Feed aggregator

We the Leaders of the Group of Seven (G7) met today with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to reaffirm our unwavering support for Ukraine and salute once more the bravery and resilience of the Ukrainian people who have been fighting tirelessly for Ukraine’s freedom and democratic future.

They have resisted for two years Russia’s illegal, unjustifiable, and unprovoked full-scale invasion which constitutes a blatant violation of the UN Charter. They have proven their will to defeat President Putin’s war machine, restore their nation’s territorial integrity, and defend Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence.

President Putin has failed to achieve his strategic objective of subjugating Ukraine. Instead, he is forcing his own people to pay a heavy price for his government’s reckless actions each day. He has drained Russia’s resources to fund an unnecessary war, torn Russian families apart, and claimed hundreds of thousands of Russian lives.

We remain convinced that we can ensure the people of Ukraine prevail in fighting for their future and help to forge a comprehensive, just and durable peace.

On this occasion, we also pay tribute to the extraordinary courage of Alexei Navalny and stand with his wife, children, and loved ones. He sacrificed his life fighting against the Kremlin’s corruption and for free and fair elections in Russia. We call on the Russian government to fully clarify the circumstances around his death. We equally call on the Russian government to free all unjustly detained prisoners and to stop the persecution of political opposition and the systematic repression of Russians’ rights and freedoms. We will hold those culpable for Navalny’s death accountable, including by continuing to impose restrictive measures in response to human rights violations and abuses in Russia and taking other actions.

1. We will continue to support Ukraine’s right to self-defence and reiterate our commitment to Ukraine’s long-term security, including by concluding and implementing bilateral security commitments and arrangements, based on the Joint Declaration of Support for Ukraine we endorsed in Vilnius last July. We are stepping up our security assistance to Ukraine and are increasing our production and delivery capabilities, to assist the country.

Ten years after the Maidan protests, we stand with the Ukrainian government and people as they buttress the foundations of their democratic state through vital reforms, especially to reinforce their justice system and rule of law, and tackle corruption. These endeavours are part of Ukraine’s path to Euro-Atlantic integration. We praise Ukraine’s achievements to date and welcome the European Council’s decision last December to open accession negotiations with Ukraine. We welcome Ukraine’s progress towards meeting the IMF Extended Fund Facility programme’s conditionality.

Russia must not succeed in wrecking Ukraine’s economy to make up for its failures on the battlefield. We will help Ukraine meet its urgent financing needs, and assist other vulnerable countries severely affected by the impacts of Russia’s war. We strongly welcome the EU’s approval of the Ukraine Facility of EUR 50 billion. It will provide crucial financial support to Ukraine until 2027. We also welcome additional economic support others have approved as we seek to close Ukraine’s remaining financing gap, as well as Japan’s swift delivery of its budget support in the first quarter of 2024 and Canada’s new funding. We urge the approval of additional support to close Ukraine’s remaining budget gap for 2024.

Ukraine’s reconstruction, starting with early recovery measures, remains a key priority. We will continue to work, with the Ukrainian authorities and International Financial Institutions through the Multi-agency Donor Coordination Platform for Ukraine and by leveraging private investments. We welcome the Platform’s expansion to include the Republic of Korea, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Further to the successful Japan-Ukraine Conference for Promotion of Economic Growth and Reconstruction, we look forward to the Ukraine Recovery Conferences, to be hosted in Berlin in 2024 and in Rome in 2025.

2. We call on Russia to immediately cease its war of aggression and completely and unconditionally withdraw its military forces from the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine. We call on all countries to uphold international law and in no way validate or condone Russia’s attempts to acquire territory by force. We will never recognise so-called “elections”, past and future, held by Russia in the territories of Ukraine, nor their results. Russia’s stated intention to hold votes for its Presidential elections in Ukrainian regions is an outrageous violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty.

We strongly condemn Russia’s continuous brutal attacks on civilians and critical civil infrastructure and war crimes committed by Russian forces in Ukraine, including sexual violence. We strongly condemn Russia’s human rights violations in the territories Russia occupies. We remain committed to holding those responsible accountable for their atrocities against the people of Ukraine, in line with international law. We support investigations by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the Prosecutor-General of Ukraine, and other national prosecutors within their jurisdictions. We welcome ongoing discussions in the Core Group, exploring the establishment of a tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. We call on Russia to release all persons it has unlawfully detained and to safely return all civilians it has illegally transferred or deported, starting with thousands of children. We welcome the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, launched by Ukraine and Canada. We also stress the importance of advancing towards an exchange of all prisoners of war and welcome efforts in this regard by other partner countries and actors. Finally, we will continue to support Ukrainian displaced persons and refugees and protect those in need. We reiterate our support for the Council of Europe Register of Damage for Ukraine.

As Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine continues to undermine global food security, we celebrate Ukraine’s success in significantly expanding food exports through the Black Sea, which will help feed the world. Thanks to Ukraine’s maritime corridor and the EU’s solidarity lanes, Ukraine is on track to export all grain from its 2023 harvest despite Russia’s attacks on Ukrainian ports and its withdrawal from the Black Sea Grain Initiative. We will continue to help Ukraine export its grain and agricultural products to the most vulnerable nations, including through the implementation of the Grain Verification Scheme that Ukraine will lead this year. We call on Russia to cease its efforts to weaponize food supply and support safe commercial navigation of the Black Sea.

Russia’s irresponsible nuclear rhetoric, its posture of strategic intimidation and its undermining of arms control regimes are unacceptable. Threats by Russia of nuclear weapon use, let alone any use of nuclear weapons by Russia, in the context of its war of aggression against Ukraine are inadmissible.

3. We will continue to raise the cost of Russia’s war, degrade Russia’s sources of revenue and impede its efforts to build its war machine, as demonstrated by our recently approved sanctions packages. We remain committed to fully implementing and enforcing our sanctions on Russia and adopting new measures as necessary. We continue to counter, in close cooperation with third countries, any attempts to evade and circumvent our sanctions and export control measures. We will impose additional sanctions on companies and individuals in third countries who help Russia acquire weapons or key inputs for weapons.  We will also impose sanctions on those who help Russia acquire tools and other equipment that aid Russian weapons production or military-industrial development.

We will continue to apply significant pressure on Russian revenues from energy and other commodities. We will continue to take steps to tighten compliance and enforcement of the oil price cap. While working to maintain supply stability, we will respond to price cap violations, including by imposing additional sanctions measures on those engaged in deceptive practices while transporting Russian oil and against the networks Russia has developed to extract additional revenue from price cap violations. We will continue taking steps to limit Russia’s future energy revenues. We will continue to impede Russia’s development of future energy projects and disrupt its development of alternatives for energy shipping and other services. We will continue efforts to reduce Russia’s revenues from metals.

We will continue to take action against third-country actors who materially support Russia’s war including by imposing additional measures on entities, where appropriate, in third countries. We call on financial institutions to refrain from supporting Russia’s war machine and we will take appropriate steps, consistent with our legal systems, to deter this behaviour. Financial institutions and other entities that facilitate Russia’s acquisition of items or equipment for its defence industrial base are supporting actions that undermine the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine. We strongly condemn North Korea’s exports and Russia’s procurement of North Korea’s ballistic missiles in direct violation of relevant UNSCRs and call upon them to immediately cease such activities. We call upon Iran to stop assisting the Russian military and its war in Ukraine. We express our concern about transfers to Russia from businesses in the People’s Republic of China of dual-use materials and components for weapons and equipment for military production.

It is not right for Russia to decide if or when it will pay for the damage it has caused in Ukraine. These damages now exceed USD486 billion, according to the World Bank.  Russia’s obligations under international law to pay for the damage it is causing are clear.  We are determined to dispel any false notion that time is on Russia’s side, that destroying infrastructure and livelihoods has no consequences for Russia, or that Russia could prevail by causing Ukraine to fail economically. Russia should not be able to indefinitely delay payment it owes. We recognize the urgency of disrupting Russia’s attempts to destroy the Ukrainian economy and Russia’s continued failure to abide by its international law obligations. We are determined to ensure full accountability and we support Ukraine in obtaining compensation for the loss, injury and damage resulting from Russia’s aggression.

We welcome the adoption of the EU legal acts concerning extraordinary revenues of central securities depositories gained from Russia’s immobilised sovereign assets and encourage further steps to enable their use, consistent with applicable contractual obligations and in accordance with applicable laws.  We ask our ministers to continue their work and update ahead of the Apulia Summit on all possible avenues by which immobilized Russian sovereign assets could be made use of to support Ukraine, consistent with our respective legal systems and international law.

4. As we move forward, we continue our support to Ukraine in further developing President Zelenskyy’s Peace Formula and commit ourselves to supporting a comprehensive, just and lasting peace consistent with the principles of the UN Charter, international law and respectful of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. As Ukraine enters the third year of this relentless war, its government and its people can count on the G7’s support for as long as it takes.

###

The post G7 Leaders’ Statement appeared first on The White House.

We the Leaders of the Group of Seven (G7) met today with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to reaffirm our unwavering support for Ukraine and salute once more the bravery and resilience of the Ukrainian people who have been fighting tirelessly for Ukraine’s freedom and democratic future.

They have resisted for two years Russia’s illegal, unjustifiable, and unprovoked full-scale invasion which constitutes a blatant violation of the UN Charter. They have proven their will to defeat President Putin’s war machine, restore their nation’s territorial integrity, and defend Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence.

President Putin has failed to achieve his strategic objective of subjugating Ukraine. Instead, he is forcing his own people to pay a heavy price for his government’s reckless actions each day. He has drained Russia’s resources to fund an unnecessary war, torn Russian families apart, and claimed hundreds of thousands of Russian lives.

We remain convinced that we can ensure the people of Ukraine prevail in fighting for their future and help to forge a comprehensive, just and durable peace.

On this occasion, we also pay tribute to the extraordinary courage of Alexei Navalny and stand with his wife, children, and loved ones. He sacrificed his life fighting against the Kremlin’s corruption and for free and fair elections in Russia. We call on the Russian government to fully clarify the circumstances around his death. We equally call on the Russian government to free all unjustly detained prisoners and to stop the persecution of political opposition and the systematic repression of Russians’ rights and freedoms. We will hold those culpable for Navalny’s death accountable, including by continuing to impose restrictive measures in response to human rights violations and abuses in Russia and taking other actions.

1. We will continue to support Ukraine’s right to self-defence and reiterate our commitment to Ukraine’s long-term security, including by concluding and implementing bilateral security commitments and arrangements, based on the Joint Declaration of Support for Ukraine we endorsed in Vilnius last July. We are stepping up our security assistance to Ukraine and are increasing our production and delivery capabilities, to assist the country.

Ten years after the Maidan protests, we stand with the Ukrainian government and people as they buttress the foundations of their democratic state through vital reforms, especially to reinforce their justice system and rule of law, and tackle corruption. These endeavours are part of Ukraine’s path to Euro-Atlantic integration. We praise Ukraine’s achievements to date and welcome the European Council’s decision last December to open accession negotiations with Ukraine. We welcome Ukraine’s progress towards meeting the IMF Extended Fund Facility programme’s conditionality.

Russia must not succeed in wrecking Ukraine’s economy to make up for its failures on the battlefield. We will help Ukraine meet its urgent financing needs, and assist other vulnerable countries severely affected by the impacts of Russia’s war. We strongly welcome the EU’s approval of the Ukraine Facility of EUR 50 billion. It will provide crucial financial support to Ukraine until 2027. We also welcome additional economic support others have approved as we seek to close Ukraine’s remaining financing gap, as well as Japan’s swift delivery of its budget support in the first quarter of 2024 and Canada’s new funding. We urge the approval of additional support to close Ukraine’s remaining budget gap for 2024.

Ukraine’s reconstruction, starting with early recovery measures, remains a key priority. We will continue to work, with the Ukrainian authorities and International Financial Institutions through the Multi-agency Donor Coordination Platform for Ukraine and by leveraging private investments. We welcome the Platform’s expansion to include the Republic of Korea, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Further to the successful Japan-Ukraine Conference for Promotion of Economic Growth and Reconstruction, we look forward to the Ukraine Recovery Conferences, to be hosted in Berlin in 2024 and in Rome in 2025.

2. We call on Russia to immediately cease its war of aggression and completely and unconditionally withdraw its military forces from the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine. We call on all countries to uphold international law and in no way validate or condone Russia’s attempts to acquire territory by force. We will never recognise so-called “elections”, past and future, held by Russia in the territories of Ukraine, nor their results. Russia’s stated intention to hold votes for its Presidential elections in Ukrainian regions is an outrageous violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty.

We strongly condemn Russia’s continuous brutal attacks on civilians and critical civil infrastructure and war crimes committed by Russian forces in Ukraine, including sexual violence. We strongly condemn Russia’s human rights violations in the territories Russia occupies. We remain committed to holding those responsible accountable for their atrocities against the people of Ukraine, in line with international law. We support investigations by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the Prosecutor-General of Ukraine, and other national prosecutors within their jurisdictions. We welcome ongoing discussions in the Core Group, exploring the establishment of a tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. We call on Russia to release all persons it has unlawfully detained and to safely return all civilians it has illegally transferred or deported, starting with thousands of children. We welcome the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, launched by Ukraine and Canada. We also stress the importance of advancing towards an exchange of all prisoners of war and welcome efforts in this regard by other partner countries and actors. Finally, we will continue to support Ukrainian displaced persons and refugees and protect those in need. We reiterate our support for the Council of Europe Register of Damage for Ukraine.

As Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine continues to undermine global food security, we celebrate Ukraine’s success in significantly expanding food exports through the Black Sea, which will help feed the world. Thanks to Ukraine’s maritime corridor and the EU’s solidarity lanes, Ukraine is on track to export all grain from its 2023 harvest despite Russia’s attacks on Ukrainian ports and its withdrawal from the Black Sea Grain Initiative. We will continue to help Ukraine export its grain and agricultural products to the most vulnerable nations, including through the implementation of the Grain Verification Scheme that Ukraine will lead this year. We call on Russia to cease its efforts to weaponize food supply and support safe commercial navigation of the Black Sea.

Russia’s irresponsible nuclear rhetoric, its posture of strategic intimidation and its undermining of arms control regimes are unacceptable. Threats by Russia of nuclear weapon use, let alone any use of nuclear weapons by Russia, in the context of its war of aggression against Ukraine are inadmissible.

3. We will continue to raise the cost of Russia’s war, degrade Russia’s sources of revenue and impede its efforts to build its war machine, as demonstrated by our recently approved sanctions packages. We remain committed to fully implementing and enforcing our sanctions on Russia and adopting new measures as necessary. We continue to counter, in close cooperation with third countries, any attempts to evade and circumvent our sanctions and export control measures. We will impose additional sanctions on companies and individuals in third countries who help Russia acquire weapons or key inputs for weapons.  We will also impose sanctions on those who help Russia acquire tools and other equipment that aid Russian weapons production or military-industrial development.

We will continue to apply significant pressure on Russian revenues from energy and other commodities. We will continue to take steps to tighten compliance and enforcement of the oil price cap. While working to maintain supply stability, we will respond to price cap violations, including by imposing additional sanctions measures on those engaged in deceptive practices while transporting Russian oil and against the networks Russia has developed to extract additional revenue from price cap violations. We will continue taking steps to limit Russia’s future energy revenues. We will continue to impede Russia’s development of future energy projects and disrupt its development of alternatives for energy shipping and other services. We will continue efforts to reduce Russia’s revenues from metals.

We will continue to take action against third-country actors who materially support Russia’s war including by imposing additional measures on entities, where appropriate, in third countries. We call on financial institutions to refrain from supporting Russia’s war machine and we will take appropriate steps, consistent with our legal systems, to deter this behaviour. Financial institutions and other entities that facilitate Russia’s acquisition of items or equipment for its defence industrial base are supporting actions that undermine the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine. We strongly condemn North Korea’s exports and Russia’s procurement of North Korea’s ballistic missiles in direct violation of relevant UNSCRs and call upon them to immediately cease such activities. We call upon Iran to stop assisting the Russian military and its war in Ukraine. We express our concern about transfers to Russia from businesses in the People’s Republic of China of dual-use materials and components for weapons and equipment for military production.

It is not right for Russia to decide if or when it will pay for the damage it has caused in Ukraine. These damages now exceed USD486 billion, according to the World Bank.  Russia’s obligations under international law to pay for the damage it is causing are clear.  We are determined to dispel any false notion that time is on Russia’s side, that destroying infrastructure and livelihoods has no consequences for Russia, or that Russia could prevail by causing Ukraine to fail economically. Russia should not be able to indefinitely delay payment it owes. We recognize the urgency of disrupting Russia’s attempts to destroy the Ukrainian economy and Russia’s continued failure to abide by its international law obligations. We are determined to ensure full accountability and we support Ukraine in obtaining compensation for the loss, injury and damage resulting from Russia’s aggression.

We welcome the adoption of the EU legal acts concerning extraordinary revenues of central securities depositories gained from Russia’s immobilised sovereign assets and encourage further steps to enable their use, consistent with applicable contractual obligations and in accordance with applicable laws.  We ask our ministers to continue their work and update ahead of the Apulia Summit on all possible avenues by which immobilized Russian sovereign assets could be made use of to support Ukraine, consistent with our respective legal systems and international law.

4. As we move forward, we continue our support to Ukraine in further developing President Zelenskyy’s Peace Formula and commit ourselves to supporting a comprehensive, just and lasting peace consistent with the principles of the UN Charter, international law and respectful of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. As Ukraine enters the third year of this relentless war, its government and its people can count on the G7’s support for as long as it takes.

###

The post G7 Leaders’ Statement appeared first on The White House.

On Thursday night, for the first time in over 50 years, an American spacecraft landed on the Moon – a thrilling step forward in a new era of space exploration.
 
The robotic lunar lander, named Odysseus, launched from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center on February 15. On Thursday, it sent images from the Moon as it circled in low orbit, before touching down near the South Pole.
 
This mission marks a milestone: the first Moon landing by an American company. Odysseus is a public-private partnership between NASA and the American company Intuitive Machines. It was made possible by American ingenuity, innovation, and curiosity. And, through NASA’s Artemis program, it’s the first of more public- and private-sector space missions to come, bringing together our international and commercial partners to return humans to the Moon for the first time in decades. America is leading the world back to the Moon.
 
In 1962, when America’s first Moon landing was still years away, President Kennedy spoke to a group of students about why the United States sets such bold missions for ourselves. “We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things,” he said, “not because they are easy but because they are hard.” And he continued, “That challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one that we are unwilling to postpone, and one that we intend to win.”
 
What was true then is true now. America does hard things. We rise to the great scientific challenges of our time. And there’s nothing beyond our capacity when we work together.
 
I congratulate the Intuitive Machines team who successfully landed Odysseus, as well as their partners at NASA who are shaping the future of human space exploration. 

The post Statement from President Joe Biden on the Successful Landing of the Odysseus Lunar Craft appeared first on The White House.

On Thursday night, for the first time in over 50 years, an American spacecraft landed on the Moon – a thrilling step forward in a new era of space exploration.
 
The robotic lunar lander, named Odysseus, launched from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center on February 15. On Thursday, it sent images from the Moon as it circled in low orbit, before touching down near the South Pole.
 
This mission marks a milestone: the first Moon landing by an American company. Odysseus is a public-private partnership between NASA and the American company Intuitive Machines. It was made possible by American ingenuity, innovation, and curiosity. And, through NASA’s Artemis program, it’s the first of more public- and private-sector space missions to come, bringing together our international and commercial partners to return humans to the Moon for the first time in decades. America is leading the world back to the Moon.
 
In 1962, when America’s first Moon landing was still years away, President Kennedy spoke to a group of students about why the United States sets such bold missions for ourselves. “We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things,” he said, “not because they are easy but because they are hard.” And he continued, “That challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one that we are unwilling to postpone, and one that we intend to win.”
 
What was true then is true now. America does hard things. We rise to the great scientific challenges of our time. And there’s nothing beyond our capacity when we work together.
 
I congratulate the Intuitive Machines team who successfully landed Odysseus, as well as their partners at NASA who are shaping the future of human space exploration. 

The post Statement from President Joe Biden on the Successful Landing of the Odysseus Lunar Craft appeared first on The White House.

The United States, France and the United Kingdom released the following joint statement today following a trilateral meeting yesterday on nuclear threat reduction. The U.S. delegation was led by Homeland Security Advisor Liz Sherwood-Randall.

The United States, France, and the United Kingdom (“P3”) held nuclear threat reduction consultations among senior Elysée, White House, and Cabinet Office officials. These exchanges are part of longstanding and ongoing trilateral cooperation to prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials to non-state actors and to advance collaborative capabilities to counter the threat of weapons of mass destruction terrorism worldwide.

The post Joint Statement of the P3 appeared first on The White House.

The United States, France and the United Kingdom released the following joint statement today following a trilateral meeting yesterday on nuclear threat reduction. The U.S. delegation was led by Homeland Security Advisor Liz Sherwood-Randall.

The United States, France, and the United Kingdom (“P3”) held nuclear threat reduction consultations among senior Elysée, White House, and Cabinet Office officials. These exchanges are part of longstanding and ongoing trilateral cooperation to prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials to non-state actors and to advance collaborative capabilities to counter the threat of weapons of mass destruction terrorism worldwide.

The post Joint Statement of the P3 appeared first on The White House.

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. spoke this afternoon with President Emmanuel Macron of France. The two leaders discussed a range of bilateral and global issues, including Russia’s destabilizing actions, support for Ukraine ahead of the two year anniversary of Russia’s invasion, and the need for Congress to pass funding for Ukraine. They also discussed developments in the Middle East.

The post Readout of President Biden’s Call with President Macron of France appeared first on The White House.

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. spoke this afternoon with President Emmanuel Macron of France. The two leaders discussed a range of bilateral and global issues, including Russia’s destabilizing actions, support for Ukraine ahead of the two year anniversary of Russia’s invasion, and the need for Congress to pass funding for Ukraine. They also discussed developments in the Middle East.

The post Readout of President Biden’s Call with President Macron of France appeared first on The White House.

James S.  Brady Press Briefing Room

1:40 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everybody.

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think it’s Frid- — it’s Friday, right?

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  (Laughs.)  Good point.  Good point.

Okay.  A couple things at the top before we get into questions.  (A cellphone rings.)  Somebody wants to take that?  (Laughter.)  Don’t want to interrupt your call.

Okay.  So, I want to address some devastating news out of Oklahoma.  As a parent, I was absolutely heartbroken to learn about Nex Benedict’s death.

Every young person deserves to feel safe and supported at school.

Our hearts are with Nec- — Nex Benedict’s family, friends, entire school community in the wake of this horrific and gut-wrenching tragedy.

I know that for many LGBTQ+ students across the country, this may feel personal and deeply, deeply painful.

There is always someone you can talk to if you’re going through a hard time and need support.

The President and his administration launched the 988 line to help, and we have a line dedicated to serving LGBTQ+ young people that can be reached by dialing 988 and pressing “3.”

Through devastating tragedies like these, we must support each other and lift one another up.

Now, in another news that we learned — that came out this week is how the people of Alabama woke up to shocking news.

The State Supreme Court has put access to fertility treatments at risk for families who are desperately trying to get pregnant.

It’s unimaginable for people who want to become parents, and it’s a devastating example of the kind of chaos and confusion that has resulted from the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

There are reports that families seeking fertility care don’t know what to do or where to turn.  Doctors are afraid to pr- — of prosecution.  And families in other states are worried they might be next.

But this is not the first time reproductive care has been disrupted in Alabama, a state where women are already living under a total abortion ban.  The state has no exceptions for rape or incest.

This is the same state whose Attorney General threatened to prosecute people who help women travel out of state to seek the care that they need.

And it’s not just Alabama.  We’re seeing this chaos play out across the country.

The day Roe fell is the day that the floodgates opened for Republican elected officials to dictate some of the most personal decisions families can make.

Now, as a result:

Twenty-one states have abortion bans in effect.  In nearly all [these] states, doctors can be charged with a felony for simply doing their jobs.

Twenty-seven million women of reproductive age now live in states with abortion bans.

Over 380 state bills restricting access to abortion care were introduced just last year.

And congressional Republicans have proposed three national abortion bans.

It doesn’t stop there.  Believe it or not, it doesn’t stop there.

Birth control access is under attack.  Women are being denied care for ectopic pregnancy.  And now, with this decision out of Alabama — Alabama, IVF is under attack.

So, we want to be really clear here: It is absolutely unacceptable to this administration when women are denied the care that they need.  It is unacceptable.

President Biden and Vice President Harris will continue to fight to protect access to reproductive healthcare and call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law for all women in every state.

Now, as you saw this mo- — morning, we are excited to announce that on March 1st, President Biden will welcome Prime Minister Meloni of Italy to the White House to reaffirm the strong relationship between the United States and Italy.

The leaders will discuss shared approaches to address global challenges, including their commitment to continue supporting Ukraine as it confronts Russia’s aggressions, preventing regional escalation in the Middle East and delivering humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, developments in North Africa, and close trans- — transatlantic coordination regarding the People’s Republic of China.

They will also discuss Italy’s G7 presidency and coordinate in advance of the N- — of the NATO Summit in Washington.

And finally, earlier today, you heard directly from the President when he delivered remarks and issued a statement to mark the second anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine tomorrow. 

We mourn — we mourn the many Ukrainian lives who have been lost as a result of Russia’s unprovoked and unlawful war, and we are committed — committed to com- — continuing to support the people of Ukraine as they defend themselves against Russia’s vicious and brutal war in Ukraine.

As part of that commitment, we sanctioned over 500 targets today to impose additional costs on Russia for its repression, human rights abuses, and aggression against Ukraine.

The Department of Commerce is adding more than 90 companies to the Entity List for their activities in support of Russia’s defense-industrial base and war effort.

And the Department of State is designating three Russian individuals who were connected to Navalny’s imprisonment and the Russian government’s harsh treatment of him.

The U.S. government has designated over 4,000 entities and individuals in response to Russia’s war on Ukraine over the past two years, the strongest set of sanctions ever imposed on a major economy.

And we will continue — we will continue to take actions to ensure Mr. Putin pays an — an — a steeper price for his aggression abroad, the repression at home.

At the same time, we need House Republicans to join us — to join us in standing up to Putin and to take action by passing the national security supplemental bill to ensure we can continue to support Ukraine.

Time is of the essence and Ukraine cannot afford for House Republicans to continue to delay.

Before I continue, we will have the week ahead later to all of you.  I don’t have that in front of me at this time.  But, obviously, we’ll share that with all of you.

Go ahead, Zeke.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  We’ve heard some sharp words from the President, from yourself, criticism of the Speaker for not bringing up the Ukraine aid to the floor.  Has the President reached out directly to the Speaker at all since their last conversation a month ago?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we have- — I don’t have a — a call to read out to you about a call between the President or — and the Speaker. 

