eastern on c-span's q&a. >> during durg the summer months, reach out to your elected officials with c-span's congressional directory. it contains all the contact information you need to stay in touch with members of congress, federal agencies and state governors. order your copy online today at c-spanstore.org. >> house speaker nancy pelosi spoke to reporters earlier as negotiations with republicans and the white house continue. on an additional coronavirus economic package. in the speaker was also asked about president trump's tweet about possibly delaying the november presidential election.

ms. pelosi: good morning. well, our dear john lewis has been laid to rest. i don't know if you saw the double rainbow over the capitol on tuesday night. it was quite a remarkable sight to see. it wasn't even raining. and there was a double rainbow. as i said yesterday, at his service, on the night he died, the flags that waved over -- waving over the capitol were saying good-bye to him as he made his transition. and on the last night before he would be leaving the capitol, he said his good-bye to us with a double rainbow. saying as he would say, i'm home in heaven. i'm with lillian. may he rest in peace, our dear john. we mourn him as a death in the family. but now we've passed 150,000

americans who are dead from the coronavirus. many of them were not necessary. to have met that fate. today on the floor of the house, we'll have a moment of ilence, to observe the loss of 150,000 americans. 10 weeks ago we passed the heroes act. more than 10 weeks ago. we passed the heroes act. which had a path to containing this virus with testing, tracing, treatment, mask wearing, sanitation. the republicans said they wanted to take a pause. well, the virus didn't. since then, 65 -- over 65,000 americans have died. 300,000 -- a huge number of americans have -- three million americans since then have become infected. so much for the pause.

and now at the beginning of this week, the republicans in the senate came back with a piecemeal approach. clearly they and perhaps the white house do not understand the graphicity of the situation . 150,000 americans died. nearly half of them since we passed our bill. several hundred thousand -- three million -- know how it goes. the first million took 100 days. to get to two million, it took 43 more days. to get to three million, it took 27 days. and to get to four million, it took 16 days. we're now approaching 4 1/2 million. this is a freight train that is picking up steam. and picking up speed. that acceleration is not a good thing. it must be stopped. and we have a plan in the heroes act to do just that.

science-based, science-based testing, tracing, treatment. distancing. mask wearing. and the rest. and if we -- that's the way to open our economy, to more safely open our schools, to reduce the number of infections, instead of an accelerating pace of infection spreading across our country. children -- it's really sad to even say. children are food-insecure. families are food and rent-insecure. 19th straight week this week, the 19th straight week of people applying for unemployment insurance. 30 million people doing that. we really need to, again, stop the spread, that's first and

foremost. to do that we need for people to work and have the equipment to do it. that's why the heroes ability has, god bless you, has the funding for state and local government, to honor our heroes, our health care workers, our first responders, our teachers, our teachers, our teachers, our transportation workers, our sanitation workers, food suppliers and the rest, meeting the needs of the people in our cities and states. that's why we have our strategic plan for testing in our bill. the heroes act. and that's why we have a robust , a robust, put money in people's pockets, so that the consumer economy that we are can continue to be and to curtail the deepening of the recession we're in. and so in this time of all of that, what are the republicans proposing? cutting the benefit to america's working families.

put $200 on the floor yesterday , $200, from $600. they want to make it sound like, well, we -- they don't have the votes for $600. and why don't they? because they're too busy -- look, in the cares act, just think of this, in the cares act benefit $150 billion to -- [indiscernible] -- shall we say high rollers. had nothing to do with the coronavirus. it was retroactive in terms of certain high rollers in the economy. and yet they resent america's working families getting the $600, which is essential to their needs. so they've offered 2ds00. we're saying, -- $200. we're saying, we have the heroes act, respond to us on that, and we'll go forward. but the $600 is essential in

