Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
President Joe Biden Gives News Conference Following G20 Summit. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired October 31, 2021 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:37]
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: All right, hello again everyone. Thank you so much for joining us. I'm Fredricka Whitfield in Atlanta joined by my colleague, Chris Cuomo live for us in Rome.
We begin with this breaking news. Moments from now, President Biden will hold a news conference marking an official end to his trip to the G20 Summit. We're standing by to bring that to you live as it happens.
So this comes as the G20 countries release their official communique, tackling a number of global issues, but failing to make a full throated pledge to get to net zero carbon emissions.
CNN's Chris Cuomo live right now in Roma. Buona Sera. That's all I've got for you. I'm giving you all the words I know.
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Buona Sera, well done. Well done. It's good. It's good. You're too ahead of me.
All right, so we're all waiting. We're all waiting. Because the President of the United States is expected to take the podium soon. There has been a little bit of a delay. This is nothing unusual.
He is known for running late, by the way. Joining us now CNN senior White House correspondent, Phil Mattingly AND CNN international diplomatic editor, Nic Robertson, and CNN chief climate correspondent, Bill Weir joining us from Glasgow.
So, Phil, for the President's team, what is the hardest aspect of what they expect in terms of a question in this press conference.
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Knowing that everything is on the table, right, you can't plan for, you know, depending on how many reporters he's going to call on, there's obviously no limits to what he can be asked about. And so while they may want to talk about what they think they secured wins-wise in the G20 or what. They want to lay out to try and have momentum going into Glasgow, everything is on the table, and we talked about this a short while ago.
That includes his domestic agenda. Where do things stand? How does he plan to navigate and secure a victory in the two significant proposals that Democrats are currently considering? But you can go beyond that as well, and if you look over the scale of the last several months, you know, whether it's Afghanistan, whether it's, you know, geopolitical issues, generally where China stands, obviously, we know it's a focal point for this administration.
All of that is possible right now, all of that is something White House officials probably were factoring in as they're preparing the President, but I think it'll be interesting, Nic and I were talking before, you know, we haven't had a press conference with the President since after his meeting with Vladimir Putin in Geneva back in June.
And so while he takes questions from us when he arrives on Marine One, or maybe when he is doing a spray with an Oval Office leader, the ability to sit down and craft a question, ask the President and get him to expound on any number of issues and something I think reporters have definitely been looking forward to.
CUOMO: And yes, you are hearing bells. This is Rome, there are churches all over the place, and about every 15 minutes, you hear church bells somewhere, let alone on a Sunday.
Plus minus for me, Nic, in terms of the strongest ground for the American President in this press conference, and where his flank is a little exposed?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Well, I might say in reference to the bells for whom the bells toll --
CUOMO: Oh, strong.
ROBERTSON: Because out of this conference here has been the resounding death knell for the hope for achievement at the 26 COP in Glasgow -- the COP 26 in Glasgow. Why? Because they've failed to make the big commitments here. And I think, you know, there's a lot of domestic questions that surely the President must be, as you were saying, Phil, preparing for, but I think the international question is going to be why have only 12 of these G20 nations, only 12 of them committed to net zero by 2050.
Why have you fallen short? What is holding everyone up? What is the conversation going on behind closed doors? What is Russia telling you? What is China telling you? What are the pressure points on them? Why can't you make it happen?
Because for whom the bell tolls, it is the next generation. We heard that from Prince Charles. We heard that from the U.N. Secretary General, we've heard it from so many leaders saying that it is the future generations that are being let down by these current leaders. So, that's got to be the sort of big ticket international question, I would say.
CUOMO: So Bill, you reminded us earlier that the United States has come in strong into the COP 26, that they're bringing former President and the current President. They have Secretary Kerry. They have the governors. They have a lot of staffers.
And the message out of the members of that group I've been able to speak to, we just spoke to Washington Governor, Jay Inslee. They said you're going to be surprised. We're going to get things some things done. You think that's just hype? Or is there hope?
BILL WEIR, CNN CHIEF CLIMATE CORRESPONDENT: It is -- I think there's a legitimate argument to be made there that maybe over 60 percent of the U.S. economy is very much behind the ideals of the Paris Accord, but we think in such nationalistic terms these days, and a lot of people will look at this as sort of a rumble of the big heavies around the world. Xi is not here, Putin is not here.
[15:05:19]
WEIR: Biden comes in. Is he strong or weak? All of that sort of thing. None of that ultimately matters to the laws of physics.
Since the very first one of these conversations in Rio almost 30 years ago, the planet has lost trillions of tons of ice and wide swaths of coral reefs around the world, and you know, temperate rainforest -- tropical rainforest around the world, all of this is grinding away.
There is the physical reality of what's happening on the planet, as we're now 1.1 degrees Celsius over industrial times. Half of that coming since they started talking about this, in all of these COPs about 25 years ago.
Then there's the political reality, which is an energy crunch in Europe and in China, even where they put three times the coal capacity as the rest of the world combined online in 2020 because they've got a lot of people to keep warm there. And it's still, you know, a go-to resource for them.
But Christmas is not a great omen today as hundreds of people tried to take the green option from London to Glasgow on the train, due to stormy weather, a tree fell, knocking out the power lines, snarling traffic. It is complete chaos. People are trying to get here for tomorrow's opening, even the U.K. Environment Minister had to be evacuated from his train.
