- [announcer] funding for overheard with evan smith is provided in part by the alice kleberg reynolds foundation and hillco partners, a texas government affairs consultancy, and by klru's producers circle, ensuring local programming that reflects the character and interests of the greater austin, texas community. - i'm evan smith, she's the most powerful democrat in the country. a 16 term congresswoman from san francisco who serves as the minority leader of the u.s. house of representatives and formerly was speaker of the u.s. house. the first woman to ever hold that position. she's the honorable nancy pelosi. this is overheard. (crowd applauds) 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. i would say that he'd made his own bed, but you caused him to sleep in it. you saw a problem and overtime 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 and f you from you guys. (crowd applauds) leader pelosi, welcome. - my pleasure to be here. - so nice to see you and welcome back. so, we're 91 days into the trump administration. is it better than you thought, worse than you thought, or just weirder? (laughs) - the second two. - worse and weirder? - worse and weirder. - could you please elaborate? - well, this is something quite different than anything. i mean, did we ever think we would see the day when we'd say, "please bring back george w. bush?" (laughs) - i'll stipulate that you're saying those words in texas. - no, but we really did work together. we disagreed, we grant each other our position as to where we are philosophically on the spectrum, but we did work together and get a great deal, a number of things done. we posed each other, well you try to find common ground.

where you can't you stand your ground, but you have a responsibility to find it. 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, lot of time left for this this to reset and and possibly when he and his people, who don't come to washington, with a lot of experience in 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. - right. - 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 gives urgency, responsibility that gives us opportunity.

and lincoln said, 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 this really horrible healthcare proposal

which would cost more for consumers and patients. - you think that was the people of this country rising up? - absolutely, positively 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, tip o'neill is 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. 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, or maybe it's both. - 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 spent some time with him certainly in the last 90 days-ish. (laughs) - a little. - okay, well give us your read on him. your read out 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 he's like. - do you really wanna talk about this? (laughs) - i do. - okay. - it's overheard with me, not them. (laughs) - well, i'll let you be the judge. i'll just tell you, you be the judge. - yeah. - so, the first meeting we had that is, shall we say the leadership of the house and senate, in a bipartisan, bicameral 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. (laughs) but, none the less, i'm mean we're in each other's living room right now, right? - right. - we're right together her, so we'll be just talking personally. - yes, no one will watch this. - don't tell anybody. you won't tell anybody what i said, right? - right, right, sure. - 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. anyway, we sit down, here they are the speaker, the two leaders in the senate and the leaders in the house. "you know, i won the popular vote." (laughs) - he said, "i won the popular vote"? - this is the first thing he said. not, here we are gathered, ba bum. "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 and i said, "that's not true." (laughs) (crowd applauds) "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. - a little dig at you, right? - right, yeah 'cause he lost california by four 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 "was some people from guatemala in front of him "and they got asked for their, he didn't get asked "for one thing." i mean, he was like 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 it out there first. - get it out there first. so, then chuck schumer goes out and they said, "the republicans say, ba ba ba ba." and he said, "yes, and nancy said it wasn't true." (laughs) - great, thanks a lot chuck. - well, 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-- - so, that's your first meeting. - that's the first meeting, but can you believe that he would say? so, basically what i said was, "mister 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 line we always stipulate to a place "that we are working from. "so, if we're gonna do that we can't be basing "it on..." - what you pluck out of the air right here. - right, so that was kind of how we tried 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, da da da da. but, not if it's gonna be an infrastructure bill that is a tax bill hidden-- - disguised as the infrastructure-- - disguised as an infrastructure bill that has tax benefits going to private individuals to build something

that they will own, subsidized by the tax payer and charge tolls. - right, you're not gonna go along with it. - yeah, those tolls, i mean the taxpayer's paying twice. so, well we 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 could work this guy because as you know you mention that the healthcare bill did not happen as he intended for it to and 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, how can we do that? (crowd applauds) no, we're talking about, you know they have a new one now. - as we sit here today

there's discussion of a new plan that could be voted on they're saying maybe as soon as next week. - and, here's the thing when you're the speaker, and i know something about this, (laughs) you have the power of the gavel. and, that means you can recognize who speaks, what the agenda is that comes up and when. and timing is the most important thing. timing to bring up a bill when you have the votes. but, what they did was totally mean spirited which is to say we're gonna bring up a bill sight unseen, ready or not, on the seventh anniversary of when president obama signed the affordable care act. they totally empowered us because they were completely not ready. in fact, well you see they didn't succeed. now, they're bringing up the same bill tinkered as a great texan ann richard used to say, "you can put lipstick on a sow and call her monique

