdom has a a very measured approach and i think, i don't want to sit anybody surprised nobody should be surprised about anything around here -- [laughing] but it was, without they're just come back with a counter offer, but they -- >> would you bring a a contempt resolution to the floor or on the negotiation still ongoing? >> i'm a big believer in the committee system and i respect the judicial, judiciary committee and jerry nadler is doing a wonderful job as all of our chairman, maxine waters, eliot engel, adam schiff. they mostly have the six committees that are interacting on all of the subjects. and they will today take the action in the committee and then the next step would be to bring
it to the floor and we will see what the recommendation is about that. >> one final thing on the attorney general. if tensions escalate and continue with the ag, is impeachment of mr. barr on the table? >> well, , nothing is ever off e table, but i would say that this, everybody would take a deep breath and the almost prayerful about this. this is a moment, this is a moment in our history where people are talking about, well, isn't indictable and can you prove it in a court? there's something about a a see of decency that should be a standard of performance of all, everyone in public policy, evelyn in our country. but for the white house to be just degrading the office that the president holds, degrading the constitution of the united states, degrading the first branch of government, the
legislative branch, so a sense of decency, a sense of ethical standard, , highest ethical standards. i keep saying this doesn't break the law. when would that be supposed to, in congress we have a rule that says you cannot bring discredit to the house of representatives. they don't have any sense of that. so again, how do we honor the vision of our founders about a constitution, three separate branches of government, coequal branches, separation of power, their vision. and why they did that, , because he didn't want a monarch. and aspirations of our children, because every day when they are doing these things, they're taking attention away from other things that they are doing, things we are doing to get results for the american people. but in all cases last week when the attorney general was before the caucus misrepresenting the
facts, he was at the same time pressing his case to completely eliminate the affordable care act. but what was in detention on what was he doing? the next day when we passed the climate action now bill on the floor of the house and all the fuss was about what barr said the day before, at the same time the president was undoing the regulations for oil drilling that were put in by -- so this has an impact on public policy because it are there for the special -- understand that when you're watching and what they all have in common. the president, whether it's the gun, look at gun violence begin today. our hearts are broken about the school shooting in colorado. whether it's gone special interest, fossil fuel special -- whatever it is, that's who they are there to serve and that's why they are all in sync.
mitch mcconnell, attorney general barr, president trump. >> what about dawn began? you're facing challenges not just from the ag barr from the white house is citing executive privilege thinking about asserting it as a make the case against congress. can you hold him in contempt for refusing congressional debate? >> we develop that he has yet. let's take one step at a time. let's see where it goes. i have said the president is goading us into come what's to go to send impeachment because he knows as do i that's not a good thing for the -- maybe knows that but he knows that i think that, let's put it that way. he knows i think that. but the point is, is that every single day whether it's obstruction, obstruction, obstruction. obstruction of having people come to the table with facts, ignored subpoenas every single day, the president is making a
case -- he's become self impeachable in terms of some of the things that speedy let's pause there. that's an important point. think about 1974, the house democrats have the articles of impeachment against president nixon. article iii of the impeachment proceedings was about obstruction of congress, about the abuse of power. could to be an option for democrats that you would consider of a narrow impeachment proceedings against president trump about the issues you just raise, obstruction of congress? >> let me just say that right now we have our committees during the investigation. since you mention 1974, at that time congress took months, months to build a case, they did an investigation. sam irwin wasn't a judiciary committee. that was a committee during the investigation and then with information they gathered, aching to that conclusion. but we really, you know, we ran
and won on for the people agenda, to lower healthcare costs, by lowering lowering the cost of prescription drugs and strengthening the pre-existing condition benefit to making sure that was safe, , lower healthcae costs, vigor paychecks by building infrastructure over country and a green way for the future and cleaner government. those were our three things, and we think we can work with the president on prescription drugs. he says he wants to do that. i think we can work with him on infrastructure, so in the process of having that discussion. we'll see. i don't think he's interested in cleaner government. [laughing] but i do think that the public is, and so i'll go to that in a moment. so people criticize nancy white or even are you working with him on anything when he won't give you the information for this,