CUOMO: You know, during COVID-19, Bill, I would love your take on this. So there was manufacturing slowdown. There was travel slowdown. Everybody was, you know, kind of shut in in so many different places. And you started to hear these stories about how skies seemed clear and smog seemed to lift and we all heard the story about out of Venice, how they started to see like fish in the water all of a sudden, they haven't seen it in decades.
And it was interesting how that gave hope to both sides of this argument to the extent that there should even be both sides. What's your take, Bill, on people who say, see how easy it is? In just a few months, everything started to get better. There's no reason for any big changes.
WEIR: Well, a couple things to say about that. For one, it is that sort of close to the ground pollution. That smog. That's not the greenhouse gas planet cooking layer that we've been building over 150 years. The decrease in emissions was a blip.
If you imagine like we've got a giant, you know, there's a giant bathtub in the sky and we've got the faucet on full just cranking out carbon dioxide and methane natural gas. We eased off, you know, on the hot water faucet, maybe a quarter of a turn for six months, it did nothing.
And now you see what is being called Revenge Pollution as factories crank up 24/7.
Look, the Earth can heal if given a chance. But we have now reached a point where we've been kicking this can down the road for so long, as much of the conversation here in the next couple of weeks will be about adaptation, bracing for the wrath of what we have already baked into the system as much as it is mitigation of trying to turn it off.
But politically, again, back to the political reality. Yes, Republicans will use high gas prices, will use heating, you know, the threat of your heat being cut off this winter because of what happened down in Texas, you know, recently with that freak ice storm. And so it is -- that's what makes this the greatest geopolitical challenge in human history.
There will be no 9/11 of climate where everybody suffers the same shock in the same moment in time, and we adapt so quickly to today.
CUOMO: And yet, Phil, is certainly on the American scene. It is all about catastrophic catalysts that if you don't have a huge thing, and even when you do, you don't necessarily get changed. And yet, in the Biden administration, isn't sending all of these big shots to this Summit a sign of more kind of energy to -- you know, no pun intended -- behind this issue than we've seen in the past?
MATTINGLY: I don't think there is any question about it. I think you can say it's just for optics, or it's just for kind of public relations reasons showing that we care. But I think that there's real kind of depth behind it when you talk to administration officials in terms of underscoring not just that the U.S. is planning on making significant commitments, not just that the U.S. believes that they're doing what they need to do, but that they believe that in sending all of these people and bringing the commitments they're going to be bringing, not just from the from the administration side, but also from the private sector side, that they're leading as well, and I think that is a critical thing.
The level of urgency right now, not just because of the dire moment that the globe is in, that the world is in, but also a level of urgency in the sense of, you don't know what's going to happen a few years from now. The U.S. has been a pendulum swinging back and forth over the course of the last 30 years as Bill just laid out so clearly and that the administration wants to underscore.
[15:10:08]
MATTINGLY: We're here now and now is the time to make these changes. Now is the time to make the commitments and now is the time to put in concrete action, whether it's the largest economies in the world, or whether it's getting aid to the smallest economies in the world, and to miss this moment would be devastating. CUOMO: It is fraught. And yet, Nic, if you're the American President,
you'd rather talk about climate and what didn't get done here, and did get done, than what he is dealing with his domestic agenda.
I mean, he's going to have to take questions about why there's no family leave in this spending bill anymore, and you know, there is no other country here with the G20 who will say they don't have that policy. So this is really the best conversation from the hat, isn't it?
ROBERTSON: There were some good takeaways here for the President. I mean, he did come in with the baggage of no agreement on the big spending bills when he arrived. But what has he been able to do, since? He's been able to show that he is willing to take on human rights violating leaders -- President Erdogan today; and that he is willing and able to build and repair bridges with other leaders -- Emmanuel Macron, and that is willing to work with the Europeans and roll back some of the friction on the aluminum and steel tariffs that have been in place.
So I think, on the international side, sure, he has come here. And it's also been to be able to kind of lead the conversation on, you know, on a number of issues. So, I think that has put him in good stead here to want to talk when he takes the podium about those international pluses because I think that clearly in our conversation here, we can see they outweigh what is fighting back home.
CUOMO: Hey, Bill, is it worth explaining to people, the aluminum and steel tariffs that were in place here and what it means that Biden is this making that move to ease them? What will that mean at home?
WEIR: I think it really plays into one of the key disappointments Democrats had, Chris is that the White House backed away from a border tax on carbon. When you look at a country like China, as was mentioned, so much coal capacity over there and you want them to have to pay for that.
So you could then put a border tax on something coming over, but the White House doesn't want to come anywhere near a whiff of raising costs on average, middle class Americans. And so, they have backed away from that and I think that plays into the steel tariffs as well to bring down the costs of your next dishwasher or your washer and dryer. Those sorts of things play out as well.
And to your question earlier about bringing this huge contingent. Yes, on the sidelines, in the back rooms, talking with Foreign Ministers, a lot can get done there that may or may not end up in the, you know, the final decree at the end of these two weeks.
But what I'm hearing today from what's coming out of Rome where you guys are just from environmental watchdogs, so much disappointment in this sort of tepid statement that came out where basically the 20 richest countries in the world say, yes, we agree that our planetary house is on fire. Everyone aren't really going to really talk about how to put it out or when to put it out. And that could change when they get here, maybe feel the pressure, the
public pressure, as you know, we'll see a lot of voices come to the fore, trying to hammer home the urgency of this moment in time. But all of that, that border crossing trade, real politic is all underneath the surface.
