Transcript of Pelosi Commonwealth Club of California Discussion Commemorating 25 Years in Congress
San Francisco – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi headlined a special Commonwealth Club conversation in which she reflected on 25 years of representing San Francisco in Congress, her rise to become the first woman Speaker of the House, and her continued efforts to strengthen America’s middle class and create jobs. Below is a transcript of the conversation:
Ms. Duffy. Could you start by recalling for us that time 25 years ago when Sala Burton was ill and the question arose of who should run for her seat in the House? How did it unfold that you were asked, and accepted, a run for the Congressional seat for San Francisco.
Leader Pelosi. Thank you, Gloria for the question. You can introduce me any time.
[Laughter]
I don’t know where you are going to put that introduction up for a vote for approval or not but I was looking around the room as you were speaking, looking for my children and my granddaughter to make sure they heard some of that as well as so many friends here and new friends here at the Commonwealth Club.
Oh, here they come. There’s some right there. You missed the introduction.
[Laughter]
In any event, I’m so honored to be here. The Commonwealth Club, just the name, the sound of it means excellence, it means understanding, it means respect for all views, it means the highest level of people in the world leadership coming here, it means local officials being in-touch, and it means that they have tremendous leadership in the President and CEO, [Dr.] Gloria Duffy.
I first met Gloria, I’m going to tell this story first, in [the] middle ‘80s before I was in Congress. We went to Central America on a fact finding trip during the Central American wars. It was a very difficult time. Father Privett is here from USF and when he was sworn-in in his inauguration he had a commemoration of the Jesuits who were killed there and the housekeeper and her daughter as part of his ceremony. So, it just shows you how tied this area was to what was going on there.
The most informed person on the trip was Gloria Duffy, someone the rest of us had not known till that trip. She was an expert on Soviet weaponry and the rest and, she brought a trained professional eye to the fact finding we went down there to see. One of the questions that we had when we were coming out of there is: ‘where are the Contras getting all this hardware?’ She, of course, with her informed perspective guided our look – I mean we were looking into the schools, we were looking at all kinds of things but how this war was being conducted was really something that was her expertise and we benefitted from it and at the time we couldn’t figure – we were in El Salvador and we saw what was working, what wasn’t in terms of helicopters and the rest. And in Nicaragua we couldn’t figure out where the Contras were getting all this firepower? It would be later that we would learn about Iran Contra but Gloria Duffy spotted the puzzle right then and there, just an example of the wisdom, knowledge, and perspective she brings to anything she addresses. That’s why it’s an honor to be here with her in addition to her role as President and CEO of the Commonwealth Club.
It was a long time ago, over 25 years ago, a Congresswoman, Sala Burton, was our Congresswoman from San Francisco. She had followed in the footsteps of her husband, a great Congressman, a champion for this area, probably nobody in modern history has done this much for the environment than Phillip Burton. And much of the work that we all celebrate really started when he was a Member of Congress. In any event, Sala called me and said: ‘I know that people want you to run for Mayor,’ well, not really, but you know, people say that, you should run for Mayor right?’ Oh, okay. Not that I took [it] seriously, but you shouldn’t do that.
Now, mind you, I had no interest running for political office whatsoever. I grew up in a political family. When I was born, my father was a Member of Congress from Maryland. When I was in first grade, he became Mayor. When I went away to college he was still the Mayor of Baltimore and it was only then when I went to college that I realized what normal people did on the weekends. They didn’t walk precincts or stand on street corners handing out leaflets every weekend. So, I thought: ‘well, I’ll go for the normal life.’ It was never even a thought. An Italian-American young woman, those many years ago, we were to be protected not to put ourselves out there. So, I never was, but my brother later became the Mayor of Baltimore. He was the one that was groomed, if you want to say that – was interested in that.
So, anyway, I had one thing and another, had been a volunteer – I was on the library commission and one thing in another, drifted back to being a volunteer in politics, became the Chair of the California Democratic Party, which was a big honor for me, the biggest party of the nation and I was the Chair. Imagine that. And then Sala said: ‘I’m thinking that I won’t run again. I want you to run for Congress.’ And I said: ‘Sala, I’ve never even thought of this. You know, I had five children, now four of them would be in college, one, Alexandra was going to be a senior in high school but no, they were old enough that I could think about something like this but I really never had and so she said: ‘well, I’m not going to run again and I want you to promise me that you will run in my place’ and I was reluctant.
I went home to talk to my daughter, who’d [was] a senior in high-school, of course, to my husband, who said whatever – one way or another – whatever you want to do. Paul’s very supportive. So, I went home, Alexandra at the time was just ending junior year, she was going to be going into senior year the following year. And I said: ‘Alexandra,’ with all the sincerity that I could muster – ‘this really doesn’t matter, one way or another, I’m happy with my life, but Sala wants me to run and so I have a chance to run. It doesn’t mean you win, it just means you run. It’s up to the electorate whether you’re going to win. So, I’m happy to just stay here with you, but I’ll only been gone like three nights a week for a certain number of weeks if I were to go to Congress,’ thinking this was really heartfelt, and heavy-duty, and all of that, and Alexandra looked at me and she said: ‘mother’ which was unusual, no longer ‘mom,’ ‘mommy,’ ‘mother, get a life.’
