TOP
Nancy Pelosi
Chapters
The FRONTLINE Interviews
Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
Nancy Pelosi was first elected as a U.S. representative (D-Calif.) in 1987. From 2007 until 2011, she served as the speaker of the House and resumed that role again in 2019.
The following interview was conducted by FRONTLINE’s Jim Gilmore on Dec. 6, 2021. It has been edited for clarity and length.
This interview appears in:
Text Interview:
Highlight text to share it
January 6 and the Aftermath
January 6th, of course.We have a lot of people talking about it but wanted to know from you, how do you hear about what has happened to your office, to the fact that your people in your office are hiding behind closed doors, that the crowds in the Capitol are hunting for you, are chanting your name as they go down the halls?How do you hear about that?
I heard about what was—well, when this happened on Jan. 6, I was presiding, and security pulled me from the podium so quickly I didn't even bring my phone with me; I just left it there.And we went to an undisclosed location before the invasion of the chamber.When I saw what was happening by seeing it on TV, and then, of course in conversation we could confirm, verify what we were seeing on TV.
When I came back to the Capitol later and went to the room where the Democrats and Republicans were gathered from the House and saw my staff for the first time, is when I really saw how traumatized they were from what had happened by this assault on the Capitol, the insurrection against the Congress, the Constitution and the Capitol of the United States.
But nothing—I'll never forgive them for the trauma that they caused the staff.
And we do talk to a couple of people about what that was like, and it was awful.
It was awful.
The next couple of days you play an important role.One of the things you do is you call Gen. [Mark] Milley, and it's an unprecedented call, conversation in a lot of ways.What were you worried about?What was the risk to America when you were making those phone calls?
Well, it was an unprecedented call because we had an unprecedented insurrection incited by the president of the United States.My concern was a multi-concern.One is, a recognition that—that the current occupant of the White House at the time was not a well person, not a patriot, not a person who cared about our country, and he had his hand on the—well, he had a lot of power, shall we say, that I wanted to make sure was balanced by other considerations.
And that was the purpose of my call to Gen. Milley, to make sure that the people in the White House were not feeding the flame of his insanity, but in fact were honoring their oath of office to the Constitution of the United States.
When Gen. Milley told you that there would be no worries about him getting hold of nuclear weapons or having an attack because of the way it was set up, what was your reaction to what the general told you?
Well, my challenge was multiple.It was about that.It was about his access to nuclear power, but it was also about what he could do as president between the 6th, now the 7th of January and the 20th of January, what—how he could use the military against the incoming president, how they could endanger the inauguration itself by flyovers and who was in charge of all of that.
So it was about protecting the inauguration, the peaceful transfer of power from where we were to when Jan. 20 would be, as well as the danger to our country for the president acting in an irresponsible way.
Pelosi’s Early Years in Congress
I'm going to bring you all the way back now to 1987.Why do you run for Congress?
I had never intended in my whole life to run for public office.I'm basically a very shy person.I like putting other people, as chair of the California Democratic Party, promoting others and the rest.But at that time people came to me and said, "You should run."It was [a] very sad time; we lost our congresswoman, Sala Burton, and she really was the one who said, "You must run.Promise me you will run.It will make me feel better."And so I agreed to look at it.And then she passed away.It was very sad for us because we all loved her very much.I never had intended to run for office.
I'm now going to take you through some critical moments with the four presidents.Let's talk about your position on Iraq during George [W.] Bush's time as president.
Yeah.Well, at the time of the discussion of Iraq, I was the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, and as such I was a member of the Gang of Four, or Eight, depending on the configuration to—had to receive all of the information and intelligence that the administration had.
I saw it. I read it.My staff did as well.And I knew that there was no intelligence to support the threat that the administration was presenting.
When I said the intelligence does not support the threat, the press said to me, "Are you calling the president a liar?"I said, "No, I'm stating a fact. It's not there."
