(calm music) - And now, Crosscut Festival Main Stage, featuring a selection of curated sessions from this year's Crosscut Festival.

Thank you for joining us for Madam Speaker, with Nancy Pelosi, moderated by Judy Woodruff.

We would like to thank our Keynote Track Sponsor, BECU.

We would also like to thank our Session Sponsor the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication.

Finally, thank you to our founding sponsor the Kerry and Linda Killinger Foundation.

- Hello and welcome to the 2021 Crosscut Festival.

I'm Judy Woodruff, anchor and managing editor of the PBS NewsHour.

I am delighted to be with all of you today for my conversation with the speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi.

Madam Speaker, welcome, it's very good to see you.

- Well, it's wonderful to be with you.

I wish we could be in Seattle for the Crosscut Festival but it's great to have this opportunity to share some thoughts.

Especially, I'm happy to be with you, a highly recognized journalist, who has commanded our opinions for a long time by making us informed to make our own decisions, but thank you for your leadership.

- Thank you.

I appreciate generous comments and thank you for being with us.

Let me start Madam Speaker with President Biden's ambitious jobs and infrastructure plan combined with his aid for American families plan, between the two of them, $4 trillion in new spending.

This is an amount that has even some of your fellow Democrats, moderate Democrats unnerved.

What are you hearing?

- Well, I'm hearing that people are very excited by the President's agenda, and we all want to know how we're gonna meet the needs of the American people, and he has given us a blueprint.

When we talk about infrastructure, it has for the most part always been bipartisan, hopefully it will continue to be, but really meeting the needs of the American people and infrastructure has grown.

It's no longer roads, bridges and mass transit, it's also a high-speed rail, it's water systems, it's issues that relate to a broadband and how we reach into rural America as well as urban deserts in terms of broadband, so there are many more things.

But if we're going to build back better as the President has suggested and we subscribed too, you have to build back better with women having a strong role, people of color having a strong role, and that requires a workforce development, it requires childcare so that women can participate more fully, or dads too who have the responsibilities, those responsibility, the caregivers, whether for seniors, people with disabilities or children can participate.

So this is not only the physical infrastructure, but the human infrastructure that has to be a part of how we can again, I'll say it again, build back better.

- Well, as we were saying, the price tag, 4 trillion, unnerving even some Democrats.

And the other issue here is taxes, there are now a group of, again, even Democrats who were saying that they are not gonna be able to go along with this, what is looks like the price tag is gonna be.

You're hearing analysts say President Biden is gonna be lucky to get half of his proposed increases on wealthy Americans, on capital gains, state taxes, corporations, and you have members saying that they're not gonna be able to support this unless it removes the cap on State and Local Tax Deductions which we know would mainly benefit wealthy Americans.

Do you see a compromise here?

- Well, let me just say with all the respect in the world for your, the glories that have been bestowed to you on journalism, I do not subscribe to all or stipulate to any most of what you have said about where the Democrats are.

The Democrats will support, I'm talking about the House of Representatives what the President is proposing the American people in a bipartisan way.

Support what the President is proposing, and the fact is the President has said, and I fully supported and my members do too, that nobody making under $400,000 a year will be had their taxes increased, and that includes average Joe's.

Republicans are saying well, it should be a user fee.

Well, why when we have all that we need to do in transportation, in roads, in distribution for electric cars have charging stations and all of that.

Why should working families be paying that price?

When the Republicans had just given a few years ago the biggest tax break to the wealthiest people in our country, 83% of the benefits going to the top 1%.

So we have a, I'm very confident about the value system that we have and that we will have hopefully bipartisan but certainly strong legislation that does not tax working families in our country but does benefit every person in our country in terms of infrastructure, both physical and personal, and the bipartisan support for childcare, for a family and medical leave, for equal pay for equal work.

All of those things that have to have, that take us into the future in a fair way have support of the American people.

And they just have to know what the difference is.

Actually, if you look closely as some have and I know you have, but if the public looks closely at what the Republicans are proposing in their infrastructure plan, it is very meager.

It does not meet the needs.

And by the way, another factor in this is the sustainability, the resilience, the greening of how we go forward.

We want to, all of us go forward together.

But every time it gets a little greener it gets a little less bipartisan but we cannot have ancient infrastructure.

We have to have infrastructure for the future that it creates good paying jobs, involves many more people and preserves the planet.