So, I did. I mean, another life, but I had never heard that expression, now this was over 25-years-ago, I had never heard that expression but it got right to the point.
And, in any event, it was a difficult campaign because many people, they knew I had no interest in running and now I’m a factor in the race. I had [the] support of many people in our community. We built a grassroots operation that was successful and one thing in another John Burton, Sala’s brother-in-law was the Chairman of my campaign. One important thing happened between her asking me to run, shall we say, the following year, was that within a few weeks Sala passed away. So, the election was upon us right then and there and that was very sad because many of us had lost a dear, dear friend, a champion for social justice and so many things important to our community. And now I had promised her I would run, so I had to win, I mean a woman asking a woman to run, this is not, you know, this has not been the path where many women have come to Congress because there just haven’t been that many women.
When I got there, there were not two dozen women, say this whole room, two rows of women, and the rest, men, well maybe there weren’t this many people in Congress but 435 and about 20, 24 women at the time. So it was, when I got there, I went to the floor, this was [what] my colleague said to me: ‘don’t say a word. When you’re ready to take the oath,’ – it was [a] special election, so you were by yourself, ‘just raise your right hand and say “yes, I do solemnly swear,” that’s all you have to say, you don’t say another word.’ I think I’ve told some of you this before. So, when the Speaker then, Jim Wright, said: ‘will the gentle lady from California, our newest Member of Congress, like to address the House?’ Who turns that down, right? I have constituents I have to represent. So, I looked and my colleagues were like ‘be short, be very brief, be very brief, be very brief,’ nobody – you know, ‘be very brief.’ So, I was very brief, I thanked my parents who were there, my father could be on the floor of the House because he was a former Member of Congress and that was pretty thrilling in my family. Thanked first and foremost my constituents. This all took less time than I’m telling you right now and then I said – well, after thanking and acknowledging I said: ‘I told my constituents that when I came here to tell you that Sala sent me, and I’m here to fight against HIV and AIDS.’
That was the end of my statement. Is that short? So, it was over and I saw all these same people and I said: ‘how’d I do, I was short, right?’ and they said: ‘why on earth would you have ever mentioned HIV/AIDS? This is the first thing people are finding out about you and you want them to think your priority is HIV/AIDS? Well why did you say that?’ I said: ‘for the simple reason, that it is. That it is.’
[Applause]
So it was a different time in terms of people recognizing what the challenge was but we in San Francisco had multiple funerals in a day, really. Mark, you know this. Mark, Bishop Andrus, we’re so honored – is here before you came here but, you know, that in all of the churches and even people who weren’t believers were having their ceremonies in churches at that time and there was no way I wasn’t going to tell them that was a priority as part of the larger issue of health care, which was the major issue in the campaign at that time but I’m sure you’ll ask about health care in another question.
Ms. Duffy. So, I was going to ask you about the greatest concerns at the time you were elected, which you already answered. What else was on your agenda? As you thought about going into Congress, serving in Congress, what motivated you to do that? What did you want to change or accomplish?
Leader Pelosi. Well, when you were reading some of the things that had happened in the 25 years, I was thinking that we did it together. None of this happens alone and you don’t want to use the editorial, the papal, the imperial ‘we’, but we really got this done together because what I said to you, and as I said earlier to some friends, many honors can be bestowed on you, including being the first woman Speaker of the House but nothing compares to every single day, for 25 years, walking on the floor of the House representing the people of San Francisco and California. This is a place that is the hotbed of values, whether it is equality, whether it’s social and economic justice, whether it’s protecting God’s precious gift to us, our planet, our environment. Whatever it is, it happens here in a very important, well thought out but passionate way, as I say, passionate but dispassionate about how we get the job done.
So, what I thought I would do when I was elected was to – and I was doing it as I was campaigning too, was just take a look at the map and see every place we could create a job, every square inch, whether it was affordable housing, whether it was transportation, you name the issue: health issues and the rest, how can we create jobs here, turn ideas into economic opportunities for families? And then, a couple of – well, one natural disaster, the earthquake, the other, the base closure fell right into our laps. We didn’t want them but they came and they gave us an opportunity to put together the private sector with the public sector, non-profit sector to make the change here, whether it was the Presidio, Hunter’s Point we’re still working on, Treasure Island, the opportunities that were afforded there and of course with the earthquake, the decision to take down the freeway and do what we needed to do as we were addressing the immediate emergency needs of the people. So, we were able to bring really millions of dollars into San Francisco for all of that.
