Transcript of Speaker Pelosi’s Remarks at Weekly Press Conference

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi held her weekly press conference today in Room H-137 at the Capitol. Below are the Speaker's remarks:

Speaker Pelosi. Good morning. Last evening, we returned from a very important Congressional delegation. We went to Israel – we began our trip in Israel, where we met at the highest level with the Prime Minister, the President, who welcomed us in the grandest style, to review the troops and be honored at events. But an important part were our conversations about our unanimous view within our CODEL of support for the two‑state solution. When we met with the Palestinian government under the leadership of, of – the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of President Abbas, we delivered the same message: a message of peace and two‑state solution.

We went on to Munich. Of course, when we planned this trip, it was not a trip that was planned in the backdrop of the imminent invasion of Ukraine. That became, obviously, the centerpiece of the Munich Security Conference. Many of us have gone to that conference over the years to talk about security, economy and how that relates to security and governance – and how that relates to security. In fact, those three things: security, economy and governance are the purpose of any foreign travel of Members of Congress.

The Munich Conference – it gives us a distilled way to see so many leaders from so many countries on those subjects. And at this time, of course, the focus was Ukraine. We had a large – more than one delegation, but around 40 Members of Congress – House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans – all united in our support for the transatlantic alliance, NATO. All of us united in being there to remove all doubt in Putin or anyone else's mind that we were acting as one.

And of course, that would have been our message with or without Ukraine. Ukraine made it even more so, because now we're talking about sanctions and the rest.

We are very proud of our Vice President who made – well, our President, whose leadership has been outstanding – and the message was delivered to the conference by the Vice President. It was well-received, it was unifying, it was firm in terms of how we would work together for sanctions should there be an invasion of Ukraine.

What I just want to say, as a sideline to my colleagues, is that I was so pleased with how many women who were there – were leaders in national security. When you're at this, the dynamic is, people come up to you. Well, you have all kinds of bilateral meetings planned. We met with the new Chancellor of Germany, we met with the head of the EU, the head of NATO, the Mayor of Kyiv. We met with – we had very high-level bilateral meetings.

But as you're there, others approach. And for example, the President of Moldova is a woman, and she expressed concern to me that the Russian propaganda was having an impact there – where people were making a case that they had to go into Ukraine because Ukraine had done this, that or the other thing. The President of Kosovo, a woman, told me that they, the Russians, were successful in having some Serbians on the border put forth a Russia message, a Russian message. Both the Foreign Minister and the Defense Minister of Canada are women. We shared some thoughts about what's going on in Canada right now. The Foreign Minister of Germany is spectacular, a woman, and she was here recently. And we renewed that friendship there, as well as meeting before we left with the Foreign Minister – no, Foreign Secretary of the U.K. We just say that because there's a lot of informal contact that reinforces, first of all, the need.

I think the one thing that we all agreed upon: the attack on the Ukraine by the Russians is an attack on democracy. An attack on democracy.

And our final visit was to the U.K. We met with Boris Johnson, but our real host was the Speaker of the House of Commons with a great welcome to the House of Commons – which is unusual, they tell me. And then a formal luncheon where we could interact with Members of Parliament of all levels and all parties. Well, they don't have that many parties. But the fact is they were very united. Every place we went, people were united in opposition to what was happening, of course, in Ukraine. But more importantly, in what we needed to do about that.

You know, we talk traditionally about, about the issues of security, economy and governance. In recent years, of course, the climate issue is an issue in all of those categories and so is COVID. So that – they were a part of our conversation. We did meet with the head of the World Health Organization and got up to date on how he saw things globally. And again, every place we went that – the COVID challenge was part of our discussion.

So it was intensely busy. And we were magnificently served. You've seen the list of Members. They are from – are mostly from our security Committees. Adam Schiff, Intelligence. Adam Smith, Armed Services. Ted Deutch, Foreign Affairs. Barbara Lee, Appropriations – well, let me come back to Barbara and Betty McCollum. Jim Himes, Intelligence. Bill Keating, Foreign Affairs and Armed Services. Sean Patrick Maloney, Intelligence. Eric Swalwell, Intelligence and Homeland Security. Ruben Gallego, Armed Services. Seth Moulton, Armed Services. Ro Khanna, Armed Services. Andy Kim, Armed Services and [Foreign Affairs Committee].