You — look, want to be very clear here.  We’ve been — we’ve been — and it’s been clear to all of you, and you’ve all have reported this as well.  We know for a fact that if this bill — this national security supplemental were to go to the floor, it would get bipartisan support.  This is in the House — in the House, obviously.  We know that House Republicans would support this.  We know that House Democrats would support this.

All — all he needs to do — all the Speaker needs to do is bring this to the floor — it will get support — instead of playing political — political games here, instead of playing political stunts. 

And you all have reported — I believe Politico reported — how there is no direction for this — for this — for this Republican co- — caucus in the House.  They don’t have a plan. 
And it’s easy to do. 

This is something — and I’m going to be really blunt here.  Lives are at stake.  If you think about what’s happening in Ukraine, if you think about what’s happening in the Middle East, lives are at stake here.  This is about saving lives, and they can get this done. 

This is also about the national security of the American people.  So, if he truly stands with the American people, he would get this done.  Put it on the floor.  It will get bipartisan support.  Put it on the floor.  Stop playing political games.

Q    In your topper, you mentioned the Alabama decision.  Is there any actions the federal government can take or is looking at taking to try to help women who are trying to get in vitro fertilization services?  (Inaudible) hospital network that — that stopped the practice now.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look — and, look, I don’t have anything to share at this time.  I know you’re asking me are there any policy actions — right? — that we can take from here.  Look, what we will say here is that the fix here is — is not — is — is Roe v. Wade.  That’s the fix.  That’s how we get to a place where we fix what’s going on and stop the chaos that we’re seeing in these states. 

That’s the fix.  It is a legislative fix that needs to come from Congress.  That’s what we need to get — to get to a place to.

I don’t have anything to announce here.  But it is unimaginable of what families are now having to deal with and how this could spread to other states.  And this is the chaos — the chaos that comes from the Dobbs decision, that comes from what Republicans have been doing since the Dobbs decision. 

And so, we have to get this right.  We have to get this fixed by making sure Congress acts and gets Roe — become — makes Roe the law of the land.  The courts got it wrong.  The courts got it wrong in this.

Q    And then, last from me.  Last month, the President said that he did not have any additional executive authority to act on with regard to the border.  He met with governors this morning, where he apparently told them that he was looking and talked to his lawyers and seemed frustrated with his lawyers as he’s trying to devise some executive actions.  We did some reporting on that in the last couple of days as well.

So, is the President currently contemplating any additional executive actions on the border?  What are they, and when will we see that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we don’t have any actions to — to announce today — no decisions.  And this is something that I’ve actually spoken to the President about.  No decisions have been made on this. 

Here’s what we know, and here’s the bottom line.  There is no executive action — no executive action that the President can take — no matter how aggressive it could be, can deliver the significant policy reforms and additional — additional resources that Congress could have provided that Republicans rejected.  Right? 

There’s nothing — no actions that he could take that would have been — that would be as — as — as tough, as fair as this bipartisan — bipartisan legislation that came out of the Senate, obviously, that we worked on for — for months. 

And that’s what would have actually dealt with this, what was happening at the border, dealt with the immigration situation.  And this is what Republicans rejected.

And so, look, I don’t have any decisions to — to make at this time.  What we believe is that that piece of legislation that came out — bipartisan piece of legislation that came out of the Senate, that would have been the way to move forward here. 

And, again, Republicans in the House decided to block that.  They decided to go a political direction.  They decided on issues, on policies that were included in there that they believed in — that they, at one point, believed that’s how to move forward to deal with the border — they — they rejected it.

And so, again, don’t have anything to announce at this time or any decisions — to be even more clear, any decisions that have been made right now.  But we had something at — on the table that came out of the Senate in a bipartisan way, and they decided — and they rejected it, meaning the Republicans in the House.

Go ahead, Selina.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  On the Alabama IVF ruling.  How concerned should American families be that this could spread to other conservative states?  And does this president need to do more than simply calling for the codification of Roe v. Wade?  Does he need to go further here, since this does deal with —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look —

Q    — a separate issue?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I hear your — your — your question here.  Yeah, they should be concerned.  They should be concerned.  On your first part of your question, they should be concerned that this should — could spread in other states.

This is the chaos that has come out of the Dobbs decision.  This is the chaos that has come out of — of getting ri- — rid of Roe, which was the law of the land for almost 50 years. 

And so, look, what needs to happen — I mean, the way that we fix this or the way that we get to a place where women feel protected, where women can make decisions on their own body, where families can make a decision on how to move forward in –in growing their family or starting a family is to — is to get Roe and Wade to — Roe v. Wade needs to be the law of the land.  That’s the fix.  That’s what needs to happen.

And there is — that is the — the best way to move forward here.

Q    And on the border deal.  The President had earlier said that he was out of options when it comes to executive actions.  Does the fact that he’s considering other actions mean that there was more he could have done earlier? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    So, what changed here?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to be very clear.  The bottom line, the only way to — we could have had move forward — we could move forward in a effective, more comprehensive way was to move forward with the bipartisan — bipartisan legislation that came out of the Senate.  That was the way that we believe would have been a fair — it was a — one of the toughest, one of the fairest bipartisan border security bills that we have seen in decades. 

It would have dealt with giving resources that’s needed at the border.  It would have dealt with dealing with policy issues as it relates to immigration.  And that’s what — the way we should have moved forward.

A couple of things it would have done: establish a fair — a more efficient process for asylum claims with consequences for those who do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States; provide more resources to secure the border and process claims — Border Patrol agents, law enforcement personnel, and detection technology to combat fentanyl trafficking, asylum officers and immigration judges; make our country safer, our border more secure, while treating people fairly and humanely, consistent with our values as a nation.

Republicans rejected this bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate.  That’s something that the President worked with in a bipartisan way, obviously, with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate for months.  They rejected that.

And we believe that is the direction — that is the bottom line for us.  That’s what — that’s the way we should have moved forward.  We just — I don’t have anything to announce or any decision that’s been made.

Q    Just real quickly, though.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Roe v. Wade versus trying to protect women’s rights to IVF treatment: They are two separate things.  So, is the administration looking at protections for the latter?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I don’t have anything to share on any policy changes or any policy updates for all of you.  We have to understand how this started.  This started because of what happened with Roe — the Dobbs decision to overturn Roe, something that was a — a — you know, a Roe was — was — was, you know, constitutional for almost 50 years — almost 50 years.  And that got overturned. 

And the moment that got overturned, that day, Republicans started to work and take action.  I just mentioned 380 pieces of legislation to go against what women’s — difficult decisions that women’s need — women need to make about their bodies, about their family, about how they’re going to move forward, about the care that they need — 380 pieces of legislation across the country.  That’s what is happening.  That’s what’s happening right now. 

And so, the chaos has been started — was started the day that happened — the day Roe was overturned.  And the only way to fix this — the best way to fix this is to restore Roe.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  The President made an appeal this morning to the governors at the White House, asking them to kind of go back to their states and talk to their congressional lawmakers about passing the Ukraine aid bill.  I’m wondering if that is sort of the next course of action where you’re thinking about targeting the Speaker and top House Republicans in their districts. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, the President had an opportunity to — to engage with governors of both — obviously of both parties, which is something that he does yearly.  And they have important — important items to speak on — to speak to on the agenda.  And obviously, this is a — this is an issue that governors care about. 

We know that even with the bipartisan deal for the border security, obviously, that came out of the Senate, we got support from governors.  We got letters from governors.  We got letters from that included c- — mayors from — from the cities that were being affected.  So, we know that we got support from them. 

And so, one way, obviously, to get the Speaker to do his job and put it — put it on the floor and actually take it up is for governors to speak up as well. 

And I believe that they have.  Obviously, the letter was a key part of that. 

And so, look, there are — there are many, many items on the agenda to discuss.  This is something that’s important when you think about immigration, when you think about what’s happening at the border and how it’s affecting these — these states, these governors. 

So, yeah, I think it’s important for — one way the President to show leadership is to also say — and — and governors to show leadership is to — to be very clear what this means to them, to their constituents back at home. 

Q    Are you planning to follow up with them in, you know, the next week if they have had those conversations?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, we’ve been in regular touch with governors.  Obviously, we — there was a billion dollars that we were able to secure to help governors deal with the — the migrant situation, the migrant issue over the past several months. 

So, we’ve been in constant communication with governors, with mayors.  And so, those conversations continue.

What you were able to see is the President leaning in and showing how important it is to move with the — with the bipartisan deal, as it relates to the border — obviously, border security and — and also, obviously, the national security supplemental, since we are — we are speaking about the — the two-year anniversary tomorrow of Ukraine being — being attacked by Russia. 

So, all of these things are important.  We’re talking about our national security — our national security — the importance of our national security for the American people.  And we’re also talking about our border and what we need to do to make sure that we deal with the border challenges. 

Q    I have a quick one on the meeting that he had in California with Navalny’s family.  We did see the readout that you put out.  You know, the President has spoken a little bit on it.  But what specific assurances did he offer Yulia?  Because the sanctions package was already in the works — right? — to mark the anniversary of the two-year war.

What did he tell the Navalny family that he can do?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —

Q    — to protect them?  I mean, did he advise her not to go back to Russia?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to be really careful and not speak to a private conversation that the President had.  That is something that we don’t do here.  I’m not going to go beyond the readout. 

But, yes, was the — was the sanction package in motion before Navalny’s death?  Yes.  As you — as you know, tomorrow will be a two-year anniversary. 

But we added to — we added to the package — obviously added additional sanctions once we learned about Navalny’s death. 

So, both are true.  In this case, both can be true and are true.  And so, I just am not going to go beyond a conversation — a private conversation. 

Q    Did he ask her not to go back to Russia?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not — I’m just not going to do that.  Obviously, it is her decision to make.  I’m just not going to get into — into private conversations.

Go ahead.

Q    Border deal aside, the White House is actively discussing taking executive action on the border, as the governors mentioned earlier today, and as we’ve reported.  So, why now?  Is the border deal just a jumping off point to new executive actions that the President can take?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not going to comment on any individual policy option that’s being speculated in the media.  I’m just not going to do that. 

What we have been very clear — the bottom line is the way to have moved forward was with this border deal.  That’s the way —

Q    But there is executive actions that are now being considered that weren’t considered before.  So, why?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not — I’m not going to get into any policy discussions that are possibly happening or — or how- — however it’s being reported.  I’m just not going to get into that. 

What I can say is the bottom line here: We believe no executive action, no matter how aggressive it could be or — or could look would have been as — as significant as the border deal that came out of the Senate in a bipartisan way.  No action. 

And let’s not forget: Republicans rejected that.  And so, don’t have anything to go — to go on beyond that. 

Q    On Alabama.  What’s your message to the clinics in Alabama that have proactively paused IVF treatments?  Are they making the right call?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I can’t speak to the decisions that the clinics are making.  That is for them.  They are, you know — you know, there are safety concerns.  There’s legal concerns that they have to weigh and decide on.

What we can speak to is the chaos that has been created because of the overturning of Roe, and we see this.  And it is devastating.  It is devastating.  It is dangerous to women. 

And so, what we’re going to do is continue to speak out against that and make it very clear that — that the court decision that was made was wrong.  And — and, yeah, you know what?  This could — this could get spread.  This could go beyond Alabama.  And that is a scary thought for many families across the country, certainly many women across the country. 

Q    Last question.  You mentioned there’s no readout with the President and the House Speaker.  The — one of the — one of the messages in the G7 call, according to John Kirby, will be that the President will do everything he can to get Congress to pass that funding.  Has there been any reach-out from the White House to try to get a call or a meeting in the books since he is the person between that funding and the White House?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I — I get the question.  But let’s not forget, for the past several months, NSC and other parts of, obviously, the President’s administration have had regular conversation.  You’ve heard Jake Sullivan speak to going over to House and the Senate to talk to Republicans and Democrats about the aid, about the importance of the Ukraine aid. 

You’ve heard that conversation.  You’ve heard him say this from this podium.  And we also know that there is bipartisan support.  We saw it coming out of the Senate.  And there’s bipartisan support in the House.

What the Speaker — the pressure here needs to be on the Speaker.  The Speaker needs to do his job and actually take this up, put it to the — if he were to put it to the floor, it would have bipartisan support. 

But we’ve been doing our job.  We’ve been having those conversations with congressional members.  And, you know, it’s — it’s unfortunate that the Speaker chooses to turn this into a political — a political football here. 

This is not what this is about.  This is about our national security.  This is about the American people.

Go ahead, Ed.

Q    On the sanctions —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — that were unveiled today.  What makes these sanctions any more effective than the hundreds announced before?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, a couple of things, as I just mentioned.  So, first of all, these sanctions are cumulative, so we have to look at it in that way.  These are 500 new targeted sanctions that are now being sanctioned — the targets are being sanctioned for the first time, so that’s important to note. 

These targets are within Russia’s defense industrial base, its financial system, and it will continue to impose costs on Russia to make it harder to carry out its brutal war and vicious war in Ukraine. 

We will continue to make sure that we hold Putin’s aggression accountable and raise the cost on his — on — not — not just him but also his enablers.  But we also, as I’ve said — as I’ve stated, we need Congress to act.  They need to do their job.  They need to provide the assistance that Ukrainians need to continue to fight Putin’s brutal war. 

That’s what they need to do.  They need to be able to make sure that we provide Ukraine’s — Ukrainians with the assistance to defend themselves.  And so, we are continuing to urge the Speaker.  Again, if the Speaker were to put this on the floor, we would see bipartisan support for the national security bill.

Q    I guess, asked another way, you’ve — there have been 4,000 sanctions now in the last two years.  It hasn’t stopped the war.  So, to what extent — or how should the success of these sanctions even be measured —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look —

Q    — if that hasn’t happened?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I totally get the question.  Look, we believe they’ve been effective.  Right?  That’s what we believe.  The goal of sanction export control is to increase — again, increase the cost of — of Mr. Putin and his enablers.  And it’s clear that our sanctions and imports controls are having an impact. 

And so — and it’s not just them.  It’s — obviously, Russia had been forced — because of we’re — we’re raising the stakes on Russia and their — and his enablers, we see Russia being forced — right? — to turn to countries like Iran and North Korea to get the arms and ammunition it needs to carry out this war. 

And I want to read — I want to just lay out an example from Bloomberg.  Bloomberg reported last month that Russia’s government has tapped almost half of the national wealth funds available — available reserves as it pours money into the — its defense budget at the expense of Russia’s other needs. 

When you think about Putin’s own oil c- — own oil czar, they have li- — he’s linked the fact that Russia has been forced to sell its oil at heavily discounted prices to our coalition’s increased enforcement of oil — oil price cap in recent months.

So, we have seen the impact, we believe.  Again, this is cumulative, what we were able to sanction — again, 500 additional targets.  And we believe that it has had an impact.

Q    On the Alabama IVF ruling, you have spoken out just here forcefully about it.  The Vice President did yesterday and continues to on her national tour.  The President tweeted about it and issued a written statement. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    When might we see him more publicly speak out about this issue?  We keep hearing — at least we keep hearing from voters and Democrats who say, “Where is he on this?  Why isn’t he talking about –”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I’ve —

Q    “– an issue of such urgent concern?”  Presidential focus, time, statement in public instead of on paper is very different than sending you out here or tweeting about it or sending the Vice President on the road.  So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, Ed, I think the President has spoken about what the attack on reproductive rights on — what the attack on women being able to make choices on behalf of — of their own healthcare and getting the healthcare that they need, the actions that he has taken, whether it’s executive actions and what, obviously, his agencies have been able to do — DOJ, HHS — I mean, those have been done because of this President, and he has spoken to this many times. 

The day that Roe was overturned, you heard from the President.  The President was the only person that spoke to this on — on that day.  And I would argue that a statement from the President is incredibly powerful, is important.  He spoke to this through — through his statement.  And the President has been very clear where he stands.

He believes that we need to continue to protect women’s right to make a decision, reproductive rights decision — reproductive health decision, pardon me.  And that’s where we’re going to continue to be.  That’s where he’s going to continue to be.  And we’ve been very clear about that. 

Q    We’ve asked about this before.  The Congressional Hispanic Caucus is once again concerned they are not being brought into conversations about potential executive orders and other actions taken by the White House, saying that what they’re reading about, at least, is unacceptable to them and they haven’t had much dialogue with the White House about it.  Are there any plans to — to remedy that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, first, we —

Q    To meet with them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No decisions have been made.  I want to be very, very clear about that, again.  And I would say that we are in regular communication, regular contact with members of — of the Hispanic Caucus, members of the Progressive Caucus, just members of —

Q    Well, they claim they’re not.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  From my understanding, and I’ve asked about this, we’ve been in regular communications with them.  And so, obviously, we respect — we respect congressional members.  We work — we work very closely with them on many, many issues. 

We’ve been in regular communication and regular contact.  We just don’t have any decisions to make on any executive actions.  We just don’t have any decisions that have been made.  And that may be why they haven’t been talked to about that particular issue. 

But I would say, as it relates to immigration, as it relates to what we’ve been trying to do, certainly as it related to the bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate, we were in regular discussion.  No decision has been made.  No decision has been made here. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  We know what the governors told us that the President told them about the border and what he’s considering with regards to executive actions.  Just for the sake of clarity, can you tell us what the President told them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to go into private conversations.  I’m just not.  The governors can speak for themselves.  I’m just not going to go into it.

Q    Okay.  And Tammy Duckworth, the senator from Illinois, is talking about legislation that could protect IVF at the federal level.  If Congress were to pass legislation to protect IVF, would President Biden sign it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have not seen the legislation.  I have not talked to our Office of Leg Affairs about it.  So, I want to be super careful here.  Obviously, Tammy Duckworth, the senator, is a — is a close colleague, someone we’ve worked very closely with.  So, I just would need to talk to our Office of Leg Affairs.

We believe the best way, honestly, to get this done, as it relates to the chaos that has been created, is to get Roe to — to become law of the land, and that’s something Congress can do.  I just — I want to be careful.  I just don’t want to speak to that particular legislation.

Q    And are you actively trying to get additional funding for the Border Patrol or some of the other funds to help deal with the border situation added to the CR or whatever vehicle might have to move to avoid a government shutdown?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we’re always having active conversations on what else we can do to make — to deal with the challenges at the border, obviously.  Don’t have anything specific to lay out on any additional funding.  Obviously, there was additional funding that we requested in that border security supplemental. 

Obviously, there would have been additional funding if the House — House Republicans would have moved forward with that bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate and Republicans didn’t reject it outright.  Obviously, that would have been helpful to what’s happening, the challenges at the border.  I just don’t have anything to share on the specifics.

Go ahead, (inaudible).

Q    Several on the border, Karine.  But the northern one, it’s not as dramatic as in the south, but there are different and more and more reports on migrants crossing the border to come to the U.S.  Is the administration worried?  Is it in contact with the Canadian government to try to stop the flow? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we are in constant communication with our Canadian counterparts, obviously, on a range of issues that — including migrants attempting to cross the border.  Don’t have any new announcements to make.  But we are constantly having those conversations with our counterparts in Canada.  I just don’t have anything for you at this time.

Q    How worried is the administration that it’s happening more and more (inaudible)? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I’m not going to — to put a gauge on this on how worried we are.  But we do have constant communication with our counterparts on a range of issues, including the one that you just laid out to me.

Q    And on the sanctions.  The Canadian government today, in parallel, announced its own package of sanctions against Russians and Russian entities.  How — how was the coordination happening, the — the planning of all of this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, obviously, I just laid out that we are in constant communication with our Canadian counterparts on a range of issues.  Obviously, Canada has been a — a strong partner with us, along with 50 other — 50 — or 49 other countries — obviously, NAT- — including NATO — NATO Alliance, as well, and what the President has been able to do to bring a strong front as it relates to helping Ukraine beat back with Russia’s aggression.

I don’t have any specific conversations to lay out on how that coordination — potential coordination worked.  But we are in constant communication with our Canadian counterparts.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  On the consideration of these new executive orders for the border.  What changed between the time President Biden said, “We are a nation who says, ‘If you want to flee and you’re fleeing oppression, you should come,’” and now? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t understand.  What — what do you mean?  The — your question, I don’t get —

Q    As a candidate —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — how it’s connected to the —

Q    — President Biden was telling people to come to the border.  So, what has changed since then?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I don’t have a context of this quote that you’re giving me.  But what I will say is this.  The President took this issue very seriously of what is happening at the border and what — and the immigration system as a whole.  Right? 

And we have said over and over again, this is a system that has been broken for decades, under the last administration, as you know, which was a Republican administration, and other administrations before that.  And he took this so seriously that the first piece of legislation that he put forth on day one was on immigration reform.  That is what counts, and that is what matters.

And for the past several months, we worked with Republican senators and also Democrats in the Senate to try to come up with a fair and tough piece of legislation that would deal with border security.  That was — let’s not forget — endorsed by the border union patrol.

And that’s how seriously the President has taken it.  We’ve done this for months, and House Republicans have gotten in the way.  The Speaker has gotten in the way. 

And so, we want to deal with this issue.  This is an issue that majority of Americans care about.  House Republicans, the Speaker got in the way.

The question really is for the Speaker: What changed?  Speaker Johnson, what’s changed?

Q    Something else President Biden has promised is a more humane border policy than Trump.  So, why would he even be considering now a border policy that is more similar to Trump?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What border policy are you talking about?

Q    Well, Axios is reporting that the legal authority Biden is considering using powered Trump’s Muslim ban and similar sweeping restrictions at the border.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into — get into or comment on individual policy option that’s being speculated right now.  As I said before, no decisions have been made.  We want to make sure — the President has been very clear: He wants to make sure that our country is safer, and we need more Border Security, abv- — obviously, to secure our border.  We’ve been very clear about that.  And we want to do it while treating people fairly and humanely, and that is consistent with our values.

But, look, Republicans continue to get in the way.  Speaker Johnson has gotten in the way of this.  And so, a lot of these questions are for him.

We did our job.  The Senate did their job in a bipartisan way on — there are provisions in that — polic- — policies that are in that legislation that Republicans agreed with at some point, not very long ago — just last year — that they agreed with.  And now they’re rejecting it.

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, with regards to the sanctions on Russia, you mentioned that previous sanctions, you said, had been effective, in part, because Russia was forced to go to other countries like Iran and North Korea to get resources. 

Still, though, the war is not over.  How can you make the argument that those sanctions have been effective if they’re still getting those resources from those other countries, wherever they get them from?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, we believe — and I just laid this out moments ago — that we have seen an impact.  I talked about Bloomberg.  I talked about what their — Putin’s own oil czar has had to do.  I mean, this is the — I mean, what we have been able to impose on — on Russia has been pretty significant.  It has been pretty significant, when you think about the — another major economy — the most that we’ve ever been able to do on any major economy.  And as — as I’ve stated, this is cumulative.  Right?  This is a — this is a continuation.  And we believe, as has been reported, that we have seen — that we have seen some impact here. 

We’re going to continue to use every tool — every tools in our — in our tool belt, obviously.  We’re going to develop — developing new tools to make it harder and costlier for Russia to fuel its war machine.  That’s what we’re going to do.  And at the same time, we need Congress to do their jobs, we need House Republicans, we need the Speaker to put on the floor a national security supplemental plan that we believe and we know will get bipartisan support. 

We’ve heard from Republicans in the House; we’ve heard from, obviously, Democrats in the House.  That’s what we need the — the House to do. 

Q    And on the border.  I know you’ve said you couldn’t or wouldn’t get into specific executive actions being considered or not considered.  But bottom line: As a — as a policy, does the administration believe that asylum laws need to be strengthened?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to be —

Q    And — but the reas- — the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  I know. 

Q    I know.  But the reason I asked that is that the bipartisan bill — and you said the President would sign it — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, he would.

Q    — would strengthen asylum laws.  So, I just want to be sure: The administration does believe that asylum laws need to be strengthened?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Obviously, because it was in — as you just stated — in the bipartisan legislation that came out of the Senate that the President’s team worked very closely on.  I just want to be very, very clear and very careful.  Decisions haven’t been made.  I’m not going to get into any internal — internal policy — individual policy, pardon me, option that’s being speculated in the press.  I’m just not going to do that from here.  But no decision has been made. 

Q    And finally, on a separate topic.  I know the U.S. has had a complicated relationship with Mexico before.  I wanted to get the White House’s reaction to President López Obrador doxing a New York Times reporter in a press conference.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, well, I — well, I’ve not seen that.  Obviously, that’s not something we support.  We believe in the freedom of the press, obviously, which is why we do this on — on — almost on a daily basis. 

And we — we — it is important for the press to be able to report on issues that matter to the American people freely in an — in a way that, obviously, you all feel secure and safe and in a way that you’re not being doxied [doxed] or attacked.  That is — you know, that is something that we will, obviously, reject. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  One follow-up on Nex Benedict and then another one on a —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — separate subject.  Given that Nex’s family said they had been bullied in the months prior to their death, specifically about their gender identity, and the family also says that Nex was physically assaulted the day prior to their death, does the White House think that this case should be the subject of a federal hate crime investigation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to be really careful.  That is something for the Department of Justice to decide on.  I cannot speak to that.  Obviously, our hearts go out to — to Nex Benedict’s family.  It is a tragedy that is awful. 

And I said this at the beginning, and I’ll say it again: Every kid should feel safe and should feel protected when they go to school.  And this should not be the case. 

But that is something — as far as any legal action, that’s something for the Department of Justice to decide. 

Q    And then the Florida Surgeon General defied CDC guidelines this week suggesting it’s fine to send unvaccinated kids to school amid a measles outbreak there.  This comes as the CDC says that routine childhood vaccinations hit a 10-year low in 2023, putting about a quarter of a million kindergarteners at risk for measles. 

Does the administration support tightening the kinds of philosophical and religious exemptions that are increasingly being used to defy school childhood vaccine mandates?  And what else is the administration doing to promote the importance of childhood vaccines, especially against the backdrop of this nationwide uptick in measles outbreaks?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, just a — a couple of things.  As it relates to the outbreak, the CDC is actively monitoring these cases.  And as you know, we have — the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response remains in close and regular contact as we continue to — to work and monitor what’s going on on the ground. 

And we want to make sure that communities feel safe, obviously.  So, any questions on — specifically on that, I would refer you to the CDC. 

Look, you know, responding to measles outbreaks, which are now, obviously, occurring in every region of the world is a priority for this administration.  Meas- — measles, as you know, is highly contagious, infect- — infectious — contagious infection.  But it is easily prevented with routine child- — childhood vaccines. 

We are providing technical support to the — for example, to the World Health Organization and UNICEF, and we are donating, as well — make sure that there is a vaccine alliance, which has provided millions of measles and other vaccine doses to low- and low-middle-income countries. 