And I told my members—I never encourage anybody to vote one way or another on war; that's a personal—a decision they have to make.But I told them why I was voting against the war, and overwhelmingly, the Democrats voted against that initiation of hostilities into Iraq.1
1
New York Times: House Passes Iraq Resolution With 296 to 133 Vote
In the Senate, the chairman of the committee at that time—for a moment ... the Democrats had control of the Senate, and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee was Democratic Sen. Bob Graham of Florida.He saw the same intelligence I did.He voted the same way, voted no.But he didn't persuade his colleagues in the Senate, the Democrats, to do so.Most disappointing.
I mean, he was great.But they all just, for some reason, voted for the war.
Was that a risky position to take politically at that point?
Well, people had told me it was, but again, I didn't intend to run for Congress; I didn't intend to run for leadership, so I didn't know that—it was a position that I believed.So I had no choice.I mean, here they were contending that a certain position about Saddam Hussein and development of nuclear weapons, and it wasn't true.
The responsibility to put our young men and women, whatever their ages are, in harm's way is a big one, and I didn't take it lightly.
Now, people told me at the time, "If you don't vote for this war, you have no future in this Congress or in this party."I said, "What does that mean to me?If I'm the only vote against the war, I will vote against the war."
The Financial Crisis
2008, the financial crisis.I’d like to talk to you about the fact that—so you, there's a bipartisan action to vote for TARP [Troubled Assets Relief Program].An agreement, as some people have said, to hold hands and jump off the bridge together to save the country.
I haven't heard it characterized quite that way, but—
But Leader [John] Boehner was not able to get the votes.Was that a lesson for you about what you could or could not depend upon the GOP to do?Was that vote—as you're watching that vote go down, as the stock market is diving 700 points or whatever it was, what's the lesson learned from that moment?
Well, to tell you the honest truth, there wasn't—I wasn't really depending on Speaker Boehner—I mean, then-Leader Boehner, my friend.I respected him.I was depending on the president of the United States, and I basically had said, "I need names.I need names."We had agreed we'd get 120, they'd get 100, because we had the majority, but it would be a balanced vote on the legislation.
And the president said, "How could they vote against this?This is what we have to do."And I said, "I need names."But they—and then it was determined, well, we have to go forward with it.Even Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said, "It's worse if you don't."And I said, "I need names!I need numbers; I need names."
We provided many more than our 120.They provided far fewer of—there wasn't even half of what they were supposed to provide.
So you saw what happened that day.It was most unfortunate.
But after, when it happened, they said, "Why would you expect us to vote for something?We don't believe in intervention.We don't believe in supervision.We don't believe in regulation.And when the walls come tumbling down, we don't believe in intervention."That was true to their nature about not supporting governance.
Pelosi, Obama and the Affordable Care Act
Jumping up again now to when President [Barack] Obama is in office, you folks are all working on ACA, and the story goes—and you tell me what's right and what's wrong. Is that—
Well, I've done that before.
Yes, you have.And we listened to you.The story goes is that the fact is that you were counseling the White House, that, you know, the president was talking about bipartisanship, but you were counseling also the fact that you'd learned lessons.You knew that if you had the votes, if you had the majorities, you should push for what you want, what the Democrats stand for.And you were counseling to some extent, go forward; we have the ability to do this; it's important to move forward.But were you listened to?
Oh, I think so.We eventually did go forward.It wasn't really the White House.It was the Senate, certain people in the Senate.
But we always strive for bipartisanship.That's really important.We have a responsibility to try to find that.But when we know it's not there, we have to recognize that as well.And to have time go by where our position gets misrepresented by the Republicans rather than coming closer to us was, I think, most unfortunate.
But we did pass the bill, and that's really what mattered.
... When Scott Brown was elected and took [Sen. Edward] Kennedy's seat in my state of Massachusetts, things changed big time.And there's reporting on the White House meeting that took place, and there were conversations about going small to get [the ACA] through.Rahm Emanuel was talking to people in your caucus, and you were not happy with that because of the fact that you thought that was undercutting you.You were counseling them, "No, no, no, we go big.We go big; we go fast; we get this done.We have the numbers; we have the votes.We need to do this."Talk a little bit about that moment in history.
I wasn't worried about Rahm Emanuel undercutting me.And we were very good friends, as you probably know.I was concerned about us walking away from the opportunity that we had of a generation to pass the Affordable Care Act.So that was really more my focus rather than what was going on with members.The members—some of the members that he was talking to were never going to vote for the bill anyway.
