- [Announcer] Funding for "Overheard with Evan Smith" is provided in part by Hillco Partners, a Texas Government Affairs Consultancy, Claire and Carl Stuart, and by Laura and John Beckworth, Hobby Family Foundation.

(no audio) (bright music) (audience clapping) - [Evan Voice-over] Let's be honest, is this about the ability to learn or is this about the experience of not having been taught properly?

How have you avoided what has befallen other nations in Africa?

You can say that he made his own bed, but you caused him to sleep in it.

You saw a problem and over time took it on.

Let's start with the sizzle before we get to the steak.

Are you gonna run for president?

I think I just got an F from you, actually.

(audience laughs) This is Overheard.

(audience clapping and cheering) - I remarked to you earlier, Leader, that it seems like every day there's some massive news event.

We live in a time when there's no break from this stuff.

And really, if you think about the eight months or so that the president has been into his second term, he really hasn't had it easy.

We, as a country, haven't had it easy.

Every time you turn around, whether it's Egypt or Edward Snowden or Syria, whether it's the fight over the Affordable Care Act or the gun debate in this country, really, we're at a heightened state from a news standpoint.

- Not to mention immigration, comprehensive immigration.

- Issues related to women, whether it's abortion around the country in the various states.

We really just haven't taken a break at all from this stuff.

- Well, this place and then with everything that's happening, the world history is in a hurry.

People want solutions, and we have real-time communication on every subject before we can verify what happens, something else happens, so how do you have judgment about how we should proceed.

But how we should proceed is in the most collaborative way and the most bipartisan way to try to get results, to try to get solutions.

It doesn't mean that these aren't challenging issues and hard to resolve, but you have to try.

And so some of the things that you mentioned, for example, that I mentioned, immigration.

I think that because the public is so supportive of immigration reform, and that the message in the election of 70% of Hispanics voting Democratic for the president and for Congress, sent a message, an epiphany, to Republicans in the Congress that this is something we should probably give a higher priority to, so I'm optimistic that that will pass.

- But of course, Leader, Congress is not always responsive to the public's will.

I do go back to the guns discussion on the three big issues, the high capacity magazines, the ban on assault rifles, and the background checks.

The public, according to polls, was overwhelmingly in favor of those three things, and yet Congress was unable to take action, meaningful action on those things.

Why are you more optimistic on immigration that they're gonna listen to the public any more than they did on guns?

- Well, first of all, we haven't given up on a background check on guns.

I do believe that- - So far though, not the action that some would've wanted.

- Well, it takes some time.

When we passed the bill in the 90s, we lost one, two votes or something, and then we came back and finally passed the bill.

But, while we are talking about here is significant, is the background check bill.

You mentioned others that are part of agendas, but the bill is about a responsible background check.

And I believe that if that bill were taken to the House floor, it would win.

It would have a majority of votes.

It had a majority votes in the Senate, it just didn't have 60 votes.

But I think the American people expect and deserve us to take action.

How much more motivation do we need- - [Evan] Than what we're seeing.

- Than 20 little children in a kindergarten?

- But you're optimistic on immigration, Leader, that you think the Congress will be more responsive to the public maybe than we've seen on some other issues?

- I certainly hope so, because 1,100 people are deported every day.

11 million people have uncertain status that we need to move to a comprehensive immigration bill to address that, and I hope that it will happen in a matter of a couple of months.

- Would it surprise you to hear, I suspect it would not, that people out in the world are not terribly enthusiastic or optimistic about Congress right now?

Congress has got a very low approval rating, and our faith in Congress's ability to get things done has been repeatedly shaken.

Why should we be more optimistic than that?

- President Lincoln said, "Public sentiment is everything."

and that's how he got things done.

And I believe, whether it's immigration or background checks on guns or job creation and the rest, that there has to be action to be taken, and the public has these issues as priorities, and we have to answer for that.

I don't think we can just think that... President Lincoln also talked about the harsh artillery of time that dulls the memory of certain things and then pretty soon, nobody's talking about guns anymore, but we have to do something about it.

We take an oath to protect and defend the American people and the Constitution of the United States.

We have to honor that oath.