the lives of these families and they question, well, maybe somebody's staying home and making more money than they would -- why don't you subject those high rollers to that same scrutiny as to whether that money was justified? they say, oh, we have data showing people stay home. well we have data, we have data showing that that is not the case. anecdotally, if you want to name somebody, name them. and we'll anecdotally name some f your people. so, that's where we are on the negotiations. we'll be talking again today. i think it's important to note that chairman powell once again said this week, i'll read his words. the path forward for the economy is extraordinarily uncertain and will depend in large part on our success in keeping the virus in check. this pandemic and its fallout

represents the biggest shock to the u.s. economy in living memory. and then, of course, he has called upon us to do more. so, again, stop the spread. open the economy. reduce the infection rates in communities so you can open schools. recognize that the biggest threat now is among -- has been among people of color, who haven't had the access to testing. so it all comes back down to what i talked to you about before. it's about equipment. we don't have enough tests because dwopet have enough equipment -- don't have enough equipment. we don't have the results soon enough because we don't have the equipment to get the results of the tests soon enough. our health care providers are at risk and others who come in contact, early contact with people who are infected, at risk because we don't have the p.p.e., the personal protective

equipment. once again we call upon the president to get serious about this. no, testing is not overrated. now he's come to see about masks. if he had done that months ago, we would be in a better place right now. then it was a hoax. everything he says is really about him. hoax? overrated? he projects. with that, i'll take any questions you may have. reporter: republicans and the administration got a lot of heat when they released their bill because there was a lot of unrelated things in there. including money to the f.b.i., money for defense to replenish the wall. there's some things in your bill that's not directly related to covid, like there's talk about cannabis or the salt reduction. are those things you're willing to -- [indiscernible] -- the bill? ms. pelosi: i don't agree with you that cannabis is not related to this. this is a therapy that has

proven successful. and it is by no means of the caliber of money or misrepresentation that remodeling the federal building is for over $1 billion. so that another hotel doesn't come in there and compete with the president's hotel. that's what that's all about. that has nothing to do with cannabis -- with the coronavirus. so, we're going to have to come to some compromise on the legislation. i just don't accept that there's any equivalentance in what you put forth there. nd they have said -- we'll see. we'll see what they come back with today. but do not accept any thought in their mind that they want to continue the -- $600. they distrust american workers. they're condescending and

disrespectful of the needs of america's working families. why else would they not have had food in their proposal? food, children are hungry. families are in food banks, going to food banks that they never thought they'd go to. but let's just calm this. let's be prayerful. let's turn the page on it. let's say that the path that they have taken us down, with their delay, their denial, their distortions have caused death. have caused deaths unnecessarily. let's say that we should all of us concede that scientists should be making the decisions about how we stop the spread of he disease, and not quacks that the president seems to tweet about. and, again, after all is said and done, we'll have an

after-action review. right now we need them to recognize the gravity of the situation. any other questions? reporter: madam speaker -- reporter: last night white house chief of staff offered you a one-week extension of unemployment benefits of $600, which you rejected. after that, he called you a politically motivated party that won't take yes for an answer. can you say why you rejected it and also your reaction to his comments? ms. pelosi: well, as i say, they're interprojection. i say, perhaps you are characterizing yourself and think that that's how we are. we're not. we're here -- this is serious. this is life and death. when you have a six-day or one-week extension on a provision, it's usually -- it has always been to accommodate the legislative process. if you're on the verge of having an agreement or you have an agreement, but it has to be

reviewed by the c.b.o. and the legislative counsel, go to the rules committee, take the days that it does to bring to the floor, take the days, god knows, in the senate -- i don't know how many days it takes to bring something to the floor there. but to give members an adequate amount of time to review what is in there and for us that's 72 hours and then you go to the rules process and the rest. and then it takes -- then the president's signature. so a week would be a time for that. if you have a bill. what are we going to do in a week? what are we going to do in a week? what are you going to do in a week? first of all, they don't even have the votes for it in the senate. let's get real about what -- who says what. we passed a bill 10 weeks ago. it was bipartisan. we passed a bill over 10 weeks ago. they couldn't even get a shell ll, they couldn't even get a

