Whitehouse.gov Feed

On Friday, February 9, 2024, the President signed into law:
 
 
H.R. 1568, the “Moving Americans Privacy Protection Act,” which
requires the Department of the Treasury, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to ensure any personally identifiable information is removed from cargo manifests before disclosing them to the public.

Thank you to Representatives Waltz and Pascrell, and Senators Daines, Peters, Stabenow, and Marshall, for their leadership.

###

The post Press Release: Bill Signed: H.R. 1568 appeared first on The White House.

Oval Office

3:12 P.M. EST

PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, welcome back, Olaf. Thank you very much for making the effort to be here.

And, you know, it was about two years ago you and I met here, and you said the United States and Germany have to act together and — and do what’s necessary together. And we’ve been doing that. We got to continue to do it.

And, you know, Congress — we have to pass a national security spending package now. Our House members are being somewhat reluctant — and hopefully, it’s more politics than real, but — including funding for Ukraine and to help them continue to be able to defend themselves against the brutal aggression of Russia.

But I want to thank you, Olaf, for your leadership from the very beginning. And you’ve done something no one thought could get done: You’ve doubled Germany’s military aid to Ukraine this year. And it’s really important. We got to step up and do our part now.

Today, we’ll also discuss the work to — just that we’re going to be doing together to strengthen NATO ahead of the 75th NATO Summit this summer here. So, you got to come back.

And also, the latest developments in the Middle East, including hostage release — we have negotiations going on; increase in lifesaving humanitarian assistance to ci- — to civilians in Gaza — in the Gaza Strip; and preserve the space for an enduring peace for a two-state solution down the road. I think it’s possible. It’s going to take a lot of work, but I think we can do it.

So, Olaf, thank you very, very much for being here. We got a lot to talk about.

And the floor is yours, man.

CHANCELLOR SCHOLZ: Yeah, thank you for having me and for having the chance to continue our conv- — conversations we have continuously all the time.

And, yes, Germany and the United States have to play a role to keep peace in the world. This is especially so looking at the Russian aggression against Ukraine, which is still ongoing. And when we saw this ridiculous interview Putin gave shortly, we understand that he is always telling a lot of lies about the history of this war, because it’s so easy to understand why he’s doing it. He wants to get the part of the territory of its neighbors. Just imperialist — imperialism. And I think it is necessary that we do all our best to support Ukraine and to give them the chance to defend their country.

And so, I’m very happy that in Europe we made, now, decisions to give the necessary financial support to the budget, also that Germany was ready to increase its support with weapon delivery.

And hopefully, the —

PRESIDENT BIDEN: (Holds up crossed fingers.)

CHANCELLOR SCHOLZ: — Congress will — the House will follow you and make a decision on giving the necessary support, because without the support of United States and without the support of the European states, Ukraine will have not a chance to defend its own country.

I really think that it’s very good that we are working together looking at the situation in the Middle East and especially working on the two-state solution, which is necessary for a lasting peace. And I’m sure that the United States and Germany are aligned intensely.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: We are. We are.

But I — especially want to — I’d like to add another point: The failure of the United States Congress, if it occurs, not to support Ukraine is close to criminal neglect. It is outrageous.

Kissinger was right when he said: Not since Napoleon has Europe not looked over its shoulder and worried about Russia — until now.

You and I helped put NATO together in a way it hadn’t been a long time. So much is at stake, so they better step up.

Thank you all very much.

(Cross-talk.)

Thank you. Thank you.

3:16 P.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden and Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany Before Bilateral Meeting appeared first on The White House.

Indian Treaty Room
Eisenhower Executive Office Building

12:41 P.M. EST

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everyone.  Good afternoon.  (Applause.)

Dr. Chico!  (Applause.)  Really.  Really.

Please have a seat.  Please have a seat. 

Good afternoon, everyone.

AUDIENCE MEMBERS:  Good afternoon.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, Dr. Chico and I were talking in the back about — last time I saw you was during the holidays.  You came to my house —

MR. TILLMON:  Yes.  (Laughter.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  — talking about this and about what we’re going to do to follow through on our commitments to the community —

MR. TILLMON:  Yes, ma’am.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  — to each other, and to our country, right? 

Because the work of community work and, in particular, violence intervention, is about investing in the community, understanding our capacity, understanding the greatness, and then being motivated with that knowledge to do what we can to reduce harm, but not for the sake only of reducing harm but in- — investing in the potential and the greatness.  That is the essence of this work. 

I want to thank the governor of Maryland, Governor Moore —  (applause) — for his leadership.  Wes Moore and I have had so many conversations about this work, and I know he’s going to replicate this in a big old way in Maryland and — and put everybody to shame in terms of showing what states can do when you have people at the top who understand, again, the capacity and the brilliance that is in the community.  And it just takes the resources to support the good work to make it real. 

So, I thank everybody who is here for all that you have done and, in particular, the graduates.  Where are the graduates?  There we are, right here.  (Applause.)  The inaugural class — the inaugural class.  Look at this. 

So, this is, I — I would say, an historic day —

AUDIENCE MEMBERS:  Yes.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  — because these role models, being the inaugural class to graduate, are going to now be the ones who can show folks how it gets done. 

You know, the thing about being a role model — it’s a room full of role models, right? — people watch what you do, to say, “Okay, that’s how you achieve success.  And if that’s being done there, I’m inspired by their life story and how they did it, and I’m going to do the same thing, because now what people perhaps had never seen before can be seen to know what’s possible.” 

But the brilliance of this inaugural class and its leaders is the ability to see what can be unburdened by what has been and then to make it real — and now to make it real in a way that it will be replicated around our country. 

So, I congratulate everyone here and the graduates for all you have put into this and all you do.  It’s hard work. 

And I think some people really underestimate the hard work that comes with caring about folks.  It’s easy to look away, to overlook, to think about other things instead of the things that are difficult to think about. 

It takes a very special person to, with clear eyes, see the pain in other people, to see the need in other people, and then to take it as your life’s work to do something that is about healing and uplifting the condition and the spirit of other people. 

And I’ll say that, you know, Governor, you and I have talked about this.  I think there’s a certain perversion that has taken place over the last few years in our country that would suggest that the measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you beat down instead of what we know, which is that the true measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you lift up.  That the characteristic of real leaders is the character that has some level of curiosity, concern, and care about the suffering of other people, and then takes it upon themselves, as part of their life’s work and mission, to uplift the condition of other people. 

And that’s how — who you are.  And that’s how you do what you do in a way that is going to inspire so many people. 

The spirit behind this work is also the spirit of understanding the significance of a principle I grew up with called self-determination.  Self-determination, which we all have and should value in each other. 

And — and, Doctor, you talked about redemption, which is an age-old concept that transcends religions.  But the notion and the idea that, look, everybody is going to make a mistake.  For some, that might rise to the level of being a crime, but is it not the sign of a civil society that we allow people a way back and to embrace them and join together as a community of people. 

All of that is the spirit behind this work.  It is the spirit of understanding that — and I say this as a former prosecutor — that when we are dealing with violence in the community, understand there are an extraordinary number of factors that have nothing to do with who an individual is that will help you predict whether violence will occur in a community or not: Are those public schools well-funded?  What is the level of homeownership in the community?  Access to capital for small businesses, access to healthcare, access to mental healthcare that is also culturally competent.  (Applause.) 

What is happening in that community to support young parents, knowing all young parents have a natural desire to parent their children well but not necessarily the skills or resources, but when given that support, they do it beautifully? 

And see, this is the other thing about this work that I love because it is understanding that we must see people through the complexity of everybody’s life.  We all live a multifaceted existence.  And so, it’s about intervention in a way that we understand the full dimension of who people are.  And we respect it, and we understand it. 

All of that is the spirit that is behind the work that you all are committed to doing.  And, again, I say, it takes a very special person to truly see other people — to truly see them — and to say to them, and have the courage to be able to do it, “I see you.”  It takes a very special person.

And so, for all of those reasons, I congratulate the graduates.  We are here because we also know that when it comes to gun violence, we’ve got a lot of work to do. 

And — and it is about everything from what happens in this town — I’m pointing to the direction of what I believe is the Capitol — (laughter) — and what needs to happen in terms of people, who otherwise have evidenced themselves being — having a feckless quality, to show some courage to reject the false notion that suggests you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away, when, in fact, it’s just reasonable.  I support the Second Amendment, but it’s reasonable to say we need an assault weapons ban.  (Applause.)  It’s reasonable to say we need universal background checks, that we need red flag laws. 

It’s reasonable to say that if you want to deal with violence in the community, you also got — got to understand it’s not only about mass shooting situations, which are horrific.  And it’s about everyday gun violence.  It’s about understanding that any life lost is a life too many. 

It’s about understanding what we all know: that one of the residual effects of the violence that we witness and see and that the community experiences is an extraordinary level of trauma, which is inherited — not genetically, but it is inherited.  And unless there is significant intervention that includes putting the resources into diagnosis and treatment, that the trauma will continue to be inherited and perpetuate itself in behaviors that are often unproductive.

It is about understanding, if we are to deal with the effects and the cause of violence, we need to consider the fact that — look, there is the piece of it that also is about what we need to do to acknowledge pain.  And underlying that point, it’s kind of normal that most people don’t like to feel pain.  And they’re either going to figure out a way to relieve themselves of feeling that pain through productive or unproductive vehicles.

And that, again, is the point of emphasizing, in this work, the mental health component, which is part of the model that you all are modeling for the rest of the country. 

So, I say all of that to say that I see leaders from law enforcement who are here — Charlie Beck — who have understood — (applause) — that if we want safe communities, all of these issues must be addressed. 

I — I again want to thank Dr. Chico because it’s about then having the leaders who can pull together the coalition of all the folks who are here to actually make this real.

And so, all of that to say it is my great honor to address, to recognize, and to congratulate the inaugural class of this most extraordinary initiative. 

Congratulations, everyone.  (Applause.) 

Congratulations.  Come take a picture with me!  Come on.

(A group picture is taken with the Community Violence Intervention Leaders.)

Okay. 

Q    Vice President Harris, as a former prosecutor, do you think the special counsel’s report is fair?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I’m glad you asked.  Listen, I have been privileged and proud to serve as Vice President of the United States with Joe Biden as President of the United States.  And what I saw of that report last night, I believe, is — as a former prosecutor, the comments that were made by that prosecutor: gratuitous, inaccurate, and inappropriate. 

October 7th, Israel experienced a horrific attack.  And I will tell you, we got the calls, the President and myself, in the hours after that occurred.  It was an intense moment for the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America.  And I was in almost every meeting with the President in the hours and days that followed. 

Countless hours with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the heads of our intelligence community — and the President was in front of and on top of it all, asking questions and requiring that America’s military and intelligence community and diplomatic community would figure out and know: How many people were dead?  How many are Americans?  How many hostages?  Is the situation stable?

He was in front of it all, coordinating and directing leaders who are in charge of America’s national security — not to mention our allies around the globe — for days, and up until now, months. 

So, the way that the President’s demeanor in that report was characterized could not be more wrong on the facts and, clearly, politically motivated — gratuitous. 

And so, I will say that when it comes to the role and responsibility of a prosecutor in a situation like that, we should expect that there would be a higher level of integrity than what we saw. 

Thank you.  Thank you for the question.  (Applause.)

END                 12:54 P.M. EST

The post Remarks by Vice President Harris at a Gathering of Community Violence Intervention Leaders appeared first on The White House.

Private Residence
New York, New York

(February 7, 2024)

5:51 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, thank you, thank you.

Your son may not remember this, but one of the greatest honors I’ve had in my life — for real — is that every year at the end of the season of the — of the interns — excuse me, the pages coming in, they vote who their favorite senator was. I got voted five years in a row. (Laughter and applause.) So, I was campaigning.

I got to the Senate floor not much older than — than my Senate page. The fact of the matter is that some of —

(The President addresses an audience member.) Uh oh, I’m in trouble. You’re really here. I’m teasing. (Laughter.)

But any rate, what happened was that I got — I got there, and I was 29 years old. I wasn’t old enough to be sworn in when I first got elected. And I came with a real mandate. Nixon won my state with over 64 percent of the vote, and I won by 3,100 votes against a guy who had never lost an election. And everyone keeps telling — and from that point on, everybody would say, “What’s the — what’s the secret? What did you do?”

I said th- — I only can figure out one, at least in my state, and that is that you got to figure out what’s worth losing over — what’s worth losing over and be willing to lose rather than give.

And, folks, look, one of the things that — Maureen and Steve, thanks for hosting us tonight. And I know it’s not easy. The Secret Service have been living here for 12 months. (Laughter.) But — and all you’ve done for the Democratic Party over the years.

Look — and thanks to all of you for your support.

The fact is that, you know, this is an unusual time in American history. And a lot of you — I look out in the room — are students of American history and have impacted on it not in insignificant ways. And — but there’s a lot at stake.

Every time I attend — I’ve had the honor of being vice president of the United States with Barack. And one of the reasons he asked me to do that job was because of my background in foreign policy, and I had traveled the world doing a lot of things, doing issues that were pertinent at the time.

And it’s — it’s interesting to me that the rest of the world is looking at what we’re doing in a way that I’ve never observed. Now, I know I don’t look it, but I’m over 40. (Laughter.) And I’ve been doing this a long time. But the last — whether it was the G20 or the G7 or whatever I’ve attended, I’ve spent over — I think they’ve keeping — they’re keeping the record in the — in the Intelligence Committee — I mean, intelligence service. I think I’ve done over 194 hours with just other heads of state — dealing with them. I mean, that’s all putting NATO together, making sure that we had some coherence of what we were doing.

And it’s interesting to hear — the first meeting I attended as president of the United States, it was in Great Britain with the G7 — in — in England. And I — I showed up, and we were all sitting — it was a bea- — beautiful setting overlooking the water. And — and I sat down, and I said, “Well, America is back.” And Macron looked at me and said, ”For how long? For how long?” Not a joke. This is a fact.

And with that — excuse me — Helmut Kohl said, “Joe, what — what would you think if you picked up the phone — if you picked up the paper tomorrow and learned in the London Times in the front page that a thousand people stormed the Parliament, broke down the doors of the House of Commons, killed two bobbies, and, in the process, ended up trying to stop the — the election of a prime minister?”

And I thought about that. And I mean this sincerely. Think about it: what we would think if another country — not nearly as powerful as us, if they were engaged in that activity.

And so, I think, you know, I start with the simplest message: From the bottom of my heart, I want to thank you for — you’re the reason I’m president of the United States of America. Because you are the opinionmakers. You’re not just contributors. I appreciate that very much, and it makes me competitive. But you’re opinionmakers. And the fact that so many of you would be willing to support me is — makes a big difference to me. It makes a big difference to my standing in the community at large.

And you’re the reason Kamala Harris is the first historic president — vice president of the United States of America. You’re the reason Donald Trump is a former president. And — and you’re the reason we’re going to make him a loser again, God willing.