But when you're having these discussions, all roads lead to the Appropriations Committee. And Betty McCollum, the Chair of the Defense Subcommittee, was really a very important participant in the conversations about our support for the defense of Ukraine. And Barbara Lee, in terms of her Committee, the Foreign Ops – the State Foreign Ops Committee, in terms of – well, she'll talk about it. But she was in great demand because – whether it was about refugees or whether it was about humanitarian assistance or whether it was about the loan guarantees, and the list goes on. So again, we were well served by the leadership, knowledge, and commitment of our participants. And they – all of them were not in every country, but by – mostly they were.

It is – it's stunning to see, in this day and age, a tyrant roll into a country. This is the same tyrant who attacked our democracy in 2016. This is the same tyrant who is opposed to democracy and wants to minimize – trivialize it, to downgrade it in the eyes of the Russian people.

One other person I met there who was so courageous was Svetlana. We just call her Svetlana. She's the wife of the person who ran for President in Belarus. She escaped; her husband is imprisoned. But she had a movement in Belarus of largely women – but not just women – and the people turned out by the hundreds of thousands. And then the President of Belarus declared himself the winner of the election.

But the desire for democracy is alive and well in the Ukraine. Many of us who have visited there can attest to that. So the people of Ukraine – although it's not an Article 5 country, and we will not have boots on the ground – know that we are with them, not only in spirit but materially in terms of meeting their needs and just heralding their message with gratitude for the defense that the people of Ukraine are making for democracy.

As I mentioned, underlying all of this were our meetings with heads of station in all of the countries that we were in about the intelligence of what was going on, what they knew about a range of subjects that are essential to our national security. We were very pleased to have on the trip the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff.

Adam, do you want to share some of your views of what you saw there? And thank you for your leadership.

Chairman Schiff. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Today, Russia has again invaded Ukraine. As the Speaker said, it is a stunning fact that, in this century, we once again see a despotic regime trying to remake the map of Europe by dint of military force.

Because of the courageous actions of Ukrainians, the courageous forbearance of Ukraine not to rise to Russian provocation, and because of, I think, a very shrewd declassification of intelligence by our President, by our allies, it stripped away any Russian pretext and laid bare for the world to see that this Russian invasion of Ukraine is nothing more than naked aggression by Vladimir Putin.

Putin is terrified by the prospect of a democracy at his border – a democracy giving an example to the Russian people of the kind of life and economy they might enjoy if they cast aside their own autocrat. This is, I think, one of the pre-eminent motivations of Vladimir Putin. Set aside the nonsense he puts out about Ukraine not being a real country – that is nothing but a Kremlin lie. This is about Vladimir Putin's desire for his own personal and national aggrandizement at the expense of his neighbor, and it's about his fear of a successful democracy providing an example to his own countrymen.

I was very encouraged by what we saw in Munich. I was there with the Speaker two years ago, and the theme of the conference two years ago was whether the West was a coherent whole, whether the West was essentially relevant as a coherent body of nations. And there was no question about that this year. Putin brought NATO together in a way I don't think we have seen in quite some time. And it was heartening to see that, as a result of our Administration's diplomatic efforts, countries had come together to agree on a brutal package of sanctions – some of which have already been applied, more which will, I fear, be necessary to apply.

Among the most significant of steps was the step announced also by the German Chancellor. We were all very impressed by our conversation with him. The decision to essentially cancel the process of moving forward with the pipeline – I think it is a very strong indication of the solidarity of NATO and our other allies to punish Putin for this naked aggression and the prospect of further devastating sanctions in the days and weeks ahead.

So, very encouraged by the solidarity of NATO. And we're going to have to remain united, because Putin will look to exploit any fissure, any crack within NATO and our coalition.

And we simply cannot have nations using military force in violation of the international rules‑based order to enlarge their own borders, to subvert the democratic institutions of their neighbors or others around the world – as the Speaker pointed out, they tried with the United States in 2016 and continue to do so.