But also, the idea – we talk about the infrastructure of ideas for example San Francisco has to be one of the most expensive housing markets in the country, would you all agree? And we are all living here, somehow or another we’ve managed it but it is difficult for us to have a cross-section of low-income families and the rest living here. So, the ideas of low-income housing tax credits and initiatives like that, which were on fire here, had to be translated into legislation there, or sustained if it was already there, to be sustained. Whether it was HIV/AIDS that we talked about, community-based care, prevention, and research, all of the things that were happening here were important ideas, not only to our area, but they became national models of national significance. And so, when we wrote the bills we had the ideas that were modeled and successful here. So, therefore, when you write the bill that way the criteria helps when you are competing for the funds because it looks a lot like what you were doing in the first place and that is called leadership in terms of our community.
So it was about jobs, it was about social and economic justice, it was about protecting our environment, of course, the HIV/AIDS issue had many aspects, it had health care and it had discrimination and, again, the models here formed a basis for the Ryan White Care Act eventually and the housing opportunities for people with HIV and AIDS – I’ll go into more if you wish.
Health care was the most frequently asked question when I was campaigning. ‘What are you going to do about health care? Do you believe it is a right, not a privilege?’ And I did. And at the time Senator Kennedy was leading the way with his formulation of what it would look like legislatively. We here wanted single payer and later that would evolve into some form of a public option. Long ago, it was more of an employer-based agenda that would make it affordable, accessible, higher quality, lower costs for all Americans, and that is really, when we passed that bill, it was the culmination of what we had as a priority such a long time ago here in the nation. We can talk more about health care if you ask me.
Ms. Duffy. Well, let’s do that. In fact, you’ve laid out issues which still have relevance 25 years later and I want to look at some of those going forward – like jobs in the economy, that we have most recently been concerned about, but let’s take the health care legislation, to dive right into the crux of this, the Supreme Court has taken under review the Health care Reform Act. How do you think they are going to review? How will that result and where do you think we are going? What has been the impact of the legislation in the two-years since it was passed? Just comment generally about this issue.
Leader Pelosi. Well, the health care reform bill, in our view, is right up there as a pillar of economic and health security for all Americans – Social Security in the ‘30s, Medicare and Medicaid in the ‘60s, and now health care as a right not a privilege and a path to that affordability, better care and lower prices. And, let me just lay this foundation, if there were no other reason to do a health care reform, if everybody loved their situation, we would still have to do it because the present system, the system that was present a couple years ago, and we are still working our way out of, is unsustainable financially. It was unsustainable to individuals, to families, to businesses, to local, state, and national governments. The budget just cannot – the cost, the rising cost of health care, and it is unsustainable to the economy because it is a competitiveness issue. Other countries that we compete with don’t really have health care as an issue because they have health care as a right in their countries. So, it was very essential that what we did would reduce the deficit and reduce the cost of health care and take us on a curve that was going down. Of course, the quality of care, the disparities in our community, the 30 million or more people that did not have health care is a driving moral urgency and Senator Kennedy said it so beautifully: ‘the great unfinished business of our society’ – that we do not have health care as a right not a privilege.
The Supreme Court is now, we believe in judicial review, we believe in a constitutionality of whatever we pass in Congress, so we believe this bill, constitutionally, is ironclad. It is not, we did not win the public relations battle on it but from a constitutionality [standpoint] it is ironclad. I predict a 6-3 plus, a 6-3 verdict from [the] Supreme Court but I really don’t know. Only those in that inner sanctum know what is going on in there then.
In terms of its constitutionality: ironclad. The forces that we are up against, the health insurance industry, and another component, which was anti-government ideology, which is no government role in any of this – surprisingly some of the same people were saying: ‘no public role,’ they were also saying: ‘keep your hands off of our Medicare.’
[Laughter]
But anyway, the arguments that were made against it about abortion, no public funding of abortion, not a real issue. The death panels, that is not in the bill. That [it] is going to increase the deficit, no, it’s purpose and it’s plan is to reduce the deficit. Job killer, no, [it] creates four million jobs. So, people were saying things just because they wanted to be negative but not because they were basing it on fact. The facts are that over 80 million people have already benefited from the bill. Whether it is kids who can stay on their parents, young people that can stay on their parent’s policy until they are 26 years old, whether you are a child with a preexisting medical condition – already you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of a preexisting medical condition. Millions of people [are] benefiting from the preventative care, free annual checkups in that regard, the list goes on, and what is like, very much, is that no longer will [being] women [be] a preexisting medical condition – just because you have children, or could possibly have children, does not mean you should be discriminated against.
But the list goes on – whether it is shrinking the donut hole for those of you who are my age, shrinking the donut hole means lowering the cost of prescription drugs. So, it has benefited tens of millions of people already, it has not won the public relations battle that is to come but there is a lot to lose that is already in effect even before we go into 2014 when it is fully implemented.