But in 2020, I ran because I thought this country wa- — and everything it stood for, everything that we stand for as a country, was at stake. Some of you may remember, I made a speech at the — at the — when I was in Philadelphia at Independence Hall about democracy was at stake. And the press — they’re good folks, but they played it like, “What the hell is he talking about? The — what do you mean democracy is at stake?”

Well, folks, that’s exactly what I believed then and I still believe now. What’s happening is that the American people thought democracy was at stake. The intelligentsia wasn’t so sure about it. But the American people thought it.

What happened was — remember, we weren’t supposed to win in 2020. We weren’t supposed to be able to put this together. We won. And then in 2022, there was — a great red wave was going to come. Remember? Going to wipe all the Democrats out. We had the best turnout of any interim president — in the interim — interim president of any president except one in the last century. We hardly lost anything. And then, in 2024 — 2023, we won every contested race out there.

So, my point is the public is changing too. And they’re wondering where we’re going to go. They’re worried. They’re worried. And those of you who are in the — in the media business know that, you know, people — there’s no editors anymore. The idea that you have someone saying, “You can’t print that; it’s not true” — the idea, it just doesn’t exist. I’m not being critical of the press. They’re in a tough spot. They’re in a tough spot.

And I’m not saying they’re for me or against me. But the fact of the matter is it’s hard to determine where you go to get your news. People seem to pick the news they want to hear rather than the news they want to get or what’s, in fact, true or what’s, in fact, more in — more in contention.

And so, one of the things that I’ve tried to do was to just be straight up with people as to why I did what I wanted — what I said I would try to do. We got the Recovery Act done. The Recovery Act was consequential. It had — how can you be the leading nation in a world when your infrastructure is ranked 18 in the world? How does that happen? How does that happen? It doesn’t happen. It doesn’t happen.

How do you get to the point where you’re able to put together an economy when major elements of that economy are out of sync with what’s happening in the world? I remember I’ve — we — we invented that computer chip, which is essential for almost everything now — beyond weapons, but from telephones to television to automobiles.

So, I got in the plane and I went to South Korea. And I sat down with (inaudible) and I — and Samsung, and they agreed to put about $100 billion into moving their chips factory to the United States.

New York State is going to benefit incredibly well up in — from the Syracuse area up to the (inaudible).

But — but the point is — what I’m saying is that people came and invested because they still believe in us. The rest of the world believes in us. And they think we can do — I asked why they’re investing in the United States to the chairman of the board of Samsung. He said, “Two reasons: one, because you have the best workers in the world, and, two, you have the — you, the United States, are the safest place we can invest.”

And so, we got over $50 billion being invested. It’s going to change your state, by the way, in the north in a big way.

But I made a commitment that I was going to be President for everyone — not just red states or blue states but everyone. A significant number of — of the facilities that are being built now, of the 800,000 manufacturing jobs we created are in red states.

I love it when you have people like that blonde-haired woman from — anyway — (laughter) — talking about how she — how — what dangerous things I’ve done but wanted to be there for the groundbreaking of two events that were affecting her state. I told her I’d see her at the groundbreaking.

But my generic point is that the thing that’s changed the most as it relates to my career and — 36 years in the Senate and 8 years as vice president before 3 years as president — is that I’ve never seen — and I — look, I go back to Jesse Helms. I go back to, you know, folks that were the old segregationists — the reason — one of the reasons why I ran in the first place. Jim — James O. Eastland talked at me like this every time he’d see me. (Pronounced in a Southern accent.) I was on his committee.

And the fact is that, you know, they were tough. But we still, after we fought like hell — Teddy Kennedy and Eastland would rip into each other on the floor and then go have lunch together in the Senate dining room. They didn’t change their views, but they were — there was this — there was a sense of — as strange as it sounds — civility. I mean, Strom Thurmond asked me to do his eulogy.

I asked my grandfather, “Is it okay, Pop?” You know? (Laughter.) Seriously. There were thousands of people who showed up for his eulogy in the — in the state of South Carolina. And, you know, Strom Thurmond, for example, by the end of his career, had more African Americans on his staff than any senator, including Teddy Kennedy.

Events change people when they get exposed. Not — not everybody, but it takes time. I’m not making a case for Strom Thurmond.

But the generic point is there was a — there was something that — that we actually spoke to one another. We actually — and as much as we disagreed. And we didn’t engage in, as a practical matter, going against something that we thought was good for the country because it was going to help someone of the opposite party. I’m sure it happened. But I don’t recall. Nothing comes to mind immediately in the 36 years I was a senator. And I was chairman of Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and served longer than all, I think, but nine people.

And so, the point is things have changed drastically. I was asked why —

I’m going stand for — in front of this, if I — (the President walks away from the podium.)

I was asked why I — I was asked early on (inaudible). And one of the things that changed (inaudible) so much time in my career that the opposition is — everything is personal. And when I ran in 2020, I said I was running to restore the soul of the country. I meant it. (Inaudible) a sense of decency. That’s the way we treat each other.

Look at what’s going on. Look at what this other guy is saying, the things he says. These kids — a young man was killed in Iowa and the schoolteacher was killed — a principal. And he said — when asked the question — just “get over it” — we’ve just got to “get over it.”

You know, I’m glad I wasn’t around when he was in France and asked to go up to the American cemetery. My son had just died. And he spent a year in Iraq and his hooch was near a burn pit —

(The President is handed a handheld microphone.)

— and his hooch was near a burn pit. And he came home and he had glioblastoma, and he died. And Trump looked at — now, I wasn’t there. But Trump said and publicly stated it — that “I don’t want to go up there”; a bunch of “losers” and “suckers.”

I mean, look, this is — this is more than — it’s not a political criticism. It’s a character criticism of the things we’re doing. And so, I’m not — and, by the way, all the talk about — like, look what’s happened now. They love the fact that they think they have a great id- — a great issue on immigration to beat Biden — immigration.

The first bill I introduced when I got — became president was to reform the immigration system — the first one. They wouldn’t touch it. And so, we came along this time and Lankford, who they really threw the man o- — the man overboard, but they negotiated all through the entire vacation, all through — I mean, they just went straight through — weekends. And they finally reached an agreement.

And it didn’t have everything I wanted in it. It didn’t have DREAMers in it; didn’t have a lot of things. But I was confident if we got it done, we could then get more done. But the point of it was that you think about what happened because they thought — because Trump decided that it was something that — that would help me and hurt him take — take away an issue.

So, what did he do? And you guys know this — many of you, as well as I do because you know a lot of people in the Congress and the Senate. He got on the phone around the clock calling people saying, “If you do this, I’ll — there’ll be retribution. It will be a problem.” And they backed off. Every one of them backed off. I mean, come on. Come on.

And the fact is — anyway. The point I’m making is that this is not politics as usual. This is not your father’s Republican Party. This is a different breed of cat. And I think it’s dangerous. I think it’s dangerous.

I think it’s dangerous to be us- — be engaged in this kind of politics, because it ends up doing nothing but just dragging us all to the bottom. It doesn’t do anything to upl- — uplift anybody.

And I’m not going to go on with other things. You — you understand who he is. So, it’s not that I’m so good, but you have to have somebody to beat somebody. And where I am is that — they say, “Well, isn’t Biden too old?” Hell, I’m only 40 times 2. (Laughter.)

But all kidding aside, you know, one of the things that age does for you is it gives you a little bit of wisdom. I’ve been around for every president since Nixon. And I’ve been — I’ve been with every major world leader since then. I’ve known them. And so, we haven’t done badly.

We’ve not only got the — and dealing with the environment. Well, they told me not to try it. Well, we got $316 — $368 billion for the environment. We got a trillion 300 billion dollars for infrastructure. Like I said, how in God’s name can we lead the world and have a second-rate infrastructure? Not a joke. Think — I mean, I’m being literal. Think about it.

So, my generic point is this: that there is room — there is room to, in fact, be able to get things done. And I think we demonstrated — I think we got a lot done that no one thought was possible to get done. Granted, we didn’t have a lot of Republican help. But some of it, we did. Some of it, we did. We got enough.

And I think it’s important that we — we get back to some degree of normalcy in terms of what constitutes political — what’s politically acceptable. You know, I sit in that little dining room where he sat off my Oval — off the Oval Office, where he sat for four hours watching what was going up on the Hill. The idea that he wouldn’t stand up and say a thing — name me a president who has encouraged or condoned political violence — political violence. I mean, internally, in the United States, since — since Lincoln’s day. Name me one.

And so, it just — it’s sending a message around the world where people are wondering, “What has become of the United States? Where are we? Where are we going? What’s going to happen?” And like I said, one of the things that — that I find — how can I say it? — I find strange is that the United States — and I’ve been doing this a long time — the United States is viewed — and Madeleine Albright was right: We are the essential nation. We really are.

I’ll ask you this — I’ll ask a rhetorical question. The United States steps out of events, what — what happens? What ha- — what happens in Middle East? What happens with regard to the Pacific — the — the Taiwan Strait? What happens in Asia, generally? What happens with Ukraine?

The idea that Ukraine — you know, there’s 365,000 Russian soldiers killed or wou- — or significantly wounded. He’s on the balls of his heels. And what are we doing? Stepping back? Stepping back? I mean, I don’t know what —

I’ll conclude with this point, and then I’ll be happy — when the press leaves, I’ll take questions. I know you don’t want — that wasn’t part of the plan, but I’m happy to.

One of the things that — I guess the best way to say it is: If you think about what it is that is going to affect events around the world, and because this is getting to be a pretty small world — a pretty small world, man — what — what is it?

And one of the things before when I — and you and I, I think, talked about this, Phil, a little while ago, when I was thinking of running last time. If you think about why — why is it important?

I was going to write a book on the impact of technology on — on American policy. Because you go all the way back to — go back to Gutenberg and the printing press, Europe would be a very different place if he didn’t invent that printing press. Not — not — not a joke; in a literal sense. I could just go down the list.

And what happened was that event occurred down in Virginia where those guys all showed up with Nazi swastikas and torches and were in the woods and the fields. A lot of them came out of the fields with these torches and carrying Nazi banners, singing the same antisemitic bile that was sung back in the ‘30s in Germany. Literally, not figuratively. And a young woman was killed. I talked to her mom.

And the President then was asked, “What do you think?” He said, “There’s some very good people on both sides.” When has a president ever said anything like that — including Strom Thurmond? When the hell has that ever happened? That’s not who we are. But you travel the world, all of you, the rest of the world is wondering who we are, wondering where we’re going.

And I think the United States — we have the dubious responsibility of being the ones who can order the world the best at this point. And I don’t mean dictate. I mean, at least set — make sure there are certain standards that we — can be relied upon.

Well, anyway, why — why don’t I thank the press for their participation — (laughter) — and then I’ll take questions, if that’s okay. I know I wasn’t supposed to do this. I was supposed to mingle. But maybe — I’d like to know what’s on your mind or what you think — what mistakes you think I’m making, what you think I should be doing, what you think I shouldn’t be doing.

Is that okay, boss?

6:11 P.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden at a Campaign Reception | New York, NY appeared first on The White House.

Lansdowne Resort
Leesburg, Virginia

(February 8, 2024)

4:13 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, hello, hello. (Applause.) It’s good to be with you all. Steny.

Please, thank you. If I were smart, I should leave now. (Applause.)

Thank you all so very, very much.

I don’t see her, but I see — I hear my buddy Nancy Pelosi is here. Are you here, Nance? Nancy, thank you. I love you. I love you, really, truly. (Applause.)

And I see Steny Hoyer is here. Steny has been living in the western shore of Delaware for a long time. (Laughter.) Good to see you, Steny.

And is Jim Clyburn here? Well, if Jim is here, he’s one of the reasons why I’m standing here. I want to thank him. (Applause.)

Hakeem and Katherine and Pete, thank you to all of you — to all of you.

Let me say a few things before I get started with our discussion.

First — I’m not going to be very long, I promise. First, the Special Counsel released their findings today about their look into my handling of classified documents. I was pleased to see they reached a conclusion I believed and knew all along they would: that there are — no charges should be brought in this case. (Applause.)

As many of you know, this was an exhaustive investigation going back literally more than 40 years — 40 years — when I became a United States senator when I was a kid. (Laughter.) I was a kid — 29 years old. (Laughs.)

Special Counsel acknowledged I cooperated completely, I did not throw up any roadblocks, I sought no delays. In fact, I was so determined to give Special Counsel what they needed, I went forward with a five-hour in-person interview over the two days of October the 9th — 8th and 9th last year, even though Israel had just been attacked by Hamas on the 7th. I was in the middle of handling an international crisis.

But I was especially pleased to see the Special Counsel make clear the stark differences between this case and Donald Trump. As the Special Counsel wrote, and I quote, “Several material distinctions between Mr. Trump’s case and Mr. Biden’s are clear.” And, by the way, this is a Republican counsel. “Most notably, after given multiple chances” — this is a continuation of the quote — “he returned classified documents and avoided — to avoid — and avoided prosecution. Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite.”

This is to — continuing to quote, “According to the indictment, he has not only refused to return documents for many months, he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives, the Department of Justice; consented to a search of multiple locations, including his homes; and sat for a voluntary interview; and in other ways cooperated with the investigation.” That’s the distinction, among others. (Applause.)

The bottom line is the Special Counsel, in my case, decided against moving forward with any charges, and this matter is now closed. (Applause.)

I’ll continue to do what I’ve always done: stay focused on my job, like you do — my job of being President. That means going to work with all of you every single day I can. Thank you for being great partners.

Just this week, House Democrats showed how united you are. You defeated Mayorkas impeachment resolution. You — (applause) — and I had no doubt he’d get out of his hospital bed and come in and vote. No, I’m not joking. I talked to him a little bit. Not — after, not before. (Laughter.)

You defeated the Is- — Israel-only — the Israeli-only supplemental. (Applause.) They weren’t easy votes for you, but all of you all came through in a big way. All of this just shows that when we’re united, we can beat House Republicans and their cynical political games. (Applause.)

And you’ve been incredible partners that have delivered historic results for the American people. I’ve traveled to many of your districts. I see the results on how you came through one of the toughest periods in our nation’s history.

Hakeem just mentioned many of those accomplishments: vaccinating America, rebuilding America, bringing prices down, and delivering every day for everyday Americans.

A recent Washington Post headline — never thought I’d see this for a Democrat — says, “Falling Inflation and Rising Growth Give United States the World’s Best Recovery,” end of quote. (Applause.) Because of you. No, I mean it. I may have some good ideas, but you got it done.

But I’d like to use my time to talk about the future — you know, what it means to finish the job in my perspec- — from my perspective.

We’ve made progress making the biggest corporations begin to pay — only begin to pay their fair share. We got — we were able to keep everything in place when the Republicans kept changing the deals we made about spending and the like, right? Remember those — those days?

Well, with a minimum corp- — remember those 50 corporations that didn’t pay a penny in taxes, made $40 billion? Well, guess what? They’re paying a corporate tax of 15 percent. And we’re able to keep everything paid for, and we still cut the deficit. We help — we helped pay for historic investments and reduced the federal deficit. But we’re not done.

