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 morning, everyone. 

Shortly, I'll have to leave to go to the Floor because, today, we're very sadly as the House holds a moment of silence in honor of our colleague, Congresswoman Jackie Walorski of Indiana, and two members of her staff, sadly, Zachery Potts and Emma Thomson, who – they all tragically died last week.  The Congresswoman was a lifelong, proud Hoosier who lived a life of service.  She was admitted by colleagues on both sides of the aisle – admired by colleagues on both sides of the aisle for her commitment to her constituents and her personal kindness.

This bill on the Floor right now is being chaired by Jim McGovern.  She and Jim McGovern chaired the Hunger Caucus.  And as I said: with great admiration for her.  May it be a comfort to her family, her loved ones and staff, and the loved ones of Zachery and Emma, that the whole House community mourns with them.  It's so sad.  It's so tragic. 

Okay.  So some of you didn't come on – the other day, Wednesday, when we had our presentation of our visit to Asia, following the President's emphasis in making a priority of Asia-Pacific initiatives as we go forward, his Indo‑Pacific Economic Framework and the rest.  And following up on that, we made the trip to Singapore, to Malaysia, to Taiwan, to Korea, and to – and Japan.  So – and, since you weren't there, let me just say this: the – maybe some of you were.  We showed how we were received and how it was reported in the region.  It was a very successful trip. 

A long time ago, before most of you were born, and maybe before your parents were born, there was a show on TV called ‘That Was the Week That Was.’  David Frost was the host.  And it was about a review of what happened the previous week, sort of in a – intended to be a comic thing.  I don't know who thought it was funny or what.  It depends on what side of the issues you were.  But I did want to review this past week, because it has been monumental. 

As I mentioned about our trip to Asia a week ago, we returned from that trip, and I bring, like, one of my proudest possessions that I have.  This is SPAR‑19.  This is what the crew – each of the members of the crew have for their belongings and the rest.  And they made one for me, and they signed it all.  And they decided to make it in pink.  Theirs is usually not pink.  But it's the most wonderful, prized possession that I have – of how well they took care of us on this trip, which had three million people following the tail number.

That was Friday.  Again, we had our press event to talk about what happened there.  We'll continue to have that, on the ongoing, about the importance of our Asian-Pacific involvement under the leadership of President Biden, as we also celebrated this week the President signing our approval of Finland and Sweden into NATO, looking to our transatlantic strength and friendships. 

Okay.  So that was – then, Tuesday, the President signed the CHIPS and Science bill.  This was a remarkable, remarkable success for any of us who care about our country, our competitiveness and our future.  It declares our economic independence.  We are much more self‑reliant.  It declares our – it strengthens our national security, it enhances our families' financial future, it ensures America can outcompete any other nation on Earth, and it does so in a way that has fairness and has – is inclusive and diverse as we go forward.  The new law, a once‑in‑a‑generation law, creates 100,000 new Davis‑Bacon – that would be prevailing wage jobs – and returns America to a world leader in the semiconductor and chips manufacturing business. 

It has many – excuse me – House priorities.  When you wear a mask a lot, of course you tend to get the sniffles.  So we had to wear a mask a lot on our trip. 

Many House priorities, including to recruit our nation's best minds on an inclusive STEM workforce that will unleash innovation across the country, every place in our country, every community in our country.  We thank our remarkable Chairs for their vision and science‑based work.  We are proud of a 100 percent Democratic vote and the bipartisan nature of the bill.  And we, again, once again, commend our President. 

Then – that was Tuesday.  Then, on Wednesday – this is the week that is and was – the President signed the PACT Act, taking historic action to care for those who put their lives on the line for America and now suffer from devastated diseases.  This could apply to approximately 3.5 million Americans.  The PACT Act will save lives.  It secures access to vital health care for potentially, as I say, 3.5 million veterans exposed to deadly toxins from burn pits and empowers those harmed at Camp Lejeune, because of the water supply there, to have their day in court.

As I always say, the inside maneuvering goes so far.  The outside mobilization makes everything better here.  And we thank the historic – veterans and advocates who made this law their life's work, and we're pleased that care will be delivered as soon as possible.