$200, which we totally reject, they couldn't even pass something like that. among their own members. forget 60 votes. talk 51 votes. so, it's no use -- why don't we just get the job done? why don't we just get the job done? and the only accommodation that such a bill is is if you're on the path. we're not. reporter: do you have any thoughts about the mitt romney proposal that would extend unemployment insurance for three months? ms. pelosi: no. we have to have -- look. the people community talks all the time about needing certainty in their lives and this or that. but somehow or other we think that we can diminish that -- the recognition for that. god bless him for having a proposal. i don't think he can pass that in the senate either. but we'll see. you know, he'll see what he can do. but all of it is predicated on a lower benefit for america's

working families at a time where the virus is accelerating , more people are applying for unemployment insurance, 19 straight weeks of over a million people applying for -- and they're saying, let's do this for six days. no, let's sit down and get this done. let's recognize people need $600. let's recognize state and local needs, help with laying the -- the money they have spent to fight the virus and the revenue lost. cities and -- cities and municipalities, counties, states all over the country say they need that money. and a bipartisan way. and then of course let's get real and scientific about stopping the spread of the virus. so, no. reporter: madam speaker. ms. pelosi: yes and then yes. reporter: if you look back at march and april, there was a lot of partisan bickering but at the end, almost every vote was either by unanimous

consent, unanimous vote, or just a simple voice vote. what is so different now? what changed in the last three to four months? ms. pelosi: let me say with all the respect in the world for your question, we weren't biggering. we have -- we were having major policy digs agreements about how we immediate -- disdeproments about how we immediate the needs -- meet the needs of the american people. i know you all are engaged in characterizing us as bickering and the equivalentance when we want to help america's working families and they want to give tax cuts to the richest people -- why can't they come to an agreement? we don't have shared values. that's just the way it is. so it's not bickering. it's standing our ground. we're trying to find common ground. they started out, you know, the cares act, the first bill was a small bill but it was about testing, testing, testing. they really didn't do it. scientifically. then the next bill -- big bill was the cares act. the cares act came out as a

corporate trickle-down bill. we said, that's not what we need. and so we put -- we had our take responsibility bill, which was bubble up for working families and we came to an agreement. some bad things were still in the cares act. like $150 billion to the richest people in america. retroactively. having nothing to do with the coronavirus. four bills we did in a bipartisan way. the next bill was the p.p.e. extension -- p.p.p., the additional p.p.p. bill. what did they say? never, no way, it won't pass in the senate. we're having this and this is what it is. then they ended up doing what we had, a $60 billion set aside for small, women and minority-owned businesses, they ended up having the money for the hospitals, more money for

testing because we made the case and we got to that place. it didn't mean we swallowed their first offer. or they swallowed our first offer. it's the legislative process. we put forth what we think is urgently needed by the american people. because we recognize the gravity of the situation. they don't. and that's -- they're like, what, food? food? i mean, really -- the one that gets me is food, i guess as a mom and an i it willian american. food means -- an italian american. food means a lot to me. that people are hungry -- and we're not doing anything about it? and that's not in their bill? we had food in one of the early packages. snap, food stamps, those things. but not since. they haven't accepted it since. so, we anticipate that we will have a bill. but we're not there yet. i just said chad would be next. reporter: thank you. so i'm having trouble

understanding, where is potential compromise for you? i know you said, ok, no interim bill unless there's something that's on the table that you're working toward that. ms. pelosi: there's something on the table what? reporter: unless there's something on the table. you said. ms. pelosi: yeah, yeah. reporter: if they were doing a bill -- [indiscernible] -- but where's the area of give on the democratic side? you've insisted on this $3 trillion. you said food. ok. what are you willing to give to get this across the finish line? ms. pelosi: and you expect to tell me that right here? reporter: we don't know. nobody seems to know where the democratic give is. ms. pelosi: because it's a give and take in a negotiation. and so far, we don't see that they want to -- in other words, in negotiating, there are two things to remember. one is the person you're negotiating with has to want something. you have to think, they might want something for the american people. so far, so bad.