Trump’s $2 trillion tax cut overwhelming benefitted the super-wealthy and biggest corporations, and exploded the deficit. And it’s coming up pretty soon for a decision of what we’re going to do. He already said he wants to not only keep it but increase it.

Finishing the job means getting the Trump tax cut clo- — gutting the Trump tax cuts, closing the loophole for billionaire minimum tax.

You know, we went from 750 billionaires in America before the pandemic to 1,000 now. You know what the average tax they pay is — in federal tax? 8.3 percent. Billionaire — those thousand. 8.3 percent. That’s less than a teacher or a firefighter, and I could go down the list.

I promised a billionaire minimum tax of 25 percent. If we did that, it would raise $440 billion. (Applause.) Twenty five percent. Four hundred and forty billion dollars to pay for childcare, eldercare, and so much more, and reduce the deficit.

You know, we’re also planning for a long-term effort to — I think we have to deal with the tax structure in a way. I mean, I — I — no matter where I go, whether I was speaking at the Business Roundtable — whoever I’m speaking to, I say, “Raise your hand if you think the present tax system is fair.”

No, I’m not jo- — think — think about in — in practical terms. Is it fair? Is it remotely fair?

“Finish the job” means beating Big Pharma again to lower prescription costs for everybody. (Applause.) And, by the way, you know, when my Republican friends were taking us on on that, it not only lowers — you talked about dealing with insulin: 35 bucks a month. Saved the — saved the individual a lot of money. But guess what? It saves the taxpayers $160 billion — (applause) — reduced the debt by $160 billion, what we did — what you all did to Pharma. I mean it.

I mean, we — the things we’re doing not only help people, but they’re reducing the deficit under good economic policy because Medicare doesn’t have to pay those exorbitant prices.

We’ve got to finish the job, meaning it’s $35 insulin not just for the — on M- — Medicare, but like we oligally [originally] had and they wouldn’t continue it: $35 insulin for everybody — everybody, all Americans. (Applause.)

Lower drug prices for dozens of other prescriptions — we got that into the law. It’s coming up. And getting even more Americans health insurance by protecting and expanding the Affordable Health Care Act. You — you guys have done this.

We’ve got to — “finish the job” means making housing more affordable, more accessible. It means protecting and strengthening the Social Security system and Medicare.

Republicans want to put it on the chopping block. Remember the last State of the Union, when I — we talked about what their —

PARTICIPANT: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Bless me, Father. (Laughter.)

And “finishing the job” means protecting fundamental freedoms: passing the John Lewis Voting Rights Act finally — (applause) — and making Roe v. Wer — Ward [Wade] the law of the land — the law of the land.

It means beating the NRA again, banning assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, which we did before.

“Finish the job” means continuing our fight to save the planet with the most aggressive action on climate ever in the history of the Amer- — of the world.

With every new bridge, every new factory, every new high-speed rail, Internet, with every poisonous lead pipe removed, I see something else happening now and in the future: Pride is returning.

When I said — when I — we pushed all these programs, I said I’m going to be a president for everybody, whether you live in a red or a green [blue] state. I know it drives some of you crazy that we — a lot of these things are happening in red states, but the Americans need help.

You know, some of your more interesting colleagues go out and hold press conferences of the things they said was a “disaster” and was “almost immoral.” What’s that blonde-haired woman’s name? Anyway. (Laughter.) She’s talking about all that’s going in her district. (Laughs.) Oh, God. Anyway. (Laughter.)

Look, what happened with a lot of people — and particularly in the — in the near-Midwest, in the Midwest, and the Northwest — is that, you know, for years and years you could go by the factory that employed 800, 1,000, 1,200 people — Mom had worked there, Dad had worked there, Grandpop, Grandma — and they had pride in what they did.

And all of a sudden, corporate America decided — and it really did over the last 10 years — decided, “You know, I’d rather take my factory, move it overseas because the labor is cheaper, and then import the product.”

Well, not anymore. Not anymore.

Guess what, folks? There’s a provision in the law that says — that I didn’t even know it existed until I — about eight years ago — and that is when — they had legislation in the ’30s dealing with the issue of whether or not labor unions had a right to organize, what protections they had, et cetera.

There was a provision in the law that even Democratic presidents didn’t even know about or pay much attention to. It said any money you appropriate — that Congress appropriates and it goes to the President of the United States for a public purpose, that president should hire an American worker and American companies to do it. (Applause.) Really.

Well, we’re investing in America. That’s what you’re doing. We’re investing in America. We’re bringing back pride to communities, pride in our country.

And so, I want to thank you for doing the job you were elected to do. It matters to the American people, and it’s — we’re in a position to win in 2024, I think. (Applause.)

That brings me to the second point. We have to make the contrast, the choice crystal clear — through [though] our friends on the other side make it easy for us.

Time and again, Republicans show they’re a party of chaos and disunion. This is not your father’s Republican Party. They shout about a problem but then do nothing to solve the problem.

The bottom line is Republicans have to decide: Who do they serve? This is — I’m not — this is not hyperbole. Who do they serve: Donald Trump or the American people?

You have worked so hard — a bipartisan group — so hard for so long to deal with the border and all the other issues we have in that — in that appropriation. And guess what? Donald Trump allegedly — I can’t prove this; I’m told — called people and said, “If you support that, I’m coming after you.” Not his — not — I don’t know what the exact words were, but “I’m coming after you.”

Are they here to solve a problem or just to weaponize for political attacks those problems?

I know our answer. We’re here to serve the American people. That’s not — it’s not like we — we’re here, we’re Democrats (inaudible).

That’s the job: serve the American people. We have to make that clear. If we do, we win.

Just look at 2020. We weren’t supposed to do well. Remember? We won in spite of a lot (inaudible). (Applause.)

2022: The red wave was coming. And guess what? It crashed up on a rock. (Laughter.) In 2023, every close race, we won.

When voters have a choice between what we stand for and what Trump and the MAGA Republicans stand for, we win. (Applause.) Which makes Trump and his MAGA friends losers. (Laughter.)

When we win, we have to do it the old-fashioned politics way. We have to get out the vote — an aggressive grassroot operation to get folks registered and get out the vote.

And here’s the final point I want to make. I can’t take anything for granted — we can’t. In 2020, we ran — I ran because I thought everything this country stood for, everything we believed in, everything that made America “America” was at risk. And I believed that, and I spoke to that.

And I was — I think people thought I was being hyperbolic at the time. “Joe, what do you mean our democracy is at risk?” Seriously. Remember, I made that sp- — you may not, but I made a speech at Independence Hall in the beginning. “What do you mean we’re in a battle for the soul of America?”

Well, people don’t say that anymore. They know the stakes are higher than ever.

We’ve made more progress in three years, because of you, than most presidents have in eight years. But it can all be wiped out in this election. So, we have to stay focused on what we have to do.

We must — we must keep the White House. We must keep the Senate. And we must take back the House — (applause) — with all of you sworn in again and Hakeem Jeffries your Speaker of the House. (Applause.)

And when we do that, we’ll be able to look back and say something few generations can say: The American democracy was at risk, and you saved it. (Applause.)

Look, we just have to remember who in the hell we are. We’re the United States of America. (Applause.) I mean it. There is nothing beyond our capacity when we work together.

So, God bless you all. And thank you for all you do.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

4:28 P.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden at the House Democratic Caucus Issues Conference | Leesburg, VA appeared first on The White House.

Over the past few weeks, the NSC has been coordinating U.S. Government support for the people of Ecuador in the wake of increased violence.  This week, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) Todd D. Robinson led a joint Department of State and Department of Justice delegation to Ecuador to highlight the United States’ continued commitment to supporting Ecuador in its fight against transnational criminal organizations.  Assistant Secretary Robinson announced INL funding for the construction of the Ecuadorian Coast Guard Academy, a renovated canine veterinary clinic, a renovated office for the corruption prosecution unit, and eight mobile border units to support an elite border task force.  He also helped launch a joint National Police-Coast Guard operational unit in Guayaquil, which will increase information sharing and operational coordination on Ecuador’s waterways.  Assistant Secretary Robinson’s visit to Ecuador reflects the United States’ enduring continued commitment to support Ecuador’s security and prosperity. 

In addition, we have surged our law enforcement and defense support for Ecuadorian Forces.  The Department of Homeland Security is actively providing digital forensics support to identify, map, and target criminal networks; has sent a team to train 175 Ecuador migration officers on the use of biometrics collection; and trained 35 members from the Ecuadorian Presidential and Vice-Presidential protective details.  The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) increased its personnel in-country following the recent rise in violence. Meanwhile, Department of Justice attorneys, as well as agents from the FBI and Drug Enforcement Agency, continue to support Ecuador’s investigations into recent political and gang violence.  The Department of Defense has also committed to delivering a C-130H military plane to the Ecuadorians by the end of March 2024.  This support builds on the facilitated delivery of more than 20,000 bullet proof vests and more than $1 million worth of critical security and emergency response equipment, announced in January.

Earlier this week, Treasury also designated one of Ecuador’s most violent gangs, Los Choneros, and its leader, José Adolfo Macías Villamar, pursuant to its counter narcotic authorities – a response to the steep rise in violence in Ecuador attributed to the actions of Los Choneros and other drug trafficking gangs in the country. 

Looking forward, the United States is investing in a $45 million program to reduce childhood malnutrition, increase access to clean drinking water, and improve sanitation; providing $13 million in equipment to protect the Ecuadorian Ministry of Defense computer networks; and $2.4 million in additional vehicles and security equipment to support the work of police in Ecuador.

###

The post Statement from NSC Spokesperson Adrienne Watson on U.S. Unwavering Support for Ecuador appeared first on The White House.

WASHINGTON – Today, President Joe Biden announced Willie L. Phillips, Jr. as Chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). FERC is an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of natural gas, oil, electricity, and other energy projects. As the Biden Administration works to tackle the climate crisis, advance environmental justice, and create a clean electricity grid by 2035, FERC will maintain an important role in spurring access to reliable, affordable carbon-free energy moving across the country.

Willie L. Phillips Jr., Chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Willie L. Phillips has served as a FERC Commissioner since November 17, 2021 and as Acting Chair since January 3, 2023. Willie is an experienced regulatory attorney combining over 20 years of legal expertise as a utility regulator, in private practice, and as in-house counsel. He has an extensive background in the areas of public utility regulation, bulk power system reliability, and corporate governance. As Chairman of the Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia, Willie was a thoughtful and innovative leader in modernizing the energy grid, implementing the District’s aggressive clean energy and climate goals, and in protecting the District’s customers.

Prior to the DCPSC, Willie served as Assistant General Counsel for the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), a not-for-profit international regulatory authority charged with ensuring the security and reliability of the bulk power system in Washington, D.C.; he also worked for two law firms, where he advised clients on regulatory compliance, litigation, and policy matters. Chairman Phillips is an active member of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) where he served on the NARUC Board of Directors and chaired the Select Committee on Regulatory and Industry Diversity. He earned a Juris Doctor from Howard University School of Law and a Bachelor of Science from the University of Montevallo.

 
 
 

###

The post President Biden Announces Willie L. Phillips, Jr. as Chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) appeared first on The White House.

Last week, the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy, and senior Biden-Harris Administration officials hosted the second Long-Term Care Facility Leadership Summit, convening leaders from national associations and organizations focused on protecting our nations’ seniors and providing high-quality care to residents of long-term care facilities.

During the summit, which built on a previous convening in October, participants discussed their shared commitment to ensuring older Americans have the information needed to inform choices about how to protect themselves from three viruses – COVID-19, flu, and RSV. These illnesses are some of the leading causes of hospitalizations and other severe outcomes among older Americans. The convening also included a dialogue on the operational challenges which long-term care facility leaders have faced and how Administration officials can continue to partner with them to meet our shared goal of fewer elder Americans who become seriously ill. Senior Administration Officials and attendees agreed that they would continue their partnership and take proactive steps now to develop plans for the 2024-2025 respiratory season, guided by best practices and key takeaways learned from this season.

Administration Participants Included:

Maj Gen (ret) Paul Friedrichs, MD, FACS, Deputy Assistant to the President, Director of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy, The White House

Xavier Becerra, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

###

The post Readout of White House Long-Term Care Facility Leadership Summit appeared first on The White House.

Vice President Kamala Harris will travel to Munich, Germany to attend the 2024 Munich Security Conference from February 15 to February 17, and will deliver a major foreign policy speech. The Vice President will meet with foreign leaders in Munich to advance Biden-Harris Administration priorities, including on Ukraine and the Middle East. Throughout her engagements, the Vice President will underscore the importance of sustaining U.S. leadership, strengthening our alliances and partnerships, and defending international rules and norms.

###

The post Statement by Communications Director Kirsten Allen on the Vice President’s Travel to Germany appeared first on The White House.

The Administration expects to invest billions in the National Semiconductor Technology Center (NSTC), now established as a public-private consortium, and other CHIPS Research and Development (R&D) priorities

Today, the Biden-Harris Administration announced it expects to invest over $5 billion in semiconductor-related research, development, and workforce needs, including in the National Semiconductor Technology Center (NSTC), to advance President Biden’s goals of driving R&D in the United States. As part of the implementation of the CHIPS and Science Act and the President’s Investing in America agenda, these investments advance U.S. leadership in semiconductor R&D, cut down on the time and cost of commercializing new technologies, bolster U.S. national security, and connect and support workers in securing good semiconductor jobs.  

Semiconductors were invented in America and serve as the backbone of the modern economy. But today, the United States produces less than 10 percent of global supply and none of the most advanced chips. Similarly, decades ago the U.S. government invested nearly 2% of GDP in R&D. At that time, federally funded initiatives allowed America led the world in innovation – creating life-changing advances in technology like GPS and the internet. In recent years, however, the government investment ratio has fallen below 1 percent. Under President Biden’s Investing in America agenda, the CHIPS and Science Act aims to change that by making a historic investment in U.S. semiconductor manufacturing, research and development (R&D), and the workforce. The CHIPS R&D program includes $11 billion in total funding to advance four programs: the NSTC; the National Advanced Packaging Manufacturing Program (NAPMP); the CHIPS Metrology Program; and the CHIPS Manufacturing USA Institute. The NSTC, as the centerpiece of the CHIPS R&D program, will bring together and support government, industry, labor, customers, suppliers, educational institutions, entrepreneurs, and investors to accelerate the pace of new innovations, lower barriers to participation in semiconductor R&D, and directly address fundamental needs for a skilled, diverse semiconductor workforce. 
 
Today, the White House hosted research and development and workforce convenings with senior Administration leadership, industry, academia, think tanks, state and local government, and labor, where the Biden-Harris Administration announced several milestones that will drive U.S. leadership in cutting-edge semiconductor research and development, including:
 
Building the National Semiconductor Technology Center

• Planning to invest at least $5 billion in the NSTC, which is now formally established as a Public-Private Consortium by the Secretaries of Commerce, Defense, and Energy, the Director of the National Science Foundation, and Natcast CEO Deirdre Hanford;
  
• Announcing NSTC research priorities for 2024, laying the groundwork to ensure the NSTC supports the U.S. in developing the next generation of semiconductor technologies by supporting design, prototyping, and piloting and through ensuring innovators have access to critical capabilities; and
  
• Launching the NSTC Community of Interest, a no-cost, pre-membership program for interested stakeholders to provide input into the program offerings and structure of the NSTC.