- But with regard to the State and Local Taxes, you do have a contingent of Democrats saying they won't support a plan unless you lift the cap on those deductions.

Would you be willing to go along with some compromise not removing the cap altogether but allowing something in between?

- Well, I think what the Republicans did on SALT to State and Local Taxes was disgraceful.

It was political and it was harmful.

It's not just something that you, some characterized as helping the wealthiest, no.

It helps the States have the resources they need to meet the needs of the people.

And the Republicans targeted this to hurt Blue States and hurt the role of government to meet the needs of people.

I always say to members, say what you want to say about a Bill, what you support, what you don't support but don't draw any lines in the sand about whether you're going to vote for the Bill or not.

Because you know what, when this Bill does all the just for the American people, you'll probably vote for it.

Now I, myself am strongly for removing what the Republicans did on the SALT.

And I'm not only sympathize, I support what they are saying, but again, I don't want at people drawing lines.

I think one person has said to me, he wouldn't vote for the Bill.

We'll see.

- Madam Speaker, another of the many important issues before the Congress right now, as you know, is police reform.

The George Floyd act did pass the House.

It is now in the Senate.

There are negotiations underway involving Republican Senators, Democratic Senator, and Congresswoman Karen Bass whom you appointed to work on this.

What we're hearing is that they maybe on the verge of some kind of an agreement that would involve keeping a kind of legal protection for individual police officers, so called immunity, but allowing lawsuits against police departments.

If that is what Congresswoman Bass comes back with, is that something the Democratic Caucus can accept?

- Karen Bass has my authority and the authority of our Caucus to negotiate for this legislation.

May 25th, when the assassination which was clear to all of us happened before our very eyes was only about two weeks later that Karen, Congresswoman Bass introduced the legislation.

You know why?

Because the Black Caucus has been working on this for years and they were ready.

And her leadership as Chair of the Crime Subcommittee then, of the Judiciary Committee that put forth this legislation about the, like the eighth or 10th of June, by the one month anniversary of the murder of George Floyd of the Bill passed the House of Representatives.

So they were ready and carefully not just putting it together in the last two weeks but having a history of concern about these issues.

So Karen brings to the table, the authority to negotiate because she knows the values that we're trying to to prep, we have to have, this Bill was originally called Justice in Policing, of the George Floyd family, when they came for the first hearing last year, they said to me, Madam Speaker, will you name this for our brother, for our dad?

You know, the little girl.

And I said, only if you think the Bill is worthy of George Floyd, after the hearing, that was Judiciary, the floor, obviously after the hearing, they decided that it was, and it still is.

And we couldn't be in better hands, Karen Bass in the House, others in the House as well, as well as the team in the Senate working on it.

Hopefully it will be worthy of George Floyd and by strongly bipartisan and we'll make a difference.

So yes, I have confidence with whatever Karen Bass brings back that our shared values and the need to just get something done.

Remember millions of people were in the streets all over the world for a period of time.

We must accomplish something, but it has to be real.

And Karen, is a master and all of this.

- So that I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying if it comes back with keeping individual immunities for police officers but allowing lawsuits against the department, you're saying that, that's what you think the House Caucus, the Democratic Caucus.

- What I'm saying is, whatever Karen Bass agrees to is what we will support.

And she has been very academic, very values-based, listening, listening to law enforcement, listening to the families, listening to the rest.

And I think that, she I believe is confident that they can find common ground.

- A number of things I want to ask you about.

I'm going to move quickly through these Madam Speaker.

One has to do with voting rights.

We know the Bill that passed the House.

H.R.1 would expand voting in a number of ways.

It's now in the Senate.

But this is a piece of legislation that does not address part of what is in the new Georgia voting rights law that would enable the Republican-controlled state legislature to take over some of the responsibilities and the rights that are now in the hands of local election officials.

Is this something Congress can do something about?

- Well, as you know, mechanics of voting are in the hands of the States.

We are talking about what affects federal elections and that is our provenance.

So, this Bill goes a very, very long way to saving our democracy which is at the mercy of many of these Republicans.

They cannot, they're bankrupt of ideas to meet the needs of the American people, because they simply don't know or don't care what those needs are, A.

B, they only can win if people can't vote.

So they're just showing their weakness by being bullies about voting rights.

So we're very focused on passing H.R.1, is now S.1.

in the Senate and hope that it will be soon.

And let me just say, this is not just about who can vote.