This is about life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. It is what our founders intended, a healthier life to pursue your happiness, to have the liberty to pursue your happiness. Imagine you wanted to be a photographer, a musician, an artist, if you wanted to start your own business, if you wanted to change jobs, the freedom to do this and not be job locked because you have a preexisting condition in your family, or just that being sick can pulverize a family. This is an emancipation, this is a right that frees people and think about what that means to society and to the economy that people can follow that aspiration and make a living doing what they love, if they have the talent, and not have that decision taken from them.
[Applause]
Ms. Duffy. Let’s go back to the issues that are community-wide issues but also the LGBT community issues that were a part of your original agenda in Congress. So, lots of work, so you have done lots of work to increase funding in HIV/AIDS research treatment. Also, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has been accomplished.
[Applause]
Now we come to President Obama’s statement about his views on gay marriage and let me ask the question in this way: some people, who very much support his announcement, so much support his views, are puzzling over his announcement and the politics of it and the timing of it – feeling that the priority should be for him to get reelected and then come out with the position that is controversial still to some people. So, what are your thoughts about the position he is taking and the timing of his announcement?
Leader Pelosi. I think it is great!
[Applause]
I think it is all great. I think this: why are we here? Let us ask that existential question. I get this on health care. Do you wish you didn’t do health care so that maybe the Democrats would have won the last election? I say: ‘why did we come here? We came here to do a job and besides, health care did not have anything to do with that election, it was about a 9.5 percent unemployment [rate].
But take it to the President, the President’s announcement, so beautifully spoken, so heartfelt and personal about how he came to his timing on this announcement, very important for the country. [The] President of the United States supporting equality, in another way, this marriage equality, but it is an expansion of what he has done as the President. The first bill we gave him was Lilly Ledbetter that he signed, to end discrimination in the workplace against women. In the last bills that he signed, in the two years that we shared with him, we had two years before with President Bush – in those two years Lilly Ledbetter, in one bookend, and the other bookend was repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, both expanding opportunity for people, recognizing the dignity and worth of people and their contribution. And this marriage equality issue was about that.
So, I would say if the President had not done that he would have made a political judgment, but that he did, he made a values judgment and we are really proud of the President of the United States speaking out for marriage equality it was a beautiful thing.
[Applause]
Ms. Duffy. Going back to the health care reform issue, there is a question from the audience that I just saw. What will you do if the Supreme Court throws out the reform law? I know we don’t want to imagine that but what if?
Leader Pelosi. We have to see what they do. I can’t even imagine them throwing out the whole bill. You know, they might say they decided on – let me just tell you this because I think it is really important to understand the arena that we are in. The reason that we are before the Supreme Court is the principle of judicial review. Judicial review is a part of who we are as a country that the courts can decide on the constitutionality of an act of Congress. It was established under Marbury v. Madison over 200 years ago. And we believe in that. We wrote a bill, we always write a bill that honors the Constitution, and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, not to be political, on the other side of the aisle have not, and as recently as ‘04-’05 are passing bills that said these are the provisions of the bill, and another provisions is that the court shall not have the right of judicial review. It is called court stripping – strip the courts of the ability to review the constitutionality. Now, why would you do that? Because you don’t believe in judicial review and you don’t think your bill measures up to constitutionality, but that was only half a dozen years ago they were doing that. They said Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided and even the freedom of the third, the independence of [the] judiciary was not clearly defined in the Constitution. So, these are some of the debates that we are having about this subject – along comes the health care bill and all of [a] sudden we have these newfound advocates for judicial review who were five years before saying Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided. That’s on the public record. That’s on the public record.
So, the very idea that they are taking it to the court is interesting. I believe it’s ironclad. I don’t think they can take down the whole bill – not to get into it too technically but it’s a question of severability, if they think you can, if one hair on your head is bad do they shave off your whole head, or do they say we can sever this, and take this out, and leave you intact? That’s not a good analogy but you get the point.
[Laughter]
But I still believe that if the court is making a constitutional decision then it would be okay. You never know what the court would do. There are provisions in the health care bill that are active now that studies by the Institute of Medicine – how to bend that cost curve further, some project that we will learn from, they are in the works. They will probably be finished; some of them are coming to their own conclusions. And we will have the benefit of that.