that, and the other thing, you know, with investigations. i do think we have a responsibility to the public to get some results for them, to increase the paychecks, to lower their healthcare costs. and he's not, even though he's the president, he's not important enough to stand in the way of what we promised the american people that we would do when we won the congress and they gave us that vote of confidence. on the cleaner government -- rather than go to vet let me go to next question. >> thank you. when you look at the "new york times" today that a story but president trump's tax returns from 1985-8094 picky lost over $1 billion in that decade. what does that information taken from the federal tax information revealed to you about president trump? >> nothing new. [laughing] [applause] nothing new. is the president of the united
states going to try to get some work done with him. but we do have a responsibility to our oath of office, to protect and defend the constitution, to do just that. he takes that oath, i don't think he takes it seriously. so it tells me nothing. it does tell us about it would be useful to see his tax returns, as the law says. the administration shall give, xiao. it doesn't say should, could, under certain circumstances. it says shall give those tax returns to the ways and means chairman. >> how far can you go on that front, speaker pelosi? could you hold the secretary of treasury steven mnuchin and content? some democrats have even raised the prospect of arresting the treasury secretary if he does
not comply with congressional demands. >> let me just say that -- [applause] you have a jail down in the basement of the capital. [laughing] but if we were arresting all of the people in the administration -- [laughing] -- we would have overcrowded jail situation, and i'm not for that. but i think again, getting to the committee, he has a path, again all of this is so small and precedent-based to do the right thing as we go forward and are several options. one of them is to go directly to court. >> says probably could be settled in court? >> we will see what the chairman announces because that's way we do it. >> you mention congress as a coequal branch. stepping back and think but all the acting secretaries in the
segmentation, not coming to congress for approval of cabinet members on many fronts. you have all the resistance to congressional demands. he is congress at this moment in history actually function as a coequal branch? >> i think we are a superior branch, quite frankly. we have the power to make the law and the president enforces the law. so we have a big role, the closest to the people, and we have a big role to play. and the the president, gettingk to those acting, so only people have left the administration disgraced or in dismay, so they have acting people. some people have direct financial personal aggrandizement on decisions they make in their departments. that's why the door to subject themselves to the scrutiny of being confirmed tickets really a very, very sad situation.
but that's about a matter for the election to determine, which is only about 18 months away so we are over halfway there. it will be interesting, but it shouldn't have to be this way. i've worked with, i've been in congress a long time and i understand the with a difference of opinion in terms of policy, and you, to congress confidence in your point of view but humble enough to listen to other views because you represent your district. of the people represent there's. and so what our founders had in mind is we would have this debate. what is the role of government on the spectrum, how much that'll come how much local, how much state? and that's exciting. but when you have a white house that is anti-governance, anti-science, it's very hard to stipulate to a set of facts that they will be a proper government
role in. we don't want any more government than we need, , but there's a proper role for governance. in president george washington cautioned against political parties for war with their own government. does that sound familiar to you? so, that they acting, i think everything. they haven't acting chief of staff, and that doesn't even require congressional approval. [laughing] i mean, it's sad. i think we should be very prayerful about this. our founders, i keep going back to them because they imagine the courage they had to declare independence, to wage a war against the greatest naval power that existed at the time, too, as essay, to declare independence, to fight that war, to win that war and to establish a country predicated on the
point of people come and thank god they made the constitution amendable so it really could lift up to the hope and promise of it all, the courage of it all. they gave it. they said this, thomas paine, some of our leaders have used temple markers. abraham lincoln, fourscore and seven years ago, , or when he began his lincoln's greatest beach, four years ago, and the second, that would be the second inaugural. but at the time thomas paine, these are the times that try men's souls. he also said speedy do you feel -- >> the times have found us. i do indeed. the times found our founders. they recognized it. the times that abraham lincoln. not to put ourselves in exalted categories, but the urgency of the challenge to our constitution, our democracy. this is about an investigation on an assault and our elections by foreign power powers that te
president chooses to protect. how come what would our founders think of that? so again, the president speedy have you ever talk to president trump about these concerns face-to-face? >> i think he listens better if you say it through the media. [laughing] >> don't you? but i but i never, i never say anything to anybody -- i'm generally, other president you to come i have any hesitation to tell them what i would say about them right here, but it you say, i pray for the president. i really do pray for him. i pray that his heart will open. our country has a heart full of love but he seems to be shut down in this administration. so i pray for him mightily and i pray for the united states of america. [applause] >> senate majority leader mitch mcconnell on the front page of today's post, case closed.