In case you don't know what burn pits are, some of these are as large as – not a football field – three football fields.  They throw all kinds of c‑r‑a‑p into it, literally, and things that might go by that name into it.  And it burns, and it has a terrible impact, causing cancer and the rest.  And you don't even know about it until later.  So this is – it's a presumption of qualifications for health care benefits.  If you were in that area and you are sick, it gets rid of all that red tape to prove that it might be a connection. 

And, today – today is really a glorious day for us.  We send to the President's desk a monumental bill that will be truly For The People: the Inflation Reduction Act.  I commend Leader Schumer – he did a masterful job in the Senate – for his work to send the legislation to the President – to us, then to the President – sadly, for all the good that it does, without one Republican vote. 

This legislation met – and all major legislation championed by President Biden – from the American Rescue package, to infrastructure, to the, again, CHIPS and Science Act – is about loosening the stranglehold that special interests have had on the Congress, whether it's the fossil fuel industry, whether it's Big Pharma, and even just to go to gun safety, with the gun industry, loosening that grip and giving much more leverage to the people rather than to the special interests. 

Again, the IRA – we have to be, some of the Irish are a little sensitive about, whatever – but the Inflation Reduction Act, it's a kitchen table issue.  If you are sitting at your kitchen table and wonder how you're going to pay the bills, your health care bills, your prescription drug bills, this bill's for you.

It finally enables Medicare to negotiate for the price of prescription drugs.  It prevents excessive price hikes.  It caps out‑of‑pocket prescription drugs at $2,000.  It extends the Affordable Care Act subsidies for three years to lock in lower premiums that save 13 million people an average of $800 a year. 

And then it combats the climate crisis, cuts carbon pollution by 40 percent, creates nine million good‑paying jobs and brings energy costs down from like five to a – 500 to 1,000 dollars.

We have been trying for decades to prevail, to win legislation that enabled the Secretary to negotiate for lower prices.  Big Pharma has had a stranglehold on the Congress, so we couldn't get it done until now.  This is a good first step.  We always had bigger plans.  We always do. 

But it's interesting that Big Pharma's leader has said, ‘The Democrats will pay for this.’  Really?  For lowering costs for America's families for prescription drugs?  Okay. 

And third, it lowers the deficit and inflation.  It takes – it makes a down payment of $300 billion for deficit reduction to fight inflation.  According to – and I have the letter here.  You should have this.  I don't know if you all do.  But this is a letter from 126 leading economists.  Seven Nobel Prize winners are included.  And this is what it says.  It says – I can read it from there. 

It says: ‘These investments would be more than fully paid for.  The revenue raised to finance them would come exclusively from wealthy individuals and corporations.  Further, the revenue comes from enhancing the law enforcement at the IRS – tax enforcement – and closing some of the most discretionary – distortionary loopholes in the tax code.’

It's quite a remarkable letter.  And it's a short letter, but it has pages and pages of economists, including seven Nobel Laureates. 

Again, it makes a difference at the kitchen table.  And at the boardroom table, corporations will now have to – and the wealthy – will now have to pay their fair share.  No new taxes on families making more than – excuse me – no new taxes on families making less than $400,000 or under, and no new taxes on small business.  Not one middle‑class personal filing – filling out their taxes will pay higher taxes.  Now, the other – again, we can talk about it if you wish.  We can talk about the IRS and what we just talked about there, about how the rich will finally pay their fair share. 

This bill honors the Democrats' promise to American families.  After we pass it and the President signs it into law, we will continue to fight for more of the family features of the bill that are not included in this legislation.  This legislation is historic, it's transformative, and it is really a cause for celebration.

We'll always put the People Over Politics, in stark contrast to the position of the Republicans, the extreme MAGA Republicans: criminalizing women's health care, planning to end Social Security and Medicare.  Don't take it from me, look at their own statements on this – and attacking democracy. 

So with that, that is the week that is, and in a little bit, it will be the week that was.  When we pass this legislation, it will be ready in a matter of minutes for me to enroll it, and it'll go directly to the President for signature. 

