MSNBC Meet the Press - Transcript

MSNBC Meet the Press - Transcript

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday, serious issues facing our country:

gas prices, health care, immigration, Iran, Iraq and more. If the Democrats reclaim control of the Congress, what would they do?

With us, the woman who would like to be the next speaker of the House of Representatives, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California.

Then, insights and analysis. Chief political reporter for The Washington Post, Dan Balz. And the national editor of Vanity Fair magazine, Todd Purdum. And just who is this other George W. Bush?

MR. RUSSERT: And joining us now is the Democratic leader of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): Good morning, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: Friday, this was the scene in the Oval Office when President Bush suddenly announced the resignation of Porter Goss as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Your reaction?

REP. PELOSI: The intelligence community is in disarray right now. The American people, in order to be protected, must have the best possible intelligence. We want the president and the Congress to have that. The—this administration has not managed the intelligence community well. We have questions that have arisen about the effectiveness of the new direct—Office of the—of National Intelligence that was formed. We have a CIA that is demoralized. We have a fierce competition between the Department of Defense in a power struggle with the entire rest of the intelligence community. We have to do better, it's very important to the American people. We need competent leadership, we need objective collection, analysis and dissemination of information, and we need this to be done in a very, very non-partisan way.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think Mr. Goss left voluntarily?
Story continues below ? advertisement

REP. PELOSI: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Why, why was he relieved?

REP. PELOSI: Well, depending on the story, he's been on his way out for at least one month because of the struggle between him and Mr. Negroponte. But I think that this dismissal was triggered by what has been happening on the scandal front for the Republicans with the third in command, who was hired by Mr. Goss to, to be involved in these card games and whatever else it was.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you have any evidence to base that judgment?

REP. PELOSI: Just a strong political instinct and the timing of it all.

MR. RUSSERT: That Porter Goss is caught up in...

REP. PELOSI: No, no, not—he isn't. But the CIA and person that he appointed, who was a questionable appointee to begin with, is caught up in that, and it's a reflection on his leadership and his management.

MR. RUSSERT: But you have no evidence of that?

REP. PELOSI: I have no thought that Mr. Goss is caught up in any of this, no. I know him, I, I haven't any thought that he would be caught up in it. But it's all a reflection on the president of the United States, and they were going to take that off the table as soon as possible.

MR. RUSSERT: How is John Negroponte doing as head of all intelligence?

REP. PELOSI: Well, there's some concern about, as the Congress has said in recent weeks, Congresswoman Harman, Congressman Hoekstra, the chair of the committee, they have said they will review the budget more carefully, and perhaps withhold some funding until they see a better management at the directorship of National Intelligence.

MR. RUSSERT: And you share their concern?

REP. PELOSI: Well, they have information that, that leads them to that place. I think that, that it should be subjected to some scrutiny, yes.

MR. RUSSERT: It looks like General Michael Hayden, formerly of the National Security Agency, will be the new head of the CIA. Would you support that nomination?

REP. PELOSI: I have serious concerns about General Hayden. First of all, he's too closely tied to this question of domestic surveillance, which should be looked into, but not in the course of a confirmation hearing for the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. But I harken back to what I said before:

There's a power struggle going on between the Department of Defense and the entire rest of the intelligence community. So I don't see how you have a four-star general heading up the CIA. There has to be more people that could be drawn upon. These people are all just this little clique. They play musical chairs. They're all far too close to the president politically, and I think that, that the confidence that everyone needs in the CIA would be better instilled if we had someone else.

MR. RUSSERT: So you would vote against Hayden if you had the opportunity?

REP. PELOSI: I don't have the opportunity, but I would, as I say, raise a serious question.

MR. RUSSERT: If you were senator, you would urge your Democratic senators from California to vote against him?

REP. PELOSI: Well, I, I don't—as I say, until some of these questions are answered, I don't think it's a good appoint—I, I've worked with General Hayden over the years. I don't think it's a good appointment to the CIA. He may be good for something else, but not for the CIA.

MR. RUSSERT: You expressed concerns about the eavesdropping program. You would not end that program.

REP. PELOSI: I believe that, again, our, our Congress and our president must have the best possible intelligence, and it's possible to do that under the law.

MR. RUSSERT: But you would, you would end the existing program?

