Whitehouse.gov Feed

Abbott’s Creek Community Center
Raleigh, North Carolina

2:02 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Hey, everybody. How are you? (Applause.) Hello, Raleigh. What a great crowd.

Please have a — take a seat, if you have one. I once said that an event, and people didn’t have chairs. (Laughter.) And the press looked at me and said, “What the hell is the matter with that guy?”

Anyway, Edward, thank you. Sergeant First Class.

I was telling him — my son, Beau, who I lost because of what happened in Iraq — anyway, my — my son, Beau, when he made Major in Iraq, I was — I was there — I wasn’t with him when he made that — when he got promoted. But I was with him later at an event — at an event at his — anyway — in Iraq. I didn’t want to say where I was, but — (laughter) — and I said, “Beau, congratulations. You’re now a field grade officer.” He looked at me and said, “Dad, I know who runs the United States Army. Sergeants First Class run it.” (Laughter.) And that’s a fact.

So, Sarge, thank you very, very much.

Folks — Governor Cooper and all the state officials here today — and, by the way, you got the best governor in the country. Where are — where — (applause) — where is he? Roy, stand up. No, I mean it. (Applause.)

You know what I love about him most? I mean this from the bottom of my heart: He has absolute, total integrity — integrity. (Applause.) Thanks for the welcome back to North Carolina, Gov. I appreciate it very much.

I also want to mention your Congresswoman Deborah Ross. Where’s Deborah? Did she — I just had my picture taken with her. That’s probably why she left. (Laughter.) No, all kidding aside — but, anyway — you — oh, she couldn’t be here, actually. That’s not true. I got it mixed up. And she has — you know, she fights very hard for the people of this district, and she is up in Washington right now.

And, folks, I’m here today to talk about something that doesn’t get enough attention, and that’s the progress we’re making in investing in America — all of America.

You know, there was a — there was a law written back in the ‘30s that says when the Congress passes a bill that has money in it to be spent to build something in America — whether it’s an aircraft carrier or — or it’s a highway or whatever it happens to be — that the president should use American workers and American products.

For the longest, longest time, Democrats and Republican presidents didn’t abide by that very much. But I do, because I want to make sure that we make it in America, build it in America with American products. And that’s why we’ve created 14 million new jobs. (Applause.) Folks — bringing opportunity and hope to people and communities across this country.

Let me give you one example of bringing high-speed Internet to every person in America.

Nearly a century ago, Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Rural Electrification Act, bringing electricity to every home and farm in America, because it was in cities but it wasn’t in a lot of rural areas. Because electricity had become an essential part of modern life, so he wanted — (inaudible) everyone had access to it. He was determined that no American should be left behind, no matter where they lived, whether in a big city or a rural area. (Applause.)

Well, I tell you what, I’ve made the same determination about our time: affordable high-speed Internet. It really is critical. It’s just as essential today as electricity was a century ago.

Who remembers, you know, during the pandemic when schools were shut down and the mas- — the Sergeant First Class mentioned it — kids weren’t able to attend schools. They had to go online. How many of you spent time in McDonald parking lots tapping into their Internet so you could do the homework with your kid?

Look, think of all the workers who need Internet to do their jobs when they’re working from home. So many are working from home — have to work. Small businesses need Internet to reach more customers here at home and literally around the world. And our seniors who need it in connection with their doctors through telemedicine because they can’t make it to the doctors in person.

High-speed Internet isn’t a luxury anymore, it’s an absolute necessity. It’s an absolute — (applause) — no, it really is. And yet, when I became president, around 24 million Americans didn’t have access to affordable high-speed Internet. And for millions more, their Internet connection was limited or unreliable.

That’s why, as soon as I came into office, I took action with what we call the American Rescue Plan. And it included — (applause) — it included more than $25 billion to invest in affordable Internet, high-speed Internet all across America.

A few months later, I signed a piece of legislation, which many people didn’t think we could get done: the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. (Applause.) A once-in-a-generation investment to rebuild America’s infrastructure — our roads, our bridges, our railroads, our high-speed Internet — all of it paid for.

And, look, our goal is to connect everyone in America to affordable, reliable high-speed Internet by the year 2030 — everyone in America — just like Franklin Roosevelt did a generation ago with electricity.

I promised to be a president for all America, whether you voted for me or not. These investments help all Americans in red states and blue states as well. And we’re not leaving anybody behind. (Applause.)

Look — look around North Carolina — and with the leadership of Governor Cooper — with the partnership of your Governor, we’ve invested more than $3 billion to expand high-speed Internet in every county across this state — $3 billion. (Applause.) Fiber-optic cable is being laid in the ground as we speak.

Over the next three years, over 300,000 homes and businesses all across North Carolina will be connected with affordable high-speed Internet.

And today, I’m announcing another major step. We’re investing another $82 million to connect 16,000 additional homes and businesses, bringing high-speed Internet all across the state of North Carolina, from top to bottom. (Applause.)

And by the end of the decade, we’re going to finish the job, reaching all the remaining homes, schools, libraries, small businesses, healthcare facilities in North Carolina that don’t have access to high-speed Internet today.

Let me say that again: universal high-speed Internet in all of North Carolina by the end of this decade — by the — (applause).

Folks, you just heard from Sergeant Smith a few minutes ago why it matters. He’s retired Army — 22 years of service, which we owe him. He and his wife, Emma, live in Tar Heel, as he mentioned, North Carolina — population — staggering population of 100 people. (Laughter.)

They’ve been using dial-up Internet for years, just like everyone else in town. It took Edward far too long to download medical paperwork, as he mentioned — the VA. It was hard for his grandkids, who live nearby, to use the Internet to do their homework.

And then, thanks to the American Rescue Plan, which I signed into law, fiber-optic cable was laid and the town got high-speed Internet.

And now, Edward and Emma and the kids and their grandkids can use the Internet quickly and easily, from getting care from the VA to doing their homework. Look, their neighbors include folks who can’t attend local church service, as he mentioned. They can stream these services at home every single Sunday.

High-speed Internet has been a game changer for their town and so many counties all across America. Look — and we’re just getting started.

But it’s not enough to just have Internet access. It needs to be affordable — affordable. (Applause.)

So, here’s what my administration did. We work with Internet service providers to bring down prices for people struggling with their payments. It’s called Affordable Connectivity Program. It’s already helped 880,000 households in North Carolina save a total of $440 million on their Internet bills collectively. (Applause.)

That’s about one in five families across the state are saving $30 a month for their Internet bills, and some save a lot more. That savings in — matters in homes like the one I grew up in. Another 30, 40 bucks a month was the difference between how many groceries, you pay the gas bill, all other necessities. It matters. It matters.

Plus, the investment we’re making in high-speed Internet means something else as well: good-paying jobs. (Applause.)

And, folks, just ask the folks at the International Brotherhood of Electric Workers, the IBEW, or the Communication Workers union or the Laborers Union. (Applause.) We’re putting thousands of people to work laying fiber-optic cable all across America.

And that cable will be made in America, put in by Americans. (Applause.) Even better, a lot of that cable will be made in North Carolina. (Applause.)

Two American companies — two American companies, CommScope and Corning, are investing more than $550 million to manufacture fiber-optic cable, creating around 650 good-paying jobs in Hickory, North Carolina, the single sta- — (applause). And there are going to be more.

Already, 40 percent of all the fiber cable — -optic cable in America is being manufactured in Hickory. And, though, that number is going to continue to grow and jobs are going to grow. And when jobs grow, everything grows. Everything grows. Everything in the community grows.

All told, during my presidency, we’ve invested — and I know it’s going to sound like not much to you all — but $11 billion in North Carolina — (applause) — $11 billion — in infrastructure, clean energy, everything from high-speed Internet to clean water, new roads and bridges.

For example, we’re investing $1 billion — $1 billion — in a new rail line connecting Raleigh and Richmond, Virginia. (Applause.) Not only creating a whole hell of a lot of jobs, but it’s going to take a lot of vehicles off the road, it’s going to help with pollution. And guess what? It’s going to cut the time — well, let me give you an idea. Right now, the trip takes about three hours by train. With the new rail line, it’s going to take you two hours. (Applause.)

Think of what that will mean for people traveling to work and visiting families. Think what it means in the reduction of highway bills.

We’re also investing $110 million to replace the Alligator River Bridge. Look, that bridge is a major hurricane evacuation route for the Outer Banks, so it’s high time it get replaced, because it’s in trouble. The bridge now is far too low for boat traffic, which means cars have to stop and wait, sometimes several times a day, for the bridge to swing open so boats can pass underneath. And because the bridge mechanism is 60 years old, sometimes when it swings open it can’t close, which stops cars in traffic for hours and sometimes days.

Now, we’re building a new higher bridge that boats can easily pass under. It will be wider and more accessible to more cars to travel across every single day, saving time and saving money.

Folks, what we’re doing here in North Carolina is just one piece of a much bigger story. To date, 400- — excuse me, 40,000 infrastructure projects have been announced across this nation. Since I’ve been to office, we’ve created 14 million new jobs — 440 [thousand] new jobs in North Carolina alone, just since I came to office. (Applause.) And that’s because of this guy right here. Nearly 800,000 manufacturing jobs nationwide.

And unemployment has been below 4 percent for the longest stretch in American history in the last 50 years. And here in North Carolina, unemployment is even lower. It’s 3.5 percent. (Applause.) And the stats coming out today show that seeking unemployment insurance has even gone down. Fewer people are needing help.

That’s lower than it was in every single month under the last president.

Wages are up. Household wealth is up — not only for middle-class Americans — for Latinos, for Black Americans, for minorities.

Costs are still too high, but inflation continues to fall. And mortgage rates are falling, and they’re going to fall more.

Last week, we learned that America filed 16 million — 16 million in America — 16 million new applications for businesses — for a new business since I became President. Folks, that’s a record. Every single one of those new small businesses is an act of hope — an act of hope. It generates progress.

People are beginning to have — and if you look at the consumer confidence, it’s way up. Sixty-four percent — I think it may be 62 percent of Americans think their personal circumstance is good and it’s getting better.

Meanwhile, thanks to the Investing in America agenda, private companies have invested over $640 billion — let me say it again — $640 billion in advanced manufacturing here in America. (Applause.)

By the way, you know, we invented that little computer chip, which everything from your cell phone to your automobile needs. Guess what? We used to control it. We got down to the point where we were hardly manufacturing any of it.

And so, what happened when things went bad? We didn’t have access to all those computer chips that were being made in Asia and other parts of the world, so I got on a plane and went to South Korea. And I said, “Why don’t you come invest in America?” And one thing led to another, and over $50 billion, people coming to America, investing and building these computer chip factories. (Applause.)

And guess what? It’s just getting started. But guess what? The fact is that these computer factories — they build what they call “fabs.” They’re about as big as a football field. And they manufacture these chips. You don’t need a college degree to work in it. And you know what the average starting salary is? $116,000. $116,000. (Applause.)

And, look, put it all together, America has — this is a fact — the strongest growth rate of any — and the lowest inflation rate of any major economy in the world — in the world.

We have a lot more work to do, but there’s no question our plan of investing in America and the American people is working. It’s all part of my economic vision: building an economy from the middle out — from the middle class out and the bottom up. That way the poor have a shot, the middle class does well, and the wealthy still do well. Well, they got to start paying their taxes. (Applause.)

You know, I’m serious. I — I don’t mean paying 60 percent. I mean just paying the top rate of 38 percent.

Look, folks, you know how many billionaires we have in America today? One thousand. You know what their average rate — the tax rate — the federal tax rate is — (the President walks away from the podium) — oh, I shouldn’t walk away from this — (laughter) — the federal tax rate is? Eight and a half percent.

Raise your hand if you’d trade your tax rate for 8 and a half percent. (Laughter.) I’m serious. Think about this. There’d be $40 billion raised if they just paid 38 percent — if they even paid 25 percent. (Applause.)

Folks, look, we all do well when the middle class does well and we grow. Everybody does well.

You know, I’m so tired I — of trickle-down economics. I grew up in a family where not a lot trickled down to my dad’s kitchen table. My dad was a hard-working guy. We weren’t poor. But we lived in a three-bedroom split-level home with four kids and a grandpop. And, you know, we were fine. It was okay. But there wasn’t anything leftover. There was nothing leftover.

But now, a lot of middle-class folks are having enough leftovers they can do things.

Our approach is a fundamental break from trickle-down economics super-charged by my predecessor. My predecessor, everything was trickle-down, but not a lot trickled. (Laughter.) No, I’m serious. Which tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations, shipping goods [good-paying jobs] overseas.

How many people do you know in this state and other states — there was a factory in town that employed 300, 400 people, and all of a sudden you found that factory shipped overseas? Why was it shipped overseas? Cheaper labor costs. So, we were shipping factories overseas and importing the product they made here.

Well, guess what? We’re doing the opposite. (Applause.) We’re making it here and shipping the product overseas. I’m serious. (Applause.)

And also, that trickle-down shrank public investment in education — infrastructure and education. It hollowed out communities, closing factories, leaving too many behind.

And now, my predecessor likes to say America is a failing nation. In my faith — (the President makes the sign of the cross) — bless me, Father, for he has sinned. I mean, come on. (Laughter.) A failing nation?

And, by the way, did you hear he wants to see the stock market crash, because he does not want — now. We’re doing well. He’s acknowledging — by that — we’re doing pretty damn well economically and we’re getting better. He wants to see the stock market crash. You know why? He doesn’t want to be the next Herbert Hoover.

As I told him, he’s already Hoover. (Laughter.) He’s the only president to be president for four years and lose jobs, not gain any jobs. Come on, man. (Laughter.)

You know, some of the things he sa- — well, I don’t want to get started. (Laughter and applause.) But, look, frankly, to put it very politely, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of Republicans in Congress voted against our infrastructure law. We got enough to make it work, with 30-something. But the vast majority voted against it. They all voted against all the other bills that I had. I mean, 100 percent voted against.

And guess what? Whether it’s Marjorie Taylor Greene or whoever (inaudible) out, when these new projects come, they’re there. They’re welcoming it to their state. They voted against it all. So, I told them I’ll be there for the groundbreaking with them. (Laughter.)

You know, look, what was mentioned as well — look at what — I’ve fought my whole career — I’ve been arou- — I know I don’t look it, but I’ve been around for a little while. (Laughter.) But all kidding aside, look, you know, I’ve spent the bulk of my career as a senator trying to bring down the cost of prescription drugs.

If you have a prescription from your doc and you take it to a pharmacy here in North Carolina or in Wilmington, Delaware, where I’m from, or wherever, guess what? I can take that same prescription from here and go to Toronto, Canada; London, England; Rome, in Italy — anywhere around the world — and it will be somewhere between 50 percent less and 70 percent less. How does that work? Why?

Why is it, in America, you’re paying — were paying $400 a month for insulin if you have diabetes, and — and in other places, they’re paying 35 bucks?

Well, guess what? You’re paying 35 bucks now, and it’s going to go down even further. (Applause.)

And, by the way, at $35, they’re making 350 percent gain. It costs 15 — it costs 10 bucks to make it, 12 bucks to package it. So, come on, man. It’s about time we start to be a little fair to ordinary people. (Applause.)

When it comes to voting against the infrastructure law, it doesn’t stop many of our Republicans from calling up and saying, “We need a project in my district.” Now, what I haven’t done is I haven’t blocked projects in their districts, because they’re all Americans. The fact they have a g- — a senator or a g- — a congressman that doesn’t know what they’re doing, it doesn’t mean they should be denied. (Laughter.)

But it’s okay. (Applause.) It’s okay, because I promised to be a president for all Americans. And I mean that sincerely. It’s not hyperbole. I promised to be a president for all Americans. And, like I said before, I told them all I’ll see them at the groundbreaking.

Let me close with this. When you see shovels in the ground, cranes in the sky, and people hard at work on these projects, I hope you feel pride in America — pride in America, pride knowing we can get big things done when we work together.

You’re all the real heroes. That’s not hyperbole. You’re the real heroes of this story: American workers, the American people, neighbors and community leaders doing the work to bring our cities into the future.

That’s what America does. That’s why I’ve never been — and I mean this — and I’ve been saying this for a while. And the press has to — the press has to cover me everywhere. I’ve been saying I’m optimistic. I’m optimi- — I’ve been — I’ve been around for a while. I’ve never been optimistic about America’s prospects than I am in the last three years. I really mean it.

Because there’s nothing — nothing, nothing, nothing — we have to remember who we are. We’re the United States of America, and nothing is beyond our capacity when we work together. Nothing, nothing, nothing. (Applause.)

And I’ll say one last thing. We’re the only major company [country] in the world that has come out of every crisis stronger than we went in. And that’s what we’re doing again today because of you.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

May God bless you all. And may God protect our troops.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Let’s go get them. Thank you. (Applause.)

2:24 P.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden on High-Speed Internet Investments | Raleigh, NC appeared first on The White House.

We will never forget the 19 children and two teachers who were killed in their classrooms during a senseless mass shooting carried out with a weapon of war. In the days and months since they lost their lives and 17 others were injured, the families in Uvalde have channeled their anguish into advocacy – demanding accountability, justice, and action to change the unacceptable fact that gun violence is the leading cause of death for children in our nation.

With their help, President Biden and I fought to pass the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the most significant gun safety law in nearly 30 years. Working with gun safety organizers and advocates including young leaders across the country, we have also taken more executive action to reduce gun violence than any other Administration in history. This includes establishing the first-ever White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. But we know more must be done.

Today’s devastating report by the Justice Department makes it clear that there were multiple failures in Uvalde that hold urgent lessons for our nation, and our Administration remains committed to ensuring that communities have the resources and support they need to respond more effectively.

As we do so, I am continuing to call on Congress and state legislators throughout America to have the courage to act by banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, passing red flag laws, and making background checks universal. These commonsense solutions will save lives and ensure that fewer children, families, and communities experience the trauma and pain that Uvalde has suffered.    

# # #

The post Statement from Vice President Kamala Harris on Today’s Justice Department Report on the Uvalde School Shooting Response appeared first on The White House.

Capital Hilton
Washington, D.C.

2:02 P.M. EST

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everyone.  Good afternoon.

AUDIENCE:  Good afternoon.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And, President Schieve, thank you for convening us.

MAYOR LUCAS:  Thank you, Madam Vice President.  And say hello, Mayors, to the Vice President.  (Applause.)  (Laughs.)

We are delighted and honored to be with you, but we also discuss an important topic.  Following the onset of the pandemic and the nationwide protests after the murder of George Floyd, we saw a spike in homicides in cities across the country.  Innocent lives were being lost; communities were being shattered. 

But when you and the President took office, you immediately began to address the scourge of gun violence in our country.  The President issued several important executive orders, and federal agencies put policies in place to help reduce the problems of gun violence and to support local prevention and enforcement efforts.

And in 2022, Congress passed and President Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act — (applause) — for those who don’t know, the first piece of legislation to strengthen our gun laws in decades.

And last year, you and President Biden established the first-ever White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.  Thank you on behalf of all of our cities.  (Applause.)

We have begun to see some progress.  And during 2023, many cities had significant reductions in homicides.  But make no mistake, gun violence remains a serious problem in our cities and in our nation.  But we’re seeing a glimmer of hope, and that’s what we’re here to talk about today.

This past fall, Madam Vice President, you met with over 15,000 students across the country on your “Fight for Our Freedoms” college tour.  What did you hear from them, and what was on their minds?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Good.  Well, thank you, Mayor Lucas.   It’s good to be with you today.  And to all the mayors who are here, let me start by thanking you for the extraordinary calling that you have answered to serve, in particular, at the local government level.  And as — as Tom said, I — I once served as — as District Attorney at the local level.  And so, I fully appreciate what your lives are like.

People recognize you as the face of government.  And they run into you at the grocery store, the gas station, at the — your children’s softball games, and it is you that they recognize as being responsible for and accountable for all of the concerns that they may have about their life and the world.  And you all rise to the level every day. 

And it takes a lot, in terms of personal sacrifice but also a deep commitment to service.  And so, let me start by thanking the U.S. Conference of Mayors and all of the members for the work that you do.  O- — (applause) — thank you to you.

So, on the issue of gun violence, let me start with this.  And back to the point about my previous service, I started my elected career as the elected District Attorney of San Francisco.  And I will tell — (applause) — well, and I will tell you that — and that was following a — a career of being a courtroom prosecutor, where, among the cases that I prosecuted — homicide cases.

So, I have witnessed and — and seen autopsies.  I know what guns do and gun violence does to the human body.  For so many of you, you too know what gun violence does to people, to a community, to families, to the psyche of a community, to the well-being and health of a community.

So, when we have this conversation among us, this is not some intellectual, academic discourse.  It is very real.  It is part of our lived existence.  And it is that approach that I bring, then, to my thoughts about this issue.

So, I started a college tour last fall because, you know, I have to tell you: I love Gen Z.  (Laughter.)  Yes, I know, but I love Gen Z.  And — and it will be a humbling fact to many of us when we realize that anyone who is 18 today, they were born in 2005.  (Laughter.)

MAYOR LUCAS:  Wow.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Indeed.  Yes, wow. 

And this generation, for so many of these issues, it’s a lived experience.  Think about it.  For this generation of — who I call young leaders, they’ve only known the climate crisis.  In fact, they’ve coined a term “climate anxiety” to describe their fears about having children or buying a home for fear that it may be destroyed because of extreme climate incidents.

They witnessed George Floyd being killed.  They endured a historic pandemic where they lost also significant phases of their educational process.  They have, through their lives — and I would ask at the college tour them to raise their hand in these auditoriums: “Who of you, please raise your hand,” I would ask, “had to endure an active shooter drill anytime between kindergarten and 12th grade?”  Almost every hand went up. 

And, in fact, I’d say to the press that was always in the room and the older adults, “Please take a look and take account of this.”  Because I think so many older adults don’t really understand what our children — the children of our community — have been going through.

And so — and, also, they, at the height of their reproductive years, just witnessed the highest court in our land take a freedom from them to make decisions about their own body, such that they will have fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers. 

So, on so many of these issues, it was reinforced for me during this college tour that these are lived experiences and it has had a profound impact on their lives.  And they, therefore, think about these issues with a sense of urgency that the solutions that are often at hand be implemented.  And they are right to demand that we, in positions of elected leadership right now, do something about it with a sense of urgency. 

They are acutely aware of what we know, which is that gun violence is the leading cause of death of the children of America — leading cause of death — not car accidents, not some form of cancer — gun violence.  One in five Americans has a family member that was killed as a result of gun violence.

I have traveled m- — most of your states over the last three years.  I have met with parents who say a silent prayer every time their child gets on the school bus or they drop them off at school that there’s nobody running around with an assault weapon, breaking into their school — the school of their child while they’re at a place where they should be fulfilling their God-given capacity to learn.

So, the young people of our country have lived through this, and they want a change.  And they understand what I think so many of us do: It is a false choice to suggest you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away.

I am in favor of the Second Amendment.  But is it not reasonable that we would have an assault weapons ban, understanding that assault weapons were literally designed to kill a lot of human beings quickly and are weapons of war with no place on a — the streets of a civil society? 

They want and know — (applause) — they understand — they understand, like so many of us, the logic behind universal background checks, which is pretty simple.  You just might want to know before someone can buy a lethal weapon if they’ve been found by a court to be a danger to themselves or others.  You just might want to know.  It’s reasonable.

Same point with red flag laws. 

So, on this issue, it is a lived experience, and they are aware of the solutions.  And I think, frankly, when they start voting in their numbers, we’re going to see a sea change.