The public wants us to, the support is there, even among gun owners and members of the NRA for background checks, and so we won't stop.

We will not give up.

We're going to keep fighting until we can pass that legislation.

There is, on the immigration bill, a difference between the House and the Senate.

The senators know that if you're ever gonna win statewide, you have to have the support of the minority community to do so.

And some of the district's of members, they don't think they have to have that to win elections.

- Well redistricting has made it, Leader, so that the consequences that might have been visited upon members like that in the past, maybe you're not being visited upon them now, right?

- Well, we don't need 'em all, and what we need to do is to do the right thing, and that means a compromise.

I mean, none of the Senate bill or the bills we're talking about in the House might not be the clearest path, I think, but nonetheless, it's what is possible if you have to collaborate in a way to have a bipartisan bill, which is appropriate, and so we will keep on working until we get that.

And I'm optimistic that the national Republican Party will, I mean, how are they ever gonna elect a president?

- Have to put pressure on the Congress, yes.

Is Speaker Boehner going to violate his Hastert Rule that he's been embracing, where he needs a majority of the majority on this?

You say that there might be enough votes to pass the bill in the House, and there might well be, but would there be enough votes where the majority of the majority, and would that ultimately be an obstacle to the bill getting passed?

- Well, you'll only have to ask him, but- - Well, can you ask him?

(Pelosi laughing) I've tried to get him to come here.

Maybe you can help actually to have him come here.

- Well, let me just take issue with one word you used, and I know why you used it, rule, that is not a rule.

- Right, it's a rule, it's a rule.

- (laughs) It's a rule, so it's not a rule.

It's not anything that anybody has to obey, but it is an excuse, but it's not a reason.

(laughs) It's not a reason.

- You were Speaker for a number of years, and you understand what it's like to herd cats in that position.

Do you believe that he deserves any sympathy for the situation he finds himself in?

He is leading a very unruly bunch of people who seem unable to agree on anything as a group.

It's gotta be hard for him to make that happen.

- It's always hard, I mean, I had the most diverse caucus in the history of the world.

In our caucus, think of this and be very proud, over 50% of the House Democratic caucus are women, the majority of the caucus are women, minorities, or LGBT community members, is that great?

Is that a wonderful thing?

(audience clapping) - Now I suspect those groups have more of a common agenda than the Republicans do, right?

- But we have the full spectrum, generationally, geographically, philosophically in every possible way, we have the full agenda, and we're legislators.

You have to just legislate.

I don't have any answers about the inside of the Republican caucus.

I'm probably the last person to ask about that.

(laughs) - Yeah, but I think you're the first person I'd want to ask though about the dysfunction in Congress and the fact that the perception from the outside is this is a body that exists not to say yes, but to say no where gridlock is the order of the day.

- No, you're absolutely right, and this is something unusual.

This is something unusual.

When we had the majority and President Bush, George W. Bush, President George W. was president, we never said to him, "We're going to obstruct you."

We fought him on the war in Iraq.

We fought him on privatizing social security, but on almost every other subject, we found a way.

We passed the biggest energy bill in the history of our country.

He proudly signed it.

He wanted nuclear, I wanted renewable.

We had a bill.

And it did many things, the CAFE standards, the rest of that.

We passed bills that were helpful to poor children in our country.

We passed the funding for PEPFAR, the initiative on AIDS, drugs, and the world.

We passed the TARP bill, probably the worst bill that I had to ever ask people to vote for, but necessary to save our country from a financial meltdown.

His own party deserted him on that.

But we said, "What do we need to do for the country?"

So when President Obama became president, we were able to do a number of more things, the Affordable Care Act, which we're very proud of, Wall Street reform, millions of acres of green space in our country, the list goes on, repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, passing Lilly Ledbetter.

I mean, we're very, very proud of that agenda and the legacy.

However, when they won the nomination, they basically said to the president when he said, "How can we work together?

"You help our agenda, we help your agenda."

They said, "Nothing, we don't have an agenda.

"And never, never is our timetable.

"Does never work for you, Mr.

President?"