REP. PELOSI: No, I wouldn't end the existing program. I would do it under the law. I would do it under the law. There—the law is very clear, it gives the administration a great deal of latitude in terms of 72 hours and, and all it is—you know, the excuse that the administration uses is that they say it's too much work at the Department of Justice to uphold our law and our Constitution. I don't think so. I've told the attorney general, "Hire more people. But it, it, it shouldn't take you—we shouldn't have a violation of the law because you don't have enough lawyers to be able to certify that something should go to the FISA court." Again, it all comes back to protecting the American people. And as we protect and defend the American people, we protect our Constitution.

But, again, there's very little information available on this. My concern with the administration is that they are heralding that, "Dozens of briefings were held with so many members of Congress that people know what this is," that, that's simply not the case. So let's just have a congressional review of it, very dispassionately, with the eye to protecting the American people, but also to have real truth in what we're talking about as to what it is, what the law is, and, and, and who knows about it.

MR. RUSSERT: But to be clear, you would still authorize intercepting phone calls, you would just have a different legal process.

REP. PELOSI: I would say that the FISA, the FISA law allows the president to do what he needs to do to get the intelligence for the American people, but it must be done under the law, and that law is very specific.

MR. RUSSERT: I saw in the USA Today in December of ‘05 this story, and I'll read it to you and our viewers. "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi switched gears and embraced a call to begin an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq," which is quite striking, because in May of 2004 you were on this program, and I asked you specifically, "Should there be withdrawal of U.S. troops by a date certain," and this is exactly what you said. Let's watch.

(Videotape, May 30, 2004):

REP. PELOSI: No. I do not. I believe that because of the mess that has been made in Iraq we have to stay to stabilize Iraq. We have to secure the situation, because now, although it wasn't the case before the war, now it has become a hotbed of terrorist activity.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Why have you changed your view?

REP. PELOSI: Well, that was a year and a half later by the time I said what I said, and it was on the basis of some very expert advice. As you know, Congressman Jack Murtha has 35 years of experience in protecting our men and women in uniform and being a champion for our national security. I believe that we need a better plan. Our troops—let's—I was just in the Persian Gulf. Every chance I get I want to praise them for their valor, their patriotism and the sacrifice they're willing to make. They've done their job. But the plan—they deserve a better plan getting out of Iraq than the president, than the president gave them going in.

MR. RUSSERT: But Congress...

REP. PELOSI: But my—but what I called for there was not an immediate withdrawal. That's how they characterized it. What I did was to support what Mr. Murtha was saying, which was a responsible redeployment of troops over the horizon to protect our interests in case we were threatened by terrorism or our interests were threatened in the region. The characterization of it was more of an immediate withdrawal than the actual proposal was.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, are you for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq with—by the end of the year?

REP. PELOSI: I—what our Democratic position is, and our real security agenda is, that 2006 must be a year of significant transition in Iraq. It's time for the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their government and for their security. And again, that we must have a plan that is worthy of these troops and their sacrifice and the sacrifice of the American people.
Story continues below ? advertisement

MR. RUSSERT: But you said that, in ‘04, that you were concerned about stabilizing Iraq, securing Iraq, that it has become a hotbed of terrorism activity. Has anything changed?

REP. PELOSI: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think it's secure? Do you think it's stable?

REP. PELOSI: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think it's a hotbed for—of...

REP. PELOSI: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: Then why would you withdraw troops?

REP. PELOSI: Because it's not a—yes, I would withdraw them because, on the strength of expert advice, and now you see the generals speaking out on this, that—so much time went by, there was a year and a half between those two statements, and what we had—still had not seen was a plan on the part of the president. The president continued to dig a hole in Iraq, he refuses to come out of there and see the daylight and know there, there's change. There are only two courses of action in Iraq: the president's to stay the course and let some other president sweep up after him, or what the Democrats are saying, 2006 must be a year of significant transition in Iraq with the Iraqis taking responsibility.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, some Democrats, the number two Democrat in the House, in the House, Steny Hoyer, says this, "I believe that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation's security and credibility." That sounds like Nancy Pelosi in May of ‘04.

REP. PELOSI: Well, you're—you know, it's about time, it's about time. Steny said that six, eight months ago. Now all Democrats are united, House and Senate, around the principle of significant transition in 2006.

MR. RUSSERT: Will you be accused of cutting and running?