>> isn't that so sad? [laughing] it's, it's in for a dime come in for a dollar. mice go all way, right? here's the thing. my dear husband, such a sweet man, for some reason, paul, he's on the mailing list of some republicans. and the pitch that mitch mcconnell puts out, imagine if you were running, mr. costa for -- >> no thanks. >> public office. you never know. i never thought i would. shy person that i was. but his pitch for fundraising is that i am the grim reaper. suppose you were running for office. would that your pitch? i'm the grim reaper. that gives me hope. what an inspiration you are. i'm grim reaper. i'm going to kill every bill that comes over from the house. equal pay for equal work, violence against women act, net
neutrality, dreamers, equality act, ending discoloration of lgbtq community, h.r. one cleaner government, voting rights act. ongoing, the list goes on, and more. climate action now. of course they are handmade and on the other side of the issue. so for him to say he's grim reaper, i have news for him. he may think he's going to kill these bills but they are alive and well in the public mind and we have chosen, particularly those issues that have broad bipartisan support, e pluribus unum. finding where we can come together. >> let's talk about those issues. infrastructure, when you're in the room with the president last week talking about infrastructure, as a veteran leader in this country, how serious you he about getting something done on infrastructure? >> are you -- you want me to be a psychoanalysis speeders as a
leader. >> here's the thing. we have to believe. you was have to see everything as an opportunity. he says he wants to do this. they are all conversations, i would say 80% of the conversations i've had with him since he's become president he is mention he wants to do infrastructure. so that's the donald trump who shows up that day, and he contends that he wants to do it. now, what is the definition of -- want to do roads. we want to do mass transit, we want to do broadband and world america and underserved urban america. we want to do water, some of her water systems are 100 years old, made of brick and wood. if it's clean, clean drinking water, , whether its wastewater project, whatever it is, whether it's dredging our harbors, facilitating our ports of the rest of, this has to be a comprehensive approach to it
beyond the roads and the think he's at that place. i don't know if is at the green place where we have to do this in the 21st century, but we'll see. so what was left is what investments are going to make perfect for this? because we don't want to increase the national debt even though i do think that this will generate jobs immediately, promote commerce, improve quality of life in terms of keeping people off the roads because we've improved the transit system, et cetera. and the list goes on. clean air, clean water, it's a public health issue. i have to believe that he wants to do that and we have to give him every chance to do so. >> who's in charge on their site? we know the president has made his interest but who is in charge on infrastructure when you're trying to put together something. >> will, who's in charge in general? that would be -- it changes.