I can’t imagine that my Republican friends would say: ‘now being a child means that you, means that having a preexisting condition means that you can be discriminated against.’ That is the kind of discussion that you will have, but do you know that if a child has cancer say three, four, five, six years old, they have a preexisting medical condition for life. This bill says ‘no.’ This is going to be quite a fight. Many families have come to me said: ‘we’re just, we’re bankrupt. This child will never be able to get health care or affordable health insurance.’ And now they can. So, if you are talking about kids or children, or young people on their parent’s policy, if you are talking about nondiscrimination against children who have had a preexisting medical condition, talk about things like annual limits and lifetime limits. Do the Republicans want to bring those back? I mean there are many fabulous initiatives in the bill. It is about innovation, it’s about prevention, it’s about wellness, it’s about the health of America, not just the health care of America because, again, it’s about wellness. And so there is so much to it that this, not anything close to anything constitutional. The big target of course is the individual mandate and we’ll see, but I’m hopeful about the legislation and I just don’t see a situation where, judging by the Constitution, that they can take it down and take it down in its entirety but it doesn’t mean we are not thinking about tomorrow, what to do.
Ms. Duffy. One challenge for legislation and public policy is keeping up with science and science is a constantly changing input into our public policy decisions. This is not a question. This is really just a comment about the importance of relooking at something like preexisting conditions because what might have been a preexisting condition that couldn’t be mitigated by medicine, some years ago, may no longer be so difficult, given the change in the science and the treatment options in medication. So, it is really important to continue looking at what is a preexisting condition.
Leader Pelosi. Well, if I may on that subject. We talked about the health insurance industry. We talked about the anti-government ideologues that do not want any public role in health care but we also have a fight about science in Congress. Can you imagine that? For a long time now it was faith or science, take your choice, but you can’t have both, and we keep saying science is an answer to our prayers. I sent us this wisdom and that doesn’t go over too well with some of them.
[Laughter]
There is an anti-science mentality that is really dangerous to the health of our people, the condition of our planet, our environment, that is detrimental to our competitiveness internationally in terms of innovation that springs from science, it springs from the classroom. And it is, it is something that has to be a part of a national debate. I think not this time but the time before you saw, when they asked how many people believe in evolution among the presidential candidates on the Republican side, it was stunning to see how few hands went up.
But the fact is that, unless we embrace science, all the things, it’s a national security issue how we defend our country, how we preserve God’s precious gift to us, this planet, how we preserve that, how we advance health wise, how we compete [for] jobs [and] the rest. We really have to – we really have to win this fight as to what the role science is and it is certainly not contradictory to being God-given.
[Applause]
If I just may, because some of these questions, enlarge the issue for a little bit – now, 25 years in the Congress, you go and you’re an advocate, you know, take the lead, our issues here, we don’t consider issues in San Francisco, we consider them values, ethics, this is, you know, to care for God’s creation is an act of worship, to ignore it is to dishonor the God who made us. You know, it’s about putting forth, putting it all in perspective. And so, you have your point-of-view and you try to prevail in the debate. And then 25 years go by and you say: ‘okay.’ How do we look at some of the challenges that we have had and decide as a country that some of these little ideas really shouldn’t be a fight? Should it be a question [that] government has an imperative to be a job creator, to enable the private sector to do its job? Not create the job in the public sector – some of it, yeah, but by and large, to enable the private sector and the nonprofit sector to work its way. Essential to that is an imperative to educate the American people and not put up obstacles to their higher education and call them a snob if they want to go to college. The education of the American people, it is about our democracy, an informed electorate. It’s about our competitiveness, a trained, skilled, knowledgeable workforce. And it’s about the self-fulfillment of individuals, they raise their families to prepare for the next generation. This is what I think we are supposed to do. I don’t think there is anything political or partisan about that. Do you?
Create jobs, educate our people and I think that health care is a part of that. We say that we want to build ladders; we want to reignite the American dream which is what our founders created. Reignite the American dream, build ladders of opportunity for people who want to work hard, play by the rules, take responsibility to succeed and some of the rungs of those ladders of opportunities are about education, and affordable health care and the rest of that. So why, and again, that should be something that I think is a given, and if that is so, then there is an imperative to create jobs and to do so, by the way, in a fiscally sound way, in a balanced way, about how we create jobs, which create revenue, which help reduce the deficit, and how we have fairness, in terms of revenue coming in. So, this battle of the budget is a place where we have to bring some level of maturity to the issue as to how it serves the values of our country, not the difference of issues, but the fundamental role that the public and private sector play and use of each other, which is very important to recognize.
The part of it is the role of women. Nothing, nothing, nothing – three times – isn’t improved without the increased participation of leadership of women. Let me say it in reverse. The leadership of women, the empowerment of women, whether it is in the military, whether it is in the financial, the business, whether it’s in education, whether it’s in politics, health care, you name it, any of these endeavors are enhanced and improved by increased participation of women in leadership.
So, I’ll end this question on this. Therefore, the one thing, we had the vote 91 years ago, we had women in the workforce during World War II, then we had the higher education of women, we had women in professions but the one place we didn’t build the bridge was child care. Affordable quality child care that would unleash the power of women, and men, I’m not saying that women are the only caregiver of their children but nonetheless, we are where the responsibility usually falls.