REP. PELOSI: It's not a question of cutting and running, it's a question of having the Iraqis transition into their taking responsibility. We have lost now, what, over 2400 of our young men and women, we've lost—many of them--16,000 injured, half of them permanently, it's over $300 billion dollars now, it's a trillion-dollar war, all things taken into consideration, if it ended today, in the cost and reputation for us around the world. So when you make these decisions, they're in a place and time and evaluation of the situation, and you have to weigh different equities.

MR. RUSSERT: So just cut our losses?

REP. PELOSI: You have to weigh different equities. No, you have to have a plan to transition the Iraqis so they can take—they've had an election, they now have a prime minister, and it—and he should then now form a government for them to take control of themselves. Listen, Secretary Rumsfeld just said recently that we would be negotiating with the new government as to how long we would stay in Iraq. Well, the president says he's not going to have politicians in Washington influence that decision, I don't think politicians in Iraq should influence that decision. I think it should be our decision about how our national interest is best served. And in the course of a year and a half, the circumstances on the ground are not improved, then we have to consider other options. But I say again, the American people, and especially our troops, deserve a better plan to get out than they had getting in.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to gasoline prices. This is how Tom Friedman in The New York Times wrote about it. "What would OPEC do if it wanted to keep America addicted to oil? That's easy. OPEC would urge the U.S. Congress to deal with the current spike in gasoline prices either by adopting the Republican proposal to give American drivers $100 dollars each, so they could continue driving gas-guzzling cars and buy gasoline at the current $3.50 a gallon, or by adopting the Democrats' proposal for a 60-day lifting of the federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents a gallon. Either one would be fine with OPEC. ... We now have a Congress proposing to do exactly what our worst enemies would like us to do - subsidize our addiction to gasoline by breaking into our kids' piggy banks to make it easier for us to pay the prices demanded by our oil pushers. ... There is something really disturbing about the utterly shameless, utterly over-the-top Republican pandering and Democratic point-scoring that have been masquerading as governing in response to this energy crisis."

Brazil has converted its entire automobile flight to sugar—fleet to sugar cane.

REP. PELOSI: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: Will the Democrats propose a total energy independence, weaning us off of oil?

REP. PELOSI: We do.

MR. RUSSERT: Within a very specific time?

REP. PELOSI: Absolutely and I don't know...

MR. RUSSERT: When?

REP. PELOSI: I don't know—Democrats are pro—we have proposed in our real security, we rolled this out in March. We'll roll it out again in June as part of our domestic—because this is a national security issue and it is a domestic issue. Democrats are proposing that we will be energy—are declaring energy independence for the American people and we intend to achieve it within 10 years.

MR. RUSSERT: How?

REP. PELOSI: We intend to send our energy dollars to the Midwest and rural America, not to the Middle East. We intend to focus on biofuels, we intend—on alternative energy, conservation and efficiency. As you said, Brazil is doing this. These cars are made by GM and Ford.

MR. RUSSERT: But this will be huge subsidies to bring it about. Would you be willing to roll back the Bush tax cut to pay for it?

REP. PELOSI: This isn't—we are willing to put all of our, our initiatives on the table. We think they compete very well. One thing we'll roll back immediately are the Bush subsidies and royalty holidays which are around $20 billion dollars.

MR. RUSSERT: But would you repeal the Bush tax cut?

REP. PELOSI: Well, what I'm—what we're talking about here on energy independence is something that will save the American people money.

MR. RUSSERT: But it will take—it all takes money, Congressman. The Brazilian government has subsidized their industry.

REP. PELOSI: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you be willing to roll back the Bush tax cuts?

REP. PELOSI: I'll tell you something, if we could bring the war in Iraq to a conclusion, we would save a lot of money and could declare energy independence and this is the, this is the OPEC countries' worst nightmare, that we would be energy independent. The technology is there, the commitment is there, Democrats have a goal. We have a plan. We have a timetable to accomplish it and we intend to do so. And you know what? Do you know what we spend? Fifty billion dollars a year just protecting the sea lanes for the oil to come from the Middle East. That money can be spent to invest in this.

MR. RUSSERT: But why are you so reluctant to say you'll roll back the Bush tax cuts? Most Democrats voted against them.