So, we are monitoring this.  It is important that, obviously, we do everything we can to mitigate the situation.  But CDC is actively aware, obv- — obviously, actively monitoring these cases that we’re seeing across the country. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  So, in addition to the sanctions, is the President supportive of, you know, confiscating frozen Russian assets and using it for Ukraine’s reconstruction? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things, because this is a little bit complicated.  And I want to take a step back for the folks who — who are, clearly, watching the briefing.  I understand that you all understand this.

But in 2- — 2022, we worked together with our allies and partners to quickly immobilize almost $300 billion of Russia’s sovereign assets that they had held internationally when they launched their brutal invasion of Ukraine.  That joint action to cut off Russia’s access to a significant amount of funds has made it much riskier for Russia to fund its war against the Ukrainian people and boost their defense spending while also mana- — managing their economy. 

So, now we’re going to continue to be in active conversation with our allies and partners, including the G7, as well as members of Congress, on additional steps to seize Russia’s aggres- — to seize Russians’ — Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and to ensure Russia pays for the damage it has caused.

I don’t have any new announcement to make.  But it is a bit complicated because, as I said, we’re talking about international — kind of an int- — it’s been held internationally.  So, it is a little bit more complicated.

Q    Are there other countries who are planning to, you know, take that action? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would refer you to other countries.  I can’t speak for other countries here.  But I just wanted to make sure we laid out it is complicated.  It is not as simple as it — as it may seem.  But, certainly, don’t have any new announcements to make at this time. 

Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Thanks.  What’s the view from the White House right now about how conversations are going about government funding and spending bills next week — or ahead of next week’s significant deadlines —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I mean —

Q    — for a shutdown?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, and we’re — you know, we’ve been here before and we’ve always been very clear: House Republicans have a job to do.  Their basic duty is to keep the government open.  They need to not play politics here.  They need to not play politics here.  They need to get this done.  We’ve been very clear about that.  And — and it is their job.

If you think about it, and I’ve talked about this before, House Republicans — two thirds of the House Republicans voted for the deal last year.  And just early this year, they reaffirmed that deal.  So, what’s the problem?  What’s the problem here?  They need to get this done.  They need to get this done. 

There are important programs that the American people need.  And so, they need to move forward and make sure we keep the government open.

Q    I feel like I’ve asked you this before deadlines.  But are you anticipating another short-term funding bill, another CR?  And is the President okay with that this time around too?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m not going to get into legislative negotiations from here.  But, look, it is — we got to be really clear.  Like, these are programs that are critical, that are important to the American people.  And it needs to get done.  It needs to get done. 

So, I’m not going to get into negotiations from here.  House Republicans need to do their jobs here.  They need to get to work.  And they need to make sure that we — they avoid, they prevent a needless shutdown.

Q    And are White House officials involved in any conversations, like Leg Affairs, with congressional leaders this weekend about getting closer to something?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I can say that OMB — OMB and our Leg Affairs team are in touch with lawmakers from both parties every day on the need to keep the government open. 

But, again, this is — this — this problem is a problem of the House Republicans’ making.  It’s not something that we can fix for them.  This is something that they can deal with.  This is something that they need to actually work on.  And they need to get to work here.  They need to get to work.

Go ahead, Ed.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I want to try a little bit different on the executive actions, possibly, on the border.  The bills are stalled.  So, why wait three years, now, in to take alternatives or take possible executive actions on the border?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What are you talking about?

Q    Well, you mentioned the — the bill, the when — the first week in office, the President issued his bill that — for immigration reform and then the negotiated Senate bill.  Those are both stalled.  The House is not taking them up.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think you’re seeing it very differently than we are.  We’re saying that the President took it very seriously.  He took it very seriously by taking action on day one, putting forward a comprehensive immigration policy legislation that he wanted Congress to act on.  They did not act on it. 

We — we taken actions on our own.  And we’ve been able to secure some funding to deal with what we’ve seen at the border.  But we need more.  We need more.  And we’ve said this.  We have said this for the past three years.  And House Republicans have continued to get in the way. 

In the last couple of months, we worked with Senate Republicans and Democrats for — for several months to come up with a border security that is tough, that is fair, that’s supported — that was endorsed by the Border Patrol union.  The Border Patrol union endorsed this — this legislation.  Repu- — Republicans rejected it. 

So, this is — this is something for Republicans in the House to speak to.  We’ve worked with the Senate in a bipartisan way to get this done, to actually deal with an issue that matters to the American people, in a bipartisan way.  And House Republicans have allowed politics to get in the way. 

And Speaker Johnson left early after — if you think about the national security supplemental that had to — we had to take out — they had to take out the border security from it because that’s what the Speaker wanted.  That was done out of the Senate.  It was passed.  And then, the Speaker went home early and is gone.  He went on — they — he went on vacation early. 

And so, this is — this is truly a question for the Speaker.

Q    Well — but my question is — is: Now we’re hearing about executive actions that could be taken.  Why wait this long —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have been very —

Q    — to look at executive actions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’ve been very clear: We have made no decisions on that.  I’m not going to get into policy discussions or hypotheticals that we’re hearing right now.  Be very clear. 

But the focus here should be what happened in the Senate in a bipartisan way that Republicans have rejected.  That is — that is the reality that we’re in here, Ed.  That’s the reality.

Q    And then one more, if I may.  In fiscal year 2023, at the border, there were 24,000 Chinese nationals that had illegally crossed and 288 were deported.  And the National Border Patrol Council President says that the vast majority of them coming across now are military-aged men.  What’s the level of concern for the White House about these military-aged men?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, this is a — this is — continues to be a concern for this for — for this administration.  So, we’ll — we’ll just start there.  But speaking specifically to individuals just in general who pose a — a risk to public safety and national security regardless of nationality, they are detained as they undergo immigration proceedings and are removed if they do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States.

Global migration is at the highest since World War Two.  And that means we work with our international par- — partners to bolster their enforcement capabilities while expanding economic opportunities and lawful pathways. 

That’s what we’ve been able to do for migrants deserving of protection, specifically under the President’s Los Angeles Declaration for Migration and Protection and Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. 

And again, I go back to that bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate.  And that would have been a — a step forward here.  It would have been a piece of legislation that — that, as I’ve said, would have been tough, it would have been fair, and it was endorsed by the Border Patrol union, and Republicans in — in the House rejected it.

Go ahead, Gerren.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  A group of progressive lawmakers led by Congresswoman Barbara Lee and 200 organizations sent a letter to the President this week urging him to take executive action, including executive orders, to advance a range of bills that have been introduced by Democrats that have been stalled in Congress, including H.R. 40, which the President said he supports, to create a reparations commission, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act, as well as resolutions to protect Black history and create a banned books weeks in — in light of these bans we’ve been seeing in states like Florida. 

Has the White House received this letter?  And does the President believe that his racial justice agenda has been effective?  And does he think that he — he can do more through executive action?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just say that a lot of — and, yes, we have received the letter, and a lot of the items in the letter that has been — the issues that have been outlined is some of the — is some of the causes that the President has championed over the past three years. 

The President has taken, as you know, historic actions as it relates to voting rights here, strengthening voting rights on the federal level.  He’s taken action to raise wages.  Let’s not forget the actions that he’s taken — because he’s taken the actions on building an economy from the bottom up, middle out, we have seen, as it relates to unemployment for the Black community.  When he walked in, it was at 9 percent.  Now it’s at 5 percent.  Always more work to be done.  But that matters. 

Black wealth has jumped up to 60 percent since the pre-pandemic days. 

He supports a study of reparations and continues the — as — and the continuing impacts of slavery and signed an executive order to — to deal with racial equality on his very first day in office, as it relates to the federal government and what agencies can do better.  And also, you know, he’s spoken about banning of books as it relates to Black history.

So, the President is going to — is committed to making sure that we address racial inequalities here, and he’s going to take — continue — and he’s going to continue to take action to make sure no communities are left behind.  And as I just stated, he’s taken historic executive action on this issue.

This is a priority for this President.  When he walked into this administration, he talked about the different — the different crises that our country was dealing with: climate change, it was COVID at the time, the economy at the time.  Racial inequality was part of that as well.

And so, he’s committed.  He’s committed.

(Speaking to an aide.)  I know.  You’re trying to get me.  (Laughs.)

Go ahead, sir.

Q    Thank you.  During last year, in December, the administration sold weapons to Israel, bypassing Congress.  Why can’t the U.S. do the same for Ukraine right here and right now, given their desperate need of weaponry?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, we need — we actually need funding.  We need this — we need this funding in order to get Ukraine what they need.  It’s gone.  You’ve heard — you’ve heard — you’ve heard the Admiral speak to this.  You’ve heard the National Security Advisor speak to this from this podium.  It’s gone.  There is no more.

We need Congress to do its job and to pass much-needed assistance — security assistance that the Ukraines need — Ukrainians need.

Q    But we’re talking about a sale of weaponry.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  If there’s — I mean, there’s a lot more to this, right?  There is actual — their actual funding that we need to make sure that we get so that DOD and so that the –obviously, the Pentagon can do what it needs to do in order to give the — to give the security assistance that is needed, to give — to give the — to give the weapons that they need to pro- — to fight against Ukrainians’ [Russia’s] aggression.

You’ve heard the Admiral speak to this today on his — in his gaggle, and you’ve heard him talk about this multiple times. 

There are — there is an assistance that we have to provide to them.  That is — it’s not a — we just don’t have it now.  We’re done.

Q    If there — if there is no success on the Hill, would you consider selling weapons to Ukraine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, the way to deal with this is to pass this national security supplemental.  The way to actually help the people of Ukraine to fight for their sovereignty, to fight for their democracy, to fight against — against Mr. Putin’s aggression is to actually pass this national security supplemental. 

That would get bipartisan support in the House.  It will.  That’s how we’re — we move forward here.  There’s no other way to actually do this in a bipartisan scenario.  It’s there.  And Speaker — Speaker — the Speaker needs to do his job.  Speaker Johnson needs to take this up. 

We know that the bipartisan support exists.  We’ve heard from Republicans speak to this directly and very recently.  So, why doesn’t he just do his job and stop putting politics in front of this? 

This is why I don’t want to get into hypotheticals, because there’s an option that exists.  There’s an actual oct- — option that exists.  And the Speaker is putting politics in this.  And that’s not how we should move forward.

All right, everybody.  Thank you so much.

Q    Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  See you tomorrow — not tomorrow.  Tomorrow is Saturday.  (Laughter.)

See you next week.

2:32 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, February 23, 2024 appeared first on The White House.

James S.  Brady Press Briefing Room

1:40 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon, everybody.

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think it’s Frid- — it’s Friday, right?

Q    (Inaudible.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  (Laughs.)  Good point.  Good point.

Okay.  A couple things at the top before we get into questions.  (A cellphone rings.)  Somebody wants to take that?  (Laughter.)  Don’t want to interrupt your call.

Okay.  So, I want to address some devastating news out of Oklahoma.  As a parent, I was absolutely heartbroken to learn about Nex Benedict’s death.

Every young person deserves to feel safe and supported at school.

Our hearts are with Nec- — Nex Benedict’s family, friends, entire school community in the wake of this horrific and gut-wrenching tragedy.

I know that for many LGBTQ+ students across the country, this may feel personal and deeply, deeply painful.

There is always someone you can talk to if you’re going through a hard time and need support.

The President and his administration launched the 988 line to help, and we have a line dedicated to serving LGBTQ+ young people that can be reached by dialing 988 and pressing “3.”

Through devastating tragedies like these, we must support each other and lift one another up.

Now, in another news that we learned — that came out this week is how the people of Alabama woke up to shocking news.

The State Supreme Court has put access to fertility treatments at risk for families who are desperately trying to get pregnant.

It’s unimaginable for people who want to become parents, and it’s a devastating example of the kind of chaos and confusion that has resulted from the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

There are reports that families seeking fertility care don’t know what to do or where to turn.  Doctors are afraid to pr- — of prosecution.  And families in other states are worried they might be next.

But this is not the first time reproductive care has been disrupted in Alabama, a state where women are already living under a total abortion ban.  The state has no exceptions for rape or incest.

This is the same state whose Attorney General threatened to prosecute people who help women travel out of state to seek the care that they need.

And it’s not just Alabama.  We’re seeing this chaos play out across the country.

The day Roe fell is the day that the floodgates opened for Republican elected officials to dictate some of the most personal decisions families can make.

Now, as a result:

Twenty-one states have abortion bans in effect.  In nearly all [these] states, doctors can be charged with a felony for simply doing their jobs.

Twenty-seven million women of reproductive age now live in states with abortion bans.

Over 380 state bills restricting access to abortion care were introduced just last year.

And congressional Republicans have proposed three national abortion bans.

It doesn’t stop there.  Believe it or not, it doesn’t stop there.

Birth control access is under attack.  Women are being denied care for ectopic pregnancy.  And now, with this decision out of Alabama — Alabama, IVF is under attack.

So, we want to be really clear here: It is absolutely unacceptable to this administration when women are denied the care that they need.  It is unacceptable.

President Biden and Vice President Harris will continue to fight to protect access to reproductive healthcare and call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law for all women in every state.

Now, as you saw this mo- — morning, we are excited to announce that on March 1st, President Biden will welcome Prime Minister Meloni of Italy to the White House to reaffirm the strong relationship between the United States and Italy.

The leaders will discuss shared approaches to address global challenges, including their commitment to continue supporting Ukraine as it confronts Russia’s aggressions, preventing regional escalation in the Middle East and delivering humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, developments in North Africa, and close trans- — transatlantic coordination regarding the People’s Republic of China.

They will also discuss Italy’s G7 presidency and coordinate in advance of the N- — of the NATO Summit in Washington.

And finally, earlier today, you heard directly from the President when he delivered remarks and issued a statement to mark the second anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine tomorrow. 

We mourn — we mourn the many Ukrainian lives who have been lost as a result of Russia’s unprovoked and unlawful war, and we are committed — committed to com- — continuing to support the people of Ukraine as they defend themselves against Russia’s vicious and brutal war in Ukraine.

As part of that commitment, we sanctioned over 500 targets today to impose additional costs on Russia for its repression, human rights abuses, and aggression against Ukraine.

The Department of Commerce is adding more than 90 companies to the Entity List for their activities in support of Russia’s defense-industrial base and war effort.

And the Department of State is designating three Russian individuals who were connected to Navalny’s imprisonment and the Russian government’s harsh treatment of him.

The U.S. government has designated over 4,000 entities and individuals in response to Russia’s war on Ukraine over the past two years, the strongest set of sanctions ever imposed on a major economy.

And we will continue — we will continue to take actions to ensure Mr. Putin pays an — an — a steeper price for his aggression abroad, the repression at home.

At the same time, we need House Republicans to join us — to join us in standing up to Putin and to take action by passing the national security supplemental bill to ensure we can continue to support Ukraine.

Time is of the essence and Ukraine cannot afford for House Republicans to continue to delay.

Before I continue, we will have the week ahead later to all of you.  I don’t have that in front of me at this time.  But, obviously, we’ll share that with all of you.

Go ahead, Zeke.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  We’ve heard some sharp words from the President, from yourself, criticism of the Speaker for not bringing up the Ukraine aid to the floor.  Has the President reached out directly to the Speaker at all since their last conversation a month ago?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we have- — I don’t have a — a call to read out to you about a call between the President or — and the Speaker. 

You — look, want to be very clear here.  We’ve been — we’ve been — and it’s been clear to all of you, and you’ve all have reported this as well.  We know for a fact that if this bill — this national security supplemental were to go to the floor, it would get bipartisan support.  This is in the House — in the House, obviously.  We know that House Republicans would support this.  We know that House Democrats would support this.

All — all he needs to do — all the Speaker needs to do is bring this to the floor — it will get support — instead of playing political — political games here, instead of playing political stunts. 

And you all have reported — I believe Politico reported — how there is no direction for this — for this — for this Republican co- — caucus in the House.  They don’t have a plan. 
And it’s easy to do. 

This is something — and I’m going to be really blunt here.  Lives are at stake.  If you think about what’s happening in Ukraine, if you think about what’s happening in the Middle East, lives are at stake here.  This is about saving lives, and they can get this done. 

This is also about the national security of the American people.  So, if he truly stands with the American people, he would get this done.  Put it on the floor.  It will get bipartisan support.  Put it on the floor.  Stop playing political games.

Q    In your topper, you mentioned the Alabama decision.  Is there any actions the federal government can take or is looking at taking to try to help women who are trying to get in vitro fertilization services?  (Inaudible) hospital network that — that stopped the practice now.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look — and, look, I don’t have anything to share at this time.  I know you’re asking me are there any policy actions — right? — that we can take from here.  Look, what we will say here is that the fix here is — is not — is — is Roe v. Wade.  That’s the fix.  That’s how we get to a place where we fix what’s going on and stop the chaos that we’re seeing in these states. 

That’s the fix.  It is a legislative fix that needs to come from Congress.  That’s what we need to get — to get to a place to.

I don’t have anything to announce here.  But it is unimaginable of what families are now having to deal with and how this could spread to other states.  And this is the chaos — the chaos that comes from the Dobbs decision, that comes from what Republicans have been doing since the Dobbs decision. 

And so, we have to get this right.  We have to get this fixed by making sure Congress acts and gets Roe — become — makes Roe the law of the land.  The courts got it wrong.  The courts got it wrong in this.

Q    And then, last from me.  Last month, the President said that he did not have any additional executive authority to act on with regard to the border.  He met with governors this morning, where he apparently told them that he was looking and talked to his lawyers and seemed frustrated with his lawyers as he’s trying to devise some executive actions.  We did some reporting on that in the last couple of days as well.

So, is the President currently contemplating any additional executive actions on the border?  What are they, and when will we see that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we don’t have any actions to — to announce today — no decisions.  And this is something that I’ve actually spoken to the President about.  No decisions have been made on this. 

Here’s what we know, and here’s the bottom line.  There is no executive action — no executive action that the President can take — no matter how aggressive it could be, can deliver the significant policy reforms and additional — additional resources that Congress could have provided that Republicans rejected.  Right? 

There’s nothing — no actions that he could take that would have been — that would be as — as — as tough, as fair as this bipartisan — bipartisan legislation that came out of the Senate, obviously, that we worked on for — for months. 

And that’s what would have actually dealt with this, what was happening at the border, dealt with the immigration situation.  And this is what Republicans rejected.

And so, look, I don’t have any decisions to — to make at this time.  What we believe is that that piece of legislation that came out — bipartisan piece of legislation that came out of the Senate, that would have been the way to move forward here. 

And, again, Republicans in the House decided to block that.  They decided to go a political direction.  They decided on issues, on policies that were included in there that they believed in — that they, at one point, believed that’s how to move forward to deal with the border — they — they rejected it.

And so, again, don’t have anything to announce at this time or any decisions — to be even more clear, any decisions that have been made right now.  But we had something at — on the table that came out of the Senate in a bipartisan way, and they decided — and they rejected it, meaning the Republicans in the House.

Go ahead, Selina.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  On the Alabama IVF ruling.  How concerned should American families be that this could spread to other conservative states?  And does this president need to do more than simply calling for the codification of Roe v. Wade?  Does he need to go further here, since this does deal with —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look —

Q    — a separate issue?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  And I hear your — your — your question here.  Yeah, they should be concerned.  They should be concerned.  On your first part of your question, they should be concerned that this should — could spread in other states.

This is the chaos that has come out of the Dobbs decision.  This is the chaos that has come out of — of getting ri- — rid of Roe, which was the law of the land for almost 50 years. 

And so, look, what needs to happen — I mean, the way that we fix this or the way that we get to a place where women feel protected, where women can make decisions on their own body, where families can make a decision on how to move forward in –in growing their family or starting a family is to — is to get Roe and Wade to — Roe v. Wade needs to be the law of the land.  That’s the fix.  That’s what needs to happen.

And there is — that is the — the best way to move forward here.

Q    And on the border deal.  The President had earlier said that he was out of options when it comes to executive actions.  Does the fact that he’s considering other actions mean that there was more he could have done earlier? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    So, what changed here?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to be very clear.  The bottom line, the only way to — we could have had move forward — we could move forward in a effective, more comprehensive way was to move forward with the bipartisan — bipartisan legislation that came out of the Senate.  That was the way that we believe would have been a fair — it was a — one of the toughest, one of the fairest bipartisan border security bills that we have seen in decades. 

It would have dealt with giving resources that’s needed at the border.  It would have dealt with dealing with policy issues as it relates to immigration.  And that’s what — the way we should have moved forward.

A couple of things it would have done: establish a fair — a more efficient process for asylum claims with consequences for those who do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States; provide more resources to secure the border and process claims — Border Patrol agents, law enforcement personnel, and detection technology to combat fentanyl trafficking, asylum officers and immigration judges; make our country safer, our border more secure, while treating people fairly and humanely, consistent with our values as a nation.

Republicans rejected this bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate.  That’s something that the President worked with in a bipartisan way, obviously, with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate for months.  They rejected that.

And we believe that is the direction — that is the bottom line for us.  That’s what — that’s the way we should have moved forward.  We just — I don’t have anything to announce or any decision that’s been made.

Q    Just real quickly, though.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Roe v. Wade versus trying to protect women’s rights to IVF treatment: They are two separate things.  So, is the administration looking at protections for the latter?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I don’t have anything to share on any policy changes or any policy updates for all of you.  We have to understand how this started.  This started because of what happened with Roe — the Dobbs decision to overturn Roe, something that was a — a — you know, a Roe was — was — was, you know, constitutional for almost 50 years — almost 50 years.  And that got overturned. 

And the moment that got overturned, that day, Republicans started to work and take action.  I just mentioned 380 pieces of legislation to go against what women’s — difficult decisions that women’s need — women need to make about their bodies, about their family, about how they’re going to move forward, about the care that they need — 380 pieces of legislation across the country.  That’s what is happening.  That’s what’s happening right now. 

And so, the chaos has been started — was started the day that happened — the day Roe was overturned.  And the only way to fix this — the best way to fix this is to restore Roe.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  The President made an appeal this morning to the governors at the White House, asking them to kind of go back to their states and talk to their congressional lawmakers about passing the Ukraine aid bill.  I’m wondering if that is sort of the next course of action where you’re thinking about targeting the Speaker and top House Republicans in their districts. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, the President had an opportunity to — to engage with governors of both — obviously of both parties, which is something that he does yearly.  And they have important — important items to speak on — to speak to on the agenda.  And obviously, this is a — this is an issue that governors care about. 

We know that even with the bipartisan deal for the border security, obviously, that came out of the Senate, we got support from governors.  We got letters from governors.  We got letters from that included c- — mayors from — from the cities that were being affected.  So, we know that we got support from them. 

And so, one way, obviously, to get the Speaker to do his job and put it — put it on the floor and actually take it up is for governors to speak up as well. 

And I believe that they have.  Obviously, the letter was a key part of that. 

And so, look, there are — there are many, many items on the agenda to discuss.  This is something that’s important when you think about immigration, when you think about what’s happening at the border and how it’s affecting these — these states, these governors. 

So, yeah, I think it’s important for — one way the President to show leadership is to also say — and — and governors to show leadership is to — to be very clear what this means to them, to their constituents back at home. 

Q    Are you planning to follow up with them in, you know, the next week if they have had those conversations?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, we’ve been in regular touch with governors.  Obviously, we — there was a billion dollars that we were able to secure to help governors deal with the — the migrant situation, the migrant issue over the past several months. 

So, we’ve been in constant communication with governors, with mayors.  And so, those conversations continue.

What you were able to see is the President leaning in and showing how important it is to move with the — with the bipartisan deal, as it relates to the border — obviously, border security and — and also, obviously, the national security supplemental, since we are — we are speaking about the — the two-year anniversary tomorrow of Ukraine being — being attacked by Russia. 

So, all of these things are important.  We’re talking about our national security — our national security — the importance of our national security for the American people.  And we’re also talking about our border and what we need to do to make sure that we deal with the border challenges. 

Q    I have a quick one on the meeting that he had in California with Navalny’s family.  We did see the readout that you put out.  You know, the President has spoken a little bit on it.  But what specific assurances did he offer Yulia?  Because the sanctions package was already in the works — right? — to mark the anniversary of the two-year war.

What did he tell the Navalny family that he can do?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So —

Q    — to protect them?  I mean, did he advise her not to go back to Russia?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to be really careful and not speak to a private conversation that the President had.  That is something that we don’t do here.  I’m not going to go beyond the readout. 

But, yes, was the — was the sanction package in motion before Navalny’s death?  Yes.  As you — as you know, tomorrow will be a two-year anniversary. 

But we added to — we added to the package — obviously added additional sanctions once we learned about Navalny’s death. 

So, both are true.  In this case, both can be true and are true.  And so, I just am not going to go beyond a conversation — a private conversation. 

Q    Did he ask her not to go back to Russia?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not — I’m just not going to do that.  Obviously, it is her decision to make.  I’m just not going to get into — into private conversations.

Go ahead.

Q    Border deal aside, the White House is actively discussing taking executive action on the border, as the governors mentioned earlier today, and as we’ve reported.  So, why now?  Is the border deal just a jumping off point to new executive actions that the President can take?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not going to comment on any individual policy option that’s being speculated in the media.  I’m just not going to do that. 

What we have been very clear — the bottom line is the way to have moved forward was with this border deal.  That’s the way —

Q    But there is executive actions that are now being considered that weren’t considered before.  So, why?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not — I’m not going to get into any policy discussions that are possibly happening or — or how- — however it’s being reported.  I’m just not going to get into that. 

What I can say is the bottom line here: We believe no executive action, no matter how aggressive it could be or — or could look would have been as — as significant as the border deal that came out of the Senate in a bipartisan way.  No action. 

And let’s not forget: Republicans rejected that.  And so, don’t have anything to go — to go on beyond that. 

Q    On Alabama.  What’s your message to the clinics in Alabama that have proactively paused IVF treatments?  Are they making the right call?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I can’t speak to the decisions that the clinics are making.  That is for them.  They are, you know — you know, there are safety concerns.  There’s legal concerns that they have to weigh and decide on.

What we can speak to is the chaos that has been created because of the overturning of Roe, and we see this.  And it is devastating.  It is devastating.  It is dangerous to women. 

And so, what we’re going to do is continue to speak out against that and make it very clear that — that the court decision that was made was wrong.  And — and, yeah, you know what?  This could — this could get spread.  This could go beyond Alabama.  And that is a scary thought for many families across the country, certainly many women across the country. 