CUOMO: Also, we can't forget that when he does, in America, get this infrastructure bill passed, steel prices are going to be a big issue because a lot of the projects are going to be raw material dependent, and how do you source them? And what do you pay for them? And what does that do in terms of the policy objectives?
So let's take a quick break. As you can see, we're looking at an empty podium.
The American President is due to show up any moment now. CNN will cover the press conference with President Biden, how he handles these issues. How does he make it?
There's somebody coming out right now? Not the President though.
Let's take a quick break. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:18:10]
CUOMO: All right, I'm Chris Cuomo. We're here at the G20 in Rome. We are waiting on the American President, Joe Biden, to address the media. He doesn't do that -- do this that often.
He is going to be getting a range of questions, both domestic and international. I've got some big shots with me. I have Phil Mattingly. I have Nic Robertson, and I have Bill Weir, who is a step ahead of us. He's in Glasgow, Scotland where the COP 26 is going to be.
And, you know, Bill was talking right before the break about how a lot of environmentalists are not happy about what happened here, and now, you can look at that two ways, Bill, right? Which is all right, this is disappointing and there is going to be more disappointment to come. Or they may benefit from a low floor when they get there.
WEIR: That's certainly the rosiest way of looking at it for sure. I mean, we have such low expectations given this is the 26th Conference of Parties, and not a whole heck of a lot has gotten done practically on the ground.
If you look at some -- almost 200 countries that signed on to the Paris Accord, only the Gambia, the tiny nation in Africa is actually on track to meet the commitments that they made. So nobody is really stepping up.
And the idea was after the Paris Accord, you're going to come back every five years and just sort of up the ante and say, okay, here is the reality. We need to go harder. We need to do more about methane. We need to lower our targets. But none of that is happening right now. At the G20, Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister said he
thought it was rude of the other countries to try to rope Russia into setting 2050 as the date where they zero out all sorts of planet cooking pollution at that level.
And so this is history that is at play, it is psychology, it's trade. It is nationalism, which is happening around the world so the forces of agreement against coming to some grand agreement here are pretty slim.
[15:20:14]
WEIR: The U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres said, while I welcome to G20's recommitment to global solutions, I leave Rome with my hopes unfulfilled, but at least they are not buried.
Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the U.K., host country here, and actually the one country that is setting a sort of a tone of leadership in this space around the world said to be clear that if Glasgow fails, the whole thing fails. The Paris Agreements will have crumbled at the first reckoning.
So the pressure could not be higher right now on them to come up with something that is -- not only solidifies that moment of sort of global joy for environmentalists that happened in 2015, but takes it to the next step, Chris, and that's, in practical terms, so difficult these days.
CUOMO: All right, so let's go from rosy to rabbit. Nic, what has the international community solved as a group? The G20 is an outgrowth of the G5, six and then seven, right? They had eight for a second with Russia, then they kicked them back out.
That was about Bretton Woods, which took place in New Hampshire and that was about understanding a currency model. Tying it to gold. Nixon blew that up in 1970, when he took the dollar, which had been the trigger currency off of the gold standard and that went away.
Then you formed the G20 in 1999. Let's start again. Let's have more people, more stakeholders, and we'll get more done. What can they really hold their name to in terms of what they achieved? Are we expecting too much in terms of any type of international erasing of any problem through collective will?
ROBERTSON: We can never expect too much. Climate change is the one thing that tells us you have to aim for the best. You have to aim for the top. Because if you don't achieve the climate change that's required, then we are going to cook the planet. I mean, there's no other way about it.
So are we trying to achieve too much by bringing in 20 nations? I think it reflects the fact that the world is a changing place? I mean, look at how much China has caught up with the United States economically over the last 30 or 40 years? I mean, it is right at the heels of the United States. It's a gap, but it's still at the heels relative to so many other nations. So things have changed. So, you have to let more people in, and that
makes the game harder. But we're millions and billions of more people on the planet now than we were back then.
The game is hard. This is not easy. This really is seriously about saving the planet. I mean, that's what we hear. It is in jeopardy.
Our way of way of live, what we're used to sitting here and our children's is going to be different. So yes, we have to bring in all the stakeholders. My question that I sit here and wonder about when Putin didn't show up and President Xi didn't show up for here, and these are two nations that are pushing the envelope. You heard what Bill said about Sergey Lavrov today saying, this is unfair to hold us to 2050. Just you say 2050, why should we go for that? Okay, reverse that.
What are we going to do to hold them to the compliance that is necessary? And these are the even tougher questions at the moment? We're in the phase of let's have a Khumbaya or let's get together. Let's make this work. We all understand.
But we're looking at it as individual nations still. We cannot afford to do that. So yes, we need everyone around the table, and we need to aim big.
CUOMO: Somebody was just at the podium but that's just a tech check. We're still waiting on the American President, guaranteed, he doesn't show up in a beige suit. So he is going to -- the American President be able to talk about big numbers that the United States is committed. The pushback is going to be next point about enforcement and getting those who are laggards to step up and how.
We are given the two-minute warning on the briefing. We will be right on time with it. But let's jump to Suzanne Malveaux, who is on Capitol Hill because the pushback to Biden's, hey, we're putting in a lot of money on climate. We're ahead of the curve is going to be, yes. But what is your ability to get anybody to do anything, especially when it comes to Russia and China? And they'll say by the way, you can't even get your own party to get things done.