Investing in the Semiconductor Workforce

• Planning to invest at least hundreds of millions of dollars in the NSTC’sworkforce efforts, including the creation of a Workforce Center of Excellence with a presence in multiple regions. This work will build on the Administration’s efforts to create equitable training pathways to connect Americans to the good-paying, high quality jobs in critical industries of the future created by the President’s Investing in America Agenda, including work done through the Biden-Harris Administration’s Workforce Hubs and Advanced Manufacturing Sprint. The NSTC will leverage workforce investments made by industry, academia, and other education and workforce partners and its own funding to:
  • Convene stakeholders, facilitating connections between employers and education and training providers, such as community and technical colleges, workforce development boards, and registered apprenticeship programs;
  • Use data to measure the success of existing programs and to guide future investment;
  • Scale up proven education and training programs; and
  • Pilot new efforts, including initiatives to engage underserved communities.
  • Additional activities could include synthesizing semiconductor education and training to form a common baseline education program, launching campaigns to attract new students and workers to the semiconductor industry, developing new training methodologies, and accelerating access to educational resources.
    
• Continuing to engage a broad set of stakeholders to guide the stand-up of the NSTC’s workforce activities, with the goal of launching in summer 2024. The NSTC’s workforce activities will engage senior leadership from the National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of Labor, and Department of Education, among other federal agencies, to ensure the NSTC benefits from expertise across the government, in addition to experts from industry, academia, labor, and workforce training providers.

Investing in Other Key R&D Needs

• Commerce released a Notice of Intent to invest at least $200 million in a CHIPS Manufacturing USA Institute to create a first-of-its-kind semiconductor manufacturing digital twin institute, which will allow innovators to replicate and experiment with physical manufacturing processes at low cost, helping to significantly reduce U.S. chip development and manufacturing costs, improve development cycle time, and accelerate the adoption of innovation semiconductor manufacturing technologies;
  
• Commerce released a Notice of Intent to fund up to $300 million in new R&D activities in advanced packaging of substrates and substrate materials, a key technology for manufacturing semiconductors, to improve all aspects of system performance and support the breadth of new semiconductor applications; and
  
• Commerce has awarded over $100 million in funding across 29 projects in the CHIPS Metrology program addressing common needs across the microelectronic industry. Current projects are helping to develop new measurement instruments, measurement methods, and measurement-informed models and simulations for advanced microelectronics design and manufacturing, all of which will help inventors and entrepreneurs more easily scale innovations into commercial products.
  
  Today’s announcements build on the progress the Administration has already made in advancing research, development, and innovation in the United States through implementation of the CHIPS and Science Act. Last week, the White House and the National Science Foundation announced 10 U.S. regions that are emerging as innovation ecosystems and receiving over $530 million in investment catalyzed by the National Science Foundation’s Regional Innovation Engines program, including to support advanced semiconductor packaging capabilities in Osceola County, Florida. Over the last several months, the Biden-Harris Administration also officially designated a new nonprofit, the National Center for the Advancement of Semiconductor Technology (Natcast), as the operator of the NSTC, and announced the selection of a Board of Directors and a CEO.  And, in the fall of 2023, the Administration announced the designation of 31 Regional Tech Hubs, including hubs in New York, Oregon, Vermont, Texas, and Oklahoma that will specifically focus on spurring and supporting innovation in semiconductor manufacturing.

###

The post FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Over $5 Billion from the CHIPS and Science Act for Research, Development, and Workforce appeared first on The White House.

Diplomatic Reception Room

7:59 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Hey, everybody.

Q    Good evening.

Q    Good evening, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT:  Let me say a few things before I take your questions.

As you know, the special counsel released its findings today about their look into my handling of classified documents.  I was pleased to see he reached a firm conclusion that no charges should be brought against me in this case.

This was an exhaustive investigation going back more than 40 years — even into the 1970s, when I was still a new United States senator.

The special counsel that acknowledged I cooperated completely, I did not throw up any roadblocks, I sought no delays.  In fact, I was so determined to give the special counsel what he needed, I went forward with a five-hour in-person — five-hour in-person interview over two days on October the 8th and 9th of last year, even though Israel had just been attacked by Hamas on the 7th and I was very occupied.  It was in the middle of handling an international crisis. 

I was especially pleased to see special counsel make clear the stark distinction and difference between this case and Mr. Trump’s case.  The special counsel wrote, and I quote, “Several material distinctions between Mr. Trump’s case and Mr. Biden’s are clear.” 

Continuing to quote, “Most notably, after given multiple chances to return classified documents to avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite.  According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it.”

“In contrast,” it went on to say, “Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice; consented to the search of multiple locations, including his home; sat for a voluntary interview; and in other ways cooperated with the investigation,” end of quote.

I’ve seen the headlines since the report was released about my willful retention of documents.  This — these assertions are not only misleading, they’re just plain wrong.

On page 215 — if you had a chance — I know it’s a long — it’s a thick document.  On page 215, the report of the special counsel found the exact opposite.

  Here’s what he wrote: “There is, in fact, a shortage of evidence” that I willfully retained classified materials related to Afghanistan.

On page 12, the special counsel also wrote for another documents, “The decision to decline criminal charges was straightforward… the evidence suggests that Mr. Biden
did not willfully retain these documents.”  The evidence said I did not willfully retain these documents.

In addition, I know there’s some attention paid to some language in the report about my recollection of events.  There’s even a reference that I don’t remember when my son died.  How in the hell dare he raise that.

Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself it wasn’t any of their damn business. 

Let me tell you something.  Some of you have commented — I wear, since the day he died, every single day, the rosary he got from our Lady of —

Every Memorial Day, we hold a service remembering him, attended by friends and family and the people who loved him.  I don’t need anyone — I don’t need anyone to remind me when he passed away or if he passed away.

The simple truth is I sat for five hours of interviews over two days of events, going back 40 years.  At the same time, I was managing an international crisis. 

Their task was to make a decision about whether to move forward with charges in this case.  That was their decision to make.  That’s the counsel’s decision to make.  That’s his job. And they decided not to move forward.

For any extraneous commentary, they don’t know what they’re talking about.  It has no place in this report.

The bottom line is: The matter is now closed.  And we can continue what I have always focused on: my job of being President of the United States of America.

I thank you, and I’ll take some questions.

Q    President Biden, something the special counsel said in his report is that one of the reasons you were not charged is because, in his description, you are a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

THE PRESIDENT:  I am well-meaning, and I’m an elderly man, and I know what the hell I’m doing.  I’ve been President.  I put this country back on its feet.  I don’t need his recommendation.  That’s totally un- —

Q    How bad is your memory?  And can you continue as President?

THE PRESIDENT:  My memory is so bad, I let you speak.  That’s the —

Q    Do you —

THE PRESIDENT:  That’s what —

Q    Do you feel your memory has gotten worse, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT:  Now, look, my memory has not gotten — my memory is fine.  My memory — take a look at what I’ve done since I’ve become President.  None of you thought I could pass any of the things I got passed.  How did that happen? 

You know, I guess I just forgot what was going on. 

Q    Mr. President — Mr. President —

Q    Should voters have concerns about your age?  How are you going to assuage them?  And do you fear that this report is only going to fuel further their concerns about your age (inaudible)?

THE PRESIDENT:  Only by some of you.

(Cross-talk.)

Q    Mr. President, you were — you were cleared of criminal liability today, but do you take responsibility for at least being careless with classified material?

THE PRESIDENT:  I take responsibility for not having seen exactly what my staff was doing.  That — goes in and points out things that appeared in my garage, things that came out of my home, things that were moved were moved not by me but my staff — but my staff.  And —

(Cross-talk.)

Q    Mr. President, why did you share classified information with your ghostwriter?

Q    Mr. President, for months when you were asked about your age, you would respond with the words “Watch me.”

THE PRESIDENT:  Watch me.

Q    Many American people have been watching, and they have expressed concerns about your age.  They —

THE PRESIDENT:  That is your judgement.

Q    They —

THE PRESIDENT:  That is your judgement.

Q    This is according to public polling.

THE PRESIDENT:  That is not the judgement —

Q    They express concerns —

THE PRESIDENT:  — of the press.

Q    They express concerns about your mental acuity.  They say that you are too old. 

Mr. President, in December, you told me that you believe there are many other Democrats who could defeat Donald Trump.  So, why does it have to be you now?  Why — what is your answer to that question?

THE PRESIDENT:  Because I’m the most qualified person in this country to be President of the United States and finish the job I started.

(Cross-talk.)

Q    Do you believe that —

Q    Mr. President, why are you confusing the names of world leaders?

Q    Mr. President, why did you share classified information with your ghostwriter?

THE PRESIDENT:  I did not share classified information.  I did not share it.

Q    With your ghostwriter?

THE PRESIDENT:  With my ghostwriter, I did not.  Guarantee you, I did not.  What the —

Q    But the special counsel said that —

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, no, they did not say that. 

Q    Okay.

THE PRESIDENT:  He did not say that.

Q    But, Mr. President —

THE PRESIDENT:  No, let — let me answer your question.  The fact of the matter is what I didn’t want repeated — I didn’t want him to know, and I didn’t read it to him — was I had written a long memorandum to President Obama why we should not be in this — in Afghanistan.  And I was of the — multiple pages. 

And so, what I was referring to — I said “classified” — I should have said it was — should be private because it was a contact between a president and a vice president as to what was going on.  That’s what he was referring to.  It was not classified information in that document.  That was not classified.

(Cross-talk.)

Q    Mr. President —

(Cross-talk.)

Q    I — okay, all right.  He called on me.

When you look back at this incident, is there anything you would do differently now?  And do you think that a special prosecutor should have been appointed in the first place in both of these cases?

THE PRESIDENT:  First of all, what I would have done is oversee the transfer of the material that was in my office — in my offices.  I should have done that.  If I had to go back — and I didn’t have the responsibility to do that.  That was — my staff was supposed to do that, and they referenced that in the report. 

And my staff did not do it in the way that — for example, I didn’t know how half the boxes got in my garage until I found out staff gathered them up, put them together, and took them to the garage in my home.  And all the stuff that was in my home was in filing cabinets that were either locked or able to be locked.  It was in my house.  It wasn’t out in — like in Mar-a-Lago, in a public place where —

And none of it was high classified.  Didn’t have any of that red stuff on it — you know what I mean? — around the corners.  None of that.

And so, I wish I had paid more attention to how the documents were being moved and where.  I thought they were being moved to the Archives.  I thought all of it was being moved.  That’s what I thought. 

Now, what was the last part of your question?

Q    Whether a special counselor should have been appointed in this case and in the case of your rival, President — former President Trump.

THE PRESIDENT:  I think a special counsel should have been appointed.  And the reason I think a special counsel should have been appointed is because I did not want to be in a position that they looked at Trump and weren’t going to look at me, just like they looked at the vice president.

And the fact is they made a firm conclusion: I did not break the law.  Period.

Thank you all very, very much.  Thank you.  Thank you.

(Cross-talk.)

Q    A question on Israel, sir.  Can you provide an update on the hostage negotiations?  The hostage negotiations — can you provide an update of the hostage negotiations in Israel?

THE PRESIDENT:  The hostage negotiation, look — 

I’m of the view, as you know, that the conduct of the response in Gaza — in the Gaza Strip has been over the top.  I think that — as you know, initially, the President of Mexico [Egypt], El-Sisi, did not want to open up the gate to allow humanitarian material to get in.  I talked to him.  I convinced him to open the gate.

I talked to Bibi to open the gate on the Israeli side.  I’ve been pushing really hard — really hard to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza.  There are a lot of innocent people who are starving, a lot of innocent people who are in trouble and dying, and it’s got to stop, number one.

Number two, I was also in the position that I’m the guy that made the case that we have to do much more to increase the amount of material going in, including fuel, including other items.  I’ve been on the phone with the Qataris, I’ve been on the phone with the Egyptians, I’ve been on the phone with the Saudis to get as much aid as we possibly can into Gaza.

There are innocent people — innocent women and children — who are also in bad — badly in need of help.  And so, that’s what we’re pushing right now. 

And I’m pushing very hard now to deal with this hostage ceasefire.  Because, as I — you know, I’ve been working tirelessly in this deal — how can I say this without revealing? — to lead to a sustained pause in the fighting in — the actions taking place in — in the Gaza Strip. 

And — because I think if we can get the delay for that — the initial delay, I think that we would be able to extend that so that we can increase the prospect that this fighting in Gaza changes. 

There’s also negotiations — you may recall, in the very beginning, right after — right before Hamas attacked, I was in contact with the Saudis and others to work out a deal where they would recognize Israel’s right to exist, let them — make them part of the Middle East, recognize them fully, in return for certain things that the United States would commit to do. 

And the commitment to — that we were proposing to do related to two — to two items.  I’m not going to go in detail.  But one of them was to deal with the protection against their arch enemy to the northwest — northeast, I should say.  The second one, by providing ammunition and materiel for them to defend themselves.

Coincidentally, that’s the timeframe when this broke out.  I have no proof for what I’m about to say, but it’s not unreasonable to suspect that the — Hamas understood what was about to take place and wanted to break it up before it happened.

Thank you.

8:11 P.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden appeared first on The White House.

On February 7, 2024, Mexico’s Secretary of Security and Citizen Protection Rosa Icela Rodriguez hosted the United States’ White House Homeland Security Advisor Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall and Canada’s Deputy Clerk and National Security and Intelligence Advisor Nathalie G. Drouin in the fourth meeting of the Trilateral Fentanyl Committee to review progress on our commitments and discuss further joint actions to counter the flows of illicit synthetic drugs and illegal firearms in North America. 
 
President Joe Biden, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau established the Trilateral Fentanyl Committee in January 2023, during the North American Leaders’ Summit (NALS), to guide priority actions to address the threat from illicit synthetic drugs, including fentanyl, in North America.
 
*  *  * Begin text *  *  *
 
The United States, Mexico, and Canada commit to increasing collaboration on the control of precursor chemicals and equipment related to illicit drug production, continuously reviewing our legal frameworks to identify areas for improvement, and further engaging the private sector to combat the production of illicit synthetic drugs.  We are also working to strengthen diplomatic efforts to build on the progress of the Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats.  To advance public health, we are committed to developing and implementing a common drug and substances analysis protocol, which will allow toxicologists from the three countries to improve our understanding of regional drug trends. In addition, we plan to convene a forum to discuss strategies and their implementation for assisting the long-term recovery of individuals with substance use disorders. 
 