"and she's still a pig." that's what this bill is. it's the same terrible bill. - so, you're not gonna play, the democrats are not gonna play if they gonna pass this bill it's gonna have to be the freedom caucus and the tuesday group or the moderates and the conservatives however you wanna look at it. they're gonna have to do this themselves with no support from you. - well, we're gonna make sure the american people have a seat at the table. - have an opportunity to say again. - as they say because what it will do is cost more, i'll keep saying it, it's gonna cost person, the policy holder more. it's going to have 24 million people not have insurance. it's going to mess up medicare, mess with medicare. it's gonna have a age tax if you're 50 to 64 pay an age tax, a millennial tax if your young. it's bad all around. but remember this, there are little more than 20 million people who have health insurance now who didn't have it before the affordable care act. (crowd applauds) they're gonna put forth a bill that takes 24 million

people off, so we're going backwards. - we'll get a cbo score of this new bill, but you're expecting it's not gonna be materially different than their old bill. - no, they're just, what they did was their bill was so unpopular and they couldn't pass it so they went rogue, they went worse. and they said, their bill was 56% of the american people were against it, 17% of the american people were for it. so they couldn't pass it. so then, they went worse and said that they would take the essential benefits and not make them be required, it's the same thing. - let me move to tax reform. the president has come back and forth after the healthcare bill was pulled to say, "well, we're not gonna do healthcare reform "next we're gonna do tax reform next." and then, they come back and they go, "well no, "we're gonna do healthcare reform next." obviously, tax reform is gonna come up somewhere. what does tax reform look like that this president proposes that you could get behind? is there any kind to propose? - well, let me first make the transition with you from healthcare to. so, after their bill failed the president,

in a very professional way, taking full responsibility said, "i would never have done it that way." and so, one of the judgements you make about leaders in those situations, who's gonna take responsibility. it happens on your watch you take responsibility. so, he said, "no, i wouldn't have done it that way. "the speaker i told the speaker i wanted to "take up the tax bill first before healthcare." and, the speaker responded by saying, "we couldn't "do the tax bill first 'cause we needed the "trillion dollars we were getting out of "the healthcare bill to help cover the tax bill." which was the complete admission that the healthcare bill was a tax bill disguised as a health bill. the biggest transfer of wealth in our history. over 600 billion dollars going from middle income and those who aspire to middle income working class families to the wealthiest families and corporate america in our country.

so, that was an admission that this was only about sucking up money from where there are many people to where there are few people and a lot of money. - and you believe that that's still going to be the case they cannot do tax reform first, they have to do it after the healthcare. - well, i'm just saying what the speaker said. he said it. so, in any case now they say they're gonna jam another healthcare bill next week. let me just say there in a lose, lose, lose situation. they lose if they pass it because the american people will know what the impact is on them. that's too big a price to pay. so, we'll do everything to stop it. but, it's a loser for them. secondly, they lose if they bring it up and don't pass it because they're members have walked the plank and still are not able to go home and say we repealed affordable care. - well, they look like the keystone cops if they've got the control of both houses of congress, right? - don't say that about the keystone cops. (laughs) (crowd applauds) - suddenly, we're george and gracie.

(laughs) i'm now your straight man. but, you understand, i mean if they now attempting to do this now failed once they attempt to do it again and fail a second time that is, in some respects, is more problematic for them than succeeding. - well see, they're doing what they did before. they're saying, "we're gonna do this next week "before the 100 days." well they're not - they're setting a date for timing purposes, right. - really ready. and then, if they pull it again, see three, if it passes they're in trouble, if it doesn't pass they're in trouble, and if they pull it they're in trouble. - right. - so, they've painted themselves into a bad situation, but the fact is if we can find a path where we can work together for the good of the american people we have a responsibility to do that as long as they take repeal off the table. - are there tax cuts that you could support back to the tax reform question, are there? - well, 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 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. 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, the 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. bubble up, but not trickle down. - so, that's what you're looking for at some-- - that's what we're looking for. (mumbles) - and, by the way these same people who are taking money out of the healthcare bill, have to be careful about what they do on infrastructure. these same people then say, "well, now that we have "increased the deficit," by the way the brookings institute, don't take my word for it.

the brooking institute has said that the republican plan that they have, not trump, i'm talking about the republicans in congress, plan they have will increase the deficit three trillion dollars. so, then what do they say? well, we gotta reduce the deficit so we've gotta cut food stamps and gotta cut all kinds of assistance, undermine medicare. you name it, it's coming right out of the health, education, and well being of the american people. that's what we're dealing with. and, by the way, the republicans in congress, people say to me, "when are they going to give up on trump?" no, they have been there longer on these economic policies and also social issues, anti-gay, against planned parenthood, anti-environment, you name it, anti-immigrant they've been there longer and more intensely. - so, opponents of the president who are waiting for the republicans in congress to ditch him, forget it. - forget it. - you think they're there-- - yeah, no they've