And thank you, Madam Speaker, for leading a remarkable CODEL.

Speaker Pelosi. Thank you.

Barbara Lee. Thank you very much.

First of all, thank you, Speaker Pelosi, for – and I just have to say this – for being such a global leader. And we were able and privileged to witness you on the global stage. So it was quite amazing. And thank you for putting together such a diverse grouping of Members from a variety of committees for this Congressional delegation.

Our Congressional delegation, of course – you know we went to the Munich Security [Conference] to make clear that we remain fully committed to maintaining the unity with our European allies, as we now witness as it relates to how democracies around the world are under attack, specifically with Ukraine now.

The Congress continues to address the domestic threats to our democracy, such as but not limited to campaigns of mis‑ and disinformation. And we remain unified in addressing threats to democracies around the world. And we see this unity in our efforts to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine through robust diplomatic initiatives. But we all know that authoritarian regimes around the world will stop at nothing to dismantle democratic values. And nobody is exempt, no country is exempt, including the United States.

I was struck by what was written on the back of the chairs during the general session. The wording was: "Peace Through Dialogue." All of our European allies embraced that notion throughout the entire conference. In each of our meetings, the threat was discussed, as well as the need to invest in and prioritize the role of diplomacy in seeking security and peace. Vice President Harris and Secretary Blinken both underscored the fact that they have engaged in robust, diplomatic initiatives and that democracy remains the essential defense against accelerating forces of autocracy and illiberalism around the world. And that's why defending democracy, both at home and abroad, must be an urgent national security priority.

Madam Speaker mentioned the fact that I do chair the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, which oversees many of the resources to assist the Ukrainian people through this crisis. This includes our economic assistance to Ukraine, including loan guarantees. Economic assistance would come through the Economic Support accounts for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia. Those are the accounts they would come through. Without getting in too many of the weeds, I wanted to just mention that because it's an effort that we're looking at now in terms of our funding.

Also, it includes humanitarian funds, including funding for refugees, God forbid, and for those internally displaced by conflict.

The Administration has [communicated] to us that, in the event of conflict, there is a need over the next twelve months of at least $1 billion for humanitarian needs. And so I support the efforts of the Administration also to bolster Ukraine's economy, including the proposed $1 billion in loan guarantees to continue with Ukraine's economic reforms. The SFOPS bill, for years, has carried authorities for the Administration to provide loan guarantees for select countries, including Ukraine. In Fiscal '22, the House passed the SFOPS bill again. It carries this important authority.

Also, in terms of addition to our meetings on global security, Madam Speaker mentioned the meeting with the Secretary General of the World Health Organization to discuss our next steps in addressing the global crisis pandemic. And as we speak, we're attempting to negotiate now an increase in terms of our global investment to address the COVID crisis.

Of course, our Committee – our Subcommittee oversees the COVID‑19 response, and we all know that we're not safe at home until everyone is safe abroad. That's why we must invest in resources for low‑income countries to distribute vaccines, access testing, care and health infrastructure to keep people safe across the globe.

So, yes, this was an incredible, productive delegation, and I want to thank Speaker Pelosi once again for organizing it in such an impressive manner with such an impressive group.

Thank you again, Speaker Pelosi.

Eric Swalwell. Vladimir Putin has invaded Ukraine, and it is now upon all of us, as global democracies, to unite and make sure that he fails. Like a boa constrictor, he has encircled the country, essentially, with troops on nearly all sides. But what we saw on this trip was that, united, through sanctions, travel restrictions, blocking a pipeline, that we can be a bigger boa constrictor that puts pressure on Putin and makes sure that he fails.

We also saw on center stage that U.S. leadership in Europe with NATO is back. And it was truly a privilege to see the way that our Speaker was received in Israel, at the Security Conference, where she spoke and was a panelist, and in the United Kingdom.

Also we saw Secretary Blinken and Vice President Harris address the Security Conference to show our resolve, our leadership on the world stage to first seek diplomacy and then, once that has failed through Russia's actions, to unite the world – not just within Europe, but we're seeing alliances outside of Europe seek to make sure that Vladimir Putin fails. And we will continue to do that. And we must also, here at home, build a sentiment among the American people that they understand why it's so important that we hold Russia accountable.