REP. PELOSI: Well, I, myself, am against them. But the point is, is there are choices to be made in our budgets, and, and I will tell you more the Democrats are going to do when we take over the Congress of the United States. But this energy independence is worth—it is a high priority and I think the American people would agree. Now, we have a national security issue, an environmental issue, an economic issue and an energy issue, all well served by—by our energy independence. We have put this in writing. We are committed to it and this week our rural caucus will roll out, roll out.

MR. RUSSERT: But the concern people have, truth in packaging, honesty, authenticity. How are you going to pay for this?

REP. PELOSI: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: When people were asked about the government in terms of polling, do you approve of the U.S. Congress or disapprove? Look at these numbers: approve, 22 percent; disapprove, 65 percent.

REP. PELOSI: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: Sixty-five percent of Americans disapprove. And when asked why do you disapprove, look at this: We're tired of the, the Democrats and Republicans fighting, 44.

REP. PELOSI: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: Nothing getting done, 36; too many members corrupt or unethical, 34. The American people have a bipartisan view of Congress.

REP. PELOSI: But that's the way it's always been.
Story continues below ? advertisement

MR. RUSSERT: They don't like it.

REP. PELOSI: That's the way it's always been. But let me say this.

MR. RUSSERT: It's not always.

REP. PELOSI: No, I meant when they don't like Congress, they don't like everybody in Congress. But let me say this, one of the principles, the first, one of the first principles that we have when you're talking about paying for it, Democrats are committed to pay as you go, no deficit spending. This has been a—this is our commitment. And that's what we say to them.

MR. RUSSERT: So you'll balance the budget next year?

REP. PELOSI: We did it before.

MR. RUSSERT: You'll balance the budget?

REP. PELOSI: We can't budget and balance—President Bush has taken us to such a place you can't balance in one year, but we'll put ourselves on a course of balance. But we did when President Clinton was president because of the Democratic economic package, we were on a course of action...

MR. RUSSERT: So wait a minute. So they'll be no increase in spending if the Democrats take control of Congress?

REP. PELOSI: No deficit spending. I pledge that to you. No deficit spending, pay as you go. Pay as you go.

MR. RUSSERT: So even if you had to raise taxes to pay for the new program?

REP. PELOSI: Well, you put everything on the table and you decide what are the priorities for the American people. But a commitment to no deficit spending is a long-term one with the Democrats, and we were successful. When President Clinton was president, their last four budgets—his last four budgets were in surplus. We came out of the Clinton years $5.6 trillion dollars in surplus, surplus. The Bush policies turn that around. Now we're $9 trillion dollars debt ceiling when we could've been eight—debt-free as a nation by 2008. This is a very high priority for us because it's a responsibility to our country, it's a responsibility to our children that we do not heap all of this debt on them. So this is—this is a new era. We've had a reversal of roles here. The Democrats, no deficit spending, pay as you go. And that's what we will do on the first day of Congress is to pass that rule for, for budgeting in the House.

MR. RUSSERT: Headlines in the Capitol Hill paper: "Dems prepare for transition." Today's Washington Post: "Confident Dems lay out agenda." You're measuring the draperies in the speaker's office.

REP. PELOSI: No we're not. No we're not. The American people would like to know what we would do if we take over.

MR. RUSSERT: Ah, absolutely. If they...

REP. PELOSI: And that's what...

MR. RUSSERT: ...and let me ask you about that, because you told The Washington Post that there will be investigations if the Democrats regain control of the House. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee would be someone named John Conyers. I went up to his Web site and this is what's on his Web site: "Stand with Congressman Conyers. Demand an investigation of administration abuses of power and make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."

REP. PELOSI: Democrats are not about impeachment. Democrats are about bringing the country together. This is what we have to do.

MR. RUSSERT: But that's the man who would be chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

REP. PELOSI: Yeah, but that is not where the decision would be made. This is a—what I had told The Washington Post was that we will assume the responsibility that this Congress—this do-nothing, rubber-stamp Congress, rubber-stamp for President Bush—hasn't done, has not exercised the congressional obligation and responsibility to have oversight.

MR. RUSSERT: So there would be investigations.

REP. PELOSI: Well, what I told them is we will have an investigation of energy prices. We will have an investigation. Then how that was done...

MR. RUSSERT: How about of the war?

REP. PELOSI: That would be if—I said we'd have hearings on the war. We'd have hearings on the war. But I don't see us going to a place of an impeachment or all of that.