So in any case, we had—when Sen. Kennedy's seat was lost, people asked me in the press, "Now what?Now what?"And I said, "Well, we have an opportunity of a generation.We're not going to let anything stand in our way to pass the Affordable Care Act.If there is a big fence blocking us, we will push open the gate.If that doesn't work, we'll climb the fence.If that doesn't work, we'll pole-vault in.If that doesn't work, we'll parachute in.But we're not letting anything stand in the way of passing the Affordable Care Act."
So when we succeeded, they said, "Well, which did you do?"We just pushed open that gate, because we had our members.And not only that: We had the nuns.2We have so—all of the outside VIPs, very important people, volunteers in policy and in politics helping us push open that gate.
So we're never going to walk away from the big opportunity.
In 2010, of course, and I know it's consequences of TARP, and it's also consequences of health care, but the Republicans come after you tooth and nail.They spend $70 million on ads focused on you.They have a bus driving around the country focused on you.They're very effective in some ways of hurting other Democrats by using you as a target, as a victim, as a tool.
You're enjoying this too much.
I am?No, no, no.
This part of it.
Do you, looking back to that time, do you reexamine your strategy—
No.
—or is this just something you expected?
No. What, you mean we would not pass the Affordable Care Act and have 20 million more people have access to health care?But I appreciate how you started this, Jim, because I don't believe that we lost the election because of the Affordable Care Act.It had kind of been an easy out for press to pick that up.I think it was more about TARP, so I appreciate your mentioning it.
With TARP, it was supposed to be bipartisan, fully bipartisan, but we had to pass it.The public had the impression we were choosing Wall Street over Main Street.That was not the case.We were doing this for our economy.The chairman of the Fed told us if we had not acted immediately, we would not even have an economy four days later.So it was urgent that we pass it.
But I think that had more to do with the election of 2010 and what happened after—[Occupy] Wall Street and then Tea Party and that use of the right and the left taking hardline positions against the status quo.I think that had more to do with the election than the Affordable Care Act, because most of the people who lost didn't even vote for the Affordable Care Act.
But the attacks on you?How did you take that?
That's—you're in the arena; you've got to take a punch getting in that arena.You've got to take a punch.You've got to be ready to throw a punch for the children.But I didn't worry about it, about me.
But I did not like it from the standpoint of, one of my goals here was to increase the number of women in Congress.There were only 23 when I came, 12 Democrats; now we have 90.But that was—that's not an encouragement to women to run, to see somebody become a target.It's dangerous because it's threatening, and they were very vile and threatening and crude and all of that, in addition to their ads.
They did that again in 2018.They had 137,000 ads against me, but it didn't work that time.
During this period of time and through a lot of the history of—back to 2003, '06 and on, the GOP has gone through a lot of changes.And it's the Tea Party, as you say, came in, and they became much more partisan, and Washington became more partisan.I brought this up at one point—we talked to [Eric] Cantor at some point, and we brought this up, and he blamed you.He said, "When Nancy Pelosi became leader and then speaker, everything around here became more partisan.We could have worked on ACA with Obama, but not with Nancy Pelosi."He blames you.Your reaction?
You know what? I don't want to react to him.He's insignificant. He's not even here.And by the way, actually, if you really are seeking the truth, except for whatever C-R-A-P they come up with, Newt Gingrich was the one who made the change from the honest debate on issues, the role of government and the rest, when he became speaker.He became—he was coaching them to call us all traitors and treasonous and all the rest of that.He was the one who made the big change.
Why do they focus on you?Why do they say things like that?
Because I was effective.I was the biggest fundraiser they'd ever seen, apart from somebody running for president; that we were able to pass our legislation.So politically, policy-wise and the rest, if you're effective, you're a target.
And you became one hell of a target for them.
Wow, you're enjoying this part of the conversation.I thought we had 20 minutes, and you're spending this time on that.Let me just say this.
We're moving to Trump now.
This is, you know, it's Teddy Roosevelt.He made the most beautiful speech about being in the arena.You're either a spectator, or you're in the arena.And I recognize that I was in the arena, and that's what went with the territory.But we came back.