Our governments have expanded the scope of the Trilateral Fentanyl Committee to address firearms trafficking associated with illicit drug production and distribution under the auspices of the North American Drug Dialogue.  As an important first step, we commit to developing a trilateral report that documents cross-border firearms seizures in all three countries.  The report will broaden our strategic understanding of the corridors and methodologies used for trafficking drugs and firearms and the criminal organizations involved to better inform our actions.  We also commit to increase our use of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) eTrace database to allow for more and faster joint investigations into the illicit trafficking of firearms across our borders. In addition, to increase and expedite information sharing on criminals and illicit activities associated with trafficking of fentanyl and firearms, the United States invited Mexico to embed personnel at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection National Targeting Center, joining Canadian personnel who are already embedded there.
 
We are optimistic that our ongoing collective efforts will help improve the security and health of our citizens and communities.  Together we will work aggressively to stem the flow of illicit fentanyl, precursor chemicals, and firearms across our shared borders; increase investigations and prosecutions of criminals behind these heinous crimes; and support individuals who are affected by these crimes and those in recovery.
 
*  *  * End text * * *
 
Mexico’s delegation was led by Secretary of Security and Citizen Protection Rosa Icela Rodriguez and included Secretary of Foreign Affairs Alicia Bárcena Ibarra; Attorney General of the Republic Alejandro Gertz Manero; Secretary of the Interior Luisa María Alcalde; Secretary of National Defense Luis Cresencio Sandoval; Secretary of the Navy José Rafael Ojeda; Secretary of Health Jorge Alcocer; Undersecretary of Human Rights, Population and Migration Arturo Medina; Federal Commissioner for Protection against Sanitary Risks, Alejandro Svarch; Head of Unit for North America Roberto Velasco; Mexican Ambassador to the United States Esteban Moctezuma; and Mexican Ambassador to Canada Carlos Joaquin González.
 
The United States’ delegation was led by White House Homeland Security Advisor Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall and included Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Richard Verma; Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco; Acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Kristie Canegallo; Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy Adam Cohen; Ambassador to Mexico Ken Salazar; Ambassador to Canada David Cohen; National Security Council Senior Director for Counterterrorism and Transnational Crime Tiffany Eppelheimer, among others.
 
Canada’s delegation was led by Deputy Clerk and National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister Nathalie Drouin and included Public Safety Canada Associate Deputy Minister Tricia Geddes; Health Canada Associate Deputy Minister Eric Costen; Ambassador Graeme C. Clark; Deputy Head of Mission Shauna Hemingway; Chief of Staff to the Deputy Clerk and National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister Marie-Claude Filion; Political Counsellor Peter McKernan; and Counsellor Daniel Hallman.

###

The post Joint Statement from Mexico, Canada, and the United States Reaffirming Our Shared Commitment to Address the Regional Challenge of Synthetic Drugs and Firearms Trafficking appeared first on The White House.

NATIONAL SECURITY MEMORANDUM/NSM-20

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE
               THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
               THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
               THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
                 BUDGET
               THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE

SUBJECT:       Safeguards and Accountability With Respect to
               Transferred Defense Articles and Defense
               Services

As outlined in National Security Memorandum 18 of February 23, 2023 (United States Conventional Arms Transfer Policy) (NSM-18), supporting foreign partners of the United States through appropriate transfers of defense articles by the Department of State and the Department of Defense is a critical tool for advancing United States foreign policy and national security objectives, including to:

     (a)  strengthen the collective security of the United States and its allies and partners by enhancing interoperability and supporting United States-led diplomacy in building and maintaining international coalitions;

     (b)  promote international peace and stability, and help allies and partners deter and defend themselves against aggression and foreign malign influence;

     (c)  strengthen United States national security by reinforcing respect for human rights, international humanitarian law, democratic governance, and the rule of law;

     (d)  prevent arms transfers that risk facilitating or otherwise contributing to violations of human rights or international humanitarian law; and

     (e)  strengthen ally and partner capacity to respect their obligations under international law and reduce the risk of civilian harm, including through appropriate tools, training, advising, and institutional capacity-building efforts that accompany arms transfers.

Equally critical is ensuring that adequate safeguards and accountability exist with respect to transferred defense articles and defense services.  Under the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751, et seq.), both the Department of State and the Department of Defense implement end-use monitoring programs. 

In addition, as a matter of policy, the United States always seeks to promote adherence to international law and encourages other states and partners to do the same.  United States policy, including as reflected in Executive Order 13732 of July 1, 2016 (United States Policy on Pre- and Post-Strike Measures to Address Civilian Casualties in U.S. Operations Involving the Use of Force), is for executive departments and agencies to engage with foreign partners to share and learn best practices for reducing the likelihood of and responding to civilian casualties, including through appropriate training and assistance.  In order to effectively implement certain obligations under United States law, the United States must maintain an appropriate understanding of foreign partners’ adherence to international law, including, as applicable, international human rights law and international humanitarian law.  As a matter of international law, the United States looks to the law of state responsibility and United States partners’ compliance with international humanitarian law in assessing the lawfulness of United States military assistance to, and joint operations with, military partners. 

For these reasons, I am issuing this memorandum, which requires the Secretary of State to obtain certain credible and reliable written assurances from foreign governments receiving defense articles and, as appropriate, defense services, from the Departments of State and Defense, and requires the Secretaries of State and Defense to provide periodic congressional reports to enable meaningful oversight.  In addition to the requirements of this memorandum, the Secretaries of State and Defense are responsible for ensuring that all transfers of defense articles and defense services by the Departments of State and Defense under any security cooperation or security assistance authorities are conducted in a manner consistent with all applicable international and domestic law and policy, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, the applicable “Leahy Law” (22 U.S.C. 2378d, 10 U.S.C. 362), and NSM-18.

Section 1.  Policy.  (a)  Except as provided below, the policy outlined in this memorandum applies prospectively to the provision to foreign governments by the Departments of State or Defense of any defense articles funded with congressional appropriations under their respective security assistance and security cooperation authorities, including with Foreign Military Financing and Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative funds, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 333, and pursuant to Presidential drawdown authority under section 506 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2318).  Prior to the Departments of State or Defense providing such defense articles to the recipient country and, as applicable, consistent with the timelines set out in subsection (c) of this section, the Secretary of State shall:

          (i)   obtain credible and reliable written assurances from a representative of the recipient country as the Secretary of State deems appropriate that the recipient country will use any such defense articles in accordance with international humanitarian law and, as applicable, other international law; and

          (ii)  in furtherance of supporting section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2378-1) and applicable international law, obtain credible and reliable written assurances from a representative of the recipient country as the Secretary of State deems appropriate that, in any area of armed conflict where the recipient country uses such defense articles, consistent with applicable international law, the recipient country will facilitate and not arbitrarily deny, restrict, or otherwise impede, directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of United States humanitarian assistance and United States Government-supported international efforts to provide humanitarian assistance.

The assurances described in this subsection shall be enforceable consistent with subsection (b) of this section.

     (b)  Upon an assessment by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense that the credibility or reliability of assurances provided by the recipient country as required by subsection (a) of this section has been called into question and should be revisited, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense, as appropriate, shall report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, within 45 days of such assessment and shall indicate appropriate next steps to be taken to assess and remediate the situation.  Such remediation could include actions from refreshing the assurances to suspending any further transfers of defense articles or, as appropriate, defense services.

     (c)  Recognizing that a reasonable period of time is necessary to obtain the assurances required by subsection (a) of this section from foreign governments already receiving such defense articles from the Departments of State or Defense as of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of State shall obtain the required assurances from those countries within the following time periods:

          (i)   For any country to which subsection (a) of this section applies and that is deemed by the Secretary of State to be engaged, as of the date of this memorandum, in an active armed conflict in which defense articles covered by this section are used, the Secretary of State shall obtain the assurances outlined in subsection (a) of this section not later than 45 days after the date of this memorandum and shall provide an update to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, regarding the recipient countries that have provided such assurances.  If the Secretary of State does not obtain such assurances within 45 days of the date of this memorandum, the transfer of defense articles and, as applicable, defense services, shall be paused until the required assurances are obtained.

          (ii)  For any country to which subsection (a) of this section applies and that is not deemed by the Secretary of State to be engaged, as of the date of this memorandum, in an active armed conflict in which defense articles covered by this section are used, the Secretary of State shall obtain the assurances outlined in subsection (a) of this section not later than 180 days after the date of this memorandum and shall provide an update to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, regarding the recipient countries that have provided such assurances.  If the Secretary of State does not obtain such assurances within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, the transfer of defense articles and, as applicable, defense services, shall be paused until the required assurances are obtained.

     (d)  This memorandum does not apply to (1) air defense systems; (2) other defense articles or defense services that are intended to be used for strictly defensive purposes or are exclusively for non-lethal purposes other than in armed conflict; (3) defense articles or defense services that are non-lethal in nature; or (4) transfers strictly for the operational needs of the Department of Defense. 

     (e)  This memorandum shall apply to the provision to foreign governments by the Departments of State or Defense of any defense services the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense determines to be appropriate under their respective authorities in furthering the aims of the policy outlined in this memorandum.

     (f)  In rare and extraordinary circumstances justified by an imperative associated with the national security of the United States, and with concurrent notification to the President, including an articulation of the relevant justification, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense may waive the requirements of this section.  Such waiver should be as limited in time, scope, and nature as deemed necessary to advance the interests of United States national security.

Sec. 2.  Congressional Reporting.  (a)  Not later than 90 days after the date of this memorandum, and once every fiscal year thereafter, the Secretaries of State and Defense shall report in written form and, to the extent additionally appropriate, through verbal briefings by appropriate senior officials of their respective departments, to the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives; and, upon request, other congressional national security committees as appropriate.  The written report shall address defense articles and, as appropriate, defense services, provided by the Departments of State or Defense described in subsections 1(a) and 1(e) of this memorandum, and shall include:

          (i)     any new assurances obtained since the prior report;

          (ii)    an assessment of any credible reports or allegations that such defense articles and, as appropriate, defense services, have been used in a manner not consistent with international law, including international humanitarian law; such assessment shall include any determinations, if they can reasonably be made, as to whether use has occurred in a manner not consistent with international law, and if so, whether the recipient country has pursued appropriate accountability;

          (iii)   a description of the procedures used to make the assessment described in subsection (a)(ii) of this section;

          (iv)    an assessment and analysis of (1) any credible reports indicating that the use of such defense articles and, as appropriate, defense services, has been found to be inconsistent with established best practices for mitigating civilian harm, including practices that have been adopted by the United States military, and including measures implemented in response to the Department of Defense’s Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan or incidents reviewed pursuant to the Department of State’s Civilian Harm Incident Response Guidance; and (2) the extent to which efforts to induce effective implementation of such civilian harm mitigation best practices have been incorporated into the relevant United States security assistance program;

          (v)     a description of the procedures used to make the assessment and analysis described in subsection (iv) of this section;

          (vi)    a description of any known occurrences of such defense articles and, as appropriate, defense services, not being received by the recipient foreign government that is the intended recipient, or being misused for purposes inconsistent with the intended purposes, and a description of any remedies undertaken;

          (vii)   an assessment and analysis of whether each foreign government recipient has abided by the assurances received pursuant to section 1(a)(ii) of this memorandum, whether such recipient is in compliance with section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2378-1), and whether such recipient has fully cooperated with United States Government efforts and United States Government-supported international efforts to provide humanitarian assistance in an area of armed conflict where the recipient country is using such defense articles and, as appropriate, defense services; and 

          (viii)  a description of any challenges to conducting the assessment and analysis described in subsections (a)(i)-(vii) of this section, including whether or not there is available information responsive to the subsections above. 

     (b)  The written report and, where applicable, accompanying verbal briefing provided under subsection (a) of this section shall be unclassified but may be supplemented, to the extent necessary, with classified reporting as appropriate for the protection of classified national security information.

     (c)  The first report provided under this section shall include available information on the use, since January 2023, of defense articles and, as appropriate, defense services, provided by the Departments of State or Defense described in subsections 1(a) and 1(e) of this memorandum by recipient countries that engaged in armed conflict during calendar year 2023.

     (d)  The Secretaries of State and Defense shall notify the congressional committees specified in subsection (a) of this section within 7 days following any report provided to the President pursuant to section 1(b) of this memorandum and within 7 days following any notification provided to the President of the exercise of a waiver pursuant to section 1(f) of this memorandum, and shall notify the same committees of assurances newly received pursuant to section 1(a) of this memorandum within 30 days of receiving such assurances if not otherwise reported to the Congress within that time period.

Sec. 3.  Definitions.  For purposes of this memorandum, the terms “defense article” and “defense service” have the meanings given in section 47 of the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. 2794.

Sec. 4.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

          (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

          (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

     (b)  This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

     (c)  This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

     (d)  The requirements in this memorandum are not intended to reflect an understanding that they are required by treaty or customary international law, and this memorandum should not be understood or cited to that effect.

                             JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

The post National Security Memorandum on Safeguards and Accountability With Respect to Transferred Defense Articles and Defense Services appeared first on The White House.

1:36 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It smells like a chimney — a fireplace.  Good afternoon, everybody. 

Q    Hello.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just have really one quick thing at the top and then we’ll get going with all of your questions.

So, as you all know, this afternoon, the President looks forward to seeing Leader Jeffries, Chair Aguilar, and other top leaders and members of the House Democratic Caucus.

You can expect to hear the President talk about our shared focus on delivering important progress for the American people, from rebuilding America with record jobs, small businesses, economic growth, and rising wages; to protecting and expanding access to healthcare and taking on Big Pharma; to taking historic action to combat climate change, gun violence, and efforts to roll back our fundamental freedoms.

And that’s — and that’s in stark contrast to what House Republicans are focused on.  Right now, they’re sowing chaos, undercutting our national security, and playing political games.

As the President said earlier this week, Republicans have to decide: Who do they serve?

The President and House Republicans [Democrats] know who they — who they work for — that’s — we are aware, the President is very aware, House Repub- — House Democrats are very aware — and that is the American people.

With that, we have the Admiral back in the briefing room, who is going to give us an update on the Middle East and take your questions.

Here you go, Admiral.  Thank you.

MR. KIRBY:  Actually, I don’t have an opening statement.  I’ll save you that.  So, we’ll just go right to questions.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Here we go.

MR. KIRBY:  Sorry — sorry to bring you back up.  (Laughter.)

Q    That was very —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I actually knew that, and I forgot.

MR. KIRBY:  But you bounded very quickly.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  Limber.

Q    Thanks, Admiral.  Can you talk about whether the administration has a reaction to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s plans to deploy the Israeli military into Rafah?  And is the administration sending any warnings to the Israeli government against doing so, considering the humanitarian catastrophe that the U.N. said that this would cause?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, with the caveat that I always use that we’ll let the Israelis speak to their military operations and certainly any potential future military operations, I can tell you, we’ve seen no plans that would convince us that they are about to or imminently going to conduct any kind of major operations in Rafah.

I think you all know more than a million Palestinians are — are sheltering in and around Rafah.  That’s where they were told to go.  There’s a lot of displaced people there.  And the Israeli military has a special obligation as they conduct operations there or anywhere else to make sure that they’re factoring in protection for — for innocent civilian life, particularly, you know, the civilians that were — were pushed into southern Gaza by operations further north — Khan Yunis and North Gaza. 