MR. RUSSERT: Is impeachment off the table?

REP. PELOSI: Well, you never know where the facts take you, but the—for any president. But, but that isn't what we're about. What we're about is going there and, and having high ethical standards, fiscal soundness and a level of civility that brushes away all this fierce partisanship.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, should John Conyers take his Web site down, talking about impeachment?

REP. PELOSI: John Conyers does what he does on his Web site. John Conyers is an enthusiastic advocate. I am the leader. Our caucus will decide where we go. But it's not—you don't decide to impeach. You—the facts support something like this, and that's not where we're going.

MR. RUSSERT: But the impression, Congresswoman, is that the Democrats take control of Congress it's payback. They're going to have the subpoena power...
Story continues below ? advertisement

REP. PELOSI: No. That's not the case.

MR. RUSSERT: ...and there's going to be investigation...

REP. PELOSI: Well, that's wrong. Well, we will have subpoena power.

MR. RUSSERT: ...after investigation. You will have subpoena power.

REP. PELOSI: We will have subpoena power, and that's why the Republicans are so afraid that we will be able to show the public how they arrived at a prescription drug bill that is born of corruption. The cost of corruption is, is huge to the consumer, whether it's a sen—middle-income seniors paying more at the pharmacy, whether it's the—all American consumers paying more at the pump, or home heating oil. How did we get to this place? Those—that is worthy of scrutiny. It's not—investigation does not equate to impeachment. Investigation is the requirement of Congress. It's about checks and balances.

MR. RUSSERT: Here's how USA Today, however, characterized it. "Just when you think Congress' obtuseness about its tawdry image can't get any worse, its members manage to outdo themselves. And while Democrats might think the ethics scandals will work against Republicans this fall, betrayal of the public trust clearly knows no partisan bounds."

REP. PELOSI: That's right.

MR. RUSSERT: "The top Democrat on the ethics committee of the House of Representatives, Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, was reported, first by The Wall Street Journal, to have quietly directed at least $178 million dollars in taxpayer funds to a network of home-district friends, business partners, contributors, former employees. Along the way, he curiously became a multimillionaire in real estate, and federal investigators are looking at whether he failed to properly disclose scores of newly acquired assets."

You have Congressman Jefferson of Louisiana, someone pleaded guilty and said he had paid him bribes. You have Cynthia McKinney investigated for roughing up a police officer. You have Congressman Kennedy who, in the wee hours, entangling himself with the police department. So the Democrats have ethical...

REP. PELOSI: May I respond to that?

MR. RUSSERT: ...the Democrats have ethical challenges, too, correct?

REP. PELOSI: No, no. This—you're talking two completely different things.

You're talking about some Democrats who have an ethical challenge. Mr.

Jefferson—I've asked for the Ethics Committee to investigate Mr. Jefferson. You have never seen a Republican ask for an ethics investigation of the Republicans. You're talking about some individual challenges that those people will have to deal with.

On the Republican side, you have what The Washington Post called a "criminal enterprise" operating out of the Republican leader's office. You have corruption, cronyism and incompetence which has cost—has a cost to the American people. Whether again, price at the pump, of, of price at the pharmacy, or of Katrina. This is—has an impact on the American people. It's a part of a system. It is quite different from personal indiscretions which have—and violations of the law, if so, in Mr. Jefferson's case. But that is something quite different than a system that is condoned, enabled and—by the Republican caucus in its entirety and they—because they benefit from it. And as far as energy is concerned...

MR. RUSSERT: But wait, wait a minute. But what about the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid, in terms of money from Jack Abramoff?

REP. PELOSI: What about him?

MR. RUSSERT: Well, let me show you. This is the Associated Press: "Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid portrays convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff's activities as involving only Republicans. But Abramoff's billing records and congressional correspondence tell a different story. They show Abramoff's lobbying team billed for nearly two dozen contacts with Reid's office in a single year. ... Reid also wrote at least four letters to the Bush administration helpful to Indian tribes Abramoff represented, often collecting donations from Abramoff-related sources around the same time. And in the midst of the contacts, Abramoff's firm hired one of Reid's top legislative aides to lobby for the tribal and Marianas clients. The aide then helped throw a fund-raiser for Reid at Abramoff's office."

Here's the numbers in terms of lobbyist contributions: from 2004 to 2006, lobbyists gave Republicans $20 million dollars, Democrats 17.8.