the second part is that the people you're negotiating with have to know that you'll walk. you'll walk. if it isn't there, it isn't there. i don't think that we are in that place. i do think that with the public view of all of this, the urgency from a health standpoint, a pandemic, 150,000 death, 450-plus infected, the number growing in an accelerated way. again, this is an imperative that may take them to a place where in order to get something they want, they macon seed something for america's working families. -- may concede something for america's working families. reporter: the fact that $3.6 billion for a state to spend on elections, we've heard the president, of course, rail on mail-in voting. are you open to approving a bill that would be silent and

have no money to provide for states for mail-in voting? ms. pelosi: thank you for that question. because i've been thinking about it during the night, in light of the president's statement yesterday. we all respect the constitution of the united states. i respect the office of the president. and i have acted in a way, in terms of policy and legislation, keeping government open, u.s.-mexico-canada trade agreement -- some of the things that we could find our common ground. i do conclude that i respect the office of the presidency. and the president doesn't. and just -- every single day he degrades the office that he took an oath to serve in. to say yesterday that he thought that we should postpone the election -- you have to

wonder. is this -- i would say, what does he have on his mind, but i'm not even sure that that's a logical terer to tire -- territory to go into. this is very serious. very serious. so we need to have an election that does not jeopardize the health and well-being of the american people. i was the party chair before i came to congress, chair of the largest party in the country, the california democratic party. and voting by mail was always what the republicans did best. we would -- could win on election day of getting out the vote, when you see the absentee ballots, you knew that that's where they would have their greatest success. that has always been the case. so what we're talking about here is not necessarily a political advantage to us. and republicans want it.

some republicans, secretaries of state, want it. and they want the money. without the restrictions that the republicans put in in the last bill. we have a letter, i can show it to you from the association of state chairs -- state secretaries of state. right now we have a situation where standing in line for polling places, do people keep the disance and all the rest, it's a health issue. there's also the health of our democracy issue. so if people do want to go to polling places, there are enough of them open, there are enough of them open hours and days wise, so this isn't just about absentee. the president is making a distinction between absentee and vote by mail. i rest my case. it's the same thing.

i vote absentee and that's ok, vote by mail -- what do you do? you mail it in. now what they're also doing, since you brought up the subject, is they're trying to diminish the funding and the rest, they're not accepting our funding for the postal system. postal -- the post office needs funding. what we put in the bill was the proposal of the u.s. postal system board of governors. the u.s. postal system brd of governors is bipartisan. 100% appointed by donald trump. and they have recommended the figure that we have in the bill. in fact, they asked -- actually recommend more but we put some of the rest of it in the infrastructure bill, the part that pertained to trucks and all that. this is about -- what they want to do is diminish the money for

the post office because if you -- if you mail in your ballot and it has a stamp, then they have to date that. sometimes they don't. but they have to date that, postmark it. if it is prepaid postage, they don't necessarily do it. and they don't necessarily do it in a timely fashion. passing it on in a timely fashion. because they just don't have the personnel. and there's a method to their madness. so understand this. they want to cancel the election or postpone the election -- really? like putin or something? they want to diminish the capacity of the postal system to work in a timely fashion. they want not to give any money for the -- that we have in the heroes act but they voted for this before. we have $400 million in the cares act, not enough, but they

have voted for the principle that we should be helping to protect our elections. and we do know that russia is interfering again in our elections. the security -- the intelligence community has told us they are continuing behavior of what they did in past elections and they made the other foreign governments that are -- there may be other foreign governments trying to intervene. we need to protect the security of our electoral system and we have to give people the opportunity to vote the way they want to vote. whether that's in person or by mail. but recognizing that in the time of the coronavirus, hopefully it will be diminished by then, but in the time of the coronavirus, this is an answer that has benefited republicans overwhelmingly over time. reporter: will you not accept a ll that zeros out -- speaker