Now, is that story going to change early next week?
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: They are certainly hoping that that part -- that that that story changes, because if you look at it, they're looking at Tuesday as another potential time for them to actually aim at voting on both those bills, the infrastructure, the bipartisan bill, as well as the social safety net bill. But I have to tell you here, Chris, there are three criteria hurdles that they are contending with.
I mean, the first one is they want those assurances. The progressive Democrats want assurances that the moderates, Manchin and Sinema will go ahead with this bigger bill. They want it in writing. We heard from Senator Sanders earlier today, and I'm going to toss it back to you Chris, I understand that the President is at the podium.
CUOMO: There he is. Suzanne Malveaux, thank you very much.
The President of the United States, Joe Biden.
[15:25:01]
JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We've had very productive meetings in the past few days, and I'm looking forward to continuing to make progress on critical global issues that as we head off to Glasgow, because of what we've seen, again, here in Rome, what I think is the power of America showing up and working with our allies and partners to make progress in issues that matter to all of us.
And there's really no substitute for face-to-face discussions and negotiations among the leaders when it comes to building an understanding of cooperation.
I found in all of my meetings here, both the larger sessions and the one-on-one sessions, and I had many of those, a real eagerness among our partners and allies for American leadership to help bring the world together and solve some of these big problems.
I found my one-on-one engagements with so many leaders the importance of strong personal relationships. It never fails -- it never ceases to amaze me, when you're looking at someone straight in the eye when you're trying to get something done.
They know me, I know them. We can get things done together.
And so I want to thank the Italian people, by the way for the G20, for their hospitality and congratulate Prime Minister Draghi. He did one heck of a job leading the G20 through a difficult year marked by great global challenges, critically among them, ending the pandemic, driving a broad-based sustainable global economic recovery and tackling the climate crisis.
I believe we made tangible progress in each of these issues and part because of the commitment that the United States has brought to the table.
For example, I'm proud that the G20 endorsed the global minimum tax. This is something the United States has been driving for, for over a year, building momentum up to this achievement, and this is an incredible win for all our countries.
Instead of nations competing against one another to track investments by bottoming out corporate tax rates, this set a minimum floor of 15 percent to ensure that giant corporations begin to pay their fair share no matter where they're headquartered, instead of hiding profits overseas.
We also agreed to establish the fund in the future that for countries can draw on to prevent if necessary, and respond to the next pandemic -- prepared for the next time around.
Yesterday, together with Prime Minister Johnson and Merkel and Macron -- President Macron -- we came together to reiterate our shared belief that diplomacy -- diplomacy is the best way to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon, and we discussed how best to encourage Iran to resume serious good faith negotiations.
I also want to note that even as I've been here in Rome, as you might guess, and some of you, I suspect are doing the same thing, American reporters, been focused on the vital issues that affect American workers and families at home.
I just finished meeting with a broad coalition of partners on how to address the immediate supply chain backlogs and dealing -- that the world has been dealing with and facing and we're facing back at home and how to make sure we have access to all the products we need, from shoes, to furniture, to electronics to automobiles, to make sure that we talk about how to better secure yourself against these future shocks, whether pandemic, climate change, or other disasters.
In the Build Back Better framework, which is God-willing going to be voted on as early as sometime this coming week, that I announced on Thursday includes for the first time ever, several billion dollars to help strengthen the supply chains, to make sure we have access to everything we need, and it is going to give workers and folks making all these products just a little bit of breathing room.
With the Build Back Better, we're also going to make it easy for them to afford everything from childcare while they're at work for their kids, two years of free high-quality preschool. And finally, today, I was proud to announce, together with our close E.U. partners, another critical win for both American workers and the climate agenda.
The United States and the European Union have agreed to negotiate the world's first trade agreement based on how much carbon is in a product as we negotiated the steel and aluminum tariffs that were in place.
We made an agreement and I might add strong support of U.S. steel workers back home, and I want to thank them. I want to thank Tom Conway who I spoke to today, President of the United Steelworkers for his partnership in arriving at this deal.
The deal will immediately remove a point of significant tension with our friends in the European Union and it rejects the false idea that we cannot grow an economy and support American workers while tackling climate crisis at the same time.
We're talking about a lot -- a lot -- during the G20 -- the COP 26, but we also know tackling climate crisis has been an all-hands-on-deck effort. American workers are critical part of the solution and now, I'm happy to take some questions and I'm told I should start with AP, Zeke Miller. Zeke, you have a question. I didn't recognize you with your mask on. I apologize.
ZEKE MILLER, ASSOCIATED PRESS: Thank you, Mr. President. Here in Rome, you've tried to showcase that America is back. But back at home, your poll numbers have fallen. Your party's nominee for governor in Virginia is facing a very tough --a tougher than expected race.
Your party has spent months trying to negotiate the centerpiece of your domestic legislative agenda. We are one year now since your election, what -- and you've done a lot in your year in office to try to turn the page on the last administration. But we've seen how Presidents can turn the page very quickly from one to the other. So why should the world, you know, believe that when you say America is back that really it's here to stay?
BIDEN: Because the way they reacted. You were here. They listened. Everyone sought me out. They want to know what our views were and we helped lead what happened here.
