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...

REP. PELOSI: No. That’s not the case.

Story continues below ↓

advertisement | your ad here

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?

CONTINUED

< Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >

Discuss Story On Newsvine
Rate Story:
View popularLowHigh
Email
Instant Message
Print