Q    Last question.  You mentioned there’s no readout with the President and the House Speaker.  The — one of the — one of the messages in the G7 call, according to John Kirby, will be that the President will do everything he can to get Congress to pass that funding.  Has there been any reach-out from the White House to try to get a call or a meeting in the books since he is the person between that funding and the White House?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I — I get the question.  But let’s not forget, for the past several months, NSC and other parts of, obviously, the President’s administration have had regular conversation.  You’ve heard Jake Sullivan speak to going over to House and the Senate to talk to Republicans and Democrats about the aid, about the importance of the Ukraine aid. 

You’ve heard that conversation.  You’ve heard him say this from this podium.  And we also know that there is bipartisan support.  We saw it coming out of the Senate.  And there’s bipartisan support in the House.

What the Speaker — the pressure here needs to be on the Speaker.  The Speaker needs to do his job and actually take this up, put it to the — if he were to put it to the floor, it would have bipartisan support. 

But we’ve been doing our job.  We’ve been having those conversations with congressional members.  And, you know, it’s — it’s unfortunate that the Speaker chooses to turn this into a political — a political football here. 

This is not what this is about.  This is about our national security.  This is about the American people.

Go ahead, Ed.

Q    On the sanctions —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — that were unveiled today.  What makes these sanctions any more effective than the hundreds announced before?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  So, a couple of things, as I just mentioned.  So, first of all, these sanctions are cumulative, so we have to look at it in that way.  These are 500 new targeted sanctions that are now being sanctioned — the targets are being sanctioned for the first time, so that’s important to note. 

These targets are within Russia’s defense industrial base, its financial system, and it will continue to impose costs on Russia to make it harder to carry out its brutal war and vicious war in Ukraine. 

We will continue to make sure that we hold Putin’s aggression accountable and raise the cost on his — on — not — not just him but also his enablers.  But we also, as I’ve said — as I’ve stated, we need Congress to act.  They need to do their job.  They need to provide the assistance that Ukrainians need to continue to fight Putin’s brutal war. 

That’s what they need to do.  They need to be able to make sure that we provide Ukraine’s — Ukrainians with the assistance to defend themselves.  And so, we are continuing to urge the Speaker.  Again, if the Speaker were to put this on the floor, we would see bipartisan support for the national security bill.

Q    I guess, asked another way, you’ve — there have been 4,000 sanctions now in the last two years.  It hasn’t stopped the war.  So, to what extent — or how should the success of these sanctions even be measured —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look —

Q    — if that hasn’t happened?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, I totally get the question.  Look, we believe they’ve been effective.  Right?  That’s what we believe.  The goal of sanction export control is to increase — again, increase the cost of — of Mr. Putin and his enablers.  And it’s clear that our sanctions and imports controls are having an impact. 

And so — and it’s not just them.  It’s — obviously, Russia had been forced — because of we’re — we’re raising the stakes on Russia and their — and his enablers, we see Russia being forced — right? — to turn to countries like Iran and North Korea to get the arms and ammunition it needs to carry out this war. 

And I want to read — I want to just lay out an example from Bloomberg.  Bloomberg reported last month that Russia’s government has tapped almost half of the national wealth funds available — available reserves as it pours money into the — its defense budget at the expense of Russia’s other needs. 

When you think about Putin’s own oil c- — own oil czar, they have li- — he’s linked the fact that Russia has been forced to sell its oil at heavily discounted prices to our coalition’s increased enforcement of oil — oil price cap in recent months.

So, we have seen the impact, we believe.  Again, this is cumulative, what we were able to sanction — again, 500 additional targets.  And we believe that it has had an impact.

Q    On the Alabama IVF ruling, you have spoken out just here forcefully about it.  The Vice President did yesterday and continues to on her national tour.  The President tweeted about it and issued a written statement. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    When might we see him more publicly speak out about this issue?  We keep hearing — at least we keep hearing from voters and Democrats who say, “Where is he on this?  Why isn’t he talking about –”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, I’ve —

Q    “– an issue of such urgent concern?”  Presidential focus, time, statement in public instead of on paper is very different than sending you out here or tweeting about it or sending the Vice President on the road.  So —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, Ed, I think the President has spoken about what the attack on reproductive rights on — what the attack on women being able to make choices on behalf of — of their own healthcare and getting the healthcare that they need, the actions that he has taken, whether it’s executive actions and what, obviously, his agencies have been able to do — DOJ, HHS — I mean, those have been done because of this President, and he has spoken to this many times. 

The day that Roe was overturned, you heard from the President.  The President was the only person that spoke to this on — on that day.  And I would argue that a statement from the President is incredibly powerful, is important.  He spoke to this through — through his statement.  And the President has been very clear where he stands.

He believes that we need to continue to protect women’s right to make a decision, reproductive rights decision — reproductive health decision, pardon me.  And that’s where we’re going to continue to be.  That’s where he’s going to continue to be.  And we’ve been very clear about that. 

Q    We’ve asked about this before.  The Congressional Hispanic Caucus is once again concerned they are not being brought into conversations about potential executive orders and other actions taken by the White House, saying that what they’re reading about, at least, is unacceptable to them and they haven’t had much dialogue with the White House about it.  Are there any plans to — to remedy that?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, first, we —

Q    To meet with them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No decisions have been made.  I want to be very, very clear about that, again.  And I would say that we are in regular communication, regular contact with members of — of the Hispanic Caucus, members of the Progressive Caucus, just members of —

Q    Well, they claim they’re not.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  From my understanding, and I’ve asked about this, we’ve been in regular communications with them.  And so, obviously, we respect — we respect congressional members.  We work — we work very closely with them on many, many issues. 

We’ve been in regular communication and regular contact.  We just don’t have any decisions to make on any executive actions.  We just don’t have any decisions that have been made.  And that may be why they haven’t been talked to about that particular issue. 

But I would say, as it relates to immigration, as it relates to what we’ve been trying to do, certainly as it related to the bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate, we were in regular discussion.  No decision has been made.  No decision has been made here. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you.  We know what the governors told us that the President told them about the border and what he’s considering with regards to executive actions.  Just for the sake of clarity, can you tell us what the President told them?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m just not going to go into private conversations.  I’m just not.  The governors can speak for themselves.  I’m just not going to go into it.

Q    Okay.  And Tammy Duckworth, the senator from Illinois, is talking about legislation that could protect IVF at the federal level.  If Congress were to pass legislation to protect IVF, would President Biden sign it?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have not seen the legislation.  I have not talked to our Office of Leg Affairs about it.  So, I want to be super careful here.  Obviously, Tammy Duckworth, the senator, is a — is a close colleague, someone we’ve worked very closely with.  So, I just would need to talk to our Office of Leg Affairs.

We believe the best way, honestly, to get this done, as it relates to the chaos that has been created, is to get Roe to — to become law of the land, and that’s something Congress can do.  I just — I want to be careful.  I just don’t want to speak to that particular legislation.

Q    And are you actively trying to get additional funding for the Border Patrol or some of the other funds to help deal with the border situation added to the CR or whatever vehicle might have to move to avoid a government shutdown?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we’re always having active conversations on what else we can do to make — to deal with the challenges at the border, obviously.  Don’t have anything specific to lay out on any additional funding.  Obviously, there was additional funding that we requested in that border security supplemental. 

Obviously, there would have been additional funding if the House — House Republicans would have moved forward with that bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate and Republicans didn’t reject it outright.  Obviously, that would have been helpful to what’s happening, the challenges at the border.  I just don’t have anything to share on the specifics.

Go ahead, (inaudible).

Q    Several on the border, Karine.  But the northern one, it’s not as dramatic as in the south, but there are different and more and more reports on migrants crossing the border to come to the U.S.  Is the administration worried?  Is it in contact with the Canadian government to try to stop the flow? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we are in constant communication with our Canadian counterparts, obviously, on a range of issues that — including migrants attempting to cross the border.  Don’t have any new announcements to make.  But we are constantly having those conversations with our counterparts in Canada.  I just don’t have anything for you at this time.

Q    How worried is the administration that it’s happening more and more (inaudible)? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I’m not going to — to put a gauge on this on how worried we are.  But we do have constant communication with our counterparts on a range of issues, including the one that you just laid out to me.

Q    And on the sanctions.  The Canadian government today, in parallel, announced its own package of sanctions against Russians and Russian entities.  How — how was the coordination happening, the — the planning of all of this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, obviously, I just laid out that we are in constant communication with our Canadian counterparts on a range of issues.  Obviously, Canada has been a — a strong partner with us, along with 50 other — 50 — or 49 other countries — obviously, NAT- — including NATO — NATO Alliance, as well, and what the President has been able to do to bring a strong front as it relates to helping Ukraine beat back with Russia’s aggression.

I don’t have any specific conversations to lay out on how that coordination — potential coordination worked.  But we are in constant communication with our Canadian counterparts.

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  On the consideration of these new executive orders for the border.  What changed between the time President Biden said, “We are a nation who says, ‘If you want to flee and you’re fleeing oppression, you should come,’” and now? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t understand.  What — what do you mean?  The — your question, I don’t get —

Q    As a candidate —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — how it’s connected to the —

Q    — President Biden was telling people to come to the border.  So, what has changed since then?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I don’t have a context of this quote that you’re giving me.  But what I will say is this.  The President took this issue very seriously of what is happening at the border and what — and the immigration system as a whole.  Right? 

And we have said over and over again, this is a system that has been broken for decades, under the last administration, as you know, which was a Republican administration, and other administrations before that.  And he took this so seriously that the first piece of legislation that he put forth on day one was on immigration reform.  That is what counts, and that is what matters.

And for the past several months, we worked with Republican senators and also Democrats in the Senate to try to come up with a fair and tough piece of legislation that would deal with border security.  That was — let’s not forget — endorsed by the border union patrol.

And that’s how seriously the President has taken it.  We’ve done this for months, and House Republicans have gotten in the way.  The Speaker has gotten in the way. 

And so, we want to deal with this issue.  This is an issue that majority of Americans care about.  House Republicans, the Speaker got in the way.

The question really is for the Speaker: What changed?  Speaker Johnson, what’s changed?

Q    Something else President Biden has promised is a more humane border policy than Trump.  So, why would he even be considering now a border policy that is more similar to Trump?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What border policy are you talking about?

Q    Well, Axios is reporting that the legal authority Biden is considering using powered Trump’s Muslim ban and similar sweeping restrictions at the border.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into — get into or comment on individual policy option that’s being speculated right now.  As I said before, no decisions have been made.  We want to make sure — the President has been very clear: He wants to make sure that our country is safer, and we need more Border Security, abv- — obviously, to secure our border.  We’ve been very clear about that.  And we want to do it while treating people fairly and humanely, and that is consistent with our values.

But, look, Republicans continue to get in the way.  Speaker Johnson has gotten in the way of this.  And so, a lot of these questions are for him.

We did our job.  The Senate did their job in a bipartisan way on — there are provisions in that — polic- — policies that are in that legislation that Republicans agreed with at some point, not very long ago — just last year — that they agreed with.  And now they’re rejecting it.

Go ahead.

Q    Karine, with regards to the sanctions on Russia, you mentioned that previous sanctions, you said, had been effective, in part, because Russia was forced to go to other countries like Iran and North Korea to get resources. 

Still, though, the war is not over.  How can you make the argument that those sanctions have been effective if they’re still getting those resources from those other countries, wherever they get them from?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, we believe — and I just laid this out moments ago — that we have seen an impact.  I talked about Bloomberg.  I talked about what their — Putin’s own oil czar has had to do.  I mean, this is the — I mean, what we have been able to impose on — on Russia has been pretty significant.  It has been pretty significant, when you think about the — another major economy — the most that we’ve ever been able to do on any major economy.  And as — as I’ve stated, this is cumulative.  Right?  This is a — this is a continuation.  And we believe, as has been reported, that we have seen — that we have seen some impact here. 

We’re going to continue to use every tool — every tools in our — in our tool belt, obviously.  We’re going to develop — developing new tools to make it harder and costlier for Russia to fuel its war machine.  That’s what we’re going to do.  And at the same time, we need Congress to do their jobs, we need House Republicans, we need the Speaker to put on the floor a national security supplemental plan that we believe and we know will get bipartisan support. 

We’ve heard from Republicans in the House; we’ve heard from, obviously, Democrats in the House.  That’s what we need the — the House to do. 

Q    And on the border.  I know you’ve said you couldn’t or wouldn’t get into specific executive actions being considered or not considered.  But bottom line: As a — as a policy, does the administration believe that asylum laws need to be strengthened?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to be —

Q    And — but the reas- — the —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I know.  I know. 

Q    I know.  But the reason I asked that is that the bipartisan bill — and you said the President would sign it — 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, he would.

Q    — would strengthen asylum laws.  So, I just want to be sure: The administration does believe that asylum laws need to be strengthened?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Obviously, because it was in — as you just stated — in the bipartisan legislation that came out of the Senate that the President’s team worked very closely on.  I just want to be very, very clear and very careful.  Decisions haven’t been made.  I’m not going to get into any internal — internal policy — individual policy, pardon me, option that’s being speculated in the press.  I’m just not going to do that from here.  But no decision has been made. 

Q    And finally, on a separate topic.  I know the U.S. has had a complicated relationship with Mexico before.  I wanted to get the White House’s reaction to President López Obrador doxing a New York Times reporter in a press conference.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, well, I — well, I’ve not seen that.  Obviously, that’s not something we support.  We believe in the freedom of the press, obviously, which is why we do this on — on — almost on a daily basis. 

And we — we — it is important for the press to be able to report on issues that matter to the American people freely in an — in a way that, obviously, you all feel secure and safe and in a way that you’re not being doxied [doxed] or attacked.  That is — you know, that is something that we will, obviously, reject. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  One follow-up on Nex Benedict and then another one on a —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — separate subject.  Given that Nex’s family said they had been bullied in the months prior to their death, specifically about their gender identity, and the family also says that Nex was physically assaulted the day prior to their death, does the White House think that this case should be the subject of a federal hate crime investigation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m going to be really careful.  That is something for the Department of Justice to decide on.  I cannot speak to that.  Obviously, our hearts go out to — to Nex Benedict’s family.  It is a tragedy that is awful. 

And I said this at the beginning, and I’ll say it again: Every kid should feel safe and should feel protected when they go to school.  And this should not be the case. 

But that is something — as far as any legal action, that’s something for the Department of Justice to decide. 

Q    And then the Florida Surgeon General defied CDC guidelines this week suggesting it’s fine to send unvaccinated kids to school amid a measles outbreak there.  This comes as the CDC says that routine childhood vaccinations hit a 10-year low in 2023, putting about a quarter of a million kindergarteners at risk for measles. 

Does the administration support tightening the kinds of philosophical and religious exemptions that are increasingly being used to defy school childhood vaccine mandates?  And what else is the administration doing to promote the importance of childhood vaccines, especially against the backdrop of this nationwide uptick in measles outbreaks?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, just a — a couple of things.  As it relates to the outbreak, the CDC is actively monitoring these cases.  And as you know, we have — the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response remains in close and regular contact as we continue to — to work and monitor what’s going on on the ground. 

And we want to make sure that communities feel safe, obviously.  So, any questions on — specifically on that, I would refer you to the CDC. 

Look, you know, responding to measles outbreaks, which are now, obviously, occurring in every region of the world is a priority for this administration.  Meas- — measles, as you know, is highly contagious, infect- — infectious — contagious infection.  But it is easily prevented with routine child- — childhood vaccines. 

We are providing technical support to the — for example, to the World Health Organization and UNICEF, and we are donating, as well — make sure that there is a vaccine alliance, which has provided millions of measles and other vaccine doses to low- and low-middle-income countries. 

So, we are monitoring this.  It is important that, obviously, we do everything we can to mitigate the situation.  But CDC is actively aware, obv- — obviously, actively monitoring these cases that we’re seeing across the country. 

Go ahead.

Q    Thank you, Karine.  So, in addition to the sanctions, is the President supportive of, you know, confiscating frozen Russian assets and using it for Ukraine’s reconstruction? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things, because this is a little bit complicated.  And I want to take a step back for the folks who — who are, clearly, watching the briefing.  I understand that you all understand this.

But in 2- — 2022, we worked together with our allies and partners to quickly immobilize almost $300 billion of Russia’s sovereign assets that they had held internationally when they launched their brutal invasion of Ukraine.  That joint action to cut off Russia’s access to a significant amount of funds has made it much riskier for Russia to fund its war against the Ukrainian people and boost their defense spending while also mana- — managing their economy. 

So, now we’re going to continue to be in active conversation with our allies and partners, including the G7, as well as members of Congress, on additional steps to seize Russia’s aggres- — to seize Russians’ — Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and to ensure Russia pays for the damage it has caused.

I don’t have any new announcement to make.  But it is a bit complicated because, as I said, we’re talking about international — kind of an int- — it’s been held internationally.  So, it is a little bit more complicated.

Q    Are there other countries who are planning to, you know, take that action? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would refer you to other countries.  I can’t speak for other countries here.  But I just wanted to make sure we laid out it is complicated.  It is not as simple as it — as it may seem.  But, certainly, don’t have any new announcements to make at this time. 

Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Thanks.  What’s the view from the White House right now about how conversations are going about government funding and spending bills next week — or ahead of next week’s significant deadlines —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I mean —

Q    — for a shutdown?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, and we’re — you know, we’ve been here before and we’ve always been very clear: House Republicans have a job to do.  Their basic duty is to keep the government open.  They need to not play politics here.  They need to not play politics here.  They need to get this done.  We’ve been very clear about that.  And — and it is their job.

If you think about it, and I’ve talked about this before, House Republicans — two thirds of the House Republicans voted for the deal last year.  And just early this year, they reaffirmed that deal.  So, what’s the problem?  What’s the problem here?  They need to get this done.  They need to get this done. 

There are important programs that the American people need.  And so, they need to move forward and make sure we keep the government open.

Q    I feel like I’ve asked you this before deadlines.  But are you anticipating another short-term funding bill, another CR?  And is the President okay with that this time around too?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, I’m not going to get into legislative negotiations from here.  But, look, it is — we got to be really clear.  Like, these are programs that are critical, that are important to the American people.  And it needs to get done.  It needs to get done. 

So, I’m not going to get into negotiations from here.  House Republicans need to do their jobs here.  They need to get to work.  And they need to make sure that we — they avoid, they prevent a needless shutdown.

Q    And are White House officials involved in any conversations, like Leg Affairs, with congressional leaders this weekend about getting closer to something?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I can say that OMB — OMB and our Leg Affairs team are in touch with lawmakers from both parties every day on the need to keep the government open. 

But, again, this is — this — this problem is a problem of the House Republicans’ making.  It’s not something that we can fix for them.  This is something that they can deal with.  This is something that they need to actually work on.  And they need to get to work here.  They need to get to work.

Go ahead, Ed.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  I want to try a little bit different on the executive actions, possibly, on the border.  The bills are stalled.  So, why wait three years, now, in to take alternatives or take possible executive actions on the border?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What are you talking about?

Q    Well, you mentioned the — the bill, the when — the first week in office, the President issued his bill that — for immigration reform and then the negotiated Senate bill.  Those are both stalled.  The House is not taking them up.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I think you’re seeing it very differently than we are.  We’re saying that the President took it very seriously.  He took it very seriously by taking action on day one, putting forward a comprehensive immigration policy legislation that he wanted Congress to act on.  They did not act on it. 

We — we taken actions on our own.  And we’ve been able to secure some funding to deal with what we’ve seen at the border.  But we need more.  We need more.  And we’ve said this.  We have said this for the past three years.  And House Republicans have continued to get in the way. 

In the last couple of months, we worked with Senate Republicans and Democrats for — for several months to come up with a border security that is tough, that is fair, that’s supported — that was endorsed by the Border Patrol union.  The Border Patrol union endorsed this — this legislation.  Repu- — Republicans rejected it. 

So, this is — this is something for Republicans in the House to speak to.  We’ve worked with the Senate in a bipartisan way to get this done, to actually deal with an issue that matters to the American people, in a bipartisan way.  And House Republicans have allowed politics to get in the way. 

And Speaker Johnson left early after — if you think about the national security supplemental that had to — we had to take out — they had to take out the border security from it because that’s what the Speaker wanted.  That was done out of the Senate.  It was passed.  And then, the Speaker went home early and is gone.  He went on — they — he went on vacation early. 

And so, this is — this is truly a question for the Speaker.

Q    Well — but my question is — is: Now we’re hearing about executive actions that could be taken.  Why wait this long —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I have been very —

Q    — to look at executive actions?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’ve been very clear: We have made no decisions on that.  I’m not going to get into policy discussions or hypotheticals that we’re hearing right now.  Be very clear. 

But the focus here should be what happened in the Senate in a bipartisan way that Republicans have rejected.  That is — that is the reality that we’re in here, Ed.  That’s the reality.

Q    And then one more, if I may.  In fiscal year 2023, at the border, there were 24,000 Chinese nationals that had illegally crossed and 288 were deported.  And the National Border Patrol Council President says that the vast majority of them coming across now are military-aged men.  What’s the level of concern for the White House about these military-aged men?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, this is a — this is — continues to be a concern for this for — for this administration.  So, we’ll — we’ll just start there.  But speaking specifically to individuals just in general who pose a — a risk to public safety and national security regardless of nationality, they are detained as they undergo immigration proceedings and are removed if they do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States.

Global migration is at the highest since World War Two.  And that means we work with our international par- — partners to bolster their enforcement capabilities while expanding economic opportunities and lawful pathways. 

That’s what we’ve been able to do for migrants deserving of protection, specifically under the President’s Los Angeles Declaration for Migration and Protection and Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. 

And again, I go back to that bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate.  And that would have been a — a step forward here.  It would have been a piece of legislation that — that, as I’ve said, would have been tough, it would have been fair, and it was endorsed by the Border Patrol union, and Republicans in — in the House rejected it.

Go ahead, Gerren.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  A group of progressive lawmakers led by Congresswoman Barbara Lee and 200 organizations sent a letter to the President this week urging him to take executive action, including executive orders, to advance a range of bills that have been introduced by Democrats that have been stalled in Congress, including H.R. 40, which the President said he supports, to create a reparations commission, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act, as well as resolutions to protect Black history and create a banned books weeks in — in light of these bans we’ve been seeing in states like Florida. 

Has the White House received this letter?  And does the President believe that his racial justice agenda has been effective?  And does he think that he — he can do more through executive action?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just say that a lot of — and, yes, we have received the letter, and a lot of the items in the letter that has been — the issues that have been outlined is some of the — is some of the causes that the President has championed over the past three years. 

The President has taken, as you know, historic actions as it relates to voting rights here, strengthening voting rights on the federal level.  He’s taken action to raise wages.  Let’s not forget the actions that he’s taken — because he’s taken the actions on building an economy from the bottom up, middle out, we have seen, as it relates to unemployment for the Black community.  When he walked in, it was at 9 percent.  Now it’s at 5 percent.  Always more work to be done.  But that matters. 

Black wealth has jumped up to 60 percent since the pre-pandemic days. 

He supports a study of reparations and continues the — as — and the continuing impacts of slavery and signed an executive order to — to deal with racial equality on his very first day in office, as it relates to the federal government and what agencies can do better.  And also, you know, he’s spoken about banning of books as it relates to Black history.

So, the President is going to — is committed to making sure that we address racial inequalities here, and he’s going to take — continue — and he’s going to continue to take action to make sure no communities are left behind.  And as I just stated, he’s taken historic executive action on this issue.

This is a priority for this President.  When he walked into this administration, he talked about the different — the different crises that our country was dealing with: climate change, it was COVID at the time, the economy at the time.  Racial inequality was part of that as well.

And so, he’s committed.  He’s committed.

(Speaking to an aide.)  I know.  You’re trying to get me.  (Laughs.)

Go ahead, sir.

Q    Thank you.  During last year, in December, the administration sold weapons to Israel, bypassing Congress.  Why can’t the U.S. do the same for Ukraine right here and right now, given their desperate need of weaponry?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, we need — we actually need funding.  We need this — we need this funding in order to get Ukraine what they need.  It’s gone.  You’ve heard — you’ve heard — you’ve heard the Admiral speak to this.  You’ve heard the National Security Advisor speak to this from this podium.  It’s gone.  There is no more.

We need Congress to do its job and to pass much-needed assistance — security assistance that the Ukraines need — Ukrainians need.

Q    But we’re talking about a sale of weaponry.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  If there’s — I mean, there’s a lot more to this, right?  There is actual — their actual funding that we need to make sure that we get so that DOD and so that the –obviously, the Pentagon can do what it needs to do in order to give the — to give the security assistance that is needed, to give — to give the — to give the weapons that they need to pro- — to fight against Ukrainians’ [Russia’s] aggression.

You’ve heard the Admiral speak to this today on his — in his gaggle, and you’ve heard him talk about this multiple times. 

There are — there is an assistance that we have to provide to them.  That is — it’s not a — we just don’t have it now.  We’re done.

Q    If there — if there is no success on the Hill, would you consider selling weapons to Ukraine?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, the way to deal with this is to pass this national security supplemental.  The way to actually help the people of Ukraine to fight for their sovereignty, to fight for their democracy, to fight against — against Mr. Putin’s aggression is to actually pass this national security supplemental. 

That would get bipartisan support in the House.  It will.  That’s how we’re — we move forward here.  There’s no other way to actually do this in a bipartisan scenario.  It’s there.  And Speaker — Speaker — the Speaker needs to do his job.  Speaker Johnson needs to take this up. 

We know that the bipartisan support exists.  We’ve heard from Republicans speak to this directly and very recently.  So, why doesn’t he just do his job and stop putting politics in front of this? 

This is why I don’t want to get into hypotheticals, because there’s an option that exists.  There’s an actual oct- — option that exists.  And the Speaker is putting politics in this.  And that’s not how we should move forward.

All right, everybody.  Thank you so much.

Q    Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  See you tomorrow — not tomorrow.  Tomorrow is Saturday.  (Laughter.)

See you next week.

2:32 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, February 23, 2024 appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

11:57 A.M. EST
 
MODERATOR:  Hello, everyone.  Thanks so much for joining today’s on-the-record news of day gaggle with White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby.  This call is on the record, and there’s no embargo. 
 
I’ll turn it over to Kirby now to kick us off, and then we’ll take your questions.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Eduardo.  Thanks, everybody. 
 
As you all know, tomorrow is the second anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  And as you all heard, the President marked that anniversary in a statement, and in remarks just now, as we mourn the many Ukrainian lives who have been lost in this terrible conflict and to express our resolve to continue to support the people of Ukraine as they defend themselves against this vicious and brutal war Russia started in Ukraine. 
 
As the President said, Vladimir Putin launched the invasion.  He thought he could easily bend the will and break the resolve of a free people and that he could just roll right into a sovereign nation and the world would roll right on over.
 