>> the changes day-to-day sometimes? >> i don't know how frequently, but the president, when we did the dreamers ever thought we had an agreement with the president on the dreamers and he was so proud of the fact with come to a bipartisan agreement, he called me that night, this is exciting, blah, blah, blah. and then all of a sudden, who so then then i said the same thing to the white house, who's in charge? because a president said he wanted to do this and then he didn't. but anyway, we just have to be optimistic because i think, well, first of all the country needs this. the most expensive maintenance is no maintenance. most expensive infrastructure is no maintenance, and it's a danger as well. so this is about, again, it's about mobility and remembering the president, not remembering, but in the history books you would read that president
eisenhower did the interstate highway system when he was president, as a national security issue to unify the country. it serves many other purposes. it was very bipartisan. al gore's have had the bill in the senate. linton johnson and sam rayburn with the ones who got it through the congress of the united states, so it was very bipartisan. >> do you think taxes or federal fees are necessarily going to need to be increased to help pay for a broader package? >> that so we said to the president. not that we said to the president, when we meet again we will hear how you want to pay for this. so we will wait to hear what he wants to do. >> but you think democrats are going to expect taxes to be raised. >> was we're going to wait to see what the president is going to support. >> the president, his official site really wants a border wall as you know there is anyway about -- >> i know that, yeah. >> is it anyway a border war is
part of an infrastructure to? >> no. infrastructure, no, no, no. no. boardwalk as part of an immigration conversation. and it might surprise you to know that the present i pointed the most in the campaign was ronald reagan. ronald reagan. bless his heart. this is the last speech i will make as president of the united states. does that get your attention? from ronald reagan. communicate a message to a country i love. he talked about the statue of liberty and the beacon of hope that was to the world and what it meant to people in our country who it seems that statue of liberty when it came to our country. you have to google it, or however you get your information. president reagan's last speech. he goes on to say that by the force of america's preeminence in the world is every generation of new immigrants who come to our country. and when america fails to
recognize them as a vital force, we will fail to be preeminent in the world. we cannot close the door to immigration as as a source, the youth and vitality of our country. it keeps america young. and he, that was ronald reagan, president reagan, president george walker bush, president clinton, president bush, president obama all subscribe to new conquerors, come to america with her hopes, dreams, aspirations, vitality, optimism, courage. those are american values and many of those people make america more american. all of those presidents in a bipartisan way recognized that. and now we have an aberration. president reagan said you can't close the door. the president wants to build a
wall. >> trade talks between the u.s. and china has hit a rough patch in recent days. do you agree with the president's approach to these negotiations and the threat of tariffs terrorists to be installed in front? >> i believe, look, we don't know this because you are probably just one thing, but i've been for almost 30 years fighting china on trade, human rights and proliferation of technologies, whether it's missile systems and ring magnets that is using centrifuge enrichment of uranium and the rest. there isn't a day that goes by and i say this to president, i'm not up to date on my china in terms of security, commerce and human rights. right now they have a million uighurs in education camps and nobody is saying anything about it. they are trying to do away with the culture of tibet, religion, language and culture of the bed.
they are arresting, they're undermining the democratic reforms in hong kong. so from a a human rights standpoint, a values standpoint, i wonder how those play in the negotiation. they are asserting themselves in the security front that has concerned, but they had been selling missile technology to rope countries, countries of concern for a long time. i thought at the time, and i started this, it will be 30 years in another month for the tiananmen square massacre. one year come within the following year we started to say how can we use our trade situation as a lever to release the prisoners come to stop the sale of delivery system and to gain market access, to gain market access, to stop the piracy of her intellectual
property and all the other concerns that we have. the trade deficit at the time was $5 billion a year. i billion dollars. i thought oh, my god, $5 billion, we're certainly going to free the present of tiananmen square, certainly going to get a change in their behavior in so many ways for $5 billion. democratic and republican presidents, president clinton, president bush's all, you're wrong, i could win the vote in congress but i couldn't override a veto on most favorite nation status with china. you're wrong, it will work itself out. do you what the trade deficit is now? over $5 billion a week. >> should the president hold the line? >> the chinese decided, , as i t at the time, you are deciding to ride the dragon and the dragon will decide when you get off. and here we are. so the president is correct and