But I was also struck when we met with the Labour Leader in London, and we met with the Prime Minister in London, that they were absolutely aligned in making sure that Putin failed, despite all of their differences within the country – and there are a lot of differences there, just as there are differences here. In contrast to what we have seen here at home, the two parties there are aligned. And that must also be the case here in America.

And, finally, there are a lot of experiences I'll never forget on this trip – but one evening, Congressmen Gallego and Moulton and I shared a meal with a young Member of the Ukrainian Rada. She told us that at a young age she ran for her parliament, believed in her country, joined President Zelensky's party and wanted to make sure that what had happened in 2014 would not happen again. The three of us, who had also at one point in our careers been young public servants – we certainly saw ourselves in her and told her that we will go home and make sure that our constituents see themselves in Ukrainians.

And you can't help but talk to somebody who still believes that their country has a right to sovereignty and ask the question, ‘what is our democracy worth if we're not able and willing to stand against an invasion of another democracy?' And that was what was on display in every country that we went to. And now, here at home, that's the leadership we must show to unite ourselves as a country and also to unite our alliances across the globe.

Thank you.

Speaker Pelosi. Thank you very much. I know that you all had individual meetings with some people who are very courageous within Ukraine, still fighting for democracy there.

What was interesting was to see the heads of state, with whom we had interactions as well, of countries who are newer members of NATO, and the concern that they have: ‘What's next for Putin if he were to be successful in the Ukraine?' I had the privilege of sitting next to the President of Latvia for most of the plenary sessions. And others there were very concerned about what would be next.

Some of the leadership of – well, if you look at the map, and you see Hungary, and you see how it is encircled – Russia, Belarus, Crimea, which they have taken over. But you know, it's still a danger now to Ukraine. And then you see Poland and Romania and all of those countries just abutting that Russian influence. A lot of people talked about Sudetenland and how this resembled something that people thought, ‘Well, it's just that,' and it isn't just that.

I'm going to just close by saying this. I had the privilege of going with President Clinton – he invited four Members of Congress, House and Senate, Democratic and Republican. The Senate Democrat was Senator Joe Biden. And we went to the Expansion of NATO meeting in Paris. And it was all of the heads of state of the then‑NATO countries who spoke. And it was so beautiful, because they all spoke in such a positive way about NATO. We thought, like, we were NATO, and they were also NATO – but they had ownership and agency and just possession of the NATO possibilities.

The representative of Russia who was there was Boris Yeltsin, and he was very ebullient, as he was. Many of you are too young to remember how ebullient he was. But he was welcoming to the, what was called – it was the expansion. We had supported in our own country, the Baltic states, Poland, other countries becoming what was called the Partnership for Peace, and it included many of the countries.

And now Putin is saying: ‘Push it back pre‑1997, don't ever try to add another country and remove the weapons out of Eastern Europe.' That was his – that's what he wanted. No, that was not going to happen.

So, as Barbara – as all of our colleagues have mentioned: diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy. Diplomacy deterrence. Diplomacy to stop what is going on, should he see the light at some point. Diplomacy is always, first and foremost, our path to peace.

Any questions on this subject? Yes, ma'am?

Q. Do you think the President's sanctions went far enough? Because, at the outset, there were some, even his closest allies, that felt that he could have issued harsher sanctions. Senator Chris Coons comes to mind. And, then, following up on that, there is a group of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle that are calling on the President to respect Congress' war authorities. Do you support that as well?

Speaker Pelosi. I certainly support that, but I don't think those two things are related.

Q.No?

Speaker Pelosi. The fact is, the President of the United States, by executive order, has the power to exercise the – to impose the sanctions. We – understand this: we are not in this alone. The beauty of it all is that it is a unified effort of our NATO allies, of which, of course: U.S. and Canada from this side of the Atlantic and then the others. The steps that the President are taking – is taking are appropriate.

The Europeans feel the pain, more than we do, of sanctions. It is not without any collateral impact in their countries. When you do – what we heard in the, from the, shall we say, the head of the EU, the President of the EU Commission, was that they're into diversification in terms of their energy – meeting their energy needs and the rest, so they're not as dependent. But it will have an impact in the beginning.