It is just very simple. You know, if you're honest -- you are honest, I didn't mean to imply you weren't -- but that we got significant support here, significant support. We're the most -- the United States of America is the most critical part of this entire agenda, and we did it.
And by the way, look, the polls are going to go up and down and up and down. They were higher earlier, then they got medium, then went back up, and now they're low.
Well, look, this is -- look at every other President. The same thing has happened. But that's not why I ran.
I didn't run to determine how well I'm going to do in the polls, I ran to make sure that I follow through on what I said I would do as President of the United States, and I said that I would make sure that we were in a position where we dealt with climate change, where we moved in a direction that would significantly improve the prospects of American workers being able to have good jobs and good pay.
And further, that I would make sure that we dealt with the crisis that was caused by COVID.
We've done all of those, we continue to do them and we'll see what happens.
But I'm not running because of the polls.
Next question is from Jeff Mason -- for Jeff Mason of Reuters.
JEFF MASON, REUTERS: Thank you, Mr. President, a question on climate and energy. Can the world and others be confident that you will be able to follow or do -- make good on the promises on climate change that you will -- that you have made when you're at Glasgow without a vote having taken place on your bill? And on the same topic, climate. Some NGOs are already saying that the G20 commitments today were underwhelming. How do you respond to their criticism that the G20 response is not a good sign for COP 26?
BIDEN: I'll answer both questions. Number one, I believe we will pass my Build Back Better plan and I believe we will pass the infrastructure bill. Combined, they have $900 billion in climate resistance and dealing with climate and resilience, and it's the largest investment in the history of the world that's ever occurred and it's going to pass in my view.
But we'll see. We'll see.
You know, you've all believed it wouldn't happen from the very beginning at the moment I announced it and you always seem amazed when it's alive again. Well, you may turn out to be right, maybe it won't work. But I believe we'll see by the end of next week at home that it is passed.
With regard to the -- and by the infrastructure bill delivers an awful lot of things in terms of everything from tax credits for electric vehicles, to making sure we are able to invest literally billions of dollars in everything from highways, roads, bridges, public transit, airports, et cetera. But, we'll see.
And with regard to the disappointment, the disappointment relates to the fact that Russia and including not only Russia, but China basically didn't show up in terms of any commitments to deal with climate change. And there is a reason why people should be disappointed in that. I found it disappointing myself.
But what we did do, we passed a number of things here to end the subsidization of coal. We made commitments here from across the board -- all of us -- in terms of what we're going to bring to the G-26 and I think, you know, as that old bad -- that all trite saying goes, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
I think you're going to see we made significant progress, and more has to be done, but it is going to require us to continue to focus on what China is not doing, what Russia is not doing and what Saudi Arabia is not doing.
[15:35:00]
MASON: I want to follow up on energy, sir. You also met with energy consumers about supply. What steps are you considering taking if OPEC+ does not raise supply? And do you see any irony in pushing them to increase oil production at the same time that you're going to COP 26 to urge people to lower emissions?
BIDEN: Well, on the surface, it seems like an irony, but the truth of the matter is, you've all known, everyone knows that the idea we're going to be able to move to renewable energy overnight, and not have, from this moment on, not use oil or not use gas or not use hydrogen is just not rational.
Certain things we can wipe out, and we don't have to do. We should be moving immediately to get rid of as they've adopted here, my proposal to end methane, to deal with a whole range of things. But it does on the surface seem inconsistent.
But it's not at all inconsistent and that no one has anticipated that this year, we'd be in a position or even next year that we're not going to use any more oil or gas, that we're not going to be engaged in any fossil fuels.
We're going to stop subsidizing those fossil fuels. We're going to make significant changes, and it just makes the argument that we should move more rapidly to renewable energy. The wind and solar, and other means of energy. But the idea that we're just going to end and somehow -- but it does on the surface, I admit to you, we're going to COP the deal with renewable energy and I'm saying why are you guys cutting off oil and raising the price just to make it look harder for us?
But it's a legitimate question. I think, though, that if anybody thinks about it, no one ever thought that tomorrow, for example, it's going to take us between now and 2030 to have half the vehicles in America electric vehicles. So the idea we're not going to need gasoline for automobiles is just not realistic.
But we will get to the point that by 2050 we have zero emissions.
Jim -- Jim Tankersley, "New York Times."
JIM TANKERSLEY, "NEW YORK TIMES": Thank you so much. I'd like to actually start by following up on Jeff's question, and then ask you about supply chains as a follow up to that.
But on the question of oil prices, economists say that, you know, when you raise the price of something, people will consume less of it. So why not allow even middle class people around the world to pay more for gasoline in the hope that they would consume fewer fossil fuels and emit less?
BIDEN: Well, because they have to get to their work. They have to get in an automobile, turn on the key, get their kids to school. The school buses have to run. That's the reason why, you know that, Jim. That's the reason.
The idea that we can -- there's an alternative to walk away from being able to get in your automobile is just not realistic, it's not going to happen. And this wasn't intended to happen.
And by the way, when the cost of a gallon of gasoline gets to above 300 not 300, $3.35 a gallon, it has profound impact on working class families, just to get back and forth to work. So I don't see anything inconsistent with that. But I do think that the idea that Russia and Saudi Arabia and other major producers are not going to pump more oil so people can have gasoline to get to and from work, for example, is not -- is not right.