asserting what we had to do with china. how he's doing it though is empowering them to hurt our speech what do you mean by that? >> what could've been done, i'm not suggesting, that for a long time the chinese ripped us off and they continue to do so. but there were using our money and spending it other places, like they were buying from the eu with our money and the eu was leading, giving them a pass and human rights in this, that, and the other thing until, what's a nice word for suckers? until they suckered that u.n. and eu into the web, now the eu has a trade deficit with china. so my thought was if you have multilateral approach to this where we are all saying to the chinese, this has to stop, that would be real leverage. but he said the president would
terrace on the eu and made them unhappy with us, and the chinese are laughing all the way to the bank because it kind of weakened the leverage we could've had working together. >> the stock market was rattled yesterday by the presence negotiations with china. they're looking for deal there are you confident that a deal between this administration and china on u.s.-china trade deal will happen this week? >> now. let me just say that, first of all and never believed the chinese were going to honor what he said they're going to do. i was always -- where is the enforcement in any trade agreement if you don't have enforcement, also having is the conversation and a cup of tea. it's not, you have to have very strong enforcement. and i've had chairman of the people's congress, the second most important person in china after the president, the chairman of the people's -- in
my own office say to me when we join the wto will told we didn't have to obey all those rules. so they are not, even in the wto they have not abided by -- this is a very major, major challenge and the present i think is correct to try to change it. you have to come in with as much strength as possible, and so i was informed yesterday morning that what is today? monday morning, by the trade representative that they were just going to take a walk from it but it was a surprise. >> they told you they're going to take a walk this week? >> reset the chinese were going to take a walk here who knows what -- >> so the terrorist been republican win, new chairs the president threatened probably gets installed on friday. >> we will see. you just have to take one day at a time. -- so that tariffs. >> against the chinese made
their decision, but it will heard from the trade representative on monday morning because he knows of my ongoing interest in china trade, human rights and security issues. >> sticking with trade, how far away is a vote on the overhaul of north american trade agreement, the usmca? >> the answer to question is we are as far away as dating and enforcement agreement. -- as giving -- one if you want to call, nafta to point out. >> the administration doesn't want to touch it. >> they have to. again, it's enforcement. i myself voted for nafta with certain promises is going to do this this and this from the clinton administration. it never happened. so unless you have it built into the agreement what services soe rights to in a letter or side deal or and limiting language in
other legislation, it's not binding on the other country. it's talking to ourselves. what i said to the ustr on monday in the same conversation is, enforcement. i don't know exactly what you want -- enforcement. enforcement has to be in the trade agreement. there are three areas of concern. one is what it means to american workers, and to have workers in mexico working like $1.50 an hour is not helpful to american workers. that just draws jobs away. second is the environment. that's always a concern in our trade agreement. and third pharmaceuticals,
concern that what is in the bill would increase the cost of pharmaceuticals in the u.s., and our promise is to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. so those are three areas of concern. there's some other issues that those are the three main areas of concern. even if you could come to agreement on them, if you don't have enforcement, it's just a conversation just as it is with the chinese. >> but speaker, how to resolve those issues? mexico read on one site sacred up safety to what any tweaks tadeusz nca and major labor leaders and the u.s. aye what you said that the need to be wholesale changes to a lot of these provisions. how does it ever get resolved and bring this thing to the floor? >> we had to do what is in interest of america's workers, and we cannot mislead them into thinking that their something. this, it would be like saying you don't like nafta? let me put a little syrup on top
and serve a chicken and you really going to like it this time. it does not, there's no difference. safety administration wants to say we got rid of nafta, and what we got was, looks a lot like it, it's not right. it is not about the politics. it's about opportunity to do the right thing in terms of workers' rights in our country and in theirs because again there's an impact on what happens to workers in mexico as to what happens to workers in the united states. the environment the whole climate issue and the rest, there has to be considerations for climate in their and again, this firm is google issue -- this form circle issue. we hope people say i spoke to disperse in mexico and they're willing to open it up, and the canadians say this or that. we're the united states of america, and are we going to,
what, just fold? that should have been central to the negotiations to begin with. let me say something about the trade representative lighthizer. he sightless. he cares about america's workers. he's not one of these trickled down trade workers or if it's okay for corporate america that should be okay for you, american worker. he's fabulous, but you've got to get the enforcement in the trade agreement or else we are just, it's not a serious thing. hopefully that will be soon. i want to get to yes. i just had president trump go speak to the freshman the other day again picky spin in the number of times as has lighthizer and he said we want to get to yes. simple. in the agreement. plus you don't have as much of a change. >> of the economy last weeks jobs numbers were very strong,