Pelosi and Trump
Donald Trump comes to power, and that first meeting you go to with leadership to the White House, and Trump starts lying about numbers of voters and numbers of audience members at the inauguration, and you stand up to him on that very first meeting.What did that meeting define for you about Trump, and how did it define the strategy on how you would have to deal with this president?
Well, it confirmed.It didn't define anything about him, but it confirmed.This meeting with the bipartisan, bicameral leadership of the Congress is a historic meeting with the president of the United States following his inauguration.This is historic.I've been to that meeting on a number of occasions and—but never one like this.In fact, in the room, there wasn't anybody else except Mitch McConnell who had been to such a meeting.
And in those meetings, the president of the United States speaks, and then the speaker speaks, and then the majority leader speaks, and then the minority leader and the minority leader.But these people had not been to the meetings, so they didn't realize that there was a protocol, including the president of the United States.
So basically, we go to the meeting, and it's, again, a historic occasion.And the president of the United States—and I say, how is he going to begin the meeting?Is he going to quote the Bible?Is he going to quote our founders?Is he going to say something about his family and how he got to be here?How will the president begin this very historic meeting and what this means to him?
That was not how he started the meeting.
He puts his hands on the desk like this, slouches into the desk and said, "You know, I won the popular vote because 5 million people voted who were not legal to vote, and so I won the popular vote."
Now, none of these people understood—I'm the minority leader then; I'm not the speaker.They didn't know that there was a format, a protocol, and neither did the president.
So I thought I would take the opportunity to tell the president that what he was saying was not true, that it was not true.
And he said, "I'm not even counting California."
"It's not true, Mr. President.And if you want to have a discussion about issues, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can attest that we need to stipulate to facts.Whether it's a number that we want to have for a budget or a timetable that we want to reach, you have to stipulate to facts."And they knew that, because that's how you—you have to begin with the facts.
"And what you're saying is not true.There is no data, no truth, no facts, no evidence to support what you're saying.And why I'm saying this to you is because I thought we would be able to talk about infrastructure: what is our goal financially, our timetable and the rest.But if you're not going to stipulate to facts, then we can't—we can't proceed effectively."
So he said, "Oh, infrastructure, infrastructure.We're going to do that right away, right, Mitch?We're going to do that.We're going to have a trillion-dollar program.We're going to do it right away."And Mitch says, "Not unless it's paid for."
So then, when the senators left, they went out, the Republican senators said—I think there were two of them—they said "The president said that he won the popular vote, and I told him it wasn't true."Why they said that, I don't know, because I don't think it was too complimentary of the president.But I think they wanted to co-opt my telling him that.
But I wasn't going to tell them.I don't say what goes on in a presidential meeting.
Then Chuck [Schumer] went out, and they asked him, that Nancy said it wasn't—no, the president said he won the popular vote, and Chuck said, "Yeah, but Nancy told him it wasn't true."He's the one who told them that part.So then the press converged.I had already come to the Capitol.I didn't go out to the press; I came to the Capitol.
And they said, "What did you think when he did that?"And I said, "Well, I prayed for him.But more importantly, I prayed for the United States of America."
Imagine abusing that first historic meeting for politics or not—falsehood.
So it didn't tell me anything.It just confirmed, sadly, what we probably all knew.
We talked to a lot of other people about other events in that period of time with Trump.But one thing I'd like to ask you about is after the first impeachment, what was your relationship like with Trump at that point, post-impeachment?
I think it was demonstrated at the meeting that we had at the White House, the bipartisanship, bicameral meeting with his—some of his Cabinet and the rest, where he again went down a path of misrepresentation, treating Secretary [of Defense James] Mattis, who was no longer there, with great disrespect.He was horrible.Just his usual disrespect for his office, our office and our democracy.
So that's when I said to him, "Mr. President, with you, all roads lead to Putin."And that was, in my view—we're not allowed to bring phones or cameras into those meetings.They took the picture, thought that that was their big moment.And it was such a validation of how pathetic he is.
When [Joe] Biden becomes president—this is post-Jan. 6, of course; it's post-four years of Trump—what were you all up against at that point?
What were we up against?