But two years later, it’s clear that Mr. Putin was absolutely wrong.  The Ukrainian people, with support from the United States and more than 50 other countries around the world as part of a global coalition that we actually built, have resisted Putin’s invasion.  They won the battles for Kyiv, for Kharkiv, for Kherson.  They retook more than 50 percent of the sovereign territory that Russia seized from them in 2022.  And they are continuing to fight bravely right on the battlefield there, from east to the south.
 
But they are being forced to ration ammunition and equipment because Congress has failed to act and provide them with resources that they need to continue this fight.
 
The President has talked about what’s at stake.  The American people and people around the world understand also what’s at stake.  We need the House of Representatives to act.  The President’s commitment to supporting Ukraine and holding Russia accountable is absolutely clear.
 
And at his direction, also today, the United States announced a significant set of new actions to hold Russia accountable for the death of Aleksey Navalny and to mark the two-year anniversary tomorrow of Russia’s unprovoked and unlawful invasion of Ukraine. 
 
We sanctioned over 500 targets to impose additional costs for Russia’s repression, for their human rights abuses, and, of course, for their aggression inside Ukraine.  These include a major cog in Russia’s financial infrastructure; more than two dozen third-country sanctions evaders in Europe, East Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East; and hundreds of entities in Russia’s military industrial base and other key sectors to cut off funding for Putin’s war machine. 
 
The Department of State, I think as you all know, is also designating three Russian individuals who are connected to Navalny’s imprisonment and the Russian government’s harsh treatment of him.
 
You can expect more from the administration with respect to holding the Kremlin accountable for Mr. Navalny’s death.  Today was just the start. 
 
The Department of Commerce is, of course, also adding more than 90 companies to the entity list for their activities in support of Russia’s defense industrial base and war effort. 
 
So, all told, the Department of Treasury and the Department of State have designated now more than 4,000 entities and individuals pursuant to Russia’s related sanctions authorities over the last two years, the strongest set of sanctions ever imposed on a major economy.  With today’s actions, Commerce has now placed more than 900 parties on our entity list for their role in Putin’s war.  Our actions to ensure Mr. Putin pays an even steeper price for his aggression abroad and repression at home are actually having an impact.  And we will continue to act.
 
We urge, of course, the House Republicans to do the same.  They must come back from this recess, vote — because we know if they put it on the floor to vote, it will pass — vote on the supplemental funding so that we can get the artillery shells, we can get the small arms ammunition, we can get the air defense capabilities into the hands of Ukrainian battlefield commanders and soldiers on the front so that they can continue to defend their country.
 
And with that, I’ll take questions. 
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Our first question will go to the line of Aamer Madhani.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hi there, John and Eduardo.  Question on Israel.  Is the administration comfortable with the vision that Netanyahu has set out for post-war Gaza?  Does it meet the administration’s basic standards for setting the grounds for a viable long-term peace?
 
And then secondly, also on Israel, does the administration have any reaction to Israel’s plans to move forward with more than 3,000 settlement homes in the West Bank?  Thank you.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Aamer.  On the first question about the post-conflict plan for Gaza, we’ve seen the reports.  I’m going to defer to Israel to speak to the specificity of these plans. 
 
What I can speak to is our views, and we’ve been clear about what our views are.  We have had constructive discussions with the Israelis on all these issues over recent weeks, where we have, of course, continued to make clear positions, including where those views and our positions diverge from them.  Both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to be secure with equal measures of freedom and dignity. 
 
And again, let me just reiterate some of the top points here. 
 
We believe that whatever post-conflict Gaza looks like, the Palestinian people should have a voice and a vote in what that looks like, through a revitalized Palestinian Authority.  We don’t believe in any reduction of the size of Gaza.  We don’t believe and will continue to be very vocal about the fact that we don’t want to see any forcible displacement of Palestinians outside Gaza. 
 
And, of course, we don’t want to see Gaza dominated or rolled or governed over by Hamas. 
 
Those are very consistent positions.  We still hold to them.  And as I said earlier, we’ve made that consistently clear with our Israeli counterparts. 
 
On your question about settlements — again, seen those reports and, frankly, disappointed in the announcement.  It’s been longstanding U.S. policy under both Republican and Democratic administrations that new settlements are counterproductive to the cause of peace.  Frankly, they’re also inconsistent with international law.  And this administration maintains this firm opposition — our firm opposition to settlement expansion.
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Our next question will go to the line of Barak Ravid.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thank you, Eduardo.  Thanks, John.  I want to follow up on the previous question, your previous answer that you just said, as Secretary Blinken also said a few minutes ago, that the administration sees settlements as inconsistent with international law. 
 
The previous administration, and especially previous Secretary of State Pompeo, said that the U.S. position is that settlements are not illegal, per se, and a shift at U.S. policy from 1978.  Does your statement right now mean that the Biden administration has overturned this Pompeo doctrine and that it’s not valid and not U.S. policy anymore?
 
The second question: If you have any updates for us about the Paris summit and the hostage negotiations.  Thank you. 
 
MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Barak.  Look, this isn’t about the previous administration.  We are simply reaffirming the fundamental conclusion that these settlements are inconsistent with international law. 
 
And as I said in my previous answer, I mean, that is a position that’s been consistent over a range of Republican and Democratic administrations.  If there’s an administration that is being inconsistent, it was the previous one. 
 
And then on your question, I don’t really have an update on the hostage deal negotiations and the talks that are happening in Paris, except to say we continue to work at this very, very hard.  We believe that the discussions and negotiations to date have been constructive.  Obviously, they have not been — they have not been conclusive because we don’t have a deal in place. 
 
But the fact that these negotiations are still ongoing and that people are, in fact, sitting together to try to hash it out is a good thing.  And we’re obviously very hopeful that we can come to closure on a deal that would allow for an extended pause; get all the hostages out over time, in stages; and then, of course, be able to increase humanitarian assistance. 
 
So I really don’t have much more to add to that.
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Our next question will go to the line of Nandita Bose.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thank you, Eduardo.  Appreciate it.  Couple of questions from me, just on the sanctions.  It does not look as if you used the December executive order to target foreign financial firms that helped Russia circumvent sanctions.  Can you explain the decision not to target these foreign financial firms in this action?  I mean, is this something that we should expect to see soon?
 
And then my second question is: Has the President been briefed by Brett McGurk yet?  Could you tell us a little bit more about what’s going on on his trip?  Thank you.
 
MR. KIRBY:  So, on your first question, I think it’s critical that we remember to put it in some perspective.  We would need additional legal authorities to be able to do that.  We continue to be supportive of having those domestic legislative authorities that would give us the flexibility as we continue to discuss with partners and allies how best to cease Russia’s aggression and to assure that Russia pays for the damage that it’s caused to Ukraine. 
 
It is something, as I think you heard from the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury today, that it’s something that we continue to be in touch with on the Hill and with our allies and partners.  There’s several key — several pieces of legislation that have been working their way through Congress; we’re watching that closely. 
 
And because the vast majority of the immobilized sovereign assets aren’t in the U.S., again, I want to stress it’s absolutely key that we take action in concert with our international partners.  And that’s our focus right now. 
 
And then, on a readout from Brett’s trip, as I’m sitting here talking to you, I’m not aware that Brett has provided a full readout of his meetings.  I know they’ve wrapped up.  As I said yesterday, he met with leaders in Egypt, particularly on the intel side, and, of course, with the war cabinet, with Prime Minister Netanyahu, with Defense Minister Gallant, with Benny Gantz, and, of course, had a chance to meet with the families of American hostages in Israel yesterday.  But I’m not aware that we’ve received a full readout.
 
Obviously, we always appreciate the opportunity to have those in-person discussions with our counterparts in the region on a range of issues.  And first and foremost, Brett was over there really trying to make more progress on this hostage deal, but he also had a chance to talk to them about their plans and their thinking for operations down in the south near Rafah.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question, we’ll go to the line of Patsy.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thanks, Eduardo.  And thanks, Kirby.  I have two questions on Gaza.  I know that you said that Brett has not given a readout yet, but I wonder if the issue of the post-war plans from Netanyahu was discussed in their meetings.  And what do you make of the fact that it was released just as Brett was in the region?
 
And then, another one.  How does the administration feel about Netanyahu using Ramadan as a deadline for the Rafah offensive?  As you — sorry, I’m just running out of breath.  As you would understand, it is received by the Muslim world as inflammatory. 
 
And then, once you’re done with that, I have a question on China.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Okay, well, there’s an awful lot there. 
 
I mean, again, I don’t have more to say about Brett’s trip than what I’ve already told you.  I mean, I think we should wait to talk to Brett when he gets back and to get a fuller sense of his discussions.  There hasn’t been too many conversations we’ve had with the Israelis where we haven’t talked about post-conflict Gaza and what that looks like.  But again, I can’t go into more detail without having a chance to talk to Brett myself on that. 
 
I’ll let the Israelis speak to their plans and intentions to conduct military operations in Rafah.  Again, there’s been no plan presented to us that I’m tracking.  And as of yesterday, I think that that was still accurate based on the preliminary discussions we were able to have with Brett in the region. 
 
So no plan presented for us to look at that I’m aware of in terms of Rafah operations.  And so, therefore, I think, again, I would refer you to the Israelis to speak to whatever deadlines they’re setting here. 
 
I think it’s important to reiterate what I’ve said so many times and including yesterday: We still would not support operations in Rafah no matter what the timescale is.  We wouldn’t support those kinds of operations unless or until the Israelis had properly accounted for the safety and security of the more than 1 million people that are seeking refuge down there. 
 
And again, I’m certainly not aware of any plan that we’ve had a chance to look at and to peruse.  So, again, I put you back to the Israelis to speak to that. 
 
Q    Thank you.  And on China, there’s this Five Eyes report that shows that Chinese hackers are potentially already inside critical U.S. infrastructure.  I think we discussed this about the telecommunication outage yesterday — we discussed in your gaggle yesterday.  At this point, are you 100 percent confident that that outage was not part of a Chinese hacking operation or any other adversarial powers?  And does the administration have a plan should another incident like that — similar incident conducted by a foreign adversary?  Thanks.
 
MR. KIRBY:  The best we know right now, Patsy, is what we’re hearing from the network industry, particularly AT&T, and that they do not believe — they’ve said they don’t believe that this was the result of some sort of cybersecurity incident. 
 
That said, it’s still being investigated, so we need to let the investigators do their work.  We’ve obviously pledged support to that investigation as appropriate.  But right now, the initial indications coming from industry itself is that this was not a cybersecurity incident.
 
MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to the line of Jake Epstein.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hey, thanks for doing this.  I just want to ask a question about the Houthis.  The U.S. Navy preemptive strikes have really become a daily thing.  We’ve also seen a few interceptions of Iranian weaponry bound for Yemen.  Are you able to speak at all about how much of the Houthi capabilities remain and how often they’re being resupplied?  Is there any intelligence or indication of, you know, how long this might go on for?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Not a whole lot of information on the intelligence that I’m able to offer you here on that one.  And I certainly would, at the outset, point you to DOD to speak to what we call battle damage assessment.  And they give you a sense of what their assessment is of how much the capability has been degraded. 
 
That said, broadly speaking, we do know that the strikes that they have conducted inside Houthi-controlled parts of Yemen have had an impact on degrading capabilities. 
 
While it is certainly true that Houthi attacks continue, what you’re not seeing lately have been those major swarm attacks where, you know, multiple waves of drones and missiles are being shot at multiple ships.  Typically, what you’re seeing now are more one-off attacks, and they have continued to be largely ineffective in terms of stopping ships on their way to prior destinations. 
 
That doesn’t mean that they aren’t still dangerous.  It doesn’t mean that they haven’t scored a hit here now and then.  Of course, they did just the other day; they hit a ship that was ironically bound for Aden to bring grain to the people of Yemen.  And even that attack, which did score a hit on the ship, didn’t stop that ship from still pulling into Yemen and dropping off food for the Yemeni people. 
 
So they’re still dangerous, absolutely.  And we’re taking it seriously.  But we do believe that we have had an impact on not just the degradation of their capabilities, but the way in which they’re using the capabilities they have available to them.  They are not, again, conducting the major sort of drone swarm attacks that they were able to do in the past.
 
As for the flow, we still believe that they continue to be supported by the regime in Tehran, that materials, weapons systems are still being supplied. 
 
As you also know, we have been and continue to conduct interdiction operations at sea, and those continue.
 
So we’ll obviously do everything we can to try to limit and stem that flow, but the flow is ongoing — which is all the more reason why, again, that we need Congress to act and pass the supplemental funding. 
 
In that supplemental funding there’s about two and a half billion dollars for CENTCOM, deliberately set aside for U.S. Central Command, to restock its own inventory of weapons ammunition and to provide the kinds of funding that they need to support their many activities at sea and on the ground — frankly, in the air — in the regions.  And part of that would go a long way to helping us continue to stem these Houthi attacks.
 
MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to the line of DJ Judd.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hi, this is Priscilla on DJ’s phone.  So, two quick questions.  One on Ukraine.  The President said today in his remarks before governors that top U.S. ally — that he would have a call with top U.S. allies on Ukraine.  What assurances, if any, can he give them in trying — as he himself is trying to get that additional funding from Congress?
 
And then separately, on Israel, the Prime Minister sort of unveiled a plan for the day after in Gaza.  It didn’t appear to include the two-state solution.  So is it a nonstarter already for the White House?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I won’t get ahead of the President.  You heard him talk about this conversation he’s going to have with G7 leaders later today.  And we’ll certainly be able to share more of that with you when it occurs. 
 
He will absolutely make it clear that he’s going to continue to do everything he can to support Ukraine, and that that includes doing everything he can and our team can do to work with members of Congress to get that supplemental funding on the floor, get it voted, get it to his desk.  Because if it reaches his desk as it currently stands, as he said, he’ll sign it. 
 
He cannot control what the Speaker does or doesn’t do.  But we can certainly continue to do everything we can to make clear how important this is, as we’ve been doing just today, and continue to do everything we can to work with members of Congress to move it along.  And that will be his message to his G7 partners — how seriously we take the challenge, how much we know American leadership matters, and how far he’s working to get that supplemental bill passed and on his desk. 
 
On your second question, again, I would refer to the Israeli government to speak to those post-conflict Gaza plans.  All I can do is reiterate what I said before: We’ve been very clear, we’ve been very consistent with our Israeli counterparts about what we believe post-conflict Gaza needs to look like.  And those views haven’t changed.  I described them for you a little bit earlier in the gaggle; I won’t repeat that.  But those are all still valid, in our view. 
 
And we are not going to be bashful about holding to those views, and certainly not going to be bashful about expressing them continually with our Israeli counterparts on the things we agree on, which is Hamas cannot govern Gaza, and the things where we diverge. 
 
And the last thing I’ll say is: On the two-state solution — you’re right, they didn’t say anything — there wasn’t anything in the public rendering of that plan about the two-state solution.  But the President remains fully committed to the promise and the possibility of a two-state solution and how that can benefit the entire region, certainly with Israeli security guaranteed.
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Next up, we’ll go to Jacqui Heinrich.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thanks, guys.  On these sanctions, why not just go forward and designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have anything to add in terms of what we haven’t done, Jacqui.  I’d ask you to take a look at what we have done — you know, over 4,000 entities sanctioned, more than 500 just today, and there’s more coming.  We’ll continue to hold Russia accountable. 
 
What we do is we make decisions based on what we think will actually have the right impact and an impact on their ability to continue to fund their war machine and work it.  And we know that it’s had an effect.  I mean, my goodness, Mr. Putin is reaching out to Iran now for potentially close-range ballistic missiles, and he’s been reaching out to North Korea for artillery shells and for ballistic missiles as well.  So we know that these sanctions have had an impact on his ability to conduct military operations. 
 
And what we’re focused on are tools and techniques that we believe actually will have an impact on his economy and on his ability to conduct a war, as well as making sure that whatever we do doesn’t unnecessarily make it hard for humanitarian purposes for the Russian people themselves.
 
MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to the line of Halley Toosi.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hi, John, everyone.  Thanks for doing this.  Listen, I’m just going to ask you to be very frank and maybe set aside your talking points for a minute on this Israel stuff. 
 
Why should the Israelis care about what the United States keeps saying?  They don’t really seem to be feeling the pressure from your rhetoric.  And I realize that you’re putting these sanctions and making some moves related to the West Bank, including this — you know, saying now that the settlements are illegal — but isn’t that, like, three years late under this administration?  I mean, extremist violence by settlers in the West Bank has been going on for a long time; settlements have been around for a long time. 
 
Why didn’t you guys do this three years ago?  And couldn’t that — if you had acted sooner, couldn’t that have maybe affected the dynamics between the administration and the Israeli government right now, maybe even affected the dynamics of Israeli politics right now to where you wouldn’t have far-right figures in the government to deal with who clearly have so much influence over the government?
 
So, I guess I’m just trying to figure out, like, if I’m Benjamin Netanyahu right now, why should I care what John Kirby or Secretary Blinken or President Biden keep saying to me?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I think — I guess I’m going to challenge the premise of the question just a little bit.  I think the Israeli people absolutely do care about the support of the United States.  I think they absolutely do care about the leadership President Biden has shown and a strong way that we —
 
Q    I’m talking about the Israeli government, not the Israeli people.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Listen, you asked a really long question, so you’re going to have to give me a little latitude to give you a really long answer.  You said you didn’t want to listen to my talking points, so I’m going to try to do the best I can here, but you got to let me finish. 
 
Q    Okay.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I think they do care.  I think they do care about what the United States thinks and does.  And I said it — I think they do care, and they value and they appreciate the leadership that President Biden and this administration have shown when it comes to supporting them in what is truly a right and a responsibility to rid themselves of the threat of Hamas. 
 
I think they also are smart enough to appreciate — and it goes to the government too — smart enough to appreciate that we’re not going to agree with them on every single thing.  We’ve been talking quite a bit here today about things we don’t agree with them on.  We don’t agree about the issue of settlements.  We clearly have differences on what the future of post-conflict Gaza needs to look like.  And, yes, there have been differences over the promise and the possibility of a two-state solution. 
 
But that doesn’t mean that you just clam up and stop talking about it.  It doesn’t mean you just put yourself in a shell and don’t engage with them in meaningful conversations. 
 
And this idea — and I’ve heard it time and time and time again since October 7th — that we’re being ignored or Israel is just walking all over us, or they’re not paying attention to anything that we’re having to say — and I’m telling you, that’s just not the truth.  It just ain’t so. 
 
Now, that doesn’t mean that every single bit of advice and every single perspective we share with them they act on in the way that we would want them to.  There are obvious ways where — we want to see, for instance, a much stronger, devoted effort to reduce civilian casualties.  There have been too many innocent people killed in this conflict.  And too many — obviously, the great majority of those innocents killed have been Palestinians.  And we have been very, very consistent about that. 
 
It doesn’t mean that we’re going to agree with the results.  But I can assure you that we do have the ability to share with them our perspectives and that they have in the past acted in ways consistent with how we have asked them to act — again, not in every way, not in every sense, and maybe not to the degree that we want, but they have.  And I think they appreciate the good faith in which, and the good intentions with which, our perspectives and our support is being shared with them. 
 
So I just push back on the premise that we’re talking to a brick wall.  We’re talking to a friend — a friend, as any friend, you can be honest with, who’s not going to agree with everything that we say.  But the President’s — we believe the President’s approach has had an impact, and we’re going to continue to do that in that way. 
 
Now, look, as to why now after three years, we thought that at this moment it was particularly important to reaffirm our commitment to a two-state solution.  And at this moment, we felt it was particularly important to reaffirm, again, our view of the inconsistency with international law that these settlements present. 
 
And again, we also think that, at this moment, it’s particularly important to work together to build a political horizon for both Israelis and for Palestinians.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We’re coming up at time, so we’ve got time for one more.  We’ll go to the line of Tommy Christopher.  You should be able to unmute yourself
 
Q    Hey, thanks for doing this, Kirby.  The thing I wanted to ask about is this — I don’t know if you guys have seen it; I’m sure you have — seen this sort of stunning filing for detention for Alexander Smirnov.  And there’s a lot of really, like, crazy allegations in there that he had contact with the leader of an assassination squad.  Have you guys seen the filing?  And are you perusing it for — are you concerned about any of this stuff, any of the security risks?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I have not seen the filing.  I don’t know — I can’t speak for the rest of my NSC colleagues, Tommy.  How about if I take that question and we’ll have somebody from the team get back to you.  But I’m not in a position where I can speak intelligently to it.
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks all.  That’s all the time we have today.  We’ll do this again soon.  Enjoy the rest of your day.
 
12:28 P.M. EST

The post On-the-Record Press Gaggle by White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby appeared first on The White House.

Via Teleconference

11:57 A.M. EST
 
MODERATOR:  Hello, everyone.  Thanks so much for joining today’s on-the-record news of day gaggle with White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby.  This call is on the record, and there’s no embargo. 
 
I’ll turn it over to Kirby now to kick us off, and then we’ll take your questions.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Eduardo.  Thanks, everybody. 
 
As you all know, tomorrow is the second anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  And as you all heard, the President marked that anniversary in a statement, and in remarks just now, as we mourn the many Ukrainian lives who have been lost in this terrible conflict and to express our resolve to continue to support the people of Ukraine as they defend themselves against this vicious and brutal war Russia started in Ukraine. 
 
As the President said, Vladimir Putin launched the invasion.  He thought he could easily bend the will and break the resolve of a free people and that he could just roll right into a sovereign nation and the world would roll right on over.
 
But two years later, it’s clear that Mr. Putin was absolutely wrong.  The Ukrainian people, with support from the United States and more than 50 other countries around the world as part of a global coalition that we actually built, have resisted Putin’s invasion.  They won the battles for Kyiv, for Kharkiv, for Kherson.  They retook more than 50 percent of the sovereign territory that Russia seized from them in 2022.  And they are continuing to fight bravely right on the battlefield there, from east to the south.
 
But they are being forced to ration ammunition and equipment because Congress has failed to act and provide them with resources that they need to continue this fight.
 
The President has talked about what’s at stake.  The American people and people around the world understand also what’s at stake.  We need the House of Representatives to act.  The President’s commitment to supporting Ukraine and holding Russia accountable is absolutely clear.
 
And at his direction, also today, the United States announced a significant set of new actions to hold Russia accountable for the death of Aleksey Navalny and to mark the two-year anniversary tomorrow of Russia’s unprovoked and unlawful invasion of Ukraine. 
 
We sanctioned over 500 targets to impose additional costs for Russia’s repression, for their human rights abuses, and, of course, for their aggression inside Ukraine.  These include a major cog in Russia’s financial infrastructure; more than two dozen third-country sanctions evaders in Europe, East Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East; and hundreds of entities in Russia’s military industrial base and other key sectors to cut off funding for Putin’s war machine. 
 
The Department of State, I think as you all know, is also designating three Russian individuals who are connected to Navalny’s imprisonment and the Russian government’s harsh treatment of him.
 
You can expect more from the administration with respect to holding the Kremlin accountable for Mr. Navalny’s death.  Today was just the start. 
 
The Department of Commerce is, of course, also adding more than 90 companies to the entity list for their activities in support of Russia’s defense industrial base and war effort. 
 
So, all told, the Department of Treasury and the Department of State have designated now more than 4,000 entities and individuals pursuant to Russia’s related sanctions authorities over the last two years, the strongest set of sanctions ever imposed on a major economy.  With today’s actions, Commerce has now placed more than 900 parties on our entity list for their role in Putin’s war.  Our actions to ensure Mr. Putin pays an even steeper price for his aggression abroad and repression at home are actually having an impact.  And we will continue to act.
 
We urge, of course, the House Republicans to do the same.  They must come back from this recess, vote — because we know if they put it on the floor to vote, it will pass — vote on the supplemental funding so that we can get the artillery shells, we can get the small arms ammunition, we can get the air defense capabilities into the hands of Ukrainian battlefield commanders and soldiers on the front so that they can continue to defend their country.
 
And with that, I’ll take questions. 
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Our first question will go to the line of Aamer Madhani.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hi there, John and Eduardo.  Question on Israel.  Is the administration comfortable with the vision that Netanyahu has set out for post-war Gaza?  Does it meet the administration’s basic standards for setting the grounds for a viable long-term peace?
 
And then secondly, also on Israel, does the administration have any reaction to Israel’s plans to move forward with more than 3,000 settlement homes in the West Bank?  Thank you.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Aamer.  On the first question about the post-conflict plan for Gaza, we’ve seen the reports.  I’m going to defer to Israel to speak to the specificity of these plans. 
 
What I can speak to is our views, and we’ve been clear about what our views are.  We have had constructive discussions with the Israelis on all these issues over recent weeks, where we have, of course, continued to make clear positions, including where those views and our positions diverge from them.  Both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to be secure with equal measures of freedom and dignity. 
 
And again, let me just reiterate some of the top points here. 
 
We believe that whatever post-conflict Gaza looks like, the Palestinian people should have a voice and a vote in what that looks like, through a revitalized Palestinian Authority.  We don’t believe in any reduction of the size of Gaza.  We don’t believe and will continue to be very vocal about the fact that we don’t want to see any forcible displacement of Palestinians outside Gaza. 
 
And, of course, we don’t want to see Gaza dominated or rolled or governed over by Hamas. 
 
Those are very consistent positions.  We still hold to them.  And as I said earlier, we’ve made that consistently clear with our Israeli counterparts. 
 
On your question about settlements — again, seen those reports and, frankly, disappointed in the announcement.  It’s been longstanding U.S. policy under both Republican and Democratic administrations that new settlements are counterproductive to the cause of peace.  Frankly, they’re also inconsistent with international law.  And this administration maintains this firm opposition — our firm opposition to settlement expansion.
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Our next question will go to the line of Barak Ravid.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thank you, Eduardo.  Thanks, John.  I want to follow up on the previous question, your previous answer that you just said, as Secretary Blinken also said a few minutes ago, that the administration sees settlements as inconsistent with international law. 
 
The previous administration, and especially previous Secretary of State Pompeo, said that the U.S. position is that settlements are not illegal, per se, and a shift at U.S. policy from 1978.  Does your statement right now mean that the Biden administration has overturned this Pompeo doctrine and that it’s not valid and not U.S. policy anymore?
 
The second question: If you have any updates for us about the Paris summit and the hostage negotiations.  Thank you. 
 
MR. KIRBY:  Thanks, Barak.  Look, this isn’t about the previous administration.  We are simply reaffirming the fundamental conclusion that these settlements are inconsistent with international law. 
 
And as I said in my previous answer, I mean, that is a position that’s been consistent over a range of Republican and Democratic administrations.  If there’s an administration that is being inconsistent, it was the previous one. 
 
And then on your question, I don’t really have an update on the hostage deal negotiations and the talks that are happening in Paris, except to say we continue to work at this very, very hard.  We believe that the discussions and negotiations to date have been constructive.  Obviously, they have not been — they have not been conclusive because we don’t have a deal in place. 
 
