Transcript of Speaker Pelosi’s Remarks at Weekly Press Conference
Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi held her weekly press conference today in the Capitol Visitor Center. Below are the Speaker's remarks:
Speaker Pelosi.Good afternoon. Thank you for being here.
As you all know, according to the President's statement this morning, last night America delivered justice to the leader of ISIS and struck a serious blow to the terrorist group. Our entire nation is grateful for the patriotism of our military personnel and intelligence community. It was a successful strike.
The strike was a strong step toward the fight against ISIS, but the death of this ISIS leader does not mean the death of ISIS. Congress remains ironclad in our commitment to our national security, and we will continue to work closely with the Administration to defeat this terrorist state and keep America and our allies safe.
Today, we are having a previously scheduled classified briefing by Cabinet officers. At the beginning of that briefing, I had been told that we will have a briefing from General Austin – Secretary Austin about the strike of last night.
It's so sad, because this leader of the ISIS – maybe it's what they believe or whatever – but he decided that he would, he would blow himself up and his children and his family with him as well. That's what happened last night.
This week, it's a very happy week for us because the COMPETES Act is on the Floor. It's a momentous one for the future of America's workers and the economy as the House passes the COMPETES Act, ensuring our nation is pre-eminent in manufacturing, in innovation and in economic strength.
It's about research. I want to salute our Chair of the Science, Space and Technology Committee, Madam Chair Eddie Bernice Johnson, for the great work that she has done, largely in a bipartisan way. I don't know if the votes will reflect that, but the bills that came out of her Committee, as well as some which passed on the Floor, passed in a strong, bipartisan way.
Here's what – here's what we get here. We have always been a beacon of excellence in science and engineering and innovation in the world, and we invest in an education and innovation and the rest. Then, other countries copied our path and they emerged as well, so we have competition now. Some of them, one, the People's Republic of China, a country of concern, is – threatens our ability to be as pre-eminent as we want to be.
The technologies we rely on today, and the technologies of the future, must be made here in America. And, this is what is happening in the Biden Administration to make us more self‑sufficient with American workers. It's an imperative for America's security and the financial security of America's workers and our families that we are self‑sufficient.
COMPETES meets this challenge, and I'm going to take the time to talk about COMPETES, because it's a very – where is it? This is just – this is not the bill. This is just what we sent out about the bill. It's very intense. It's intensive.
COMPETES meets this challenge. First, by investing $52 billion to support the manufacture of chips – chips and semiconductors. How many – do you know how many chips are in an electric car? 2,000. Non-electric car: 1,000. But the absence of chips is hindering our manufacturing of cars. We need more chips, and we need them to be made in America. They are the lifeblood of modern technology, but increasingly being made abroad, again, sometimes in countries of concern – leaving us vulnerable on supply chain issues. And, that makes costs higher, and it contributes to inflation. We are bringing production back. So that's $52 billion: chips, semiconductors.
Secondly, the [COMPETES] Act invests $45 billion to support manufacture and acquisition of critical goods or industrial equipment essential for our national security. And, I'm going to read you this from here, and hope that you would read this. This is – it authorizes $45 billion for grants, loans and loan guarantees to support supply chain resilience and manufacturing of critical goods, industrial equipment, as I say, and manufacturing technology.
This is how it relates to our economy and our families: supports the manufacturing or equipment acquisition of critical goods or industrial equipment that are essential for the national security and economic vitality. Critical goods include key components and products for public health, biological preparedness, information and communications technologies, energy and transportation sector industrial base and agricultural commodities and food product supply chains.
This is a magnificent piece of work, and I'm very eager – I'm very proud of the support it has had, as I said, in a bipartisan way. I don't know if that would be in the votes. So, I told you something about that. I can talk more about it if you want. But, we must continue to reduce our dependence on goods made in other countries, especially countries of concern, and bring production back home. I said one was the $51 –$52 billion for chips; the second was $45 billion for the supply – for the chain.
Third, and this is not about money, but with the bipartisan bills that are contained in this, we are advancing U.S. scientific research and innovation excellence to ensure that we lead the technologies of the future.
And, fourth, we're positioning U.S. interests and values to win on the world stage, holding the People's Republic of China accountable for using slave labor, which is a human rights issue and hurts U.S. workers.
Okay. So, again, more American goods made here at home – lowers costs and strengthens supply chains for America and ensures that America, not the People's Republic of China, writes the rules of the road for the 21st Century.
Speaking of the People's Republic of China, before I came here – and that's why I'm a few minutes late – I was, I testified at and then listened to the testimony at the Congressional-Executive Commission on China hearing. Tomorrow, the Olympic games begin in China, and we heard from voices of the oppressed who spoke out on human rights violations being perpetrated by the host nation.