But I will also say, on this issue, I was just in — in North Carolina, and I met with a — a yo- — a group of young students.  They’re in middle school.  And I convened a group of them without the press — it wasn’t about the press — to talk with them because each one of them had experienced — personally experienced gun violence, either because they witnessed it, they had a family member, or they were there wh- — they witnessed it when — when someone was shot.

And the undiagnosed and therefore untreated trauma that results from violence of any sort and, in particular, gun violence is very real.

I would urge the mayors here — there’s a book that I — I’m very fond of.  It’s called “The Deepest Well,” and it was written by a former surgeon general and talks about the prevalence in our cities — urban, suburban, rural communities — of undiagnosed, untreated trauma and how that can then lead to a number of behavioral issues, obviously, but also physiological symptoms. 

And when we think about our youngest children through — and through adulthood witnessing this kind of violence and the impact it has, then, that becomes almost inherited trauma — not genetically inherited, but inherited from the environment — and what that results in, in terms of behaviors that are not productive for a community, much less harmful to the individual. 

So, all of these issues are the issues that you address as mayors.  So many of you have been leaders in a fundamental way around what we need to do around intervention, what we need to do around community approach, what we need to do around prevention. 

And, as Tom Perez said, the work that we have done through bipartisan work, thankfully — first time in 30 years on the — on gun violence — has resulted in federal dollars flowing to you.  And hope you got it.  Call Tom if you didn’t.  (Laughter.)  But to support the work that you are doing at a local level to address all these issues, including the issue of trauma and treatment and the need for more mental health services. 

During the college tour — and I’ll end with this — I also issued a national call to our young leaders to enter the mental health professions.  And I was thinking and had in my mind from decades earlier — remember? — there was a national call for people to become social workers.  Similarly, we know some of the best treatment that can be offered for anyone who needs assistance is — is peer-based.  And thinking about our young leaders, their learned experience, and then being able to be part of the solution in terms of the — the mental health counseling is also, I think, important. 

MAYOR LUCAS:  Absolutely.  Thank you for that.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  (Applause.)

MAYOR LUCAS:  Thank you so much.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.

MAYOR LUCAS:  On the topic of fundamental rights and freedoms, you’ve made clear — and I thank you for this — that every American has the right to live safe from gun violence. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MAYOR LUCAS:  And let’s go back to what you just mentioned with North Carolina.  The administration is making historic progress, was — as was exemplified by your announcement in Charlotte last week —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

MAYOR LUCAS:  — of an additional $285 million
to help hire and train school counselors across the country — $285 million for school counselors across the country.  That is just one way you are collaborating with mayors across the country.  But what is your recommendation to mayors as to how we can tackle this epidemic?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Well, so, you mentioned Charlotte.  And I want to thank Mayor Lyles.  I know you’re here because I just saw you a minute ago.  And we had a — we — so, what we did — Mayor Lyles convened a group of leaders in the community.  And they were teachers; they were schoolboard members; they were parents; they were also parents of — of children who had been killed because of gun violence; mental health providers.

And it was — it was a very productive conversation.  And Mayor Lyles just shared with me that — that the result of that conversation was even more work, which is always my intent. 

I have this saying, among many, which is: “We meet to do our job; our job is not to meet.”  (Laughter.)  I think all of you will appreciate that point. 

And so, that meeting, from it, actually, came more work, which is good.  And it was a — it was an opportunity, I think, for Mayor Lyles, if I can speak for her, to actually have an opportunity to bring folks together who are in some ways working in silos simply because they’re just trying to get through the days and nights with the — fewer resources than they actually need and allowing them to then think about how they can collaborate and work together. 

So, the convening power of mayors is extraordinary.  In addition to, of co- — and because, of course, you, then, as mayors, have the power to convene not only the community-based providers, but the — the folks from city agencies, folks from law enforcement, and — and to create these conversations where, invariably, ideas will come from and — and plans can be hatched to — to create greater synergy. 

So, I would encourage that.  And I would encourage you to, as often as you can, do what you do, which is be a voice for all those folks who must be seen and whose experiences must be known. 

I think there’s so much about the challenges that we face as a nation that end up being minimized through the — the political discourse in a way that really is about politics more than it is substance or policy.  And you all don’t have the luxury of doing that because of what you need to accomplish each day.  And your voices are so credible and important to amplify the experiences of your constituents. 

And I know it’s not easy to do, but it is very important when you do it.  And I thank you for that as well. 

MAYOR LUCAS:  Thank you so much for that as well.  I also want to give a shout-out.  We mentioned it before, but the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is doing amazing work.  I had the chance to meet with them just a few weeks ago.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MAYOR LUCAS:  I know they have met with mayors, state legislators.  I encourage you — every city, large and small, working on gun violence prevention, reducing intimate partner violence —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MAYOR LUCAS:  — which is a significant issue for us —

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MAYOR LUCAS:  — and doing important work. 

So, for my final question.  You have often put the — the fight for freedoms from gun violence in the context of — of more of our fights for freedoms. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.

MAYOR LUCAS:  And we know that next week you will begin your “Fight for Reproductive Freedom” tour. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Yes. 

MAYOR LUCAS:  And we welcome you to Kansas City as part of it. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  (Applause.)

MAYOR LUCAS:  And thank you for doing this tour.

In light of the Dobbs decision, what are the most important things for all of us to do to assure reproductive freedom in our nation?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  I’ll start with this.  I think we can all agree that one does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree that the government should not be telling her what to do with her body. 

If she chooses, she will talk with her priest, her pastor, her rabbi, her imam, but that the government should not be telling her what to do with her body. 

And if we could perhaps frame the discourse around that so that we understand that this is not about trying to convert someone in terms of their beliefs.  It is simply saying that we respect autonomy and bodily autonomy and, frankly, that we trust women to know what’s in their own best interest.  (Applause.)  And everyone can say that.

So, that is it, in terms of — of a fundamental concept that is at play on the issue of freedoms.  But here’s the other thing about this issue.  And it’s — it — it is, again, an issue where we — we — especially those who serve in local office and — and have direct contact with your constituents on a daily, hourly, minute-by-minute basis — understand —

You know, so, for so many of us — I’m going to judge that most of us — for our entire adult or conscious lives, Roe v. Wade was intact.  And, you know, many of us would, you know, start with, you know, “We are pro-choice; we must protect Roe,” but didn’t necessarily think it was ever going to go away. 

Well, it did.  And there has been a consequence of that that is very real to real people, who are silently suffering every day. 

We are a group of adults.  So, I’m going to just share with you what you may know. 

There are women in America having miscarriages in toilets.  There are women who have been denied emergency care because the healthcare providers at the emergency room are afraid that they may go to jail for assisting these women in giving them healthcare that they want to give.

I shared with you I was a prosecutor.  Well, many of you may not know why.  One of the reasons I became a prosecutor is my best friend in high school, I learned, was being molested by her stepfather.  And when I learned, I said to her, “Well, you — you have to come and stay with us.”  I called my mother.  My mother said, “Yes, she has to come stay with us.”  And she did.

And I decided I wanted to take on the issue of violence against women and children, and most of my career as a prosecutor was to do just that.

I bring that up to say: There are laws that have been proposed and passed that make no exception even for rape or incest.  Understand what that means.  We are saying to a survivor of a crime of violence, a violation of their body, that you don’t have the authority or right to make a decision about what happens to your body next.  That’s immoral.

So, on this issue, I would ask us all who have a voice to consider all those who are silently suffering.

The majority of women who have abortions in America are mothers.  God help her that she has paid family leave, paid sick leave, has a bit of savings to be able to afford a bus or train or a plane ticket to go where she needs to go to get the healthcare she needs if it’s not available in her own state.  Understand what this means. 

And there is a — it is occurring in an environment that also is laden with judgment, as though she’s done something wrong, something she should be embarrassed about.

And as all of us know, when we isolate people, we strip them of their power.  And it hurts our whole community.

So, on this issue, the President has been clear.  We are clear that when Congress puts back in place what the Court took away, President Joe Biden will sign back into law the protections of Roe v. Wade.  (Applause.) 

So, elections matter.  And we’ve got to get there.  We’ve got to get there.

MAYOR LUCAS:  Madam Vice President, on behalf of the United States Conference of Mayors, God bless you. 

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And you.

MAYOR LUCAS:  Thank you. 

Ladies and gentlemen, the Vice President of the United States.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, all.  (Applause.)

END                  2:23 P.M. EST

The post Remarks by Vice President Harris During a Moderated Conversation at the U.S. Conference of Mayors 92nd Winter Meeting appeared first on The White House.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route to Morrisville, NC

12:36 P.M. EST

     MS. DALTON:  Well, good afternoon, everyone. 

We are on our way to Raleigh, where the President will announce $82 million in investments from the American Rescue Plan’s Capital Project Fund to connect thousands more North Carolina homes and businesses to high-speed Internet as part of the Biden-Harris administration’s Investing in America agenda. 

     A couple of reasons why this is really significant.

     Stepping back, you may recall, when the President entered office, 24 million Americans lacked access to the Internet.  Period.  Millions more lacked access to affordable, reliable

Internet access — had limited or spotty connectivity.

The President crisscrossed the country during the 2020 campaign and heard from families about how they were driving their kids in the throes of a pandemic to the back of fas- — fast-food restaurants to get Wi-Fi to complete their online homework; heard from seniors about their limited access to tel- — telehealth visits; and how badly small businesses needed access to reliable, affordable Internet.

That’s why, when the President entered office, he made a commitment to endin- — ending that digital divide and ensuring that every single American and small business would have affordable access to reliable Internet, high-speed Internet by the year 2030.

Today’s announcement in North Carolina is a step forward in doing that.  North Carolina is a state where one in three people lives in a rural area, so expanding high-speed, reliable Internet to thousands more homes and businesses is a very big deal.

And beyond that, the President will talk about how the American Rescue Plan has made it possible for more than 880,000 North Carolinians already to save money on their — their monthly Internet bills.

But beyond that, we’re going to North Carolina for another reason.  Many of you may not know that North Carolina currently produces 40 percent of the fiber-optic cable we use here in America.  And so, for a place like, you know, Hickory, North Carolina, which is responsible for producing all of that fiber-optic cable, the investments that we’re making here in North Carolina are very significant, as well as the investments we’re making all across the country, because private sector companies like CommScore [CommScope] and Corning are making more than $550 billion of investments and expanding production locally so that — so that that fiber-optic cable can be manufactured locally with the attendant 650-plus jobs that are coming to the state.

So, this is really a win the President will be talking about for the workers of North Carolina.  It’s a win for families and small businesses.  And certainly, it’s a win for the econ- — economy of the state. 

And the — the President is also delighted, as always, to be joined by Governor Cooper for this day.

So, with that news at the top, I’m going to turn it over to Admiral Kirby, who has some updates to share with you about the goings-on in the world.  John.

MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Olivia. 

Man, it’s cold back here.

Q    It is.

MR. KIRBY:  You should turn the heat up.  (Laughter.)

So, just a couple of things off the top.  I know you saw reports out of Central Command last night about some additional strikes that we took to knock out a range of Houthi missiles that were prepared to fire into the Southern Red Sea. 

We did it again this morning, striking at some anti-ship missiles — a couple of anti-ship missiles that we had reason to believe were being prepared for imminent fire into the Southern Red Sea.  Central Command —

(A reporter gestures for Mr. Kirby to speak louder.)

MR. KIRBY:  Louder?  Nobody ever asks me to talk louder.  (Laughter.)

Central Command will have a statement out soon.  So, you’ll — you’ll see all that.  But that — that happened this morning.

Obviously, you’ve all seen the reports out of Pakistan that they — they fired some missiles in — into Iran.  We’re monitoring this very, very closely.  We don’t want to see an escalation, clearly, in South Asia — South and Central Asia.  And we’re in touch with our Pakistani counterparts, as you might expect. 

We’ll let the Pakistanis speak to — to their military operations.  I’m not going to parse that or do any — or try to, you know, operationalize it here from — from Air Force One.

And then lastly, Jake Sullivan, our national security advisor, will be meeting this afternoon with families of the American hostages that are still being held by Hamas. 

And we suspect that most, if not all, of the families will be represented in that meeting.  The manifest is still being worked out.  But we’ll have more to say after — after that meeting occurs.

That’s it.

Q    John, just to start things off.  What are the U.S. concerns about the situation between Pakistan and Iran?  And why would you see possible risks of escalation?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I mean, these are two well-armed nations.  And again, we don’t — we don’t want to see an escalation of — of any armed conflict in the region, certainly between those two countries.

I want to let Pakistan speak to their military operations.  I want to be careful about that.  As you know, they were struck first by — by Iran, which was obviously a- — another reckless attack, another example of Iran’s destabilizing behavior in the region.  So, again, I think I’ll leave it at that.

     Q    Did the United States — was the United States aware of those attacks before they happened?  Did the Pakistanis give —

     MR. KIRBY:  I am not aware of any prenotification that we received at all.

     Q    Does the United States intend to support Pakistan, seeing that it’s a major non-NATO ally of the country?

     MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have an update for you on that.

     Q    What’s — what about just arms control?  I mean, this is — the President said that this shows that Iran is not well-liked.  I mean, isn’t that why they want a nuclear weapon?

     MR. KIRBY:  Who?  Iran?

     Q    Yes.

MR. KIRBY:  I’ll let the Iranians and the regime speak to their — to their ambitions.  We still maintain and our policy is that we — we do not want to see an Iran with nuclear weapons, because an Iran with nuclear weapons is bad for the whole region, if not globally.

Now, as the President said when he first came into office, certainly would have preferred to achieve that outcome through diplomacy.  Obviously, that’s not going to happen anytime soon. 

So, we will make sure that we have the capabilities and the options available to the Commander-in-Chief to prevent that outcome if it comes to that.  He has said clearly, we will not allow them to achieve a nuclear weapon capability.

Q    John, as a long-term strategy, should Americans just expect the regular airstrikes to be the — the — at least the near term, if not the long term?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, we certainly don’t want that to be case, J.J.  We’re not — we’re not looking for a conflict with the Houthis.  We’re not looking for a conflict in the region.  But we have to be able to act in our own self-defense, not just for our ships and our sailors but for merchant ships and merchant sailors and international shipping in the Red Sea.

And, as you heard the President say this morning right before he came out here, these — these strikes will continue for as long as they need to continue to — to try to disrupt and degrade the Houthis’ ability to continue to cot- — conduct these attacks.

Q    But he also said, “No,” they’re not working.  So, why continue with the same strategy if the Houthis are still continuing to attack?

MR. KIRBY:  With each and every one of these strikes, we are taking away capability from the Houthis.  With each and every one of these strikes, we are making it harder for them to continue to propagate these attacks. 

Again, as we’ve said many times, they have a choice to make.  The choice ought to be to stop these reckless attacks.  If they don’t, then we — we have additional options available to us, and we won’t be — we won’t be shy about using them.

Q    And then can you talk about what other things are on the table?  Could — I mean, could there be a change in tactics, a strike on Iran?  Can you talk about what could be on the table in the future?

MR. KIRBY:  No.  No, I’m not going to telegraph punches one way or another, except to say is — what the President said this morning, that if the Houthis continue to — to go down this path, we will continue to — to do what we can to disrupt and degrade their ability to — to make those — to make those choices.

Q    And one more on Pakistan.  Has the United States assessed that these were legitimate targets?

MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have any military assessment independent here to talk about.  As I said, we’ll let the Pakistanis speak to their operations.

Q    On the Iran, do you have any reaction to the Taliban calling for peace between the countries?

MR. KIRBY:  Between Iran and Pakistan?  Is that what you’re saying?

Yeah, look, I’ll let — I’ll let — I’ll let the Taliban speak for themselves.  I’ll let other nations that have weighed in here speak for themselves.  You’ve heard from us: We’re watching this closely.  We don’t want to see an escalation.  We’re in touch with our — our Pakistani counterparts, as you might expect that we would be.

If the Taliban want to be taken seriously on the world stage, they need to meet the commitments that they said they would meet when — when they took over the governing structure: to treat women and girls appropriately, to abide by international law.  And we haven’t seen them meet those commitments.

Q    Do you have any reaction to Netanyahu rejecting a Palestinian state in a post-war scenario for Gaza?

MR. KIRBY:  I would just tell you that nothing has changed about President Biden’s desire that a two-state solution is really in the best interest of not only the Israeli people but — but, of course, the Palestinian people.  In fact, it’s in the best interest of the region.  And we’re not going to stop working towards that goal.

This is — this is not a new comment by Prime Minister Netanyahu.  We obviously see it differently.  We believe that the Palestinians have every right to live in an independent state with peace and security.  And the President and his team is going to continue to work on that. 

Obviously, the focus right now is making sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself against Hamas and — and that humanitarian aid and assistance continue to get to the desperate people of — of Gaza. 

But there’s going to be a post-conflict Gaza.  And we have been exceedingly clear about what we want to see that look like.  And we want governance in Gaza that’s representative of the aspirations of the Palestinian people, that they have a vote and a voice in what that looks like and that there’s no reoccupation of Gaza.

Q    But what reason do you have to believe that he’s not actively working against that outcome, if that’s his view?

     MR. KIRBY:  Again, he’s been very clear about his view.  We’ve been very clear about our view.  That’s not going to change, and we’re going to continue to have those discussions not just with our Israeli counterparts but with our other counterparts in the region.

     We still think — Trevor, this is a — we still think it’s viable.  We still think it’s possible.  We still think it’s the — it’s the best outcome for the Israeli people as well as the Palestinian people.

     Q    The Wall Street —

     Q    You said he’s been “very clear” on that before.  When — when has he specifically said he does not want —

     MR. KIRBY:  He has said in — in recent comments that he’s not — not in support of that.

     Q    Publicly or privately, do you mean?

     MR. KIRBY:  Publicly.

     Q    Okay.

     Q    The Wall Street Journal reported that the Iraqi Prime Minister had asked the U.S.-led military leadership to leave the United — to leave Iraq.  Is that something that you guys have heard formally?  Is there any comment that you can —

     MR. KIRBY:  I’d say — I’d say a couple of things on this.

I mean, first of all, I’m not going to disclose diplomatic conversations that we’re having with the Iraqis.  We are there at their invitation.  We continue to be there at their invitation to go after — to help them, the Iraqi security forces, go after ISIS, which is still a viable threat in Ir- — in Iraq and — and in Syria, quite frankly, as well. 

And we’re — we’re grateful for the cooperation that we get, the support that we get.  We’re grateful for the relationship that we have with the Iraqi security forces.  And we’ll be in constant consultations with the Iraqi government as this moves forward.

Q    But it — were — were those comments a surprise to the administration?  I mean, they were on-the-record comments.

MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to — I’m not going to characterize diplomatic conversations one way or the other.  We — we know we’re at the — we’re there at the invitation of the Iraqis, and — and we’ll consult with them appropriately about what that — what that mission looks like going forward and, therefore, what posture and resources have to be applied to that mission going forward.

Q    Kirby, on the Hill, there is a growing number of Democratic lawmakers who have said it’s maybe time to rethink the strategy with Israel, given that Netanyahu has repeatedly ignored U.S. guidance and advice.  There’s more people who have favored conditioning aid.  I just wonder what the administration’s responses to that are.

MR. KIRBY:  I — I think the — the record does not bear out that the — that the Israelis have ignored American advice or — or U.S. leadership’s views and perspectives and — and counsel.  That just — the record just doesn’t bear that out.

Whether it’s tailoring their military operations in the north, adding additional humanitarian corridors, opening up the Kerem Shalom gate, providing information to — to folks on the ground about where they’re operating, relying a little less on airstrikes than they were on the outset — I could go on and on.

All of these things were really driven by President Biden and by the national security team in terms of urging the Israelis to take a different tack than maybe what they would — would have otherwise done.

Now, again, they’re a sovereign nation.  They get to choose what military operations they conduct.  We understand that.  But as Secretary Blinken has said many, many times: How they do that matters, and we are talking to them about the “how.”  And they have been receptive to those messages.

I also want to say, while I’m on this topic: One civilian casualty is one too many.  And there have been too many.  And we have talked to them about that as well, in terms of tailoring their operations to be more — more discriminant, more cautious, more careful.

And, as a matter of fact, one of the things that we’ve ur- — we had been urging them to do and you’re now starting to see them do is transition to lower-intensity operations, particularly up in the — up in the north.  They’ve announced, just over the last couple of days, the removal of a whole division of troops.  That’s the beginning of what we hope will be this transition to lower-intensity operations.  And that is something that we have been urging them to do.

Q    And — and if I could just ask on that.  Does the administration plan to go to Congress to authorize any of the strikes that it needs to take against the Houthis, or do you feel that these don’t need congressional authorization?

MR. KIRBY:  These — these strikes are being done in keeping with the President’s Article 2 authorities under the Constitution of — as Commander-in-Chief and also being conducted in accordance with U.N. Charter Article 51, self-defense.

Q    On the hostage meeting today that Jake Sullivan is doing, is there a particular reason for it?  Does he have something to announce to them?  Is he just reassuring them that you’re still on it?  Or is — what’s the reason for it?

MR. KIRBY:  We don’t — we don’t have an announcement.  I wouldn’t lead you to think there’s going to be some announcement coming.  I think it’s an opportunity to keep the conversation going and to make sure that they know, from our perspective — and I don’t want to get ahead of Jake here — but that they know, from our perspective, how — how hard we’re working to try to get their loved ones back home with them where they belong, and — and, as I said the other day in the briefing, that we are working this very, very hard.  There are serious discussions go- — ongoing about trying to get another hostage deal in place. 

Q    Can we go to yesterday’s meeting after — with congressional leaders?  Afterwards, Speaker Johnson talked about how he was in touch with former President Trump.  Does the White House have any concerns about the influence of the former President on its ability to make a deal with Congress and how that dynamic works?

MS. DALTON:  Right.  Well, look, I think, as you know, as federal officials, we can’t speak to Trump as a candidate under the Hatch Act. 

But what I can say is that, as the President has repeatedly said, there is strong bipartisan agreement on the need for action on the border.  The President has continued to be clear about that since he introduced comprehensive immigration reform on day one, since he has continued to stress his openness to working with congr- — congressional — Senate Democrats and Republicans together to find compromise and common ground on the border in good faith, and as he’s consistently asked Congress for more resources to deal with the border. 

Q    Is —

MS. DALTON:  And so —

Q    Is it possible, though, to act in good faith?  Does —

     MS. DALTON:  Well —

     Q    Does Trump’s presence complicate that in any way?

MS. DALTON:  Look, I think you’ve heard from the President, even this morning on the South Lawn just a few moments ago.  He believes that our work with Senate Democrats and Republicans on the border, while we haven’t reached a final agreement on funding and policy, is moving in the right direction.  He is optimistic that the conversations are productive and positive, and we’re going to keep at it. 

But, look, here’s the bottom — bottom line: We’ve, right now, put forward a national security supplemental request that not — let’s not forget, if — if Congress is really serious — congressional Republicans are serious about the border, they could act tomorrow and pass the President’s request to put a thousand more border agents on the border, to get a thousand more — over a thousand more law enforcement agents down on the border to stop the flow of fentanyl. 

     But what we’re seeing is, instead, this conversation.  Now, the President is willing to have this give-and-take, have this conversation, and work in good faith across the aisle.  But what he would really like to do is see Republicans reach back across the aisle and seize the opportunity at hand to work in good faith to come to an agreement here.

(Cross-talk.)

     Q    Given the urgency that — that you spelled out with especially Ukraine aid, has there been any discussion with Congress on decoupling these issues, maybe breaking up that — that security supplemental to deal with these issues separately?

MS. DALTON:  Well, look, I’m not going to get into the private discussions with Congress. 