This really all goes to who can run and what the choices that people have of candidates.

If this legislation is passed, it reduces the role of big, dark, special interest money in politics and empower small donors.

It enables more young people, more people of color, more women, et cetera, to put their names out there and run.

So it expands not only who can vote but who they can vote for.

And that's a very important part of the legislation.

At the same time, we are working on the voting rights act which the Republicans have resisted because they don't want people to be able to vote.

It's a sad testimony, but nonetheless we're ready for that fight.

- Madam Speaker, as I said, several important things, so many important things to ask you about, one has to do with investigating what happened on January 6th when there was a mob that overran the United States Capitol.

Here we are four months later, still there's been no Commission appointed.

I know you have made proposals so far.

Nothing has been agreed to, is it time as many are suggesting to have President Biden appoint a Bipartisan Commission, equal number of members on both sides to investigate what happened?

- No.

I think this is something that the Congress has to do similar to the 9/11 Commission.

And this even more so because the assault was made on the Congress, on the Capitol of the United States on our democracy.

And the, what we have conceded to them is even though mostly every Commission that has been appointed in the last decade or so has always had the participation of the President.

There has to be a standard of who will be serving on this.

And we wanted to say to the Republicans let's do this together.

You want an even number, okay?

You want to have shared Subpoena Power, okay?

Now they're saying, well we want to also change the language in there.

What you investigate, some demonstration that happened last summer, this event, no, we're not going there.

This is about January 6th.

But it's really important for people to understand this.

There is still strong, very strong denial, and among the Republicans, at least I can speak from the House standpoint of what actually happened.

You see what they're doing with one of their own leaders for speaking truths, or because she won't lie.

And so when we talk about, even how we pass our Bill, our Supplemental to repair the Capitol, they're like, well why do we have to fix the windows and doors?

You know, like what happened on January 6th?

So there's denial of what happened then.

And then there's denial as to how this has to be the focus of it.

So we have yielded on every score.

They have one last thing.

Now they're saying, let's take all the findings out of the Bill.

I'll have to examine that.

But we do, we want to find the truth.

So we're willing to yield.

But on the other hand, we have to have some assurance that they will appoint people of national caliber who have expertise and standing on issues that relate to security and civil liberties and safety.

And in terms, as were the criteria for the 9/11 Commission, but the caliber of people they will appoint will be indicative of their seriousness.

And this, I do think we could, could get.

But if we don't, the next choice for us is to have a Select Committee to find the truth.

And at the same time, I've tasked all of our committees to do their own investigations in the areas of jurisdiction, whether it's Homeland Security, House Administration, Appropriations Committee on Service, all of the committees that have any jurisdiction that relate to what happened that day.

But again, there is very, very serious, sad denial.

- Democrats are facing a tough landscape in next year's midterms.

You have Republicans controlling the redrawing of Congressional districts in a number of States in Texas, in Florida, in North Carolina, in addition to Georgia, the first three all gaining House seats, isn't that gonna make it exceedingly uphill for your party to hold onto the majority in the House?

- Well, just the elections are about campaigns and we are ready.

We are ready with our M's, mobilization to own the ground, to get out the vote with our message of unity for the people, again, so proud of what the Biden-Harris administration is putting forth, and then, of course, with the resources, the money that is needed to do this.

But we would be better if we can pay the H.R.1.

and S.1.

in order to remove obstacles to participation for people to vote.

But I would just say this, I think you've heard me say this before, but for the benefit of our audience, people talk about, well, in the past the president's party has lost seats in the off-year.

Any assumptions about past elections are obsolete.

We're in a whole new world of politics in terms of how people receive their message, how people communicate with each other and how aware the public is to what is at stake for them.

And that is what we have to do is make sure that the public knows Lincoln said, "Public sentiment is everything, with it you can accomplish almost anything.

Without it practically nothing".

But for public sentiment to prevail, people have to know and that's our message.

We feel pretty confident because of our operation led by a great person Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, but also more importantly and he would agree about the caliber of our members and we don't expect to lose any one of them.

And we do expect to add, so again, past assumptions forget about it.

It's ancient and we're ready.

We're ready for it.

Now they will try to abuse the system with redistricting and this or that.

And I'm very proud of the work that Eric Holder is doing.

And as head of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee whether it's in the court or in the putting forth commissions to do redistrict in the rest of that, we're in better shape than we've ever been going into a redistricting.