administration was touting them. as the leader of the democratic party and to making a case to the country on the economy, people look at those numbers and they say, feeling pretty good. what is your response to the democrats could offer more or do better? >> well, again we have to win the election and have the white house and the senate as well because we simply don't have shared values right now perhaps brats we can do so with the infrastructure as a way to have more of a prosperity spread to many more people and make bigger paychecks for america's families. our members go home every week and it puts her hand on a very hot stove, and the hot stove is the concern america working families have about their financial security or the financial insecurity. and it is while you might say the indicator, the market is doing this one day and then another, and these indicators say something. but the fact is that wages are not pricing in the way they
should buy some of the indicators that are there, and unemployment is low, but it is again for jobs that are not producing the wages that people need to meet their needs. and people still scarred by what happened in 2008 where the homes are underwater, their pensions were at risk, living off your savings, their children's education in doubt. so there's still that concern, and 40% of the american people, you've seen these figures over and over again, i'm not withstand a $500 unforeseen costs, whether it's a water heater or a carburetor whatever happens to be. so while the president one person is doing beautifully, and if they trickle down, we are double up. we think there has to be much more in terms of that's why with equal pay for equal work for one of the bills we sent to mitch
mcconnell that he said he's going to grimly reap. the second is $15 $15 minimum e fight for 15 which we will be sending them soon. but you have to do something big like infrastructure challenge. but you can't measure the economic well-being of our country as how it affects the 1%. h.r. one for us was cleaner government. stop water suppression, jerry menton, all all the rest of that. their there h.r. one was to attk scams and get a 3% of the benefits to the top 1% and our country. when you ask people, , when you see the people we represent, they are really pleading with us
to get results for them in terms of economic security. and healthcare is a very big piece of their financial security. it's not just a a health issue. it's a financial security issue. i began increasing their paycheck is very important to them. so unless we are moving in that direction, , you can of all the indicators you want. the one that mean something in the vise is how they're going to pay their bills, their kitchen table, they're concerned about the boardroom table. we're concerned about the kitchen table. >> usada secretary of state mike pompeo was in iraq yesterday meeting with officials there. concerned about iranians possible threats against u.s. troops. as congress been briefed about what's going on? >> i think we're negotiating on what that is. i said today or tomorrow we want to know right away because there some people are saying the
administration is -- >> preparing for war. >> and they're describing things in a way that is not consistent with the facts, but we'll see. just give us the briefing. we've had no success in getting briefings in congress and the united states and north korea. they just said no. were not coming. and that again is how are we going to do our job if they're not giving as the information and we have to depend on what they tell us is happening there. he's in love with kim jong-un. we're not. so let's have that briefing. so hopefully today or tomorrow, i've been to our rain and a scene at the office of naval intelligence -- our rain -- their intelligence and you can see i ran practically from where our present is. so if there's some threat we want to know about it. but the fact is that in terms of
iran, really hard understand the agenda that the president has brought to the table. what bidding is he doing to walk away from the iran nuclear agreement, and that is something that is very important to us to stop the country from producing a nuclear weapon. and they walked away from that. now, the iranians are saying they may walk away from it as well, , which will be very dangerous to the world. this ratcheting up, we want to see the briefing. it's hard to speak do you think that this administration is considering military action against iran? >> if they are considering military action against iran, they cannot engage in that without coming to congress, and have to make their case. i read someplace and may not be so, but i read someplace, it is so that a read someplace that
pompeo is saying we can use use of force that took us into afghanistan as the basis for going here. that's just simply not so. it's simply not so. and so they have to make their case. there is no appetite in our country for war, that we have to have peaceful resolution whatever it is. if you're not capable of that, then that's something that has to be part of the national discussion. same thing in venezuela. we have to have a peaceful resolution of what is happening there, but it don't put that in the same category of the threat they are making in iran. it's really sad. the iran nuclear agreement was an actually masterful, masterful diplomatic achievement that china and russia, never want to say anything against iran.