Well never doesn't work for him, because never doesn't work for the American people when we're trying to pass bills that keep jobs in America, build the infrastructure for our country, make it in America, all of those kinds of initiatives, so we need to pass legislation that does really create jobs.

I believe that those who control the Republican party in the House of Representatives, and I'm not saying majority of them, but a large chunk of them who wag the dog are Republican in name only.

This is not the Grand Old party.

This is not the Republican party that has done so much for our country.

This is a group that President Clinton refers to as the anti-government ideologues.

They don't want to get something done.

So if you shut down government, perfect.

- They're happy.

- Sequestration, making all those cuts, day at the beach.

They don't believe in government, and they act upon their beliefs.

- Well, a bunch of people, in fact, have been elected in the last couple cycles whose whole purpose was to destroy the thing that they're elected to.

- That's right.

- That was actually the point.

- And see, and that's why when you see their budget, you say, "Okay, this is a consistent act of faith."

- With that philosophy.

- And it's not a statement of values about how we grow our economy, it's a statement of doing nothing.

And so, "Do nothing, Congress," is the best thing you could say to them.

Now, let me just make this point.

That's why you see, almost every day, we vote to undo the public role with clean air, clean water, food safety, public safety, public education, public housing, public transportation, which they call welfare, public health, Medicare, which they say should wither on the vine, Medicaid, Social Security, which they say has no place in a free society, that's why they wanna privatize it, so they're consistent.

And that's why the public has to know what the choice is.

- So look ahead quickly with 30 seconds through the presidential year of 2016.

You are 100% on board behind Secretary Clinton.

- Oh, I don't usually endorse until somebody announces.

(audience laughs) - But you have certainly talked openly about your desire to see her run, whether or not you have an actual candidacy to endorse.

- Let me just say this, because I think we have a great field of candidates, certainly our vice president, many, many- - [Evan] Some governors.

- Governors who are talking about it, maybe they're not talking about it, but other people are talking about them.

If Hilary Clinton, Secretary Clinton, if she decides to run, I think she will win, and she will be the best prepared person to go into the White House in a very long time, certainly better prepared than her own husband.

I mean, with all due respect, he was a fabulous president.

Certainly more experience than the current president with all due respect, more presence than George W. Bush.

I think the closest competitor would be George Herbert Walker Bush.

But, by and large, with the very few exceptions in decades, she has more experience.

She's served as a senator, as a secretary of state.

She was in the White House in a very active role and saw the dynamic, and it's about, again, your vision, your knowledge, your judgment that you have.

It's about thinking strategically to get the job done, as I said, and communicating with the public, but it also takes stamina.

(laughs) It takes stamina, and I think she's demonstrated all of the above.

- Okay, no candidacy yet, but we'll see.

- And she just happens to be a woman, but that is almost incidental.

It would be glorious, but it's almost incidental to her credentials.

- Leader Pelosi, welcome.

- My pleasure to be here.

- So nice to see you and welcome back.

- Thank you.

- So we're 91 days into the Trump administration.

Is it better than you thought, worse than you thought, or just weirder?

(audience laughs) - The second two.

- Worse and weirder, okay.

- Worse and weirder.

- Could you please elaborate?

- (laughs) Well, this is something quite different than anything.

I mean, did we ever think we would see the day when we would say, "Please bring back George W.

Bush."?

(audience laughs) - I'll stipulate that you're saying those words in Texas.

- (laughs) No, but we really did work together.

We disagreed, we grant each other our position as to where we are philosophically and on the spectrum, but we did work together and get a number of things done.

We opposed each other, well, you try to find common ground.

Where you can't, you stand your ground, but you have responsibility to find it, and we accomplished a great deal with President Bush, which I would go over if you want, but this is a very different...

This is about deconstruction of government.

It's not being on the spectrum of more government, less government, it's no government.

- You're not optimistic, Leader, that this is only the first inning, as it were, a lot of time left for this to reset, and possibly when he and his people who don't come to Washington with a lot of experience and the way the game is played, when they get more experience, the opportunity potentially for them to do something that is more familiar to you exists?

- Well, first of all, I'm always optimistic.

Second of all, I see everything as an opportunity.