And by the way, just to say, in 2018, when we won 40 seats, 31 of them in Trump districts, we were in the most gerrymandered, voter suppressed political arena you could name.

Thanks to what the Republicans had done in the last redistricting and yet we want 40 seats.

- Just a few more things to ask you about Madam Speaker, one is back in 2018, it was reported that you, in essence, agreed as part of a deal with a group of Democrats that you would serve as speaker for four more years.

That means, that would mean stepping down at the end of this term.

But my question is, if Democrats are able to hold on to a majority, even a narrow majority in the House would you consider extending your time as speaker?

- Well, let's take it one step at a time.

I, myself had thought I was leaving in 2016 when Hillary Clinton would be the President of the United States, but I don't have any intention of declaring myself a lame duck, but nonetheless if my husband and my children or my grandchildren are listening, I fully intent.

We want to do some great things in this election.

And some of our members are running for higher office.

So confident are they, that the Democrats will prevail and we are recruiting great candidates to run.

And I'll tell you in about like November, a year before the election where I think we are, as you've heard me say before, a year before, you know, if you're ready if you have the candidates who you've attracted who they haven't, I think with the Biden-Harris Agenda and all that has happened with the rescue package and how important it has been in people's lives with the jobs package, whatever version whether it's one package or two, however we go forward about creating good paying jobs.

And again, having more fairness in our economy, fairness in our opportunity, fairness in our job creation and all that goes with that I feel pretty confident about it.

This is for me the promised land where Joe Biden is presenting.

So many of the things that people have needed, put food on the table and send their children to school and care for their seniors and to do so in a way that enables children learning, parents earning, it's all tied together in a beautiful way.

I salute the President for his courage, for his leadership and for his determination that this will be as bipartisan as possible.

- We will look forward to coming back to you in November, if not sooner, to get that answer on whether you would be interested in running again.

But there's one other thing I want to ask you about and that is something that's in the conversation right now on Democrats.

It was raised most recently by Democratic Strategist James Carville, who's a long time supporter of yours.

He is saying essentially that the Democratic Party has what he called, calls a Wokeness Problem, namely that a small contingent is driving language around.

I'm quoting him terms like Latin X terms like communities of color, the term defunding the police.

He says, this kind of language is hurting mainstream Democrats.

- Well, I've heard him say that.

And I am amused, inspired and educated by anything that James says.

Latin X, I think sprang from the community.

Community of color sprang from the communities.

So it wasn't anything for us.

And defund the police has nothing to do with us.

There's no, we had not one Democratic Candidate who was advocating defunding the police in those terms.

And so what we have to do is, but let's say Joe Biden in his speech as some reporters have pointed out, he didn't say that as we go forward, we have to be more inclusive.

He said, as we go forward, we want everybody to participate.

So if that's the difference between in the language that has more clarity then that's something to look at.

But I don't know.

I think that what James said is something that should be paid attention to but some of the language springs from the community and we respect their own characterization of them.

Defund the police has nothing to do with the Democrats.

It's only something that some have said, not our candidates, and that the Republicans have exploited.

- Last thing, John Boehner former House speaker Republicans in his book just out, calls you probably the most powerful House speaker in his lifetime.

Is that something you accept?

(laughs) - Well, it's an interesting characterization from a speaker and a colleague.

Yeah.

Well, speakers have awesome power.

There's just no question about that.

And I always make the distinction with people about power and people said, well, so-and-so has all this influence.

That's interesting.

Influence is important.

Power is power.

And to bring legislation to the floor or not and whatever.

And yeah, but I would say if he said that about me I would take it as a compliment to my House Democrats because of their unity and their courage and their commitment to a better future for America's working families.

We build our consensus on the implementer.

I call myself the, the weaver.

I just weave all of these threads together of my members every single one of them important as we build our consensus.

So if he says that about me.

he says that about House Democrats, very powerful.

- Madam Speaker, Nancy Pelosi.

Thank you very much.

And thank you all who are part of the Crosscut Festival.

It's been an honor.

Thank you.

- It's my pleasure to be with you for the Seattle Crosscut.

I only wish we could all be in Seattle for it.

It's a great place.

Thank you.

- And, thank you all for joining us for this conversation.

I hope everyone has had a chance to see some of the other sessions this week, as well as what's left for Crosscut 2021.

Until later, I'm Judy Woodruff.

Take care.

(breaking news sound)