Yeah.America was a different place in a lot of ways at that point.Expectations were different.When you came in and you knew what you needed to do, what was the situation?What was it like?What were you up against?
We say it a lot.This is the most important election of our time.But the election of Joe Biden was.It was so crucial to defeat the—that person who was in the White House.
But we had passed—we had been working on our Heroes Act for a long time but couldn't get much of it in because of the previous occupant of the White House not sharing our values.So we were ready from the standpoint of Congress with an agenda for the people.
And of course it was based on respecting governance and respecting science.When we're talking about COVID, that was very important.So if we were up against anything, it was a pandemic.What was good was that now we had on the horizon some vaccines, thank God—thank God and science.And we still had 20 days, a couple months more of an incoming president.
But we were prepared so that when President Biden took office, we moved quickly with the rescue package, which did just that: put shots in the arms, money in the pockets, people in jobs, children more safely in schools.And then we went on with the rest of the agenda that we're dealing with now.
So we're up against—it was glorious, actually.It wasn't negative, being against anything, except the heartbreak of so many people who had lost their lives and their livelihood because of the pandemic.
Pelosi and Biden
The infrastructure, the BBB [Build Back Better bill] and everything else you guys have done—the most aggressive legislation in a generation, at least—
Yeah.
What was the risk?
It was the opportunity. We see things as opportunity.
The opportunity and what the risk was, because you had to think about that.
I see everything as an opportunity.I see every risk, every crisis as an opportunity.And we had a president who had a big vision.And he wanted to work in a very bipartisan way.And when he was able to reach some agreement with—in a bipartisan way, on infrastructure, he made it clear that while that was important to him, he would not confine his vision to what was only possible with the Republicans in terms of infrastructure, because they were, again, ignoring science when it came to climate, ignoring governance when it came to some other legislation that relates to climate as well, regulation and the rest.
So we're so proud of him because he was so courageous, so visionary.And we're excited about the legislation, the rescue package for starters, which was big, and then we're calling it the BIF, the Bipartisanship Infrastructure Framework.That's not its official name. But also that the president was clear: "I want to find bipartisanship, but I won't confine my vision to that."
The importance of the victory in the House?
The victory in the House?
On BBB.
Oh, on BBB.I thought you meant last September. Nope, November.Well, that was important.We had very shared values in that regard.The challenge came when the Senate made it clear they weren't going for 3.5 [trillion] and that we had to reduce the number.So people get used to 3.5, and when you reduce the number, you have to keep everybody in the consensus.
So—but it was always very positive.I never had any doubt that we would pass it.We have lots of people who were getting, as I say, used to 3.5, which we—this bill is huge.Even at half of 3.5 it's huge, on top of 1.8 or .9 and the rescue 1.1, and the other, so that's 3, and now nearly 2, nearly $5 trillion.I think from the outside people see—the press likes to play up the differences and the rest, but we knew we had a strong consensus for a bill and that there was an agreement that would be reached.
I guess, again, it's lessons learned from the past, because you did this without the huge majorities that you had in the past to pass things.And there was a bit of division within the caucus between the moderates and the progressives, but you brought them all together.
There wasn't—when you say the moderates, it was about eight people who had—by and large, we had 95% of our caucus or 96% of our caucus unified.So there were a few who weren't, but when you only have a three-vote margin, everybody in the full spectrum are important.
But it's important to note that we all had a common goal and that we would reach it together.But there wasn't—the press—I guess it sells papers or something, sells ads—was just making it like there was a big break.And the moderates, the whole, shall we say, our new Democratic coalition which are the moderates, they were practically 100% for the legislation.Maybe a few of those eight were members of that.
But by and large, the moderates were very—there wasn't that division.But the press made it look that way, and then that feeds the flame of who can show that they're more progressive or more whatever.
But I don't—I don't spend a whole lot of time on that.The fact is, we had a president with a vision.We had a plan with a legislation.We had to cut it shorter.We knew we were going to pass it.
There's an understanding, though, that you've said in the past that's interesting because everybody says that you are very practical and you're very good at counting numbers.And one of the things that you talked about in the past with the Squad, I guess, where you said that power is a very important thing to understand because Washington is all about power. And having an audience, a Twitter audience compared to having votes in Congress is a very different thing.The lesson that has to be learned by any congressperson coming to Washington—about what power means—that you've learned about is what?