But the fact that these negotiations are still ongoing and that people are, in fact, sitting together to try to hash it out is a good thing.  And we’re obviously very hopeful that we can come to closure on a deal that would allow for an extended pause; get all the hostages out over time, in stages; and then, of course, be able to increase humanitarian assistance. 
 
So I really don’t have much more to add to that.
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Our next question will go to the line of Nandita Bose.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thank you, Eduardo.  Appreciate it.  Couple of questions from me, just on the sanctions.  It does not look as if you used the December executive order to target foreign financial firms that helped Russia circumvent sanctions.  Can you explain the decision not to target these foreign financial firms in this action?  I mean, is this something that we should expect to see soon?
 
And then my second question is: Has the President been briefed by Brett McGurk yet?  Could you tell us a little bit more about what’s going on on his trip?  Thank you.
 
MR. KIRBY:  So, on your first question, I think it’s critical that we remember to put it in some perspective.  We would need additional legal authorities to be able to do that.  We continue to be supportive of having those domestic legislative authorities that would give us the flexibility as we continue to discuss with partners and allies how best to cease Russia’s aggression and to assure that Russia pays for the damage that it’s caused to Ukraine. 
 
It is something, as I think you heard from the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury today, that it’s something that we continue to be in touch with on the Hill and with our allies and partners.  There’s several key — several pieces of legislation that have been working their way through Congress; we’re watching that closely. 
 
And because the vast majority of the immobilized sovereign assets aren’t in the U.S., again, I want to stress it’s absolutely key that we take action in concert with our international partners.  And that’s our focus right now. 
 
And then, on a readout from Brett’s trip, as I’m sitting here talking to you, I’m not aware that Brett has provided a full readout of his meetings.  I know they’ve wrapped up.  As I said yesterday, he met with leaders in Egypt, particularly on the intel side, and, of course, with the war cabinet, with Prime Minister Netanyahu, with Defense Minister Gallant, with Benny Gantz, and, of course, had a chance to meet with the families of American hostages in Israel yesterday.  But I’m not aware that we’ve received a full readout.
 
Obviously, we always appreciate the opportunity to have those in-person discussions with our counterparts in the region on a range of issues.  And first and foremost, Brett was over there really trying to make more progress on this hostage deal, but he also had a chance to talk to them about their plans and their thinking for operations down in the south near Rafah.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question, we’ll go to the line of Patsy.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thanks, Eduardo.  And thanks, Kirby.  I have two questions on Gaza.  I know that you said that Brett has not given a readout yet, but I wonder if the issue of the post-war plans from Netanyahu was discussed in their meetings.  And what do you make of the fact that it was released just as Brett was in the region?
 
And then, another one.  How does the administration feel about Netanyahu using Ramadan as a deadline for the Rafah offensive?  As you — sorry, I’m just running out of breath.  As you would understand, it is received by the Muslim world as inflammatory. 
 
And then, once you’re done with that, I have a question on China.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Okay, well, there’s an awful lot there. 
 
I mean, again, I don’t have more to say about Brett’s trip than what I’ve already told you.  I mean, I think we should wait to talk to Brett when he gets back and to get a fuller sense of his discussions.  There hasn’t been too many conversations we’ve had with the Israelis where we haven’t talked about post-conflict Gaza and what that looks like.  But again, I can’t go into more detail without having a chance to talk to Brett myself on that. 
 
I’ll let the Israelis speak to their plans and intentions to conduct military operations in Rafah.  Again, there’s been no plan presented to us that I’m tracking.  And as of yesterday, I think that that was still accurate based on the preliminary discussions we were able to have with Brett in the region. 
 
So no plan presented for us to look at that I’m aware of in terms of Rafah operations.  And so, therefore, I think, again, I would refer you to the Israelis to speak to whatever deadlines they’re setting here. 
 
I think it’s important to reiterate what I’ve said so many times and including yesterday: We still would not support operations in Rafah no matter what the timescale is.  We wouldn’t support those kinds of operations unless or until the Israelis had properly accounted for the safety and security of the more than 1 million people that are seeking refuge down there. 
 
And again, I’m certainly not aware of any plan that we’ve had a chance to look at and to peruse.  So, again, I put you back to the Israelis to speak to that. 
 
Q    Thank you.  And on China, there’s this Five Eyes report that shows that Chinese hackers are potentially already inside critical U.S. infrastructure.  I think we discussed this about the telecommunication outage yesterday — we discussed in your gaggle yesterday.  At this point, are you 100 percent confident that that outage was not part of a Chinese hacking operation or any other adversarial powers?  And does the administration have a plan should another incident like that — similar incident conducted by a foreign adversary?  Thanks.
 
MR. KIRBY:  The best we know right now, Patsy, is what we’re hearing from the network industry, particularly AT&T, and that they do not believe — they’ve said they don’t believe that this was the result of some sort of cybersecurity incident. 
 
That said, it’s still being investigated, so we need to let the investigators do their work.  We’ve obviously pledged support to that investigation as appropriate.  But right now, the initial indications coming from industry itself is that this was not a cybersecurity incident.
 
MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to the line of Jake Epstein.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hey, thanks for doing this.  I just want to ask a question about the Houthis.  The U.S. Navy preemptive strikes have really become a daily thing.  We’ve also seen a few interceptions of Iranian weaponry bound for Yemen.  Are you able to speak at all about how much of the Houthi capabilities remain and how often they’re being resupplied?  Is there any intelligence or indication of, you know, how long this might go on for?
 
MR. KIRBY:  Not a whole lot of information on the intelligence that I’m able to offer you here on that one.  And I certainly would, at the outset, point you to DOD to speak to what we call battle damage assessment.  And they give you a sense of what their assessment is of how much the capability has been degraded. 
 
That said, broadly speaking, we do know that the strikes that they have conducted inside Houthi-controlled parts of Yemen have had an impact on degrading capabilities. 
 
While it is certainly true that Houthi attacks continue, what you’re not seeing lately have been those major swarm attacks where, you know, multiple waves of drones and missiles are being shot at multiple ships.  Typically, what you’re seeing now are more one-off attacks, and they have continued to be largely ineffective in terms of stopping ships on their way to prior destinations. 
 
That doesn’t mean that they aren’t still dangerous.  It doesn’t mean that they haven’t scored a hit here now and then.  Of course, they did just the other day; they hit a ship that was ironically bound for Aden to bring grain to the people of Yemen.  And even that attack, which did score a hit on the ship, didn’t stop that ship from still pulling into Yemen and dropping off food for the Yemeni people. 
 
So they’re still dangerous, absolutely.  And we’re taking it seriously.  But we do believe that we have had an impact on not just the degradation of their capabilities, but the way in which they’re using the capabilities they have available to them.  They are not, again, conducting the major sort of drone swarm attacks that they were able to do in the past.
 
As for the flow, we still believe that they continue to be supported by the regime in Tehran, that materials, weapons systems are still being supplied. 
 
As you also know, we have been and continue to conduct interdiction operations at sea, and those continue.
 
So we’ll obviously do everything we can to try to limit and stem that flow, but the flow is ongoing — which is all the more reason why, again, that we need Congress to act and pass the supplemental funding. 
 
In that supplemental funding there’s about two and a half billion dollars for CENTCOM, deliberately set aside for U.S. Central Command, to restock its own inventory of weapons ammunition and to provide the kinds of funding that they need to support their many activities at sea and on the ground — frankly, in the air — in the regions.  And part of that would go a long way to helping us continue to stem these Houthi attacks.
 
MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to the line of DJ Judd.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hi, this is Priscilla on DJ’s phone.  So, two quick questions.  One on Ukraine.  The President said today in his remarks before governors that top U.S. ally — that he would have a call with top U.S. allies on Ukraine.  What assurances, if any, can he give them in trying — as he himself is trying to get that additional funding from Congress?
 
And then separately, on Israel, the Prime Minister sort of unveiled a plan for the day after in Gaza.  It didn’t appear to include the two-state solution.  So is it a nonstarter already for the White House?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I won’t get ahead of the President.  You heard him talk about this conversation he’s going to have with G7 leaders later today.  And we’ll certainly be able to share more of that with you when it occurs. 
 
He will absolutely make it clear that he’s going to continue to do everything he can to support Ukraine, and that that includes doing everything he can and our team can do to work with members of Congress to get that supplemental funding on the floor, get it voted, get it to his desk.  Because if it reaches his desk as it currently stands, as he said, he’ll sign it. 
 
He cannot control what the Speaker does or doesn’t do.  But we can certainly continue to do everything we can to make clear how important this is, as we’ve been doing just today, and continue to do everything we can to work with members of Congress to move it along.  And that will be his message to his G7 partners — how seriously we take the challenge, how much we know American leadership matters, and how far he’s working to get that supplemental bill passed and on his desk. 
 
On your second question, again, I would refer to the Israeli government to speak to those post-conflict Gaza plans.  All I can do is reiterate what I said before: We’ve been very clear, we’ve been very consistent with our Israeli counterparts about what we believe post-conflict Gaza needs to look like.  And those views haven’t changed.  I described them for you a little bit earlier in the gaggle; I won’t repeat that.  But those are all still valid, in our view. 
 
And we are not going to be bashful about holding to those views, and certainly not going to be bashful about expressing them continually with our Israeli counterparts on the things we agree on, which is Hamas cannot govern Gaza, and the things where we diverge. 
 
And the last thing I’ll say is: On the two-state solution — you’re right, they didn’t say anything — there wasn’t anything in the public rendering of that plan about the two-state solution.  But the President remains fully committed to the promise and the possibility of a two-state solution and how that can benefit the entire region, certainly with Israeli security guaranteed.
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks.  Next up, we’ll go to Jacqui Heinrich.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Thanks, guys.  On these sanctions, why not just go forward and designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I don’t have anything to add in terms of what we haven’t done, Jacqui.  I’d ask you to take a look at what we have done — you know, over 4,000 entities sanctioned, more than 500 just today, and there’s more coming.  We’ll continue to hold Russia accountable. 
 
What we do is we make decisions based on what we think will actually have the right impact and an impact on their ability to continue to fund their war machine and work it.  And we know that it’s had an effect.  I mean, my goodness, Mr. Putin is reaching out to Iran now for potentially close-range ballistic missiles, and he’s been reaching out to North Korea for artillery shells and for ballistic missiles as well.  So we know that these sanctions have had an impact on his ability to conduct military operations. 
 
And what we’re focused on are tools and techniques that we believe actually will have an impact on his economy and on his ability to conduct a war, as well as making sure that whatever we do doesn’t unnecessarily make it hard for humanitarian purposes for the Russian people themselves.
 
MODERATOR:  Next up, we’ll go to the line of Halley Toosi.  You should be able to unmute yourself.
 
Q    Hi, John, everyone.  Thanks for doing this.  Listen, I’m just going to ask you to be very frank and maybe set aside your talking points for a minute on this Israel stuff. 
 
Why should the Israelis care about what the United States keeps saying?  They don’t really seem to be feeling the pressure from your rhetoric.  And I realize that you’re putting these sanctions and making some moves related to the West Bank, including this — you know, saying now that the settlements are illegal — but isn’t that, like, three years late under this administration?  I mean, extremist violence by settlers in the West Bank has been going on for a long time; settlements have been around for a long time. 
 
Why didn’t you guys do this three years ago?  And couldn’t that — if you had acted sooner, couldn’t that have maybe affected the dynamics between the administration and the Israeli government right now, maybe even affected the dynamics of Israeli politics right now to where you wouldn’t have far-right figures in the government to deal with who clearly have so much influence over the government?
 
So, I guess I’m just trying to figure out, like, if I’m Benjamin Netanyahu right now, why should I care what John Kirby or Secretary Blinken or President Biden keep saying to me?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I think — I guess I’m going to challenge the premise of the question just a little bit.  I think the Israeli people absolutely do care about the support of the United States.  I think they absolutely do care about the leadership President Biden has shown and a strong way that we —
 
Q    I’m talking about the Israeli government, not the Israeli people.
 
MR. KIRBY:  Listen, you asked a really long question, so you’re going to have to give me a little latitude to give you a really long answer.  You said you didn’t want to listen to my talking points, so I’m going to try to do the best I can here, but you got to let me finish. 
 
Q    Okay.
 
MR. KIRBY:  I think they do care.  I think they do care about what the United States thinks and does.  And I said it — I think they do care, and they value and they appreciate the leadership that President Biden and this administration have shown when it comes to supporting them in what is truly a right and a responsibility to rid themselves of the threat of Hamas. 
 
I think they also are smart enough to appreciate — and it goes to the government too — smart enough to appreciate that we’re not going to agree with them on every single thing.  We’ve been talking quite a bit here today about things we don’t agree with them on.  We don’t agree about the issue of settlements.  We clearly have differences on what the future of post-conflict Gaza needs to look like.  And, yes, there have been differences over the promise and the possibility of a two-state solution. 
 
But that doesn’t mean that you just clam up and stop talking about it.  It doesn’t mean you just put yourself in a shell and don’t engage with them in meaningful conversations. 
 
And this idea — and I’ve heard it time and time and time again since October 7th — that we’re being ignored or Israel is just walking all over us, or they’re not paying attention to anything that we’re having to say — and I’m telling you, that’s just not the truth.  It just ain’t so. 
 
Now, that doesn’t mean that every single bit of advice and every single perspective we share with them they act on in the way that we would want them to.  There are obvious ways where — we want to see, for instance, a much stronger, devoted effort to reduce civilian casualties.  There have been too many innocent people killed in this conflict.  And too many — obviously, the great majority of those innocents killed have been Palestinians.  And we have been very, very consistent about that. 
 
It doesn’t mean that we’re going to agree with the results.  But I can assure you that we do have the ability to share with them our perspectives and that they have in the past acted in ways consistent with how we have asked them to act — again, not in every way, not in every sense, and maybe not to the degree that we want, but they have.  And I think they appreciate the good faith in which, and the good intentions with which, our perspectives and our support is being shared with them. 
 
So I just push back on the premise that we’re talking to a brick wall.  We’re talking to a friend — a friend, as any friend, you can be honest with, who’s not going to agree with everything that we say.  But the President’s — we believe the President’s approach has had an impact, and we’re going to continue to do that in that way. 
 
Now, look, as to why now after three years, we thought that at this moment it was particularly important to reaffirm our commitment to a two-state solution.  And at this moment, we felt it was particularly important to reaffirm, again, our view of the inconsistency with international law that these settlements present. 
 
And again, we also think that, at this moment, it’s particularly important to work together to build a political horizon for both Israelis and for Palestinians.
 
MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We’re coming up at time, so we’ve got time for one more.  We’ll go to the line of Tommy Christopher.  You should be able to unmute yourself
 
Q    Hey, thanks for doing this, Kirby.  The thing I wanted to ask about is this — I don’t know if you guys have seen it; I’m sure you have — seen this sort of stunning filing for detention for Alexander Smirnov.  And there’s a lot of really, like, crazy allegations in there that he had contact with the leader of an assassination squad.  Have you guys seen the filing?  And are you perusing it for — are you concerned about any of this stuff, any of the security risks?
 
MR. KIRBY:  I have not seen the filing.  I don’t know — I can’t speak for the rest of my NSC colleagues, Tommy.  How about if I take that question and we’ll have somebody from the team get back to you.  But I’m not in a position where I can speak intelligently to it.
 
MODERATOR:  Thanks all.  That’s all the time we have today.  We’ll do this again soon.  Enjoy the rest of your day.
 
12:28 P.M. EST

The post On-the-Record Press Gaggle by White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby appeared first on The White House.

East Room

11:23 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Please sit down.  Thank you. 

If I were smart, I’d leave right now.  (Laughter.)

Folks, thank you very much.  Governor Cox, Governor Polis, all the governors for being here.

I — I know you just heard — did Jill already speak — my wife? 

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Yes.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, what the hell am I doing here then?  (Laughter.)

You’re — (laughs) — Jill enjoys traveling to your states and — to advance priorities like education and workforce development.

And thanks to Kamala for her leadership and her incredible partnership across the board.

And to the members of our Cabinet, including former Governor — and we have two former governors here — are they both here today? — Governor Raimondo and — where — where is my Secretary of Agriculture?  Is he here?  Well, he’s going to be here tomorrow — Tom Vilsack is going to be here tomorrow.

My Republican friends, I — I’ve got bad news for you: I actually like working with you.  (Laughter.)  And it reminds me of the days I was in the Senate, you know, things — we’d argue like hell and then we’d get things done. 

And — but look, before I begin, I want to say a few words about an important anniversary that we mark tomorrow.

Two years ago, shortly before dawn, Russian troops marched across the border into Ukraine.  And Putin believed he could easily bend the will and break the resolve of the free people of Ukraine — that he could roll into Ukraine and he would roll over them.

Two years later, he remains wrong.  He didn’t do that.  He wasn’t able to do that.  Kyiv is still standing.  Ukraine is still free.  And the people of Ukraine remain unbowed and unbroken in the face of Putin’s vigorous onslaught.

This is due to their sheer bravery and their sacrifice, but it’s also due to us.  Remember, the United States pulled together a coalition of more than 50 nations — 50 nations to support Ukraine.  We unified and expanded NATO.  We can’t walk away now.  And that’s what Putin is betting on.  He’s betting on we’re going to walk away.

That’s why I’ll be speaking to the G7 folks — some of the heads of the European Union and NATO today.

That’s why I’m announcing more than 500 new sanctions — (applause) — in response — in response to Putin’s brutal war of conquest, in response to Aleksey Navalny’s death.

Because make no mistake: Putin is responsible for Aleksey’s death.

Yesterday I met with Aleksey’s wife and daughter in California where his daughter attends college.  Aleksey was an incredibly courageous man and his family is courageous as well.

I assured them his legacy will continue to live on around the world.  And we, the United States, are going to continue to ensure that Putin pays the price for his aggression abroad and repression at home.  (Applause.)

But let me be clear: The House of Representatives must pass the bipartisan national security bill.  The bill provides urgent funding for Ukraine.  And it passed overwhelmingly in the Senate.

And there’s no question — none — none — if the Speaker called a vote in the House, it would pass easily today.  Instead, they went on vacation.  I mean, it’s just — any- — well — (laughter).

Look, folks, all kidding aside, history is watching.  The clock is ticking.  Brave Ukrainian soldiers and civilians are dying.  Russia — Russia is taking Ukrainian territory for the first in many months.  But here in America, the Speaker gave the House a two-week vacation. 

They have to come back.  They have to come back and get this done, because failure to support Ukraine in this critical moment will never be forgotten in history.  It will be measured, and it will have impact for decades to come.

And I want to thank all you governors here for — and I urge you, if you agree with me — and many of you do — to urge your congressional representatives to force this bill to be brought up.  America can — to prove America can be relied on.  America stands up for freedom.  And we never bow to anyone, particularly Putin.

Look, folks, now on another important work we’re doing.

I want to thank you all for delivering historic results for the American people.  You’ve been incredible partners.

Governors know the measure of success isn’t how many partisan points we score.  It’s: Did we fix the problem?  Did we fix the problem?

We disagree on how to fix the problem many times.  We’re all here for one reason: to fix the problems — to get things done for families, for communities, for the country.

That’s why I kept my commitment to be a president for all Americans, whether you voted for me or not.  In fact, we’ve invested more, in all we passed, in red states than we have in blue states.  That’s a fact.  Billions of dollars more of what we’ve passed is invested in red states than blue states.

I came to office when the pandemic was raging and the economy was reeling.  But we’ve turned things around with your help.

The American Rescue Plan provided $350 billion to state and local governments.  And many of you — many of you put that money up for cops on the beat, bringing down violent crime across the nation, which we’ve done; to bring a half a million teachers and other school personnel back into the classrooms; to prevent foreclosures and evictions and keep 8 million families in their homes.

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law made the most significant investment on our nation’s infrastructure in history — s- — well — (applause).  Eisenhower’s interstate highway bill maybe do — did it as much.

But over 46,000 projects already — 46,000 — and we’re just getting started; it’s just the beginning — modernizing roads, bridges, railroads, ports, airports, public transit, clean water, high-speed Internet — affordable high-speed Internet everywhere.

I’ve stood with Governor Evers and Walz and as — rebuilding the — the Blatnik Bridge.  (Applause and laughter.)

By the way, as you know, over a billion dollars — and it’s important — from Wisconsin to Minnesota.

Governor Beshear and Governor DeWine — we’re building a bridge called the Brent Spence Bridge between Kentucky and Ohio.  (Applause.)

By the way, tens of thousands of trucks and commerce cross those bridges every day.  And we’re finally getting it done.

We’re building the nation’s first high-speed rail line in California and Nevada.  And I want to thank Governor Newsom for his leadership in that.  (Applause.)

And, by the way, I’m not sure how many people leave L.A., can do it in two hours to get there, are — whether they’re going to come back or not to — (laughter) — Las Vegas. 

But all kidding aside, we’re making the biggest investment ever in climate — climate change — ever.

I visited your states working together to respond and build and boost resilience on ex- — to extreme weather.  Spent an awful lot of time and I ma- — I’m not complaining about it; I’m just pointing it out — an awful lot of time with a lot of you governors over the last three years, dealing with the impacts of bad weather.

I’ve flown over your states, particularly in the Southwest and the West and the Northwest for — I don’t know how many times — in helicopters, looking at timber burned to the ground.  More — we’ve lost more timber, we’ve lost more forests than the entire state of Maryland makes up in land, in square miles.

We’re building cleaner, more reliable power grid; promoting clean energy and advanced manufacturing industries of the future made in America — made in America.

You know, one of the things that I didn’t know — maybe you knew, but I’ve been around a long time in the Congress.  I didn’t know when they passed the legislation relating to the right of labor to organize in the ‘30s that there’s a provision that said if the President provides — if the — if the Congress gives the President money to invest in America, to build things in America, to spend money in America — to spend money for America, they should do two things: One, they should hire Americans to do it, and, two, they should use American products.

Well, guess what?  Didn’t happen in Democrat or Republican administrations for the longest time.  And so, guess what happened?  We no longer — you know, we were no longer just closing just factories in your states.  But what was — what was happening the last 20 years in all of our states, including my state of Delaware?  People were — the business decides labor is cheaper overseas, so we export the factory and import the product. 

Well, we’re building factories here in America now, not overseas.  (Applause.) 

So far, my Invest in America agenda has attracted $650 billion — $650 billion in private investments, bringing factories, jobs back home to your states and — and restoring a sense of pride. 

How many times do you see people in your states had that factory where for — maybe it only employed 500 to 2,000 people?  And for generations, people — family after family — showed up and worked in that factory.  And all of a sudden, it’s gone.  It’s overseas.  But now they’re coming back.  They’re coming back.  And with it, pride is coming back.

For example, I was with Governor Hochul in Syracuse, New York.  You know, Micron is investing up to $100 billion to build chip factories, an ar- — (applause) — an area the size of 40 football fields.

Well, across the country, over the next 20 years, we’re going to create 50,000 jobs across the semiconductor supply chain — 50,000 jobs.  And, by the way, if you work in one of their fabs, you know how much you make?  You don’t need a college degree.  $110- to $112,000 a year.

Folks, look, we’ve ignited a manufacturing boom with your help — a semiconductor boom, a battery boom, a jobs boom.  All along the way, with your help, we’ve cut federal — we’ve cut the deficit as well.  We cut the deficit by doing all this by $1 trillion so far — the biggest reduction in history in deficit reduction.

I’ve signed legislation that’s going to cut the federal deficit by another $1 trillion over the next decade. 

It’s clear we have the strongest economy in the world.  And that’s not hyperbole.  We have the strongest economy in the world today.  Nearly 15 million new jobs created — a record.  Growth is strong.  Wages are strong, rising faster than prices.  Inflation is down.  More to do. 

And folks — folks are starting to feel it.  Positive consumer sentiment surged 30 percent in the last three months, the biggest jump in 30 years. 

We’ve got more to do.  I’m not suggesting it’s done yet.

America has filed a record 16 million new business applications — the Vice President talked about it — across the country since we came to office.  And with your help, every one — every one of those filings is an act of hope.  Think about it.  It’s an act of hope, investing all they have — this — this — they believe they can do something.

And we’re just getting started.  We’re going to keep fighting to lower the costs for families on everything from prescription drugs to housing.

For example, we capped insulin for seniors on Medicare at $35 a month instead of as much as $400 a month.  Well, let’s make that $35 available to everyone in your states — everyone.  (Applause.)

That and other actions lowering prescription drug costs are not only good for the people; they save the taxpayers billions and billions of dollars.  The action on prescription drugs thus far has already reduced the deficit by another $160 billion.  You hear me?  $160 billion.  Because Medicare is not paying out 400 bucks; they’re paying out 35 bucks.  Taxpayers are being saved money as well.

And, by the way, they’re still making a profit — in some cases, of 300 percent. 

Because we don’t have to pay these exorbitant prices, we’re also lowering housing costs to boost supply.  Today, with your help, a record 1.7 million housing units are under construction nationwide.  We know we need more.  And I’ve sent Congress an ambitious plan to do more.  I appreciate your help to get it passed.  We’re partners in this work.  And you’ve been leading the way before us, many of you.

There’s one other piece of unfinished business I want to talk about: the border.

My first day in office as president, the first bill I sent, I sent up a comprehensive plan to fix the immigration system. 

And I think I — you all have, at your table, if I’m not mistaken — because I don’t want to take the time to go into all the detail — a fact sheet on the bipartisan border deal.  And it’s entitled “Fact Sheet: Impact of Bipartisan Border Deal on Funding Border Operations.”  And it lays out all the things that it does, that — that compromise.

We introduced a comprehensive plan to fix the system.  It included funding for high-tech border security, legal pathways for DREAMEers, addressed the root causes of why so many people are fleeing the southern — to the southern border to avoid violence, corruption, political instability, and natural disasters.

Folks, Congress has had a long, proud history of — bipartisan history on immigration reforms and abiding by our international treaty obligations, which we’ve signed, relating to immigration.  These reforms made America a nation of laws, a nation of immigrants, and the strongest economy in the world.

But something changed.  Over time, our laws and our resources haven’t kept up with our immigration system and it’s broken.  And our politics has failed to fix it.

That’s why, months ago, I instructed my team to begin a series of negotiations in a bipartisan group of senators, Democrats and — led by a very conservative Republican, who did a hell of a job, to fix our immigration system.

I provided each of you, as I said, a fact sheet with the details of that bipartisan deal.

The bipartisan agreement represents the most fair and humane reforms in a long time.  I didn’t get everything I wanted in it.  It also includes the toughest set of reforms to secure the border ever in history.

The Border Patrol chief himself said, “We need more people.  We need more agents on the line.”  Our bipartisan bill got the Border Patrol the agents they need.  It funds and hires 1,500 more agents and officers — 1,500; 100 more immigration judges; 4,300 more asylum officers to get asylum decisions in months instead of years.