But, as you saw yesterday, the President met with key leaders in Congress to discuss the stakes for Ukraine.  He went around the table, gave everybody the opportunity to speak.  It was a robust discussion where everybody had the opportunity to make input.  And you better believe the President was very clear about the stakes for Ukraine in this moment, the urgency of that funding.

As you know, I think, the NSA Jake Sullivan, DNI Director Haines both laid out very clearly and in detailed fashion some specific examples of what the stakes would be in Ukraine if we weren’t able to get Congr- — get — get past this point of Congress obstructing the flow of aid to Ukraine very — very soon. 

And one of the critical things the President underlined was not just about our concerns with respect to Ukraine and the national security stakes there but also with respect to what we’ve seen in the past from, you know, unchecked brutal aggression by dictators.  Learning the lessons of history, we know that they don’t stop when they are left to their own devices and left unchecked. 

And so, certainly, the President conveyed a sense of urgency about the stakes for our — our NATO partners in the region, what — what it would mean for our NATO partners in the region if — if we don’t get Ukraine the aid that they need.  And certainly, we don’t want to see, you know, our own troops put in a position where we might need to put boots on the ground. 

Q    Olivia, the President said that there’s no sticking points in the border talks.  So, why don’t we have a deal?  I mean, what’s the next step there?

MS. DALTON:  Look, I think you heard from the — I’m not going to, you know, go farther than what the President said this morning.  But as I just said a moment ago, the President remains very — you know, these conversations have been productive and they are moving in the right direction.  The President thinks that those conversations with — that the — that our team has been having with Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans has been fruitful so far.  And we’re — we remain, you know, cautiously optimistic that we’ll get there.

Q    Are we on to you now?  Are we done with Kirby?

MR. KIRBY:  It can be, if you want.  (Laughter.)

Q    I just didn’t want to start asking —

     MS. DALTON:  (Inaudible) —

     Q    — domestic questions if (inaudible).

MS. DALTON:  — J.J. 

Q    Okay.  On electric vehicles.  There has been — with the extreme weather, there’s been some difficulty in getting those battery charged.  Do you have any thoughts on that?  As you know, the — the administration has been really pushing for EVs to be the future of car transportation.  Do you have any thoughts on the — the troubles with charging those batteries?

MS. DALTON:  Well, as a car owner, I can promise you that whether you have a gas-powered vehicle, a hybrid-powered vehicle, and a fully electric vehicle, extreme weather temperatures impact the — the functioning of your car.  Right?  So, that is not unique to electric vehicles. 

And certainly, we are contin- — we’re always concerned about making sure that electric vehicles — we continue the progress we’re making to make them affordable and reliable for every American. 

We saw EV sales quadruple last year [since President Biden took office].  We think that’s good progress.  And we want to see that continue. 

Certainly, again, with respect to some of the — the reporting that we’ve seen this week in Chicago and elsewhere, we think these are isolated incidents, but we are looking into them and seeing where we can make an impact.

Q    Could you say something about the Uvalde report?  In particular, you know — you know, what can communities do around the country to prevent this from happening in the future?  And then on the criminal penalty issue, in particular.

MS. DALTON:  Well, look, so, as I came out here, the Attorney General’s press conference was still ongoing.  I know the — the President spoke to this very briefly on the South Lawn just a moment ago to underscore that we are committed to taking action to address some of the recommendations that are in — contained in that DOJ report.  And I expect that very shortly, as soon as that press conference is completed, you will all receive a more detailed statement from the President.

But without getting ahead of that, I think the report today lays out very clearly and in heartbreaking detail some of what these families have been going through for the last two years.  These families — we can only imagine how today’s report adds to the heartbreak that they’ve felt. 

And I would just say that, you know, one thing that has been particularly remarkable about Uvalde and the community here — which, of course, the President and the First Lady were able to visit in person in May of 2022 — is how in the immediate aftermath of that they all traveled to Washington and were a very critical catalyst in the passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which is, today, saving lives. 

They turned their pain into purpose in a very real way and are — are saving others’ lives today as a consequence of their courageous advocacy. 

     That’s cold comfort to a parent that’s lost a child.  But part of what you’ll hear from the President in his statement today is a commitment to moving forward and implementing the lessons learned here and also making sure that our White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is equipped to better support communities in the aftermath of these attacks going forward.

And I would be remiss if I didn’t add that his perennial call for Congress to act is really the only, you know, way to stop future Uvaldes from happening.  We need to see congressional action on a national red flag law, on universal background checks, on ending assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and so much more.

Anybody else?  I think we’re landing, so —

Q    Yeah, you need to get back to your seat.

MS. DALTON:  I think we all do.

Q    On congressional talks.  After yesterday, do you think that the talks are now close enough for the Senate to vote next week?

MS. DALTON:  I’m not going to make any forecasts.  But I think — as I’ve said, I think, you know, you’ve heard optimism from the President this morning that there has been productive conversations with Senate Democrats and Republicans both.  And we — without, you know, forecasting or making any predic- — predictions here, you know, we think things are moving in a positive direction.

So, I’ll leave it there.  See you all.

Q    Thanks, Olivia.

12:59 P.M. EST

The post Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Olivia Dalton and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby En Route Morrisville, NC appeared first on The White House.

WASHINGTON – Today, President Biden announced his intent to appoint the following individuals to serve in key roles:

• Doreen Patricia Greenwald, Member, Federal Salary Council
• Juan A. Sabater, Member, Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico
• Timothy D. Murray, Member, National Museum and Library Services Board
• Gregory C. Simon, Member, President’s Commission on White House Fellowships
• Daniel Mathews, Member, Public Buildings Reform Board

Federal Salary Council

The Federal Salary Council is an advisory board that provides recommendations on the federal employee locality pay program to the President’s Pay Agent. These recommendations include the establishment or modification of pay localities, the coverage of salary surveys used to set locality pay, the process for making pay comparisons, and the level of comparability payments that should be made. The council consists of a total of nine seats: three seats are meant to be filled by experts in pay policy and six seats are reserved for representatives of federal government employee organizations.

Doreen Patricia Greenwald, Member, Federal Salary Council

Doreen Patricia Greenwald was elected National President of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) in August 2023. As the NTEU’s top elected official, she is the spokesperson for the union representing NTEU on issues important to union members and federal employees. Greenwald was a frontline federal employee for 35 years. She previously served as the Special Assistant to the National NTEU President and was elected National Executive Vice President in 2022. Greenwald spent her federal career at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), where she worked as a revenue officer and served for 14 years as President of NTEU Chapter 1, IRS Wisconsin.

Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico

The Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico was created under the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act of 2016. The Board consists of seven members appointed by the President and one ex officio member designated by the Governor of Puerto Rico. The Board is tasked with working with the people and government of Puerto Rico to create the necessary foundation for economic growth and to restore opportunity to the people of Puerto Rico.

Juan A. Sabater, Member, Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico

Juan A. Sabater is a Partner and Co-President of Valor Equity Partners, a growth focused private equity firm with approximately $16 billion in assets under management and recognized for the operational support it provides to the companies in which it invests. He is a member of all Valor Investment Committees. Sabater currently serves on the boards of directors of Harmony Biosciences, Addepar, and Premise Data, and as a board observer for Dataminr and BlueVoyant, all companies in which Valor is an investor. Prior to Valor, Sabater was a Managing Director at Goldman Sachs in the firm’s Investment Banking Division. Following Goldman Sachs, Sabater partnered with a law school friend to grow and scale Augeo Affinity Marketing. Together with his business partner, Sabater grew Augeo into a leading private company in the engagement and loyalty industry. Augeo today works with many Fortune 500 companies in the U.S. and internationally, managing programs reaching millions of employees and consumers globally. In 2014, Augeo partnered with the Obama-Biden Administration to create GamePlan4me.com, aimed at encouraging young people to obtain healthcare, with athletes articulating why healthcare is important. Sabater currently is Co-Chair of the Board of Augeo. 

Sabater serves on the boards of academic, arts, charitable, and professional organizations, including The Frick Collection, Girls Who Code, Lenox Hill Neighborhood House (where he serves as Chair), and the National Association of Investment Companies. He also served as Co-Chair of the Board of The Hewitt School, an independent girls’ school in New York City, and on the board of the New America Alliance. He was one of the founding board members of My Brother’s Keeper Alliance, an initiative addressing the opportunity gaps faced by young men of color and now part of the Obama Foundation. Sabater was appointed by President Biden to the Board of Visitors to the U.S. Military Academy. In Puerto Rico, Sabater serves on the board of Endeavor Puerto Rico, which aims to transform the entrepreneurial ecosystem of Puerto Rico by integrating founders into a global community, and served on the boards of Invest Puerto Rico and Foundation for Puerto Rico. Sabater was also a founding member of Private Equity for Puerto Rico, which raised funds in 2017 for hurricane relief following Hurricane Maria. Sabater holds an A.B. in History from Princeton University, studied history at the University of Oxford, Mansfield College, and holds a J.D. from Stanford Law School. He is formerly an officer in the United States Army Reserve. Sabater, who was born in Puerto Rico and lived his childhood on the island, resides with his wife and three daughters in New York City. 

National Museum and Library Services Board
The National Museum and Library Services Board advises the Institute of Museum and Library Services on general policies with respect to the duties, powers, and authority of the agency relating to museum, library, and information services, as well as the annual selection of National Medals recipients.

Timothy D. Murray, Member, National Museum and Library Services Board

Timothy D. Murray served as a Special Collections Librarian for over forty years. He has worked in the Special Collections departments of the University of Buffalo, Washington University in St. Louis, and the University of Delaware. He served as Head of Special Collections at Delaware from 1987 to 2022. A specialist in 20th century literary collections, Murray has curated exhibitions, written, taught, and lectured on figures such as Samuel Beckett, Paul Bowles, Kay Boyle, Ernest Hemingway, Abraham Lincoln, Hugh MacDiarmid, Ishmael Reed, and Tennessee Williams. From 2008 to 2009 he served as the University of Delaware’s representative on the Delaware Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission.

Murray has been active and held leadership positions in the Rare Books and Manuscripts Section of the American Library Association and the Society of American Archivists. In 2011, he was inducted as a fellow of the Society of American Archivists. In his award statement he was celebrated for his work as a mentor to students and young librarians, his expertise as an archivist and Special Collections librarian, and for his ability and willingness to bridge the gap between archives and librarianship.

President’s Commission on White House Fellowships

The President’s Commission on White House Fellowships is composed of outstanding citizens who reflect the diversity and strength of America while representing a broad range of backgrounds, experiences, and professions. Commissioners are responsible for recommending a group of candidates to the President for selection as White House Fellows, a prestigious program for leadership and public service that provides young Americans experience working at the highest levels of the federal government.

Gregory C. Simon, Member, President’s Commission on White House Fellowships

Gregory Simon began his government service as General Counsel and then Staff Director of the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on investigations and Oversight. He served as the Legislative Director for then-Senator Al Gore (D-TN) and was commissioned by President Clinton to be Vice President Gore’s Chief Domestic Policy Advisor. He next served in the White House as the Executive Director of the White House Cancer Moonshot Task Force, under then-Vice President Biden. After leaving office in 2017, Vice President Biden and Dr. Biden asked Simon to launch and serve as the President of the Biden Cancer Initiative, an independent nonprofit organization.

Outside of his government service, Simon started Simon Strategies, LLC, an international consulting firm in science and technology policy. He launched two non-profits, FasterCures and the Melanoma Research Alliance. FasterCures is an organization devoted to speeding the pace of medical research in all diseases, and the Melanoma Research Alliance is the largest non-profit funder of melanoma research worldwide, which co-funded the work of Dr. James Allison who won the Nobel Prize in 2018.

Simon was born in Blytheville, Arkansas and received his B.A. from the University of Arkansas and his law degree from the University of Washington. He is married to Margo L. Reid and has two children, Kallile S. Simon and Michael Reid Simon, and two grandchildren, Charlie Walsh Simon and Jack Burns Simon.

Public Buildings Reform Board

The Public Buildings Reform Board was established under the Federal Assets Sale & Transfer Act of 2016 as an independent agency to identify opportunities for the Federal government to significantly reduce its inventory of civilian real property and thereby reduce costs.

Daniel Mathews, Member, Public Buildings Reform Board

Daniel Mathews is currently President of Mathews Associates LLC, where he advises companies on a variety of real estate issues. Mathews also serves on the Industry Advisory Group of the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations, where he and other noted industry professionals advise the State Department on how to provide the most effective facilities for United States diplomacy abroad. In addition, Mathews is a board member of both the Federal Real Property Association and the National Federal Development Association.

Mathews has extensive experience with federal real estate issues and served as Commissioner of the U.S. General Services Administration’s Public Buildings Service, where he led the 375 million square foot civilian real estate portfolio of the federal government, over 5,000 employees, and a $12 billion budget. Prior to that, he was the Staff Director of the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management. He worked on several major legislative initiatives involving public buildings, emergency management, and transportation, including most recently the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016, which established the Public Buildings Reform Board. Mathews graduated from Georgetown University with a degree in government and philosophy. He is married with two daughters and resides in Alexandria, Virginia.

###

The post President Biden Announces Key Appointments to Boards and Commissions appeared first on The White House.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan met today with Nigerian National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu about bilateral security cooperation, efforts to counter terrorism in West Africa, and the importance of respect for human rights, strengthening democratic institutions, and good governance across the continent.  Mr. Sullivan reiterated President Biden’s commitment to Africa and underscored the strength of the U.S.-Nigerian relationship, including welcoming Nigeria’s strong leadership of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).  Mr. Sullivan also raised areas where the United States and Nigeria share interests, particularly in supporting peace and stability in countries that have recently experienced political transitions. Both decided to maintain close coordination and continue to deepen our partnership to advance shared interests.

###

The post Readout of National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s Meeting with Nigerian National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu appeared first on The White House.

11:46 A.M. EST
 
Q    What do you make of these attacks between Iran and Pakistan?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  As you can see, Iran is not particularly well-liked in the region. 

Q    Yeah.

THE PRESIDENT:  And where — where that goes, we’re working on now.  I don’t know where that goes.
 
Q    And how was your — how was your meeting yesterday?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  I thought the meeting went well yesterday.  I thought the meeting went well.
 
Q    What are the sticking points on the border agreement?  Where are the disagreements you’re working on?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  I don’t think we have any sticking points left.
 
Q    Are the airstrikes in Yemen working?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, when you say “working,” are they stopping the Houthis?  No.  Are they going to continue?  Yes.
 
Q    Mr. President, how do you feel about aid for Ukraine after yesterday’s meeting with members of Congress?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  I think the vast majority of members of Congress support aid to Ukraine.  The question is whether or not a small minority are going to hold it up, which would be — which would be a disaster.
 
Q    How concerned are you with the Arab American votes during this election?  And what Iowa means to you, to your reelection race?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I don’t think Iowa means anything.  The President got 50-some-thousand votes — the lowest number of votes anybody who’s won got.  You know, this idea that it’s been a runaway, I think he can characterize it any way he wants.  I’ll let them make that judgment.
 
What was the second part of the question?
 
Q    The part was: Are you concerned with the Arab American votes voting for you during this election because of Gaza?  Many say they will not vote for you.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, look, the President wants to put a — the former President wants to put a ban on Arabs coming into the country.  We’ll make sure he — we understand who cares about the Arab population, number one.
 
Number two, we got a long way to go in terms of settling the situation in Gaza.
 
(Cross-talk.)

Q    The March for Life is tomorrow in Washington, D.C. — the March for Life is tomorrow in Washington, D.C.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, I know that.
 
Q    What’s your message to those attending?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  March.
 
(Cross-talk.)
 
Q    Sir — sir, can you talk about inflation?  When will prices come down?

Q    Should anybody be held for — should anybody be held criminally responsible for failures after the Uvalde shooting?  Should anybody be held responsible with criminal charges?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  I have not read the full report.  The report will be out today —
 
Q    Today.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  — number one.  We’re going to do what we can to implement the recommendations of the Justice Department.  But I don’t know if there is any criminal liability.  I — I have not read the report.
 
Q    Were you — were you briefed by the Attorney General on this?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  I was briefed by my staff on it.
 
(Cross-talk.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.
 
11:48 A.M. EST
 
 

The post Remarks by President Biden Before Marine One Departure appeared first on The White House.

In May 2022, Jill and I traveled to Uvalde to grieve 21 students and educators senselessly and tragically gunned down at Robb Elementary School.  Twenty-one souls stolen from us in a place where they are supposed to feel safe—their classroom.

Following this tragedy, my administration conducted a review to determine lessons learned from the response that day and best practices to ensure a swifter and more effective response to future active shooter incidents. Today’s report makes clear several things: that there was a failure to establish a clear command and control structure, that law enforcement should have quickly deemed this incident an active shooter situation and responded accordingly, and that clearer and more detailed plans in the school district were required to prepare for the possibility that this could occur. There were multiple points of failure that hold lessons for the future, and my team will work with the Justice Department and Department of Education to implement policy changes necessary to help communities respond more effectively in the future.

No community should ever have to go through what the Uvalde community suffered. After the Uvalde shooting, the families of the victims turned their pain into purpose and pushed for the passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the most significant gun safety legislation in nearly 30 years, which I signed into law. And I continue to take historic executive action, including the establishment of the first-ever White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Congress must now pass commonsense gun safety laws to ensure that mass shootings like this one don’t happen in the first place.  We need universal background checks, we need a national red flag law, and we must ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. The families of Uvalde – and all American communities — deserve nothing less.

The longer we wait to take action, the more communities like Uvalde will continue to suffer due to this epidemic of gun violence. 

###

The post Statement from President Joe Biden on Today’s Justice Department Report on the Uvalde School Shooting Response appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

(January 17, 2024)

2:33 P.M. EST

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everyone.

     Q    Good afternoon. 

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, today, the Biden-Harris administ- –(the briefing room sound system experiences technical difficulties) — the levels.  Is there a — should I start?  Sou- — is — do I sound, like, echoey?

     Q    Yes.

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay, well, sorry.  Here we go.

     Today, the Biden-Harris administration took new actions to tackle hidden junk fess by proposing a rule that would end excessive overdraft fees. 

     For too long, some banks have charged extreme overdraft fees, sometimes $30 or more, that often hit the most vulnerable Americans the hardest. 

Today’s proposal by Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would cut the average overdraft fee by more than half, saving them — saving the millions of families that pay these fees an average of $150 a year.  That would add up to save Americans $3.5 billion a year.  Unfortunately, some Republicans in Congress continue to defend the rights of big banks to exploit their customers. 

President Biden believes it’s wrong that some companies rip off Americans simply because they can, and his administration won’t let them.

As we work to lower costs and build the economy from the middle out and the bottom up, we got more evidence today that Americans are feeling the strength of the economy.  Retail sales beat expectation last month, capping a record holiday shopping season.  From TVs to toys, Americans were able to buy gifts for their loved ones that were more affordable and arrived on time thanks to the President’s work to fix and strengthen supply chains. 

And today, a new poll from Axios showed Americans have a surprising degree of satisfaction where — with their economic situation.  The poll showed Americans are optimistic about their finances.  Sixty-three percent say their finances are currently good, and eighty-five percent believe they will get better this year.  That’s not an accident; that’s Bidenomics at work. 

(Referring to the briefing room sound system.)  The volumes are incredibly weird right now.  Did we get that fixed?

Q    I think so.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay, I think so.  All right. 

And now, as you all know, today, we’re joined by my colleague, Admiral John Kirby, who’s here to discuss the United States’ continued response to the ongoing and escalating attacks by the Houthis in the Red Sea. 

And with that, all — I think it’s all fixed for you now, Admiral.  It’s all fixed. 

MR. KIRBY:  Thank you, Karine.  That was kind of weird. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That was very weird.  Sounds like a gremlin was attacking.

MR. KIRBY:  Good afternoon, everybody. 

Look, as you all saw, United States today designated the Houthis as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Group.  We took this action because of their continued reckless and indiscriminate attacks on ships transiting the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.  These attacks are a clear example of terrorism, violation of international law, and a major threat to innocent lives and to global commerce. 

Now, just a couple of points.  First, today’s designation targets the Houthis, not the Yemeni people.  The United States remains the world’s leading donor of humanitarian assistance for Yemen.  We recognize that more than 15 million people in Yemen are still in desperate need of food, water, and medicine.  And we are taking a range of steps to ensure that these sanctions preserve the ability of aid organizations to be able to deliver all those much-needed supplies. 

Second, this designation takes effect 30 days from now.  And the reason for that is it’ll give us time to work closely with those aid organizations to make sure that they understand all the ramifications of this designation, answer all their questions, and be able to provide enough context for them to have a measure of assurance as they continue to provide that humanitarian assistance. 

Now, look, if the Houthis cease the attacks, we can certainly reconsider this designation.  If they don’t, as the President said, we will not hesitate to take further actions to protect our people and the free flow of international commerce.

With that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks.  John, can you talk a little bit about why the President decided not to redesignate the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization, which obviously would have restricted some of that aid?  Is it purely because of that humanitarian assistance piece?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, you sort of answered the question.  This particular designation gives us — it actually gives us more flexibility, but it also gives aid organizations a higher level of comfort that they’ll be able to provide this assistance without running afoul of sanctions.

You’ve — we’ve already — in designating them, already issued a number of licenses.  The license, as you know, is basically like a waiver.  It’s a carveout — when you have a sanctions regime that — that allows for certain goods to continue to flow despite the sanction regime. 

And so, yes, that’s the big reason here. 

Q    And then, (inaudible) the President could reconsider that designation should the Houthis stop these attacks?  Are you essentially using this as a bargaining chip in negotiations or — in public negotiations with the Houthis?

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I mean, that would suggest there’s negotiations going on, and we’re — there’s no negotiations here.  It’s not a bargaining chip; it’s a way of holding the Hou- — the Houthis accountable — additional ways to hold them accountable. 

I think, you know, if you look at the — the levers of national power — you know, there’s an acronym for it: DIME — right? — diplomacy, information, military, economic.  We’re using all of those levers of national power and, frankly, international power to try to convince the Houthis to stop these attacks and, if they don’t — and they clearly haven’t — to make sure that we’re holding them accountable for that.

Q    And just, lastly, on a different topic: the meeting that’s taking place in a few — in a few minutes with congressional leaders.  We understand this is going to be focused mostly on situation in Ukraine.  Is there a version you can provide publicly?  What are they going — what are lawmakers going to hear from the national security staff — 

MR. KIRBY:  Yeah —

Q    — that you’ve not already telegraphed publicly about what’s happening on the ground?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, again, I don’t want to get ahold — ahead of the discussion.  And I suspect that in that discussion there could be some classified content that they’ll discuss.

But in the main, this will be an opportunity for the President and for the national security team to make sure that members of Congress fully understand the desperate, urgent need for weapons and capabilities for Ukraine to continue to flow. 

As you know, the last security assistance package was December 27th.  There hasn’t been one since.  There won’t be one unless or until we can get some funding. 

And it’s not as if the war stopped just because our aid stopped.  The Ukrainians continue to get attacked.  They’re moving into some defensive positions along that line, in the east in particular, and they continue to come under artillery shell, air attacks, ballistic and cruise missile, as well as drone attacks from the Russians. 

And they are expending what they have.  And I won’t get into their inventory lists, but there are some weapons systems for which they are in more need than others right now.  And the — and they have to expend them, given ongoing combat.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Thanks.  Last week, the President said it was “irrelevant” whether or not the Houthis were designated as a terrorist organization.  Now, five days later, this announcement.  Did he need to be convinced that this was the right step? 

MR. KIRBY:  No.

Q    And looking back, was it a mistake to take them off of the terrorist list back in 2021 — just, like, consideration over these years?