And the opportunity I see is that the American people realize that this election, something happened that is urgent, that they want to take responsibility for.

And that urgency, responsibility, that gives us opportunity.

And President Lincoln said, "Public sentiment is everything.

"With it, you can accomplish almost anything, "without it, not," and so we are relying on the wisdom of the American people to instruct the president as to the path we want our country to go on.

- Of course, you know, Leader, his approval, I mean, I know he dismisses polls, and maybe after this election, polls should be dismissed completely, but the polling so far shows that the public is not with him.

His disapproval is at a near all time high for a president at this stage.

He doesn't seem to care.

He doesn't seem to be acting like somebody at opposition with the public.

So I'm wondering if we really think that he's gonna listen to, as you say, the voices of people as he moves through this presidency.

- Well, if he doesn't, then of course we'll have more successes as we did defeating, winning that battle.

I'm not saying the war is over, but defeating that battle of his really horrible healthcare proposal, which would cost more for consumers and patients.

- Do you think that was the people of this country rising up?

- Absolutely, positively.

- That was why that happened.

- Outside, organic mobilization of the people, and again, we like to think we're organizers, but this is something so much bigger than that, because when the public understood what it meant to them.

Now, Tip O'Neill's famous for saying, "All politics is local.

When it comes to healthcare, all politics is personal.

Everybody knows what it means to them, and if they don't, the more they learn about it, the more concerned they are about what he is doing.

But this is a very unusual person to be president of the United States, because I don't know if he doesn't know or doesn't care what the American people think, but in either case, well, maybe it's both.

- Yeah, I wanna ask you about him, personally.

That's actually, you bring up a really good point.

So we all think we know him.

We've seen him on television.

We've seen him in our lives in some way for decades.

But you now actually have the opportunity to be up close with him in the context of this job.

You've spent some time with him certainly in the last 90 days, -ish.

(audience laughs) - Little.

- Okay, well give us your read on him, your readout on what he's like.

What is he like to be with?

What is he like in person?

Is he engaged?

Does he seem smart to you?

Does he seem like he's on a script?

I mean, give us a sense.

He's our president.

Give us a sense of what's he's really like.

- Do you really wanna talk about this?

(audience laughs) - I do.

- Okay.

It's "Overheard" with me, not them.

(audience laughing) - Well, I'll let you be the judge.

(laughs) I'll just tell you, you be the judge.

So the first meeting we have that is, shall we say, the leadership of the House and Senate in a bipartisan, bi-camera way, House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans.

We go there, and he has sort of a charm offensive, and I think his charm offensive is offensive.

(audience laughs) But nonetheless, I mean we're in each other's living room right now, right?

We're right together here, so we'll be just talking personally here.

- Yes, no one will watch this, that's fine, actually.

- Don't tell anybody.

You won't tell anybody what I said, right?

So we sit down at the table, this is the president of the United States, the leader of the free world, the most powerful person in the world.

Well, usually.

(audience members chuckle) And anyway, we sit down and here they are, Speaker, Leader, two leaders in the Senate and the leader in the House.

"You know, I won the popular vote."

(audience laughs) - He said, "I won the popular vote?"

- This is the first thing he said.

That night, "Here we are gathered," blah blah.

"You know, I won the popular vote, "because three to five million people "voted illegally in our country."

That's how he started this first meeting, which was supposed to be about the legislative session.

What are the priorities, how can we work together?

So I figured since he started in an unconventional way, I would respond in an unconventional way.

(audience laughs) And I said, "That's not true."

(audience laughs) - Good.

(audience clapping) "That's not true, there is no evidence to support that."

And he said, "And I'm not even counting California."

That was sort of a jab at me- - A little dig at you, right?

- A little dig, 'cause he lost California by 4 million votes.

Anyway, so in any case, I said, "Well there's no evidence to support that."

"Well this man was standing in line, "and there were some people from Guatemala in front of him, "and he didn't get asked for one thing."

I mean, he was confused in what he was saying.

So I wasn't gonna tell anybody, because you try to be very respectful.

Let's overlook, let's hope this goes by the by.

But the Republicans who were in the meeting went out and told the press, "The President said he won the popular vote."

