On the occasion of marking her quarter century in the House of Representatives, Pelosi talks about recent successes and about women’s issues. Excerpt from the talk on May 29, 2012.
NANCY PELOSI, Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives
In conversation with GLORIA C. DUFFY, President and CEO, The Commonwealth Club
DUFFY: The Supreme Court has taken under review the health-care reform act. How do you think that will result, and where do you think we are going? What has been the impact of the legislation in the two years since it has passed?
PELOSI: 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, now health care as a right, not a privilege, and a path to that affordability, better care, a lower price.
Let me just say this: If there were no other reason to do health-care reform, if everybody loved their situation, we would still have to do it, because the system that was present a couple of years ago and that we’re still working our way out of was unsustainable financially. It was unsustainable to individuals, to families, to businesses, to local and state and national governments; the budgets just cannot withstand the rising cost of health care. And it’s unsustainable to an economy, because it’s 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 that 30 million or more people did not have health care, was a driving moral urgency, and Senator Kennedy said it so beautifully: “The great unfinished business of our society” [is] that we do not have health care as a right, [but as] a privilege.
[Regarding] the Supreme Court, we believe in judicial review, we believe in the constitutionality of whatever we pass in Congress, so we believe that this bill, constitutionally, is ironclad. We did not win the public relations battle on it, but from the constitutionality, it is ironclad. I predict a 6-3 aye verdict from the Supreme Court, but I really don’t know. Only those within that inner sanctum know what is going on there, but in terms of its constitutionality, ironclad.
The forces that we’re up against were the health insurance industry and another component, which was anti-government ideology, which [says there should be] no government role in any of this. Surprisingly, some of the same people who were saying “no public role” were also saying, “Keep your hands off my Medicare,” but anyway. The arguments that were made against it about no public funding of abortion – not a real issue. The death panels – not in the bill. That it’s going to increase the deficit – no, its purpose and its plan are to reduce the deficit. Job killer? No – it creates 4 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’s young people who can stay on their parents’ policy until they’re 26 years old; whether you’re a child with a pre-existing medical condition, already you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of a pre-existing medical condition; millions of people benefiting from the preventive care free annual checkup – in that regard, the list goes on. What I like very much is that no longer will being a woman be a pre-existing medical condition. Just because you’ve had children or could possibly have children doesn’t mean you should be discriminated against. But the list goes on, whether it’s 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’s 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’s what our founders intended: a healthier life to pursue your happiness, to have the liberty to pursue your happiness. Imagine if you wanted to be a photographer, a musician, an artist, if you wanted to start your own business, if you want to change jobs; you have the freedom to do this and not be job-locked because you have a pre-existing condition in your family or that just being sick can pauperize a family. So this is an emancipation, this is a right that frees people, and think of what that means to society and to the economy if people can follow their aspirations and make a living doing what they love if they have the talent and not have that decision taken from them.
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 re-looking at something like pre-existing conditions, because what might have been a pre-existing 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 and medication, so it’s really important to continue looking at what is a pre-existing condition.
PELOSI: We 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 – God sent us this wisdom – and that doesn’t go over too well with some of them. But there is an anti-science mentality that is really dangerous to the health of our people, the condition of our planet and our environment, that is detrimental to our competitiveness internationally in terms of innovation that springs from science, that springs from the classroom, and it’s something that I think has to be part of a national debate. I think not this time but the time before, you saw when they asked how many people believed in evolution among the presidential candidates on the Republican side, it was stunning to see how few hands went up. But the fact is, it’s a national security issue, how we defend our country; how we preserve God’s precious gift to us, this planet; how we advance health-wise; how we compete with jobs. We really have to win this fight as to what the role of science is, and it is certainly not contradictory to it being God-given.
Re-ignite the American Dream, being 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 opportunity are about education and affordable health care and the rest of that. So, again, that should be something that I think is a given and, if that is so, 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 vis-à-vis each other, which is very important to recognize.
Part of it is the role of women. Nothing, nothing, nothing isn’t improved with the increased participation of leadership of women. Let me say it in the reverse. The leadership of women, the empowerment of women, whether it’s in the military, whether it’s in the financial [sector] or in 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 the increased participation of women in the leadership. 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, and we have 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 caregivers of the children, but nonetheless, you know where it usually falls. This is something that we have to think of 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 that we have – it is a missing link, and we will have more economic growth, we will have better government in politics, we will have better national security, you name it – it will all be better with more women in the leadership. Not a substitute for men, but the sharing of ideas, the interaction –
very important.
DUFFY: On this issue of access for women on child care, are you talking about legislation now? Does Congress have a role in this? What can be done?
PELOSI: The fact is, all of it is consensus building. It’s not as if we try to sell something to somebody. You all 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 the quality is there for the children. So it’s all about consensus building. We had the bill, it was 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 ready to sign it, and then some folks who shall be nameless went to him and made this case that it was something 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.
DUFFY: Otherwise on women’s issues, I understand that you’re going to do a hearing next week on the Paycheck Fairness Act. Tell us about that and what would it do.
PELOSI: The Lilly Ledbetter [Fair Pay Act of 2009] was ending discrimination in the workplace [so] that a woman could sue if she thought she was being unfairly discriminated against in terms of pay. But the Paycheck Fairness Act takes us to a different place. It says that women performing the same duty should receive the same pay, and it’s a step further down the road. It is legislation that is very long overdue in our country, and we’re interested in hearing the testimony next week because what we’ve been hearing in the press from some in the campaigns has been that there is no discrimination against women, that it’s just a made-up thing. Mostly these are guys saying this – that it’s just a made-up thing and that if women get paid more, men will get paid less. It’s simply not true. It’s just rewarding work in a way that does not discriminate against women, and it’s important.
We had Lilly Ledbetter, we have Paycheck Fairness now coming up, we have the Violence Against Women Act; this is a very important piece of legislation. It was passed in the ’90s. Joe Biden was chair of the [Senate] Judiciary Committee; he was the big leader on this issue in the country, and many of us worked with him in the House of Representatives as well. So we had to fund it, I was part of that on the Appropriations Committee. Now it’s come up again, and there was a decision made by some in Congress to go backward. Violence Against Women has saved lives – 50 percent more situations remedied than before the bill. It’s been quite impressive in terms of its results. But now they’re saying, “We’re going to have a Violence Against Women Act, so everybody – all you women, step forward if you think you’re going to be protected. Not so fast if you’re an immigrant, if you’re a Native American or if you are gay, transgender or bisexual.” But that’s just not real. We’re sanctioning violence against some women and trying to pass off that we’re protecting all women in our country. The House Republicans, if I just may have a moment of differentiation here, have put forth this ridiculous bill that takes us backward.