     MR. KIRBY:  No.  No, again, the previous designation was FTO — Foreign Terrorist Organization — which doesn’t have quite the measure of flexibility in terms of humanitarian assistance.  And so, a big reason why we delisted them — literally, on day one — was to address a dire, dire humanitarian situation on the ground.  And, as I said today, it remains dire in many cases.

     The Houthis are more concerned about getting weapons and capabilities and attacking ships in the Red Sea than they are about helping to look after the Yemeni people.

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

     Q    Thank you, Karine.  The President said last week that a private message had been delivered to Iran about the Houthi attacks.  Could you talk a little bit about that message?

     MR. KIRBY:  No, I cannot.

     Q    What can you tell us about what was communicated to the Houthis?

MR. KIRBY:  That’s the same question you just asked.  (Laughter.)  I’m not going to get into that.  The — as the President said, there was a private message delivered to Iran, and I need to leave it at that.

Q    Has that been effective?

MR. KIRBY:  I’m just going to leave it right there.  A message was delivered.  And, of course, publicly, we have made clear our — our concerns about what the Houthis are doing.  We’ve made clear the support that — that we know they’re getting from Iran.  And we’re going to continue to take actions.

I would remind — it doesn’t get mentioned a lot in the context of the Red Sea attacks — but this administration alone has issued some 500 sanctions — or 500 entities have been sanctioned under this administration in just the last three years.

Q    And — and a quick question on —

MR. KIRBY:  Iranian entities.

Q    And a quick question on Iran’s foreign minister, who spoke at Davos earlier today.  He said , “The security of the Red Sea is tied to the developments in Gaza, and everyone will suffer if Israel’s crimes in Gaza do not stop.”  He basically warned that all fronts will remain active until then.  Do you have a response to that?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, I mean, let’s — to take it at — just in a couple of pieces there.  If you look at the — it’s 32-some-odd attacks that the Houthis have conducted now — for the ones that were targeted at ships that were identifiable, because sometimes they launch a barrage and there’s multiple ships and you’re not really sure what ship is being targeted.  But let’s just take a look at the majority of the 32 where you can identify the ship that’s being targeted.  Not a single one was destined for Israel, and they were all destined for other ports with others — other bits of commerce.

So, the whole argument that this is about the war in Gaza — I mean, they’re just driving a stake through a straw man.  There’s nothing there.

And as for the, quote, unquote, “resistance continuing,” I — I’ve said it many times; I’m happy to repeat it: We have national security interests in the region — significant interests.  And we have moved additional military resources, at the President’s order, into the region to make sure we can protect those interests.

And we mean what we say.  And if you doubt it, take a look at what happened just a few nights ago.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J.

Q    In — in his statement on the Houthis’ designation, Jake Sullivan said that there would be an immediate reevaluation of the designation were they to stop the attacks.  Can you just help us understand why that reevaluation would happen immediately?  You know, would that sort of risk the potential of them starting up the attacks again if that designation were to be taken away pretty quickly?

MR. KIRBY:  The — the thing about sanctions designations that — they are a pliable form of economic pressure.  You can scale them up.  You can scale them down.  You can lay them on.  You can take them off in a fairly simple way.  So, Jake is right. 

As I said in my opening statement, if they — if they choose to stop these attacks, then we certainly have the option at our disposal to remove this designation that we just — that we just issued.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    (Inaudible.)  Thank you so much.  I wanted to give you a chance to respond to Speaker Johnson, who said earlier today — about the meeting on Ukraine, he said   , “Before we even talk about Ukraine, I’m going to tell the President what I’m telling you, which is border, border, border.”  Do you think that’s a legitimate position to say that even before you can have conversations about Ukraine, you have to settle the situation with the border?

MR. KIRBY:  Today’s meeting is about Ukraine.  That’s what we’re going to focus on in this discussion.  And, as the Speaker knows quite well, we continue to negotiate in good faith in a bipartisan way with the Senate — with Republicans and Democrats up there on Capitol Hill — about the national security supplemental and — and about — which obviously includes money for border security.

Q    And the Speaker also said that he has been asking the administration for more details about the spending, what has already been spent in Ukraine and also the endgame in Ukraine.  What kind of message can the President deliver to the Speaker?  He says that he hasn’t gotten the answers that he’s looking for in terms of how Ukraine should not become another situation like what we’ve seen in the Middle East?

MR. KIRBY:  He’ll get an opportunity to ask all those questions today at the meeting, and I’m sure our national security team  would be happy to help give him the context that he says — he says he’s not getting. 

I would remind that, since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine in February of ‘22, we have provided multiple classified and unclassified briefings to members of Congress.  And this whole idea of a blank check also is not true.  Every single aid package that we provided Ukraine we have done the  consultations with Congress.  So, there have been and will continue to be a lot of outreach from the administration with members of Congress about Ukraine.

Right now, though, you can’t have those consultations because there’s no aid going to Ukraine because we don’t have the funding.  And that’s what the meeting about — today is really all about, stressing the urgent need for that additional funding.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thank you, Kirby.  So, with regard to national security and Ukraine, has the threat level changed since the President last spoke from the Oval Office, spoke to congressional leaders about the urgency for this funding?

MR. KIRBY:  No.

Q    I just wonder —

MR. KIRBY:  Not at all.

Q    So, what — what can he say that hasn’t already been said to convince them to all get on board and take action?

MR. KIRBY:  Well, again, without getting ahead of the President and the conversation that he hasn’t had yet, one of the reasons our National Security Advisor and our Deputy National Security Advisor will be in this meeting is to bring members of Congress up to speed on what we’re seeing right now on the battlefield and what the Ukrainian forces are facing now as winter is full upon them and the war hasn’t stopped and aid hasn’t continued to flow from the United States.

I mean, I think we’re at — we’re in a bit of a different situation now in that regard than we were when the President gave his speech.  Not that the national security implications are not all still valid; they are just as valid, in terms of the threat that Putin face- — poses to the, quote, unquote, “world order” and to European st- — stability and security.

But the situation now is different in terms of the — the stoppage now of assistance going to Ukraine.

Q    And then on the southern border.  Could the President use the Insurrection Act to federalize the Texas National Guard?

MR. KIRBY:  I am not a legal expert on that.  I’ll have to take that question and — and get back to you.  I know of no — just to — just to make clear, I know of  no intention by the President to do that.

     Q    Thank you.

     Q    John, I understand that the last provision of aid to Ukraine was December 27th.  Right now, is Ukraine fighting with 100 percent of its capabilities?  Do they have everything that at this moment they require?

     MR. KIRBY:  Without getting into their operational security and — and — and letting the Russians know what they have in their inventory, Peter, we’ll — what I can tell you is that, as I said earlier, there are certain types of munitions, certain types of weapons that they are expending at greater rates than others. 

     Q    So, you can’t communicate —

     MR. KIRBY:  Given that —

     Q    — that they’ve run out —

     MR. KIRBY:  Given the threat —

     Q    — of anything because you don’t want to give away —

     MR. KIRBY:  I’m not going to give —

     Q    — disadvantages?

     MR. KIRBY:  — away their inventory list.  But I’m not going to — I mean, I’m not going to pull any punches here.  They are still going through artillery shells and HIMARS rockets and air defense capabilities at a pretty advanced clip, depending on what they’re facing on the battlefield.  And so, their inventories are running lower, without question.

     Q    Shalanda Young said in — I think it was December 5th — in her letter, she said that we are running out of money and out of time .  Should this be measured by Americans understanding the urgency as an issue of days, weeks, or months?

     MR. KIRBY:  It would depend really on the kind of system we’re talking about, Peter.  I mean, the — there are — there are some — there are some munitions that — that they have ample stores — enough to get them into, you know, the next couple — two, three months.

     There are others where they don’t have that kind of time.  And a lot of that depends on what Russia does and how — what they have to defend against.  One of the key capabilities right now for them is air defense, because the drones and the missiles keep flying from the Russian side, and they’re not stopping.  So, air defense is definitely one of those critical capabilities.

     Q    And then just a quick follow-up on the conversation that started here.  Yesterday, we’ve been asking about the Houthis.  Now, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin fortunately is now recovering; he’s no longer in the hospital. 

     He and the President last spoke one-on-one December  6th.  The last it was publicly read out, they shared a conversation that took place on December 9th.  There have been at least three separate strikes — the 11th, the 12th, and the 16th — against the Houthis in that time, a time during which the two haven’t spoken.

     So, our understanding is they haven’t shared a call — at least dating back to the 9th — for more than a week.  Is that normal that he wouldn’t speak to the Defense Secretary —

     MR. KIRBY:  I think they  —

     Q    — with three separate operations in the course of that time?

     MR. KIRBY:  My dates are messed up, but the — the — I know the last time they spoke was Friday — last Friday. 

     Q    Was last Friday?

     MR. KIRBY:  Just this past Friday —

     Q    So just a few —

     MR. KIRBY:  — whatever that date is.

     Q    Whatever days ago that was. 

     MR. KIRBY:  Yes.

     Q    Okay. So more recent than we had —

     MR. KIRBY:  Yeah.

     Q    — publicly heard.  Fine.

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead. 

     Q    Thanks, Admiral Kirby.  On Turkey.  The outgoing Turkish ambassador told VOA that he expects to see some positive developments in a month or so with regard to the sale of F-16s to Turkey.  So, can you give us an update on this?  And once Turkey completes the ratification process for Sweden’s NATO membership, can we assume that the road for the F-16s will be cleared?

     MR. KIRBY:  The President has been pretty consistent: We continue to support the additional sale of F-16s and the modernization of the current F-16 fleet for — for Turkey.  That’s a — that’s a consistent policy position that would — that we’ve had since coming into office.  That hasn’t changed.

     I don’t have an update for you on dates and the calendar items in terms of what that looks like.  But — but our policy with respect to F-16s for Turkey has not changed.

     Q    And, if I may, on Ukraine.  So, there is — there is still $4 billion in the PDA and — for Ukraine.  And I was wondering if, given the fact that the negotiations on the border are not moving, is it possible to use that authority now and replenish American stocks later when the Congress approves the supplemental budget?

     MR. KIRBY:  First of all, I — I would disagree with the notion that talks are not moving.  As I just said, the — we believe those conversations with the Senate, in a bipartisan way, are making some progress.

     And on your — the — the real central idea of your question is — is this punishment authority?  And, yes, there’s additional funds authorized under PDA, but there’s no replenishment authority funds to go with them, to back them up.  And that’s why we — we don’t have any additional ability to provide security assistance for Ukraine, because there’s no replenishment authority built in.

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  A couple more.  Go ahead, Aurelia.

     Q    Thank you so much.  On Ukraine, I had a follow-up to Peter’s question.  Are you saying that the stoppage of U.S. aid already has an impact on the battlefield, in the sense that Ukrainians are refraining from certain moves or are on the — doing stuff that they would do if they were, you know, assured of — of continuing assistance? 

     And maybe another one, more specific.  While he’s trying to secure additional funding, does the President wish that European countries would do more themselves to support Ukraine?  And more specifically, has he asked Germany to supply long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine?

     MR. KIRBY:  I’ll let Germany speak for what they will or won’t provide Ukraine.  We are grateful for the support that more than 50 nations continue to provide Ukraine.  And each nation gets to decide for itself what that looks like, as appropriate.  I mean, these are sovereign decisions.  And there has been tremendous international support for Ukraine.

     But, look, they’re going to look at us, too.  They’re going to see how the United States reacts here.  And I think we can expect that some nations may take cues from the United States.  If we just pack it in and can’t get the funding and decide, “That’s it, we’re not going to provide anything more for Ukraine,” you can certainly see where there might be other nations who might feel like they want to follow suit here without our leadership.  American leadership matters here.

     On your first question, I certainly won’t speak for Ukrainian military commanders and what they are deciding to expend on the battlefield or not.  But you can ex- — I would — I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if they aren’t making battlefield decisions right now that are affected — those decisions are affected — or I should say informed by the uncertainty as they look to the West, as they look to the United States for additional support.

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

     Q    Thanks a lot, Karine.  John, the air campaign by the U.S. has not had a noticeable impact in terms of defer- –deterrence with the Houthi rebels.  What makes you think that this terror designation will change that in any way?

     MR. KIRBY:  It’s part of a — as I said, a suite of — of — of tools at our disposal to hold them accountable.

     Q    Will —

     MR. KIRBY:  And — and I just want to remind: The attacks last week — the large attacks that we conducted were designed to disrupt and degrade Houthi offensive capabilities.  And we believe we did that.

     That doesn’t mean that we eliminated every single missile they own or every drone they can fly or every radar system that they operate.  But we believe it had good effect on degrading their capabilities to conduct attacks.

     And as I said at the end of my opening statement, we will take further action if we feel like we need to.  They have a choice to make.  They continue to have a choice to make.  The right choice is to stop these attacks.  If they don’t, we’ll continue to — to act appropriately.

     Q    Do you happen to know if the EU is going to take similar action to designate the Houthi rebels a terrorist organization in the way the U.S. has?

     MR. KIRBY:  I do not.

     Q    No coordination with them on this front?

     MR. KIRBY:  I’m not aware of any prior coordination with the EU specifically on this, and you’ll have to talk to EU officials about whether they’re willing to take a similar approach.

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Going to wrap it up. 

Go ahead.

     Q    Yeah.  When was the last time President Biden spoke on the phone with Netanyahu?

     MR. KIRBY:  There has not been another call since the last one we read out.  I don’t have the exact date in front of me.  It’s been more than 20 days, I think.

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Go ahead.  Last question.

     Q    Thanks, John.  Over the weekend, the NSC issued a statement in response to a HuffPost report on the administration’s post-war plans in Gaza stating that the quotes attributed to U.S. officials in the story were, quote, unquote, “made up.”  HuffPost has been seeking an apology and a retraction at the insinuation that their reporter made up or fabricated quotes in the story.  Can you tell us on what basis did the NSC issue that statement?  Why is the NSC suggesting that a reporter made up quotes?

     MR. KIRBY:  The — the issue, as I understand it, Sabrina, was related to a document that was purported to exist that was — in this article, and the — the quotes from the purported document that were not accurate.  And that was the issue.  The issue was that the — whoever was reading out this document was reading things that — that there’s not a record of a document that — that says those things.

     Q    Because the NSC said, “We stand by our original statement,” which seemed to just generally imply that the quotes attributed to U.S. officials broadly in the story were made up.  Obviously, as I said, HuffPost is seeking an apology and a retraction.  Do you have any reaction? 

     MR. KIRBY:  This wasn’t an attempt to — to question the journalism or to cast aspersions on journalistic ethics.  This was a reaction to quotes attributed to a document that — for which we don’t — we don’t have — we don’t have a document that says those things.  And that’s — and that’s why the — that’s why the response was — was drafted and written the way that it was. 

I — I have read it — I can see where some people might see that reaction and — and think we were trying to, again, cast aspersions on journalistic ethics and procedure, and that was not the intent. 

Okay?  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, Admiral.  Appreciate that.

Q    Admiral, any update on the missing SEALs?

Q    Thanks, John.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Zeke, you want to reset us?

Q    Thanks, Karine.  On the meeting this afternoon.  Can you talk about what the President hopes to accom- — hopes to accomplish?  Is he — is he trying to get a deal here, walking out of this meeting today?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, as the Admiral said, the focus on the meeting today is going to be on Ukraine and making sure that Congress — the congressional members who attend understand that we need to continue the support for Ukraine.

It’s — he’s going to particularly underscore that if we abandon Ukraine, there will be — there will be consequences — right? — to Ukraine, to the people of Ukraine, to the people who have been fighting for their democracy for so long.  And let’s not forget, they’re fighting against — they’re fighting against the aggression from Putin. 

So, we have to be really clear here.  A failure to — a failure to act will — certainly means that it will — it will, you know, not be helpful to our national security.  So — and history has taught us — history has taught us that if we do not, you know, get involved and — and we’re not — and stop a dictator, we see what could happen.  It could — it could actually put our national security at risk.

So, that’s going to be the focus today.  It’s going to be on Ukraine and really laying out why it’s important to continue that support that we’ve been providing them.

Q    But if it’s going to, you know — the negotiations right now on immigration are taking place in the Senate.  Does the — you know, the President has the Speaker here.  Will he discuss immigration with the Speaker?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’ll say this.  The President obviously wel- — is welcoming congressional members here.  He’s open to hearing whatever conversations that they want to have, right?  And so, it is important, you know, to have these conversations, obviously, in a bipartisan way.

So, that may come up.  I certainly don’t want to get ahead of those conversation.  But the purpose — the purpose of this meeting is about Ukraine.  That is the purpose of this meeting, and that’s what the President wants to really lay out and — the urgency to continue to support Ukraine and why that’s needed now and how that affects our own national security. 

So, that is the purpose.  But, of course, members of Congress are going to come, and they’re going to have things that they want to talk to with the President.  We certainly welcome that.

Q    But why hasn’t the President engaged in negotiations with the House?  The White House (inaudible) on — on border security, on — on immigration — this negotiation today was in the Senate, but obviously, you know, the House has a say here, and they are not happy with what’s happening on the Senate side of things.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, the House went home in mid-December — right? — while — while the negotiations were occurring and happening in the Senate in a bipartisan way.  Obviously, Republicans and Democrats and here at the White House, we were having those conversations, trying to find a bipartisan agreement.

We were — we were having those conversations, even through — even through the holiday weekend — I mean, sorry, the holiday break.  And they decided to go home.  Literally, they decided to go home. 

And so, those conversations are going to continue.  This meeting does not stop those conversations from continuing.  We think it’s headed in the right direction.  So, that’s important as we’re talking about the border security and what we can do to make sure that we’re dealing with that issue.

And so, we appreciate Republicans and Democrats in the Senate operating with us in good faith.  And we think it’s headed in the right direction.

Q    And, finally, do you think that, like — that criticizing the House for going home improves your odds of getting whatever deals, should there be a deal with Senate, through the House?  I mean —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean — well, part —

Q    — I’m just curious what strategy is here.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Here’s the thing — and I appreciate the question, and I get the question, but Republicans in the House have been incredibly — they’ve gotten in the way.  They have gotten in the way when it comes to border security.  They have gotten in the way and voted — and actually voted on pieces of legislation to take away some of the law enforcement, the CBP — right? — at the border.   That’s what they voted on in — back in May.

So, we want to work with them.  But they’ve been very clear where they stand.  So, look, we’re going to have — the President is — is looking forward to having a conversation with members of Congress, obviously, here with his own national security team, with other members of his team here.  They’re going to talk at 3:15. 

And he wants to really lay out the importance of Ukraine.  He is — he’s willing — always willing to hear out members of Congress on what they want to discuss. 

But we’ve been very clear, the Senate has been — Republicans in the Senate have wanted to work with us.  They’re talking through us with — negotiating, trying to find a bipartisan agreement, and that’s the way to move forward.

Go ahead, Weijia.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  To follow up on Tolu’s question to Kirby —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — Speaker Johnson has made clear that they’re not even going to talk about Ukraine until the border is addressed.  And he’s made clear that it’s H.R.2 or bust.  So, how is the President going to navigate that in today’s meeting?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He’s not the only congress- — congressperson in the room today.  He’s not.  He’s not the only person that’s going to be in the room.  There will be other congressional members.  The President has been really clear: He wants to talk about Ukraine, the urgency of making sure we continue that assistance to Ukraine; what that means not just for the broader world national security but also for us.

And so, Speaker Johnson is not going to be the only person in the room.  And so, look — but obviously, the President is going to bring people together.  He wants to hear from — from folks.  And so, he’s willing to hear what — what these congressional members want to talk about.  But the purpose of this meeting is to talk about Ukraine.

Q    But what can you get done without Speaker Johnson and —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not saying we can’t —

Q    — Republican support?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not — I’m not saying that.  I’m saying he’s not — you’re saying if — if he wants to talk about — about something else, like border security, how can he — how can the President manage the conversation.  There will be other people in — in the room. 

And I think folks understand that U- — that there is a national security importance of having this meeting.  That’s why the President is bringing folks together.  And not only that — let’s not forget, they’re going to hear, also, from the national security — his national security team as well.

     Q    Some people who won’t be in the room are members of the press.  And in the past, meetings with congressional leaders have been open.  Is there a reason why today’s is closed?

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we had a similar meeting back in October, as you know.  And so, that was an important meeting about national security, the supplemental as well.  And so, that occurred.
    
     Look, not all meetings are — are public or have a — a press component.  The President, as you know, has a long track record in Washington, D.C., of — of, you know, bringing folks together, getting a bipartisan deal.  And so, we want to — he wants to make sure we get straight to work.  He wants to make sure that we have this really important conversation.  He wants to get straight to it.

     We expect some members of these — members of — of Congress to go to the sticks after — after their meeting.  So, you certainly will hear directly from them.  And we will have a readout, as well, of the meeting.

     So, there will be an opportunity to ask questions of the members.  They’ll be at the sticks.  And then you’ll hear directly from us as well.

     Q    Thank you, Karine.

     Q    To follow up somewhat on Weijia.  Also, House Speaker Johnson said today — I mean, he seemed to throw cold water on the Senate border negotiations when he said, “I don’t think now is the time for comprehensive immigration reform because we know how complicated that is.  You can’t do that quickly.”

     How will the President receive that message today if Johnson says this is too complicated to do right now?

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Making sure that we take care of our border is not too complicated.  It’s not.  It’s not.  If people come together in good faith, as they’ve been doing in the Senate, we can get this done.  We can get this done. 

     And let’s not forget, the President actually put forth a comprehensive immigration proposal almost three years ago.  Very — almost three years ago.  We had three years — three years to work on something.  If that was what the — Speaker Johnson is concerned about, we had three years to work on it.

     And so, look — and if he — and if he was really — really concerned about it, then when these negotiations started before — before the holiday break, they would have stayed.  They would have stayed and — and actually, you know, tried to be part of the solution.

     Look, we want to have a bipartisan agreement.  That’s what we want.  We want a bipartisan agreement because the President understands that’s how we’re going to fix the problem.  That is it.

     And — and so, look, it’s continuing.  We’re going to see what happens in — with the Senate negotiations.  We’re going to see what — where they land.  Certainly not going to get ahead of that from here.
    
     But it is important.  It is important to get this done.  And the President is not going to stop from — from negotiating with the senators.

     Q    And just a quick one.  Beyond the congressional leaders, who exactly is going to be in this meeting?  How did the White House come up with this list?  Why this group?

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I can say, as you all know and been mentioning, Speaker Johnson will be there, Leader Schumer, McConnell, and Jeffries, and the chairs and ranking members of the House and the Senate Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Appropriations, and Intelligence.  So, that’s incredibly important as we’re talking about Ukraine, obviously, and that — that part of our national security supplemental. 

     And also from the White House, so you all know, the Chief of Staff, Jeff Zients, will be there; National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan; Counselor Steve Ricchetti; Legislative Affairs Director Shuwanza Goff; Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines; OMB Director Shalanda Young; and Principal Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer.

     Again, this is going to be about Ukraine.  Some of this will be classified — will have classified content.  And so, that is why it’s important for all of those folks to be in the room as we’re having these conversations.

     Q    Thank you.  I understand you’re saying the meeting is about Ukraine.  If and when bo- — the issue of border security comes up, which we know it will and is — is expected to, what specific concessions is the President willing to make on the issue of border security?

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m not going to negotiate from here.  I’m not.  There’s been negotiations happening as it relates to the border security in the Senate for some months now between Republicans and Democrats.  We’re going to let that process continue.  We’re going to let that — that — that doesn’t stop.  Those negotiations, those conversations is not going to stop because the President is meeting with congressional members today.