And we're considering doing that, I'm reluctant to say before I have to do it.
TANKERSLEY: A follow up question, sir, one of the obviously, big problems in the United States for supply chains is not having enough workers, not enough people to drive trucks to unload at ports, for example, and a lot of other parts of the supply chain.
Workers have not returned to the labor force in America as fast as your administration thought they would. Why do you think that is? Why aren't people --
BIDEN: Because they're able to negotiate for higher wages, and they like to move from one job to another. That's one of the reasons why. A lot of people don't want to continue to do the job they did before making seven, eight, nine bucks an hour -- an awful lot of the auto -- excuse me, of the truck drivers are not unionized truck drivers, they are working like hell and not getting paid a whole lot.
And so what you're seeing here is a combination of the desire of people to be able to change professions, to be able to do more, and take care of their families, and at the same time, dealing with an issue that in fact, we are short of workers, but worker pay has actually gone up and we've employed six million people just since I got elected.
So employment is up, the economy is actually, in spite of all this, still growing. You have a significant number of -- I forget the number. I think it was close to 60 major economists acknowledging that what's going to happen is, you're going to see continued economic growth under our proposals.
You had a total of 14 -- I think, it was 14 -- Nobel laureate economist -- in Economics saying this is going to be -- what I'm proposing to reduce the inflation et cetera, so there's a lot going on.
Just look, we really are -- I know you're tired of hearing me say this, we are at one of the inflection points in history.
[15:40:10]
BIDEN: So much is changing, so many pieces on the table are moving and how they get resettled depends upon the judgments we make and whether or not the United States among others can lead the world in the direction that's going to increase the circumstances for a higher standard of living for workers here and abroad, as well as making sure that people have an opportunity.
As I said, again, I'll use the phrase, let's have a little breathing room. I meant what I said when I ran. My desire was to build this economy from the bottom up and the middle out, not from the top down and that is what's in process of happening.
But in the meantime, there's been enormous changes as a consequence of COVID, on the supply chains, because why are we having trouble? An awful lot of the very factories and operations that in fact produced material that we need for supply chains and everything from shoes to dealing with computer chips. You know, they're out sick, they're not working.
And so it's changing. The economy is changing, and the United States has to stay ahead of the curve. That's why I introduced the infrastructure bill. That's why I also introduced the Build Back Better initiative.
"The Washington Post," Sung Min Kim. Where are you -- there you are. I'm sorry, I couldn't see you.
SUNG MIN KIM, "THE WASHINGTON POST": It's okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
On Iran, how will you determine whether the Iranians are serious about rejoining the nuclear talks as they have indicated they will do by the end of November? And what costs are you prepared to impose on Iran if it continues to carry out attacks against the United States, such as the recent drone strikes against U.S. forces in Syria?
BIDEN: Well in a sense, there are two different issues. One is whether or not we get to the JCPOA, we will rejoin that and that depends -- that's why I had the meetings with my colleagues here in Rome who are part of the original group of six people, the six nations that got together to say that we should negotiate a change, which I found that I think we're continuing to suffer from the very bad judgments that President Trump made in pulling out of the JCPOA, and so that's one issue.
And that issue is going to depend on whether on -- how that gets resolved is going to depend on their action and the willingness of our friends who are part of the original agreement to stick with us and make sure there is a price to pay economically for them to fail to come back.
With regard to the issue of how we're going to respond to actions taken by them against the interest of the United States, whether they are drone strikes or anything else is we're going to respond and we're going to continue to respond.
ABC, Cecilia Vega. It's hard to see you guys in the mask on. I apologize.
CECILIA VEGA, ABC NEWS: And the masks are making my glasses fog up, so I apologize to you. Thank you, sir.
On climate change, you just mentioned, the incentives you have on renewable energy in your Build Back Better plan, you do have a number of incentives. But as it stands right now, there are no punitive measures in this plan to hold these companies accountable and many experts firmly believe that you've got to have the stick along with the carrot in order to get to your goal to reduce emissions by 2030 by 50 percent.
So can you stand here today and say to the world that you definitively will still meet that goal?
BIDEN: Yes, I can, because what we're proposing and what we've initiated is everything from getting the automobile makers to commit to going all electric, number one; getting the union's to agree to do that as well, making sure we have the investment and battery technology that requires us to have the ability to generate electric vehicles, electric buses, electric transportation grids, making sure that we are dealing with everything from -- let me go through so some of these -- that we have tax credits for -- of $320 billion for dealing with alternatives by people getting any tax credit for moving on solar panels, on wind, and a whole range of other things and winterizing their properties. I don't think you're going to need any punitive action to get people
to step up and do those things. There has been no indication that's the case as all with regard to, you know, there is a total of $555 billion in climate -- and I'm just checking the numbers to make sure I'm right -- in climate investment in terms of resilience.
[15:45:07]
BIDEN: We're now -- it's very much in the interest of the industry to see to it that we move to making sure that we have the resilience to be able to when those towers come down and the lines end up hitting the ground and burning down large swaths of the West to bury this underground. There's a whole range of things. I don't think we're going to have to --
Everybody knows which direction it is going, and there is no indication that there has to be a punitive effort to get people to react the way which we have to do, at least I don't believe so.
VEGA: And also, if I may, on your meeting with Pope Francis. The more than 50 million Catholics back at home are seeing something play out that has never happened before. This split in the conservative wing of the Catholic Church moving to deny someone like you, a Catholic President, the sacrament of communion.