While we fully support our athletes – and have not called for a boycott by the athletes – we cannot be silent on human rights in China. We called for a diplomatic boycott, but not an athletic one. That's – last year, I called for no official U.S. presence at the games, which President Biden has supported. Other countries have followed our lead – for example, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Baltic States.
Meanwhile, as Congress, I mean it – I wish you could've heard the testimony, and it was live streamed, perhaps some of you saw – of the witnesses. They were so eloquent and representing every aspect of human rights violations, including genocide.
But, what's important to note and how it relates to the economy is that, when you talk about the Uyghurs and the camps that these people are sent to and the rest, when we talk about genocide, that would be enough justification to oppose the – what the PRC is doing, but it's not the only reason. What it does is say to American workers, ‘You must compete with slave labor?'
And, they were very eloquent in presenting how pervasive the cotton made in the Uyghur camps and the rest is – not only as a resource to perhaps U.S. manufacturers but others as well. So, this is not just a human rights issue; it's an unfair trade issue as well.
Again, we are, of course – the subject at hand is the omnibus bill that Rosa DeLauro is brilliantly taking the lead on, setting us for a strong omnibus to address critical priorities to the American people. Right now, we are going back and forth with offers between the Democrats and Republicans and the continuous – we're hoping to reach a deal on a top‑line very soon on that. I know that's an issue that you're concerned about because that relates to schedule.
And, speaking of schedule, I am very proud that on schedule we have – our goal was to reach 1,000 infrastructure events. We're nearly 1,300 infrastructure – I think it's 1,271 infrastructure events so far around the country. Again, about bridges and roads and water supply, getting the lead out, broadband, issues that relate to safety on our streets, even some relationship to addressing the climate crisis.
As we spread the word of our victories for the Democrats, we remain hard at work to help to pass BBB as well as voting rights. One connection between infrastructure and omnibus is that some of the money in the infrastructure bill cannot be freed up until we pass the omnibus bill.
So, for these and other reasons, to meet the needs of the people, to show that Democrats Deliver For the People, and we want to do so in a strong bipartisan way, we have to get that – we're hoping to get that done as soon as possible in terms of the infrastructure bill – excuse me, the omnibus bill.
Any questions?
***
Q: Madam Speaker, a new Instagram account called Dear White Staffers has been collecting troubling accounts –
Speaker Pelosi. Can we – if you've got something extraneous, I'm happy to get to it. But, let's talk – we're trying to keep government open, we're trying to be pre-eminent in the world, and I'm happy to come back to that. Any questions on what we're doing here?
Q: But what do you make of staffers who are on food stamps in this building?
Speaker Pelosi. Jake, what do you got? What do you have?
Q: I'm wondering about sanctions, Russia sanctions.
Speaker Pelosi. Yeah.
Q: Where do you land? Are you in favor of preemptive sanctions? What is your general thinking at the moment?
Speaker Pelosi. We are – we have two bills. You know, a bill in the Senate, the Menendez bill, and then in the House, Mr. Meeks' bill from his Committee. They're on a similar path. There are those, some on the Republican side, who would like to have the preemptive – have these sanctions first.
Where I – you asked me where I come down. In keeping with the guidance from my Committee Chair, Mr. Meeks, the – and the Administration, I think it's really important for us to use the sanctions if the Russians strike. It is important because we – it's where leverage is at maximum. ‘If they do this, then we strike.' It is – we're also, most of our allies are on this, and we – that is a very important part of this, how we work jointly on it. And, that is why – that is why I support using sanctions if they invade.
Q: And how about, like, how drastic do you want sanctions to be if they invade? I mean, are you in favor of kicking them out of the SWIFT financial system? I mean, how, what do you see –
Speaker Pelosi. Well, the Committee – I think they have to be very, much more forceful than they have been, because it – we're talking about an invasion of a country. We're talking about NATO being – NATO countries being at risk if the Russians succeed in Ukraine. So, this is deadly serious. So, they have to feel the pain and it has to be felt right up to the richest man in the world, Vladimir Putin. Nobody knows what he's going to do except him, and that's why we have to be prepared for whatever that may be. But I do think that they have to be strong enough to be effective, they have to be done after and if they invade and they have to be done in compliance with our allies working together. Yeah.
Q: Madam Speaker?
Speaker Pelosi. Yeah.
Q: On the January 6th Committee, we know that their scope keeps getting bigger. We know they're looking at timelines leading up to the attack, where key people were and what they were doing and so forth. I wonder, have you provided any kind of testimony or documents to the Committee?