     Again, our focus today, the President’s focus today is going to be about Ukraine and the importance of continuing to support Ukraine as they fight against tyranny, as they fight against President Putin’s aggression.  That’s going to be the focus.

     And I said the President is — you know, he brings people together.  Obviously, is — is willing to — to listen to what folks have to say.  But that is the purpose — is Ukraine.  And those negotiations on the Hill, on the Senate side, is going to continue.

     Q    And a quick one on the Vice President’s abortion tour that is expected to start on Monday.  She’s headed to Wisconsin.  She’s kickstarting the — the tour in Wisconsin.  Can you share more details on that trip?  And where else is she planning to go?  What is the White House planning to achieve with this?

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, more broadly, on Monday is the 51st anniversary of the landmark decision Roe v. Wade.  So, both — both the President and the Vice Pre- — President is going to be marking that landmark decision, that anniversary.

     It’s an important anniversary, as the administration works to defend reproductive rights for women across the country, while Republican elected officials pu- — push extreme abortion bans that deny women the care that they need, force families to travel out of state for healthcare, and threaten healthcare providers with prosecution for providing the care that they are trained to provide. 

     So, obviously, it’s an important day.  We’re going to — we’re going to mark that 51st anniversary.  And you’ll hear more from the Vice President’s office as to what her kickoff tour is going to look like.  So, I’d certainly refer you to her office.  And then we will have more on what the President — how the President is going to mark that day.

     Q    Is — is the President planning to join her at any point during this tour?

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t — I don’t have any — I don’t have anything to — to lay out on any — of the President joining the Vice President on this particular tour.  But what I can say is both the Vice President and the President are going to be marking this day on Monday.  We will have more to share on what that will look like.

     Go ahead, M.J.

     Q    Karine, does the White House believe that Democrats have already made significant concessions on the border?  And does it believe that Democrats, you know, have more room for additional concessions?

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I want to be really careful.  There are negotiations happening.  If I speak t- — from — from here about it, I don’t want to get in the way of what they’re trying to make happen, which is come up with a bipartisan agreement to deal with border security.

     Look, what the President understands — and he’s been around for some time, right?  He’s been in Washington for some time.  He’s been a senator, as you all know.  He’s been Vice President, as you all know.  And he understands that it takes both sides to come together to deal with — to deal with an issue. 

     And when you deal with a bipartisan situation, you put a — put forth an agreement, you know, there are going to be concessions that are going to be made.  I don’t want to speak to them from here.  I’m going to let the negotiators have those conversations.  They will decide what works, what kind of deal that they can put forth.

     But obviously, a bipartisan agreement — that means both sides have to give up a little something.  That’s how bipartisan agreements work, obviously.

     Q    And on a separate matter.  Yesterday, in response to Governor Hutchinson suspending his presidential campaign, a DNC spokesperson said in a statement, “This news comes as a shock to those of us who could have sworn he had already dropped out.”

     Seems rather gratuitous, you know, not to mention not serious.  I just wonder if the tone of that statement reflects how President Biden views the governor and views his now-suspended campaign?

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I appreciate the question.  This is something that we definitely want to address. 

President Biden has deep respect for Governor Hutchinson and admires the race that he ran.  The President knows him to be a man of principle who cares about our country and has a strong record of public service. 

This morning, the Chief of Staff here, Jeff Zients, called the governor to convey this and apologized for the statement that did not — that did not represent the President’s views.

So, again, as — as I just stated, Jeff Zients called the governor to apologize on behalf of the President and it did not — it did not reflect his views.

Q    So, there was an apology that was conveyed to the governor.  Was any action taken?  Or was anything communicated to the decision by the DNC to put this statement out?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I can’t speak to — I can’t speak to how the communication — communication with the DNC.  Obviously, it is a — it is a — the Democratic political arm, so I can’t — I don’t want to speak to that.  You would have to reach out to the DNC directly. 

But what I can say is how the President felt.  It did not represent his views.  We apologized to the governor.  He has — he respects the governor’s public service.  And we just wanted to make that very clear.

Go ahead, sir.

Q    Yeah, another question on the border.  Why hasn’t the Vice President’s Root Causes Strategy made a bigger difference in lowering the number of people who have been apprehended at the border?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, the Pres- — the Vice President’s — what she’s been able to do is meet with leaders in the region and talk about how do we — to your point, the root causes — how do we deal with what’s happening in — in those said countries and — and offer up any — any support that we could — could offer up.

But, look, it’s not just the Vice President here or this President or this administration.  When it comes to immigration, it has been a problem that has existed for decades — for decades.  This sa- — this system has been broken way before this administration stepped in. 

So, the President took this very seriously.  The first day of his administration, he put forth a po- — he put forth policy ideas, a legislation in a comprehensive way to deal with this issue. 

And so, now, I think what’s really important — and we can’t miss this — right? — now there is an actual conversation, negotiations happening in the Senate, in Congress in a bipartisan way to figure out how to deal with border security.  And I think that is the most important thing here.  And we’re — we feel like it’s going in the di- — right direction. 

Q    Is that — is that particular strategy, though — did it — was it too narrow?  Did it fail to anticipate the poss- —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What strategy?

Q    The — the Root Causes Strategy.  Targeting those —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, not at all.  Not at all.

Q    — three countries —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, but the —

Q    — when we know now that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Wait, but hold —

Q    — the migration is coming —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hold on.  There’s — there’s root causes.  There’s dealing with a broken system, which is why we put forth a — a immigration — immigration proposal that deals with policy and funding. 

And so, now we’re having those conversation in Congress, and I think that’s really important.  And that’s what we’re hoping — we’re hoping that we can get to — to a place where we come into a bipartisan agreement.  And that’s going to be the focus.

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Another question on the border.  Can you, sort of, talk about how the President views humanitarian parole for asylum seekers?  Does he believe that asylum seekers should be able to stay in this country until their cases are heard?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I — I want to be — and I get the question.  I just want to be super careful here, because I don’t want to get into what’s being discussed in Congress.  So, I’m going to, you know, not say anything beyond what I have said — is, like, there’s negotiations happening.  There’s going to be different policy components that are going to come up, obviously.  They’re going to come up with a — an agreement here that both Republicans and Democrats agree on on the Senate side.  And then we hope that we can really deal with this issue.  I just want to be super, super mindful and not get into specifics on policies.

Q    But even on the basic principle of someone seeking asylum, does the President believe they should be able to if they have legitimate concerns?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, obviously.  We’ve been very clear about that.  But I just want to be super careful.  I don’t want to go into a rabbit hole about each policy and what the President supports or believes in because there is a there con- — there — there are negotiations happening.

Q    Yeah.  And my last question.  Just — Speaker Johnson says that he wants the border to be completed as one of his stipulations in this deal — or the border wall — I’m sorry — the border wall to be completed as one of his stipulations.  What’s the White House’s response to that (inaudible)?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re having a — a bipartisan conversation in the Senate about how we deal with border security.  Going to leave it there and let the Republicans and Democrats who are actually coming to the table in good faith and have been doing that for months, which we appreciate — and we think it’s headed in the right direction — we’re going to let them have that conversation.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  Why are you repeating this false claim that Republicans voted to reduce the number of Border Patrol agents, even though the Washington Post gave the administration three “Pinocchios” for that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we don’t believe it’s a false claim.  Our statements were very direct here. 

Last year, House GOP voted — voted — and not only did they vote for it, but they touted — they touted their Limit, Save, Grow Act.  That’s the act.

Q    But there’s no appropriations in that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, let me —

Q    And they vowed —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  They — they limit —

Q    — that it would never affect Border Patrol.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  They — they — they voted for and touted it.  Right?  This is an act.  And this would have forced the elimination of 2,000 Border Patrol agents.  That’s what this act that they touted, that they voted for in the House.  So, that was their proposal. 

Q    It wasn’t their proposal.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And — and that was what they —

Q    They clearly —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — voted for back in — in May.

Q    They — they clearly stated at that time that Border Patrol — also veterans’ benefits and entitlements — would never be impacted by any of the reductions.  The — and also, the bill never had any appropriations in it. 

So, this claim that you guys are rolling out — you know, it’s the White House applying White House math to a bill that never had any appropriations.  And moreover, the administra- — or the members in Congress who, you know, put this together vowed that it wouldn’t affect these things.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  If you —

Q    So, the reason I —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — I ask is because it’s just — you know, to voters, don’t you think they know the difference between, you know, what is a truthful statement and what is spin?  And is it insulting to them at all to keep saying it when it was — it’s just not true?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  One thing that the President does not do is insult vot- — insult voters or American people, to be more exact, because I want to be careful about — about this — what I can say about this upcoming election.

What I will say is, if you look at the bill — this act that they touted, that they voted for — House Republicans — back in May, they were — it was very clear that it would have forced — it would have forced the emil- — elim- —  elimination of 2,000 Border Patrol agents.  That’s what that act would have done. 

We were very direct about that.  We were very clear about that.  This is what they touted.  This is what they put out there.  This is what House Republicans voted for.  I mean, that’s where they are. 

They have gotten in the way.  Every time we are trying to deal with the border, House Republicans have gotten in the way. 

So, we appreciate the bipartisan conversation that we’re having with Republicans — let’s not forget — with Republicans in the Senate — that’s why it’s bipartisan — and Democrats on dealing with the border — the border. 

House Republicans get in the way.  They wanted to literally eliminate 2,000 Border Patrol agents in this particular act that they touted, that they voted for back in May.

Q    So, notwithstanding all of the factchecks on that, if you’re saying that, you know, the White House, the President doesn’t want to, you know, insult the American people, will the administration, then, amend its separate statement that implied that Texas officials were responsible for the deaths of three migrants, when, in fact, they had nothing to do with it?  They had already been dead for an hour by the time Mexico told anyone in the U.S. about it.  And the administration admitted as much in their court filing.  They — they acknowledged that in their court filing. 

But the statement from the White House implies that Texas was responsible.  And a number of outlets were forced to issue corrections and editor’s notes because of that White House statement.  So, will the White House amend that statement?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let’s be sensitive here.  Three people died.  Three migrants died: two children and a woman.  That was devastating — devastating situation, heartbreaking situation.  So, let’s be really mindful of what we’re talking about here.

Q    Of course.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I want to take a step back and — and just, as you’re talking about our statement — look, as I — as I mentioned, a woman and two children died.  They drowned near Eagle Pass — which is, as I said, devastating — and that Texas officials blocked Border Patrol from access- — accessing the area.  That’s what was happening at that time.

Our statement is consistent with DOJ’s filing.  As the DOJ filing said, there was an ongoing emergency situation that Border Patrol was blocked from accessing.  There were other migrants in the — in the water as well.

Q    That was separate, though.  The ongoing emergency situation —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But I’m just saying there was —

Q    — was separate.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — there was an ongoing —

Q    And the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  But —

Q    The White House statement implied — it says — the White House statement says that Texas officials blocked U.S. Border Patrol from attempting to provide emergency assistance.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  To — there were other — there were other migrants in the water as well.

Q    Then why wasn’t that included in the statement —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There were other migrants in the water. 

Q    — that that — that that’s what you were referring to?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Our — our statement is the — is ver- –very much consistent with DOJ filing.  Anything else specific you want to know about that, I would certainly refer you to DOJ.

AIDE:  Time for a couple more.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Go ahead, Peter.

Q    Three college students — Palestinian college students — were shot in Vermont in November.  I know you’re aware of that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Nearly two months have passed since that time.  They’re speaking out publicly now for the first time.  Has President Biden or this White House spoken to those individuals or their families in the period since?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  First of all, obviously, we — we offered up our — you know, our — our sympathies and, obviously, were devastated to hear about this.  And it’s — glad to hear that they have — they are recovering.

We don’t have any — any readouts to give you on any conversation that we’ve had with these three students.

Q    I guess the question would be: The President, obviously, and other members of the White House have spoken with regularity with those who have been held hostage in Gaza.  Recognizing the circumstances are very different, nonetheless, the White House does reach out to individuals of all sorts of communities, certainly marginalized communities, in circumstances not too dissimilar from this.  So, why wouldn’t the White House reach out to these individuals?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  It’s — it’s a very good question.  I just don’t have — it could have happened.  I just don’t have a readout to share with you at this time.

Q    Even without a readout, can you just confirm to the press corps at some point if it did happen so we can be accurate?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Absolutely.

Q    And if it didn’t, just let us know.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Absolutely.  Happy to let you know.  But I — it’s hard for me to say — to confirm or not —

Q    Okay.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — if they — if they read it out —

Q    We’ll wait for your confirmation either way.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Absolutely.  Thanks, Peter.

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Appreciate that. 

Okay.  I think I have one more that I can go to.

Q    Afghanistan, please.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Owen.  I haven’t called on you in a while.  Way in the back.

Q    Karine, good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon.

Q    Is the — by any chance, is the White House following the trial in Hong Kong of pro-democracy advocate Jimmy Lai?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, the U.S. strongly condemns the prosecution of pro-democracy advocate and media owner Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong under the PRC-imposed National Security Law.  The U.S. renews our call for the immediate and unconditional release of Jimmy Lai, who has been in prison under Hong Kong’s National Security Law. 

The United States will continue to closely monitor developments with this and other prosecutions under the National Security Law. 

Q    If he’s convicted — many call this a sham trial and, you know, that his conviction will — is virtually guaranteed from the outset.  And he’s still got weeks to go in this trial.  But if he’s — if he’s convicted — I know you’re — I know you don’t have a crystal ball, but what will the President do in that likelihood? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t want to get into hypotheticals from here.  We just condemned — I just very forcefully, strongly condemned the prosecution of — of Jimmy Lai.  And so, we’re going to continue to do that.  And obviously, we’re going to monitor the situation closely.

I just don’t want to get it — ahead and getting into hypotheticals or — or how this is going to turn out.  But obviously, we strongly condemn.

Go ahead, Ed. 

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I want to ask you about —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  This is the last one.

Q    — ships being redirected around the Red Sea.  Freightos tracked shipping costs and found that the ships going to Europe — the weekly cost for containers going to Europe are up 386 percent from a yea- — last October; costs going to North America are up 99 percent.  So, when does the White House feel like this could start putting pressure on prices and pass on to the consumer?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, obviously, our national security team here and our economic teams are — are closely monitoring the — the evolving situation in the Red Sea.  It’s something that we’re keeping a close — close eye on.

But what we’ve seen so far is that the impact of the ongoing conflict has had limited impact on the U.S. supply chains and energy prices.  Diversions of vessels from the Suez Canal and to the Cape — Cape of — Cape of Good Hope has not had major impact on availability of products in the U.S. or capacity at the West Coast ports. 

Again, our teams are going to closely monitor this.  This is our national security team and also economic team.  We’re going to monitor this, but we haven’t seen an impact at this time.

Q    And one last one.  Last Friday, the President was at a coffee shop in Pennsylvania, and he seemed to be surprised that the smoothie was $6 and how expensive it was.  I’m curious, is — so, is the President now realizing the costs that Americans are bearing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, when he went over to you all to — to — to the — to the press corps, he was having a good time, right?  Offered up to — as you know, offered up to — to buy them coffee.  There was a big group there, and he made sure everyone got coffee and pastries.  So, I just want to make that really clear.

Q    But his comment was $6, and “I’ll — I’ll do it anyway.” 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look, I hear you, and that — let’s not forget what the trip was about.  The trip was about small businesses, right?  There have been 6 — 16 million small businesses that have tried — that have started and filled out for applications.  That’s a big deal.  That is really important.

What that means is that they have the confidence — small businesses, folks who are starting them, have the confidence in the economy to start a business.  And that is — I think that’s also really important too. And the President was able to do this or — we’ve seen Americans able to start — file for applications to start small businesses because of the American Rescue Plan.  By the way, no Republican voted for that.  And so, it’s gotten the — it’s gotten the economy back on its feet and also given the confidence for small-business owners to start — right? — for people to start a small business.  Sixteen million applications that we have seen.

     And so, I think that’s important.  And look, you know, Republicans don’t want to do that, right?  They don’t — they’re — they’re not interested in that at all.  They’re not interested in fighting Big Pharma.  They’re not interested in making sure that we’re lowering — lowering healthcare costs for the Americans. 

     They’re not interested in that.  That’s why they didn’t vote for the Inflation Reduction Act.  That’s why they didn’t vote for the American Rescue Plan.  And so, that was the — that was the — the point and the important part of the President going there to — to Allentown.  And I think it was a good trip.  And you all saw that.

     Q    But he still seemed surprised that the cost was so expensive.

     MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He was joking around.  He was certainly joking around with the press corps.  He — you — you know that.  He offered to buy coffee — that’s what he did — and pastries. 

     But I think the most important thing about that trip is that he was able to visit a small business.  He was able to talk about how this administration, because of Bidenomics, because of the economic policies that we put forward — that we are seeing now a historic number of small-business applications.  And I think that’s important.  They have the confidence now — they have the confidence now to start their small business.

     Thanks, everybody.  We’ll see you out on the road in North Carolina tomorrow.  Thanks, everybody.

     Q    Thanks, Karine.

###

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and NSC Coordinator For Strategic Communications John Kirby appeared first on The White House.

Today, President Biden will travel to the Raleigh-Durham area to announce $82 million in new investments from the American Rescue Plan’s (ARP) Capital Projects Fund to connect an additional 16,000 North Carolina homes and businesses to high-speed internet as part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s Investing in America agenda. Overall, the Biden-Harris Administration is investing over $3 billion in North Carolina to lower costs for families and connect everyone in the state to affordable, reliable high-speed internet through the American Rescue Plan and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. These investments are creating thousands of good-paying manufacturing and construction jobs in places like North Carolina to produce Made-in-America fiber-optic cable that will build out internet infrastructure across the country. And, because of the Biden-Harris Administration’s Affordable Connectivity Program, 885,000 households in North Carolina are saving money on their internet bills every month.

High-speed internet is no longer a luxury—it is necessary for Americans to participate equally in school, access health care, do their jobs, and stay connected with family and friends. Yet more than 7 million households and small businesses across the country are in areas where there is no high-speed internet infrastructure, and millions more struggle with limited, unreliable, or unaffordable internet options. With $90 billion from President Biden’s American Rescue Plan and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, President Biden and Vice President Harris are closing that digital divide. Through the Affordable Connectivity Program, the Biden-Harris Administration has helped over 22 million Americans save $30-$75 per month on their internet bills. The Administration has called on Congress to extend funding for this bipartisan program, so that millions of families can continue to access affordable high-speed internet.

In North Carolina, President Biden will highlight how the over $3 billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and American Rescue Plan funding is helping North Carolina:

• Connect well over 300,000 more homes and businesses to high-speed internet by the end of 2026 through $1 billion in American Rescue Plan funding. Construction on these American Rescue Plan funded projects is beginning or has begun in 90% of North Carolina counties. This includes over $700 million that North Carolina invested in high-speed internet and connectivity through the American Rescue Plan’s State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund. 
• Finish the job by connecting all remaining homes, small businesses, schools, healthcare facilities, and libraries to high-speed internet by the end of 2029 using $1.5 billion in funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s BEAD Program.
• Help 885,000 North Carolina households—about 1 in 5 households in the state—save up to $30/month on their monthly internet bills through the Affordable Connectivity Program. Already, North Carolina families have saved a total of $442 million on their internet bills.
• Spur private sector investment in fiber manufacturing: Thanks to the Biden-Harris Administration’s historic high-speed internet investments and Made-in-America policies that require fiber-optic cable to be manufactured in the United States, CommScope and Corning are investing nearly $550 million combined to build American-made fiber-optic cable, adding hundreds of new jobs in Catawba County. North Carolina is home to two of the largest fiber plants in the world, and is known as the Fiber Capital of America. As a result of these and other investments, Hickory, North Carolina is now producing 40% of the country’s fiber-optic cable.

President Biden will also discuss key progress his Administration has made to meet his goal of connecting every American to high-speed internet by 2030, including:

• Thanks to the Administration’s historic high-speed internet investments and Made-in-America policies, network equipment manufacturers have invested nearly $1 billion across 11 states to expand manufacturing facilities capacity so that fiber optic cable and network electronics get made here in the United States by American workers.
• By the end of December 2023, every state and territory had developed a roadmap for how they will use their share of the $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to connect every home and business in their state or territory to affordable, reliable high-speed internet access.
• Through the Affordable Connectivity Program, enacted under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, over 22 million households are saving over $600 million each month on their internet bills.

###

The post FACT SHEET: President Biden to Announce New Funding to Connect Thousands of Households in North Carolina to High-Speed Internet, Highlight Milestones in Lowering Costs, Expanding Internet Access to Everyone in America appeared first on The White House.

We, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, National Security Advisor Akiba Takeo, and Director of National Security Hojin Chang, congratulate the University of Tokyo, Seoul National University, and the University of Chicago for signing a new trilateral quantum partnership that will train a quantum workforce and strengthen our collective competitiveness in the new global economy.  

At Camp David, the leaders of the United States, Japan, and the Republic of Korea committed to demonstrate to the people of our respective nations the tangible benefits of trilateral cooperation. Today’s signing is one more step towards fulfilling this collective commitment.  It also follows the December signing of a Trilateral Framework encouraging scientific cooperation among our national laboratories.  United by common purpose, we will harness the power of our leading academic institutions to light a new way forward.

The United States, Japan, and the Republic of Korea are global leaders in research and development investment.  Innovative partnerships like this one position our three countries to embrace a transitional moment where cutting-edge scientific research and technology are yielding new industries and modernizing old ones.  We wish these universities great success in this new quantum endeavor.

###

The post U.S., Japan, and Republic of Korea Launch Cutting-edge Quantum Collaboration appeared first on The White House.

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. today announced the designation of a Presidential Delegation to attend the Inauguration of Her Excellency Hilda Heine on Monday, January 22, 2024, in Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands.

The Honorable Chantale Wong, United States Executive Director of the Asia Development Bank, will lead the delegation.

Members of the Presidential Delegation:

Mr. Henry Hand, Chargé d’Affaires, a.i., U.S. Embassy Majuro

The Honorable Erika Moritsugu, Deputy Assistant to the President and Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Senior Liaison, The White House

The Honorable Carmen G. Cantor, Assistant Secretary for Insular and International Affairs, Department of the Interior

###

The post President Biden Announces Presidential Delegation to the Republic of the Marshall Islands to Attend the Inauguration of Her Excellency Hilda Heine appeared first on The White House.

Today, President Biden convened Congressional Leadership and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Intelligence, Armed Services, and Appropriations Committees, and the Senate Foreign Relations and House Foreign Affairs Committees to discuss the urgent need for Congress to continue supporting Ukraine as part of the global coalition we have built. In the meeting, President Biden underscored the importance of Congress ensuring Ukraine has the resources it needs—including air defense and artillery capabilities—to defend itself against Russia’s brutal invasion. The President discussed the strategic consequences of inaction for Ukraine, the United States, and the world. He was clear: Congress’s continued failure to act endangers the United States’ national security, the NATO Alliance, and the rest of the free world. The President called on Congress to quickly provide additional funding to support Ukraine and send a strong signal of U.S. resolve. The President also made clear that we must act now to address the challenges at the border. He said he is encouraged by the progress being made in the bipartisan negotiations happening in the Senate. He expressed his commitment to reaching a bipartisan agreement on border policy and the need for additional resources at the border. The President called on Congress to swiftly pass his full national security supplemental.

###

The post Readout of President Biden’s Meeting with Congressional Leaders on Ukraine and His National Security Supplemental appeared first on The White House.

