PressBriefingbyPressSecretaryJenPsaki

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Good afternoon, everybody. Sorry we’re starting a little late. We had to finish for the President to complete his remarks, and that was a request that we got from WHCA, so we wanted to make sure we adhered to it. As you all know, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan is here. He’s going to take your questions, preview Asia. And he has a hard out at 2:30, so we’re going to try and get him out of here. Okay, all yours. MR. SULLIVAN: And I have 20 minutes of remarks, so — (laughter) — I hope you guys will bear with me. I actually do have a number of things to get through because we have quite a stretch ahead here with respect to the President’s foreign policy and national security priorities. Very good to be back with you guys today. Today, Finland and Sweden submitted their applications for NATO membership. President Biden has welcomed those applications, and he looks forward to working with NATO Allies and with Congress on a swift accession process. (Audio playback of press briefing interrupts.) Oh, sorry. Q It’s all happening again. (Laughter.) Q I’m sorry. MR. SULLIVAN: Not a problem. Q We got the audio. MR. SULLIVAN: Small interruption of the accession process right there. But everything will be on track just fine. (Laughter.) Tomorrow morning, the President will welcome the President of Finland and the Prime Minister of Sweden to the White House to coordinate on the path forward. And the three leaders will also have the chance to compare notes on our united efforts to support Ukraine in its defense against Russia’s brutal invasion. They will also have the opportunity to speak to the press and the public to affirm our shared vision for a peaceful and secure Euro-Atlantic region. This is a historic event, a watershed moment in European security. Two nations with a long tradition of neutrality will be joining the world’s most powerful defensive alliance. And they will bring with them strong capabilities and a proven track record as security partners. And President Biden will have the opportunity to mark just what a historic and watershed moment this is when he meets with them tomorrow. After that meeting concludes, President Biden will board Air Force One for a trip to the Republic of Korea and Japan. This will be his first trip as President to the Indo-Pacific. And it comes at a pivotal moment. President Biden has rallied the free world in defense of Ukraine and in opposition to Russian aggression. He remains focused on ensuring that our efforts in those missions are successful. But he also intends to seize this moment — this pivotal moment — to assert bold and confident American leadership in another vital region of the world: the Indo-Pacific. That began last week with his hosting of the U.S.-ASEAN Summit here at the White House, where he welcomed nine leaders from Southeast Asia for a substantive set of meetings that covered a diverse agenda from economics and security to technology and energy. President Biden made a series of significant announcements to show that when it comes to engagement with ASEAN, we’re not just talking the talk, we’re walking the walk as well. This week, the President turns his attention to Northeast Asia. And on this trip, he’ll have the opportunity to reaffirm and reinforce two vital security alliances, to deepen two vibrant economic partnerships, to work with two fellow democracies to shape the rules of the road for the 21st century, and to thank his allies in Korea and Japan for their remarkable and in some ways unexpected contributions to the effort to support Ukraine and to hold Russia accountable. In Korea, President Biden will meet with the newly inaug- — excuse me — the newly inaugurated Korean President, President Yoon, who campaigned on the platform of strengthening the U.S.-ROK alliance and on improving relations between the ROK and Japan. President Biden will engage with technology and manufacturing leaders in Korea who are mobilizing billions of dollars in investment here in the United States to create thousands of good-paying American jobs. He will see American and Korean troops standing shoulder to shoulder in defense of our collective security and consult on the challenge posed by the DPRK’s nuclear and missile programs. And he will highlight the truly global nature of the U.S.-ROK alliance, from climate and energy and technology to economic growth and investment. In Japan, President Biden will meet with Prime Minister Kishida and his team. And we believe that the U.S.-Japan alliance, at this moment, under these two leaders, is at an all-time high. This visit can take us even higher. The two leaders will consult on the broad and deep economic relationship between our two countries, as well as on a range of regional and global security issues. We’ll also cover the DPRK as well as a number of other security issues both in the Indo-Pacific and more broadly around the world. The U.S.-Japan alliance is the cornerstone of peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific, and Japan’s contributions as a security partner are rightly growing as the regional security picture becomes more challenging and dynamic. President Biden and Prime Minister Kishida will also be able to compare notes on the G7 agenda as the G7 Summit approaches next month in Germany. In Japan, President Biden won’t just have a bilateral program, he’ll also have the opportunity to participate in the second in-person Quad Summit, following on the summit he hosted here in Washington last September. He will do this alongside the Prime Minister of Japan, the Prime Minister of India, and the Prime Minister of Australia. And we believe that this summit will demonstrate, both in substance and in vision, that democracies can deliver and that these four nations working together will defend and uphold the principles of a free and open Indo-Pacific. While he’s in Tokyo, President Biden will also launch a new, ambitious economic initiative for the region: the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. “IPEF,” as we affectionately call it, is a 21st century economic arrangement, a new model designed to tackle new economic challenges — from setting the rules of the digital economy, to ensuring secure and resilient supply chains, to managing the energy transition, to investing in clean, modern, high-standards infrastructure. President Biden will be joined in person by the Prime Minister of Japan for the launch of IPEF and virtually by leaders from a number of Indo-Pacific partners, from Down Under to Southeast Asia to Northeast Asia. On security and economics, on technology and energy, on investment in infrastructure, we think this trip is going to put on full display President Biden’s Indo-Pacific strategy and that it will show, in living color, that the United States can at once lead the free world in responding to Russia’s war in Ukraine and at the same time chart a course for effective, principled American leadership and engagement in a region that will define much of the future of the 21st century. And with that, I’d be happy to take your questions. Yeah. Q Thanks so much. Can you talk to us about Turkey and what the administration is doing and what conversations you might be having with Turkey about their plans to block Finland and Sweden’s applications? Is there a deal to be struck with Turkey? MR. SULLIVAN: We’re confident that, at the end of the day, Finland and Sweden will have an effective and efficient accession process, that Turkey’s concerns can be addressed. Finland and Sweden are working directly with Turkey to do this, but we’re also talking to the Turks to try to help facilitate. I spoke with my counterpart today; Secretary Blinken is meeting with his counterpart perhaps as we speak, in New York. And we feel very good about where this will track to. And President Biden will express that confidence as we believe the President of Finland and Prime Minister of Sweden will express that confidence tomorrow. Yeah. Q The Korean media is reporting that President Biden will meet with former President Moon Jae-in during his visit to Seoul. Is that accurate? MR. SULLIVAN: We don’t have a meeting scheduled with President Moon at this time. Q Have there been any discussions between U.S. officials and Korean officials about Moon Jae-in potentially taking on a “Special Envoy to North Korea”-like role? MR. SULLIVAN: I’m not familiar with any discussions along those lines. Yeah. Q In the statement today welcoming Finland and Sweden’s application to NATO, at the very — or almost at the very end, it said that “While their applications for NATO membership are being considered, the [U.S.] will work with Finland and Sweden to remain vigilant against any threats to our shared security, and…deter and confront aggression…” Does that mean that the U.S. is extending, like, the NATO security umbrella to them while their applications are in process? MR. SULLIVAN: Article 5 only kicks in once all 30 Allies have ratified the accession protocols and they become full-fledged members of the Alliance. But the United States is prepared to send a very clear message, as are all of our European allies, that we will not tolerate any aggression against Finland or Sweden during this process. And there are practical measures that we can take along those lines that Secretary Austin will coordinate with his counterparts in both Finland and Sweden. Yeah. Q Jake, two questions. One on the accession and one on your trip. So, when the initial NATO expansion happened, of course, there was a huge debate in Washington about whether it was a good idea or not. I remember Kennan himself wrote in the New York Times that he wasn’t in favor of it. Was there any similar debate that went underway here about whether or not bringing Finland and Sweden in was a good idea, or whether it would further corner Putin? And on the trip, tell us a little bit about what you know on the evidence that North Korea may attempt either a nuclear test — hard to imagine what they would accomplish by a seventh test, but — the seventh test — or a missile launch, and what your preparations are if that happens during the trip? MR. SULLIVAN: On the first question, President Biden posed the question to his national security team, to his Cabinet principals who cover national security, as to whether they supported the accession of Finland and Sweden, and for them to consider the risks as well as the benefits of bringing Finland and Sweden into the Alliance. Unanimously, President Biden’s national security team emphatically supported the entry of Finland and Sweden into the NATO Alliance on the grounds that they have already proven themselves as highly capable security partners. In the parlance, we say “net security contributors,” meaning they give a heck of a lot more than they take when it comes to a security partnership or an alliance. And that we believe that Russian aggression has only reinforced the argument for the kind of defensive alliance that — that NATO presents and poses. And finally, we have the principle of the open door. And the open door says that if countries meet the criteria of NATO membership and display that they can be net contributors to the Alliance and to overall European security, they should be admitted. That is a principle that President Biden has believed since long before he occupied the Oval Office. And Finland and Sweden are two cases that are pretty clear-cut when it comes to meeting those terms. With respect to the issue of North Korea, we’ve said from this podium, we’ve said at the State Department, and we’ve indicated in quite clear terms that our intelligence does reflect the genuine possibility that there will be either a further missile tests — including a long-range missile test or a nuclear test or, frankly, both — in the days leading into, on, or after the President’s trip to the region. We are preparing for all contingencies, including the possibility that such a provocation would occur while we are in Korea or in Japan. We are coordinating closely with our allies in both Korea and Japan on this. We have spoken with counterparts in China. I met — I spoke with my Chinese counterpart this morning and covered this issue of the DPRK. And we are prepared, obviously, to make both short- and longer-term adjustments to our military posture as necessary to ensure that we are providing both defense and deterrence to our allies in the region and that we’re responding to any North Korean provocation. Yes. Q Jake, thank you. Two questions on different topics. One, could you update us on the situation with the Russian blockade on grains? And also, on Haiti: What happens with the Title 42 with the Haitian migrants and maybe migrants of South America as well in the Caribbean when it comes to the end of Title 42 on May 23rd, if that happens? MR. SULLIVAN: So, first, it is Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and nothing else that is stopping tens of millions of tons of food from getting out of the breadbasket of Europe — Ukraine — and onto the world market to feed people in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and everywhere else. And that is true in two critical respects: First, Russia is bombarding Odessa, which is the port from which that food departs on large cargo ships bound through the Black Sea and then on to the world market. Second, Russian ships are engaged in an effective blockade of commercial ship traffic that would — could leave Odessa Port, were not under this bombardment, and head out to the world. So we have publicly called upon Russia to end its attacks on Odessa and to end the blockade and to permit the traffic — the commercial and humanitarian traffic of ships into and out of Odessa Port. We are working closely with both Ukraine and the United Nations on this issue, as well as other allies and partners. And we are supporting efforts to facilitate the delivery of that grain to the world market so that it can alleviate food prices everywhere. And we would like to see an outcome in which the facts — not just the rhetoric — the facts bear out the actual permission by Russia of large numbers of ships moving through the Black Sea and onto the world market. Q Is Russia responding to that request? And also the question I asked you about Title 42. MR. SULLIVAN: There are ongoing intensive diplomatic conversations. The United Nations Secretary-General is involved in this, the Ukrainians are involved in this, some of our other partners are involved in this. I’m not going to get ahead of those discussions. I’m only going to say that the United States stands ready in any way to help facilitate and deliver on that diplomacy to try to produce an outcome in which food is getting to the world stage. With respect to Haiti, we will have to see. Obviously, there are a number of issues bound up in the courts right now. But with the end of Title 42, the United States has put in place a process by which those individuals who claim asylum and have legitimate asylum claims can stay and those who come and don’t will go through the process — the legal process that exists and has existed for some time. Even when Title 42 was in effect, large numbers of individuals were not subject to Title 42; they were subject to the standard legal process by which we deal with claims at our border for people who want to come and stay here. Q Jake, on Ukraine again: U.S. intelligence chiefs recently offered assessments that Putin continues to bank on the fracturing of Western resilience to continue this war. Is Turkey’s concern about Finland and Sweden joining up perhaps an example of that? And what about the, I guess, also congressional pushback, or the growing congressional pushback, to Ukrainian aid? What are you guys doing, sort of, in both regards to make sure that that doesn’t continue to happen? I know you’ve described some of it, but it does seem now that there are examples of these growing concern or criticism resistance. And then I got one other on another part of the world. MR. SULLIVAN: So, first, growing congressional pushback, to me, is a strange premise for a circumstance in which the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly not just in favor of approving what the President sent up, which was $33 billion, but actually adding $7 billion to it to make a $40 billion package. And we expect a similar overwhelming bipartisan vote in the Senate once the final procedural hurdle — hurdles are cleared over the next 24 to 48 hours. So there are some voices against this, but the chorus of voices on both sides of the aisle, from all sides of the political spectrum, in favor of standing up in defense of Ukraine’s sovereignty and freedom and independence — it’s quite powerful and, frankly, in a way, quite moving. And it sends a clear message to the world that the United States can pull together behind the brave people of Ukraine in their hour of need. What was your other question? Q Well, just Turkey’s continued concern here and whether there might be others who are going to raise concern about NATO expansion. MR. SULLIVAN: Look, the great thing about the free world — about the Western alliance, about NATO — is that you’ve got a raucous collection of states that all have opinions, that all have perspectives, that all have interests. But they also know how to and when to pull together and how to settle any differences. And I expect these differences will be settled. I expect that NATO will speak with one voice in support of Finland and Sweden at the end of the day. And I think the remarkable unity you’ve seen with respect to sanctions coming out of the EU, the United States, and our Indo-Pacific partners; the support that we have provided Ukraine in terms of military and humanitarian assistance — it’s only grown stronger over the course of the last 12 weeks, and we expect that that momentum will continue, and it’s having a major impact on the battlefield. Ukraine won the Battle of Kyiv. Ukraine has now beaten Russia back from Kharkiv. And Ukrainian defenders are putting the military assistance we provided to good use in defending territory in the Donbas as well. Yes. Q Just a little bit about the challenges of trying to focus on the Indo-Pacific — a priority for you all to get-go — given just — I mean, look, a bulk of the questions even here today have focused on other parts of the world. Tomorrow, Finland and Sweden are going. Just the juxtaposition of what is going on in the world right now as you all are trying to focus (inaudible). MR. SULLIVAN: And, you know, it’s interesting, we actually don’t regard this as a tension between investing time, energy, and attention in Europe and time, energy, and attention in the Indo-Pacific. We regard this as mutually reinforcing. First, look at the Indo-Pacific partners that have stepped up to help make these sanctions and export controls as effective as they are: Korea, Japan, Australia, even Singapore. Second, look at the extent to which European countries are increasingly invested in the Indo-Pacific, in helping ensure that our vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific is actually realized. We see that with the AUKUS partnership, where you’ve got the United Kingdom alongside Australia and the United States. We see it with the way the European Union has, for the first time ever, put out an Indo-Pacific strategy. And so, actually, we think that there is something quite evocative about going from meeting with the President of Finland and the Prime Minister of Sweden to reinforce the momentum behind the NATO Alliance and the free world’s response in Ukraine, and getting on a plane and flying out to the Indo-Pacific not just to deal with security issues, but to unveil a new far-reaching economic initiative, to host a Quad summit that will cover climate and cyber and emerging technologies, and to deal with Korea and Japan on issues that actually affect working people here in the United States, including major investments that will create jobs in states across the country. So, for us, there is a certain level of integration and a symbiosis in the strategy we are pursuing in Europe and the strategy we’re pursuing in the Indo-Pacific. And President Biden’s unique capacity to actually stitch those two together is, I think, going to be a hallmark of his foreign policy presidency. Q Jake? MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. Q Jake, can you provide an update on when the President will visit Israel? And secondly, can you elaborate further on the specific security guarantees that the United States has made Finland and Sweden in the interim period? MR. SULLIVAN: So, first, on Israel, we are actively working with the Israelis to fix a date for the visit at some point in the not-too-distant future. The President is very much looking to go. But unfortunately, I don’t have an announcement of a trip or a timetable for it standing here today, other than to say the President is excited to get the opportunity to go to reaffirm the strength of the U.S.