REP. PELOSI: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: You get your money—both parties get their money from lobbyists.

REP. PELOSI: Well, let me say this: Our party is standing for honest leadership and open government. We will turn the most corrupt Congress in history to the most honest and open—and maybe it'll take a woman to clean up the house. Maybe that's what we'll have to have.

But I, but I stand by...

MR. RUSSERT: Will you bar all lobbyist contributions?

REP. PELOSI: I—our, our proposal is in writing. Senator Reid and I put...

MR. RUSSERT: But will you ban all lobbyist contributions?

REP. PELOSI: I'm for, I'm for what we call clean campaigns. That is...

MR. RUSSERT: Disclosure.

REP. PELOSI: Well, no. Public funding of campaigns. I think we have to break the link completely. I think we have to break the link completely.

MR. RUSSERT: Who's going to pay for that? You think the American taxpayer will want to pay for campaigns?

REP. PELOSI: Well, you can—it can be an add-on. Or the American people can decide...

MR. RUSSERT: What do you mean, add-on to what?

REP. PELOSI: They can add-on to their—in other words, you're paying your considerable taxes, thank you for your patriotism, and you can add on to that to, to get a...

MR. RUSSERT: But voluntary—it doesn't pay for the presidential system, barely. How, how...

REP. PELOSI: Well, well that's a decision the country has to make. But you're asking me would I ban, I'm answering back what I would do. But what we do...

MR. RUSSERT: But will, will a Democratic Congress ban all contributions from lobbyists?

REP. PELOSI: We could do that.

MR. RUSSERT: You will?

REP. PELOSI: We could do that. But what we have done, just so you know, is completely broken the link in our proposal between the lobbyists and the, and the, the Congress. The revolving door—because people talk about contributions as if they're the only thing. But it's not that, it's about jobs, it's about the revolving door, it's about a thing—a, a symbiotic relationship that is unhealthy for the American people. In our honest leadership, open government proposal we break that link between them, whether it's travel, ban all gifts, ban all travel from...

MR. RUSSERT: So no congressional staffers will be able to lobby after they leave a congressional office?

REP. PELOSI: We, we make it a two-year—that's what we can do under the law.

It's one year now, we make it two years. The Republicans are sweating it out.

MR. RUSSERT: Why not a total ban on ever lobbying?

REP. PELOSI: Well, you can't say that for the rest of somebody's life, if they ever served in government that they can never do another job. But you can discourage it and you can put enough distance between. But we must do it. And here's where we're going to do it, and we come to Congress the next year, the first day, we're going to come in and pass our honest leadership, open government...

MR. RUSSERT: You're going to be the speaker?

REP. PELOSI: Well, if that's the case. We—I just want a Democratic speaker.

MR. RUSSERT: But in, but in 2004, you predicted you would be the speaker.

It didn't happen.

REP. PELOSI: I, I, I'm, I thought John Kerry was going to be president of the United States.

MR. RUSSERT: You guaranteed that.

REP. PELOSI: That I guaranteed.

MR. RUSSERT: Can you guarantee you'll be the speaker?
Story continues below ? advertisement

REP. PELOSI: No. I can say that I can—I can say what I said then. If the election were held today, we would have a Democratic majority. And on that very first day, we will have a new direction for America, for all Americans, not the privileged few. We're going to make America safer by passing homeland security recommendations immediately, give America a raise by having—increasing the minimum wage, make health care affordable by negotiating for better prices, and prove the—lower the cost of college education by cutting in half the interest on student loans. We're going to be fair...

MR. RUSSERT: And, and all this without increasing the deficit?

REP. PELOSI: ...help the—exactly.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, we'll...

REP. PELOSI: No deficit spending...

MR. RUSSERT: ...well, we'll be...

REP. PELOSI: ...high ethical standards, civility and debate.

MR. RUSSERT: And it all adds up?

REP. PELOSI: You'll see. It's going to be a new day.

MR. RUSSERT: We'll find out. And we'll be watching. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, thank you for you views.

REP. PELOSI: Thank you, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: Next up, our roundtable focuses on the midterm elections. Kelly O'Donnell, he—she talked this morning to Vice President Cheney in Dubrovnik, Croatia.

And both George W. Bushes. One of them will be here right after this on MEET THE PRESS.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12612211/page/5/