I could tell you that — absent any full consideration of protecting civilians at that scale in Gaza — military operations right now would be a disaster for those people, and it’s not something that we would support.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Steve.

Q    Oh —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh.  Go ahead.  

Q    Sorry, I have a follow-up.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.  Go ahead.  Sorry.

Q    The Israeli military has also detained three U.S. citizens during Secretary Blinken’s current trip: one woman in the West Bank on Monday and two brothers in Gaza this morning.  And that’s according to the Israeli military and family members of those people.  Does the White House have a reaction to that?

MR. KIRBY:  Just processing this information, and I — I — so we don’t — we need to — we want to know more about the reasons here.  And I’m — I’m confident that our Ambassador, Jack Lew, is looking into this.

Obviously, this is the kind of thing we take very seriously, so we’ll be talking to our Israeli counterparts and trying to get information, more context here about what happened.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Steve. 

Q    So — so, John, has Israel factored in the protection of civilians in Rafah —

MR. KIRBY:  Well, again, when we —

Q    — as far as you know?

MR. KIRBY:  Steve, we haven’t seen — we have — we’ve seen no indications that there’s such — that there’s operational planning or at least planning at the level of specificity that tells us an operation — a major ground operation around Rafah is imminent.  So, we just haven’t seen the plan for it.

Any such plan — when you have more than a million folks that have been displaced down there, any such plan would have to factor in — a responsible military plan would factor in making sure that you can protect those civilians.  And as I said, given the circumstances and conditions there that we see right now, we think a military operation at this time would be a disaster for those people.

Q    And then, to follow up, Prime Minister Netanyahu rejected the Hamas proposal on hostages.  What — what happens now?

MR. KIRBY:  Look, nothing is — nothing is done until everything is done, and negotiations are ongoing. 

And as you heard Secretary Blinken say just yesterday in the region that — we’re optimistic that we will still be able to get a deal in place that will allow for an extended pause, allow for more aid to get in, and allow for a maximum number of hostages to get out.  But we’re still working at this literally around the clock.  And the Sec- — we’re — we’re optimistic we can get there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Karen.

Q    On that, just to follow up, the President had said the other day that the response from Hamas seems to be a little “over the top.”  Can you explain a little more about what part of that he was talking about? 

MR. KIRBY:  I’d really rather not get into the details and the parameters of the deal that’s being discussed.  As — as you know, there was a — an Israeli counterproposal put forward, and then Hamas responded.  As I understand it, the Israelis are looking at the Hamas response right now and working their way through that.  So, the last thing I’m going to do is get ahead of them and their decision-making. 

But as — again, as the President said, as Secretary Blinken said, there were parts of the Hamas response which were very positive and there were parts, which, obviously, we believe and our Israeli counterparts believe need a little bit more work. 

Q    And there was the U.S. strike in Baghdad that killed a senior leader of Kata’ib Hezbollah, which the U.S. has said is responsible behind the str- — the drone attack in Jordan.  Has the U.S. concluded the retaliatory strikes for the attack in Jordan, or should we expect more still to come?

MR. KIRBY:  You’ll have to wait and see. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Weijia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  John, I know you said that you haven’t seen any formal plan for the IDF to — to go into Rafah, but —

MR. KIRBY:  I said we’re not aware of any formal planning to do that. 

Q    Okay.  Has the U.S. communicated everything that you just said about protecting civilians to Israel?

MR. KIRBY:  Secretary Blinken, in his meetings with the Israeli leaders and the Prime Minister and the War Cabinet, made clear our concerns.

Q    And did that come with any conditions with supporting Israel and offering support, resources in the future if that protection did not happen?

MR. KIRBY:  He made clear our concerns, and I’m cer- — I’m certainly reiterating them here from the podium.  But we’re going to continue to make sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself against Hamas. 

A big part of the supplemental request that — that we submitted back in October and which I know is still being debated on Capitol Hill has money in there specifically for Israel’s security.

Q    Thanks. 

Q    Admiral, talking about the retaliatory strikes in Iraq, what’s the U.S. response to the outrage from some Iraqi officials that called it a “clear-cut assassination operation” that disregarded lives of civilians?  And what’s the U.S. response to any political pressure in Iraq to expel the U.S. forces there?

MR. KIRBY:  I’ll let Mr. al-Sudani talk about whatever political pressure he’s under.  I would tell you that we fully respect Iraq’s sovereignty, and our troops are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government to continue to advise and assist their military, their security forces as they continue to battle against a still-viable ISIS threat. 

We’re having discussions with the Iraqis, I think as you know, about what that posture looks like going forward and — and the validity of that mission going forward.  And those discussions are ongoing. 

But, look, if there were no attacks on our troops — who are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government — there would be no need for retaliatory strikes. 

Q    Given those discussions — how difficult are those discussions given Iraq’s relationship with Iran?

MR. KIRBY:  We have a — we believe we have a good relationship with the Iraqi government. 

I’ll let the Iraqis speak for their other bilateral relationships or their relationships in the region. 

We have a good relationship with the Iraqi government.  We still believe that the advise-and-assist mission is — is something worth talking about and — and exploring the future of it.  And I’ll leave it at that.

Q    Really quick — a quick question on Ukraine.  Ukraine replaced a top military general.  What’s the U.S. response to that?  And is that an indication that the war isn’t going as Ukraine and the U.S. would hope?

MR. KIRBY:  President Zelenskyy is the commander-in-chief of his armed forces; he gets to decide who his leadership is going to be in the military.  That’s what civilian control is all about.  We know that, and we’ll work with whoever he has in charge of his military.  We’ll continue to work with our Ukrainian counterparts. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, Admiral.  Staying on that subject.  I mean, do you have any concerns about instability in Ukraine as a result of this change at the top of the military?

And also, can I ask: Was it — was that decision discussed with — with yourselves and the White House before —

MR. KIRBY:  Discussed?

Q    Well, was there any discussion between President Zelenskyy and yourselves or with President Biden about the need for a change at the top of the Ukrainian military (inaudible) —

MR. KIRBY:  We’re not concerned about Ukrainian stability as a result of this.  He’s the commander-in-chief, and civilian control of the military means you get to decide who your military leadership is.  And he’s — he’s doing that in a time of war.  He should speak to that decision. 

I’m not aware of any discussions at high levels between U.S. and Ukrainian officials about the — that decision in a pre-decisional way.  We talk to our Ukrainian counterparts all the time. 

But if the question is proposing that we were somehow abil- — we had some sort of right to give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down, that’s not true.  This is President Zelenskyy’s decision.  So, there was — there was no requirement for the Ukrainian government to — to run it by us.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Nadia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  So, John, if the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu, said clearly yesterday that he ordered his troops to be ready to enter Rafah, why are you not taking his word at face value?  Number one.

And, second, there was an internal report — military report says that a fifth of the hostages in Gaza are dead already.  I know you blame Hamas for taking them in the first place, but do you share — do you think that Netanyahu shares the blame too in obstructing every deal that could have been possible, jeopardizing the life of hostages, including American hostages?

MR. KIRBY:  On your first question, as I said, we — we’re just not aware of any specific planning for an imminent operation in Rafah, and I’ve already expressed our concerns about what that could look like for the Palestinian people that are there should it happen right now and should it happen with no due consideration for their safety.

On your second question, you’re right; Hamas took the hostages.  Hamas is responsible for — for their abduction.  Hamas is responsible for any harm that comes to them, period.  That’s the end of it. 

And there was a deal in place that did manage to get a good number — dozens of hostages out over the course of a week.  And since that ended, Nadia, we have been working almost nonstop to try to get another one in place.  And those discussions are ongoing as we speak for an extended pause that will be longer than the week that we saw.  And we’re hopeful that — we’re optimistic that we’ll be able to get there.

Q    I just want to clear something about — you said about the two brothers who — two American Palestinians who have been taken by the Israeli army.  What exactly do you seek?  And you said you wanted to —

MR. KIRBY:  We’re just processing —

Q    — know information?

MR. KIRBY:  We’re just processing these reports right now.  We’re obviously talking to our Israeli counterparts about this to get more information about what happened here.  I mean, we take this seriously, as you would expect we would.

Q    And the American from Louisiana who also —

MR. KIRBY:  Same.  Same.

Q    — in the West Bank who has been arrested?

MR. KIRBY:  Same — same thing.

Q    So, will you update us on information about that?

MR. KIRBY:  If I have something I can share, I will.  But there’s also privacy considerations we have to factor in too.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Michael.

Q    John, if — could I just parse a little bit more the Rafah statements?  On the one hand, you said a — any military operation in a place like Rafah would have to take into consideration protection of civilians.  And then you also said that any military operation in Rafah would be a disaster.  So, is — does — is it the U.S.’s position that there could be a military operation in Rafah that could be designed in a way that would be protective enough of — of civilians?  Or is the message any military operation would be impossible — any military — any military operation would be indefensible given the — given the situation in Rafah now?

MR. KIRBY:  Again, we haven’t seen — I haven’t seen a —

Q    Right, I understand you haven’t seen it — 

MR. KIRBY:  — plan here.  So —

Q    — but in terms of what you’re —

MR. KIRBY:  So, any — any — our view is: Any military — any major military operation in Rafah at this time, under these circumstances, with more than a million — probably more like a million and a half Palestinians who are seeking refuge and have been seeking refuge in Rafah — without due consideration for their safety would be a disaster.

Q    But I guess —

MR. KIRBY:  And we would not support it.

Q    But I guess my question is: Can you see — could you see a path towards due consideration for their safety that could make a military operation in Rafah now, like, actually work?

MR. KIRBY:  That’s a speculative one.  I’m not going to go down a hypothetical here, Michael, in terms of what it could look like.  Again, we haven’t — we have no indications that there is such planning for a major operation in Rafah.  I’ve just said that right now, without proper planning and consideration of the — the innocent lives that are there — more than a million of — folks that are in Rafah — a military operation right now, without any kind of due consideration for that, would be a disaster for those people, and we would not support it.

Q    Do you have any concern that Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin could further erode support for Ukraine aid in the United States?

MR. KIRBY:  I — we’re convinced that there is strong bipartisan support on Capitol Hill for supporting Ukraine.  And we know there’s efforts now to bring something up onto the Senate floor for a vote that would have Ukraine, Israel, Indo-Pacific, and humanitarian assistance supplemental funding in it and — without the border.  We’ll let the folk — we’ll let senators work that out. 

The President believes that support for Ukraine is critical — particularly right now, as Russia continues to try to hit their defense industrial base, continue to hit their units on that battlefront from — from east to south.  It — it’s vital. 

And he’s confident that — and he — and based on the meetings he’s had with — with leaders on Capitol Hill and the discussions he’s had, certainly over recent weeks, that, again, the leadership — even on the House side, the leadership is solidly in support of supporting Ukraine. 

Now, whether they’re going to — how they’re going to be affected or impacted by a television interview, I couldn’t begin to — to guess.

Q    I guess I’m asking beyond just Congress.  Among the American people, many of whom, you know, watch Tucker Carlson’s show and are inclined already to be skeptical of American support for Ukraine, would hearing directly from Putin potentially erode that further — not just in the halls of Congress but among the people?

MR. KIRBY:  I think the American people know well who is at fault here.  And I think they know that there was no ground whatsoever for the invasion on February 22nd, two years ago.  The — he — he invaded a neighboring country with- — without provocation.  Ukraine wasn’t a threat to anybody, and the American people understand that.  And the American people understand what Ukraine is fighting for. 

And all they’re asking for is our help.  They’re not asking for American boots on the ground. 

Again, I don’t think the American people are going to be swayed by one single interview.  And I think anybody that watches that interview — I — again, I haven’t seen — whatever — whatever is said — need to — need to make sure you’re — you’re — remember, you’re listening to Vladimir Putin.  And you shouldn’t take at face value anything he has to say.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Just a couple more.  Go ahead.

Q    Admiral, can you give us a little more sense of what the President plans to speak about with Chancellor Scholz tomorrow?  The Chancellor has said, you know, he hopes the West sends a clear signal to Vladimir Putin.  And it seems like this week gives anything but that.

MR. KIRBY:  They’re going to talk about cert- — certainly the situation in Ukraine.  No question about it.

I think both leaders will reaffirm their strong support for Ukraine and finding a way to continue to help Ukraine.  The Chancellor said something like that before he left Berlin, actually — about finding ways for Europe to also do more to support Ukraine.

I think they’re going to talk about the Middle East as well and what the situation in Gaza looks like; what — what together we can do as — as strong allies to continue to make sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself; that humanitarian assistance gets in to the people that need it.  And I would be surprised if they didn’t also talk about the threats in the Red Sea to international shipping.  And a lot of that international shipping affects Europe directly.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Great.  Thank you.  Admiral, as you just mentioned, the foreign aid package — it advanced in the Senate just a few moments ago, but it still has a long way before final passage.  Some Democrats on the Hill say that they’ve been asking the White House to consider options to help Ukraine without their help in case that this doesn’t pass at all.  Is the White House considering any such options to aid Ukraine without the help of Congress?

MR. KIRBY:  I think I’ll leave our conversations with members of Congress to — to the — to those conversations and not discuss them publicly. 

The President believes that support for Ukraine is critical, particularly right now.  And we’ll continue to — to work with both sides of the aisle in the Senate to see what we can do to make that happen.

Q    Is he sending any kind of — well, is he going to send any more direct message now as they are taking this up and now that it has advanced?

MR. KIRBY:  I — I’m not — I’m not going to — again, I’m not going to get ahead of the President’s private conversations with members of Congress and leadership on Capitol Hill.  He has been in touch with them; he will stay in touch with them.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  John, with everything that you said about Rafah, whether an attack is imminent or not, I noticed that what you said was that “we will not support it” and not “we will not accept it.”  So, I guess my question is: The President has military, financial, and diplomatic leverage on Netanyahu.  Why won’t he use it?

MR. KIRBY:  I think it’s not true that we haven’t tried to help influence the — the way the Israelis have been prosecuting operations.  That’s just not true.  We have.  We have — and they’ve been receptive to many of our lessons learned and the perspectives we’ve shared.

And, again, what I said was: An operation right now — first of all, we don’t think it’s imminent.  We have no indication that one is imminent.  Any operation right now, given the, you know, more than a million Palestinians seeking refuge at Ra- — Rafah would be a disaster for them.  And any operation that wouldn’t factor in their safety and their protection — an obligation that the Israelis have — we would not support.

Q    And on the Jordan King’s visit next week.  John, I think you did mention that the funding for UNRWA that has been suspended, that was specifically for Jordan.  So, can you give a little bit of a preview of whether that part on UNRWA funding and then also on refugee support for Jordan — will that be discussed between the President and the King?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t know if the specific suspension of funding for UNRWA is going to be a matter of discussion.  I mean, it’s a — it’s a closed matter.  That — that money has been suspended pending the outcome of the investigation, and the Jordanians know that.  It was really for — it was a limited amount of money for a specific purpose in Jordan: to assist the Palestinians there.