Now, I don't know if their motivation was that they wanted to pin a rose on it, make it sound playful, or whether they thought we were gonna say it anyway, so they might as well- - Get out there first.

- Get out there first.

So then, Chuck Schumer goes out and they say, "The Republicans say," blah, blah, blah, blah, and he said, "Yes, and Nancy said it wasn't true."

(everyone laughs) - Great, thanks a lot, Chuck!

- No, I was glad.

I was glad because then I could respect the dignity of the office and not be the one to say, "Can you believe that?"

- So that's your first meeting.

- That's our first meeting, but can you believe that he would say?

So basically what I said was, "Mr. President, we worked very closely with President Bush.

"We got a lot of things done, "but whether we disagreed or agreed or whatever, "we always stipulated to some facts.

"We always knew what our numbers were, "what is our baseline, where do we go from here.

"If we're going to be doing work together," even when we just are working with the Republicans across the aisle, we always stipulate to a place that we are working from.

So if we're going to do that, we can't be basing it on... - Something you pluck outta the air, right, yeah.

- So that was kind of how we try to segue to, if we're gonna talk about infrastructure, we have to talk about infrastructure that is really about a commitment to building America, creating good paying jobs, moving commerce, product to and from market, duh, duh, duh, duh, but not if it's gonna be an infrastructure bill that is a tax bill, hidden- - Disguised as an infrastructure bill.

- And disguised as an infrastructure bill that has tax benefits going to private individuals to build something that they will own, subsidized by the taxpayer and charged tolls.

- Right, you're not gonna go along with that, yeah.

- Well it's tolls, I mean, the taxpayer's paying twice.

So I was just using that as an example of we've gotta be talking about the same thing.

- The question, Leader, is whether you feel like you need to work with this guy.

Because as you know, you mentioned that the healthcare bill did not happen as he intended for it to, and as Speaker Ryan and some of the Republicans intended for it to.

And the president came out immediately and said, "That's okay, I'm gonna work with the Democrats."

And the question was, "Will the Democrats work with him?"

- Well, the fact is, is that he's a President of the United States, whatever that sounds like to you.

He's the President of the United States.

As soon as he takes repeal off the table, then we can talk about where we go from there.

- But if repeal's involved, you're not playing.

- No, absolutely not.

(audience clapping) How can we do that, no.

I think we all would maybe agree that we should have tax simplification, tax fairness.

And so what I say to my members who go to the table for these negotiations, "Don't be ideological."

You just put growth in the middle of the table.

How do we grow our economy with good paying jobs and how do we have a tax plan that does that?

So what do we want, simplification, so it's clear fairness, so it's fairer to people.

We would probably agree to lower the corporate rate, so that corporations would pay taxes.

When we say lower the rate, we get more money, because maybe they would then pay the taxes that are owed or not evade the taxes as the law enables them to do now, maybe repatriate money from overseas, trillions of dollars from overseas.

And so, we can find common ground.

The debate is though, this, in our living room here, they are trickle down economics people.

That's in their DNA.

It's been their plan, always.

It's never worked, even Harry Truman talked about this, same old trickle down, it never worked.

It's about giving tax breaks to the high end with the idea that it will trickle down.

And as Speaker Boehner said, "If it does, that would be good.

"If it created jobs, that would be good.

"If it doesn't, so be it, that's the free market."

Well, we don't see it that way.

We see the free market as middle income tax cuts, which create good paying jobs that give consumer confidence to consumers to spend, to inject demand into the economy to create jobs.

(audience clapping) - Speaker Pelosi, thank you very much.

Ma'am, thank you.

(bright music) - [Announcer] We'd love to have you join us in the studio.

Visit our website at KLRU.org/overheard to find invitations to interviews, Q and A's with our audience and guests, and an archive of past episodes.

(bright music continues) (bright music continues) (bright music continues) - [Announcer] Funding for "Overheard with Evan Smith" is provided in part by Hillco Partners, a Texas Government Affairs Consultancy, Claire and Carl Stuart, and by Laura and John Beckworth, Hobby Family Foundation.

(peppy flute music)