So, this is something that we have to think about as a country, are we going to benefit from the fullest participation of the leadership of women? And if we are, we have to make a decision about the quality of child care. It is a missing link. It is a missing link. And it is, and we will have more economic growth, we would have better government and politics, we will have better national security, you name it. It will all be better with women in leadership, not to substitute men, but the sharing of ideas, the interaction. The interaction [is] very important.
Ms. Duffy. So, on this issue of women and child care, you are talking about, are you talking about legislation now? Does Congress have a role in this? What can be done?
Leader Pelosi. I take your beautiful compliments that you made during the introduction but the fact is all of it is a consensus building. It’s not as if we try to sell something to somebody. We call, ‘come together.’ This has to be a national debate where the American people decide whether this is a priority and how we deal with it in a way that rewards the work of people who are caregivers so that the quality is there for the children. So, that it is all about consensus building and if the consensus, we had the bill before I was in Congress, but there was a bill that was going to be signed by President Nixon, it was passed by the Congress. President Nixon was going to sign it but some folks, who shall be nameless, went to him and said, made this case: that this was something that he shouldn’t sign. I won’t go into it but it wasn’t a pleasant characterization of what child care would be. So, it almost happened then, it should certainly happen as we go into the future.
Ms. Duffy. Otherwise on women’s issues, I understand you are going to do a hearing on the Paycheck Fairness Act. Tell us about that and what would it do.
Leader Pelosi. Well, we talked earlier about Lilly Ledbetter. And Lilly Ledbetter was ending discrimination in the workplace – that a woman could sue if she thought she was unfairly discriminated against in terms of pay, but the Paycheck Fairness Act takes us to a different place. It says that a woman performing the same duties should receive the same pay and it is a step further down the road. It is legislation that is very long overdue in our country and we are interested in hearing the testimony next week because what we have been hearing in the press, from some in the campaigns, has been that there is no discrimination against women, it’s just a made up thing. Well most of these are guys saying this, that it is just a made up thing, that if women get paid more, then men will get paid less, but it is really simply not true, it is just rewarding work in a way that does not discriminate against women. It’s important.
There are four things. We had Lilly Ledbetter, we have Paycheck Fairness now coming up, we have Violence Against Women Act, this is a very important piece of legislation, it was passed in the ‘90s. Joe Biden was the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, he was [a] big leader on this issue in the country and many of us worked with him in the House of Representatives as well. So, we authorized it, we had it funded, I was a part of that, I was on the Appropriations Committee and now it has come up again, there was a decision made by some in Congress to go backward. Now they are saying there should be no – the Violence Against Women [Act] has saved lives, by 50 percent, more situations remedied than before the bill. It has been quite impressive in terms of its results but now they are saying: ‘we can have a Violence Against Women’s Act, so all you women, step forward if you think you are going to be protected. Not so fast if you are [an] immigrant, if you are a Native American, or if you are gay, lesbian, transgender, or bisexual.’ We are sanctioning violence against some women and trying to pass off that we’re protecting all women in our country. The House, the Republicans, and the Democrats in the Senate voted for the bill 68 to 31, every woman Member, Democrats and Republicans alike, voted for it in the Senate. The House Democrats support the Senate bill, the House Republicans, if I just may have a moment of differentiation here, have put forth this ridiculous bill that takes us backward. What is this? You know, what is this? And then, of course the issues that relate to respecting a women’s right to determine the size and timing of her family, or issues that are in that, here is what I think we should do.
It is about campaigns. If we were to reduce the role of money in campaigns and increase the civility of the debate many more women would be elected into public office.
[Applause]
And these discussions would take another form. That is why I support the public financing of campaigns. And let’s just get rid of the whole money as a factor in campaigns. That’s what we need to do.
Ms. Duffy. Let’s talk about higher education for a moment and funding for higher education. There is a lot of talk of the high cost of college tuition, the recent decision to terminate the Pell Grants program. So you and Xavier Becerra had a meeting last week at Occidental College in Los Angeles, my alma mater, discussing the crisis with college Presidents and students, and the prospects of extending the federal student loan subsidy. Can you tell us more about the meeting? How can Congress, with your leadership, [how] has it helped in the past with aid to college students? How can it help in the future?
Leader Pelosi. Father Privett would you like to take this question?
[Laughter]
Right now we are in the middle of the budget, you noticed, and the whole idea is how do we make cuts and reduce the deficit, which we all agree we have an imperative, a moral imperative to educate our people and reduce the deficit. One of the ways that our Republican colleagues, I really don’t like saying that, but one of the ways our Republican colleagues have decided we can reduce the deficit is cutting people off of Pell Grants and reducing the amount of money that those left would receive for a Pell Grant. Another way is to make the interest on student loans go up to 6.8 percent from 3.4 percent, where it is now. We do think that that is appropriate for a couple of reasons.