Right now, you can come — they come through the border on asylum, they don’t — not able to see an asylum officer.  They get a bracelet, and they get put in the country and they get — come — say, “Come back in seven years.  Come back in seven years when we’re able to hear your case.”

It provides more cutting-edge inspection machines to detect and stop fentanyl getting across the border.  It funds what — what many of you governors need to help shelter migrants.  As a — as a win for the future of the American people and a win for your states. 

But then, as we all know, petty politics intervened.  The Speaker of the House has refused to vote on the bill, even though, again, there’s significant support.

Everybo- — every Republican I’ve talk- — talk to your Republican colleagues.  There are the votes in that — on that floor to pass that bill.

All of a sudden, people started to go silent.  But they’re in a tough spot.

Tell that to the Border Patrol, that we can’t get this done.  They support this bipartisan bill. 

Tell that to the Chamber of Commerce — the National Chamber of Commerce, who supports that proposal. 

Tell that to the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which supports this. 

There are governors in this room who support it. 

Strong minorities oppose it, but a significant majority in the House and Senate support it.

Folks, doing nothing is not an option.  Compromise is part of the process.

I didn’t get everything I wanted in that deal.  We didn’t deal with DREAMers.  We didn’t do a number of things I think we should do.  But you know it’s a positive step, a significant step.  You know that.  You deal with this every day.  Some of you deal with it every single day.  You have real skin in the game.

So, if this matters to you, it this matters to your state, tell your members of Congress who are standing in the way: Show a little spine, pass the Bipartisan Security Bill, notwithstanding you may reap the wrath of one or more of your colleagues. 

Look, it’s the strongest border deal our country has ever seen.  It also includes the most fair and humane reforms for legal immigration in a long time.

Let’s get it done. 

And, by the way, speak to your agricultural communities and tell them — ask them if they need temporary workers.  Why are we making the kinds of progress we’re making economically when the rest of the world is in a standstill on agriculture, basically?

Look, let’s keep working to fix the entire system.  I hope you all can help.

Let me close with this.  I appreciate Governor Cox’s effort to make it a — make the mission of the NGA to get those of us who disagree with one another to listen to one another, to treat one another with a sense of dignity and respect.

That’s what you guys do and women do more than most.  That’s an essential part of America.  That’s how we get things done.  That’s how democracy works when it works.  It needs to be able to have that kind of exchange.

And when folks in your state look around and see more factories coming in, more shovels in the ground, more people going to work, more access to affordable Internet, I hope they feel the pride — the pride in their hometowns making a comeback, the pride in America.

Folks, I know some people think I’m a little too optimistic.  I’m an incredible optimistic.  But I hear — I’m more optimistic about this nation’s future than I’ve ever been.

We just have to remember who in the hell we are.  I mean this sincerely, from the bottom of my heart.  We’re the United States of America, for God’s sake.  Nothing, nothing, nothing is beyond our capacity.

When have we ever set a national goal we failed?  When?  When have we ever come out of a — not come out of a crisis stronger than we went into the crisis?

Nothing is beyond our capacity if we work together.  So, let’s keep working together.  Because you’re the best hope we have — the governors.

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

11:42 A.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden at the National Governors Association Winter Meeting appeared first on The White House.

East Room

11:23 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Please sit down.  Thank you. 

If I were smart, I’d leave right now.  (Laughter.)

Folks, thank you very much.  Governor Cox, Governor Polis, all the governors for being here.

I — I know you just heard — did Jill already speak — my wife? 

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Yes.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, what the hell am I doing here then?  (Laughter.)

You’re — (laughs) — Jill enjoys traveling to your states and — to advance priorities like education and workforce development.

And thanks to Kamala for her leadership and her incredible partnership across the board.

And to the members of our Cabinet, including former Governor — and we have two former governors here — are they both here today? — Governor Raimondo and — where — where is my Secretary of Agriculture?  Is he here?  Well, he’s going to be here tomorrow — Tom Vilsack is going to be here tomorrow.

My Republican friends, I — I’ve got bad news for you: I actually like working with you.  (Laughter.)  And it reminds me of the days I was in the Senate, you know, things — we’d argue like hell and then we’d get things done. 

And — but look, before I begin, I want to say a few words about an important anniversary that we mark tomorrow.

Two years ago, shortly before dawn, Russian troops marched across the border into Ukraine.  And Putin believed he could easily bend the will and break the resolve of the free people of Ukraine — that he could roll into Ukraine and he would roll over them.

Two years later, he remains wrong.  He didn’t do that.  He wasn’t able to do that.  Kyiv is still standing.  Ukraine is still free.  And the people of Ukraine remain unbowed and unbroken in the face of Putin’s vigorous onslaught.

This is due to their sheer bravery and their sacrifice, but it’s also due to us.  Remember, the United States pulled together a coalition of more than 50 nations — 50 nations to support Ukraine.  We unified and expanded NATO.  We can’t walk away now.  And that’s what Putin is betting on.  He’s betting on we’re going to walk away.

That’s why I’ll be speaking to the G7 folks — some of the heads of the European Union and NATO today.

That’s why I’m announcing more than 500 new sanctions — (applause) — in response — in response to Putin’s brutal war of conquest, in response to Aleksey Navalny’s death.

Because make no mistake: Putin is responsible for Aleksey’s death.

Yesterday I met with Aleksey’s wife and daughter in California where his daughter attends college.  Aleksey was an incredibly courageous man and his family is courageous as well.

I assured them his legacy will continue to live on around the world.  And we, the United States, are going to continue to ensure that Putin pays the price for his aggression abroad and repression at home.  (Applause.)

But let me be clear: The House of Representatives must pass the bipartisan national security bill.  The bill provides urgent funding for Ukraine.  And it passed overwhelmingly in the Senate.

And there’s no question — none — none — if the Speaker called a vote in the House, it would pass easily today.  Instead, they went on vacation.  I mean, it’s just — any- — well — (laughter).

Look, folks, all kidding aside, history is watching.  The clock is ticking.  Brave Ukrainian soldiers and civilians are dying.  Russia — Russia is taking Ukrainian territory for the first in many months.  But here in America, the Speaker gave the House a two-week vacation. 

They have to come back.  They have to come back and get this done, because failure to support Ukraine in this critical moment will never be forgotten in history.  It will be measured, and it will have impact for decades to come.

And I want to thank all you governors here for — and I urge you, if you agree with me — and many of you do — to urge your congressional representatives to force this bill to be brought up.  America can — to prove America can be relied on.  America stands up for freedom.  And we never bow to anyone, particularly Putin.

Look, folks, now on another important work we’re doing.

I want to thank you all for delivering historic results for the American people.  You’ve been incredible partners.

Governors know the measure of success isn’t how many partisan points we score.  It’s: Did we fix the problem?  Did we fix the problem?

We disagree on how to fix the problem many times.  We’re all here for one reason: to fix the problems — to get things done for families, for communities, for the country.

That’s why I kept my commitment to be a president for all Americans, whether you voted for me or not.  In fact, we’ve invested more, in all we passed, in red states than we have in blue states.  That’s a fact.  Billions of dollars more of what we’ve passed is invested in red states than blue states.

I came to office when the pandemic was raging and the economy was reeling.  But we’ve turned things around with your help.

The American Rescue Plan provided $350 billion to state and local governments.  And many of you — many of you put that money up for cops on the beat, bringing down violent crime across the nation, which we’ve done; to bring a half a million teachers and other school personnel back into the classrooms; to prevent foreclosures and evictions and keep 8 million families in their homes.

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law made the most significant investment on our nation’s infrastructure in history — s- — well — (applause).  Eisenhower’s interstate highway bill maybe do — did it as much.

But over 46,000 projects already — 46,000 — and we’re just getting started; it’s just the beginning — modernizing roads, bridges, railroads, ports, airports, public transit, clean water, high-speed Internet — affordable high-speed Internet everywhere.

I’ve stood with Governor Evers and Walz and as — rebuilding the — the Blatnik Bridge.  (Applause and laughter.)

By the way, as you know, over a billion dollars — and it’s important — from Wisconsin to Minnesota.

Governor Beshear and Governor DeWine — we’re building a bridge called the Brent Spence Bridge between Kentucky and Ohio.  (Applause.)

By the way, tens of thousands of trucks and commerce cross those bridges every day.  And we’re finally getting it done.

We’re building the nation’s first high-speed rail line in California and Nevada.  And I want to thank Governor Newsom for his leadership in that.  (Applause.)

And, by the way, I’m not sure how many people leave L.A., can do it in two hours to get there, are — whether they’re going to come back or not to — (laughter) — Las Vegas. 

But all kidding aside, we’re making the biggest investment ever in climate — climate change — ever.

I visited your states working together to respond and build and boost resilience on ex- — to extreme weather.  Spent an awful lot of time and I ma- — I’m not complaining about it; I’m just pointing it out — an awful lot of time with a lot of you governors over the last three years, dealing with the impacts of bad weather.

I’ve flown over your states, particularly in the Southwest and the West and the Northwest for — I don’t know how many times — in helicopters, looking at timber burned to the ground.  More — we’ve lost more timber, we’ve lost more forests than the entire state of Maryland makes up in land, in square miles.

We’re building cleaner, more reliable power grid; promoting clean energy and advanced manufacturing industries of the future made in America — made in America.

You know, one of the things that I didn’t know — maybe you knew, but I’ve been around a long time in the Congress.  I didn’t know when they passed the legislation relating to the right of labor to organize in the ‘30s that there’s a provision that said if the President provides — if the — if the Congress gives the President money to invest in America, to build things in America, to spend money in America — to spend money for America, they should do two things: One, they should hire Americans to do it, and, two, they should use American products.

Well, guess what?  Didn’t happen in Democrat or Republican administrations for the longest time.  And so, guess what happened?  We no longer — you know, we were no longer just closing just factories in your states.  But what was — what was happening the last 20 years in all of our states, including my state of Delaware?  People were — the business decides labor is cheaper overseas, so we export the factory and import the product. 

Well, we’re building factories here in America now, not overseas.  (Applause.) 

So far, my Invest in America agenda has attracted $650 billion — $650 billion in private investments, bringing factories, jobs back home to your states and — and restoring a sense of pride. 

How many times do you see people in your states had that factory where for — maybe it only employed 500 to 2,000 people?  And for generations, people — family after family — showed up and worked in that factory.  And all of a sudden, it’s gone.  It’s overseas.  But now they’re coming back.  They’re coming back.  And with it, pride is coming back.

For example, I was with Governor Hochul in Syracuse, New York.  You know, Micron is investing up to $100 billion to build chip factories, an ar- — (applause) — an area the size of 40 football fields.

Well, across the country, over the next 20 years, we’re going to create 50,000 jobs across the semiconductor supply chain — 50,000 jobs.  And, by the way, if you work in one of their fabs, you know how much you make?  You don’t need a college degree.  $110- to $112,000 a year.

Folks, look, we’ve ignited a manufacturing boom with your help — a semiconductor boom, a battery boom, a jobs boom.  All along the way, with your help, we’ve cut federal — we’ve cut the deficit as well.  We cut the deficit by doing all this by $1 trillion so far — the biggest reduction in history in deficit reduction.

I’ve signed legislation that’s going to cut the federal deficit by another $1 trillion over the next decade. 

It’s clear we have the strongest economy in the world.  And that’s not hyperbole.  We have the strongest economy in the world today.  Nearly 15 million new jobs created — a record.  Growth is strong.  Wages are strong, rising faster than prices.  Inflation is down.  More to do. 

And folks — folks are starting to feel it.  Positive consumer sentiment surged 30 percent in the last three months, the biggest jump in 30 years. 

We’ve got more to do.  I’m not suggesting it’s done yet.

America has filed a record 16 million new business applications — the Vice President talked about it — across the country since we came to office.  And with your help, every one — every one of those filings is an act of hope.  Think about it.  It’s an act of hope, investing all they have — this — this — they believe they can do something.

And we’re just getting started.  We’re going to keep fighting to lower the costs for families on everything from prescription drugs to housing.

For example, we capped insulin for seniors on Medicare at $35 a month instead of as much as $400 a month.  Well, let’s make that $35 available to everyone in your states — everyone.  (Applause.)

That and other actions lowering prescription drug costs are not only good for the people; they save the taxpayers billions and billions of dollars.  The action on prescription drugs thus far has already reduced the deficit by another $160 billion.  You hear me?  $160 billion.  Because Medicare is not paying out 400 bucks; they’re paying out 35 bucks.  Taxpayers are being saved money as well.

And, by the way, they’re still making a profit — in some cases, of 300 percent. 

Because we don’t have to pay these exorbitant prices, we’re also lowering housing costs to boost supply.  Today, with your help, a record 1.7 million housing units are under construction nationwide.  We know we need more.  And I’ve sent Congress an ambitious plan to do more.  I appreciate your help to get it passed.  We’re partners in this work.  And you’ve been leading the way before us, many of you.

There’s one other piece of unfinished business I want to talk about: the border.

My first day in office as president, the first bill I sent, I sent up a comprehensive plan to fix the immigration system. 

And I think I — you all have, at your table, if I’m not mistaken — because I don’t want to take the time to go into all the detail — a fact sheet on the bipartisan border deal.  And it’s entitled “Fact Sheet: Impact of Bipartisan Border Deal on Funding Border Operations.”  And it lays out all the things that it does, that — that compromise.

We introduced a comprehensive plan to fix the system.  It included funding for high-tech border security, legal pathways for DREAMEers, addressed the root causes of why so many people are fleeing the southern — to the southern border to avoid violence, corruption, political instability, and natural disasters.

Folks, Congress has had a long, proud history of — bipartisan history on immigration reforms and abiding by our international treaty obligations, which we’ve signed, relating to immigration.  These reforms made America a nation of laws, a nation of immigrants, and the strongest economy in the world.

But something changed.  Over time, our laws and our resources haven’t kept up with our immigration system and it’s broken.  And our politics has failed to fix it.

That’s why, months ago, I instructed my team to begin a series of negotiations in a bipartisan group of senators, Democrats and — led by a very conservative Republican, who did a hell of a job, to fix our immigration system.

I provided each of you, as I said, a fact sheet with the details of that bipartisan deal.

The bipartisan agreement represents the most fair and humane reforms in a long time.  I didn’t get everything I wanted in it.  It also includes the toughest set of reforms to secure the border ever in history.

The Border Patrol chief himself said, “We need more people.  We need more agents on the line.”  Our bipartisan bill got the Border Patrol the agents they need.  It funds and hires 1,500 more agents and officers — 1,500; 100 more immigration judges; 4,300 more asylum officers to get asylum decisions in months instead of years.

Right now, you can come — they come through the border on asylum, they don’t — not able to see an asylum officer.  They get a bracelet, and they get put in the country and they get — come — say, “Come back in seven years.  Come back in seven years when we’re able to hear your case.”

It provides more cutting-edge inspection machines to detect and stop fentanyl getting across the border.  It funds what — what many of you governors need to help shelter migrants.  As a — as a win for the future of the American people and a win for your states. 

But then, as we all know, petty politics intervened.  The Speaker of the House has refused to vote on the bill, even though, again, there’s significant support.

Everybo- — every Republican I’ve talk- — talk to your Republican colleagues.  There are the votes in that — on that floor to pass that bill.

All of a sudden, people started to go silent.  But they’re in a tough spot.

Tell that to the Border Patrol, that we can’t get this done.  They support this bipartisan bill. 

Tell that to the Chamber of Commerce — the National Chamber of Commerce, who supports that proposal. 

Tell that to the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which supports this. 

There are governors in this room who support it. 

Strong minorities oppose it, but a significant majority in the House and Senate support it.

Folks, doing nothing is not an option.  Compromise is part of the process.

I didn’t get everything I wanted in that deal.  We didn’t deal with DREAMers.  We didn’t do a number of things I think we should do.  But you know it’s a positive step, a significant step.  You know that.  You deal with this every day.  Some of you deal with it every single day.  You have real skin in the game.

So, if this matters to you, it this matters to your state, tell your members of Congress who are standing in the way: Show a little spine, pass the Bipartisan Security Bill, notwithstanding you may reap the wrath of one or more of your colleagues. 

Look, it’s the strongest border deal our country has ever seen.  It also includes the most fair and humane reforms for legal immigration in a long time.

Let’s get it done. 

And, by the way, speak to your agricultural communities and tell them — ask them if they need temporary workers.  Why are we making the kinds of progress we’re making economically when the rest of the world is in a standstill on agriculture, basically?

Look, let’s keep working to fix the entire system.  I hope you all can help.

Let me close with this.  I appreciate Governor Cox’s effort to make it a — make the mission of the NGA to get those of us who disagree with one another to listen to one another, to treat one another with a sense of dignity and respect.

That’s what you guys do and women do more than most.  That’s an essential part of America.  That’s how we get things done.  That’s how democracy works when it works.  It needs to be able to have that kind of exchange.

And when folks in your state look around and see more factories coming in, more shovels in the ground, more people going to work, more access to affordable Internet, I hope they feel the pride — the pride in their hometowns making a comeback, the pride in America.

Folks, I know some people think I’m a little too optimistic.  I’m an incredible optimistic.  But I hear — I’m more optimistic about this nation’s future than I’ve ever been.

We just have to remember who in the hell we are.  I mean this sincerely, from the bottom of my heart.  We’re the United States of America, for God’s sake.  Nothing, nothing, nothing is beyond our capacity.

When have we ever set a national goal we failed?  When?  When have we ever come out of a — not come out of a crisis stronger than we went into the crisis?

Nothing is beyond our capacity if we work together.  So, let’s keep working together.  Because you’re the best hope we have — the governors.

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

11:42 A.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden at the National Governors Association Winter Meeting appeared first on The White House.

The White House
 

Thank you, Tom.

Governor Cox, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your work and your efforts to foster a more constructive, respectful dialogue in our debates. Joe is grateful for your leadership, and I’m grateful to you and Abby for the warm welcome in Utah last month.

Good morning. It’s great to be here with all of you.

Governor Scott, when I visited Vermont last year, what you said stayed with me. You said, “pure […] partisan politics has never contributed to real solutions.” And that, we “can, and should, prioritize progress over politics, especially on issues where the majority of Americans agree.”

That majority is an exhausted one, as Governor Cox often points out.

They’re frustrated by a Congress that is often mired in gridlock, and those who too often treat government like a sport, with an “us versus them” mindset and a knee-jerk reaction to oppose anything the other team supports.

But this room shows the nation something very different, and I wish some lawmakers on the Hill would follow your lead.

You show that we can turn down the volume, stop the shouting, and actually listen to one another, that, yes, as Governor Cox says, we can disagree without being disagreeable.

As many of you know, I’ve been teaching writing for 40 years. One day, a student named Harry, who wanted to be an auto-mechanic, raised his hand.

“Dr. B,” he said, “the only thing I need to learn how to write is ‘needs brakes.’”

He was joking, of course. But he had a point: he wasn’t just there to learn the art of writing – he was there to prepare himself for a good-paying job.

For most people, a high school diploma alone isn’t enough to find a great career. But they often don’t need a four-year degree to pursue their passions either. And as technology brings changes to so many industries, these kinds of learning paths are more important than ever.

Since he took office, my husband, President Biden, has been focused on rebuilding the middle class. And today, millions of new jobs in infrastructure, clean energy, and manufacturing are being created.

We will need to train a new generation of workers to fill them.

These positions pay well. And many of them require associate degrees, certificates, or other hands-on instruction, not four years of college.

Still, a lot of high school students don’t necessarily know how to get from earning their diplomas to earning a living. They may not even know what roles are out there.

That’s why we need to transform education, so that it does a better job of preparing students for careers.

Nearly 60 percent of graduating high school students don’t go directly to a four-year college. Six out of every 10 students.

Are high schools designed to meet the needs of those students – the majority – who won’t go directly to a four-year university?

Too many schools aren’t.

Yes, we should still expand access and affordability for students who want to go immediately to a four-year college after high school.

But we also need to dramatically expand the opportunities we provide for students who may pursue something else. And that means that everyone needs a chance to explore future careers in high school.

Career-connected learning meets that need.

I’ve seen it around the country.

In Wisconsin, Governor Evers is scaling a model for starting apprenticeships in high school in fields from finance to nursing. In Vermont, Governor Scott is investing in dual enrollment and free community college. And in Indiana, I saw how students are getting training for careers in clean energy.

These states show us what it looks like when students have access to comprehensive career advising, when they are able to take community college courses in high school and even earn a credential, and when they can earn high school course credit for working at a job.

I believe in evidence-based models, not just theories. We know this works.

An Oregon study found that students who concentrated in a particular career area graduated high school at higher rates and went on to earn higher wages as adults.

So, what can you do?

You can build out and grow career-connected programs in your state.

I know many of you are already doing this work. Some of you are providing comprehensive career advising.

Some are prioritizing access to dual enrollment. Some have impressive programs that allow students to work in real workplaces as part of their high school curriculum.

And some states are expanding credentialing opportunities, so that students can work toward obtaining a career qualification while in high school.

But not enough states are doing all of these, all at once, for every student. And that’s what’s crucial to unlocking the potential of career-connected learning.

So, I’m asking you to lean in.

Go to your businesses and tell them how apprenticeships can boost productivity and reduce turnover. Go to your community college and K-12 leaders and work with them to expand dual enrollment opportunities that connect all students to good-paying jobs.

And use my office as a partner – and a resource. Reach out to us. Let us know how we can help you and lift up the great work you’re doing.

And I hope that when this group gathers next, we have even more successes to show.

Thank you.

###

The post Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by First Lady Jill Biden at the National Governors Association Winter Meeting appeared first on The White House.

The White House
 

Thank you, Tom.

Governor Cox, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your work and your efforts to foster a more constructive, respectful dialogue in our debates. Joe is grateful for your leadership, and I’m grateful to you and Abby for the warm welcome in Utah last month.

Good morning. It’s great to be here with all of you.

Governor Scott, when I visited Vermont last year, what you said stayed with me. You said, “pure […] partisan politics has never contributed to real solutions.” And that, we “can, and should, prioritize progress over politics, especially on issues where the majority of Americans agree.”

That majority is an exhausted one, as Governor Cox often points out.

They’re frustrated by a Congress that is often mired in gridlock, and those who too often treat government like a sport, with an “us versus them” mindset and a knee-jerk reaction to oppose anything the other team supports.

But this room shows the nation something very different, and I wish some lawmakers on the Hill would follow your lead.

You show that we can turn down the volume, stop the shouting, and actually listen to one another, that, yes, as Governor Cox says, we can disagree without being disagreeable.

As many of you know, I’ve been teaching writing for 40 years. One day, a student named Harry, who wanted to be an auto-mechanic, raised his hand.

“Dr. B,” he said, “the only thing I need to learn how to write is ‘needs brakes.’”

He was joking, of course. But he had a point: he wasn’t just there to learn the art of writing – he was there to prepare himself for a good-paying job.

For most people, a high school diploma alone isn’t enough to find a great career. But they often don’t need a four-year degree to pursue their passions either. And as technology brings changes to so many industries, these kinds of learning paths are more important than ever.

Since he took office, my husband, President Biden, has been focused on rebuilding the middle class. And today, millions of new jobs in infrastructure, clean energy, and manufacturing are being created.

We will need to train a new generation of workers to fill them.

These positions pay well. And many of them require associate degrees, certificates, or other hands-on instruction, not four years of college.

Still, a lot of high school students don’t necessarily know how to get from earning their diplomas to earning a living. They may not even know what roles are out there.

That’s why we need to transform education, so that it does a better job of preparing students for careers.

Nearly 60 percent of graduating high school students don’t go directly to a four-year college. Six out of every 10 students.

Are high schools designed to meet the needs of those students – the majority – who won’t go directly to a four-year university?

Too many schools aren’t.

Yes, we should still expand access and affordability for students who want to go immediately to a four-year college after high school.

But we also need to dramatically expand the opportunities we provide for students who may pursue something else. And that means that everyone needs a chance to explore future careers in high school.

Career-connected learning meets that need.

I’ve seen it around the country.

In Wisconsin, Governor Evers is scaling a model for starting apprenticeships in high school in fields from finance to nursing. In Vermont, Governor Scott is investing in dual enrollment and free community college. And in Indiana, I saw how students are getting training for careers in clean energy.

These states show us what it looks like when students have access to comprehensive career advising, when they are able to take community college courses in high school and even earn a credential, and when they can earn high school course credit for working at a job.

I believe in evidence-based models, not just theories. We know this works.

An Oregon study found that students who concentrated in a particular career area graduated high school at higher rates and went on to earn higher wages as adults.

So, what can you do?

You can build out and grow career-connected programs in your state.

I know many of you are already doing this work. Some of you are providing comprehensive career advising.

Some are prioritizing access to dual enrollment. Some have impressive programs that allow students to work in real workplaces as part of their high school curriculum.

And some states are expanding credentialing opportunities, so that students can work toward obtaining a career qualification while in high school.

But not enough states are doing all of these, all at once, for every student. And that’s what’s crucial to unlocking the potential of career-connected learning.

So, I’m asking you to lean in.

Go to your businesses and tell them how apprenticeships can boost productivity and reduce turnover. Go to your community college and K-12 leaders and work with them to expand dual enrollment opportunities that connect all students to good-paying jobs.

And use my office as a partner – and a resource. Reach out to us. Let us know how we can help you and lift up the great work you’re doing.

And I hope that when this group gathers next, we have even more successes to show.

Thank you.

###

The post Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by First Lady Jill Biden at the National Governors Association Winter Meeting appeared first on The White House.

WASHINGTON – Today, President Biden announced his intent to appoint the following individuals as members of the Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations:

• Mitchell W. Berger
• J. Michael Bowman
• Amy Bircher Bruyn
• Paige Gebhardt Cognetti
• Chris James
• Omar Khan
• Rob Larew
• Nimish Patel
• Mark A. Turner

Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations

The Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations is an advisory committee established to provide overall policy advice to the United States Trade Representative on matters arising in connection with the development, implementation, and administration of the trade policy of the United States including: negotiating objectives and bargaining positions before entering into trade agreements, the impact of the implementation of trade agreements, matters concerning the operation of any trade agreement once entered into, and other matters arising in connection with the development, implementation, and administration of the trade policy of the United States. The Committee includes up to 45 members recommended by the U.S. Trade Representative who are appointed by the President and have expertise in general trade, investment, and development issues, including representatives of non-federal governments, labor, industry, agriculture, small business, service industries, retailers, nongovernmental environmental and conservation organizations, and consumer interests.