been there longer and worse. actually, the speaker said that this bill that they did their healthcare bill was, imagine 24 million people gone, cost going up, medicare, age tax, all the rest, no central benefits, he says it's an act of mercy. an act of mercy. i don't know what faith tradition that's in, but-- - but, not yours. - one of our members, joe kennedy, he said, "it's an act of malice." and price, hhs secretary now, our former colleague he said that the budget that they put forth, the budget is a complete disaster, "the budget is a budget of compassion." again, i don't know the faith tradition. but, the budget takes us back to your tax question because how much revenue you have and how you allocate resources is the role of government. and, if they want to give the tax breaks to high end and to corporate america

at the expense of investing into the future of our country, education. their budget, by the way, just for example, you be the judge, their budget takes six billion dollars out of the national institutes of health, 20% cut. we should be increasing it. that's one of the best dollars we can spend, the biblical power to cure and all that means. - leader, tell me, i wanna ask you about russia. so, we now have devin nunes out, mike conaway in as the chair of that committee. you're a ranking member on that committee. adam schiff from california said just a couple days ago he believes that now a reset button of sorts has been pushed. he's confident that conaway wants to lead this investigation in a bipartisan fashion. do you have confidence that the committee can operate in a way that will tell us ultimately what happened during this election? - well, i trust the judgment and statement of my ranking member, adam schiff. isn't he wonderful? have you seen him? he's so wonderful. and, from texas we have congressman castro on the committee as well. (crowd applauds) and, he's been wonderful

in that regard. so, i'm hopeful. i have the longest experience on intelligence in the congress, been there since like the early to mid 90s as a member, and as the ranking member and also ex officio as speaker and leader. so, i know something about that territory and i trust, i think you always have to be trusting that they can be. but, what we do need and 67% of the american people agree in the most recent poll today, we must have an outside independent commission to study (crowd applauds) what do the russians have on donald trump personally, politically, and financially? - well, the financial part gets me back to this question of tax reform because some of your party have suggested no tax reform without tax returns because we need to understand how tax reform would benefit this president. and, the reality is that even if you leave tax reform off the table, this investigation, it would seem, would benefit from having more transparency

in that list. what power do you have or do you have no power to force the issue of his tax returns? - legislatively the power, is again, with the people. legislatively, the chairman of the ways and means committee, that would be brady of texas or the chairman of the senate finance committee, the equivalent committee, that would be senator hatch. either one of them under the law can ask the treasury department, the irs for the tax returns of the president. and then, the committee would review it and vote as to whether to make that, those returns public. so, so far they're saying, "why would we "get involved in that?" and we're saying, "because the american people "want to know." - so, you need the people of this country who want to see them rise up. - to weigh in on that. we have a motion, not to get too parliamentary involved,

but a discharge petition with almost every democrat on it, we'll have every democrat when we go back, all but like eight who weren't around that day. but then, we just need some of the republicans to do that. and, once that happens once 24 republicans say, "i am no longer hiding the tax returns "of anyone, the president of the united states "is supposed to be," which every president since gerald ford, well richard nixon, but he didn't really do it voluntarily, but the (laughs) this was done. - you think you've got 24 republicans, leader, who wanna sign on to this? i know a couple of republicans have said they think his tax returns should be released but it's one thing to say it in a town hall or say it on msnbc, it's another thing to sign a discharge petition. do you have 24 republicans? - well, they don't even have to sign the discharge petition. they just have to say to their leadership, "i am no longer covering for this." - what are they hiding?

is there any inference to be drawn from this that they're hiding something? that they don't have, they probably don't know, but what confidence do they have in the president? now, i don't think that revealing the taxes is necessarily going to show everything, but it's gonna show a path, it's gonna show a path. and, that's what the american people have a right to know. how does this president say, of all the nominees, democratic or republican, since gerald ford, i don't have to show my returns. - leader, i'm sorry we're outta time. great to talk to you about these things and will be so much more to talk about if you come back another time. - no, questions from the audience? - we'll have those next. - oh, oh. - leader pelosi, thank you very much. (crowd applauds) - [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 as with our audience and guests, and an archive

of past episodes. - people are always complimenting me, "oh, you keep the democrats together. "you're so good at unifying them." i don't unify them, our values unify us. and, the major value where we have commonality of interest, not uncomfortable with one point of view here or there, but where we have commonality of interest is to fight for working families every single day that we are there. - [announcer] funding for overheard with evan smith is provided in part by the alice kleberg reynolds foundation and hillco partners, a texas government affairs consultancy and by klru's producers circle ensuring local programming that reflects the character and interests of the greater austin, texas community. (mellow music)

[ ♪ ] this program on women in science, technology, and business has been brought to you by zoho corporation. hello and welcome. i'm kamla. on today's show, we are talking about science, technology, and dance. my guest, rasika kumar, is a software engineer at google, and she is also a professional dancer who has been dancing since the age of 4, and she's been doing classical indian dancing, - known as bharata natyam. - yes. kamla: welcome to the show. thank you. thanks for having me. so i think you are one of the few people i've come across who combine the interests of both their parents. your father is an engineer, your mother is a dancer.