The Biden-Harris Administration is announcing today its Improving Student Achievement Agenda for 2024, which is focused on proven strategies that will accelerate academic performance for every child in school. There is nothing more important to our future than ensuring children are equipped to compete in the 21st century. That’s why the Administration is laying out an agenda for academic achievement for every school in the country, using all of its tools—including accountability, reporting, grants, and technical assistance—to intensify its drive for adoption of three evidence-based strategies that improve student learning: (1) increasing student attendance; (2) providing high-dosage tutoring; and (3) increasing summer learning and extended or afterschool learning time.

School closures launched during the previous administration set students back. President Biden’s American Rescue Plan, the largest one-time education investment in our history, helped schools reopen and regain ground faster. From the start, this Administration has been laser focused on working with school districts to invest these funds to help students recover from the effects of the pandemic through proven strategies like high-dosage tutoring and expanded summer learning.  Through the new announcements today, the Department is using every tool in its toolbox so that States and districts achieve greater adoption of these three proven strategies and accelerate academic progress nationwide. These strategies complement the Administration’s continued focus on improving mental health in schools, supporting America’s teachers and other school staff, and strengthening core instruction through the Raise the Bar: Lead the World initiative.

The Strategies and the Evidence[1]:

The Administration is urging States, districts, and schools to adopt three strategies that work to increase effective time on task, based on the evidence:

Increasing attendance: Following the school closures that began in 2020 during the previous administration, chronic absenteeism emerged as a serious challenge. Across the country, the rate of chronic absenteeism reached about 31% in 2021-2022 because of COVID-19. We cannot and will not accept that as a new normal. Students who are chronically absent are much less likely to read at grade level and to graduate high school. According to the Council of Economic Advisers, absenteeism can account for up to 27% and 45% of the test score declines in math and reading, respectively. Low-cost informational interventions, like sending texts to parents about their children’s missed school, can reduce absenteeism by up to 17%. Research also shows that targeted parent and family engagement—such as home visits, the adoption of early warning intervention systems, and the effective use of data and family engagement to identify why a student is absent and what tailored strategy will address the cause—can significantly increase student attendance. Reducing absenteeism can have a major impact on student performance.

Providing high-dosage tutoring: Well-designed and well-implemented tutoring programs can significantly accelerate student learning, including enabling a child to gain as much as 1.5 years of achievement in math. Research shows that to achieve these results, tutoring programs should: (1) provide at least three 30-minute sessions per week; (2) occur in small groups (e.g., 1-4 students); (3) occur during the school day, which helps support consistent participation; (4) use well-trained tutors (e.g., paraprofessionals, teaching candidates, retired teachers, AmeriCorps members, teachers, and others); and (5) aligned with an evidence-based, structured curriculum. School systems across the country, including in Chicago, Baltimore, and Greensboro, have leveraged American Rescue Plan funding to scale strategies with promising evidence of positive impact as the Department of Education has longpromoted. When implemented well, high-dosage tutoring can reduce burdens on teachers and complement other school-based activities such as building educator capacity through the use of math and literacy coaches, which research shows can improve student achievement, and professional development to support data-driven instruction.

Increasing summer learning and extended or afterschool learning time: One study found that when students consistently participate in high-quality afterschool enrichment programs, it adds about four months of student learning to the academic year. Another analysis of 30 schools found that when the school day’s instructional time is extended from 6 ½ to 8 hours for students in low-income areas, test scores improve between 11 to 24%. Summer programs lasting five weeks with at least three hours of academic instruction per day add about two months of learning in math and one month of learning in reading, according to a meta-analysis. The use of data on student participation and program quality helps these programs succeed, and their success enables teachers to deliver instruction more effectively during the regular school day. Close to half of school districts have invested American Rescue Plan funds in expanded summer learning, which has been shown to improve students’ math scores.

Today, we are announcing the following Administration actions and commitments:

1. Publishing States’ specific actions to increase student attendance, expand high-dosage tutoring, and provide summer and extended or afterschool learning time. The pandemic caused significant declines in student achievement—across the country and around the world. Since then, leaders at the State, local, and school levels have undertaken historic efforts to get students back on track, fueled by landmark investments in the American Rescue Plan (ARP). Meeting and exceeding pre-pandemic achievement levels will require additional bold actions by States, districts, and communities. The Administration urges States and districts to make specific, quantifiable commitments to double down on their investments in these evidence-based strategies, such as the model commitments in the table below. This Spring, the Administration will highlight actions from States, districts, education non-profit and philanthropic organizations, , and others on:

StrategyModel State CommitmentReducing Absenteeism# parents reached with letters, texts, or calls to encourage consistent attendance# home visits and other evidence-based interventions for studentsHigh-Dosage Tutoring# tutors delivering and # and % of students receiving evidence-based tutoring between January and June 2024# tutors delivering and # and % of students receiving evidence-based tutoring in 2024-2025 school yearSummer Learning and Extended or Afterschool Learning Time# weeks of evidence-based summer learning and enrichment for # and % of students# days of extended school day or year for # and % of students# days of afterschool programs for # and % of students

1. Using Data and School Improvement Requirements under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to Advance the Improving Student Success Agenda. To complement these State and local actions, the Department of Education will work with States to improve school performance by:

• Conducting additional monitoring so that States more effectively implement evidence-based responses to challenges. Under ESEA, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act, States must use a portion of Title I funds to support schools designated for improvement through evidence-based strategies that address specific, identified needs of each school. The Department will engage States to strengthen implementation of these key ESEA requirements. For example, where States are implementing tutoring, the Department will examine whether they are doing so in the most effective form and provide guidance to support improvements.

Tracking progress in closing pandemic gaps. The Department is urging States to identify the local educational agencies (LEAs) with the greatest gaps between latest achievement levels and achievement levels before the pandemic, including gaps at the student group level. States should direct additional school improvement resources to those LEAs and prioritize them for support in order to eliminate gaps as quickly as possible, targeting acceleration efforts like high-dosage tutoring and summer, extended, and afterschool learning time in LEAs and schools with the greatest need.

• Encouraging States to strengthen accountability for addressing chronic absenteeism. To improve student achievement, States and schools need to improve student attendance. The Department will call on States to:
  • Adopt chronic absenteeism as an indicator in their Statewide accountability and improvement system under ESSA, if they have not done so already. States can use data from this indicator to drive improvement for student attendance, engagement, and persistence.
  • Adopt a strong, consistent definition of chronic absenteeism (e.g., missing at least 10 percent of school days) that captures all students struggling with attendance and better enables comparisons across schools, student groups, and States.
  • Apply the chronic absenteeism indicator to all school types: elementary, middle, and high schools with K-12 grade configurations.
  • Ensure schools are looking at all student groups who are chronically absent to receive supports that are specifically tailored to meet those students’ needs (e.g., outreach in appropriate languages to families of chronically absent English learners).
  • Increase parental engagement and adopt early warning intervention systems and other evidence-based practices to increase attendance.
    
• Issuing new school improvement guidance focused on evidence-based practices to accelerate academic achievement. To further support States and schools, the Department will issue guidance on implementing ESEA’s school improvement requirements, focused on evidence-based approaches to drive student achievement like addressing chronic absenteeism, and providing high-dosage tutoring, and summer, and extended or afterschool learning. The Department is asking educators, researchers, policymakers, community-based organizations, and others to share evidence-based strategies and resources by submitting them to the Department’s Best Practices Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse already includes examples of effective approaches to improving student achievement that States, districts, and schools can adopt. The Department will also seek public comment on the school improvement guidance before finalizing.
  
• Providing technical assistance to States on academic achievement through the Department’s Comprehensive Centers, Regional Education Labs, and other partners. While ESEA focuses on schools with the greatest challenges, all schools have areas for improvement. The Department will use all the tools at its disposal to support school improvement; for example, by working with States to pair schools and districts with faster rates of recovery with schools and districts struggling more as part of a professional learning community.

1. Enabling States to Continue Spending Pandemic Relief Funds on Academic Achievement into the 2024-25 School Year and Directing Resources to Support Stronger Outcomes. The Department has issued a letter, Frequently Asked Questions, and template to support States and provide a critical pathway to continue to use ARP dollars in the 2024-2025 school year on academic supports like high-dosage tutoring. Additionally, the Department is:

• Advising States to use other Federal funding, including Title I and Title IV funding under ESEA, to support tutoring, afterschool and summer programs, and activities to increase student attendance – including through valuable programs like 21st Century Community Learning Centers; and
  
• Fully enforcing the maintenance of effort and maintenance of equity provisions in ARP to ensure that States and districts maintain their own levels of education spending, including in schools and districts with high rates of poverty. To date, under the Department’s robust implementation of these provisions, 43 States increased education spending, post-pandemic compared to pre-pandemic, and 47 States safeguarded funding in high-poverty communities and drove approximately $600 million to high-needs schools.

1. Using Grant Programs to Support the Student Achievement Agenda. Pending appropriations, the Department plans to run several competitions in 2024 that support academic achievement through priorities for evidence-based instructional approaches and supports to increase student attendance, engagement, and academic achievement. Across several grant programs, funds may be used to support academic success strategies including high-dosage tutoring; extended, afterschool and summer learning time; ongoing support for educators, such as math and literacy coaching; increased access to rigorous coursework and content across K–12; identifying student and family needs and the community resources and partnerships available to meet those needs; strategies to reengage and support students who have become disengaged from learning; and other evidence-based strategies. While notices inviting applications are still under development, and while appropriations for 2024 are not yet settled, grants such as the Education Innovation and Research program, the Comprehensive Literacy State Development program, and the Comprehensive Centers program could provide hundreds of millions of dollars to further support academic achievement efforts in the years ahead.
   
2. Releasing an Additional Academic Success Resource. To support these action items and state and district planning, today the Department is releasing this resource to support further implementation of academic achievement strategies including evidence for these strategies, components necessary for effective implementation, specific next steps that State and district leaders can take, and examples of States and districts already doing this work.
   
3. Building on the National Partnership for Student Success (NPSS), including calling on colleges and universities to use at least 15% of their federal work study funds for college students employed in NPSS roles. The Administration’s NPSS initiative has expanded collaboration and helped get additional caring adults in student support roles. Last year alone, an additional 187,000 people provided tutoring, mentoring, and other supports in public schools compared to the previous school year, according to estimates by the Everyone Graduates Center at Johns Hopkins University. The Administration is encouraging States, universities, and colleges to start their own initiatives or scale up existing efforts. Colleges and universities should set a goal to use at least 15 percent of their federal work study funds to compensate college students employed in NPSS roles. College students can work in schools and directly with students to provide critical supports while also learning more about education as a future profession. For schools and districts looking for more people-powered supports, the NPSS Support Hub based at the Johns Hopkins Everyone Graduates Center released today this list of key resources to help accelerate learning, reduce chronic absenteeism, and improve student well-being and mental health.

Today, several philanthropic and national organizations are announcing commitments to support academic achievement. The Administration will continue to work with these kinds of organizations to further build on these commitments. Read about the commitments from the organizations below here:

• Afterschool Alliance
• Attendance Works
• AT&T
• Boys & Girls Clubs of America
• Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
• National PTA  
• National Summer Learning Association
• Overdeck Family Foundation
• Parent Teacher Home Visits
• Wallace Foundation
• YMCA
• Zearn

This agenda builds on the actions of the Administration to promote school success. The Administration has made historic investments to reopen schools and help students gain ground since the pandemic. These investments include:

• Securing $130 billion for the largest-ever investment in public education in history through direct State and district funding in the American Rescue Plan. COVID-19 created unprecedented challenges for kids. To support the immediate response and the long-term recovery work our students need, the President secured $130 billion through the American Rescue Plan to help schools safely reopen, stay open, and address the academic and mental health needs of students. American Rescue Plan funding has put more teachers in our classrooms and more counselors, social workers, and other staff in our schools; is providing high-dosage tutoring; supporting record expansion of summer and after-school programming; supporting HVAC improvements within school buildings to address air quality and environmental and safety needs in aging school buildings; and providing a wide range of student supports.
  
• Increased funding and targeting of federal grants to better support academic recovery including:
  
  • $90 million in new awards in 2023 to strengthen math, literacy, and science instruction through the Education Innovation and Research program;
  • An additional $120 million in Full-Service Community Schools grants since coming into office to improve students’ mental health and well-being and their academic success;
  • $48 million in 2023 in new funding for evidence-based literacy interventions through the Comprehensive Literacy State Development grants and Innovative Approaches to Literacy grants;
  • More than $1 billion each year in funding for extended-day programming and enriching afterschool programming through 21st Century Community Learning Centers; and
  • More than $2 billion in funding for school-based mental health professionals and services, including through the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.
  • $18.4 billion for Title I, $1.9 billion more than when the Administration took office, to help schools in low-income communities provide their students with the academic opportunities and support they need to succeed. 
  • $14.2 billion for IDEA State Grants, $1.3 billion more than when the Administration took office, to provide special education services to over 7 million students with disabilities and support their academic success.
    
• Through the Engage Every Student Initiative, nearly 500 entities (including State networks, school districts, cities, and community-based organizations) have committed to expanding access to afterschool and summer learning programs for all students and we encourage other entities to build on these commitments.

[1] The White House does not endorse any nonfederal entity, product, service, or publication. Links to websites and resources outside the U.S. Federal Government are being provided as a convenience and for informational purposes only; they do not constitute an endorsement or an approval by the White House of any of the products, services or opinions of the corporation or organization or individual. The White House bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external site or for that of subsequent links. Contact the external site for answers to questions regarding its content.

###

The post FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Improving Student Achievement Agenda in 2024 appeared first on The White House.

Over the past months, Yemen-based Houthi militants have engaged in unprecedented attacks against United States military forces and international maritime vessels operating in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. These attacks fit the textbook definition of terrorism.  They have endangered U.S. personnel, civilian mariners, and our partners, jeopardized global trade, and threatened freedom of navigation. The United States and the international community have been united in our response and in condemning these attacks in the strongest terms.
 
Today, in response to these continuing threats and attacks, the United States announced the designation of Ansarallah, also known as the Houthis, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist.  This designation is an important tool to impede terrorist funding to the Houthis, further restrict their access to financial markets, and hold them accountable for their actions.  If the Houthis cease their attacks in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, the United States will immediately reevaluate this designation.
 
The designation will take effect 30 days from now, to allow us to ensure robust humanitarian carve outs are in place so our action targets the Houthis and not the people of Yemen. We are rolling out unprecedented carve outs and licenses to help prevent adverse impacts on the Yemeni people.  The people of Yemen should not pay the price for the actions of the Houthis.   We are sending a clear message: commercial shipments into Yemeni ports on which the Yemeni people rely for food, medicine and fuel should continue and are not covered by our sanctions.  This is in addition to the carveouts we include in all sanctions programs for food, medicine, and humanitarian assistance.
 
As President Biden has said, the United States will not hesitate to take further actions to protect our people and the free flow of international commerce.

###

The post Statement from National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on the Terrorist Designation of the Houthis appeared first on The White House.

When companies sneak hidden junk fees into families’ bills, it can take hundreds of dollars a month out of their pockets and make it harder to make ends meet. That might not matter to the wealthy, but it’s real money to hardworking families—and it’s just plain wrong. This is about the companies that rip off hardworking Americans simply because they can.
 
That’s why today, my Administration took new actions to tackle these hidden fees by proposing a rule that would end excessive overdraft fees. For too long, some banks have charged exorbitant overdraft fees—sometimes $30 or more—that often hit the most vulnerable Americans the hardest, all while banks pad their bottom lines. Banks call it a service—I call it exploitation. Today’s proposal would cut the average overdraft fee by more than half, saving the typical American family that pays these fees $150 a year. That would add up to save families $3.5 billion every year. Unfortunately, some Republicans in Congress continue to defend these exploitative fees.
 
This is just one part of my Administration’s broader plan to lower costs for hardworking families. We’re going to continue doing everything in our power to bring down costs and grow our economy from the middle out and bottom up, while standing up to extreme Republican attempts to provide more giveaways to the wealthy and big corporations and undermine competition.
 

###

The post Statement from President Joe Biden on the CFPB’s Proposed Rule to Curb Overdraft Fees appeared first on The White House.

West Valley City, UT

First Lady Cox – from the day we met, we’ve had a connection – the kind that you can only have with another teacher. Thank you for your tireless work – Abby, you “show up” and make sure that students and educators have what they need to thrive. And how wonderful to be able to spend time with you and Emma Kate. Joe and I are excited to continue working with you and Governor Cox at the National Governors Association Winter Meeting.

Dr. Murthy, I’m grateful for your leadership and commitment to making sure everyone has the mental health support they need. Joe knew you would have both the expertise and the heart for the job of Surgeon General, and it’s amazing to see what you’ve done.

Thank you, Principal Oaks and Mrs. Jordan for your dedication to the students here at Hunter High.

As First Lady, I get to speak with many groups across the country, but visiting schools and talking to students, and the teachers, nurses, cafeteria workers, custodians, and administrators – all who make schools run – are some of my favorite visits.

Thank you for your warm welcome.

Do you remember that moment? When you first decided to become an educator?

For me, it was almost 40 years ago. I thought about just how much books had shaped me – how I loved escaping into them or learning something new. And it broke my heart that there were people who didn’t know that joy – who couldn’t read.

I realized that it was a gift I could give to someone. That I could teach someone else to read.

And I bet that you have a similar story – a moment when you realized that you wanted to be the person to open up the world for someone else, to give the smile that helps that student find the confidence she didn’t know was inside her, to be the one who says, “It’s OK, we’ll figure it out together.”

There is something profoundly optimistic about education.

To answer this call of service is, in itself, an act of hope.

But I know that, sometimes, it feels like the weight that teachers like you across the country have to carry is too much for one person to take on alone. Pay that doesn’t match your value. Work that doesn’t end when the afternoon bell rings.

Students who seem to be struggling with more than a teacher can solve.

Today, First Lady Cox and I are here to tell you that you aren’t alone. We understand, and we are working to honor this profession and give you the support you deserve – because there is no greater calling than educating the future.

President Biden has delivered on his promises to you: from addressing the mental health and academic needs of our students, to passing a bipartisan gun safety law, to loan forgiveness for public servants, including educators.

But he can’t do it alone. And here in Utah, he doesn’t have to. Thanks to the work of your Governor and First Lady, Utah has taken a big step toward paying teachers what they deserve.

Joe and I are grateful for partners like your Governor and First Lady. Because supporting educators doesn’t have to be a red or a blue issue, it’s an American one.

We’re all here because we heard the same calling – and we answered it.

We answered it because we’re learners – collecting all the wisdom, and art, and insight humanity has to offer.

We’re sculptors – able to see the beauty hidden beneath the surface and help bring it out.

We’re optimists – believing that the students we teach can help make our world a better place.

Teaching isn’t just what we do; it’s who we are.

President Biden and I are grateful for the incredible work you do.

Never underestimate your power – or your worth.

Right now, someone out there is a better thinker because of you. Someone is working a little harder because you pushed him to try. Someone is braver because you helped her find her courage.

Thank you.

Now, we’re excited to come meet all of you.

###

The post Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by First Lady Jill Biden at an Event to Celebrate Educators and Highlight the Importance of Educator Wellness appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

1:42 P.M. EST

OPERATOR: Please note at this time all audience members are in “listen only” mode to minimize background noise. There will be Q&A during this call. If you would like to ask a question, please press “#2” on your telephone keypad to be placed in the question queue.

I would now like to formally begin today’s call and introduce Karine Johnson [Jean-Pierre], the White House Press Secretary. Please go ahead.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: My name is Karine Jean-Pierre, but thank you so much for the intro.

I just want to say one thing at the top really quickly is just to thank the team here for putting this — my team here for putting this together. As you all know, it gets — technology can be a little glitchy, so I appreciate the team for turning this around.

And with that, I just also want to say please be patient with us. We are going to try to make this — the White House press briefing as — as smooth as possible. So, really appreciate all of your patience.

I have a couple of updates on the President’s week ahead. So, tomorrow, the President — President Biden will host congressional leaders from the Senate and the House, along with key committee leaders and ranking members at the White House to discuss the critical importance of his national security supplemental request. So, we’ll — we will certainly have more to say about that meeting tomorrow. So, please stay tuned.

And this Thursday, the President will travel to Raleigh-Durham area of North Carolina, known as the “Research Triangle,” to discuss how his Bidenomics and Investing in America agenda are repairing and rebuilding infrastructure, lowering costs for families, supporting a small-business boom, and creating good-paying jobs.

Under the Biden administration, companies have announced $31 billion in private-sector clean energy and manufacturing investments in North Carolina alone.

And in North Carolina, President Biden’s Investing in America agenda has so far helped more than 4,300 childcare programs continue operating during the pandemic to provide critical childcare for over 380,000 children, helped more than 2,500 restaurants weather the pandemic and keep employees on the payroll, helped 880,000 households across the state save money on Internet bills, and provided 2.1 million Medicare beneficiaries with access to prescription drug cost savings.

On Thursday, the President will talk about how we continue to build on this and delivering for families, workers, and businesses across North Carolina.

And with that, I will turn it over to my NSC colleague, Admiral John Kirby, who will discuss the latest in the Middle East.

Admiral, the floor is yours.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Karine. Lots to go over here since the last time we all talked.

I just wanted — a couple of things — first, on the schedule — to talk to you: The President spoke today with Chancellor Scholz of Germany as part of our close coordination, of course, with Germany on a range of important issues. And that includes, of course, supporting Ukraine and the importance of that support ongoing.

Now, you may know that Jake Sullivan, our National Security Advisor, is in Davos today. He delivered a public address, and he’s had the chance to meet with some foreign leaders.

Both he and Secretary Blinken met together with President Zelenskyy again to keep talking about the importance of continued global assistance for Ukraine.

But individually, Jake had a chance to meet with the Prime Minister of Qatar about our urgent efforts to release the remaining hostages that Hamas is holding, as well as meeting separately with the Prime Minister of Iraq and the Prime Minister of Iraq’s Kurdistan region. We’ll, of course, have more readouts available on those meetings shortly.

On the Middle East specifically, as you know, we’re now over 100 days since those terrorist attacks on the 7th of October. And over the weekend, the President wrote — spoke to this, including a heartfelt statement on the grief and suffering that the families of those hostages have now felt every single day since the 7th of October.

And we have not stopped our efforts to try to bring them home. In fact, Brett McGurk was in Doha this [last] week, focused specifically on the hostage situation and on trying to move forward new proposals to bring them home. This will remain a top priority for us.

Meanwhile, this weekend, Hamas released videos of three hostages, including one young woman who was supposed to be released in the original deal, but, at the last minute, Hamas refused to do so, saying that it would hold young women hostage in direct violation of the deal that they had negotiated. And then, they later released a video showing the remains of two other hostages as a reminder of their cruelty and barbarism.

Now, on the military front, I would just like to point — point you, if you haven’t seen it, to important statements from Israeli’s Defense Minister yesterday that Israel will now shift to a low — or, I’m sorry, has now shifted to a low-intensity phase in North Gaza, and it will soon do so in southern Gaza as well.

They announced the withdrawal of a division — an army division from Gaza as part of the shift to lower-intensity ops. And as they undergo this transition, we are preparing to increase the humanitarian assistance in to those people who need it, as well as to help set the conditions for the population to return to North Gaza, where the U.N. hopes to be able to conduct assessment missions over the coming week.

So, we’re making these preparations because we believe that these lower-intensity operations inside Gaza should be able to not only allow for a reduction in civilian casualties but a more reliable distribution of aid over the coming period.

As a matter of fact, our envoy, David Satterfield, and our ambassador, Jack Lew, are meeting today with Israeli senior leadership and senior military commanders at their Southern Command to discuss all these issues.