pelosi: i'm not telling him what we'll take. we're in negotiations. but that's an essential priority for us. anybody who has been here? you just came. in just arrived. yes. reporter: representative gohmert tested positive for coronavirus, other members have gone into quarantine. sit time for you and senator mcconnell to reverse your decision from early in may to not have rapid testing here for members, for staff, for people who are on on this complex every day? speaker pelosi: it's not a decision of mine it's a decision of the capitol physician as to what the need for testing. it would be, you think of members of congress, there are 535. no there are about 20,000 people who make the capitol run. and the capitol physician has not said, yet that he thinks that we should be tested.

but it's not just us. it's not just us. it's others as well. and as i said earlier, there are many people in the country who should be tested, should have access. in order to quantify the problem but also to trace and to treat. so that people don't die. and i don't think it's a good idea for members of the congress to say, we should have it but maybe not necessarily the people who work here at the expense of others. comes back to equipment. it comes back to equipment. we would probably have to do thousands of people, some would say every day, some would say every week. it's not up to senator mcconnell and me. as far as i'm concerned it's up to the capitol physician. and i hope -- i mean, one of the -- we had called for masks for a while. but the -- it was a question of enforcement. what happened now.

it really made it certain that we had to do that and the capitol police and the rest had to enforce it. not only the floor of the house but throughout -- then they can make their own decision about requiring masks in other office buildings and other places in the capitol complex. the whole capitol hill complex. something that you would have thought as a matter of courtesy or just safety that the republicans would have agreed to before. and some did. but not all. and now they must. and what's really of concern to me, because we think of capitol hill as us, it's about the staff. and the support staff. that make it all run. and now you're seeing messages

from staff of members stating the concern they have about how their offices have been treating the issue of the coronavirus. reporter: being here today and even dr. monaghan's guidance, i know you have remote voting? speaker pelosi: we're separated from each other, i'm not come neering any of you. reporter: because members are the ones who get on planes and fly back to district, fly back to states and then come bag, wouldn't it be be good to reverse the earlier decision when the president offered to send rapid testing here so members can be testing. speaker pelosi: it's not up to the or up to me it's up to the capitol physician. i have asked him -- when nydia ve laz quezz was diagnosed, in a picture in the paper it looked

like we were closer together, we were very far apart. i said since that picture people are asking me and he said well first of all, i know you weren't that close together, a, and bmbing, no you shouldn't be tested. thank you all very much. >> we'd love to have a briefing with dr. monaghan if he'd like to show up sometime. speaker pelosi: that's up to him. reporter: ok. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events. you can watch all of c-span's public affairs programming on television, online, or listen on our free radio app. and be part of the national

conversation through c-span's daily "washington journal" program. or through our social media feed. c-span. created by america's cable television companies. as a public service. and brought to you today by your television provider. >> this week on "q&a," fox news anchor chris wallace on his book "countdown: 1945" on the creation of the atomic bomb and what led president truman to use it on hire shea ma, japan. >> he agonized over this decision. he complained of sleepless nights when he was in potsda mferings. he had terrible, searing headaches which he had throughout his career which he had whenever he was under what he considered terrible stress. and his diary -- that's one of doing a biography

of a person who is gone, i got a hold of hid diary for this period. he talked about the choice of using the bomb in an a-- in apocalyptic terms. he said this is the most terrible weapon ever discover hesmed compared it to the fire destruction prophecied in the bible. >> fox's chris wallace, sunday at 8:00 p.m. ian on "q&a." >> white house press secretary kayleigh mcneneny was join by chief of staff mark meadows to give an update on funding negotiations. other topics covered at the briefing included mail-in ballots and president trump's tweet from earlier this week on pushing back the presidential election.