But I think, in broad brushstrokes, the King and the President will certainly talk about what Gaza looks like post conflict and how our counterparts and our Arab friends in the region can help build a post-conflict Gaza or help us — help us work towards a post-conflict Gaza that, again, meets the aspirations of the Palestinian people and give them a vote and a voice in what that looks like.  And it’s going to have to start with a revitalized Palestinian Authority.

Q    And just one last question.  You did mention that this is not the end of the negotiation on — on the temporary ceasefire and you’re optimistic.  Does that mean that — I mean, can we infer from that that the President believes that Netanyahu’s response — whether that is his actual position or simply a public stance? 

MR. KIRBY:  I’ll let the Prime Minister speak for his comments.  We —

Q    What is the President’s view?

MR. KIRBY:  The President believes that — that this is — this potential deal has real po- — has real possibility.  And he shares Secretary Blinken’s optimism that we’re — that we can get there. 

Discussions are active; they’re ongoing.  It’s not like either side just cut everything off.  It’s still — those co- — those conversations are still happening.  And so, the President is optimistic that we can get there.  He believes it’s possible.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  We have to take one last one. 

Go ahead, in the back.  (Inaudible.)

Q    Karine, thank you.  Admiral, you said that any responsible military operation would factor in civilians.  But 27,000 civilians have been killed in Gaza during the war, many of them children, so would you characterize the current military operation as “responsible?” 

And the second question is: Benjamin Netanyahu said the idea of sanctioning those in the West Bank who target Palestinians is irresponsible.  What would be — your reaction be to that?

MR. KIRBY:  I think our actions speak louder than our words.  We’ve — we have im- — imposed visa restrictions and we have done — and we have executed sanctions on some for the settler violence.  And I think our actions speak pretty loudly about what we believe about that.

And as for the civilian casualties, as I’ve said many, many times, I’ll say again: The number should be zero.  Too many have been killed.  Too many have been wounded.  And we know that too many have been displaced from their homes.  And that’s why we’re working so hard on this humanitarian pause, getting another extended pause in place, so that the level of violence can come down, so that hostages can get out safely, so that more security — I’m sorry, more humanitarian assistance can get in.

Again, actions speak louder than words, and I think our actions and our policies that we’re — that we’re pursuing speak pretty — pretty loudly about where the President’s priorities are.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you so much, Admiral. 

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Appreciate it.

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, everybody.

Q    Thanks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, Admiral.

Okay.  Seung Min.

Q    All right, thanks, Karine.  Two topics.  Attorney General Merrick Garland said the special counsel investigation into the President’s handling of classified documents is complete.  So, can you tell us whether the President was personally briefed on the contents of the report and, if so, when and by whom?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I — I don’t have anything for you at this time.  I would refer you to the Department of Justice or the White House — obviously, the White House Counsel, my colleagues there, for specifics on the question you just asked.  I just don’t have anything to share at this time.

Q    Can you — I mean, the — the White House Counsel hasn’t said — the office hasn’t said those specifics.  Is that something you can get back to us with, whether the President was —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would —

Q    — personally briefed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Honestly, I would — you can just reach out directly to them.  They have been pretty — as you know, my colleagues there have been pretty responsive.  So, I would really direct you to them direct- — specifically.

Q    And multiple times this week, the President in his public remarks talked about having conversations in 2021 with European leaders who were deceased at that time.  So, can you give us an explanation into why the President was referring to those — to those people in those conversations and what exactly happened there?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I know there has been a lot of focus on this.  I want to just step back for a second and just kind of think, really, kind of top level of what the President was talking about when he was having — as he tells a story about having these conversations with world leaders, which are obviously important conversations.  He was underlying the January 6 events in 2021: what happened; the message that it sent around the globe, around the world to our leaders — to world leaders; how dangerous it is; our democracy — how important democracy was and — or is — continues to be, obviously.

And he was asked — he was asked when he was — after he was elected, when he went to the G7, he said — and you saw this — he — it was something that we were saying throughout that trip, “America is back.”  “America is back.”  And what — what was asked of him was, “For how long?” 

And that whole story is just to reiterate, to really land, obviously, how important what we saw — that event — how important it is to continue to fight to our — for our democracy, but also, how important — how important it is — the United States — you know, their leadership — our leadership here in this — in the globe.

And so, he never thought — this is someone who was a senator.  He was a vice president.  He has a relationship with some of these world leaders for decades.  And he never thought that he would hear that.  And so, you hear him say that.  You hear him talk about it. 

He — you know, another part of it, too, is how unprecedented — how unprecedented that moment was on January 6th when 2,000 mob — a 2,000-person mob went to the Capitol because they were lied to about the results of the election, because they wanted to overturn the election.

So, just really want to make sure that we get that — that we understand why he — the reason he was telling that story.

And, look — you know, look, as it relates to the names and — and what he was trying to — you know, what he was trying to — to say, look, many people — elected officials, many people — you know, they tend — they can — they can mis- — misspeak sometimes.  Right?

Q    So, he misspoke?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And, look, I — let me give you a couple of examples.  You know, on Sunday, Speaker Johnson said “Iran” instead of “Israel.”  This happens. 

And Joe — Joe is not here.  There are many times I call Joe, from USA Today, “Michael.”  I’m sure he doesn’t appreciate that.  (Laughter.) 

Q    He doesn’t.  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He doesn’t.  (Laughter.)  I’ve apologized to him many times.  Now I call him “Joe Joe,” because the President calls him “Joe Joe.”

But — and also, Sean Hannity himself has said Jason Chaffetz when he meant Matt Gaetz.  I mean, it happens.  It really happens. 

Rick Scott even confuses saving — say — saving Medicare money with cutting Medicaid — Medicare, pardon me.

And so, this happens.  You know, it — it is — it happens to all of us, and it is common.  But I do want to not — I do want to make sure we don’t forget what the overall arching kind of theme — what he is trying to say about — about our leadership on the global stage.

Go ahead.

Q    All those people you mentioned, yourself included, are a lot younger than the President.  And obviously, as he is heading into the election season, one of the things that people are talking about in polls is a concern about his age.  What do you say, then, to Americans who have that concern and they see three times in just a couple days the President getting the name of a leader wrong —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — and referencing somebody who is deceased?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, again, as you just stated in your question to me, I’ve — I just laid out other — other leaders in their community or elected officials who have done the same.  So, it is not — not uncommon.

Look, as it relates to — as it relates to what the American people feel or what the American people think — I want to be really careful, because you did ask me that question in — in a context of the election, so I can’t really speak to the election — any upcoming election. 

But I can say this: This is a president that has had a — a very successful three years when you look at the economy, when you look at climate change, when you look at COVID, all the crises that he had to deal with when he walked into this administration.  That was done by someone who has experience, understands relationship on the other side of the — of Pennsylvania, understands what it means to bring two sides together to get things done, understands where the people are and Americans — Americans are and what they’re feeling, and how to deliver.

And that’s why you see an economy — all the data shows and even experts and some of you have written how the ec- — the economy has come back, and a lot of that is because of what this president has done.

So, look, his leadership, his experience, I believe, we believe speaks for its- — for itself.  And I think that’s what is important.  And I — and I hope that the American people see that. 

Q    If I can, just on the documents questions, just to try it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    The President did say last January that, when it comes to his handling of classified documents, “There is no there there.”  Is that still the case?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, I’m going to — I’m not going to get ahead, certainly, of what — what is going to come out.  I’m just going to be really mindful here.  I’m just not going to get into hypo- — at this point right now, it would be me making a hypothetical comment because we just don’t have anything at this time, obviously. 

But I’m going to — any specifics, any — any details, or anything related to that, obviously as it relates to our — our comments from here would have to come from the White House Counsel.

Q    Will he speak on this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just don’t have anything to share at this time. 

Go ahead, Kevin.

Q    When you’re in the — in meetings with the President, how often does he confuse names like we’ve seen him do this week?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have not seen him do that in meetings that I’ve been in.

Q    It was a pretty landmark Supreme Court day today.  How closely was the President tracking that?  Did he watch it on TV?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I’m going to be really careful.  Obviously, it’s an ongoing legal case, so I can’t comment on ongoing legal case. 

As it relates to your question about the President, he has been busy all day, obviously, delivering and working on the business for the American people.  I just don’t have anything on his — on his cable-watching schedule today.

Go ahead, Steve.

Q    Not to belabor the point, but how would you describe the President’s overall health?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  His overall health?

Q    Yes.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, that is — I mean, you see him for yourself just like I see him for myself.  Is — I am not a medical doctor.  I cannot comment on his over- — overall health.  Obviously, you’ve heard directly from his physician.  He has put out — he has put out a detailed, detailed memo and document on the — on the President’s health.  You saw him do that last year. 

He’s going to have another — another annual physical, which we will be transparent, just like we have been the last two years, and share that with all of you.

I — it’s just not for me to — to comment on the President’s medical health.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.   A couple times in the past few days, the President has said that he does not support “abortion on demand.”  How does he define “abortion on demand”?  And does that mean there are restrictions that he does want to see?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I mean, the President has always been consistent when it comes to that particular question — which is, look, he has been really clear and unequivocal when it comes to supporting, restoring the protections of Roe — Roe in federal — in federal law. 

And, look, you know, as you all know, for nearly 50 years, Roe was the constitutional law.  It was the law of the land.  And it gave the right for — for women and their doctors to make decisions about their own healthcare.  And that is what we are going to continue to fight for: to make sure that Roe becomes — you know, asking Congress to act, make sure it becomes the law of the land. 

But, look, he believes — and he’s been unequivocal about it — that he supports restoring the protections — the protections of Roe into federal law.

Q    But what — what does “abortion on demand” mean to him?  Because while Roe was the law of the land, there were restrictions enacted in many states: waiting periods, other things like that.  Are — are those things he is comfortable with?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There —

Q    There is a concern, I think, from abortion advocates that using language like “abortion on demand” is repeating a conservative talking point that they view as stigmatizing. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I can say is — and he has said this multiple times — he be- — he believes in restoring the protections of Roe, what is in Roe, what has been written in Roe, what has been laid out, the provisions in Roe for almost 50 years before, obviously, it was overturned back in 2022 by the Supreme Court.  That’s what he believes.  And that’s what I would point you to.  I don’t have anything else to add beyond that.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  What is it that the White House hopes that the officials who are meeting with Arab Americans today take away from those meetings in Michigan?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just say a couple things at the top — as that this is part of the of the Biden-Harris ongoing outreach to Muslim and Arab Americans communities. 

So, as you all know — and I made this comment last week — senior officials traveled to — to Michigan, and they are obviously traveling today to hear directly from the community, to hear directly from community leaders on a range of issues that are important to them, obviously, as well — and not just them but their families — including the conflict that — that we’re currently sering — seeing in Israel and Gaza. 

This is a private meeting.   Want to — we want to give them the space to have a meeting that certainly has candor, certainly where both — where we can hear directly from them.  So, don’t want to get too far into what’s going to be discussed.

But we want to hear directly from them.  We want to hear their concerns.  We believe it’s important for — for these leaders to be — to be able to speak directly to officials in the White House. 

As you know, we have been consistent with having outreach to the Arab and Muslim — Arab American and Muslim American leaders and communities, obviously.  Also the Jewish community as well — Jewish American community.  That has — that has — that has been going on for — for some time.  And so, we are the — my colleagues, White House officials are looking forward to this conversation.

I just don’t — I want to be really careful.  It’s a private conversation.  We want to give them the space to have that privacy.

Q    But you’re stressing repeatedly that they want to hear from them.  But is anything that would come up in that meeting or any of the other ones going to affect or change U.S. policy?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You know, I want to be really careful.  These meetings — folks are going to speak in a — in a — in — you know, in a way that they have the space for it to be open and honest.   Th- — we want to make sure that there’s privacy in these meetings.  It is critical.  It is crucial for these par- — partic- — participants to be able to do that, to speak freely. 

You know, I do want to underscore what you’ve heard from the President numerous times.  Obv- — obviously, we mourn the innocent lives that have been taken in this conflict.  And we’ve said that in — in — Palestinian lives and also in Israel as well.  We mourn those lives. 

But I want to be mindful and careful.  I don’t want to lay out a specific agenda or what is going to be next steps.  Obviously, they’re going to have those conversations. 

Q    Well, perhaps more broadly, then, what is the White House’s message to Arab Americans who are frustrated with President Biden’s Middle East policy and they want to see him break with Netanyahu and declare a ceasefire?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, our message has been always very clear.  You know, he is working very hard around the clock.  You’ve heard from the Admiral, you’ve heard from the President, you’ve heard from the National Security Advisor very recently — Jake Sullivan.  He’s working very, very hard — and his team is, and you saw Secretary Blinken in the region — to stop the suffering of innocent Palestinians and — who have been caught in the middle of this — in the middle of this conflict between Israel and — and Hamas. 

And so, we mourn.  We mourn the — the innocent lives that have been taken here. 

And so, what we are trying to do — and, again, you heard this recently from — from the Secretary and also our National Security Council team — is that we are doing everything that we can to — to get another humanitarian pause so that we can get these hostages home to their families and their friends; to make sure that — some of them are Americans as well; want to get them home — and get that much needed — needed critical, critical humanitarian aid into Gaza.  And that’s what we want to see.  And that is our message.

Go ahead.

AIDE:  We’re going to have to wrap soon.

Q    Thanks.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.

Q    Why did the President himself not meet with Arab and Muslim American leaders in Michigan when he was there last week?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, as you know, that is a — that was a campaign trip, so I can’t speak to what the needs of the campaign were.  I’m going to have to obviously refer you back to the campaign in why it was set up in that way.  Obviously, it was a very productive — productive trip.  So, I’m not going to get into the specifics of the last time he was in Michigan.

But we have been consistent and have had constant communication with leaders in the community.  This is something that we have done throughout — since — obviously, since this conflict began on October 7th.  The President has met with Arab — Arab Americans and also Muslim American leaders.  And we are going to continue to have that engagement as we’re doing today.

Q    Can you give us some examples of those meetings and that kind of engagement?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, you know of one of them that he has — that the President has had, specifically.  You know of also the Jewish American meeting that he has had not too long ago.  I just don’t have anything else to read out to you.  But you — you are aware that the President has been consistently meeting with them.

Q    Has the President spoken to families of the Marines that were killed this week in California.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Obviously, our hearts go out to — to the — to the just devastating loss of those five Marines and their — you know, goes out to — our hearts go out to their families and to their friends and the people who love them.  I don’t have a call to read out from the President.  But obviously, they are in our — in our — in our hearts.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  To follow up on Mary Alice, has the President had more than one meeting with Arab American leaders?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we don’t read out every meeting, obviously.

Q    You keep referencing the one. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know —

Q    So, has it been more than one?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Because that one we did read out, and you all were aware of that.  But the President has had — and — and his White House officials have had regular communication and contact.  We just don’t read out every conversation, every meeting that the President has.  But we — we have had regular engagement with Muslim — Muslim Americans and also Arab American leaders and, obviously, as well, Jewish le- — Jewish American leaders as well.