For these Catholic back home, what did it mean for you to hear Pope Francis in the wake of this in the middle of this debate, call you a good Catholic and did what he tell you should put this debate to rest?
BIDEN: Look, I'm not going to -- a lot of this is just personal. Pope Francis has become a -- I don't want to exaggerate -- has become someone who has provided great solace for my family when my son died. He has -- he is, in my view -- there has always been this debate in the Catholic Church, going back to Pope John XXIII that talk about how we reach out and embrace people with differences.
If you notice what the Pope said when he was asked when he first got elected Pope, he was traveling with the press and they said, what is your position on homosexuals? He said, "Who am I did judge."
This is a man who has great empathy. He is a man who understands that part of his Christianity is to reach out and to forgive. And so, I just find my relationship with him one that I personally I take great solace in. He is a really, truly genuine decent man.
And I'll end by saying that, you know, there are an awful lot of people who -- and many of you -- I'm not putting you in this position, I apologize, but many of you who even in the press, who went out of your way to express your empathy and sympathy when I lost the real part of my soul -- when I lost my Beau, my son.
And I -- my family will never forget my extended family because when I come -- it was only a matter of days since my son had passed away and Pope Francis came to United States to visit with the -- with not only President Obama, but with the Catholic Church here, and I was asked if I would accompany him to Philadelphia, a seminary -- anyway. And I did, but it was -- the wounds were still raw of the loss of my
son and I had my extended family and you're all tired of seeing my extended family. They're always around. My grandchildren, my children, my wife, my daughters-in-law, and before he left and got in the plane, the Pope asked whether or not he could meet with my family and we met in the hangar at the Philadelphia Airport.
And he came in and he talked to my family for a considerable amount of time, 10 to 15 minutes about my son, Beau. And he didn't just generically talk about him, he knew about him. He knew what he did. He knew who he was. He knew where he went to school. He knew what a man he was.
And it had such a cathartic impact on his children and my wife and our family that it meant a great deal. And I meant what I said, everybody was laughing, I didn't realize you all were able to film what I was doing with the Pope when I gave him the Command Coin.
And I meant what I said. This is a man who is -- someone who is looking to establish peace and decency and honor, not just in the Catholic Church but just generically.
[15:50:14]
BIDEN: When I won, he called me to tell me how much he appreciated the fact that I would focus on the poor and focus on the needs of people who are in trouble. And, so I just -- again, I don't want to talk more about it because so much of it is personal. But I'm -- he is -- he is everything I learned about Catholicism from the time I was a kid going from grade school through high school. And I have great respect for people who have other religious views, but he is -- he is just a fine, decent, honorable man and we keep in touch.
I thank you all very, very much for your patience. Thank you.
CUOMO: All right, President Biden getting a lot of questions about domestic agenda, but also about what this means, the G20, what it means going forward for the COP 26 and picking on a lot of the issues that we teed up for you in advance about, you know what this President can really get done.
And then, as is not unusual with Joe Biden, he wound up going to his heart on a question about Catholicism. And there is an interesting disconnect, not unusual for American Catholics. We've seen American Bishops try to target politicians in the past. I don't know about the context of the question.
But this Pope being countermanded, this Pope being contradicted by American Bishops is new. And this Pope going out of his way, when meeting with Joe Biden to say you are a good Catholic, and you should receive Communion was unusual.
But Biden used it as an opportunity to turn towards his personal -- he doesn't want to get involved with, you know, catechism and what church politics are, but he talked about the loss of his son and what the Pope did in offering solace during that time and he even mentioned that some of the media had offered solace during that time. And he got emotional as he always does, because his feelings are raw and often real, especially when he is talking about his family.'
So, how did he do? What does it mean? What did it leave out there? Let's bring back Phil Mattingly, Nic Robertson, and Bill Weir who is a step ahead in Glasgow, Scotland. So, how do you think he did? What did it mean?
MATTINGLY: So I think there are a couple of things that really stuck out to me. First, talking about his domestic agenda, which obviously is top of mind for everybody right now, saying, God-willing, there will be a vote as soon as -- and then he paused. He said, as soon as next week, at some point.
We all think it's going to be as soon as Tuesday, but he very clearly made clear to the press and to everybody watching that he believes that not only is it going to pass, but it could pass as soon as next week, which is what they're going for at this point in time. So, still optimistic there.
And I think making the point, as we've discussed that officials -- administration officials believe that even in the G20, even at Glasgow at COP 26, the idea that it hasn't gotten through the House yet is not something that international leaders are focused on. What they are focused on is what is in black and white and the climate that's $555 billion. That is very real, tangible policy that would dwarf anything the United States has done up to this point.
The other thing in the context of being asked about -- which we were talking about before -- the climate language in the G20 communique and what that means heading into Glasgow in terms of falling short, perhaps, of what the U.S. wanted, rather, leaders wanted, certainly what climate activists wanted. And while this isn't necessarily a revelatory thing, just directly calling out China and Russia saying explicitly, they didn't show up, saying he was disappointed in them.
Again, they quite literally did not show up. So, that's just stating a fact there.
ROBERTSON: And he made that point as well before that saying the way I get business done, because he was asked how effective can you be with internationally -- sorry for jumping in --
MATTINGLY: No, no, please, please.