Q.  Thank you, Madam Speaker.  I have a question about the Inflation Reduction Act.  But before I ask that, I wanted to get your opinion about another news about Iran.  The Biden Justice Department charged that an Iranian national who allegedly worked for the IRGC was plotting to assassinate a former White House employee and also the former Secretary of State.  I wanted to get your opinion about the Islamic Republic of Iran trying to assassinate former U.S. officials on the U.S. soil. 

Speaker Pelosi.   And what comment would you expect for me to say?  This is outrageous.  This is, as I understand it – and I don't know much about it, but that they're holding everybody accountable for Soleimani, and that's what it is about. 

But again, all the more reason to be ever alert and vigilant, and good for the Justice Department for bringing those charges.

Q.  Madam Speaker, with the Inflation Reduction Act, can people expect a bill to have an impact on something as pernicious as inflation quickly, in a matter of months?

Speaker Pelosi.   Well, you have to get started, yes.  I mean, the fact is that inflation has many causes, and we have some of them piling up at once. 

Some are good.  That is to say, when you have high employment, low unemployment and increased wages – even though not keeping up with inflation – you will have a level of inflation. 

I've said before here, my first hearing with the Chairman of the Fed when I was a brand new Member of Congress, nose-to-nose with him as the most minor person on the Committee, and he said, ‘Unemployment is dangerously low.’  Oh, really?  How could that be?  ‘Well, in relationship to what it does to inflation.’

So the President, to his credit, under his leadership, eight million jobs.  Private sector included, everybody participating.  But under his leadership, eight million, now nine million jobs created.  Unemployment cut in half.  So that's one, and we don't want to trade jobs.  You know, we are glad about those jobs and that unemployment rate. 

Secondly, we have COVID, and we have the supply chain challenges that increased cost and therefore increased – lower supply, increased cost – and therefore increased.  We have a war in Ukraine that has increased Putin's price at the pump.  And so you have a lot of things coming together at once. 

That is not to say – and you have corporate America exploiting the taxpayer – I mean the consumer, the consumer.  We talked about that, whether it's the food industry, the price at the pump, whether it's shipping costs and the rest that increase inflation.  There are a lot of reasons that have taken – that were here, but rather than talk about that, we talk about what we want to do about it.  And what we want to do about it is lower cost. 

As you see, inflation was zero for the past month, zero increase.  You see the price at the pump is coming down.  We hope it will continue to do that.  We must ensure that it does.  We passed legislation to reduce the cost of food.

So we are ‑‑ when you say ‘pernicious,’ I agree with you.  But it is – we have to act upon it.  And this legislation, as the economists said and the Nobel Laureates said, will help with fighting inflation.

Q.  Madam Speaker, how concerned are you about the rhetoric from Republicans around what's going on with Trump and the Department of Justice right now, some of them saying that it's gone too far for the FBI to have done this?  And, secondly, do you want to see Congress open more investigations into the material that Trump allegedly took?

Speaker Pelosi.   Well, let me – I appreciate your question, but let me respond in this way.  As you probably know, I have about 30 years of experience in intelligence, one of the only leaders in Congress, as far as anybody can remember, bringing security and intelligence to the office.  So I watch this very carefully. 

Rather than some of the aspects of your question, as worthy as they are, I think what is important now is to know the seriousness of what these documents were about – alleged to be about.  We don't know.  Hopefully we'll see more, but we don't want to see too much more, because that might endanger our security. 

So when we talk about this, there are laws against the improper handling of this material.  There are laws against that.  And the – and we have to recognize that.  The – this information, as it is coming across – and we don't, we'll know more later – is highly classified, well above top secret.  It is, again, higher than top secret.  It's Top Secret/SCI.  It is – it's about our national security, as we are told, and we'll see how deeply it goes into that. 

So I think our concern is always to protect and defend, and protecting and defending means we do not frivolously treat the documents that relate to perhaps, as they're saying, and we'll find out – again, all alleged at this point, I don't know any more than is in the public domain.  Everybody is holding it very tightly – that if the nature of this, of these documents, is what appears to be, this is very serious, very serious. 