why? because iran is a muslim state that could export some of the middle is him to the regions and has her own pragmatic reason why they would never say anything about iran, but they did in this case. the nobel laureates of nuclear physicists, and the rest of that, they said this should be a model, the template for any agreement on nonproliferation that we have. so from a technical stamper, from a diplomatic standpoint, just remarkable achievement. but the president wanted to undo that, and now it's really without getting everything it's very hard to understand, i was don't you want to go there because this is a deadly serious, what they are talking about. until we get the briefing, i just don't, i don't know why they're doing what they're
doing. are we against what iran does in terms of supporting groups that we don't have, that can be considered terrorist groups in the region, ballistic missile? yes, and we had sanctions against all about. but one place we could come to agreement is you must stop development of nuclear weapon, and he agreed to do that. now the president is putting sanctions on those who are not following our path to let's see what they have to offer in the briefing. >> staying with the middle east for one more issue, there's been the bait in your conference in recent months about the issue of israel. you're the leader of the democratic party. when you think about the recent violence on the gaza strip, what is the democratic view of what's happened there and what perhaps should happen? >> well, let's just say, let me just say that iq establishes a
vested issue in a $.20 is one of the greatest accomplishments of the 20th century, political, call it political official establishment of a country. so exciting. israel we have shared values, our friend in the middle east for a long time. our only friend, our most serious print in the middle east, let me put it that way. so israel's security is very, very important to us. many of us support a two-state solution that has a secured jewish state and estate for the palestinians to reach the fulfillment as well. what's happening there is in some ways moving away from that, but again a peaceful resolution of that is what members of congress by and large wood support. there are some who have said
things that are not a reflection of our consensus, you know, and we have pointed that out but again israel's security is important to us we think is real security is for the injured by having a two-state solution and we don't want to move away from that. we've been waiting for over a year i was in israel last year around passover easter and we were told that the president's plan was imminent. now that was in the end of march of last year. we are 13 months past there and we keep hearing his proposal is imminent. maybe it is. we'll see. but again we have to find peaceful ways to resolve the conflict. >> in the final few minutes, speaker pelosi, some politics, and i am a political reporter -- [laughing] >> okay.
>> thank you. >> if you insist. >> will you endorse in the presidential primary? >> no. i think all the candidates are five euros and anyone of them would be a better president than the current occupant. [applause] >> what explains vice president biden's lead in the polls. >> what explains it? joe biden. i think that self explanatory. well, , let's see come here's wt i think. i think, and i say this to people when they want to run for president or government or a or speaker or whatever, in the executive, or even for congress of the united states or state or local government, if you want to go into the arena, show your vision. what is your why? why do you want to get into the arena? what is motivating you is an education, climate change, juvenile justice? is it earnest in our economy?