And then, just lastly, again, on the humanitarian crisis. The images coming out of Gaza continue to be heartbreaking and painful. As the President has said, every innocent life lost is one too many. We don’t want to see any more civilian casualties.

Now, Israel, of course, has a right to defend itself. But Hamas also continues to be an active threat to Israel, and its leaders have vowed to repeat the attacks of the 7th of October again and again and again. Just yesterday, Hamas took credit for the brutal murder of an Israeli grandmother who was stabbed to death in her car.

But again, we’ve encouraged Israel, particularly now as it shifts to this new phase, to do so, in terms of their operations, as surgically and as precisely as possible to minimize those casualties.

And we’re also, at the same time, focused on increasing the flow of trucks into Gaza.

I’ll end with this. And that’s that, just today, we were able to get 228 trucks into Gaza over those two crossings. Again, not enough. But we’re trying to keep the level at above 200, if we can.

Now, a big hindrance to that, of course, is the — is the fighting itself, which is why the Israel Defense Minister’s comments about switching to lower-intensity operations could — could have a dramatic effect on our ability to do that.

And, with that, I’ll turn it back over.

AIDE: Host, I think we’re ready to go to questions.

OPERATOR: All right. As a reminder, if you would like to ask a question, please press “#2” on your phone to be placed in the question queue. You will share your notification when your line is unmuted. Please then state your name and question. If your question is answered before your turn, pressing the “#2” a second time will take you out of the queue.

Moving on to our first question.

Caller, please go ahead.

Q Hey, guys. It’s — it’s Justin from Bloomberg. I had one for Karine and — and one for Kirby.

Karine, on the meeting tomorrow, is that a signal that — that the President has and negotiators have gotten close on a deal for Ukraine aid and immigration changes? Or is this, kind of, a chance to them — for them to work out final details? Or are we just not there yet at all?

And then, Kirby, I was wondering if you could talk about, kind of, the state of the situation with the Houthis. Obviously, we saw more attacks in the last couple of days and a response today by the U.S. Is this a signal that the first round of — of strikes by the U.S. and the UK didn’t achieve their desired effects? Are you looking at all at, kind of, expanding our effort to a new target set using special forces at all — any sort of expansion? Or do you still, kind of, see this as headed in the direction that you’d hoped for?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, Kirby, you want to take that question — your question?

MR. KIRBY: Yes, sure. I just wanted to defer to you since the first one was to you, but I’m happy to do that.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, I appreciate it. And, Justin, I’ll — we’re just going to let Kirby go. And then I’ll — certainly will — I’ll answer that question once Kirby is done with the Middle East pieces. Thanks.

Q Sure.

MR. KIRBY: Okay. So, look, Justin, you’re right. We — we have seen some additional lower- — lower-scale retaliatory strikes by the Houthis in the last few days — much smaller than
— than what we had seen before and none of them effective.

And I will tell you, you know, we fully anticipated, when we launched the — that salvo on Friday night, that — that the Houthis would probably conduct some retaliatory strikes.

So, I — I think it’s — it’s too soon to call this some sort of a trend that would lead us to believe that we didn’t have the — a good effect with those strikes. We believe that we did have a good effect with those strikes in terms of disrupting and degrading their capability to conduct military offensive operations.

As for what the next turn is here, I simp- — I won’t get ahead of potential military operations one way or the other.

As you saw today, we took additional strikes knocking out four ballistic missiles that we believe were prepped and ready to be launched from Yemen, took them out before they could do that. So, we have said before, we’ll say it again: We stand ready to defend our interests, our sailors, our ships, and that of merchant shipping as required.

We’re not looking for a war. We’re not looking to expand this. The Houthis have a choice to make, and they still have time to make the right choice, which is to stop these reckless attacks.

AIDE: Host, we’re going to go to the next question. We’ll come back around to questions for Karine after Kirby’s portion.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next caller in queue. Steve Holland with Reuters, please go ahead.

Q Hey, John. You mentioned the — Brett McGurk in Doha on hostages. What — could you give us any details on that? Is he seeking a pause in the fighting in exchange for hostages? How close are they to a deal? What — what’s going to happen?

And you mentioned that the Israelis have shifted to a low phase in Northern Gaza. What are the prospects for that taking place across all of Gaza?

MR. KIRBY: Thanks, Steve. So, on the — a new hostage deal, what I can tell you is that we’re working on this very, very diligently. That is why Brett was in Doha this past week.

I don’t want to get ahead of where we are. But we are having, I would say, very seri- — serious and intensive discussions in Qatar about the possibility for another deal.

Obviously, I want to be careful I don’t say too much publicly here as we have these — these talks. But we’re hopeful that it can bear fruit and bear fruit soon, because there’s still, you know, over 100 — about 140 hostages still being held.

As for the — the — yo- — your question about whether their shift to lower-intensity operations can — you know, how fast that will spread across Gaza, that’s really not a question I’m qualified to answer. The Israeli Defense Forces are — are much better to speak to that.

They just announced yesterday, as I said in my opening statement, the removal of a division — a full — a full division of army troops from — from Gaza. We think that’s a positive step forward, in terms of getting to lower-intensity ops. We hope that it will allow for the movement back into North Gaza, because, really, the bulk of the — of the operations are being conducted in the — in the south right now.

So, we hope that this removal of these troops and this announced transition that they’ve made, that it will allow for people to flow back into North Gaza, alleviate some of that pressure in the south, particularly around Khan Younis. And we’ll see where it goes from there. But again, I — I wouldn’t want to get ahead of Israeli military planning.

Q Thanks, John.

MR. KIRBY: Yes, sir.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue. Weijia Jiang with CBS, please go ahead.

Q Hi, there. Thank you, guys, for doing this. And thank you, Kirby. I have a question about the continued attacks in the Red Sea. So, you said today that you’ve seen that they are smaller in scale. Today, obviously, the strike on the Maltese carrier did not result in any injuries.

Can you verify how many injuries have been reported in these now 30-some attacks on commercial vessels? And if it’s none, can you help me understand, if these are missiles, why, how there haven’t been more injuries? I imagine the crew sizes are small. But when I hear “missile strikes,” I expect there to be more injuries. So, if you could just help me process that.

MR. KIRBY: Weijia, what I’ll do is I’ll take your question and see if we can get a better answer, maybe from Central Command. I don’t have a list of casualties from these merchant ships. That’s not the kind of thing — I don’t think we’re centrally tracking that. But don’t take that to the bank.
Let me talk to CENTCOM and see if they’ve got some sort of figures for you.

You’re right. I mean, I — I would — a couple of things here. Number one, most of these missile attacks and drone attacks have been ineffective. You’re right. There was a hit today, but no injuries caused. No real significant damage to the ship, by the way.

Most of the attacks are — are knocked out of the sky before they can get to — to the targets. And a good many of these missile and drone attacks have simply missed. Particularly, the ballistic missiles have just fallen harmlessly into the water without hitting a ship. So, that’s one reason why I think that the numbers haven’t been dramatic.

Number two, you named it. I think you’re — you know, it’s a — it’s a fair point. I mean, a lot of merchant ships today don’t have large crews. It’s not like a Navy ship where you — you know, you’d have hundreds of sailors aboard a destroyer or thousands aboard an aircraft carrier. These large merchant ships, there’s a lot of automation, and they simply don’t have big crews. That’s probably one reason as well.

And then they’re also — they’re very big ships. And so, even if one were to take a hit, like the one today, depending on where it is struck may have little to no impact or certainly a — not a significant impact on that ship’s ability to continue to — to transit safely.

So, again, they’re — they’re very big ships. A lot of their freeboard — what we call the — the space between the water level and the top of the side of the ship, that’s called freeboard — can be very, very high, depending on what — how much freight they’re holding.

So, there’s probably a lot of reasons for that. But let me — let me take it back and see if we can give you a better figure on the — on the data.

Q Okay. So, given what you just said, Kirby, and given the fears of escalation that the conflict will expand, can you explain why the retaliatory strikes are still worth it?

MR. KIRBY: Our retaliatory strikes or theirs?

Q The U.S.’s and our allies’. Essentially, if it’s —

MR. KIRBY: Because —

Q — if their strikes aren’t really having that much of an impact and they’re not causing injuries and there is a concern that, you know, retaliatory strikes will widen the war, just, you know, why is it still —

MR. KIRBY: Because —

Q — worth it?

MR. KIRBY: Because we believe by taking away some of their capability, degrading that capability, which we think we did on Friday, can have an impact on — on the effectiveness of future strikes. By taking away — degrading some of their capability, certainly makes it harder for them to conduct these strikes.

And just because there hasn’t been a catastrophically successful one yet, thanks to a lot of great work by the U.S. Navy and — and allied and partner navies, doesn’t mean that — that we can just turn a blind eye and sit back and — and do nothing. We want these attacks to stop.

We warned the Houthis not to conduct them. They continued to conduct them. So, we took action on Friday night to — to — to more significantly degrade their capability to do that.

And as we’ve said before, Weijia, we — we — while we won’t telegra- — telegraph future punches, we’re — we’re not going to — we’re not going to hesitate to take further action if — if needed.

Q Thank you.

MR. KIRBY: Yes, ma’am.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue. Zeke Miller with AP, please go ahead.

Q Thanks for doing this. On Friday, the President said that he believed the Houthis were a terrorist organization. And I was wondering, John, can you give us an update on the — if there will be an FTO redesignation.

And then, separately, do you have anything on these reported Iranian strikes inside Pakistan? Does the U.S. believe that — that those increases the risk for a broader regional escalation? Thank you.

MR. KIRBY: Zeke, nothing to update you on the FTO designation. As I said earlier, we’re still reviewing that process — or we’re still in the process of reviewing it, no decisions made. So, no updates for you.

Are you — I’m not aware of Iranian strikes into Pakistan. Are you — are you talking about their strikes in the — in and near Erbil in Iraq?

Q Sorry. Yeah. It’s — there’s a report that Iran says that it launched attacks today into mili- — what it calls militant bases in Pakistan. I’m going to skip the pronunciation on it. It’s Jaish al-Adl that — it follows the attacks, obviously, in — in Iraq and Syria.

MR. KIRBY: Okay. Gotcha. Let me get back to you on that one, Zeke. I was not tracking strikes into Pakistan today. But we’ll — we owe you an answer. We’ll get back to you.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue. Anita Powell with Voice of America, please go ahead.

Q Thank you so much, John. I hope you’re keeping warm today. I have two Red Sea questions.

First of all, on this deal between Ethiopia and the breakaway Somali province of Somaliland. Does the White House see this as a threat to U.S. national security, especially in light of recent troubles in the Red Sea? And what can or will Washington do to calm the situation?

And then just going back to something you said about the Houthis, how we’re not looking to expand this conflict. How do you square that with the mission of degrading their capabilities? I mean, how is that not expanding this conflict?

MR. KIRBY: Well, on — on the second question, I mean, by — by — it’s — it’s a very simple equation: By — by removing military capability from the Houthis, we are making it harder for them to conduct these attacks. These attacks have been escalatory. These attacks have been dangerous. These attacks have affected merchant shipping in the Red Sea, one of the most important international waterways around the world.

So, the very act of taking these strikes, knocking out their capability — in some cases before they could use it — that is, by definition, taking the tensions down. You’re taking — you’re taking the ability for them to conduct these attacks off the table.

And, again, we reserve the right to continue to do that as appropriate to prevent them from causing more mayhem and — and more danger to — to merchant ships and merchant sailors.

On Ethiopia and Somaliland, we’re certainly troubled now by what reportedly included in a memorandum of understanding between Ethiopia and Somaliland. As we’ve said many, many times we support Somali’s — Somalia’s sovereignty, their territorial integrity, and it’s got to be respected.

So, we’re engaging with partners in the region. We certainly welcome efforts by the African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, otherwise known as IGAD, to help lessen tens- — lessen the tensions.

What we’re particularly concerned about is that this MOU recently now inked between Ethiopia and Somaliland threatens to disrupt the fight that Somalis, Africans, and regional international partners, including us, are waging against al-Shabaab. And al-Shabaab remains a viable terrorist threat in the region, without question.

So, look, the — we don’t believe that the region can afford any more conflict. We don’t think this MOU is moving this in the right direction. And we’ll keep raising that, not only with partners there in the Horn of Africa but — but also elsewhere.

Q So, just to press you on. Is that a threat to U.S. national security, then, this — this possibility that Shabaab may — may rise?

MR. KIRBY: It certainly — it certainly could directly impact national security interests in the region, without question, because we — we hold al-Shabaab as a continued foreign terrorist organization, continued dangerous threat to our interests and the interests of our partners.

So, there — there could be a U.S. national security threat posed by the language in this MOU, which is why we’re deeply concerned about it.

Q Thank you.

MR. KIRBY: Yep.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in the queue. Aurelia End with AFP, please go ahead.

Q Hi. Thanks so much for taking my question. I have two questions about Ukraine. The first one is a pretty simple one. Can you say that, as of now, there is no U.S. assistance anymore going to Ukraine, that it’s de facto over? And second question: Can you give us a sense of the conversation Jake Sullivan had with President Zelenskyy in Davos? What were the concerns he raised, what was the message, et cetera? Thank you so much.

MR. KIRBY: On your first question, our last security assistance package was authorized on the 27th of December. Now, I would have to refer you to the Pentagon to talk to you about each of the items in that package and — and where they are in the shipment process. I don’t know if every single thing in that package has actually arrived in Ukraine.

As you know, sometimes it takes as little as a few days. Sometimes it takes a couple of weeks or more for — for material to get to Ukraine.

But that was the last one. There isn’t another one in the works right now or being scheduled for announcement or delivery. We meant it when we said it at the time, that that was the last one for which we had replenishment authority. And there’s — there’s not another one in the — in the — in the works right now.

And that is why it’s so, so important for us to get this national security supplemental funding for Ukraine so that we can keep that aid going, as it’s clear that the Russians continue to want to strike civilian infrastructure and continue to carry on the war inside Ukraine.

I — I don’t have anything more on the specific discussion with President Zelenskyy. I think the State Department put out a readout of that discussion since it was Secretary Blinken who — who had that meeting with President Zelenskyy. Jake was — was certainly in attendance.

But they did talk about the importance of, you know, continuing the global assistance to support Ukraine and, of course, the — the — they also talked about what’s going on on the battlefield, how Zelenskyy sees the — the effort.

And, as you know, he was also in Davos — Zelenskyy — talking about this peace formula of his. So, that — that too came up, the idea of — of trying to help operationalize and internationalize the — the peace formula that President Zelenskyy put forward.

But, again, I’d point you to the State Department readout for more.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue. Selina Wang with ABC News, please go ahead.

Q Thank you, Admiral. Just going back to the question on the strikes. Has the battle damage assessment of the first airstrikes been completed when it comes to the strikes last week against the Houthis? Just how much has the U.S. degraded the military capabilities, and what does it say about the degradation given that the retaliatory attacks from the Houthis have continued? Does it show that it only made a small dent in capacity?

MR. KIRBY: I’d refer you to the Pentagon to speak to the battle damage assessment, Selina. They’re really the right ones to go to for that. And I don’t know the final status of that.

As I said earlier, even before we conducted these strikes, we had every expectation that the Houthis would still maintain some capability and would probably retaliate in some form or fashion. The — the strikes were designed to degrade and disrupt their military activity: their ability to store, launch, and to guide these missiles to their targets, as well as the drones that they have launched against these targets.

We believe that we had good effects. But the specifics of the BDA — battle damage assessment — is really something for the — the Pentagon to speak to. But at no time, even that night, did we say that all of the Houthis’ offensive capability were going to be eliminated by those strikes.

Again, the Houthis have a choice to make. We know they still have some capability. They have a choice to make about what they do with that capability. If they choose to keep conducting these attacks, we will continue to defend against them and counter them as appropriate, even as we did today, hitting four ballistic missiles on launchers before they could be sent — sent on — sent on their way.

Q Just to follow up on that. As the retaliation continues from the Houthis, just how far is the U.S. willing to go? And on a secondary topic, is there any update on the search for the U.S. Navy SEALs?

MR. KIRBY: Well, again, with the caveat that I’m not going to telegraph punches or speak about potential military operations, I would point you to that last sentence in the President’s statement Friday night. We will not hesitate to take further actions to defend ourselves, our interests, those of our allies and partners, certainly not our ships and our sailors. So, as we’ve proven again today, we will not hesitate to take action as appropriate.

Again, the Houthis have a choice here to make, and the right choice is to stop these attacks.

I don’t have an update for you on the — the search efforts for those — those two Navy sailors that are in the water. As I understand it this morning — and I did check in with the Pentagon on this — that search is ongoing. But what that looks like, how much longer, I — I — really, that’s a question better put to the — to the Defense Department.

Our thoughts and prayers are with those two sailors and their families, who are waiting anxiously for word. And obviously, we’ll — we’ll monitor as closely as we can.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our last question.
M.J. Lee with CNN, please go ahead.

Q Hey, Admiral. Thank you. Just given that Hamas has released these new hostage videos, which you referenced before, and the IDF is continuing to attempt hostage rescue operations, I wondered whether the U.S. has received any new intelligence on the six American hostages in recent days and, at this point, whether the U.S. believes that they are alive.

MR. KIRBY: Thanks, M.J. I — I don’t know of any additional tactile information that we have received about those six Americans that we still believe are being held hostage. We’re obviously working and continue to work very hard to get them released. But I’m not aware of any additional information that we have. And — and I think you can understand that — that even if I — I did have additional context to provide, we’d o- — we’d obviously be very careful about what we shared publicly as we’re trying to get those folks home to their families.

I — I just — your — your question does give me a good punctuation point before I sign off today, and that’s that, just as I mentioned at the top, with Brett being in the region just last week in Doha, we continue to work this very, very hard.

I — I know it doesn’t always rise to the — to the level of the headlines of the day. And — and we don’t talk about it a lot, nor should we. But I don’t want to leave anybody with the impression that we aren’t working this very, very hard to try to get those folks home with their family — all of them — all the hostages, but with a particular key focus for us on those — on those half a dozen Americans that we believe are still being held.

Thanks.

Q Sorry, before you go, can I just ask one more follow-up? I know you’ve gotten a couple of questions about the situation in the Red Sea, but I wondered whether the administration, at this point, would still, sort of, characterize the phase that we are in now as the administration wanting to contain the conflict in the region. Or rather, would you say that the conflict in the region has now officially widened? I mean, given that there — there have now been additional U.S. strikes, additional Houthi attacks, so this does seem like now a prolonged conflict.

MR. KIRBY: Well, the — let’s — let’s — I mean, I think it’s important to — to categorize what’s happening here.

First of all, the strike that we took Friday, no matter what the Houthis might say, has nothing to do with the fight in Gaza. It has to do with defending shipping in the Red Sea, no matter what the Houthis say. They’re not going after ships that are tied to Israel. You know, they hit — just the other day, they hit a ship carrying Russian oil. It was Panamanian flag, nothing to do with Israel.

So, I — I don’t — I think we need to not buy into the Houthi propaganda. That’s one.

We still have an interest in not seeing this conflict widen or escalate. In fact, that’s why we took those strikes on Friday to degrade Houthi capability so that it — so that it can’t widen and escalate. We still have that interest. We’re still working to that end, even as we work to continue to make sure Israel has what it needs to defend itself.

OPERATOR: All right. I would like to hand this back over to Karine. But before I do, if you would like to ask a question, please press “#2” to be placed in the question queue. If your question is answered before your turn, pressing “#2” a second time will take you out of the queue.

Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Fantastic. Thank you so much. And, Admiral, thank you for your time. Appreciate you being on the call with us today.

And also, guys, I — I know this is not the best, but we wanted to make sure folks didn’t have to come in today with this weather. And hopefully, folks are — are safe at home — or, wherever you are, being safe today with this weather.

I do want to start off by going to Justin’s question that he asked of me — and I just wanted to make sure I did that — as it relates to the meeting that the President is having tomorrow here at the White House with congressional ranking members and leaders to talk about the very important supplemental request that this president made, as you know, a couple — couple months ago, at this point.

Look, that supplemental request is obviously — continues to be a top priority, including — right? — to secure our border, including to — to help Ukraine defend itself against Putin’s ty- — tyranny, as we all know, as we — you all have covered for almost two years now.

And I will say that while the President is having this really important meeting tomorrow, negotiations on a bipartisan agreement on the border — as it includes funding and policy — are still ongoing. So, that is — we believe is headed in the right direction, the right track. And so — and we’re going to continue to say — right? — Congress should act. They should act quickly. You know, this is about securing our border. This is about our national security. And the consequences of congressional inaction would be severe.

So, the President, yes, is going to have this all-important conversation, he believes, on the supplemental requests.

Obviously, as it relates to our national security, the negotiations continue. And so, that is also really important. A bipartisan agreement is needed, and — and so, we’re doing those negotiation on the Senate level, as you — as you all know.

I think I’m just going to go to AP.

I don’t know if that’s Zeke or somebody else.

Q Thanks, Karine. It’s Zeke. I was hoping — you just called the meeting tomorrow an “all-important meeting.” (Inaudible) to why tomorrow? You know, obv- — you know, it’s January 16th. Why hasn’t the President asked the congressional leaders and the community leaders over to the White House sooner?

Secondly, is the meeting focused on negotiations — to piggyback off of Justin’s question — or is it about the stakes should this funding not be approved? You know, will it be a classified meeting or will it be, you know, in the Sit Room or will it be in the Oval? Any color you can offer.

And then on a different topic —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.

Q — entirely, I was hoping you could address the situation in Texas over the weekend. And that — right now, do you do you believe — or does the federal government control the southern border or does the state of Texas?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Both very, very good questions. Look, to — as it relates to what the meeting is going to look like, where it’s going to be, we’re going to have more information about the meeting tomorrow later today. So, just stay tuned. Don’t have the specifics on that.

And, look, as I said at the top, this is going to be about discussing criti- — critical importance of — of the President’s national security supplemental request, and so it is going to be about the supplemental request.

And I’ll just say this. Look, I’ve said a couple of times at the briefing room and to all of you how the President’s team, obviously the Office of Leg Affairs, and other members of his White House team have been in direct contact and communi- — regular communications with members of Congress and their staff.

And the President has had conversations with congressional members. As you know, we don’t read out every — every call or every meeting that he has. He’s had a very longstanding relationship with many members on the Hill as VP, as senator, obviously.

So, yeah, there’s — he’s had conversations with them. I think he wanted to bring folks together because — yeah, we talk about the supplemental. They’re urgency requests — the national security requests are urgent. And so, the President wanted to bring everybody together to have that conversation.

But negotiations are still happening. The border security negotiations are still happening. And the President certainly has entrusted his team to have those conversations, as he’s done many, many times before. So, we’ll certainly have more to share about tomorrow, about what that’s going to look like.

Look, as it relates to — to Texas, let me just say a couple of things at the top, because I think it’s important. And you all have heard me say this about what Governor Abbott continues to do. All of his — you know, what he’s doing at the border, his policies, how he’s getting involved, it’s extreme — right? — it’s extreme political stunts.

And I’ve said this over and over again, we have said this: It demonizes and dehumanizes people, and — but it also makes the job of the Border Patrol harder. And it also is — it’s more dangerous. That’s what we’re seeing.

And there’s been multiple actions that this governor has taken, right? Blocking Border Patrol from accessing the border, that’s a problem. When he’s — when he’s ac- — when he’s blocking them and putting Texas officials, then he’s taking away the duties of what the Border Patrol are supposed to do.

And so, it is a problem. Leaving migrants on the side of the road during winter — you’ve heard me say that; installing razor wire to make Border Patrol’s job more dangerous; promoting extreme and unconstitutional laws, like SB4.