I think the President has full knowledge of what impact these sanctions will have and is fully ready to go all the way with it. And that's something that we have done together.

I'm going to have Barbara Lee speak about the authorization of the use of military force, because this is something she's been a champion on for her entire service in the Congress. That's a different subject than as to whether the President can impose sanctions, as to whether he can – we can go to war.

Barbara?

Congresswoman Lee. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Yes, I did sign the letter that – Congressman Peter DeFazio was one of the leaders in that. And, in fact, the President has indicated over and over and over again that in no way does he intend to allow or insert ground troops in this.

With the increase in tensions, we signed the letter and wrote the letter because we want to make sure that the War Powers Act is complied with and that the public understands that the President means what he says, because he's not going to insert ground troops into this possible incursion.

Speaker Pelosi. Mr. Chairman, did you want to say something about that?

Chairman Schiff. No, that's okay.

Speaker Pelosi. Just understand that we've been trying to do this for a while, and one of the challenges that we face is coming to agreement on what is the scope – what would the President be allowed to do, what is the scope, what is the geography, what is the timetable of it all. And frequently that has been, shall we say, controversial.

Yes?

Q. Can I move on to another topic, if that's okay?

Speaker Pelosi. No, no. We're staying on security.

Yes, sir? Security.

Q. Why was it a good idea for the Biden Administration not to impose pre‑invasion sanctions on Russia? And couldn't it have deterred Russia from taking this action?

Speaker Pelosi. If I sound repetitive, it's because I am. This is a unified effort by our allies in the NATO alliance, and what was proposed was what was agreed to in terms of timing. There are, you know, arguments about – do you go in? Well, what's the leverage once you – they go in, about how you exercise that?

But the fact is: he is in, and we are having sanctions. And they will be swift, and they will be severe. And they will pay – there will be a price to pay for Vladimir Putin, in terms of what this is.

So it's nice debating what could've happened before we went in. It is – remember, we're doing this together. Remember what I said about the impact on other countries. Remember, also, that there is a big argument that says, once you go in, then the sanctions go forward, as opposed to the other side of it. Everything is a debate. But this was something that had broad support in the alliance.

Q.Was the alliance incorrect? Did the alliance make the wrong judgment?

Speaker Pelosi. No, they didn't. How can the alliance make a wrong judgment when the process is about unity? It's about unity. I think that, frankly, you're wasting your time on something that is after the fact.

The fact is: the countries came together and said, ‘this is how we will go there.' Some countries had to take a little longer to get to that place because of the exposure they have from sanctions or the process they have politically in their countries.

But the fact is, if this – you have a unified approach, why would you depart from that?

Q.Madam Speaker?

Speaker Pelosi. Yes, ma'am?

Chairman Schiff. Can I comment on that?

Speaker Pelosi. Please.

Chairman Schiff. To your question, I think the Administration handled this, given the Russian intentions, as well as it could be handled. They telegraphed in advance the punitive sanctions that would be applied if Russia invaded.

I think it made sense not to – to enforce those sanctions before Russia invaded. If you do that, then Russia loses its disincentive. It figures: ‘Well, we've already been sanctioned, we might as well go forward.'

It, as I mentioned before, declassified intelligence to defang any Russian pretext. It moved NATO assets closer to Russia – made it clear to Russia that if they invaded, it wouldn't drive NATO away, it would actually bring NATO closer to Russia. We repositioned U.S. forces closer to the region to make sure that our NATO allies understood that, if the Russians invaded any NATO countries, that we would respond under Article 5.

So, I think the Administration did everything it could do. But, as the President made clear from the very beginning, if Putin had made the – has made the decision to go forward, none of this may stop him from invading. And, as indeed the days closed in on this week, the President made it even more clear that it was our understanding that Putin had decided to go forward.

Now, I think it's our obligation to make sure that we remain aligned with our allies, that we continue to raise the costs on Russia of any – of its invasion of Ukraine, any further invasion of Ukraine. But I think the President made it clear that he was going to do everything possible diplomatically, through deterrence. And that's all you can do.