Mitchell W. Berger

Mitchell W. Berger founded Berger Singerman LLP, a business law firm in Florida, in 1985, and has over 40 years of successful representation in commercial disputes for small businesses, medium-sized businesses, and Fortune 500 companies. Berger has received numerous industry accolades, including being named Co-Lawyer of the Year by the National Law Journal and being recognized by Chambers & Partners USA for 14 consecutive years.

Committed to furthering innovation in the legal industry, Berger established the Sharon and Mitchell W. Berger Entrepreneur Law Clinic at Nova Southeastern University’s (NSU) Shepard Broad College of Law. The clinic enables NSU to provide direct legal service to nonprofit organizations, students, and researchers associated with the NSU Center for Collaborative Research and innovators in the technology and life sciences communities. Berger currently serves as a member of the Board of Trustees of NSU.

Berger previously represented then-Vice President Al Gore and then-Senator Joe Lieberman in lawsuits following the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election. He also served as Chair of the Student Loan Marketing Association Sallie Mae, Commissioner on the Florida Environmental Regulation Commission, a member of the United States Small Business Administration Advisory Board, and a member of the Environmental Financial Advisory Board to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Berger currently serves on the Independent Audit Committee for the Alliance for Climate Protection. He received his B.A., magna cum laude, from Lafayette College and his J.D. from Temple University.

J. Michael Bowman

J. Michael Bowman is the Associate Director of the Office of Economic Innovation and Partnerships at the University of Delaware. He holds two additional leadership roles, serving as Founder and CEO/President of the Delaware Technology Park and as the State Director of the Small Business Development Center. Over the past 25 years, Bowman has led the growth of a robust technology-based ecosystem and assisted a variety of small businesses to thrive throughout Delaware.

Amy Bircher Bruyn

As CEO and Founder of MMI Textiles, Inc. Amy Bircher Bruyn leads her team in sales and product development. She is the Immediate Past Chairman of the Advanced Textiles Association. In 2016, Bircher Bruyn invented and filed a design and utility patent for the creation of CTEdge, a concealed edge technology used in webbing and tape within the military and law enforcement markets. She recently opened her own narrow weaving facility in Lenoir, North Carolina to produce her patented webbing product and other military spec webbing to support the needs of our military and tactical markets. Bircher Bruyn has over 40 years of experience in the U.S. textile industry and supplies her products all over the world. She has successfully acquired three other textile businesses since founding MMI Textiles.

Bircher Bruyn received a B.S. in Textiles and Clothing from West Virginia University (WVU). While advancing her career and the industry she loves, Bircher Bruyn has stayed connected to her roots, sharing what she knows with others as a part of the Visiting Committee at WVU. Most recently, she pledged $200,000 to her alma mater for the development of a new textile lab, which opened on April 17, 2021, and is named the Amy A. Bircher Textile Laboratory.

Paige Gebhardt Cognetti

Paige Gebhardt Cognetti was sworn in as Mayor of Scranton, Pennsylvania in January 2020, and was re-elected to a full term in November 2021. Cognetti’s background is rooted in government oversight, investment management, international relations, and political campaigns. She serves on the Advisory Board of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and chairs the Conference’s Metro Economies Standing Committee. She serves on the boards of numerous other local leadership organizations, supporting fellow elected officials nationwide in promoting economic mobility, environmental sustainability, and efficient, transparent government.

Prior to becoming Mayor, she advised the Pennsylvania Auditor General, served as a Director on the Scranton School Board, and worked in wealth management at Goldman Sachs. Cognetti served in the U.S. Treasury Department during the Obama-Biden Administration as a Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for International Affairs and as Managing Director for China Operations.

Cognetti graduated summa cum laude from the University of Oregon Clark Honors College with a B.A. in English Literature and holds an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School. She lives in Scranton with her husband and their two daughters.

Chris James

Chris James is the President and CEO of The National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development, the premier organization focused on American Indian and Alaska Native economic development. James is an expert in the Indigenous economy, Native American policy, supply chains, and rural economic development. His expertise is enriched by his personal experience, having grown up with his family’s businesses on the Qualla Boundary, the home of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.

Under his leadership, The National Center has flourished, tripling its revenue and expanding its reach significantly. James spearheads both the Reservation Economic Summit, the world’s largest conference focused on Native American economic development, and the Native Edge Institute series, which equips entrepreneurs with essential skills for success. His tenure has seen a heightened emphasis on international Indigenous trade and connecting Native businesses with corporate America.

James’ professional background is marked by senior roles in the U.S. Department of Treasury and the U.S. Small Business Administration. In these capacities, he led initiatives like Supplier Pay and Startup in a Day, both designed to enhance business efficiency and entrepreneurship. Supplier Pay focused on accelerating payments to small business suppliers, while Startup in a Day aimed to streamline the process for entrepreneurs to start a business in just one day. James is known as an expert and versatile leader in rural America. His engagements span delivering keynote addresses to hosting discussions with notable experts. Additionally, he is a skilled panel leader at both large and small global conferences.

Omar Khan

Omar Khan is a senior government and public affairs executive with more than 20 years of experience across the public and private sector and political campaigns. With a proven track record managing budgets exceeding $48 million and teams of over 200, Khan excels in building coalitions and implementing effective engagement strategies across a diverse range of policy issues and campaigns.

Khan serves as the Senior Vice President for State and Local Government Affairs at WSP, one of the world’s leading engineering and infrastructure firms, where he heads strategy, government relations, and political and civic engagement for the East Region of the U.S. Previously, he was the Executive Director of the Public Engagement Unit of New York City, where he led the unit, overseeing a $25 million budget and managing a team of more than 200 people. In this role, Khan served as senior advisor to City Hall, led the unit’s COVID-19 response, and developed a nationally replicable model for data-driven outreach, increasing accessibility to government services.

Khan held several senior roles in the Obama-Biden Administration working on complex issues at the intersection of policy and politics, including serving as the Assistant United States Trade Representative for the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement at the White House, Director of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations for the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force, and Director of Public Engagement at the Environmental Protection Agency. Khan is also a nationally recognized campaign operative who has held senior and advisory roles in major presidential, gubernatorial, and mayoral campaigns including President Obama’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns.

Rob Larew

Rob Larew is President of National Farmers Union (NFU), the nation’s foremost grassroots agriculture organization dedicated to supporting and empowering family farmers, ranchers, and their communities. Elected to lead the organization in 2020, Larew previously served as NFU Vice President of Public Policy and Communications.

Larew’s career includes more than two decades working in Congress and at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, where he played a pivotal role in shaping and implementing agriculture policy. As Staff Director of the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture, he coordinated and oversaw key initiatives during the formulation of the 2008 and 2014 Farm Bills.

Larew’s lifelong connection to agriculture began, and continues, in Greenville, West Virginia, where he actively participates in the management of a diversified family farm that has been in continuous operation since 1798. He received his B.S. in dairy science from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and pursued graduate studies in agronomy at Pennsylvania State University. Larew also serves as an active board member of the Cultivating Change Foundation and Consumer Federation of America.

Nimish Patel

Nimish Patel is the Chair of the Corporate and Securities Department at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, LLP, a law firm based in Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, D.C. Patel’s experience includes mergers and acquisitions for private and public companies, angel and venture capital financing, IPOs, and other financing and corporate restructurings. Patel currently advises private businesses and publicly traded exchange listed companies on governance and regulatory filing requirements. Patel’s clients are from across a broad range of industries and sectors including artificial intelligence, life sciences, technology, ecommerce, new media, and entertainment.

Previously, Patel was a CPA and a senior auditor in the Orange County, California office of Deloitte working on private and public company audits and other attestations services. Patel’s clients ranged from private closely held businesses to Fortune 500 publicly traded corporations and was involved in many complex transactions including restructurings and cross border transactions.

Patel was elected and previously served on the School Board of Education for the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District. During his tenure, Patel was involved in making education policy decisions affecting the 11,000 school district students, overseeing a $100 million operating budget and a $300 million capital expenditure budget. He is the Past President and Trustee of the American India Foundation in Los Angeles and the Past President and member of the South Asian Bar Association of Southern California. Patel received his J.D./M.B.A. degrees from University of San Diego and undergraduate degree from University of Southern California.

Mark A. Turner

Mark Turner is a member of the Boards of Trustees of Christiana Care Health System (Delaware) and LaSalle University (Pennsylvania). He is also a member of the Wharton Leadership Advisory Board and a Senior Fellow at the Center for Leadership and Change Management at The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Turner is a frequent guest speaker at universities and executive forums on banking, leadership, governance, and innovation.

Turner helped lead WSFS Financial Corporation’s growth in size, profitability, and market value of near 20 times each, and was CFO, COO, CEO, and Executive Chair during his tenure. During his career, Turner has also been a leader on numerous community, industry, and business boards, including serving as Chair of the Delaware Bankers’ Association, Chair of the Delaware Business Roundtable, and on the U.S. Federal Reserve’s Advisory Council.

Turner was born and raised in North Philadelphia and received his B.S. from LaSalle University, M.B.A. from University of Pennsylvania, and M.A. from University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He has homes in Pennsylvania and Delaware with his wife, Regina, and their two daughters.

###

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

WASHINGTON – Today, President Biden announced his intent to appoint the following individuals as members of the Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations:

• Mitchell W. Berger
• J. Michael Bowman
• Amy Bircher Bruyn
• Paige Gebhardt Cognetti
• Chris James
• Omar Khan
• Rob Larew
• Nimish Patel
• Mark A. Turner

Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations

The Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations is an advisory committee established to provide overall policy advice to the United States Trade Representative on matters arising in connection with the development, implementation, and administration of the trade policy of the United States including: negotiating objectives and bargaining positions before entering into trade agreements, the impact of the implementation of trade agreements, matters concerning the operation of any trade agreement once entered into, and other matters arising in connection with the development, implementation, and administration of the trade policy of the United States. The Committee includes up to 45 members recommended by the U.S. Trade Representative who are appointed by the President and have expertise in general trade, investment, and development issues, including representatives of non-federal governments, labor, industry, agriculture, small business, service industries, retailers, nongovernmental environmental and conservation organizations, and consumer interests.

Mitchell W. Berger

Mitchell W. Berger founded Berger Singerman LLP, a business law firm in Florida, in 1985, and has over 40 years of successful representation in commercial disputes for small businesses, medium-sized businesses, and Fortune 500 companies. Berger has received numerous industry accolades, including being named Co-Lawyer of the Year by the National Law Journal and being recognized by Chambers & Partners USA for 14 consecutive years.

Committed to furthering innovation in the legal industry, Berger established the Sharon and Mitchell W. Berger Entrepreneur Law Clinic at Nova Southeastern University’s (NSU) Shepard Broad College of Law. The clinic enables NSU to provide direct legal service to nonprofit organizations, students, and researchers associated with the NSU Center for Collaborative Research and innovators in the technology and life sciences communities. Berger currently serves as a member of the Board of Trustees of NSU.

Berger previously represented then-Vice President Al Gore and then-Senator Joe Lieberman in lawsuits following the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election. He also served as Chair of the Student Loan Marketing Association Sallie Mae, Commissioner on the Florida Environmental Regulation Commission, a member of the United States Small Business Administration Advisory Board, and a member of the Environmental Financial Advisory Board to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Berger currently serves on the Independent Audit Committee for the Alliance for Climate Protection. He received his B.A., magna cum laude, from Lafayette College and his J.D. from Temple University.

J. Michael Bowman

J. Michael Bowman is the Associate Director of the Office of Economic Innovation and Partnerships at the University of Delaware. He holds two additional leadership roles, serving as Founder and CEO/President of the Delaware Technology Park and as the State Director of the Small Business Development Center. Over the past 25 years, Bowman has led the growth of a robust technology-based ecosystem and assisted a variety of small businesses to thrive throughout Delaware.

Amy Bircher Bruyn

As CEO and Founder of MMI Textiles, Inc. Amy Bircher Bruyn leads her team in sales and product development. She is the Immediate Past Chairman of the Advanced Textiles Association. In 2016, Bircher Bruyn invented and filed a design and utility patent for the creation of CTEdge, a concealed edge technology used in webbing and tape within the military and law enforcement markets. She recently opened her own narrow weaving facility in Lenoir, North Carolina to produce her patented webbing product and other military spec webbing to support the needs of our military and tactical markets. Bircher Bruyn has over 40 years of experience in the U.S. textile industry and supplies her products all over the world. She has successfully acquired three other textile businesses since founding MMI Textiles.

Bircher Bruyn received a B.S. in Textiles and Clothing from West Virginia University (WVU). While advancing her career and the industry she loves, Bircher Bruyn has stayed connected to her roots, sharing what she knows with others as a part of the Visiting Committee at WVU. Most recently, she pledged $200,000 to her alma mater for the development of a new textile lab, which opened on April 17, 2021, and is named the Amy A. Bircher Textile Laboratory.

Paige Gebhardt Cognetti

Paige Gebhardt Cognetti was sworn in as Mayor of Scranton, Pennsylvania in January 2020, and was re-elected to a full term in November 2021. Cognetti’s background is rooted in government oversight, investment management, international relations, and political campaigns. She serves on the Advisory Board of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and chairs the Conference’s Metro Economies Standing Committee. She serves on the boards of numerous other local leadership organizations, supporting fellow elected officials nationwide in promoting economic mobility, environmental sustainability, and efficient, transparent government.

Prior to becoming Mayor, she advised the Pennsylvania Auditor General, served as a Director on the Scranton School Board, and worked in wealth management at Goldman Sachs. Cognetti served in the U.S. Treasury Department during the Obama-Biden Administration as a Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for International Affairs and as Managing Director for China Operations.

Cognetti graduated summa cum laude from the University of Oregon Clark Honors College with a B.A. in English Literature and holds an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School. She lives in Scranton with her husband and their two daughters.

Chris James

Chris James is the President and CEO of The National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development, the premier organization focused on American Indian and Alaska Native economic development. James is an expert in the Indigenous economy, Native American policy, supply chains, and rural economic development. His expertise is enriched by his personal experience, having grown up with his family’s businesses on the Qualla Boundary, the home of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.

Under his leadership, The National Center has flourished, tripling its revenue and expanding its reach significantly. James spearheads both the Reservation Economic Summit, the world’s largest conference focused on Native American economic development, and the Native Edge Institute series, which equips entrepreneurs with essential skills for success. His tenure has seen a heightened emphasis on international Indigenous trade and connecting Native businesses with corporate America.

James’ professional background is marked by senior roles in the U.S. Department of Treasury and the U.S. Small Business Administration. In these capacities, he led initiatives like Supplier Pay and Startup in a Day, both designed to enhance business efficiency and entrepreneurship. Supplier Pay focused on accelerating payments to small business suppliers, while Startup in a Day aimed to streamline the process for entrepreneurs to start a business in just one day. James is known as an expert and versatile leader in rural America. His engagements span delivering keynote addresses to hosting discussions with notable experts. Additionally, he is a skilled panel leader at both large and small global conferences.

Omar Khan

Omar Khan is a senior government and public affairs executive with more than 20 years of experience across the public and private sector and political campaigns. With a proven track record managing budgets exceeding $48 million and teams of over 200, Khan excels in building coalitions and implementing effective engagement strategies across a diverse range of policy issues and campaigns.

Khan serves as the Senior Vice President for State and Local Government Affairs at WSP, one of the world’s leading engineering and infrastructure firms, where he heads strategy, government relations, and political and civic engagement for the East Region of the U.S. Previously, he was the Executive Director of the Public Engagement Unit of New York City, where he led the unit, overseeing a $25 million budget and managing a team of more than 200 people. In this role, Khan served as senior advisor to City Hall, led the unit’s COVID-19 response, and developed a nationally replicable model for data-driven outreach, increasing accessibility to government services.

Khan held several senior roles in the Obama-Biden Administration working on complex issues at the intersection of policy and politics, including serving as the Assistant United States Trade Representative for the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement at the White House, Director of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations for the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force, and Director of Public Engagement at the Environmental Protection Agency. Khan is also a nationally recognized campaign operative who has held senior and advisory roles in major presidential, gubernatorial, and mayoral campaigns including President Obama’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns.

Rob Larew

Rob Larew is President of National Farmers Union (NFU), the nation’s foremost grassroots agriculture organization dedicated to supporting and empowering family farmers, ranchers, and their communities. Elected to lead the organization in 2020, Larew previously served as NFU Vice President of Public Policy and Communications.

Larew’s career includes more than two decades working in Congress and at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, where he played a pivotal role in shaping and implementing agriculture policy. As Staff Director of the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture, he coordinated and oversaw key initiatives during the formulation of the 2008 and 2014 Farm Bills.

Larew’s lifelong connection to agriculture began, and continues, in Greenville, West Virginia, where he actively participates in the management of a diversified family farm that has been in continuous operation since 1798. He received his B.S. in dairy science from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and pursued graduate studies in agronomy at Pennsylvania State University. Larew also serves as an active board member of the Cultivating Change Foundation and Consumer Federation of America.

Nimish Patel

Nimish Patel is the Chair of the Corporate and Securities Department at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, LLP, a law firm based in Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, D.C. Patel’s experience includes mergers and acquisitions for private and public companies, angel and venture capital financing, IPOs, and other financing and corporate restructurings. Patel currently advises private businesses and publicly traded exchange listed companies on governance and regulatory filing requirements. Patel’s clients are from across a broad range of industries and sectors including artificial intelligence, life sciences, technology, ecommerce, new media, and entertainment.

Previously, Patel was a CPA and a senior auditor in the Orange County, California office of Deloitte working on private and public company audits and other attestations services. Patel’s clients ranged from private closely held businesses to Fortune 500 publicly traded corporations and was involved in many complex transactions including restructurings and cross border transactions.

Patel was elected and previously served on the School Board of Education for the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District. During his tenure, Patel was involved in making education policy decisions affecting the 11,000 school district students, overseeing a $100 million operating budget and a $300 million capital expenditure budget. He is the Past President and Trustee of the American India Foundation in Los Angeles and the Past President and member of the South Asian Bar Association of Southern California. Patel received his J.D./M.B.A. degrees from University of San Diego and undergraduate degree from University of Southern California.

Mark A. Turner

Mark Turner is a member of the Boards of Trustees of Christiana Care Health System (Delaware) and LaSalle University (Pennsylvania). He is also a member of the Wharton Leadership Advisory Board and a Senior Fellow at the Center for Leadership and Change Management at The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Turner is a frequent guest speaker at universities and executive forums on banking, leadership, governance, and innovation.

Turner helped lead WSFS Financial Corporation’s growth in size, profitability, and market value of near 20 times each, and was CFO, COO, CEO, and Executive Chair during his tenure. During his career, Turner has also been a leader on numerous community, industry, and business boards, including serving as Chair of the Delaware Bankers’ Association, Chair of the Delaware Business Roundtable, and on the U.S. Federal Reserve’s Advisory Council.

Turner was born and raised in North Philadelphia and received his B.S. from LaSalle University, M.B.A. from University of Pennsylvania, and M.A. from University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He has homes in Pennsylvania and Delaware with his wife, Regina, and their two daughters.

###

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

East Room 

11:14 A.M. EST

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Good morning, everyone.  And I want to thank NGA Vice-Chair Polis for the introduction and for your friendship, and it really has been my joy and honor to work with you.  And I send best from Doug as well.  And I thank you for your principled and powerful leadership in Colorado.

And to all the governors here today, thank you for your work and for continuing to uphold important traditions, including the important tradition of us working together across party lines.  I think this is one of the few remaining professional organizations among elected leaders where there is meaningful bipartisan work that is happening, and I thank you for that.

As demonstrated by our administration’s record over the past three years, there are few leaders as committed to bipartisan collaboration than Joe Biden.

President Joe Biden knows how to work across the aisle and across every level of government to make progress.  Globally and domestically, he has a bold vision for our future.  And he has the strength — and I see it every day — and the skill and the courage and the determination to make that vision real.

We are here today because we are all united by a common and collective purpose: to create opportunity, prosperity, and progress for the American people.

As a former statewide elected leader — the Attorney General of California for two terms — I know firsthand the importance of state and federal collaboration.  And as Vice President, I have worked closely with many of you on issues like infrastructure, emergency response, and clean energy, and on two issues that I will address briefly today, access to capital and maternal mortality.

So, first, access to capital for small businesses.

I don’t need to tell the governors and the leaders here America’s small businesses employ tens of millions of workers and generate trillions of dollars for our economy every year.  And their strength, then, is essential to a broad-based economic policy of growth — growth which benefits businesses of all sizes.

Small-business owners are business leaders, and they are civic leaders.  And so, building on work that I helped lead in the United States Senate, we have increased access to capital for the small businesses of America.

President Biden and I are giving a total of $10 billion to states across our nation to invest in small businesses.

And as Vice President, I have had the honor of visiting almost half the states that are represented here today, and I’ve seen firsthand the vitality of small business and knowing that that is essential to the vitality of our communities as a whole, not to mention how the growth of these small businesses generate tax revenue, which makes up, of course, a significant portion of the annual revenue of your states.

So, for these reasons, our focus has been to nurture the ambition and ans- — aspirations of everyone from young entrepreneurs to multi-generational families to help them with their success.  And since taking office, we have seen a record number of small businesses in terms of their growth — the most small businesses ever created, in fact, in any three years in history — which is indicative of the overall growth of our economy.

In addition to access to capital, together, we have also taken on the issue of the maternal mortality crisis.  It is something we cannot talk about enough, in terms of the significance of this crisis.

For years, federal public policy has not adequately addressed that before, during, and after childbirth, American women die at a higher rate than in any other wealthy nation in the world.  The women of America die at a higher rate than the women of any other wealthy nation in the world.

Over the years, I have spoken with too many people who have suffered because of this crisis — mothers who have lost babies, men who have lost their spouse, children who have lost a parent.

And of the many factors that contribute to this crisis, one of the most significant is that millions of women in America — in particular, in low-income communities — do not have access to adequate postpartum care.

In fact, when we took office, the vast majority of American women on Medicaid were only entitled to two months of coverage for postpartum care — meaning two months after giving birth, she could lose access to lifesaving care, such as cardiac screenings, mental health counseling, and vaccinations.

When the President and I took office, only three states offered 12 months of care.  And so, I issued a challenge to every state in our nation: Extend Medicaid postpartum coverage from 2 months to 12 months.

And thanks to the leaders in this room, the governors in this room, so far, a total of 44 states have answered that challenge — (applause) — yes — including, as of today, Alaska.  And two more states are in the process of extending coverage.  And so, we — we call on the remaining states to please do the same.

In closing, these two seemingly unconnected issues, through the collaboration between our administration and the governors who are here, have contributed to the overall strength of our nation and the well-being of millions of Americans.  And I thank you for your work.

And now, I will welcome a leader who has been a great partner on maternal mortality and mental health, the Chairman of the NGA and Governor of Utah, Spencer Cox.

Thank you.  (Applause.)

                               END                 11:20 A.M. EST  

The post Remarks by Vice President Harris at the National Governors Association Winter Meeting appeared first on The White House.

East Room 

11:14 A.M. EST

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Good morning, everyone.  And I want to thank NGA Vice-Chair Polis for the introduction and for your friendship, and it really has been my joy and honor to work with you.  And I send best from Doug as well.  And I thank you for your principled and powerful leadership in Colorado.

And to all the governors here today, thank you for your work and for continuing to uphold important traditions, including the important tradition of us working together across party lines.  I think this is one of the few remaining professional organizations among elected leaders where there is meaningful bipartisan work that is happening, and I thank you for that.

As demonstrated by our administration’s record over the past three years, there are few leaders as committed to bipartisan collaboration than Joe Biden.

President Joe Biden knows how to work across the aisle and across every level of government to make progress.  Globally and domestically, he has a bold vision for our future.  And he has the strength — and I see it every day — and the skill and the courage and the determination to make that vision real.

We are here today because we are all united by a common and collective purpose: to create opportunity, prosperity, and progress for the American people.

As a former statewide elected leader — the Attorney General of California for two terms — I know firsthand the importance of state and federal collaboration.  And as Vice President, I have worked closely with many of you on issues like infrastructure, emergency response, and clean energy, and on two issues that I will address briefly today, access to capital and maternal mortality.

So, first, access to capital for small businesses.

I don’t need to tell the governors and the leaders here America’s small businesses employ tens of millions of workers and generate trillions of dollars for our economy every year.  And their strength, then, is essential to a broad-based economic policy of growth — growth which benefits businesses of all sizes.

Small-business owners are business leaders, and they are civic leaders.  And so, building on work that I helped lead in the United States Senate, we have increased access to capital for the small businesses of America.

President Biden and I are giving a total of $10 billion to states across our nation to invest in small businesses.

And as Vice President, I have had the honor of visiting almost half the states that are represented here today, and I’ve seen firsthand the vitality of small business and knowing that that is essential to the vitality of our communities as a whole, not to mention how the growth of these small businesses generate tax revenue, which makes up, of course, a significant portion of the annual revenue of your states.

So, for these reasons, our focus has been to nurture the ambition and ans- — aspirations of everyone from young entrepreneurs to multi-generational families to help them with their success.  And since taking office, we have seen a record number of small businesses in terms of their growth — the most small businesses ever created, in fact, in any three years in history — which is indicative of the overall growth of our economy.

In addition to access to capital, together, we have also taken on the issue of the maternal mortality crisis.  It is something we cannot talk about enough, in terms of the significance of this crisis.

For years, federal public policy has not adequately addressed that before, during, and after childbirth, American women die at a higher rate than in any other wealthy nation in the world.  The women of America die at a higher rate than the women of any other wealthy nation in the world.

Over the years, I have spoken with too many people who have suffered because of this crisis — mothers who have lost babies, men who have lost their spouse, children who have lost a parent.

And of the many factors that contribute to this crisis, one of the most significant is that millions of women in America — in particular, in low-income communities — do not have access to adequate postpartum care.

In fact, when we took office, the vast majority of American women on Medicaid were only entitled to two months of coverage for postpartum care — meaning two months after giving birth, she could lose access to lifesaving care, such as cardiac screenings, mental health counseling, and vaccinations.

When the President and I took office, only three states offered 12 months of care.  And so, I issued a challenge to every state in our nation: Extend Medicaid postpartum coverage from 2 months to 12 months.

And thanks to the leaders in this room, the governors in this room, so far, a total of 44 states have answered that challenge — (applause) — yes — including, as of today, Alaska.  And two more states are in the process of extending coverage.  And so, we — we call on the remaining states to please do the same.

In closing, these two seemingly unconnected issues, through the collaboration between our administration and the governors who are here, have contributed to the overall strength of our nation and the well-being of millions of Americans.  And I thank you for your work.

And now, I will welcome a leader who has been a great partner on maternal mortality and mental health, the Chairman of the NGA and Governor of Utah, Spencer Cox.

Thank you.  (Applause.)

                               END                 11:20 A.M. EST  

The post Remarks by Vice President Harris at the National Governors Association Winter Meeting appeared first on The White House.