First of all, the importance of educating the American people as a value. Second of all, it’s important to know – nothing, nothing, I’m using a term, nothing reduces the deficit more than the education of the American people. Only childhood, K-12, higher-ed, lifetime learning. Want to reduce the deficit? Invest in education. We have to do it right, invest in education.
So these economies of – that I just described to you, are false economies. They are not going to save any money. It is going to be an opportunity cost for what could come in to our Treasury with an educated work force and besides, we owe it to our kids. All these people who are against the government role, would they have nixed the G.I. Bill, which created the middle class in America? Would they have said no to the G.I. Bill, which gave the affordability of home ownership to so many people? That nonetheless, right now, this is where they are on the bill and we are having this fight.
A couple different faces to this as Father Privett would say, the cost of higher-education is a challenge. So, we have to find ways to reduce the cost, so we are not just pouring more money but how can we reduce the cost? But at the same time we have to reduce the cost to individuals and their families. Five years ago, when President Bush, I was the Speaker, he was the President, we passed a bill that reduced the interest rate from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. We could only get it for five years and now the five years are up and in the Republican budget bill they take it to 6.8 percent.
The President made this issue too hot to handle. He went all over the country and did his college tour. And he talked about this issue. So, now the Republicans are saying: ‘oh, we always intended to do it anyway but we want to pay for it by taking money out of the prevention fund for women, children, and men out of the health care bill.’ But we are saying that is just ridiculous, that is ridiculous that you would pay for it by taking from the same middle-income people that we are trying to help over here.
By the way, the tax cut that you want from the high end, are you paying for them? Oh no, they don’t have to be paid for but interest on college loans, that has to be offset. So, if that has to be offset, then let’s find a way. We say take it out of the tax cuts for the high end, tax subsidies for Big Oil, Big Oil gets $38 billion over ten-years in tax subsidies, this is just the big five, and in the course of that time they will make trillions of dollars, trillions of dollars, but they need that $38 billion as incentive to drill. They don’t, we could use that money for educating the next generation of leaders and workers in our country. But they have said ‘no.’
So, this is the fight that we are in. We have to take it down. July 1st is D-Day. So, we have a month for this to happen and President Lincoln said: ‘public sentiment is everything.’ The more the public knows about these choices that have to be made, the better the average working everyday Americans are, in terms of decisions that are being made in Washington.
But imagine we have a budget – you have to see it in the context of the whole budget. The Republicans have put forth a budget that severs the Medicare guarantee. In the meantime, it will take a few years to do that, but in the meantime seniors, for example, next year we pay $6,400 more to get fewer benefits while we give tax cuts to the wealthiest people making over a million dollars a year of $400,000. Make a million dollars? You are going to get a tax cut of $400,000 because it will perpetuate the Bush tax cuts and they will lower the rates, $400,000 if you make a million dollars a year and $6,400 you pay in if you are a middle-income senior. Just not right. I told you what it did to Pell Grants and interest on student loans and the rest of that. At the same time, $400,000 tax cut if you make a million dollars a year. I don’t think the American people would say that is a statement of our national values that we would have a budget with that much disparity in terms of fairness, economic fairness for our country. And, by the way, these tax cuts, they don’t reduce the deficit, they increase it. They increase it. And they don’t increase jobs, they increase the deficit. The job creators are the great middle class who work, who consume, small businesses, the entrepreneurial spirit of America, that’s where jobs are created and those jobs, again, bring revenue and in turn educates people. And the beat goes on.
So, this battle of the budget, we have the balance thing, we say we know we have to make cuts, we have made over a trillion dollars in cuts in the past year with the Budget Act. We know we have to make some changes in terms of mandatory entitlement programs but we want some revenue on the table. It cannot come out of the hair of the working people in our country. While, again, not one hair on the head of the people making over a million dollars a year.
[Applause]
Ms. Duffy. So, as we wind our way to the end of the discussion, unfortunately, the last area I would like to focus on is the Congress as an institution. There is just so many comments from the audience about why does it appear there can no longer be civil discussions between the right and the left? Why can’t people work together? Instead of collaboration and compromise, neither side wants the other to have a victory because that might damage the prospects of one’s own party or group. Let me ask the question this way. What is lost? When a gentleman, like Republican Indiana Senator Dick Lugar, who is able to work across the aisle on both sides on crucial issues, is defeated, as he just was, by the Tea Party? Tell us about how the Congress’ method in working can be improved? How can this extreme divide be bridged? And how do you do it?
Leader Pelosi. Well, it doesn’t have to be this way and it hasn’t always been. I was telling Gloria earlier that on February 20th I had the privilege of speaking to President George Herbert Walker Bush, that would be President Bush 41, his President’s Day program at Texas A&M University, which is where the Bush Library, the Bush School of Public Policy resides. It was lovely. It was gracious as he and Mrs. Bush always are and the subject of my presentation on President’s Day with President Bush was about civility and the need for us to return it to the political and governmental arena. Absolutely essential, not even a question, but to poison the well of debate is a victory for big money because if you have big money, you can suffocate the system with your views. You can suppress the vote, which is what is happening in the elections. You suffocate the airways, you suppress the vote, you poison the debate, and you get questions like this: why can’t you all get something done and work together? With all due respect to your question, it’s a legitimate question that comes up.