ROBERTSON: It really struck me how effective can you be with international leaders? Yes, they're affecting me, because I do business with them. I looked them in the eye. And when he said that, I knew that that's what he hadn't been able to do was Xi and Putin and then it came up as just as you say.
MATTINGLY: Yes, and I think it's so critical him acknowledging, which I wasn't necessarily expecting that he was disappointed in the outcome to some degree in what that means going forward.
So critiquing those two nations, which I think everybody is a little bit frustrated here and heading into Glasgow aren't going to be real players. I think what was noticeable, too, you could tick through Iran and a couple of other things, just looking through my notes, but I think you kind of hit in your opening, you know, very personal with his discussion about the Pope, very personal about his relationship with the Pope and we talked about it before he met with the Pope and we were sitting in front of the Vatican, how he views this, how White House officials relay how he views this. And you saw it --
CUOMO: Right, and you could say -- oh, well that was odd for him to say it's personal. Well, I think it's kind of odd to go deep on somebody's religion in American politics, you know what I mean? We talk more about Joe Biden's Catholicism and how it is being tested and what it means and how he really feels about it than I've ever heard any President discussing their faith.
[15:55:12]
CUOMO: I mean, we gave Trump a complete pass, right? The man came out as President and said, I have no relationship with God. They had a couple of evangelists say the same thing, and then nobody ever measured it ever again, whether he was at services, how -- you know how he lived. So, that's a little unusual.
Now, on the climate side, let's hop over to Bill. Bill, what did you make of President Biden talking the aspirational talk that certainly we're not unfamiliar with from Democrats, but then also going retail on it, people have got to get in their car, they've got to turn the key, they've got to take people to school, they've got to get to work.
And you can't just think you're not going to have gasoline anymore. And when gas goes above $3.36 a gallon, you're going to have problems for people at home and that matters, too.
WEIR: Exactly. What's interesting is what I thought were the noisiest bits of that is he kind of fumbled the question about carrots and sticks in what is now a $550 billion plan that he hopes he gets voted in on Tuesday. It's mostly incentives to encourage people to go buy an electric car or to get the propane gas stove out of their -- natural gas stove out of their house and put in electric, those sorts of things. But no sort of punishment for giant utility companies to get off of coal.
I mean that -- if that doesn't happen, ASAP, there's no way any of the targets here, Paris, will ever matter. That has to happen. And if you incentivize somebody to go buy an electric car and they plug it in at night, if what's charging that car is a coal-fired power plants, or even natural gas, it's not doing anybody any good in the long run.
What's so interesting about the Biden administration on this topic is the one thing economists agree on pretty much more than anything else in the history of the discipline is that if you want to take something bad out of society, you put a price on it. So, if you put a price on carbon, and maybe $50.00 a ton say or $100.00 a ton, and it goes -- it jacks up over time as that is squeezed out, the free market will innovate a replacement for it. And then you take that carbon tax and you can give it back to people
as a tax dividend like they do in Alaska, where everybody gets a dividend check from the pipeline or you can put it into resiliency plans or climate justice, the big debate is on what to do with that money, but nobody debates about it.
For some reason, the Biden administration thinks it's a political nonstarter, probably because of what you're saying, Chris, is that it will be a regressive tax for the guy who is just trying to fill the tank and living paycheck to paycheck.
But he also did say he wants to end fossil fuel subsidies, and if he does that, that would be big. The I.M.F., the International Monetary Fund estimates that around the world, big oil gas, coal companies are subsidized to the tune of $11 million a minute.
That's both in, you know, tax breaks, it's in giving them money to keep gas prices low, but it's in what they don't pay for the pollution that makes people sick and kills them prematurely or the storms and the droughts and the floods that are as a result of all of this burning.
So what's interesting on Thursday, some of the Democrats in the House Oversight Committee led by Ro Khanna, they called in the heads of the big oil companies, the four biggest ones. They are looking for that big tobacco moment or accusing them of false advertising. You knew that your product back in the 80s was going to cook the planet, but you got away from it. Those guys when pressed, couldn't even put a price on a ton of carbon, even though they say they're for it.
But if he manages to do that in some meaningful way, then that could have a big ripple effect.
CUOMO: You know, that's an interesting tale off this narrative, by the way. So Ro Khanna has the oil executives there. They won't answer the questions. They think they're going to just take the beating and go home. And then he and Crowley, his co-chair on the committee out of New York, they subpoena them and say we want the documents that show your connection to these third-party outfits that are putting out all of this deceptive advertising. That was a big move, and it's a strong point to make, Bill.
You know, in terms of how he dealt with the press and took the questions, you know, we don't want to look past it just because he's abroad, how he would be measured at home, Phil, in terms of how did he conduct himself during this press conference? And what will be the spin in terms of how he handled it?
MATTINGLY: I mean, I think that's frankly, how he handles his press conferences. And I'm not -- I'm not trying to dodge the question to some degree. I think that's part of the reason why a lot of us in the press wish he would have more press conferences is you actually get a sense of what he is actually thinking beyond just kind of the top line points to some degree.
You know, his willingness to delve into the realities of gas prices on a question technically related to OPEC to some degree, and just -- look, I would love to do this. I understand that it's ironic that we would like more production coming out of the Middle East right now or coming out of OPEC+, however people need to get to work and $3.35 that is really bad for the average American person who is trying to fill up their car and go to work.
[16:00:14]