If you've got a dictator like Putin who amasses 100,000, 200,000 troops on the border of a much smaller, much weaker country and is determined to invade, then – short of going to war with Russia – embarking on this brutal package of sanctions, I think, is the most effective way to raise costs on Russia. And I think the costs on Russia and the Russian people are sadly going to go up and up and up the longer that Putin persists with this naked aggression.

Q. Can I follow up on that, Congressman? If the threat of sanctions was not enough to stop him from actually moving forward with an invasion, will these harsh sanctions that we're seeing now be enough of a deterrent for him?

Chairman Schiff. Well, I think the sanctions are going to just continue to increase and will have an ultimately crippling impact on many sectors of the Russian economy. We have to make sure that those costs continue and that the Russian people see the costs of their dictator's aggression.

And we also need to continue – and this is the other thing I think the Administration has done, very importantly. That is, we need to continue to support Ukraine's ability to defend itself. And we have provided substantial military support. That support is going to continue. I think the British Foreign Secretary indicated that Britain intends to also provide that kind of support. I think she's made that public. And so, we have to do everything possible to help the Ukrainians defend themselves, but also raise the costs on Putin for this kind of aggression. And I think that this is exactly the right approach.

Speaker Pelosi. Let me just say that you haven't seen the depths of these sanctions yet.

Putin is probably the richest man in the world. He has these palatial residences in – that's really what got people in trouble in Russia, because they showed the arrogance and the wealth with which he lived.

So it's about – what is this about? The people of – many of us have visited Ukraine and have seen that they love democracy. They do not want to live under Vladimir Putin. He does not want the Russian people to see what democracy looks like, and therefore he wants to bring them under his domain, in his domain.

So when he and his oligarchs – and it's all about: follow the money in this, and that's what the sanctions are about. Follow the money. When they see how they're going to be undermined, how these visas will work, about how they can travel and have residences in every opulent place in the world, the Russian people have to see how they have been exploited by their own government.

When I was in the panel with the Defense Minister – another woman – from Germany, she was talking about, in the context of what Barbara Lee talked about, about misinformation and the rest. People have to know the truth. They have to know the truth. And part of what Putin is the master of – KGB, KGB, KGB, KGB for his life, his orientation – is misrepresentation. And he's effective at that, unless we inoculate against it, unless we make the case against it so that the Russian people know the truth, that the surrounding areas know the truth.

So it is – when we talk about the President, he's doing the sanctions. He has a full picture of all this. I said he was present there the day of the expansion of NATO. I saw the respect he commanded then, and that was 1997, by the heads of state of all of those countries. And, of course, that has only grown over time by his leadership, but also the expansion of NATO. I think we're very well served – respect his judgment.

And, again, it's not just about when you do the sanctions or how you support the people, it's about how the world views what Putin is doing. This is a very evil move on the part of Vladimir Putin. He's a KGB guy who happens to be probably the richest man in the world because of his exploitation of his own people that he doesn't want them to know about and uses excuses like – it's changed. Every time you hear him say, ‘Well, they're part of us, that's who we are, they should be us.' Now they're saying, ‘Well, we have to go in because they want to be part of NATO.'

This, my friends, is our moment. This is a Sudetenland. That's what people were saying there. You cannot ignore what Putin is doing. Nobody's, of course, ignoring it. But you cannot take it any lighter than what it is: a total assault on democracy.

Thank you all very much. Thank you.

Q. On the State of the Union, you've had pretty unique security challenges for the last couple State of the Unions –

Speaker Pelosi. Yeah.

Q. – be it insurrection, COVID. This year, there is talk of these trucker protests. Are you confident in the security of the Capitol ahead of the State of the Union this year?

Speaker Pelosi. Well, again, this is in the realm of the police. It is my understanding when we arrived here last night that the Chief of Police had called for the National Guard to be present leading up to and around the time of the State of the Union – that they have a good handle on what the expectation is. Some of it won't even come until after the State of the Union. But no, I feel confident.

Now, I don't have – people said: ‘Oh, don't let them put up a fence.' That's not my call. That's a security call, and that's the call of the Sergeants at Arms and the Chief of Police.

Thank you all very much. Thank you.