Q.  Given that, though, do you want other Congressional Committees to be investigating –

Speaker Pelosi.   I'm not concerned about that.  Right now, it's in an arena that we will see what happens next.  It isn't – I'm not making plans about a Congressional investigation.  Let's see what the course they're on is now. 

Q.  Have you been briefed on any aspect of this –

Q. – that it was missing, that they were going in?

Q.  You just know what's in the public domain?

Speaker Pelosi.   No.  No.  Just know what's in the public domain.  And what's in the public domain is – you know, they're – you know, a president can declassify anything.  Shouldn't be able to declassify matters of this seriousness.  This isn't declassified.  It's just improperly handled.  Now, what is it?  We'll see.  We'll see in the unsealing.  And that may not tell us everything still because of the serious nature of all this. 

But since you're asking this question, let me be self‑serving.  A long time ago – like 20 years, more – when we had our last Intelligence bill, when President Clinton was president, there were some over on the other side of the building who wanted to put into the Intelligence bill legislation that said if a reporter reported something on the basis of information that he or she received, that person would have to prove that it did not harm our national security.  So if you got some information and you wrote it up, the burden would be on you to report that it did not harm national security. 

I said to the President, ‘You can't sign this bill.’  We were not signing the conference report on it, because it came from the Senate.  ‘We're not signing the conference report.  You cannot sign this bill.’  And he, of course, agreed.  He just didn't know about it.  You know, we – I was the Ranking Member at the time. 

So what we did was we changed it to say, if you had this information and you wrote about it, the government would have to prove that you harmed national security, which was a big victory for freedom of the press in our country.  And we got a wonderful response from editorial boards and the rest of that. 

But – so be careful about how you handle whatever it is.  But you have to be appreciative of the fact that we reversed the burden of proof in that.  Was that self‑serving? 

Q.  It was, yes.  We appreciate it.

Q.  Can I ask about the attack in Ohio against the FBI, Madam Speaker?  It appears that –

Speaker Pelosi.   This gentleman was recognized.  I'm sorry.  Go ahead.

Q.  There was enough concern apparently for a search warrant to be granted at Trump's residence.  This is not by any stretch his first go‑around, his first brush with the law.  He's no longer in office, and you've been sort of reticent about characterizing – him.

Speaker Pelosi.   Me?  I have been reticent?  Who has been more than I?  Okay.

Q.  Was this President a crook? 

Q.  Was this President a crook?

Speaker Pelosi.   A crook?  Why don't we take your question? 

Q.  Feel free to respond to my colleague.  But the attack against the FBI office, or apparent attack against the FBI office in Ohio, how concerned are you about an increased level of violence against law enforcement, against public officials?  And are you concerned that some of the rhetoric from the former President could be to blame for some of those increased threats?

Speaker Pelosi.   Thank you for your question.  Now, the – we need no more evidence than a presidential incitement of an insurrection on the Capitol to know about causing concern about the safety of Members of Congress, of our Capitol, of our Constitution and of our law enforcement. 

We – on Tuesday, we had a conference with the Members.  It was a Zoom Caucus with our Members where we had a presentation on enhanced security for Members and their staff and families, and in an unemotional, serious way, recognizing that this inflaming of situations that have no basis in truth even and are in disregard of the responsibilities of law enforcement.  So, yes. 

But again, we have to be – there are no guarantees.  We sign up for this.  We have to do our jobs.  I know very well how vicious they can be for a long time now, but certainly enhanced, if that's the word, exacerbated by the statements of the President. 

You would think there would be an adult in the Republican room that would say, ‘Just calm down, see what the facts are, and let's go for that,’ instead of, again, instigating assaults on law enforcement. 

Thank you all very much.  We have to go to the Floor for the moment of silence now.  Thank you. 

San Francisco – Speaker Nancy Pelosi joined Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and local science and technology leaders to celebrate the enactment of the CHIPS and Science Act and discuss how t

San Francisco – Speaker Nancy Pelosi joined local community leaders at the Rosa Parks Senior Center to mark the 87th anniversary of Social Sec