-Israel relationship. With respect to the specifics on security commitments or assurances or actions that we will take with Finland and Sweden, those are ongoing conversations that are happening at an operational and technical level between our Department of Defense and their ministries of defense, and also with other NATO Allies and partners. And so I’ll leave it in those channels for now — only to say that the U.S. stands ready to ensure that deterrence and defense for Finland and Sweden will be there should they need it, even though they don’t get the full benefits of the Article 5 Alliance until the accession process is properly complete, as is required, frankly, under our Constitution, where we need to get advice and consent from the Senate for that treaty. Yes. MS. JEAN-PIERE: Last question. Q Regarding the trip, to what extent is the message on this trip going to be like a cautionary tale delivered to China to say, “Look what happened in Ukraine. Look how we’ve responded. Don’t do anything similar”? Is that going to be part of the messaging during the President’s trip? MR. SULLIVAN: The message we’re trying to send on this trip is a message of an affirmative vision of what the world can look like if the democracies and open societies of the world stand together to shape the rules of the road, to define the security architecture of the region, to reinforce strong, powerful, historic alliances. And we think putting that on display over four days — bilaterally with the ROK and Japan, through the Quad, through the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework — it will send a powerful message. We think that message will be heard everywhere. We think it will be heard in Beijing. But it is not a negative message, and it’s not targeted at any one country. It’s targeted at an audience the world over about what American leadership, working flanked by allies and like-minded partners, can deliver for people everywhere. And we think we go into this trip very much with the wind at our back, with a strong case to make that we have what it takes to be able to deliver against the security and economic challenges of our time. And President Biden will head into the Indo-Pacific with a spring in his step, and we’re very much looking forward to this visit. Q Will the President visit the DMZ, Jake? Will the President visit the DMZ? MR. SULLIVAN: You can ask Karine. (Laughter.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He will not visit the DMZ. Q He will not. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He will not. He will not. Q Why not? Why not visit the DMZ? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Just not on this trip. He will not. He will go to South Korea, as you know. They will have an agenda to talk about a lot of things, including North Korea. But he’s not going to the DMZ. And just to — just to reiterate here is that, as Vice President, he has been there before. But on this trip — Q But now he’s President, and his predecessor went — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: He’s just not — Q — former President Obama went. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But he’s just not going to go on this trip. He’s going to go to South Korea. He’s going to show his support for the region. And — but he’s not going to go to South Korea on this trip — I’m sorry, the DMZ on this trip. Okay. We all love Jake. Thank you so much for your patience. And I have one topper, and then we’ll get to it. Okay. The Senate took an important step today with the bipartisan agreement announced by Chair Tester and Ranking Member Moran to advance their vision of the Hon- — of the Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022. President Biden has championed legislation to deliver the benefits and healthcare services that veterans impacted by toxic exposures have earned. This historic comprehensive bill will do just that. The PACT will not only help deliver more timely access to benefits and services for veterans and their survivors, it will also ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs can act more nimbly to add future presumptive conditions when the evidence warrants. And the legislation will help the VA provide our veterans the level of service they deserve. President Biden believes that we have a sacred obligation to support veterans, their families, caregivers, and survivors. That’s why as part of this first state of the — of his first State of the Union address, he identified supporting veterans as a key pillar of his Unity Agenda and an issue that can unite the country, Republicans and Democrats. Passing the PACT Act would be a welcome and long-awaited achievement for the veterans who have served us well. Darlene, you have the floor. Q Thanks. Thank you. I wanted to ask Jake this question, but I’ll ask you. It’s about the Quad summit. And there is a possibility that Saturday’s election in Australia will not produce a winner in time for someone to go to Tokyo to participate in the Quad summit. So what contingencies are there? Will the one meeting go ahead if Australia cannot participate? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I believe that the Quad meeting will go ahead. I don’t have any more specifics than that about the — you know, how that’s going to affect any further, deeper. But from what I understand, and even Jake said this, that there’s going to be a Quad summit. It’s going to happen. We can — we can talk more about the specifics of what will — you know, what it will look like with Australia. Q And then, the First Lady’s Office informed us that Ashley Biden, the President’s daughter, is positive for COVID. Can you tell us when was the last time the President tested negative? Is he testing today in preparation for travel? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yep. So, the President tests regularly throughout the week as part of a cadence determined by his doctor. As we’ve — as we’ve communicated, the President is not a close contact with Ashley. It’s been several days that they last — he and the First Lady last saw Ashley; I think about a week is what I’ve been told. If his testing were to change because of a close contact, we’d let all of you know. But his cadence has not changed. I don’t have when he last tested. Q And then one final question on the church attack in California over the weekend. We haven’t seen the President comment on that at all. Is he concerned that what happened there could somehow destabilize relations between Taiwan and China? Does he have any plans to call or reach out to Taiwan or China, or anything like that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I don’t have any calls to preview of — calls with Chinese and Taiwan as it relates to this particular case. Our thoughts are with all those affected by gun violence, including the incidents — the other incidents that at — that happened this weekend in Houston, in Milwaukee, in Chicago, and, as we know, in Buffalo. Federal law enforcement is supporting as needed. And the White House has been in touch with local leaders. These shootings and, of course, the one in Buffalo, as the President and the First Lady went to offer — went to grieve with the community yesterday, as all of you know, are a sad reminder of how important it is to redouble our eff- — our fight against gun violence and violent crime. And as part of the President’s comprehensive strategy to fight gun crime, we’re putting more cops on the beat, as you’ve heard us say this past year and a half; as we’re — talked about a gun comprehensive approach here, cracking down on firearms trafficking, investing through the art and community programs to prevent crime. But I don’t have any more to share on any calls that may have had occurred. Okay, I’m going to go to people who haven’t asked a question. Go ahead, Ashley. Q Thank you. Two questions. Following up on Darlene, on Ashley Biden having COVID: She’s in good company in this White House in that the Vice President had it, the Second Gentleman had it, you had it, Jen Psaki had it twice, a number of top Cabinet officials had it, a number of other aides in the West Wing. And no one so far that I can remember has been deemed a close contact of the President. Why are none of these people close contacts of the President — and his sister, actually — including family members? And also, are there steps that the President is taking beyond the CDC guidelines that you could lay out? Are meetings in the Oval being kept — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q — under 15 minutes? Is everyone masked? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I’m glad to be — said I was in good company. Appreciate that. But — so it is — we take extra precautions, to your last question — I’ll answer that first — here at the White House. And we’ve said this before: When we’re in a meeting — I was in a meeting with the President earlier today. I got tested first. I put my mask on, and we socially distanced. Those are the extra protocols that we do take with the President and all the principals, not just him, just to make sure that we just take that extra added step there. Look, you know, the close contact is as it’s deemed by CDC. And he hasn’t seen Ashley in several days. And it’s also — there’s a time component to how long that person was in the room. We all wear masks. So, yeah, I mean, the way we — if he — if he is — if there was a close contact or he’s a close contact of someone, we would let you know. Q And on guns: Yesterday, when he was leaving Buffalo, the President said, “I’ve got to convince the Congress that we should go back to what I passed years ago.” I just want to confirm that he was referring to the 1994 assault weapons ban. And my question is: You know, when he was the point person for President Obama after Sandy Hook, Manchin-Toomey — which went far less far than an assault weapons ban — failed. What makes him think that he could get that through when, so far, no meaningful legislation has gone through in the past decade? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, this is what the President said yesterday. Right? He understands it’s not going to be easy, but he knows that there’s more to do. You know, our country is facing an epidemic that is very real, as we have seen this past weekend, as gun violence is costing lives every single day. And so, you know, when he was in Buffalo, we saw examples of that. He talked to the family — talked to them in a very personal way. And this is a top priority for the President, as it’s been throughout his career. As you just mentioned, he mentioned his own legislation that he passed. Look, the President continues to urge Congress to act to pass universal background checks, to keep guns out of the wrong hands, and to renew a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to keep weapons off our streets. It’s not going to be easy. He understands that. But he’s going to continue to work very hard to make that happen. But I do want to add, Ashley, is that this administration has done more on gun violence reform via executive action than any other President in its first year in their administration. So that is the — his commitment and what he’s — what he’s done just this year and a half. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. Jake mentioned his conversation with his Chinese counterpart. This morning, the readout you guys gave was pretty sparse, and so I was wondering if you can give any more details of that conversation, and particularly, sort of, an update on how the White House has seen China’s actions towards Russia in light of Ukraine. I know that — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — I don’t have any more to read out outside of what you — what was put out by us earlier today. I’m just going to keep it to that readout. And — and, you know, Jake has spoken to this before, about China and their relationship with Russia. We haven’t seen any evidence of any, like, material that has been provided to Russia. That continues to be the case. I don’t have any more to add on that. Q I wanted to ask about a pair of bills on Capitol Hill right now — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure. Q — both being forwarded by House Democrats. One is a Consumer Fuel Price gauging — Gouging Prevention Act, and the other is this domestic terrorism legislation. I haven’t seen statements of administration policy on either, and I’m wondering how supportive the President is, particularly on the domestic terrorism legislation. He kind of — on the tarmac yesterday, he seemed to say that he didn’t think it was necessary. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, on the — the price — the gas price gouging legislation that you just mentioned: Look, the President welcomes all ideas to protect consumers and to make sure that oil companies aren’t taking advantage of Putin’s war and are competing fairly. He’s been very clear on that. President Biden has been also very clear that no company should be engaging in unfair practices to hike prices on American consumers. As the President has said, President Putin’s actions are what is driving the price increase at the pump. The President is focused on doing everything in his power to address the Putin price hike, including the largest-ever release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, as we’ve talked about here at this podium, and working around the clock diplo- — to diplomatically build a coalition of countries for the largest release in foreign reserves ever. We know that there are a number of ideas being suggested by our allies and in Congress, and look forward to engaging on this issue so we can get Americans some relief, especially as we’re in this particular time right now with high prices. Q And then one last on the Dow. It’s down 1,100 points so far today. Chairman Powell did an interview with the Wall Street Journal in which he said he’d push forward on additional rate hikes, even if it resulted in unemployment coming up. Also, presumably baked into that is that the stock market — we’ve seen the stock market do poorly as the Fed hikes rates. So, you know, do you still, I guess, stand behind Chairman Powell’s vision on rate hikes? And broadly, you guys have said that you’re not following day-to-day market tribulations, but we’re now getting to a point where some of the gains that defined the President’s tenure are being erased. And so, is there a new level of alarm within the White House about the stock market? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, as you know — and we say this all the time, Josh — you know, it’s — Justin — the Fed chair –you know, the Federal Reserve is independent. We leave them to make their own policy decisions. We do not get involved in that. And nothing has changed on how we see the stock market. We do not — that’s not something that we keep an eye on every day. And so, I don’t — I’m not going to comment about that from here. I do want to touch base on the domestic terrorism and what the President said yesterday about the — about domestic terrorism. Look, it’s a — it’s a growing and evolving threat and one that the Biden administration has taken very seriously. Since our first day in office, we have said we have been studying the details of different proposals. And there are a range of ideas that have been proposed in Congress that could improve our ability to detect and respond to these threats. What the President was specifically referring to yesterday when he was on the tarmac was the set of existing laws on the — on the books that provide law enforcement with authorities to investigate and prosecute domestic terrorism and hold those who commit hate-filled attacks accountable. As part of our National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, we increased our support for federal, state, and local law enforcement as they address domestic terrorism nationwide, including increasing resources and providing traines [sic] — trainings to thousands of law enforcement entities. DOJ has made domestic terrorism-related investigation and prosecution a top priority at the national and local level. And plus, DOG [sic] — DOJ, earlier this year, announced the creation of a new domestic terrorism unit with the counterterrorism section — sec- — section of the National Security Division that will enforce the expertise and experience on these issues available to federal prosecutors nationwide. So, there is a commitment there. And that’s what he was talking about. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q We’re about three weeks away from the Summit of the Americas. You got Chris Dodd down in Mexico today — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. Q — trying to convince President López Obrador to come. What’s the President’s level of optimism that Mexico will attend this Summit of the Americas? And, well, is the guest list finalized? Has the President decided who to invite? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: The guest list is not finalized. Hopefully that will happen soon. And I promise, once we have it, we will share it. You know, the President is optimistic. You know, we don’t have anything to share at this moment. Again, once we have it, we’ll be happy to share it with all of you. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. DHS said today that they’ll be pausing the Disinformation Governance Board. Did the White House play a role at all in perhaps expressing frustration on how it was rolled out or expressed any — involvement in how it — whether or not it should be paused? And then also, some experts have said that it was sort of set up to fail the way it was rolled out. Do you have a response to that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, the board has never convened. It — so that’s — it never convened, and the board is — yes, the board is pausing in the sense that it will not convene while former Secretary Chertoff and former Deputy AG Gorelick do their assessment. But the Department’s work across several administrations to address disinformation that threatens the security of our country is critical, and that will indeed continue. And again, neither Nina Jankowicz nor the board have anything to do with the censorship or with removing content from anywhere. Their role is to ensure that national security officials are updated on how misinformation is affecting the trea- — the threat — the threat environment. She has strong credentials and a history of calling out misinformation from both the left and the right. And that’s — and that’s our focus. Q So did the White House — did the White House play a role at all in whether it should be paused or what should happen with — with the board? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. First of all, like I said, this — this is what’s happening: There is a pause. We did not have an involvement in this at all. Q And just another quick question. Congressman Schrader, who received a rare endorsement from the President in a Democratic primary, is on track to lose. What does that say about the power of the President’s endorsement? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look, I — as it comes to — you know, I have to be careful about what I can say here. (Laughs.) But we — you know, the race in Oregon was focused on just how much each candidate support the President — supported the President. That’s what we saw in this particular race. His — his counterpart in the race, McLeod-Skinner, ran on a — an agenda of President Biden’s priorities, including lowering the price of prescription drugs and tackling climate change and the fossil fuel pledge. Her support for President Biden extends back to 2020 election, when she said, “He’s the guy. He knows how to choose a great team.” On the campaign trail, McLeod-Skinner has sought to tie herself to President Biden and paused — and praised his presidency. Even on day one President Biden endorsed Representative Schrader, McLeod-Skinner wrote, “I respect Biden’s work to tackle COVID-19 and rebuild our economy.” In February, McLeod-Skinner praised President Biden’s effort at diplomacy around the situation in Ukraine. McLeod praised President Biden’s plan to lower health and — care costs, eldercare costs, childcare costs, and prescription drug costs as a transform- — formative — “transformative investment in the future of Oregon’s families.” So, that’s how we see it. We think it’s both — both sides were very much supportive of the President. Q Thank you. Karine, just to follow up though, I mean, the question is — this — both of them had similar platforms, to your point. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yep. Q And yet President Biden endorsed one of them, and that candidate is on track to lose. So are there concerns within the President — and I know you can’t speak to politics of this — is the President concerned — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Not at all. Q — that he doesn’t have enough juice heading into these critical midterms? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No, not at all. Because, again, both candidates were running on a platform that supported, embraced the President’s pla- — the President’s agenda. Q Has the President reached out to any of the Democratic winners overnight, particularly John Fetterman, who is still in the hospital? Cheri Beasley? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have any calls to read out, but I do believe the one thing that I can say here is that he spoke — last night, the President did speak to Gisele Fetterman, and wished the governor — wished the lieutenant governor a speedy recovery. Q Okay. And the President said of Fetterman’s win and of the Republicans who were still locked in a pretty tight battle in Pennsylvania: “[W]hoever emerges will be too dangerous, too craven, and too extreme to represent Pennsylvania” and the United States. Do the Democrats run the risk of underestimating the Republican Senate nominee in Pennsylvania — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look — Q — and gubernatorial nominee? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: You know, the President remains really focused on delivering for the American people. And what you see from congressional Republicans and what you see from the GOP is — the plan for American people is to raise taxes to — in the middle class, to sunset Social Security and Medicare, and to take away a woman’s right to reproductive healthcare. He’s going to speak against that. He is going to continue to speak for the American public. And so, he’s not going to stay quiet. And that — and this is something that is incredibly important to make sure that the American people and — and what he’s doing to — for the American people is — is — you know, is made sure that it’s — it happens, right? What the — what the other side is trying to do is trying to stop us from trying to lower costs for — for folks, as we — as I just laid out. Q And, just very quickly, Senator Raphael Warnock is saying that he’s coming to the White House to meet with the President today. Can you talk a little bit about that, about student loans? And is the President open to increasing the forgiveness rate? It seems like he’s in the $10,000 range. Senator Warnock wants it to be closer to $50,000. Would the President come up? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we meet with members of Congress on a variety of issues. Q Is he going to meet with Senator Warnock today? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: (Laughs.) These are senators who have been leaders on college affordability and sent- — and student debt. The President values their perspective and looks forward to the discussion this afternoon. So, yes. But I don’t have more to read on that. There’s — we — you know, I’ve said this a couple of times: We don’t — a decision hasn’t been made yet. Q Is there timeline yet for — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have a timeline. A decision hasn’t been made yet. Yeah. Q Thank you, Karine. A follow-up to the disinformation board. Last week, you guys said that you needed this Disinformation Governance Board at DHS to make sure that freedom of speech is protected across the country and that these platforms are not used for forms of disinformation. So what changed? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, the Department of — of Homeland Security, they began their statement report- — repeating that the board had been intentionally mischaracterized, which is a little bit of what you were asking me, and they were explicit about what it does and doesn’t — it does not do. It was never about censorship, poli- — policing speech, or removing content from anywhere. Its function was to keep Homeland Security officials aware of how bad actors — including human smugglers, transnational criminal organization, and foreign adversaries — could use disinformation to advance their goals. As Secretary Mayorkas said, he has asked former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff and former DO- — DAG Jamie Gorelick to lead a thorough review — this is the pause that I was talking about — and assessment as members of the bipartisan Homeland Security Council — Advisory Council. The board will not convene during that period. But the department’s work across several administrations to address disinformation that threatens the security for our country is critical and will continue. So that work is going to continue. Q So if it’s pausing because you think the board was mischaracterized, then the disinformation board is being shut down because of disinformation? Is that what’s happening here? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, I mean, the — the board was put forth for a purpose — right? — to make sure that we really did — really did address what was happening across the country when it came to disinformation. Q And it’s okay to wait now at 75 days to address — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, no, it’s — it’s just — it’s going to pause. There’s been a mischaracterations [sic] from outside — outside forces. And so, now what we’re going to do is going to — we’re going to pause it and we’re going to do an assessment. But the work does — the work doesn’t stop. We’re still going to continue the work. The DHS is still going to continue the work. Q Okay. There’s a bulletin now that DHS is worried if Roe v. Wade is overturned, there could be violence against the Supreme Court building or Supreme Court justices. Are these threats from pro-abortion activists or anti-abortion activists? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, the President is clear on this question. He believes the right to peace- — to peacefully protest in this country is fundamental, but he also believes that violence, threats, and intimidation have no place in political discourse anywhere. That is true whether it is in front of a courthouse or in front of a healthcare clinic. And that’s the thing. I feel — it seems like, to us, it is very one-sided on what we call out as — as intimidation or as violence. So we want to make sure we’re calling out on — on ei- — on both sides of what is happening and what we’re seeing. While protests — but while protests have been peaceful to date, the Department of Justice has U.S. Marshals providing support to support [the Supreme] Court Marshal, and the Pres- — and the President believes Congress should pass the legislation to fund increased security for Court and judges as soon as possible. Yesterday, in reference to this, the Department of Homeland Security said they are “committed to protecting Americans’ freedom of speech and other civil rights and civil liberties, including the right to peacefully protest. DHS is also committed to working with our partners across every level of government and the private sector to share timely information and intelligence, prevent all forms of violence, and to support law enforcement — enforcement efforts to keep our communities safe.” Q And then, final question, on gas prices: Americans are now spending $5,000 a year on gasoline. That’s almost double what they did a year ago. Where are people supposed to go to get all that extra cash? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: To get the extra cash to pay for gas? Q Yeah. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I mean, one of the things that we’ve been very clear about is to do everything in our power to make sure that we lower costs. You know, it is important — we see it. The President understands what the American people is — are — is going through. And that’s why we’re doing everything that we can. We’ve made multiple announcements in the past several — several months of what we’re doing — whether it’s just the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, whether it’s the ethanol 15, to make sure that that — that the American people are not feeling Putin’s price hike. This is where this is coming from. Sixty to seventy percent of the current price hike that we have seen has come from Putin’s aggression against Ukraine. Q So, the President announces on March 31st that he’s got all these steps to lower gas prices, and it’s still Putin’s fault, seven weeks later? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, because — what I’m saying is, since the war — since Putin’s war — aggression against Ukraine started back in February — we did see a spike. But before then, it had — the price — the — the price per gallon had fallen down about 10 cents or more. And then Putin started his aggression on Ukraine — his violent aggression on Ukraine — against their democracy, against their — against their sovereignty. And we saw about — I mean, the facts show it went up about 60 to 70 percent. So it is Putin’s tax hike. This is what we’re talking about. Q Karine? Q On that same subject — Q Would you come to the back — Q — on inflation — Q — at some point? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure. Q Thank you. Q The inflation concerns are now rubbing off on quarterly earnings, reports for a lot of big companies — Target, for example, today says it missed its estimates because of increased costs of transportation, in gas. That’s part of what’s driving this at least 1,100-point drop in the Dow so far. What would you say, what does the White House say to investors and everyday Americans who are concerned that there’s no end in sight to these price hikes? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, you know, I’m not — again, I’m not going to speak to the stock market. But, you know, this is something that is very important to the President, when it comes to inflati- — inflation and making sure that we lower costs for the American people. Last week, we announced new steps with private sector to lower the price of high-speed Internet for ten — tens of millions of Americans. The President traveled to Illinois to announce new actions to give farmers the tools and resources so — they need to boost production, lower prices, and — and feed the world. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the deficit fell by $1.5 trillion this year, putting us on track for the fastest deficit reduction in any year on record. These actions build on other actions the President has taken to lower costs in recent weeks. Again, you know, this is to — this is to address Putin’s price hike at the pump. The President, as I was saying, and allies and partners around the world — they came together. And he was talking about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the 1 million barrels of oil per day for the next six months, in addition to a — to the 60 million barrels of oil from other countries’ reserve. I talked about the E15 gasoline that we have allowed to happen so that it could be sold this summer. The President also announced administrative actions to save hundreds of thousands of families hundreds of dollars per month by fixing the Affordable Care Act’s family glitch. These are the things that we have been working on — this President has been working on for the past several months, understanding that it is important to lower the cost of — the costs for American families. And we’re going to continue to do that. I’m going to try and go to the back. Go ahead. You, sir. Q Thank you. Oh, sorry. Q Thank you very much. Thanks a lot, Karine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, yeah. Go ahead. (Laughs.) Go ahead. Q Can you talk a little bit about President Biden’s long-term thinking on Ukraine? There’s a possibility this war could go on for months or years. And what is the President’s commitment to supplying weapons to Ukraine in the long term? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, as you know, there is a — there is a supplemental — there is a funding — a Ukraine funding that’s in the Senate right now for about $40 billion that we are encouraging the Senate to pass. And so, that is going to be part of helping — continuing to help Ukraine with material, with defense material and humanitarian aid. Look, this is something that’s incredibly important to the President, but also to our partners and allies, that we make sure that Ukraine is able to defend their democracy. It is important for us as a country, as a leader in this — in this world to make sure that we’re doing everything that we can so that happens. What hap- — what is happening in Ukraine — defending their democracy, defending their territorial integrity, defending their sovereignty — affects us all. So, this is something that we are going to continue to be partners with — with our allies, our partners. The — Jake was talking about the NATO Alliance and how strong they are, how unified, how they’re speaking in one voice in a — in a way that we have not seen in years. And so, this is something that we need to be — continue to be a leader on, and that’s what he believes. And it’s important to make sure that we protect our country’s democracy. Q What preparations is the President making if Putin escalates after the — after Finland and Sweden join NATO? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I’m not going to go into hypotheticals. We’re going to focus on what’s happening here and now. You know, again, I think one of the things that we have to remember: This is a war that Putin started. This is a war — his aggression, his violent — very violent war that we have seen. The Ukraine — Ukrainians and their government have fought very bravely. And we’ve seen that with Kharkiv. We’ve seen that — what they’ve done in Kyiv. It is remarkable what they have been able to do in fighting back this aggression against their — against their country. And so that is going to be our focus, to make sure that they have everything that they need to be — to have a — to strengthen their — kind of their table when it comes to hopefully having some diplomacy and getting to an end of this war. But in the meantime, we have to support them. Q Karine? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yep. Okay. Go ahead, Jonathan. Q Thank you, Karine. In the wake of the Buffalo shooting, there been several civil rights groups who have expressed some unhappiness at the lack of outreach from the Biden White House and frustration about a lack of progress on hate crimes, gun violence, and so on. I’ll just read you one: The Reverend Al Sharpton, who has visited the White House several times, says, quote, “This administration has met less with civil rights and civil liberty groups than previous administrations in a formal substantive way.” He goes on to say that they even asked for meeting here in the wake of this shooting, and, quote, “We’ve got no response from the White House.” Can you give an update on this? And will there be a meeting with civil rights groups? And can you address his frustrations? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have any meetings to read out for you or any meetings scheduled at this time. You know, we respect the Reverend. He has been here many times before, as you know. Are you talking about the letter that the — that the — from gun — gun rights groups have written? There were about 40-plus that — Q He says — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think it was in your — Q Yeah, that — that — there’s that, but — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Q — he says civil rights groups have also asked the White House for a meeting (inaudible). MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, we’ve met with civil rights groups over the last year and a half. I don’t have any meetings to read out to you at this time. Look, the one thing I do want to say is that, you know, the President agrees with these groups on the urgency of acting, and he applauds the work that they’re doing to rally support around the country for a commonsense agenda to fight the epidemic of gun crime. He understands that. That’s one of the reasons he went to Buffalo — to have that conversation, to grieve with the family. And he spoke to them in a very personal way. There’s a couple of things from that letter that I do want to just — just talk about a little bit, since it was in your publication. He agrees that innovative, neighborhood-based crime prevention programs like community violence intervention need to be at the core of our toolkit to make our common sense [communities] safer. That’s why the President has unlocked existing money within the government to invest in community violence intervention. That’s why he secured more than — more money for that in his 2022 budget. And that’s why he’s calling for a significance increase in funding in his 2023 budget. He is calling for a $5 billion investment over 10 years. The President also is going to continue to call on Congress — he talked about this yesterday when he was in Buffalo — to pass commonsense gun violence legislation that would keep weapons off our streets and keep guns out of the hands of criminals. We’re working closely with Leader Schumer and Speaker Pelosi on this and other issues, and will defer to their judgment on legislative mechanics, give them space to work on that and to do that. And finally, on the question of a gun violence coordinator — I was asked that yesterday; I think I was asked specifically about an office. You know, Ambas- — we have Ambassador Susan Rice here, who is the Chair of the Domestic Policy Council, as you all know. And she is coordinating the President’s whole-of-government approach to reducing gun violence, leading a 12-person team that connects violence reduction to broader resources, like mental health supports, workforce development opportunities, and more. She has decades of experience coordinating interagency process in the federal government. There’s no one who is better at bringing stakeholders to the table to drive progress, and we know that’s so — that’s important because tackling an issue as complex, and gun vi- — and gun violence requis [sic] — requires a multidisciplinary approach. And we’re talking about housing, mental health, community support, all of the things — apprenticeship — all of the things that are so important in order to deal with this issue. I’m trying to — (Cross-talk by reporters.) Oh, my gosh. I’m trying to call on people I haven’t gotten yet. Q Karine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, we have to go? All right, guys, I’m so sorry. We have to go. But we will — we will — hopefully I’ll see some of you in Asia. All right. Q Have a good trip. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Bye. Q We’re all the way back here in Siberia. You can visit anytime. (Laughter.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I know. I — next time. Next time, I promise. I did call somebody back there. Q Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, good afternoon, everybody. Okay, I have a few toppers, so please bear with me. Over the past 15 months, we’ve made tremendous progress in our fight against COVID, with 220 million Americans fully vaccinated and over 100 million people boosted. We’ve also moved quickly to ensure Paxlovid, an oral antiviral pill that reduces risk of hospitalization and death by almost 90 percent, is widely available. Importantly, because of all the work the Biden administration has done on vaccines, boosters, treatments, and more, daily COVID-19 deaths are down by 90 percent from when the President took office, even as infections are rising. So the tools that the administration has made widely available to the American people are working to prevent serious illness, to keep people out of the hospital, and to save lives. And while COVID isn’t over, it’s critical that Americans know that we now have more tools than ever to protect ourselves. We can now prevent most COVID deaths, and that’s ma- — that’s major progress. To drive further progress, today we announced new federal — federally supported test-to-treat sites. Today, the first of these launches in — launches in Providence, Rhode Island. In the coming days, we’ll deploy clinical personnel to help transform several of Minnesota’s state-run testing sites into test-to-treat sites. And in the coming weeks, we will work to open more in places like New York and Illinois. These build on the more than 2,500 sites we’ve already set up at local pharmacies and community healthcare centers. Yesterday afternoon, the Governor of Oklahoma signed into law the most extreme piece of legislation to undo a woman’s fundamental right to make her own reproductive choices since Roe became law. This law will go into effect immediately. Not only does this law ban abortion from the moment of fertilization, but it also adopts Texas’s — Texas plan to allow private citizens to sue their neighbors for providing reproductive healthcare and helping women to exercise their constitutional rights. This law is the latest in a growing effort by ultra-MAGA officials across the country to roll back freedoms that should not be taken for granted. Roe has been the law of the land for almost 50 years, and it is under serious threat. They are starting with reproductive rights, but the attack on our fundamental rights, including the right to contraception and marriage equality, is growing. And these rights are increasingly at risk. The President believes that women have the fundamental right to make their own reproductive health choices, and he and the Vice President and the entire administration are committing to protecting these constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms. Today, the Department of Agriculture announced new steps to strengthen food supply chains, increase competition in the meat processing sector, and lower prices for American consumers. The Department is making $200 million available to create a new processing capacity expansion program, providing $25 million for workforce training and releasing the first of three planned rules designed to bolster enforcement of the Packers and Stocks— Stockyards Act which will increase transparency. These actions will combat — combat market dominance by a small number of major meat and poultry processors in key markets, where excessive concentration and control has led to lower prices paid to poultry producers and higher prices by consumers. After the severe and sweeping sanctions on the Central Bank of Russia, the Department of Treasury issued General License 9 to provide for an orderly transition so that the bond holders could get paid. We’ve announced that we will not be renewing the license. This means that the — this means that Russia will likely fail to meet its obligation and face default, an enduring sign of their status as a pariah in the global financial system. We expect the impact of the U.S. and the global economy to be minimal given Russia has already been isolated financially. That being said, Treasury Department continues to monitor and have conversations with the global financial community. I have two scheduling updates. Next week, the President will welcome Prime Minister of New Zealand to the White House — another example of our continued commitment to the Indo-Pacific. We’ll have more details on this as we get closer. And as you all saw, we announced that on Sunday the President and the First Lady will travel to Uvalde to grieve with the community that lost 21 lives in the horrific elementary school shooting. We — we’ll have more to share as we get closer, but while he’s there, the President will meet with the community leaders, religious leaders, and the families of the victim. The President and First Lady believe it is important to show their support for the community during this devastating time and to be there for the families of the victims. And lastly, on Tuesday, as you all know, the parents of 19 kids did what so many of us parents do every morning: They gave their kids a kiss, told them they loved them, and wished them a good day at school. They figured their kids would spend their day reading, writing, doing math; playing with friends at recess. These kids never came home. Some of these parents needed to give DNA samples to be able to identify their own children. These were elementary school kids. They should be losing their first teeth, not losing their lives. They should be at little league, softball, and soccer practices this weekend. These parents should be planning their kid’s summer, not their child’s funeral. As — as a parent, it is unfathomable to me that this happened. These kids had their whole lives in front of them. Our hearts ache for their families. Our hearts ache for the family and loved ones of the teachers who were killed. Schools should be sanctuaries of learning, not battlefields. And teachers should be there to teach, nurture, prepa- — and prepare our children for the future, not to be gunned down or asked to sacrifice their own lives for the kids they love. But that is what two heroic teachers did in Uvalde — killed while trying to protect their students. I’m a parent of an elementary school student. I know many of you in this room are as well. We cannot become numb to this. We will not accept this. A grocery store, a church, an elementary school. And this is just in the last few days. It is unacceptable. As the President said the other night, why are we willing to live with this carnage? Why do we keep letting this happen? Where in God’s name is our backbone? So I ask, how is protecting our children a partisan issue? How is preventing innocent people from being slaughtered controversial? Commonsense gun safety laws work. We know this. They save lives. As the President said Tuesday night, when the assault weapons ban passed, shootings went down. They tripled after it was lifted. And let’s be clear: The public supports this; they are behind this — even gun owners. Ninety percent of gun owners support universal background checks. Eighty-four percent of Republicans and eighty percent of NRA members support background checks. As the President said this week, it is time to turn this pain into action. It’s time for Congress to act. And with that, Darlene, I will take your question. Q Thank you. Is there any reaction here from — at the White House to the Senate Republicans blocking the domestic terrorism bill, which was supposed to open the door for some debate and discussion about gun safety, as you were just talking about? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So we’re disappointed that Congress did not move forward with the legislation that would strengthen our response to domestic terror incidents like we saw in Buffalo. We need Congress to act on that. And we need Congress to advance commonsense measures that we know will save lives when it comes to gun violence. Q And secondly, the NRA is opening its convention in Houston tomorrow, three days after the massacre in Uvalde. Former President Trump, Texas Governor Abbott, and others are set to speak there. Does the White House think it is appropriate for that convention to move forward? Should it be postponed, cancelled, given the events of the last few days? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So it’s not about the convention. What is inappropriate is that the leadership of the National Rifle Association has proven time and time again that they are contributing to the problem of gun violence, not trying to solve it. They represent the interests of the gun industry, the gun manufacturers who are marketing weapons of war to young adults. They don’t represent gun owners who know that we need to take action. And it’s shameful that the NRA and their allies have stood in the way of every attempt to advance measures that will — that will — that we all know will save lives from gun violence, measures that we know would keep weapons off — of war out of the hands of people who are terrorizing our community. So that is what matters, and it is shameful. Go ahead, Nancy. Q Thanks, Karine. Does the President believe that there should be an investigation into the police response to this school shooting? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So we’ve heard of — (member of the press coughs) — we’ve — need some water? You okay? (Laughs.) Just let us know. The President — we’ve — we’ve been watching the reporting on this. The President has the utmost respect, as you all know, for the men and women of law enforcement. Just days ago, he honored the memory of the former police officer, Aaron Salter, in Buffalo who was killed bravely while trying to stop the shooter at the supermarket. I know that right now authorities are working to piece together more details of what happened in Uvalde, so we won’t prejudge the results from here at this time. It is al- — it is always a good idea to look back and try to find any lessons we can learn, especially from trag- — tragedies like this, so that we can prevent them from moving forward, including law enforcement response. Q And is the President considering calling on Congress to stay in town to work on this issue instead of going home for a week-long recess? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So we have been in close touch with Congress — even before this shooting and, clearly, what we saw in Buffalo — about gun reform. This is something that has been a priority from the Pre- — for the President since day one of his administration. And we also have been in close touch and we really appreciate what Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi have been doing. You know, the President has been very clear that it’s time to act, it’s time for Congress to act. The President has long urged Congress to take action to fight gun violence, including by expanding background checks. He supports Leader Schumer’s plan to bring legislation forward. They — the Congress would clearly handle the mechanics of all of this. And, you know, during — as you all may remember, during the State of the Union, the President asked Congress to pass proven measures to reduce gun violence, pass universal background checks. Why should anyone on — on the terrorist list be able to purchase a weapon? Those were what — is what he said just a couple of months ago. So we have an opportunity to do that right now. And we encourage Congress to act. Q And then, finally, the average age of suspects at school mass shootings is 18. Would the President support raising the age at which someone can buy a gun to 21? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So the President was very clear about this just recently when he said that the — that — in his remarks, just on Tuesday, that it doesn’t make sense for an 18-year-old to legally buy an assault weapon. And so, he made very clear on Tuesday when he — after he landed from Asia and had to deal with such a devastating news that happened in Texas. Yeah, go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. There was a bipartisan group of senators — nine senators — that met today. Does the White House have any confidence that this group could reach a meaningful agreement? And does the White House plan to get involved with those negotiations? Would the President bring that group down while they’re having these talks and meet with them? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have anything to preview for you as to any meetings — upcoming meetings that may be happening at the White House this week or next week or in the coming weeks. We really, truly, as I said, leave it to — the mechanics up to Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi. We are confident in — in that they will — that Senator Schumer will bring this forward. And again, it is time for Congress to act. This is what the President has been calling for since the beginning of his administration, and that’s what we want to see and that’s what we encourage Congress to do. Q And Senator Schumer has signaled that they have roughly 10 days to get to a conclusion. Is that a timeline that the White House wants to see? And if at the end of that 10 days there is no agreement, the White House wants to see the Senate move forward on the two House-passed bills? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Again, we leave the mechanics to Senator Schumer. We want to see action. That is what we’re calling for. And — but again, we leave it to the leadership — the Democratic leadership to figure out how they’re going to move this forward. Q And just one quick one: Can you give us any sense — has the President talked to other officials in Texas since Tuesday — or who he’s talked to on the phone about what happened down there? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have any — any calls to preview. Clearly, the President is very much — and the First Lady — is looking forward to meeting with the families, community leaders when they’re there on Sunday. We have been trying to give the families some time to grieve, as this just happened two days ago. But again, he’s going to see them on Sunday and have that opportunity to offer comfort. Go ahead. Q Karine, are you getting any sense that this time is different, that there’s a different climate on Capitol Hill that might be inclined to do some — some things? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’ll say this, Steve: You know, we have seen two horrific tragedies in just two weeks. Hours before the shooting, many of the 19 kids who were killed in Texas, Uvalde, were being awarded certificates of the Robb — of the Robb Elementary’s Honor Roll ceremony as part of the end of the school year. Today would have been their last day of school and — for the school year. In Buffalo, on the same day — on the same day that this happened just two days ago, 2 of the 10 people who were killed while going to the grocery store on a Sunday, like many of us do, were being buried and honored by their families. I’m talking about Aaron Salter, the security officer who first responded, and Celestine Chaney, a mother and grandmother of six, were being buried by loved ones right in Buffalo on that same day. So, America has more guns than people in this country. If more guns were indeed the solution, we would be the safest country in the world, but we are not. And so, the President has been very clear he wants action — he wants Congress to take action. He wants to turn this pain into action. And I hope the Senate, and particularly those who have been unwilling to act in the face of previous tragedies, will act now. And that’s what we are hoping and urging Congress to do. Q Is the President considering some unilateral actions on guns? There are a number of gun safety advocates who are pushing for things like a gun czar or a state of emergency declaration. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, on your first part, you know, while we’ve been calling for Congress to act, and the President has done that since the first couple of days of the White House, he has been waiting, right? We have talked about the things — the comprehensive approaches that he’s taken. We recently announced how over $10 billion from the Rescue Plan has been spent or committed on ways to fight gun — gun crime and gun violence. The President wants cities and states to use even more. The department — the Justice Department issued a tough new rule to stem the flow of ghost guns, which are increasingly being found at the crime scenes and which are the weapons of choice for terrorists and criminals. So, the administration — the administration issued a zero-tolerance policy for gun dealers who willfully sell guns illegally. So, this President has done more via executive actions than any other President during their first year of office. Now, what we are asking for is for Congress — we are urging them to take action. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. How does the President view his role in this moment? You know, we talked yesterday about changing a dynamic — a dynamic that’s been entrenched for decades now at this point. I understand the legislative details are Capitol Hill’s prerogative. How does he view his role in trying to change that dynamic? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I think he — he views his role has as he has been doing. You know, if you think about his remarks on Tuesday, it was — it was compassion, it was sadness, it — it was outrage. And you heard that from — from the President of the United States, basically saying “enough is enough.” And this is something that he understands personally. This is a President who has worked on gun violence during his Senate years, as Vice President, and has leadership already from the first couple of days of stepping into this administration. So, we have done — we have done our part. Will there be more executive actions and will we do more? We’ll look into that. We’re always looking to do more. But, right now, we need the help of Congress. We need them to step in and to deal with this gun violence that we’re seeing that’s tearing up not just families but communities across the country. Q You were on — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh — Q Just one more quick one. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, yeah. Q You were on Air Force One. Can you talk about the President’s reaction when he got the news, when more details started to come out over the course of those hours — those final hours on the flight, and as he prepared for his remarks on Tuesday night, which he echoed on Wednesday? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. As you said, Phil, I was with the President on the plane, on Air Force One, because we were coming back from Asia, and I got to see him right before he delivered the speech. Honestly, I will — would leave the speech to stand for itself. You heard his emotion. You heard what he said very, very clearly. And again, you heard the outrage, which we heard — which we saw from some of you on TV, from some of you who — some of your colleagues who are in Texas who were talking to families on the ground, the communities on the ground — the outrage, the sadness, the grief. And that’s what you heard from this President. And, you know, he said a couple of things that I think it’s important to reiterate, as we — as we really think about what happened — is that, you know, there are parents who will never see their child again, parents who will never be the same. And the President said, “To lose a child is like having a piece of your soul ripped away…It’s suffocating. And it’s never quite the same. And it’s a feeling shared by…their family members, and the community that’s left behind.” So that is the Pres- — the President’s focus right now. He’s going to go, clearly, on Sunday to offer his comfort, to grieve with the family and the community. But at the same time, he is going to call on Congress to take action because it’s been too long. And now is the time to act. Go ahead. Q Two quick things. First, apparently the company that sold the shooter his rifles received a $3 million PPP loan under the last administration. Do you know if there’s any effort by this administration to claw that money back? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So I — this is the first I’m hearing about this, so I would have to go back to the team and look into it. Do you know the name of the company? Q Yeah, the name of the company is Daniel Defense — D-A-N-I-E-L Defense. Apparently, they received a, I think, $3.1 million PPP loan right at the beginning. My colleagues have been writing about it apparently today. But if — if — assuming that is confirmed, would the President, do you think, support the idea of trying to claw that money back? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I — honestly, Michael, I need to — to check with the team and just make sure that is actually factual. Q Okay. And then — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But I need to check with the team. Q Thank you. I would appreciate that. And then — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And we’ll get back to on that. Q Okay. And then just, you know, going back to the question that I’m sure, you know, everybody has been asking, which is the, sort of “what is the President going to do and can do,” you talk a lot about the outrage. You talk a lot about that he wants Congress to act. You talk a lot about the emotion. I was in this room — I think a lot of the other people — a lot of people here were too — when the President Obama cried at that very podium hours after the Newtown — Newtown shootings. There have been a million shootings since then, lots of expressions of outrage, lots of expressions of wanting the — wanting Congress to act. They haven’t. I mean, there are people out there — saw several of them on TV today — who say this President needs to do more than all of that. This President needs to declare a national emergency. He needs to create task forces. He needs to create, you know, a czar of gun things. He needs to say he’s not leaving this building, cancel his vacations. Tell Congress — you know, members from Congress to get in a room and not — not leave until they — you know, until they got a solution, and not accept some of the sort of half measures that, you know, are sort of being offered. And I guess the question is: Why — why isn’t he doing of that? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, on the public health — on the emergency, he has already done that. The President has already declared gun violence to be a — to be a public health epidemic. He has done that already. And he has mobilized our federal departments and agencies, including the Department of Health Services, to respond. So that is — has been done. Look, this is a President, as I’ve said already, who has been working on gun violence, gun reform — comprehensive gun reform since he was a senator. And he also was there, as you were talking about — you know, what President Biden — I mean, President Obama had to deal with. He was there. He was his partner in that and took on that — that portfolio of dealing with gun violence. He was there at the table. Q But isn’t that more of an indictment than it is a plus to say that the current President has been involved in this for more than — you know, more than — you know for decades and it’s not being fixed? These things are happening over and over again. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But look, Michael, we are frustrated as well. We are angry as well. Look, I said this earlier and I’ll say it again: This is a President who has done more via executive actions — this is how much of a priority this is for him, because we’re a year into his presidency — more via executive actions than any president in their first year. Q But many — but many of those are not directly related to — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Right. Which is why — Q — the issues of mass shootings. They — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Which — Q — may be directly related — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I hear you. Q — to guns, but — and that’s important — I’m not saying — but — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Right. Q — they’re not directly related to — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, this is why we’re calling on Congress to act. The President is doing what — the President is your — the President is doing what he can — right? — from here, from the White House. And now — and he has said he cannot do this alone. He has been very clear. We — he understands we need to do more, but Congress also has to act. He has done a comprehensive plan on gun — on gun violence. We have listed that out. Every couple of months, we talk about what he’s doing, what executive action he’s taking. And now he is saying, “Congress needs to act.” And — but he has been saying that for some time. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Kristen. Q Karine — Q To the back please? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Give me one second, please. Q I just — I want to follow up on this idea, because the President campaigned on a promise to be able to bring Democrats and Republicans together to get the hard things done. Why has he not been able to bring them together to make this a legislative priority to even get a small measure done when it comes to (inaudible)? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I think that’s what Senator Schumer is trying to do. Q Yeah, but why not do that in the early days of his presidency? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, we have been talking to Congress before these two shootings that have been clearly very public and very devastating and horrific in this past two weeks. We’re doing it now. Look, we know that this is not easy. We’re not saying that this is easy. And the President is doing everything that he can to get this done, but we have — we’re going to continue to call on Congress to act. Q Does this now move to the top of his — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s a priority. Q — legislative priorities, above Build Back Better — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s — Q — above COVID relief? Does this now need to be the singular focus of — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’ve — Q — all of Washington D.C.? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Kristen, I would argue that this has been a top priority from the — from the time — Q But the singular focus for the President and lawmakers? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I’m — I’m not going to list out his — the one, two, or three of priority. What I can tell you is this has been a top priority. Literally, he — he started working on this the first couple of days he walked into the — into — into this office. Q And you’re getting a lot of questions about the czar. I guess, just to ask more spe- — to ask in a different way: Former President Obama appointed then-Vice President Biden to take control of this issue. Are there any discussions — is the President considering tasking his Vice President with trying to get something done on this issue? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, we — we have Ambassador Susan Rice, who is the President’s domestic policy advisor, as you all know, and she is coordinating the President’s whole-of-government approach to reducing gun violence. She has decades of experience coordinating interagency processes in the federal government. There is no one better at bringing department heads to the table to drive the process. She has a team of 12 staff under the Domestic Policy Council who are working on gun violence reduction, taking an interdisciplinary approach that recognizes that we need all sorts of expertise at the table, from mental health to criminal justice to housing to education, to address the issue. In addition to the Domestic Policy Council, there’s the Executive Office of the President, the White House Counsel’s Office, the Office of the Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Office of Public Engagement. All are playing key roles in gun violence prevention, as do several of the federal agencies, which I’ve listed out already. Go ahead. Q Karine, given everything you just laid out, and the President said yesterday he will use every tool that’s available, I guess, why hasn’t he stood up a task force — an interagency task force on preventing gun violence? He has done it dozens of times on everything from COVID to unionizing since the start of his presidency. There’s also an outstanding request, I believe, from House Democrats over the past year that he appoint a national director — I guess a czar, as Kristen said — and start a task force. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, I just — Q Is that something he is going to consider? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I just walked through a whole-of-government approach that we’re taking — that’s how important this is — across departments here at the White House and also with several agencies. We’re talking about the DOJ — Department of Justice. We’re talking about HHS. All very much involved here on — on how we’re moving forward. You know — Q But, I guess, why not make an official interagency task force? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Because we have a whole-of-government approach. We have a whole-of-government approach that I just mentioned, that Ambassador Susan Rice is leading, along with other departments. And — and with that whole-of-government approach, we have been able to put forth executive actions at a level that we have not seen from any other presidents. We have been able to deal with this in a comprehensive way. What we are saying right now is that we need help. We need assistance. The President cannot do this alone. The Congress needs to act. They need to pass legislation so that we can deal with this on a federal level — legislative level. Q Last question: Is the President making any — or is he considering calling or reaching out to the BORTAC agent who was injured in Uvalde while he was protecting students during the shooting? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have any — I don’t have anything to preview or read out for you. As I — as you know — as you know, he’s going to — on Sunday, he’s going to be meeting with community leaders, he’s going to be meeting with victims and family members. And so, we’ll have more to share. I just don’t have anything to share at this time. Okay. I’ll go to the back. Q Thank you. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. It’s hard to — Q I would like to ask you a question about the school shooting. But before that, I want to ask you a quick one about the FDA and the baby formula shortage there. It’s lasted months, and we’re not just talking about baby formula, either. There are infants, children, and adults with different metabolic disorders who are risking permanent, irreversible damage the longer they go without special formulas that are manufactured at Abbott Nutrition. I’m wondering, does the President have confidence in the FDA’s ability to deal with situations like this? And as he’s been monitoring the situation, does he still have confidence in his FDA director? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yes. Yes and yes. So the FDA has an important mission, right? It’s to make sure that the infant formula on the shelf isn’t just available but also that it’s safe. And as a parent, I understand the frustration, I understand the fear of not mak- — not knowing if you have safe and healthy food, baby formula in this case, to — for your kids. Unlike, you know, Republicans in Congress and the previous administration, the President believes that FDA, and particularly its food division, needs to be well resourced to do its critical work and do regular annual inspection. So we have to just take a little bit of — just give me a second here — take a step back. The current shortage exists because Abbott closed, as you — as you know, a facility in Michigan due to safety concerns from the FDA — a facility that was a major producer of specialty formula, as you’re asking me about, right? And so FDA has an obligation to protect the American people, and that’s what Dr. Califf is going to be doing at the helm. Q And then the second que- — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: But — go ahead. Go ahead. You have a follow-up. Go ahead. Q Second question. We’ve been having a lot of conversations about specifics when it comes to mass shootings, whether it’s red flag laws or background checks. Getting down to, though brass tacks, what does the President believe, at this point, is the purpose of the Second Amendment? And does he think that, given some of the tragedies that we’ve seen, that there should be a discussion about, you know, its ultimate purpose and whether or not it’s currently in date? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So the President has been very clear: What he is calling for is commonsense gun reform. That’s it. He’s calling for commonsense gun reform to make sure that if you go to a church, you go to elementary school, you go to a grocery store, that you’re not gunned down. That’s what he’s asking for. It has — we’re not talking about the Second Amendment or — or doing anything to — to get rid of the Second Amendment. We’re talking about making sure — 19 — 19 kids and two teachers died. That’s the second major mass shooting that has — has occurred in two weeks. And that — we’re not even talking about the crime that we see, the gun violence that we see across the country on a regular basis. So we have to make sure that we have gun reform. That’s why we’re — we’re calling on Congress to act. Q Thank you, Karine. Q Karine? Q — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay, okay. Okay. Go ahead, April. I’m trying to stay in the back. Q Karine, I want to ask you about an issue that’s been in the news nationally and internationally: the grains issue. House Foreign — House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Greg Meeks is in Europe meeting with world leaders on the issue. He says that’s all people are really talking about right now, is the grains issue. And as you know, there’s a blockade of the Black Sea. Russia’s blocked — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, the export. Yeah. Q — there’s a blockade of the Black Sea for the exports of grain, and also India is having problems. So the issue is Russia. Will this White House look at relenting when it comes to issues of sanctions against Russia to allow the grains to go out? Because, right now, Meeks is saying the issue is starvation, as well as prices in the grocery store. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I th- — so the question that you’re asking about, if I’m getting this right, is, like, Russia is — has made a proposal to us to — to allow exports in exchange for lifting the sanctions? Q Yes. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And so, you know, we want to be very, very clear here, because this is very important: This is Russia who is actively blocking the export of food from Ukrainian ports and is increasing world hunger. This is on them. Russia should immediately cease its war on Ukraine, which is devastating global food security, and allow the free flow of Ukrainian food. Before Russia attacked Ukraine in February, Ukraine was the world’s largest export of sunflower oil; the fourth largest export of corn, which is what you’re asking about, April, with the wheat; and one of the largest exports of wheat, this — what you’re asking about. Now, there are tons of products sitting in se- — in silos in Ukraine and on ships that are unable to set sail due to Russia’s naval blockade. So — and to be clear about some- — something that has been the subject of Russian disinformation: Sanctions from the United States and its allies and its partners are not preventing the export of Ukrainian or Russian agriculture, including food and fertilizer, nor are they preventing the ordinary transactions that are necessary for these exports, such as banking or shipping. Therefore, even according to the terms of their own apparent proposal that they have presented — presented us, Russia should immediately allow Ukrainian agricultural exports. Q So there is no — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead. Q — there is no conversation at all about lifting sanctions? You’re saying — MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. Q — no? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: There — there is not. Remember, again, this is Russia’s doing. This is on Russia. Q Karine? Q Karine? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Oh, my gosh. Q On formula? Q All the way back. All the way back. (Laughter.) MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Nadia. Q Thank you so much. I have two foreign policy questions. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Sure. Q First, a team from the White House is visiting Saudi Arabia, led by Brett McGurk. Is the President still trying to convince the Saudis to increase the production of oil? And is this part of preparation for the President’s visit to Saudi Arabia? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have anything to preview at this time on — on a — on a trip or a visit from the President. I will confirm that Brett McGurk and Amos Hochstein were in the region to follow up on conversations on a range of — range of issues, including Iran’s disab- — destabilizing activities, ensuring stable global energy supplies, and other regional issues. On your question about oil, you know, it’s — this trip is to review engagement with Saudi Arabia on energy security, as asking for oil is simply wrong — that’s the way that we see it — and a misunderstanding of both the complexity of that issue, as well as our multifaceted discussions with the Saudis. OPEC-Plus will make its own decision as it relates to this, the oil, and as it always has. We are in consultation with all relevant producers about market conditions, including Saudi Arabia. Q I have one more, please, on Syria. The head of the Lebanese intelligence chief have met with people at the White House. He told me in an interview that you raised the question of American hostages in Syria held by the Syrian regime. Can you update us on the case on — specifically on Austin Tice and whether his release is imminent? I know it’s sensitive because you’re talking to the families. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, this — it’s a very sensitive issue. And so, this is not — it’s not something that I want to comment from here, so I won’t. I just can’t. I don’t want to do that just because of — it’s diplomatic negotiations, and I want to leave it in that space. (Cross-talk by reporters.) I’ll come back. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Has the White House detected any mood shift that makes you optimistic after this shooting that something is finally going to happen, that something is finally going to get passed after 19 children were shot down? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, you know, we don’t have our finger on the pulse of — on the mood. What we can do is continue to fight for American families, for American communities, as we see the violence that has — especially the two major — major tragedies that we’ve seen these last two weeks — and call on Congress to act. The President, again — and I’ve stated this — he has taken executive actions over this past year and a half, which is more — again, more than any President has done in its first term. And he cannot do this alone. And so, he — he is going to leave it to Senator Schumer, who is doing the — going through the mechanics of what that’s going to look like moving — moving legislation forward. And so, we appreciate their efforts. We appreciate his effort. We appreciate the Speaker’s effort. And we’re going to continue to have those conversations, as we have been throughout this past year and a half. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Karine. So, after the President visited with families in Buffalo, he was asked, “What more can you do on guns via executive action?” And he said, quote, “Not much on executive action.” As Steve said, there are multiple gun safety groups that disagree with that statement and have pages of — of executive actions that they think the President can take. Does the President have any plans to meet with gun safety advocates? I know when he was Vice President, he had hundreds of meetings in the EEOB in his office there with groups. Does he plan to meet with them? And if not, why not? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, I don’t have anything to preview. I’m not — not at this time. I — you know, I just talked about Susan Rice and her team, the Domestic Policy Council. I’ve talked about the public engagement team and others, DOJ and also HHS. And those teams have been regularly talking to outside experts, outside groups over the course of this past year and a half. That’s how we were able to put forward these executive action, comprehensive effort to deal with gun reform. So, that conversations — those conversations are going to continue. I just don’t have anything to preview for you on this one. Q (Inaudible) on the meetings, but just in terms of that sentiment where — where the President says there’s not much more on executive action that he can do. Does this shooting in Texas change that at all? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think what he is — I — just to speak to that: Look, the President has done a lot. He really has. The fact that I’m able to state this historical fact of how much — how much he’s done in his first year and a half. But, you know, we’re always looking at what else we can do. But we have done — you know, we have done so much. I just read it out — including stemming the flow of ghost guns, cracking down on gun trafficking, and using the American Rescue Plan funds to invest in keeping officers on the beat to fight gun crime and gun violence. And so, we’re going to continue constantly looking at additional executive action so we can move forward. But the President, again, cannot solve this problem alone. He needs Congress to do its job and to act. Q On that point: What role do you guys expect Senator McConnell to play on any sort of bipartisan gun legislation? Does the President plan to contact him or speak with him at all? And what are you hoping for from the Senate Minority Leader? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look — you know, again, we’re going to leave the mechanics to how this gets done to the leadership — to the leadership in Congress, Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi. We have had several conversations before these major shootings that occurred these last two weeks. This is an issue that has been a priority for this President since the moment he walked in — into this office and, as I mentioned, as a senator, as a Vice President, and now as President. So, there’s an array of issues that we talk to Congress on a regular basis. And again, we’re going to continue to have those conversations. Go ahead. Q On the gun issue, just a quick follow-up: Is one of the concerns of the White House that moving ahead with executive actions right now while there are talks in Congress could sink those talks in Congress? Is that why you’re holding — one of the reasons you might be holding back on moving forward with the executive actions? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: No. I mean, we’ve been very clear: It’s time for Congress to act. We cannot do this alone. The President cannot do this alone. So, we’re asking Congress to act so we can have federal laws to actually deal with reforming — reforming — doing gun reform — comprehensive gun reform. Q On the Summit of the Americas, President Bolsonaro of Brazil has said he plans to attend now. AMLO, of Mexico, is still making mixed signals. Can you say whether those invitations have now formally gone out to all of those leaders? And are the governments of Venezuela and Cuba and Nicaragua going to be excluded? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, we’re still considering additional invites, and we’ll share them when — when it — we feel it’s appropriate — when it’s final. And that’s when we’ll share them. I don’t have anything right now to share as far as a fi- — as a list. Q And then just one last one. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Mm-hmm. Q The CBO came out with a report earlier this week that showed inflation was going to remain above target toward the — well, going down but still above target to the end of this year and then into next year. I mean, has the White House, sort of, painted too rosy a picture on how quickly inflation is going to go down, given the projections that came out from CBO this week? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, a couple of things. So, as you mentioned, the CBO report came out yesterday. It projects stable, steady economic growth in the year — in the years ahead, as inflation eases, the deficit falls dramatically this year. On the deficit, the CBO projects that our deficit this year will fall by $1.7 trillion, after it fell by $350 billion just last year. That’s after the deficit increased every single year President Trump was in office. And it is a lower deficit for 2022 than the CBO projected before passage of the American Rescue Plan. That means that our econo- — our strong economic recovery, powered by the President’s economic and vaccination policies also improved our nation’s fiscal position and reduced our deficit. On growth and inflation, CBO projects the economy to grow by 3.1 percent this year and 2.2 percent next year, with core personal con- — consumption exemption [expenditures] — that’s PCE — inflation falling to 2.3 percent by the end of next year. This is the kind of transition from a historic economic recovery — again, steady, stable economic growth that works for working families — that President — that the President’s policies are designed to bring about. So that’s how we’re — how we’re viewing the CBO report. Go ahead, you had something on formula you said? Q Yeah. Can you tell us if there are any more flights planned from — foreign flights for formula? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything to — to preview at this time. But we will have some more information in the upcoming days. Q Is that because you all are working on it and the details are not there or can we expect more flights? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah, definitely, you’ll expect more flights. I just don’t have anything to announce at this time. And, as you know, the second flight landed in Dulles yesterday. The First Lady was there to receive the — the formula and the — and the package that landed. Q And then on the FDA question: You said — you brought up the Abbott plant, and it was kind of put on them. But Senator Patty Murray — today, she told the FDA head that she gives the FDA an “F” on not realizing the warning signs of the crisis. And she also says that they have not given her a plan that she’s requested about how to stabilize a food safety program. So is there anything the White House can ensure that the FDA has been in response to Senator Murray and those on Capitol Hill? MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, let me just first say this — this is — they’re hearing — during the hearing yesterday, Dr. Califf has said, “It’s important we get to the bottom of what happened with the — with the Sturgis facility and the root of what has caused the issues we’re facing today.” He has designated someone to lead an after-action report. But we have to take a step back here and look at the dynamics of what we’re dealing with: We have fau- — four companies that make up 98 percent of the market. An industry that’s — that’s concentrated means more vulnerability to the supply shocks and fewer options for consumption. And because of Abbott’s vol- — voluntary recall, there have been huge disruptions to formula supply of a highly concentrated market. So we have to fix this. So, our focus right now is on getting more infant formula supply to families across the country as quickly as possible, as well running a historic agenda to diversify markets and grow the number of companies competing for — for your business. This is what — this is what will — will help avoid situations like this in the future. But he has said it is important to get to the bottom of this and has appointed someone to do that. Q Thanks, Karine. MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Okay. Thank you, everybody. Thank you.

Herschel Walker's solution to school shootings involves "a department that can look at young men that's looking at women that's looking at social media."

Democrat advisor Kurt Bardella: "The Republican Party has made a conscious decision... that the lives that are lost by guns in America don't matter to them."

MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. Q Hello. MS. PSAKI: Happy post-Thanksgiving, salad-eating days, I guess. (Laughter.) Okay, a couple of items for all of you at the top. As you all know, today is Cyber Monday — one of the biggest shopping days of the year. The President will convene a roundtable shortly with CEOs and leaders of major retailers and grocers to hear about their expectation and preparation for a robust holiday shopping season. We’ve already seen some evidence of that over the last several days. This event will include CEOs from Best Buy, Food Lion, Etsy, Walmart, Mattel, and more. The President will also share a message directly to Americans consumers. Throughout the holidays, products will be on shelves and consumers will be able to purchase what they want and need. The event follows early estimates that Black Friday sales were up nearly a third since last year. In-store sales were up by even more than that. And we’re hearing similar reports from Small Business Saturday. After the remarks, the President will deliver — after the roundtable — sorry — the President will deliver remarks on the administration’s work to strengthen the nation’s supply chains, lower everyday costs for families, and ensure that shelves are well stocked this holiday season. As you all know, the President is headed to chilly Minnesota tomorrow, and he — I wanted to give you a little bit of a preview of that. He will travel to Rosemount, Minnesota, to highlight how the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will deliver concrete results for communities, create good-paying union jobs, and position America to compete and win the 21st century. He will visit Dakota County Tech — a technical and community college that illustrates how similar institutions across the country will train the next generation of workers and rebuild America’s infrastructure. The majority of jobs supported by the President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill will not need a four-year college degree. And the programs provided by community and technical colleges like Dakota County Technical College will provide the training and skill development needed to help workers access the jobs created. Paired with the historic $24 billion investments in workforce development in the President’s Build Back Better Agenda, schools like Dakota County Technical College will prepare millions of workers with high-quality jobs in growing sectors and will help rebuild and transform the work- — the workforce. After visiting the college, he will deliver remarks on how the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will deliver for the American people, create good-paying union jobs, lower prices by improving the infrastructure for our supply chains. And this is also, of course, a part of our ongoing effort to go out there and tell the American people how this bill — this law, I should say, will benefit them. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Jen. A couple of questions on Omicron and one on the Iran talks. I know we got to wrap at 1:45. MS. PSAKI: Yeah. And we’ll give you a note — we will note if he’s running a little bit late. And if you have a little bit more time, we’ll keep going. So, go ahead. Q Great, thanks. So, off the top, the President seemed pretty confident Omicron is going to crop up in the U.S. Can you talk a little bit about when we might expect that to happen, how the White House will inform the public of its spread? And then, I know it’s going to take a couple of weeks for us or the administration to have a handle on all the issues related to this variant. MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Q What’s — why will it take a couple of weeks? Is the President confident in that timeline? Is he all right with that? Or would he like the scientists to speed up? And then, lastly, on boosters — he talked about the need for boosters. Does the White House have any plan to ramp up its promotion of boosters beyond what we’ve seen from the President? MS. PSAKI: Sure. Let me start with the timeline, because I think this is an important piece for the American people to understand what the process is and what the scientists are working on. So, first and foremost, as you all know, we have a top-notch set of — group of scientists across the country already set up to do this work. And they are working in close coordination with scientists and medical experts around the world. And you saw that coordination happen over the last several days. So, you know, one of the things that was interesting to watch — I think should be compelling or encouraging — is that as soon as this variant popped up, it was communicated and coordinated around the world, that information was shared publicly in a transparent manner. That — credit is owed to the South African leaders there. And certainly, the President — to answer one of your earlier questions — is committed to continuing to be transparent with the American people as we see any cases come up in the United States. And Dr. Fauci and other medical experts have pointed to the possibility that that will and could happen. And we will be transparent with the public and track that closely. So, let me go back to how this process works. These experts — our medical experts are primed to do the work around the clock. When you want to test a virus, you need to isolate it from a swab and purify it, and make sure it is a live virus and the virus you intended to study. This takes a couple — some days. This all takes days. Then you need to grow stock of it to test. Again, days to weeks. And once it’s grown, you have to sequence it and make sure it hasn’t mutated again while it grew. Again, days. And finally, you need to actually test the virus with antibodies from vaccinated people. Again, days. The last steps needs to be repeated because we want to make sure we’ve gotten this right. So that is the process that our medical team is undergoing now, because they want to be able to report back some of the important questions and unknowns at this point in time: the efficacy of the vaccines, and what any — if any additional steps are needed to take. And we’re prepared to do those. What the American people should know is that the President is going to do everything — he’s going to always err on the side of protecting the American people. That’s why we put in place the travel restrictions. And we will continue to assess any step we need to take in order to do exactly that. I may have missed one of your questions. Did I miss a question? Q Boosters? MS. PSAKI: Oh, boosters and whether we’re going to promote these further. Well, I would say — you heard the President say this earlier today and we have had medical experts — Dr. Fauci and others — across the airwaves and out there in public over recent days to convey clearly that we know that boosters can strengthen antibodies in — in the American people. There are still tens of millions of people out there who have not gotten their booster. If people feel they don’t know what to do right now, they’re not sure which step they should take, even as they’re un- — there are unknowns — and we acknowledge there are unknowns we’re looking to get to the bottom of — there’s no question that getting a booster will help strengthen people, protect them. And we will continue to project that out publicly. Q And then, on the Iran nuclear talks, as they resume: Robert Malley said signs from Iran, quote, “are not particularly encouraging.” And Israel’s Naftali Bennett said that Iran is trying to, quote, “end sanctions in exchange for almost nothing.” Considering the pessimism expressed about diplomacy there, how much time is the administration giving to Iran before President Biden moves on to other options? Q Well, first and foremost, unquestionably, our best approach here is through diplomacy. That is the preferable approach. So, I’m not going to give a timeline for when that would end. That is what we are going to continue to press forward on. In terms of rumors out there or reports about what is going to be negotiated: Obviously, I’m not going to negotiate from here, not that you’re asking me to do that. But our objective has not changed. It remains a mutual return to full compliance with the JCPOA. This is the best available option to restrict Iran’s nuclear program and provide a platform to address Iran’s destabilizing conduct. That is what we are discussing. Rob Malley is obviously the lead negotiator. We’re working with our European partners in lockstep. And of course, we are going to continue to press toward a diplomatic approach. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Jen. Two questions quickly on Omicron. The President said there’s more work to do in terms of how dangerous it is, knowing how it spreads. I’m wondering if you can elaborate on some specifics in terms of what is in place now, systems that are in place now. How is this going to be tracked and traced domestically in local communities across the country, whether you’re working with governors or states? Or is this an area where there’s still more work to be done? MS. PSAKI: Well, I think what the President was trying to convey is that there are several layers of work right now. Right? I just outlined for all of you the work that is being done, the scientific data analysis that is being done. But I can assure you that our public health — our officials here are in very close touch with — daily — and in ongoing calls with all state health officials and public health partners. Calls were held throughout the weekend with various public health officials at the state and local level. These calls included state, county, city health officials; state epidemiologists; state laboratory directors; and partners for public health organizations. So that is something that was started over the last several days. And we are continuing around-the-clock coordination as well. The CDC is also meeting today with state labs. And throughout the week, we will be engaging with state health associations in order to make sure we are in continued close contact. Q And then, in terms of states and local municipalities — the President was asked this, but maybe you can elaborate more on whether he thinks these — these areas that have done away with mask mandates should reverse them, given this new strain. He didn’t really answer that. So does he believe that — that perhaps the District and other places should go back to where they were with the mask mandates? MS. PSAKI: Well, nothing — it has not changed. The guidance from the CDC has not changed — right? — which the District — which D.C. is abiding by and other localities are abiding by. Our advice continues to be to follow the advice and counsel of national public health experts from the CDC and others. Of course, they’re continuing to assess — as you saw by our announcement over the weekend — our health officials are — any additional steps that need to be taken. So our advice and recommendation continues to be to watch that closely and follow that in order to protect your communities. Go ahead. Q Thank you. I wanted to ask if the White House was reconsidering the decision to release Strategic Reserves, given that oil prices have already gone down with the emergence of this new variant? MS. PSAKI: We are not reconsidering. No. Q Okay. And I was wondering if there was concern on the part of the U.S. government about the lack of specifics from Beijing on its part about its own reserve releases. MS. PSAKI: Again, I mean, we al- — are always encouraging any country around the world, including China, to be as transparent as possible in any of their policy maneuvers. But I don’t have any additional concerns to express today. Q Thank you. MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Q A few on Omicron, and then one on a domestic matter. The President insisted that the travel ban on South Africa doesn’t punish them and the neighboring countries, but South Africa’s leaders say it does. How long does the White House envision that travel ban staying in place? MS. PSAKI: We will continue to assess that. I would say that the objective here is not to punish; it is to protect the American people. As you just heard the President say, this is not going to prevent; it is going to delay. And that delay is going to help us have necessary time to do the research by our health and medical teams, to get more people vaccinated and get more people boosted. And he’s always going to err on the side of protecting the American people. I would note that the difference between South Africa and European countries is that there are already hundreds if not thousands of cases of the new variant in South Africa and not as many — much — a lower number, at this point — in Europe. But we will continue to assess what steps we need to take to protect the American people. Q Are you imposing any new testing or tracing on Americans or green card holders who come from those South — Southern African countries once they get here? MS. PSAKI: Well, we already have stringent requirements in place, as you know: a requirement of vaccinations — a vaccination requirement, and individuals need to be tested three days in advance — within three days, I should say, of traveling. I don’t have any additional requirements or restrictions to preview, aside from the — the, you know, current restrictions on travel from certain countries. Q And there’s this trip to Minnesota tomorrow by the President. You have all said you’re going to continue aggressively traveling and selling Build Back Better, the infrastructure plan. Is there any talk of restricting his travel or his movements at all in the coming weeks? MS. PSAKI: There is none planned at this point. And obviously, we can continue to assess, but we have every intention of moving forward with our plan to sell the President’s Build Back Better Agenda. And obviously, he’s a pivotal player in that. Q And on Build Back Better: Given that Congress is back, what’s the plan this week, in terms of White House engagement with the Senate? And to Republicans who say that this is something that could contribute to inflation — I think there was one Senate Republican who called him “the Mad Hatter” for pushing for this at a time when inflation is off the hook — what would — what would you say to that? MS. PSAKI: Well, on the first piece, I would tell you that our team, senior White House officials have been in close touch already over the last several days on moving our Build Back Better Agenda forward. We had some of our senior officials meeting with the budgeta- — Budget Committee over the last several days; I think they had two meetings over the last several days. We had a number of our senior White House officials meeting with Leader Schumer’s team last night. So, I can assure you we are moving forward full speed to get this done and we expect action on it in the coming weeks. We will continue to press for that. For anyone who’s criticizing, I would say that the way — and we saw, I would say, in recent weeks, even with the votes of Republicans — every Republican in the House went on the record, voting against steps that many economists have said would ease inflation. What — they voted to raise taxes essentially on middle-class families, voted for higher childcare, prescription drug, and eldercare costs, despite claiming they agree inflation and costs are a problem. So, we’re out there, Democrats in Congress are out there — many of them — we welcome Republican support, I will continue to say — taking steps to lower costs. We know that Build Back Better will start cutting childcare costs in half in 2022; make preschool free for many families, starting in 2022; lead to the construction of additional housing units, starting in 2022. What is the Republican plan for lowering costs, for addressing inflation — something they’re very concerned about but they don’t seem to have any solutions for? I don’t know what the “Mad Hatter” reference is, but that feels like it’s more applicable. Q It’s about “Alice in Wonderland.” MS. PSAKI: Okay. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Jen. Before Joe Biden was President, he said that COVID travel restrictions on foreign countries were “hysterical xenophobia” and “fearmongering.” So what changed? MS. PSAKI: Well, I would say, first — to put it in full context, Peter — what the President was critical of was the way that the former President put out, I believe, a xenophobic tweet; and how he called — what he called the coronavirus; and who he directed it at. The President has not been critical of travel restrictions. We have put those in place ourselves. We put them in place ourselves in the spring. But no, he does not believe — he believes we should follow the advice of health and medical experts. That’s exactly what he did in putting in place these restrictions over the weekend. Q Okay. We saw the President shopping indoors on Saturday behind glass that says “face covering required,” but his face was uncovered. Why? MS. PSAKI: The President is somebody who follows the recommendations and the advice of the CDC. I don’t know what the circumstances were of that particular moment. Q He was shopping in a store. And on the glass outside, it said “face covering required,” and we could see him inside and his face was uncovered. MS. PSAKI: Well again, Peter, our recommendation and advice continues to be for people to wear masks when they are required in establishments. I don’t know what this establishment was. The President obviously follows the health — the advice of his health and medical team. Q Is there concern that when the President says today “Please wear your mask indoors in public settings around other people” and he doesn’t do that, that it’s going to make it harder to get people to follow him? MS. PSAKI: I think you see — the American people and all of you see the President wearing a mask every time he comes out to an event, when he’s sitting in meetings. And certainly, he will continue to model behavior he hopes the American people will follow — not for his benefit, but to save their own lives and the lives of their friends and neighbors. Q On immigration: Joe Biden once described the “Remain in Mexico” policy as “dangerous, inhumane, and goes against everything we stand for as a nation of immigrants.” So why is he keeping it? MS. PSAKI: He continues to stand by exactly those comments and statements. And the Secretary of Homeland Security put out a memorandum conveying we want to end this program. But we also believe in following the law. And that’s exactly what we’re doing as there was — there was a ruling that required us moving forward with implementation. Q Okay. And then last one. Since the President said that this administration is monitoring the situation in Waukesha closely, it has been revealed by prosecutors that the assailiant [sic] — the assailant swerved his truck side to side as part of an intentional act to run over as many people as possible. Six people are dead. Some children remain hospitalized. Why hasn’t the President visited the members of this Christmas parade attack? MS. PSAKI: Well, I would say first: As you saw the President convey last week, our hearts go out to this community, to the people in Waukesha; that we’ve been in touch, obviously, with officials there; and we’re all watching as people are recovering. And this is such a difficult time of year for this to happen. It’s a difficult anytime. Obviously, any President going to visit a community requires a lot of assets, requires taking their resources, and it’s not something that I have a trip previewed at this plan- — point in time, but we remain in touch with local officials. And certainly, our hearts are with the community as they’ve gone through such a difficult time. Go ahead. Q So, for the American public that knows that there’s been a rise in COVID in their communities that may be related to the Delta variant, it may be part of this winter surge: If people are experiencing symptoms and they get tested, should they have an expectation that their tests will be in some way compared to whatever we do know about the Omicron variant? Is there a surveillance capability for that kind of study at this point, where in hospitals, testing settings — does that exist now? MS. PSAKI: Well, so, FDA is closely reviewing the performance of existing COVID-19 tests with emergency use authorization against the Omicron variant. Importantly, test manufacturers with FDA emergency use authorization are required to assess their tests as new variants emerge. And that’s exactly, Kelly, what they’re doing now. On preliminary view, which is what we have at this point in time, our science and medical experts believe high-volume PCR tests, which is what you get in a lot of medical facilities, and antigen tests, widely used in the U.S., show a low likelihood of being impacted and continue to work. That is encouraging, but it is something we’re continuing to look at. But, right now, that’s what our early assessment is of our health and medical experts. Q So, in terms of the surveillance ability around the country as cases are positive, what is the President’s view of our ability to catch that new variant if the expectation is it will be here? I mean, is that — is there a big run-up before we’re actually able to do that? MS. PSAKI: I wouldn’t say that. I think it’s something that we are in close touch, as I noted a little bit earlier, with state and local public health officials. We’re in constant contact with them. And we will, again, as I noted earlier, be very transparent about when we see, if we see a case here — which Dr. Fauci made clear that while these restrictions can certainly slow, we don’t — we’re not conveying that they could prevent. Q And does this change the tempo of how often the President will be briefed, related to COVID? Is that changing his schedule for how often he — MS. PSAKI: I think, as he noted earlier, he’ll be briefed on a daily basis. Go ahead. Q The President said that Dr. Fauci told him that he believes that the current vaccines will provide at least some protection from the Omicron variant. MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Q Are you able to explain why that is — why Dr. Fauci would come to that conclusion? You laid out all the steps that have to be taken before we can determine the vaccines’ efficacy. How does the President’s medical advisor get to that conclusion? MS. PSAKI: Well, I would say — this is a question I also asked this weekend. So, not that you need my validation, but I think what Dr. Fauci has conveyed and what he would explain if he were standing here is that there’s no question that vaccines and the boost — and additional boosters help boost up your antibodies to fight the COVID virus — the all — the COVID-19 virus. These are variants of the virus — something we’re tracking. And, of course, as I noted, our health and medical team is doing necessary data analysis to see — to make an evaluation about the efficacy and if there’s anything that needs to be done by manufacturers to make any changes — which, as I think you’ve seen, a number of the manufacturers have come out and said they’re prepared to do if needed. But we’re not predicting that at this point. So, what he’s conveying — as a medical expert, most importantly — is that because these vaccines and boosters help, you know, boost your antibodies, that there’s — that the — that it would provide some protection, if not the protection that we have already to date from other variants. And that’s why this is the step that the American people can take. Q The President, on Thursday, is going to NIH. Is there anything more you can tell us about the purpose of that visit and how it might differ from what we just heard from him today? MS. PSAKI: Sure. So, the President is, as you noted, going to the National Institute of Health on Thursday, and he will — when he’s there, he will put forward a detailed strategy outlining how we’re going to fight COVID this winter — not with shutdowns or lockdowns, but with more widespread