Q    Thank you.  And on the southern border.  Can you talk about what executive actions the administration is considering?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just say this at the top because I think it’s really important.  And the President, I think, laid this out brilliantly the other day about what — what — you know, what this — what this — what this time has all been about, right?  We were — we made sure — the President directed his team — and you’ve heard us say that many times, but it is true — for two months, directed his team to have a conversation with Republicans and Democrats on — in the Senate — to try and come — come forward with a — with a bipartisan agreement.

This agreement, if it had gone into law, would have been the fairest and also — and also the toughest agreement to deal with what is happening at the border and also some — some immigration issues that we’re seeing.

And let’s not forget, the — you know, the immigration system has been broken for some decades now.  And congressional Republicans are choosing to put partisan politics.  You heard me say at — the end of my topper basically was they have to decide: Who do they work for?  Who do they work for?

As it relates to executive actions, look, no executive action, no matter how aggressive, can deliver the significant policy reforms and additional resources Congress can provide that — that Republicans have rejected.  In order to actually deal with this, we need them to legislate.  We need them to actually take action.

So, we are always evaluating our options.  But no executive action could actually have done what this bipartisan agreement could have done and would have been able to put into place to deal with the challenges at the border and to actually deal with immigration.

Q    I’m just asking what those options are, even if they don’t have the same impact that legislation obviously would.  What else could the President do, given that Congress isn’t going to do it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I understand the question.  What I want to say: More broadly, there’s not a executive action that actually could have done or implemented in an effective way what that bipartisan agreement could have.  Right?  That’s just — that is — that is just a fact.  There is no executive action that the President can take.

Now, we’re going to always constantly modify our approach to meet the ever-changing moment.  I don’t have anything to confirm or preview here at this time.  But if you look at the holistic — right? — agreement, not one action would have done anything to — to really make the change that is — meaningful change — meaningful change that we had needed to see at the border.  And if we have anything specific on modifying anything or taking an approach to meet the changes that we’re seeing, we certainly will share that o- — to you all, but I just don’t have any preview.

Q    Thank you, Karine.

AIDE:  (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, we have to wrap? 

Go ahead, Gabe.

Q    To follow up on Weijia — what Weijia was saying, is there a plan B now that this has failed?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We are always going to look at our possible actions — always.  But I want to be really clear, right?  What that — what that negotiation — legislation would have done, there’s no executive action that could have touched what that — what that piece of agreement would have been able to do — that bipartisan agreement.

Q    Karine, I take your point.  And we’re asking you what are the details of that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just — I’m — what I’m answering for you is that we are always looking at other ways mod- — other ways to modify actions that we’ve already taken.  We’re always looking at other approaches to meet the ever-changing — ever-changing moment.  I just don’t have anything to preview for you at this time.

Q    And we’ve asked several times before.  But given the events of this past week, does the President — does the White House now support breaking off Ukraine and Israel funding now that this bill appears to have gone up in flames?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I think they’re still doing –doing their work over at — in Congress.  So, want to be mindful there.  But the President has been very clear how important it is to get this funding — to get that national security supplemental done.  He has been clear about that since October — since October, since he put that forth to Congress.  And it is important.

You heard the Admiral lay out what’s going on in Ukraine and why they need that funding and what they’ve been fighting for and how important this President continue to show his leadership, how he strengthened NATO, how he’s been able to bring more than 50 countries together to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs to fight for their democracy.  That is incredibly important.

And so, we’ve talked about Israel and Israel being able to have the defenses that they need to — to fight against a terrorist organization.  We’ve been clear about that. 

So, I’m not going to get ahead of things here.  But the President couldn’t have — not have been clearer on how important this national security supplemental — this emergency request that he put forth months ago. 

And — and, you know, it’s been said here already at the podium: You know, we believe there’s bipartisan support for Ukraine.  We do.  We believe that still exists.  We believe that there are congressional members on both sides of the aisle that wants to get this done.

Q    And with regards to the Hur — excuse me, to the Hur report, I know you said you can’t comment because it’s not out yet.  But today, we learned that the White House chose not to redact anything and not exert executive privilege.  Why did the White House not exert —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would —

Q    — executive privilege?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would refer you to the White House Counsel — my colleagues there at the White House Counsel. 

We’ll see you guys tomorrow.  Thank you, everybody.

2:18 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby, February 8, 2024 appeared first on The White House.

Today, President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. made additional disaster assistance available to the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands by authorizing an increase in the level of Federal funding for Public Assistance projects undertaken in the U.S. Virgin Islands as a result of hurricanes Irma and Maria.
 
Today, President Biden increased the Federal share to 95 percent for all Public Assistance categories, retroactive to include all projects currently funded at less than 100 percent; and increased the Federal share to 98 percent until September 30, 2024 for all projects utilizing Section 428 procedures.  The additional 3 percent Federal share apply only to projects for which a Fixed Cost Offer has been accepted by September 30, 2024, subject to extension on a per-project basis by the FEMA Administrator for specific and unavoidable extenuating circumstances.  Section 428 projects not completed by December 31, 2035, revert to a 95 percent Federal cost share.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION MEDIA SHOULD CONTACT THE  FEMA NEWS DESK AT (202) 646-3272 OR FEMA-NEWS-DESK@FEMA.DHS.GOV.

###

The post President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Amends U.S. Virgin Islands Disaster Declaration appeared first on The White House.

The Special Counsel released today its findings about its look into my handling of classified documents. I was pleased to see they reached the conclusion I believed all along they would reach – that there would be no charges brought in this case and the matter is now closed.
 
This was an exhaustive investigation going back more than 40 years, even into the 1970s when I was a young Senator. I cooperated completely, threw up no roadblocks, and sought no delays. In fact, I was so determined to give the Special Counsel what they needed that I went forward with five hours of in-person interviews over two days on October 8th and 9th of last year, even though Israel had just been attacked on October 7th and I was in the middle of handling an international crisis. I just believed that’s what I owed the American people so they could know no charges would be brought and the matter closed.
 
Over my career in public service, I have always worked to protect America’s security. I take these issues seriously and no one has ever questioned that. 
 

###

The post Statement from President Joe Biden appeared first on The White House.

NOMINATIONS SENT TO THE SENATE:

     Sarah Elizabeth Baker, of Virginia, to be General Counsel of the Department of Transportation, vice John Edward Putnam.

     Emily Edenshaw, of Alaska, to be a Member of the National Council on the Humanities for a term expiring January 26, 2028, vice Dorothy Kosinski, term expired.

     Margaret Mary FitzPatrick, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the National Council on the Humanities for a term expiring January 26, 2030, vice Katherine H. Tachau, term expired.

     Deborah Willis, of New York, to be a Member of the National Council on the Humanities for a term expiring January 26, 2028, vice Constance M. Carroll, term expired.

     Sanket Jayshukh Bulsara, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, vice Joan Marie Azrack, retiring.

     Dena M. Coggins, of California, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of California, vice Kimberly J. Mueller, retiring.

     John E. Richardson, of Alabama, to be United States Marshal for the Middle District of Alabama for the term of four years, vice Jesse Seroyer, Jr., term expired.

     Eric C. Schulte, of South Dakota, to be United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, vice Karen E. Schreier, retiring.

     Camela C. Theeler, of South Dakota, to be United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, vice Jeffrey L. Viken, retired.

# # #

The post Nominations Sent to the Senate appeared first on The White House.

We applaud this bipartisan effort by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden and Ranking Member Mike Crapo on fraud prevention and technology modernization in the unemployment system that aligns with several specific elements from President Biden’s anti-fraud proposal. Emergency unemployment benefits were a critical lifeline for millions of workers who lost jobs through no fault of their own during the pandemic. But the implementation in 2020 exposed the need for stronger fraud prevention systems and greater investment in technology to modernize unemployment systems.

The bipartisan framework released today comprises several specific provisions from the President’s anti-fraud proposal, including extending the statute of limitations for pandemic UI fraud to 10 years, giving prosecutors the time needed to investigate and prosecute complex criminal syndicates, and requiring checks against existing government datasets that will prevent fraudulent unemployment insurance payments to ineligible recipients, including deceased individuals and prisoners. The President looks forward to further action from Congress on additional components of his plan to prevent fraud, punish systemic fraud, and recover funds, while ensuring equitable access for legitimate claimants. This includes expanded strike forces and resources for Inspectors General to prosecute and recover funds from criminal syndicates, investments in the analytical tools, safeguards, and data-sharing to prevent future fraud, and resources to safeguard Americans from identity theft and help victims recover.

###

The post Statement from Senior Advisor and American Rescue Plan Coordinator Gene Sperling appeared first on The White House.

WASHINGTON – Today, President Joe Biden announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to serve as key leaders in his Administration:

• Sarah Baker, Nominee to be General Counsel, Department of Transportation
• Emily Edenshaw, Nominee to be a Member on the National Council on the Humanities
• Margaret FitzPatrick, Nominee to be a Member on the National Council on the Humanities
• Deborah Willis, Nominee to be a Member on the National Council on the Humanities

Sarah Baker, Nominee to be General Counsel, Department of Transportation

Sarah Baker currently serves as the Principal Deputy General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), after previously serving as the Department’s Deputy General Counsel and Senior Counsel to the General Counsel.

Before joining DOT, Baker served as the founding President and Executive Director of We The Action, a digital platform used by lawyers nationwide to volunteer with leading nonprofit organizations. Baker also served as Associate Counsel and Special Assistant to President Obama in the Office of White House Counsel. Additionally, from 2013 to 2015, she was Senior Policy Director to Dr. Jill Biden and prior to that served as Deputy Associate Counsel until 2013 in the Obama administration.

Earlier in her career, Baker was a member of the White Collar and Investigations group at the Washington, D.C. office of Hogan Lovells LLP, eventually becoming the Senior Associate in charge of the firm’s U.S. Pro Bono practice. Baker graduated from Rutgers College, with highest honors and received her J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law, where she served as Student Bar Association President.

Emily Edenshaw, Nominee to be a Member on the National Council on the Humanities

Emily Edenshaw (Yup’ik and Iñupiaq) is the President and CEO of the Alaska Native Heritage Center (ANHC), one of America’s Cultural Treasures and a renowned statewide living cultural center dedicated to advancing all Alaska Native cultures and peoples. With roots in Emmonak, Alaska, Edenshaw was adopted into the St’langng Laanas Thunderbird Raven clan in Old Massett, Haida Gwaii. She is a proud Tribal Citizen of the Native Village of Emmonak Tribal Citizen and a Doyon Limited and Calista Corporation shareholder.

Outside her leadership role at ANHC, Edenshaw actively serves on boards like the Anchorage Coalition to End Homelessness, Native Americans in Philanthropy, and the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) Civic Advisory Board. Edenshaw is a committed sixth-year Ph.D. student at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, researching Alaska Native Boarding School experiences and healing strategies related to these experiences. She holds an Executive MBA from Alaska Pacific University and a Bachelor’s in Journalism and Strategic Communications from the University of Alaska Anchorage. Her diverse career includes impactful contributions to Central Council Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, First Alaskans Institute, Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, Southcentral Foundation, and Alaska Communications, to name a few.

Edenshaw lives in Anchorage with her family and enjoys traveling to other Indigenous communities across the country. Edenshaw’s Yup’ik name, Keneggnarkayaaggaq, translates to a person with a beautiful persona, spirit, aura, and friend, while her Xaad kil (Haida) name, Tl’áa Kihl X̱ánj, translates to “The People’s Echo.”

Margaret FitzPatrick, Nominee to be a Member on the National Council on the Humanities

Margaret (Maggie) FitzPatrick is a top corporate affairs leader who has spent her career working to strengthen engagement between businesses and communities. She is the founder of FitzPatrick & Co., and previously served in the c-suite of multiple Fortune 200 companies. In several of these roles, she was responsible for the oversight of corporate foundations providing millions of dollars in grant funding to arts and community organizations across the United States.

In 2023, FitzPatrick completed a three-year appointment to the D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities, where she served as Vice Chair of the Commission and Chair of the Public Arts Committee. A long-time supporter of the arts and humanities, FitzPatrick is a past trustee of Arena Stage at the Mead Center for American Theater. She has extensive experience serving on non-profit and publicly traded company boards. She is currently a director at two NASDAQ-listed companies and was recently named to the expert faculty of the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) Board Advisory Services. 

FitzPatrick has been featured in business media on topics related to effective leadership and governance and was a speaker at the 2022 and 2023 NACD Annual Summits. She is an active member of the organization Women Executive on Boards and has been steadfast in her support of programs designed to help women succeed in business. She holds an M.A. in Public Policy from The George Washington University and a B.A. in English and Policy Studies from Syracuse University. She completed the Harvard Business School Board Directorship Program and is a certified NACD director. FitzPatrick was born and raised in Delaware, and now resides in Washington, D.C. with her family.

Deborah Willis, Nominee to be a Member on the National Council on the Humanities

Deborah Willis is a Professor and Chair of the Department of Photography and Imaging at the Tisch School of the Arts at New York University. She is also a recipient of MacArthur and Guggenheim fellowships and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, as well as the author of The Black Civil War Soldier: A Visual History of Conflict and Citizenship and Posing Beauty: African American Images from the 1890s to the Present, among other books. Willis’s curated exhibitions include Framing Moments: Photography from the Kalamazoo Institute of Arts; Migrations and Meaning(s) in Art  at Maryland Institute College of Art, Let Your Motto Be Resistance: African American Portraits at the International Center of Photography, and Out [o] Fashion Photography: and Reframing Beauty: Intimate Moments at Indiana University.

 
 
 

###

The post President Biden Announces Key Nominees appeared first on The White House.

Today, President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. declared that a major disaster exists in the State of Michigan and ordered Federal assistance to supplement state and local recovery efforts in the areas affected by severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding from August 24 to August 26, 2023.
 
The President’s action makes Federal funding available to affected individuals in the counties of Eaton, Ingham, Iona, Kent, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland,
and Wayne.
 
Assistance can include grants for temporary housing and home repairs, low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses, and other programs to help individuals and business owners recover from the effects of the disaster.
 
Federal funding is also available on a cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation measures statewide.
 
Mr. John F. Boyle of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been appointed to coordinate Federal recovery operations in the affected areas. 
 
Additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the state and warranted by the results of further damage assessments.
 
Residents and business owners who sustained losses in the designated areas can begin applying for assistance at www.DisasterAssistance.gov, by calling 800-621-FEMA (3362), or by using the FEMA App. Anyone using a relay service, such as video relay service (VRS), captioned telephone service or others, can give FEMA the number for that service. 
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION MEDIA SHOULD CONTACT THE FEMA NEWS DESK AT (202) 646-3272 OR FEMA-NEWS-DESK@FEMA.DHS.GOV.
 

###

The post President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Approves Michigan Disaster Declaration appeared first on The White House.