Well, I do think that it's important to have support in the public, however people receive their communication.And every one of our members is a valued member of ours.But let me harken back to your original question.
We only won the Affordable Care Act by one vote or two votes, depending on which bill you're counting.So we didn't have—even though we had a big margin, we didn't have all of those votes on the bill.It's always—it's frequently a close call, as it was this time.I think we just lost one vote on BBB.We lost maybe 30-some votes on the Affordable Care Act.
Just because you have a bigger margin doesn't mean they're all voting with you.
So our margin was even closer on the Affordable Care Act than it was on BIF or BBB.
What's the most important lesson you've ever learned about your job and doing your job successfully?Out of all these years, what's the thing you understood, maybe that you learned from your mom or your dad from the early, early days, what made you the speaker that you are?
You're saying "lessons learned" as if I have some regret or something.No, I don't.You mean in a positive way.
The most important thing is to listen to people and to respect their point of view.We have a very diverse caucus—generationally, geographically, gender, gender identity, ethnically.Did I say that?And I represent a district that is magnificent.And I love it, and I'm so honored to represent it.However, not everybody represents a district like that, and they have the respect for their own district.
So we—I always kind of speak to members about respecting everyone who's here and the people who sent them here.In recent years, we see a big difference between—across the aisle than even there was before.
But I would say respect, listening, consensus-building.And people think that we have a top-down thing.We really never have, no matter who might say that or think it.It's always been bubble-up, and that's how we think our economy should work as well, is listening to meet the needs of the people as they see their concerns.
And again, it's all about the numbers.You just really have to know how to count.
So when somebody isn't involved in the development of the legislation, because you're either—it's like any product: You are designing it, you're making it, you're financing it, and you are advertising it.So when we're involved in all of that, if you're not on the committee that is either conceiving or making the bill, how can you be as strong a promoter unless you understand it and you give us your view as to what it's about so that you can promote it?And of course, financing it is where the rubber meets the road sometimes because people don't want to have to spend the money to do the job that is effective in terms of the design, manufacture and promoting of the legislation.
So it's about respect for—I would use that word over and over again: respecting, listening, consensus-building about it.
The members are absolutely great.It's about their courage, and nothing, nothing, nothing—you know, I get many compliments for what I do—believe it or not, I do—and I always accept it on behalf of the courage of the House Democrats, because they are very courageous.
We have an array of districts.I always say our diversity is our strength; our unity is our power.Now, how do we turn that diversity into unity?Listening respectfully and sharing vision.
It's a much more diverse Congress now than it was when you first came.
Happily so.And that's a good thing.
And you were able to conquer it, which is still an amazing thing.As a woman, you came to an old boys' club, basically.But you accomplished an awful lot despite that, which I think is fascinating.
Well, we have more women.And I think the fact that we have more women enabled us to have first woman speaker.So—but we just made a decision.It's all a decision.So I say to the members, "You have a decision to win the election."Yes, we decide we're going to win the—then you have to make every decision in favor of that, and that means containing some of our exuberances from time to time.It means working very hard to build the consensus, to have a common message.
When we won in '06, we were left to our own devices—we didn't have a president in the White House, and we did a New Direction for America, "Six for '06"—six bills we would pass in the first 100 hours of being in office.Five of them became law; one did not.Enabling the secretary of HHS [Health and Human Services] to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices, that was '07, January.
'18, same thing.No president in the White House.So it was our message for the people: lower health care costs by lowering the cost of prescription drugs; bigger paychecks by building infrastructure of America in a green way; cleaner government, For the People Act.
So again, this all came from the caucus.They developed the message; they manufactured it; they designed it; they promoted it.And it was successful for us because it sprang from them, not from on high, if that's what you call me.
Latest Interviews
Latest Interviews
Policies
Teacher Center
Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation
Koo and Patricia Yuen
FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Additional funding is provided by the Abrams Foundation; Park Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; and the FRONTLINE Journalism Fund with major support from Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation, and additional support from Koo and Patricia Yuen. FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