Speaker Pelosi. No. No. I keep as far away from the Committee as possible. If they ask me, I would. But I don't – I was on the podium and then I was swept away. But –
Q: Do you expect to be asked about things like –
Speaker Pelosi. I have no idea.
Q: – Congressional security or evacuation procedures or anything like that?
Speaker Pelosi. I have no idea. I know about what they do the way you do: in the public domain. We authorize them. We give them the resources they need to do what they do. But, that is the work of the Committee. It has nothing to do with me.
Q: Madam Speaker?
Speaker Pelosi. Yes, ma'am.
Q: Thank you, Madam Speaker. On that legislation by Congressman Meeks, once it's done and when it's ready –
Speaker Pelosi. Yeah.
Q: Do you plan to fast‑track that, bring it straight to the House Floor, possibly skipping markup? And then, I just wonder if you can respond – we heard some comments from Senator Joe Manchin this week saying that Build Back Better is dead. I know in your previous press conference, you referenced possibly that it could be renamed or rebranded, taking some of the –
Speaker Pelosi. Well, you've got a couple different questions there. Before you go on to a third, let me address the first two.
[Laughter]
Q: I can keep going.
Speaker Pelosi. Firstly, well, we're going to be briefed. Mr. Meeks will be presiding on our side at the briefing, the Ukraine briefing, and what his – we want to move quickly with these. Now, it will be up to the Chairman as to the process and the rest. But, we want to be as close to the Senate bill as possible so there's no delay in getting something to the President's desk.
The second part is, I'm never giving up on BBB. There's so much in there that is really important, in terms of Child Tax Credit, in terms of family – health care for families, that is to say not just children but seniors or siblings with disabilities and the rest, with universal pre‑K. This is so – it is about lowering cost for the American people, lowering the cost of health care, lowering the cost of child care, lowering the cost of family care, lowering the cost of education at the pre‑K level. And, we have to – we must get something done. And, of course, a very important part of it is what we're doing about the climate crisis. And I – there are plenty things in there where I think that we can find common ground, so I'm not giving up on the BBB.
Q: Could it be rebranded potentially? I know you mentioned it could possibly be renamed.
Speaker Pelosi. Well, that's incidental. I mean, what's important is what's in the legislation. Lowers cost, increases pay and is completely paid for. So, one other thing about it is, when we talk about inflation and people say, ‘Oh, you're spending money on this or that' – this is completely paid for. Not only is it paid for, it will, in fact, reduce the national debt because it is – you know, we raised so much more money because we thought we were going to do so much, so much more.
So, I'm very – we cannot abandon it. We must proceed. Yeah. Yes, ma'am.
Q: Madam Speaker, just continuing on Ukraine, I know you have the briefing coming up shortly. But, do you have any knowledge or concern about reports that Russia could create some type of false pretext to attack? It appears U.S. officials may have evidence to that extent.
Speaker Pelosi. Well, I don't want – you know, we'll get our classified briefing and be more up to date on it, but the fact is there are troops amassed at the eastern border of Ukraine. Whether it is imminent or not, we have to be ready for it whenever it is. And, again, we have concerns that we share with other – with NATO countries in the region, so we'll have to be prepared. Nobody is – what we hear is, no one but the man himself knows whether – what he's going to do.
And, I'm very pleased that the – our Secretary of State has engaged in diplomacy, because diplomacy deterrence – is what we want to see succeed, diplomacy deterrence. The Secretary, Secretary Blinken has been forceful in that engagement, but that engagement also – in order it should be good peacemakers you have to show that you can be a good fighter, I always say. The – so we'll see. But in terms of their intention, I have nothing to share with you about the intelligence on that here.
Q: Madam Speaker?
Speaker Pelosi. What do you got?
Q: So a follow-up on Ukraine and Russia here. Obviously, last summer the House approved to revoke the AUMFs from '01 and '02 here, '02 was in the Senate.
Speaker Pelosi. Yeah. Yeah.
Q: But there's been some concern by progressives in the House. Barbara Lee, who was the only one who voted against the Afghanistan resolution, I know once said we should lean on diplomacy first. Are you concerned about the military moving these troops, even though they're not going to have boots on the ground? And, what the concerns are about Members of your Caucus who say we just repealed these AUMFs, what is Congress' role as it pertains to war powers to be involved in moving these troops forward in Europe?
Speaker Pelosi. Well, you have a multifaceted question, but the fact is, we have to do a new AUMF, Authorization for the Use of Military Force. What is – there is stale, old, and we have to do it. It's challenging because you have to decide on many things. The authorization for what? What is the purpose, what is the scope, what is the timetable, and what is the geography. And that's why it has – we haven't had another one since because we have to come to agreement on that.
Q: Would it pertain to something like this, what we're seeing right now in Eastern Europe?