So, he could — he continues to prove that he’s not interested — he’s not really interested in solutions, only seeking to politicize the border.

So, you know, to answer your question, Zeke, look, right now, Texas — the Texas officials are preventing Border Patrol agents from doing their job in that particular area by the border. So, that is a problem. That is a problem.

Just waiting for the next question then.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue. Steve Holland with Reuters, please go ahead.

Q Hey there, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, Steve. Hey, hey.

Q The President — the — hey, hey. The President told us on the South Lawn on Friday that he was in favor of significant alterations on the border. Could you fill out that out? What is he talking about there? And — and are they going to get into this level of detail in their talks tomorrow?

And then I just had a second thing. Did the President watch any of the Iowa coverage last night? Did he make any observations about it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: All right. So, a couple of things. I’ll start with your first question first. Look, you know, the President has — had said and we’ve been saying that we need a bipartisan agreement. Right? We need a bipartisan agreement to deal with what’s happening at the border.

There’s been detailed, specific conversation happening in the Senate with both Republicans and Democrats for the past several weeks through the holiday, obviously, and that continues. We think they’re going in the right direction.

And those — those conversations are focused on funding and also on policy.

Yes, the President believes that we’re going to have — to really — in order to have a bipartisan agreement, you have to make, you know, changes. I’m not going to get into what those changes are, how severe or specific or however — however we what to — we want to describe it are at this time.

But those conversations are happening. We believe it’s going well. And we want to see a bipartisan agreement.

Look, we understand, the President understands that this — this — what we see at the border, the immigration system more broadly, has been broken for decades — for decades. That’s why he took it very seriously on day one with the legislation that he put forward.

Now we have to have serious conversations, which we have been, with both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to see what we can do to — to address this — the issue at the border.

And so, tomorrow, I’m — I’m not going to get ahead of — of the meeting. I don’t really know how specific it’s going to get. I can tell you the — on the agenda is to talk about the President’s supplemental — the national security portion, obviously, of the supplemental, and how important it is to get moving on that.

But, no, I’m not going to get into details or specifics of — of what — how — how granular they’re going to get at all in that meeting. But it is going to be important. And we’ll have more for all of you to share on that.

As it relates to the caucuses — the Iowa caucus, I want to be really careful, as all you know, is that I’m a federal employee — employee, obviously. So, I’m not going to comment on the upcoming election — 2024 election.

What I can say — I know folks had this question. You know, the President was here last night at the White House. As it relates to if he’s seen it or not, of course, I’m sure he’s — he’s seen the coverage of the Iowa caucus. I don’t have anything specific to share on that.

And I — I also want to lift this up too. Yesterday, you saw the President — some of you traveled with us. We were in Philly. We went to Philabundance.

And I think it’s important to — to lay out what’s — what’s important to this President. Right? He went to a not-for-profit food bank that serves the Philly — the Philadelphia and also the Delaware Valley regions of Pennsylvania — and the work that they do to drive hunger — to drive hunger from our community — right? — to get — to get that out. We’re talking about food insecurity today and to end — end hunger for — for good.

So, look, he distributed food. You all saw that. That was really important. That was his main focus for tomorrow — for today — pardon me — for yesterday.

And he’s going to continue to focus on the American people. That’s what he’s going to do. He’s going to continue to focus on others — to helping hardworking, middle-class families build an economy from the bottom up and — from the bottom up, middle out. That’s what he’s going to do: protecting Americans’ freedom; bringing the country together around, you know, optimism, vision for — for the future.

So, that’s going to be the President’s focus.

And I will go to the next questioner.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue. M.J. Lee with CNN, please go ahead.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, M.J.

Q Hey, Karine. Just on the Iowa caucuses last night. What, if anything — I know that you’re not going to get into details, but just, generally speaking, what, if anything, did the President make of the results that showed that the majority of caucus-goers said they don’t believe that his win in 2020 was legitimate? And if you can’t speak to the President’s reaction to that, can you speak to the reaction to that from, I mean, yourself or other White House officials?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, again — so, here’s — here’s what I’ll say, because we’ve talked about this before from the briefing room, so it’s not — this is something that deals with 2020, so I can — I can actually speak to this.

Look, you know, the President is going to continue to stand against conspiracy theories, right? And we know what — what you just laid out to me about how people feel has been debunked — right? — it has been debunked by federal judges, who are — who are Republican judges. Other — other officials have debunked that.

You know, we had a very fa- — free and fair election. That’s what we know. That is a fact. And, you know — and it’s important to state that. It’s important to — to be clear — very, very clear about that.

Look, I can say this. You know, I can say that the President, you know, is going to — as — as it relates to how he’s moving forward, not focused on the 2024 election, he’s going to continue to stand against dangerous personal revenge schemes and conspiracy theories that have cost — let’s not forget, these dangerous conspiracy theories have cost law enforcement officers their lives. You know, and it is — that is what we saw on January 6th in 2021.

It was an attack on our democracy. And it was because people believed — the insurrectionists, the mob — more than 2,000 people who showed up at — at the — at the Capitol believed — believed the conspiracy theories that they were told about this election, and it cost officers their lives. And that is incredibly dangerous.

Our democracy was under attack. Again, a very scary moment in our history, a dark time in our history. You heard the President talk about this very recently when he was in Valley Forge.

And so, look, we have to speak out about that. We have to be very clear — clear — clear — clear-spoken about those types of conspiracy theories. We have to speak against them. And so, I’ll just leave it there.

OPERATOR: Moving on to our next question in queue. Annie Linskey with Wall Street Journal, please go ahead.

Q Hi there.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hi, Annie.

Q Oh, hi. Hi there, Karine. I wanted to ask about the news over the weekend that John Kerry is departing his post. Can you tell me whether or not the President plans on — on replacing him and, you know, what you believe he accomplished in that role and then anything about — anything more about why the President agreed for him to leave now at this particular moment?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, a couple of things, because I’ve gotten to know the Special Envoy Kerry and Secre- — obviously, former Secretary of State Kerry. And I know that — I know the President appreciated everything that he was able to do in the past three years.

So, just — I can just put it on the record. I can confirm that, in the upcoming months — month that Special Envoy Kerry will leave the administration, as I just stated, after three years of service.

And let’s just — just to talk about his tenure for a second. You know, he was able to deliver — with the leadership, obviously, of this President — the most ambitious climate agenda in history — when you think about restoring America’s leadership on climate around the world, implementing the largest investment in climate ever, putting us on track to cut emissions in half by 2030.

I can’t speak to — I know folks have — have been wondering what the — what Secretary Kerry is going to do next. I certainly can’t speak to that. But certainly we’ll — we’ll be sure to keep you posted.

Look, you know, as far who’s going to — to be next, I certainly don’t have any personnel announcement to make at this time. But our work, the work that he started, the work is going to continue. The work to address the climate crisis will continue.

Let’s not forget what we’re able to do just last month. We announced a rule that — that’s going to cut methane emissions from oil and gas operations by nearly 80 percent, I believe. And that’s a huge announcement. That’s incredibly important.

But the President is incredibly thankful to — to Secretary Kerry. It is his personal decision to leave. So, certainly going — not going to speak to that. But, look, we got a lot done. He got a lot done in the three years. The President — when it comes to climate change, the President has had the most aggressive agenda than any other president before — before him on getting things done and getting to a place where we’re dealing with the climate.

Thanks — thanks for your question, Annie.

Q Thanks.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in the queue. Selina Wang with ABC News, please go ahead.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, Selina.

Q Hey, Karine. Thanks for doing this. I know you can’t speak too much about it, but is there anything else you can say about the President’s view about Trump’s resounding win in Iowa? He was asked yesterday about why he felt compelled to seek a second term, and he said, quote, the things that Trump is saying, “he means them,” “he’s running to get revenge.” Just wondering if you can elaborate on what the President’s thoughts are.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look — and you — I think you’re speaking to the interview that the President did on — on — yesterday, obviously, on Dr. Martin Luther King Day with Reverend Al Sharpton. He called in to his radio show. And I know it’s been previewed on one of the cable networks, what the President said.

And so, the President, you know, appreciated that conversation. Had a really, I think, thoughtful conversation about what he’s thinking moving forward. Obviously, I can’t get into specifics on — on that. But I would certainly — I would, you know, refer folks to what the President laid out as it relates to why he’s running and why he’s de- — you know, he’s decided to run and how he — he views this next several months.

So, I’m not going to get into that. His — he — you could — you could hear it for yourself in his own words.

But, look, I’ll say this. And I kind of said this before — right? — which is what the President is going to stand against. He’s going to stand against dangerous personal revenge schemes. Right? The President is going to stand against conspiracy theories. Right? The President is going to continue to fight for the freedoms of Americans across this country.

We see what they’re trying to do — what Republican-elected officials are trying to do as it relates to abortion bans and how dangerous that is to women and — and their health.

And the President — in the meantime, the President is going to continue to — to lead with the — with the — obviously, with leadership and putting American people first and bringing people together in a way that benefits everyone. That is what the President is going to continue to do.

And not putting — putting yourself first or putting yourself above every — every — everyone else or fomenting hate or selling out working people to rich special interests or taking away freedoms, as I just laid out, that’s not what the President is going to do.

He’s going to be completely the opposite of that, as he’s been doing for the last almost three years. And that’s the President’s goal.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue. Joey Garrison with USA Today, please go ahead.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, Joey. Go ahead, Joey.

Q Hey, Karine. Doing well. How about yourself?

Has President Biden spoken to Secretary Austin since his release from the hospital yesterday? And are there any plans for the two to meet in person now that he is out of the hospital? Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, good question. Thank you for the question. Look, we’re happy to hear of his discharge, obviously. Look, the President is looking forward — and I said this last week; we said this last week — to the Secretary getting back to the Pentagon, obviously.

And — and so, don’t have anything to share on — on when — when they’re going to either see each other or speak. Obviously, they spoke last week. The — the Secretary was very much — has very much been engaged and involved in what we’re seeing in the Middle East right now.

And more broadly, on his schedule — on the Secretary’s schedule, that’s something that the Pentagon can speak to. Can’t speak — can’t speak to that from here.

But obviously, we are — we are very happy to see that — to hear of his discharge and — and looking back — and looking forward to him to get — getting back to the Pentagon.

Q Thanks.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue. Tommy Christopher with Meditate [Mediaite], please go ahead.

Q Yeah. Hey, Karine. It’s Tommy. How you doing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, Tommy. Good to hear your voice. How are you?

Q Good, good. By the way, I know you know this, but it’s “Mediaite.” We get that a lot, though — “Meditate.” So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Inaudible.)

Q — good to talk to you, and good to be staying warm too. So, I — I was wondering if you could tell me what you make of — of how much former President Trump leaned into this lie that January 6th was justified while he was campaigning in Iowa and, like, demanding the release of the, quote, unquote, “hostages.” And what would you say to right-wing media that — that sort of helped him in that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Look, I want to be — always want to be very, very careful on speaking about candidate Trump, especially in the — the upcoming 2024 election.

What I’ll say more broadly about the January 6th comments — look, you know, it — you know, it’s — it’s basically what the President said in Valley Forge. Right? The President said this over and over again about January 6th and how dangerous it was — right? — and how — how we had to — we had to watch, you know, an insurrec- — an insurrection, essentially — 2,000 angry mob — because they believed what the former President said and thought that they can turn over an election. This is what they were doing. That’s what they were doing at the Capitol on that day.

And so, I’ve been — I said this a couple of times. You know, I’ve said that the President has been very clear: He’s going to stand against these types of conspiracy theories.

Let’s not forget, officers died. Right? Police officers died on that — because of the injuries that they sustained on that day. They were attacked on that day by these — by these — by these folks who — who were trying to take over the Capitol.

And so, we have to be very clear about what happened on that day. We cannot forget about what happened on that day. And the President said this: Our democracy — we have to continue our democracy.

And I’ll just repeat a little bit of what he said in his remarks — right? — there is a choice to be made. There is a choice that we have to make — right? — in — in our country. We have to make a choice, and that choice should be standing — standing up for our democracy, which is what the President is going to continue — continue to do.

As far as this comment on hostages, you know, want to — want to be really careful there as well — as well. Don’t want to comment on — on any DOJ investigation or legal process.

But as you’ve — you’ve seen American veterans note, it’s — it’s grotesque and offensive. It is offensive to c- — to compare those convicted of assaulting cops and attempting to overthrow the American government that veterans have died — have died defending to — for — innocent Americans — for — to — you know, innocent Americans that — in Israel — Israelis and people of other nationalities who were abducted. Right? They were abducted by Hamas on October 7th.

And so, it is — you know, I’ll just keep it there. It is — it is something that — again, I want to be mindful to speaking to, but that is — it is incredibly grotesque and offensive.

Q And anything for right-wing media —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, say that —

Q — who shall remain nameless.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) Look, it is our responsibility — and I know you all know this — as it relates to reporting and, you know, to — to — I don’t know, like —

Okay. Separate from — from the election — right? — if you think about what we saw on January 7th, 2021, on the front page — right? — the front-page coverage that so many brave reporters — right? — if you think about it — risked their lives to give — to give the country the information that they needed. And that hard-won coverage exposed the brutal, unprecedented assault on our Constitution, on the law enforcement, on American democracy itself.

And so, I think it’s really important that, you know, we — we — we lift up what these brave journalists and reporters are doing. And it is — I would say this: It is an insult to those who lost their lives and to, you know, the selfless reporters who put everything on the line to show us the true stakes of that moment and who are — tirelessly investigated afterward to help anyone — anyone who were putting out grotesque lies about the attack on the Capitol.

And so, I’ll say that and — and just kind of lift up the work of reporters who literally risked their lives on that day to make sure the American people had the truth.

Q Thank you, Karine. We should do this again sometime. (Laughs.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Definitely. Thanks, Tommy.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue. Lynn Sweet with Chicago Sun-Times, please go ahead.

Q Right. Hi, Karine. Thank you for doing this. Bear with me, as my question is narrow in scope because you’ve talked about some of the broader issues with the situation on the Texas border. Governor Pritzker of Illinois and Chicago Mayor Johnson are pleading with the federal government for more interior coordination at the border. Governor Abbott — dealing with the migrants, who Governor Abbott wants out of Texas.

So, (inaudible)in this question that he is going to continue to send migrants out of Texas. So, my question is: Why can’t the federal — or why isn’t there more federal action regarding interior coordination among where the migrants go at the border? Because right now, it’s not left to the federal government; it’s left up to Governor Abbott to send migrants to the cities, and they’re to the cities of his choosing. Why does Abbott —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay.

Q — and not the federal government get to decide?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me just say a couple of things. What Governor Abbott is doing — and I said this earlier when I was asked this question, I believe, by Zeke from the AP — that what he’s doing are — is a political stunt. And it’s — all it’s doing is not — it’s not making communities safer, for certain. And it’s also dem- — it’s demonizing and certainly dehumanizing people. And we’ve called that out. We’ve been calling that out what his actions are doing.

And — and, as you know, we — I talked — I was asked earlier about the — unfortunately, the three migrants that died — that drowned recently. And so, it is unfortunate that we’re seeing that.

And that’s also — I mean, there’s so many — there’s so many parts of this question. That’s also why you’re seeing a bipartisan conversation happening in the Senate. It’s been happening for some time with Republicans and Democrats. We think it’s heading in a di- — right direction. We believe we need a bipartisan agreement to deal with the policy components, and also the funding components, obviously, of — of immigration. That’s been broken for some time — for decades now.

So, that — those are actions that the President has taken, obviously, with his team to get something done, to get border security, you know, changes or — or deal, I should say, done. And so, that’s really important.

As it relates to the cities, look, a couple of things that I can say that — that I can say there is last year, in 2023, this administration, in collaboration with the states and cities just across the country — what they were able to do is launch a one-stop — one-stop shop clinics so that they can help eligible noncitizens get work permits and decompress the respective shelter systems, which is incredibly important. And that’s what, you know, you all have been reporting — some of you have reporting about — around. And to date, these clinics have served more than 10,000 people.

And in addition to that, our administration — the President’s administration was able to provide more than $1 billion in grant funding for jurisdictions who are hosting these — these migrants that are — that are arriving.

So, obviously — obviously, we want to do more. We do want to do more. But it requires Congress to give us the additional funding, which is why we’re having this conversation, which is why we’re doing the — this bipartisan conversation, as it relates, certainly, to the supplemental. That’s why the President is going to certainly meet with congressional members tomorrow to continue those conversations.

So, we want to — we want to continue to collaborate with these cities and states, obviously, across the country. But, you know, we have to have — we have to have Congress act as well.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue. Weijia Jiang with CBS News, please go ahead.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, Weijia.

Q Thank you. Hi, Karine. Hi.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hi, hi.

Q Thank you for doing this. I just had a quick question on Eagle Pass, because what we’ve heard so far as possible recourse from the administration has all been legal in nature. And I just wonder, is there anything else you can do to gain access to the border? Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No — no, it’s a good question. And I appreciate all these questions, but there’s — about the border in particular, because they’re very important. Look, the Border Patrol, they have to have access to the border. They have to in order to enforce our laws. And — and DHS has sent Texas a cease and des- — and desist letter regarding their clearly, clearly unconstitutional actions.

And here’s the thing. If — if Texas does not stop blocking what Border Patrol agents should be doing — right? — which is enforcing the laws — but if they don’t stop blocking their access, we’re going to refer the matter to Department of Justice for appropriate action.

But obviously, DHS has taken action. They asked for a cease and desist in their letter. And we — Border Patrol agents need to have access in order to enforce the law. That’s what they need. They need the governor of Texas to stop playing political games and to stop doing these political stunts. It is putting people’s lives at risk. And that is — and that is what we’re seeing.

Q So, I hear you. But given the fact that people’s lives are at risk, you know, to go to DOJ, the Supreme Court — these things take time to play out. So, I’m wondering if there’s anything immediate that the counterpart to the Texas National Guard, which is blocking the border, is there anything you can do at the border physically to gain access? Or is the only thing you can do is let’s — let it play out in the justice system?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. I mean —

Q (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: — I wouldn’t say we’re just — yeah, look, here’s — and that’s the problem, Weijia, right? It’s like — it is unfortunate that you have a governor, Governor Abbott, that’s watching this happen — right? — that’s watching people be put in harm’s way — law enforcement also be put into harm’s way, because it is — it does make a situation dangerous for the Border Patrol agents and dangerous for the migrants, obviously.

And allowing this to happen — like, that is actually a question for Governor Abbott. He is — he is — he is doing these political stunts, and it is causing harm. It is not fixing the problem. The Border Patrol agents are not allowed — are not able to — to really, you know, move forward with enforcing our laws.

I mean, this is what a elected official is doing. And so, you know, I get the question to us. We are going to take legal — you know, we’re ta- — we have taken legal action. That is the process. That’s the way that we have to move forward.

And we also have to call it out. That’s — when you all ask me questions about it or you ask any — any members of the administration about this, we say very loud and clear: These are political stunts. They are dangerous. They dehumanize people. They — they demonize people. They put people’s lives in danger — in danger — not — not just the migrants but also the Border Patrol agents. It’s a problem.

And so, we have to continue to call it out. I mean, you guys help — you know, help — are helpful in that way in calling this out. And so, we’re going to continue to do that.

OPERATOR: All right. Moving on to our next question in queue, and this will be our last question. Kelly O’Donnell with NBC, please go ahead.

Q Oh, to be last. I have been waiting patiently, so I’m so glad to get —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.)

Q Love this in-queue process.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Last but not the least.

Q Yes, yes. So, many questions have been asked. So, I’m just going to tick off two couple of quick things.

Can you give us a sense of your reaction and any White House changes in position or posture related to the swatting incident that happened on Monday, recognizing that there are a lot of ways in which you have response built into the campus here, but in the larger sense of how the White House could now be drawn into this new technique?

And, secondly, when Joey asked about Secretary Austin and you referenced them speaking, you know, a week or so ago, what’s the typical cadence for the President and the SecDef to — to speak on the phone, given all the areas of their obvious, you know, priorities on national security matters of late? Thanks so much.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, thank you so much, Kelly O. Two — two important questions.

Look, as it relates to the swatting, I would have to refer you to Secret Service and D.C. Fire, which responded, ob- — as you know, to — to the incident. Can’t say more from here.

Look, the President and the — and the Secretary speak often, speak regularly. I don’t have a regular cadence to speak to. Obviously, he’s the Secretary of Defense, so that is the — they do — they do speak regularly. I just don’t have a particular, as I said, cadence to speak to on how — how regularly that happens.

And I — I would also say that, you know, from — from senior levels of the — of the Department of Defense and also at the NSC and, obviously, at the State Department, there’s — they are in constant communication with their counterparts or the folks that they deal with on a regular basis.

And so, as — as it relates to the President, they do speak regularly. I just don’t have the specifics on — on the — on how often.

Q And briefly on the swatting. Not the specifics of what happened yesterday, but could you speak to the larger issue that this technique of — whether it’s harassment or a prank or whatever it might be that has popped up and has affected now the White House but, in addition, members of the judicial branch, other types of officials? Do you have a broader sense of how this is now creating a risk or a danger in our society?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, look, I think what you just stated is — is correct, right? It is creating a danger and a risk to our society. There are things that we’re going to monitor. This is something, obviously, the Secret Service is going to monitor very closely as it relates to us specifically at the White House or this administration.

And so, I’m just going to be really mindful and leave it there. But how you stated the question is — is tr- — is obviously a concern to us.

All right, everybody. I think that’s it —

(Cross-talk.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, go ahead. Oh —

I don’t know what just happened. I think — if you guys can still hear me, thank you so much for your time. And we will see you all tomorrow in the briefing room.

All right. Be safe. Bye.

2:51 P.M. EST

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

Building on the June 10, 2021 New Atlantic Charter and the June 8, 2023 Atlantic Declaration on Economic Security, the U.S. National Security Council and the UK Cabinet Office announced a new Strategic Dialogue on Biological Security during a launch event today.  

Underpinned by the UK Biological Security Strategy and the U.S. National Biodefense Strategy, this Strategic Dialogue reflects a shared ambition to bolster future heath and economic resilience against a growing and diverse spectrum of biological threats.

The Strategic Dialogue reaffirms both nations’ commitment to increase collaboration in the following ways:

• Develop a shared understanding of research and development (R&D) needs at the onset of new disease outbreaks, allowing for improved responsiveness by shaping global R&D efforts and supporting early technology assessments.
• Adopt a One Health approach to biosurveillance and biological threat detection, in support of international efforts to develop stronger and more interconnected global surveillance capabilities.
• Pursue the development of new tools and methodologies for microbial forensics and attribution.
• Promote responsible innovation in the biotechnology, health, and life sciences sectors, shaping global norms and standards on biosafety and biosecurity while simultaneously protecting burgeoning bio-economies.
• Facilitate the development of next-generation vaccines and therapeutics, in line with the 100-Days Mission vision supported by G7 leaders in Carbis Bay in 2021 and reaffirmed at the 2023 G7 Summit in Hiroshima.
• Strengthen coordination of efforts to counter biological threats, including developing joint measures to address Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention compliance.

###

The post U.S. – UK Strategic Dialogue on Biological Security appeared first on The White House.

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. spoke today with Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany. The leaders coordinated on their countries’ ongoing steadfast support to Ukraine in the face of Russia’s war of aggression. They also reaffirmed their support for Israel’s right to self-defense and discussed the imperative of protecting civilians in Gaza against harm, and ensuring the free flow of life-saving humanitarian aid to people in need. 

###

The post Readout of President Joe Biden’s Call with Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany appeared first on The White House.