what is drawing you into that? what do you know about that subject that you can exchange ideas? what is your plan to get more people involved to accomplish your goal, to fulfill your vision aced on your knowledge and judgment enhanced by others knowledge and judgment? all of that is important. we had beautiful candidates who have all the vision, all the knowledge and experience and judgment on all the strategic -- you want plans, , i've got plan, go to my website. that's all of you. the fourth point is in the heart. who connects with the american people? who connects? authenticity is everything. are you sincerely concerned about my situation? hopes and dreams, aspirations, apprehension and when we watch this presentation and the bait
and campaign, we will see who connects? is not a question and michael to endorse? is a question of the american people have the comfort level with. [applause] >> so you're looking for is most authentic rather than was most liberal. >> i think they're all authentic, but the american people have to feel that connection, connection. i told you, i was showing some of the folks backstage, i was in chicago monday for a women's event, over 3000 women women came to a fundraiser for jan schakowsky, my colleague. people came through. they had buttons of this, that, and the other thing here when issue or that, and the one i love the best is democrat for president. [laughing] [applause] >> so i carry that around with
me. >> any thoughts on vice president biden's rollout so far? >> i think he's done a good job. but again it's not up to me to decide. it's a to have public -- he's a known quantity. i just tell me about joe biden. i mean, he's a lovely person turkey really is. and the measure of that for me is my kids. my kids for years they love joe biden and now my grandchildren love joe biden i tell a story because we went, he appeared something for us in new york. i have to make them grandchildren in europe. now their ten and 11, 11 and 12. when they were small we went to a candy store after that, and they had like chairs the roll re around, different things like that. so the children decided they're going to put up a date and have the own open sesame. you can get candy if you could say the magic word. but the magic word a decidedly not open sesame. it was open biden. site tell that to an interesting
emotional connection -- so i -- children pick is a beautiful lovely man. they are all, let me just say -- >> do think the female candidates in the race for getting enough attention. >> is never. never enough attention. never enough attention, no. please. it's a funny thing. we just have to set our sights in a little bit of a different way. it's just almost, i don't know, that's a whole other session. >> come back to that. >> i could show you as a woman speaker. now i get lot more attention. when i was speaker before it was like, what's that? >> speaker of the house. >> when it was a man it was what did they say? what did they say? so i think we have broken through that. one of the things, i'll close by saying this, time to close, one of the reasons people say you're
not some modest as you used to be. you give everybody else credit. i still do but i say this because i want women to have confidence to go out there and be themselves and know their power and just understand that it's important for women. the most wholesome thing we can do for our political and governmental process is to have more women in leadership roles there and participate. [applause] and we worked very hard as house democrats. we had 115 women members of congress. 91 for democrats because we made a decision to say know your power to the women. we need you here. so you have to take credit. i say you are like nancy pelosi unplugged, just after saying we did this and we did that and were going to do that and go do that. because i want women to say take credit. you don't have to take credit
for something you didn't do but don't hesitate to be competent about what you have done. because self-promotion is a terrible thing that sometimes somebody has to do it. [laughing] and clearly women have to do it. i think we should almost, i don't want to say over compensate for the attention we have not given to women in the public arena, we certainly had e to give them their fair share. and women candidates are just absolutely great. but any event i thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts this morning. again, prayerful. let's take a deep breath and be prayerful because the times have found us. all of you in this room, too, for the role you will play to save our constitution and our democracy. >> speaker pelosi, thank you so much. >> thank you. my pleasure. [applause]
import/export bank and two members. and we will have live coverage on c-span2. yesterday democrats' comments on the mueller report. >> a little while ago the majority leader stood on this floor to speak into the investigation into the 2016 election. he triumphantly declared case closed, case closed, wishing won't make it so. i read the mueller report, i read it cover to cover every page, i read late into the evening the day it was released and into the next morning. i didn't start reading by expecting to make a statement about it, but i was shaken by the evidence that the special counsel had gathered and by the conclusions that he drew. the majority leader would have us believe that scrutinizing this evidence an a matter of democrats, quote, refusing to make peace with the american people's choice.
he wants to portray this as just a, quote, outrage industrial complex because some people don't like that president won-- president trump won and again, wishing won't make it so. sure, there's plenty to be outraged about in the special counsel's report, but no one here is pitching a fit that democrats didn't win the election. no, what's at stake here is the constitution of the united states of america. will congress do its job and fulfill its constitutional duty to serve as a check on the president. the answer from the majority leader and his republican colleagues is no. case closed, case closed, they cry. instead of reading the words of the special counsel's report, they just want to circle the wagons around this president. instead of protecting the constitution, they want to