Speaker Pelosi. To moving those troops? I don't think so, no.
Q: But, why not? And to that end, what about Members of your Caucus?
Speaker Pelosi. Because they're – no, I don't think it does. I don't think we need an AUMF for that, in terms of the scope and the threat that is there. You don't have, nor do I, a definition of what the purpose of those troops there are. They are a confidence builder for our allies in the region and they are, if need be, where we go next, we'll make some judgment. But, right now, just to move those troops, no. Your question?
Q: Madam Speaker, do you support staffer attempts to unionize here in Congress?
Speaker Pelosi. Well, we just unionized at the DCCC, and I supported that, yeah. I supported that.
Q: So, I have a question about, I'm wondering in the bill – the COMPETES Act – it actually – it tries to increase cooperation with China to address climate change. So, I'm just wondering how can – how can you ensure that while increasing that cooperation, you can also be sure that the Chinese Communist Party is taking the sanctions in Xinjiang seriously and not try to get around those sanctions?
Speaker Pelosi. Well, we are very serious about the Uyghur legislation that we passed in a bipartisan way. Senator Rubio and Chris Smith on the Republican side, Senate and House, Jim McGovern, Congresswoman Wexton, Senator Merkley and others – this has been bipartisan and bicameral. So, nobody should be – misunderstand how serious we are about that. When we pass the appropriations bill, we'll have the funding to fund our follow-up on checking what country – companies might be using products coming from prison labor camps, making our workers compete with prison labor.
The Chinese, we certainly – look, I take second place to no one in this Congress in my criticism of China – for over 30 years since Tiananmen Square when I first came to Congress. And, I fought them every step of the way on trade issues, on human rights issues and on proliferation of weapons, weaponry and delivery systems over the years. I also have worked with them on issues that relate to climate. I've been to China, on that very subject, where we have seen what they have joined, they deserve credit for many of the things they were doing in terms of – of climate, but they still remain a major emitter as do we, and we all have to do better. But, we have made our decisions. They – it's in their interest. It's in their interest because they have a pollution problem that is a health issue there and that becomes a political issue as well as an economic issue. So, again, we cannot say because we hope you'll do something on climate that we can ignore the fact that you're committing genocide of a population in your country. That's just not going to happen.
And I said – and I'll close with this, and that is that – I've said it all the time. In fact, I've said it in Dharamsala with His Holiness the Dalai Lama standing right next to me: if we ignore human rights abuses in China because of commercial interests, then we lose all moral authority to talk about human rights, any place in the world. What does it – what does it profit a person or a country to gain commercially and suffer the loss of its soul? We cannot do that.
So again, let's have a balance in all of it. Recognize – we share this planet. That we hope that we can work together with them diplomatically on climate where we have common ground, but we will not and cannot – they, they say, the Chinese, they say and torturers generally say, the most sinister form of torture to a prisoner of conscience is that they say to them, ‘Nobody cares. They don't remember you. They don't even know you're in jail or why. So, why don't you just give it up?'
Well, we do everything we can to make sure that they know that we are publicizing these names, as we did this morning. Once again, not only us, but the witnesses who came reading the names of others. So, again, what the Chinese are doing to these people and their families – it's their families, for example, testify that their loved one is being imprisoned endlessly for practically nothing. It's an act of cowardice on the part of the Chinese government to take it out on children and families and – and these Uyghurs. You know, they send these people to these camps, and then they take their children. I mean, this is, this is diabolical, it is diabolical.
So, again for over 30 years, I've been making that fight, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be – work together on the, the Iran nuclear agreement. We worked – we can work together on climate issues, we can try to find common ground where we can, but that does not negate our commitment to our values.
Thank you all very much.
Staff. Thank you. Thank you.
Q: What happened to your 49ers?
Speaker Pelosi. Oh, don't break my heart. Don't break my heart.
Q: You didn't congratulate me on my Bengals.
Speaker Pelosi. I think he should have taken the sack. I coach on the side, you understand. And, they shouldn't have gone for the 1 yard, but – and nonetheless, nobody expected us to be where we were. And I'm very proud of the 49ers – been season ticket holders forever.
On the other hand, the Warriors that – you know, made us proud this week so far. We'll see where we go. And, the most recent games, not last night, we didn't play – the night before. No Steph, no Klay, no Draymond, no Wiggins, and we still won.
Q: Did you want a Bengals‑49ers Superbowl again?
Speaker Pelosi. I was there.
Q: Oh, I know.
Speaker Pelosi. I was there in Miami with my family, my kids and all. They were little then. That was a long time ago. It would've been good. So, we'll see how it goes. Of course, I'm a Californian so we'll be rooting for the Rams.
Thank you.