So, if people throw up their hands and say a pox on both of your houses, you have an equivalence that is just fair for people who really do want civility. And they exist on both sides of the aisle.
So, when President Bush was President, believe me, we had our differences of opinion but we had respect for each other’s views, that is why he invited me to come there. I was so honored by the invitation. Texas A&M University is supposed to be the most conservative campus in Texas, they were lovely. Mrs. Bush said ‘I feel sad for you, you only have eight protestors and they are all very polite.’
[Laughter]
In any case, even when President Bush 43 was President, we worked together. Now we passed the biggest energy bill in [the] history of our country working and compromising with President Bush. We passed the stimulus package that he wanted, I wanted infrastructure, he wanted tax of something or another and we worked it out so that we helped poor people too, or poor people and middle-income people as well as high end. So, we came to a compromise and we rescued the country with the TARP bill, which was the President’s problem, the President’s proposal when President Bush was still our President, but the Democrats came to the rescue because it was the right thing to do for our country.
So, it doesn’t have to be this way, but really it is important to note this: I think, you tell me, people are saying Republicans are obstructionist. They do not want President Obama to succeed and that’s true, but they are obstructionists with conviction. They don’t believe in a public role. So, it is easy for them to obstruct. We have a bill that is going to create jobs, ‘I don’t believe in a public role so I am going to go against that.’ So, it’s not the thought, that if they were there, they would use the public arena to the advantage of working people in our country. They don’t believe in the public role. Understand what I am saying? It’s not obstructionism for the sake of a political agenda, or that they do not want the President to succeed so that he cannot win in the election, and they can, it’s obstructionism. Bless their hearts, they do what they believe and they don’t believe in government. So, that is really what the challenge is, to get the people who do, and you mentioned Senator Lugar, a bona-fide conservative, that is a legitimate place to be.
So, when President Bush senior was President, we were sort of on this spectrum, right-to-left, fight it out, where do we end up for a solution for the American people? This breed of person who is there now has cut that and we are on two different paths. When is there a public role? There is, if you don’t believe in a public role then you won’t, if you understand that, then you understand why almost every day we’re voting in Congress against – well they vote for, we vote against. They want to stop the implementation of regulations regarding clean air, clean water, food safety, public safety, public education, public housing, public transportation, public health, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, they don’t believe in it, and bless their hearts they act upon their beliefs. And that’s why you can’t find common ground on these issues and legislation, because it’s two different paths. I believe that if we take it to the higher ground that we talked about earlier: creation of jobs, education of our people, health and economic security for our seniors, all this done in a fiscally sound way as we defend our country and keep it healthy.
Let’s keep it on a higher ground of values and not issues and legislation. Then we can accomplish much more for the American people. They expect and deserve better. They have to, public sentiment is everything, the public has to be engaged in all of this and if there are any Republicans that are in the room: take back your party. We need a strong, Grand Old Republican Party for our country. This is not the Grand Old Party that we know. And it’s a different place.
Ms. Duffy. As someone whose great grandfather joined the Republican Party in 1864, I completely agree with you. One last question: taking back the House. How likely, what could be done if it was taken back, and briefly, unfortunately, we’re just about out of time?
Leader Pelosi. Briefly?
[Laughter]
If it were today, I think it’s 50/50 that we would take back the House. We’re going to try 25, it’s easy to remember. It’s my 25th year, shamelessly exploiting my 25th anniversary in Congress – a drive for 25 in order to win back the House. California will be essential to our success and we are very proud of the diversity that California brings to the Congress in addition to numbers and intellect. The – we think that it isn’t today that the influence of big, unidentified special interest money, we have to see how that weighs in, but we’re prepared to make the fight . And when we do, when we win, one of the things that we would to, you asked that, is to reform the political system, get rid of money in politics. You and the people at Texas A&M University agree that is something we must do. Return civility, reduce the role of money, return to what our founders envisioned of a democracy, the voice and vote of the many verses the checkbooks of a few for a plutocracy. So, in any case, it’s about this great country, as we just come out, as we are just coming out of Memorial Day weekend, where we honor those who make the supreme sacrifice for our country, our men and women in uniform, we owe them a future worthy of their sacrifice. We owe our founders faithfulness for their vision. We owe our children everything we can do to honor their aspirations for a better future for them and for our great country.
Thank you, Commonwealth Club for the opportunity to spend time with you.
Ms. Duffy. Thank you, [Leader] Nancy Pelosi. Congratulations from all of us.