vaccinations, boosters, testing, and more. That is something that we had every intention of providing an update to the American people on around this time of year anyway, but that’s what people can expect on Thursday. Go ahead. And I’ll come back to you, Kaitlan. Go ahead. Go ahead, Sabrina. Q Thank you, Jen. So, the President said earlier today that there haven’t been any recommendations to put in place domestic travel requirements. But what we saw with the Delta variant is that once it was already here, it spread rapidly across the country. So why not have any testing or vaccination requirements whatsoever for domestic air travel since people are, you know, going fairly openly across the country? MS. PSAKI: Well, what I think you heard the President say, I think — it was hard to hear the questions, so I think this was a question that was asked, but — was that he wasn’t taking any options off the table, but he’s going to rely on the advice of his health and medical experts. So, I would really point you to them. I know we’ll have a COVID briefing in the coming days. Q Okay. And the President said during a CNN town hall that he was open to carveouts for the filibuster, including for raising the debt ceiling. You said at an October 22nd briefing, he’d “have more to say…in the coming weeks.” It’s been about — it’s been more a month, so what happened? Have there been any decisions around the filibuster? MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any additional update for you at this point in time. Obviously, the President stands by his comments, but I’ll let him speak for any additional updates. Go ahead, Kaitlan. Q I just want to clarify on, when the first case — (coughs) — excuse me — of Omicron is detected in the United States — since it’s been described as, essentially, “inevitable” — is the White House going to announce that or the CDC or — how will that be made publicly available? MS. PSAKI: It’s a good question. I think the most important thing is we will make it available from the government. I’m not sure what source it will come from initially. Q Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to get clarity on that. MS. PSAKI: Sure. Q What lessons did the President learn from the Delta variant that he’s applying here? MS. PSAKI: Well, look, I think that there are a lot of lessons we’ve learned that he’s applying throughout. One is to be very transparent with the public and be direct about where there are unknowns, and be clear that there’s information we have at this point and then there’s information that we still need more detailed analysis from our health and medical experts. It’s also important, in his view — one of lessons learned is to make clear to the public that we have a plan, and we do. And we are in a different place than we were six months, nine months, and certainly a year ago, because more than 82 percent of people in this country — adults, I should say — have had their first vaccine. They’re widely available. Boosters are widely available. Schools are open. And there are steps that have been taken to put us in a different place to fight any variants. So, you know, there are a lot of, you know, knowledge that has been built upon for the President, but also our medical team. And we’re using that to apply that as we communicate and as we work to take steps to fight this new variant. Q Would it have helped if boosters were made more widely available sooner? MS. PSAKI: That’s a difficult thing for me to acce- — to assess, as a non-medical expert, so I would point to them to ask them that question. Q One last question: The President said earlier, “South Africa doesn’t need any more vaccines; they’re having trouble getting it out into people’s arms, and the reluctance is there.” Has South Africa ever turned down vaccines from the United States? MS. PSAKI: They have not requested additional vaccines. They — Q But have they turned down vaccines — MS. PSAKI: Yes. Q — that we’ve offered to them? MS. PSAKI: So, we have sent close to 8 million doses to South Africa, 13 million to Southern Africa, over 93 million to Africa, and 275 million to the world. This is not meant to be a criticism; it is meant to give people understanding of what the challenges are in a lot of countries — is that it’s not just about having vaccine doses as it is about ensuring there’s operational capacity, which is not meant to be a criticism of any leaders in government, but more — it’s challenging to have public health officials in all communities of any country available. And also, there are hesitancy issues in not just the United States, but many parts of the world. So it’s about having not just the vaccine doses, but also the apparatus, the capability, and also addressing vaccine hesitancy — which is, as you know, something that we have worked hard to address in this country. Q Do you know when South Africa had turned down the vaccines from the United States? MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any additional details beyond that. I would just note that we are prepared to provide them with additional doses when they’re prepared to receive them. Go ahead. Q Thank you. Q Thanks, Jen. Just to follow up on Kaitlan’s question, you outlined some of the problems that countries face in vaccinating their own citizens. Does USAID or any other U.S. government agency plan to help with some of those capacity issues, whether on the operation side or just in the hesitancy side? Is there any effort to go beyond just sharing vaccines but actually help with getting shots in arm? MS. PSAKI: Yeah, absolutely. And there’s a lot that USAID is doing to date, and we will continue to build on that. So USAID has provided over $267 million of COVID-19 supplemental support to South Africa — Southern African countries to deliver and distribute the vaccines, reduce coronavirus transmission through infection prevention and control, provide key public health information, improve diagnostics and surveillance, train health workers, strengthen case management capacity, deliver emergency food and critical humanitarian supplies and services, and respond to some of the social and economic effects of the pandemic. As — and that is responsive to the fact that — not just now, we’ve long known that there are challenges beyond having vaccine doses and, if we are going to be the, you know, world leader on fighting the pandemic, that it’s not just about doses, it’s additional capacity as well. Included in that $267 million, $12 million to South Africa on vaccinations alone. And in South Africa, USAID’s COVID-19 vaccine funding has mobilized and trained healthcare workers, established and equipped vaccination sites, supported vaccine service delivery in rural areas, and supported a national campaign to promote vaccine acceptance. And we will continue to build on that. And it’s not just USAID; it’s across government — including PEPFAR, including NIH and CDC — as we work to partner with and work with a range of countries to get the pandemic under control. Q And does the White House have any plans — I know you said that Biden himself — his travel will not be restricted. But in terms of events the White House is hosting this holiday season — the Christmas party, Hanukkah party — are there any plans to restrict size or gathering capacity issues with the — the spread of the new variant? MS. PSAKI: I know that the First Lady’s office put out some information this morning, including the theme of the holiday season, and there will be more details on holiday parties. But there are not, as you know, restrictions that have been announced to date by our health and medical experts. So that hasn’t impacted or changed our approach. Q And just one more on a domestic issue. At a fundraiser late last month, Senator Gillibrand said, “Democrats are terrible at messaging; it’s just a fact.” Representative Susan Wild said that one of her constituents firmly believes the extra money in your bank account from the Child Tax Credit is thanks to the former President. Do you agree with Senator Gillibrand’s assessment? How do you plan to address some of the challenges the party has faced since selling its agenda? MS. PSAKI: Well, I would say, in my experience here — or working communications, it is challenging to sell something before it exists. And now we have a package that the President is out there selling — including a trip to Minnesota tomorrow, including a couple of trips he already took. And our message is very clear and coordinated and united across the Democratic Party. And now it’s the time to do that, which is that the President’s agenda, the Democratic agenda is going to lower costs for people across the country and give them some more breathing room. That contrasts with what we’re seeing from the other side, which is not a lot of ideas in the cupboard. So, I think you’re going to see people out there projecting that message. We now have a package to sell. We’re working to get Build Back Better across the finish line. And the President is going to be out there selling it. But I don’t — I think I’ll stop there. Go ahead. Q Okay. Does the economic team have any projections for what the new variant might do for growth, for inflation, for the job market? MS. PSAKI: Not quite yet that I’m obviously aware of. You know, it is something, obviously, we will continue to assess. But at this point in time, there haven’t been additional restrictions beyond the travel that have been put in place — I mean, as it relates to CDC guidance. So I don’t have any new projections at this point from our economic team. Q And on the holiday spending figures: If those hold and the entire holiday shopping season is higher than it was last year by a lot, does the President expect that the supply chains will be able to handle that? Do you all expect — and are you bracing people for — shortages, higher prices, et cetera? MS. PSAKI: I think what you’re going to hear from the President when he meets with these CEOs shortly and hear from the CEOs who — many of whom we’ve been in touch with privately; many of whom, I think, have been outspoken publicly — is that they have plans in place — the leaders of these companies, the leaders of these retailers — to ensure that the shelves are stocked, that people can go buy goods they want, can go buy presents, and that they can do that online as well. That is the message we’re consistently hearing from them privately, even as we’re seeing projected increases or record, in some cases, sales. Go ahead. Q I have two questions about the vaccination mandate for federal workers. MS. PSAKI: Sure. Q The American Federation of Government Employees praised the administration for announcing today that no unvaccinated worker will be suspended or dismissed until after the holiday season. Why did OPM make that decision? MS. PSAKI: That is inaccurate, and that’s an inaccurate statement which I believe they are fixing or providing an update on. Nothing has changed on our deadline or our approach to the federal employee vaccine requirement. The deadline was last week: November 22nd. And we already have 96.5 percent compliance across a diverse workforce that is the largest in the United States. I can’t assess exactly what led to any confusion, but what — OMB put out a comment — or a public statement this morning, conveying that counseling, of course, would be the first step. That’s long been our approach in our policy from the United States government. But it’s inaccurate to suggest — or any reporting — that we have delayed anything or changed that; the deadline has already passed. We’re working to implement. Q But when you released the vaccination compliance rates last week, you did not include how many workers have requested religious exemptions and how many have received them. Should that information be publicly available for each agency so, for example, we’d be able to see if some agencies are being more lenient or strict on those exemption requests? MS. PSAKI: We did release the percentage of people who were vaccinated, which I believe was 92 percent and then 96.5 percent compliance across the federal government, as well as agency-to-agency numbers so you know in there what the exemptions are. Now, there’s different types of exemptions, right? Some are religious. There are other health exemptions. But agency by agency, I would encourage you to ask the agencies for additional data. Q We have asked. And the VA — we’ve been asking them for weeks to give us that information for the health employees, because they had an earlier deadline to be vaccinated, and they’ve not responded to requests for how many employees have requested religious exemptions and how many have gotten them. And that’s an important distinction. MS. PSAKI: Well, again, we put out quite a bit of transparent data about — that included what percentage of people received exemptions based on just subtraction, as well as what percentage of people were vaccinated. I can see if there’s any additional data we’ll provide. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Jen. You had said there’d be a COVID briefing in the coming days. Will we see more press briefings from the President’s COVID Response Team because of the new variant? And can we make a request for them to come here and do a briefing? MS. PSAKI: Sure. And I believe that — I think they’re going to have one tomorrow or Wednesday. I’m not sure if it’s been finalized yet. And we’ll see if there’s another one planned this week. And I’m happy to make that request as well. Q Great. And the President’s advisors have said — we heard this from the President — that it would take about two weeks to get a full picture of the new variant. Two weeks, then, would be about two weeks before the holidays. Should Americans at this point feel okay going forward with their Christmas plans and travel plans if that information is still two weeks away? MS. PSAKI: Well, nothing has changed on our guidance at this point in time. And what we’re trying to do is be as clear and transparent and direct with the American people as possible, including the fact that there are unknowns here, and we’re working to assess those and get to the bottom of them. But what any American can do who’s planning on traveling or thinking about traveling is ensure they’re vaccinated, ensure they get the booster if they’re not yet boosted, wear a mask, take all of the precautions that are recommended by the CDC. But, again, we really — we rely on and abide by their guidance, and their guidance has not changed. Go ahead. Q Thanks so much. I wanted — the President was — seemed pretty clear that not interested in any type of lockdowns, but is the White House or is the administration encouraging some of these cities, including Washington, D.C., to rethink decisions to lift the mask mandates that they have? MS. PSAKI: Again, we are — we rely on the guidance and the recommendations by our public health officials, including the CDC. And the — and Washington, D.C., based their recommendations on what the percentage of cases were in their — in Washington, D.C., as have other communities across the country. We continue to recommend that any city and locality follow CDC guidance. If they are going to assess and change that, I can’t make a prediction of that. We continue to advise any locality to follow that. Q Would the variant be a reason to reassess that? MS. PSAKI: Again, we rely on what public health officials would advise based on any new variant, which we’re currently assessing, but that isn’t guidance that they have changed at this point in time. Q And lastly, if you don’t mind, is there any more — any deliverables or anything that you can share more about the President’s remarks later today on supply chains? MS. PSAKI: He’s really going to pre- — providing an update after meeting — or, in advance of meeting with CEOs about the work that’s been underway for some time to address the holdups in the supply chain — something we’ve made a great deal of progress on — and to report to the American people — sitting with a number of CEOs through private conversations and what they’ve said publicly — that people can be assured there are going to be toys on the shelves, there are going to be food in your grocery stores. That is something that these retailers have been working on, we’ve been working closely with them on, but I expect that’s what you will hear from him shortly. Go ahead. Q Does the administration thinks that Moderna, in particular, has a role to play here with fighting the new variant? And should it share its IP with South Africa, as South Africa has been urging? MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve been pre- — we’ve pressed, in the past, for any pharmaceutical company to be a productive player in the effort to fight the pandemic. I know you’re not asking me this, but just to be clear: We can’t compel or force anyone to share their intellectual property data. That’s not something we have that’s wr- — not something written into these contracts, which obviously were done prior to the President taking office. But, you know, our broad view, the President’s broad view, is that we all have a role to play — the federal government, pharmaceutical companies — in fighting this virus across the world. You know, we have not only provided doses. The President supports the IP waiver — something that Ambassador Tai is in the lead on — and we are continuing to provide know-how and support, you know, in a range of ways from the federal government. Go ahead. Q Hi, Jen. Two questions about — one COVID related, one on another topic. MS. PSAKI: Sure. Q Today, a federal court issued an injunction pausing the enforcement of the vaccine requirement for healthcare workers in 10 states. What’s the reaction to that ruling? And how does a ruling like this affect the country’s ability to prepare for the new variant? MS. PSAKI: Well, I would say that what we continue to do — we’re obviously going to abide by the law and fight any efforts in court or otherwise to prevent local authorities, officials, leaders in the healthcare industry and other industries from protecting their workforces. Individual companies and healthcare leaders and others can put in place requirements in order to protect their workforce. That’s something that a number of companies, a number of healthcare providers across the country have done and done successfully. So we’d continue to encourage leaders to take steps to protect their workforce. It provides efficiency, it provides security — health security for these workforces, and something we’ve seen be quite effective across the country. Q And on another note, Kevin Strickland was released from prison in Missouri last week after 42 years behind bars for a wrongful conviction. It’s one of the longest wrongful convictions, incarceration periods in the U.S., but it’s uncertain whether he’s going to get any compensation from the state. Does the President think that Mr. Strickland deserves compensation after 42 years behind bars? MS. PSAKI: Obviously the — you know, the case of Mr. Strickland is something that we all watched closely. I don’t have anything — any further comment from the U.S. government though on his — on the discussions with the state. I will see if there’s anything more we can add. Go ahead. Q On the upcoming Summit for Democracy, how is the President planning to approach the leaders? And how or what are his specific actions or commitments to the leaders? And if you can give us more details on the summit. MS. PSAKI: Sure. So, the Summit for Democracy is coming up on December 9th through 10th. It will convene a broad and diverse group of governmental and non-governmental leaders to set forth an affirmative agenda for democratic renewal around the world. It will bring together 110 governments representing diverse democratic experiences around the world, as well as civil society and private sector leaders. And this is an opportunity for leaders to discuss the challenges and opportunities facing democratic governments and how democracies can deliver for their citizens based on the summit pillars of strengthening democracy, defending against authoritarianism, fighting corruption, and promoting respect for human rights. At the summit, the forum will feature remarks from President Biden and other senior U.S. government officials, plenary sessions with heads of state, and thematic sessions with governmental and non-governmental leaders. I’m sure we will have more to convey as we get a little bit closer later this week. But this is something the President committed to and he’s delivering on. Go ahead, Yamiche. Q Thanks so much. What’s the President’s response to Andy Slavitt — who, of course, was a COVID advisor here in the White House just a few months ago — saying that it would be better to provide mass shipments of the vaccine — hundreds of millions of vaccines — to Southern Africa rather than having travel bans? MS. PSAKI: Well, I would say, one, we are providing — we are far and away the world’s largest provider of vaccine doses, vaccine know-how, vaccine support, as I noted — including to Southern Africa — of any country in the world. And the President, on the advice of his health and medical team, put in place these restrictions because he’s going to err on the side of protecting the American people. And even though our expectation is it will slow, not prevent, the movement of this new variant, that will give us time to get more people vaccinated, more people boosted in the United States, and ensure we learn more about this variant. So we’re going to do both. Q And you said, just a few moments ago, there are hundreds of cases in Africa and only a few or as many — not as many in Europe. Could you talk about the science behind that? Is that what the President’s scientists are telling him — that because there are hundreds of cases — MS. PSAKI: Thousands. Q — thousands of cases in South Af- — I was just reading what you said — but, yeah, thousands of cases in Africa and not as many in Europe, that’s the science behind why a travel ban needs to be in place? Because I guess I’m just trying to understand why if one person, let’s say in Germany or somewhere else, gets on a plane and comes to the United States, isn’t that person — just as likely to have the variant end up in the United States? Could you just talk a little bit more about the science behind the reasoning there? MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, I think the larger point, Yamiche, is that it is a much larger spread in South Africa than it is at this point in Europe and other countries. We will continue to assess if there are additional restrictions that need to be put in place. But, again, this is not about punishing anyone; this is about protecting the American people. So when there are thousands of people — or hundreds or thousands of people who are — who have been tracked for a variant in a particular country and a much larger number than another country, you know, obviously the health and medical advisors assess that it would be helpful in protecting the American people to restrict travel from those countries where there is wider spread. Q So, in other words, it’s the scientists that are saying that, it’s fair to say? MS. PSAKI: The President made the travel guidan- — restrictions in place on the pure basis of the recommendation of his health and medical advisors. Q And then one last question: Could you talk a bit about the nuclear talks that, reportedly, President Biden wants to have with China? There are some reports that he wants to sit down and talk about that. Is there any sort of goal there — an arms deal or anything like that — on the President’s mind? MS. PSAKI: Nuclear talks with China? I’m not sure — with the President? Q Yes. MS. PSAKI: I’m not — I’m not sure what you’re referencing. Obviously, he just spoke with President Xi recently and had a summit with him. There’s follow-up, of course, to that at a high level of our national security team. I can see if there’s anything more that would be at his level, but not that I’m aware of. Thanks, everyone.

MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. Q Whoa. MS. PSAKI: Oh, sorry. Q What, you got a holiday to go to? (Laughter.) MS. PSAKI: Whoa. We’re a little earl- — we’re just excited to see you guys. Okay, I realize we’re a little early. So, good afternoon, everyone. Take your time. If people want to shuffle into their seats. I know this briefing is a bit later than normal, but we wanted to make sure we had a special guest who could join us. And Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm is here for, I believe, her third visit to the Briefing Room with us. SECRETARY GRANHOLM: (Holds up two fingers.) MS. PSAKI: Second? Okay. Today, she’s here to speak about the President’s actions to make 50 million barrels of oil available from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower prices for the American people. We’ll turn it over to her. She has a bit of a time hardout, so we’ll — she’ll take some questions and then we’ll send her on her way, and we’ll continue to do a briefing after that. With that, I will turn it over. SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Thanks so much. Hello, everybody. Happy Thanksgiving to all. So, let me just start by saying I was — I felt so honored to have joined the President’s Cabinet because I know his deep desire to make sure that we are doing everything in our power to reduce burdens for real people and to give opportunity to American families. And top of mind, of course, as you have heard today, is making sure that every American has access to affordable energy, both at home and at the pump. And while our Energy Information Agency — and that’s underneath the DOE — it predicts that we are going to turn the corner in 2022, the fact is, right now, that energy prices at the pump and at home are too high. This administration realizes that people are seeing this every single day as they go to work, as they fill their cars with gas. And we also recognize who’s hurt the most from this. Low-income families already spend up to 30 percent of their monthly income on fuel, on energy. And so, any price increase — for them, in particular — causes an undue strain, but it causes a strain on everyone, obviously. So, to be really clear: Obviously, the President does not control the price of gasoline — no President does. But what we’re seeing right now is this global mismatch between supply and demand. Oil production is lagging behind as the rest of the economy roars back to life after the shutdown. So, we, in this administration, are leaving no stone unturned as we examine the market to figure out what’s behind the high prices. And, you know, that’s one of the reasons why the President sent a letter to the FTC last week to ask them to investigate why there is such a huge price difference between the price of unfinished gasoline and then the average price at the pump. And he explained that a little bit in his remarks earlier. But, if historical averages were true today, people would be paying about 30 cents less per gallon at the pump, based upon the differential between unfinished gas and gasoline at the pump. So, he’s asked for the FTC to take a look at this. But this administration has been looking at every single tool that we can use to shield families from the rising cost of fuel. And, you know, that’s why the LIHEAP funds were — is a very important tool for Low Income Home Energy Assistance. The American Rescue Plan has additional funds to be able to have — help families pay their utility bills this winter. And, of course, the President, today, as Jen just said, has announced that he’s directing the Department of Energy to make up to 50 million barrels of oil from the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve — or “SPR” — available. We’ve been having these conversations with other major economies, as you’ve heard. And since that has been happening over the past few weeks, we have seen oil prices fall nearly 10 percent, which is, again, I think, a testament to the President’s leadership on looking for every tool possible to bring down the price. Of course, oil is traded on a global market, and the more countries that can join us, the more the impact will be. In response to the President’s announcement, clearly, the Department of Energy is moving to make two slugs of oil available. One is 32 million barrels from the SPR, available through an exchange. And that means that oil that is taken out today will eventually be replenished to the SPR with an additional premium — a premium of additional oil — when that amount is returned at a later date. And that’s a tool that is very well suited to what we’re experiencing right now, which is the high cost of gasoline, and knowing that, over the horizon, the projections are that the oil prices — and, therefore, hopefully, the gas prices — fall. So, bridging that time is what the SPR is being used for. And then that also means that we will be accelerating 18 million barrels of oil from the congressionally — from congressionally mandated sales that we are moving forward — 18 million barrels for that. So, we’re taking these steps, obviously, because we have to meet the immediate need of affordable energy and protect families from further pain at the pump. Oil prices have not been this high in seven years. And to be clear, the President is prepared to use every appropriate tool to ensure that Americans have access to affordable energy today. Some — you know, because low-income families and middle-class families and working-class people are suffering the most, he wants to make sure that he has got a robust array of tools and he is prepared to evaluate them and use them. But as we look ahead, the situation shows that we’ve got to stop relying on one source of energy, especially from volatile sources. So, we have a short-term issue and we have a long-term issue. Relying upon volatile sources or relying upon fuel from countries that may not have our best interests at heart hurts the American in the long and in the short run. So it’s why we we’re working faster than ever to diversify our energy, to add more clean energy. It’s why the President’s vision of building out clean energy sources like solar and wind and hydropower and geothermal and advanced nuclear — that is the answer. That is the best strategy, long term, to protect American consumers from these energy price shocks. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that was just signed is going to expand our infrastructure, related to clean energy — the electric grids — so we can integrate more clean sources. It’s also going to — that Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, as you know, is going to help build a nationwide electric vehicle charging network. It’s going to help us build those electric vehicles right here at home with $7 billion for the battery supply chain. I was just in Chattanooga yesterday at a virtual — not a virtual — a ribbon cutting for a factory that is producing a component of batteries for the electric vehicle, creating 300 jobs in Chattanooga. That’s just one tiny example of the whole ecosystem as a supply chain that will be created as a result of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and then, of course, the Build Back Better Agenda. Just one other thing: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also invests $21 billion in demonstration projects for technologies, like clean hydrogen and advanced nuclear, that will put people to work in every pocket of the country. And then, of course, what’s really going to help us escape this — these energy price shocks in the long haul is the second part of the President’s agenda, which is the Build Back Better Agenda and — because the clean energy tax credits in that agenda will help Americans save an estimated $9 billion per year in energy costs. It will make electric vehicles and other clean technologies accessible to every American. And historic investments in manufacturing and supply chains as well will put Americans to work making the technologies — not just batteries, but wind and solar and vehicles — the whole array of clean energy solutions. So, economists say that these bills, together, will ease inflationary pressures and grow the economy and create 1.5 million jobs every single year. So, we’re laser-focused on ensuring all of these benefits are realized as we aim to achieve the biggest thing that America has ever done to address the climate crisis. Our administration is deeply committed to tackling this existential threat by transitioning to clean energy while, at the same time, making sure that every American has access to affordable energy. So, thank you so much. I’m happy to take your questions. MS. PSAKI: Okay. Let me just say I think it would be helpful if you guys go sit in some of the seats that are open, if you don’t mind, since there are some open seats. That’d be great. Okay. Josh, why don’t you kick us off. Q Secretary Granholm, thanks so much for doing this. EIA says, domestically, we’re producing about 11 million barrels of oil a day on average. That’s down from 12 million in 2019, pre-pandemic. Why hasn’t domestic production returned in a way that would lower prices? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Yeah, this is a great question — a really great question. We have 250 fewer oil rigs that are functioning today than we did before the pandemic. And yet, the oil and gas industry has leases on 23 million acres of public lands on and offshore, over 9,500 permits have been issued that are not being used. At the same time, the energy industry is making enormous profits. They’re back up to above where they were before the pandemic started. So, they have taken advantage of that moment — the profits — to be able to engage in shareholder buybacks, for example. But we want to encourage them to increase supply. We want supply to be increased both inside the United States and around the world so that we can reduce the pressures at the pump. Q So, just to check: You’re saying that U.S. companies have not necessarily returned production — SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Have not — have not returned to production. They have not. In fact, there are 150,000 fewer workers in oil and gas today. The fi- — it was over 200,000 people who were working in the industry before the pandemic. They have not rehired people. They have not turned on the rigs. They have not taken advantage of the permits that they have on the land that they have. MS. PSAKI: April. Q Yes. Madam Secretary, as you talk about supply and demand and as that was part of the issue for this spike in gasoline prices and energy prices, COVID is here. COVID is part of the bargain. And you just kind of talked about that pre-pandemic versus what is happening pandemic. COVID is expected to stay. How do you marry the distance between what’s happening now with U.S. production -– COVID — and trying not to — to try to keep prices down as prices are going up? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Yeah, April, that’s a great question. This is why what today’s action was so important. We recognize, obviously, that there will continue to be spikes. However, this administration has been very aggressive, obviously, about getting people vaccinated, and that’s the ultimate answer. But as we know and as the Energy Information Agency has projected, the price of gasoline will come down what they project to be below $3 a gallon in 2022 — early 2022 — and continue to ratchet down bit by bit. What we want to do with today’s action is to bridge the gap between the high prices today — try to reduce it as much as we can within our power by increasing the supply that we have access to as we move through — and the market then corrects itself and hopefully increases supply from the private sector. Q And a follow-up. You said your effort is primarily targeting working and low-income families. What do you say to those families who are feeling the pinch right now at the pump? The prices are very high. SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Yeah, no doubt. This is why the President has been really thoughtful about this. I mean, this is — you know, we’ve looked at every angle of what the tools are to him. He feels so strongly that all Americans are feeling the pinch as a result of gasoline at the pumps. And short term, we have to do everything in our power, and that’s why we have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But he also feels very strongly that, long term, the strategy really is to go clean. I mean, right now, the price, for example, of solar and wind is cheaper tha- — in most places in the country — because it’s free fuel — than more traditional sources of energy. So, he wants to bridge that time and double down on investing in clean while creating jobs, but do what we can within our power to lower the cost today. MS. PSAKI: Ed. Q Thank you, Madam Secretary, for doing this. There are various figures about this, so I’m curious if you know: How many barrels of oil does the U.S. consume per day? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: I don’t have that number in front of me. Sorry. Q So some suggest it’s about 18 million, which would suggest you’re releasing less than three days’ worth of supply from the Petroleum Reserve. Why is that enough? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Well, we — what we are doing plus what other countries may be doing — which will be less than what we’re doing because we have the largest amount of strategic petroleum reserves — we believe will be this bridge. I mean, the Energy Information Agency has said, for example, that, in December, the am- — this is what they have projected. Now, again, it’s probably more of an art than a science. Projecting is subject to a lot of different volatility. But that, in December, the price will be $3.19 a gallon, and then, in January, continue to go down. So, this is really a question about a short-term strategy that allows us to make this bridge. So, it’s not — we’re going to not supply all of the oil for three days, obviously. We want to — we will be releasing it over a period of time. And we will have a certain amount that each particular cavern is releasing. But we’re not saying that we’re going to be supplying all oil for the country. We’re just going to try to do what we can to temper. Q And it’s coming over several weeks then, you said? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Mm-hmm. It will be. It’s — well, first of all, we are not going to release it all at once. It will be thoughtfully done over the next bit of time. And it will be dependent on those who bid. So, that takes a little bit of time to do. Q But listening to you just now –- SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Yes. Q — it sounds like you’re saying the price is going to hit a certain amount in December and then, down into January, it will hit a lower mark — SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Yeah, it will be over a few weeks. It will be over — Q So, we’re looking at increased prices continuing through the Christmas season. SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Well, we’re hopeful that this will — because it’s increasing supply and it’s the largest effort ever, we are hopeful that there will be a lid. Although some of this, honestly, has — there has been movement on oil. The price of per barrel has dropped about 10 percent since this conversation started and was out there. So, we’re hopeful that prices will be stabilized and start to move down. We are not saying that there is going to be some dramatic difference. But we also are recognizing — and everybody needs to, I think, be a partner in letting people know that last year was an anomaly because demand during COVID for gasoline was so low that the prices that the prices were so low. And when demand is high, the price goes up. And demand now has exceeded supply, and we are doing our part to make sure that we can alleviate as much of that pain as possible. MS. PSAKI: Rachel. Q Thank you, Jen. Thank you, Madam Secretary. So, bottom line: How soon will Americans see prices at the pump drop? And how long do you expect that to last? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Yeah, I’m –- I — I’m not going to make a prediction about how much and how long. I’m — what I’m saying is that these — this is the largest amount that we’ve ever done. And it won’t happen tomorrow, but it will happen over the next few weeks that people, hopefully, will start to see the difference. Q Before the end of the year? Before the Christmas holiday? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: I think that people will start to see some ticked down over the next bit. But again, we want to make sure that the gas prices at the pump are not being held artificially high for some reason. So, as I mentioned, it is unusual that the price of gas at the pump doesn’t drop with the same — at the same rate as the price of unfinished gas. And they — people would be paying 30 cents less per gallon if that had done it. So, this is why the President sending the letter to the FTC was important. Q Some experts have called it a short-term fix, simply putting a “Band-Aid” on top of a longer-term issue. So, should Americans be bracing for prices to go down just for maybe a couple of days or a couple weeks and then go right back up again? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Yeah, again, it’s hard to predict what gasoline is going to do because it is a global market. But we are doing what we can right now because this is a bridge to a longer-term issue. It’s a short-term pinch. We want to make sure we do what we can to sort of even out the market while these prices come down. And in the long term, of course, the long-term solution is to build clean. And that’s what we’re doing. MS. PSAKI: Let’s try to do like one so that we can get to more people. Alex, go ahead. Q Okay. I’ll just link them together. Is this –- would you say this is like a one-off, or will this become policy for the U.S. to rebalance the market in this way whenever OPEC starts to keep supply tight? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Yeah, I mean, this is an unusual situation because we’re coming out of a once-in-a-century pandemic. And so, we have a very unusual mismatch between supply and demand. I do know that the President has got a lot of tools that he is looking at, and those tools remain on the table. But this is an unusual situation. Q And one thing he mentioned — I’m sorry — in his speech was that “China may do more as well.” And I wondered if you could illuminate a little bit what he might be referring to. SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Yeah, I mean, China will make its own announcement. But I think the point is that the President has been doing everything he can to affect the global market, as well by reaching out to allies who have — I mean, not everybody has a strategic petroleum reserve, and nobody’s is as large as the United States’. So –- MS. PSAKI: Scott. Q You addressed this in your comments, but I wanted to directly ask about it. Are you concerned at all that the short-term message here for the short-term problem of “please drill more oil” undermines the administration with its long-term goal, which everyone talks about as a key goal, of completely transitioning the country toward clean energy? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: No. Q I mean, it’s two very different messages. SECRETARY GRANHOLM: It is — well, I mean, the message is that — we are in a transition, and the transition does not happen overnight. And we recognize we’re not going to flip a switch and be completely all clean because we haven’t done the investment necessary. The President just signed the bill. So, this is a short-term strategy to be — make sure that people are not hurting. And the long-term strategy to make sure that the country doesn’t hurt into the future is to build clean. MS. PSAKI: Monica, last one. Q You just mentioned, Secretary — Madam Secretary, that the administration is still considering some other tools at its disposal. We saw the main one today. What are the other ones actively being considered and under what timeline? SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Yeah, I’ll just say this: That the President has got a few options, and he will be the one to announce. MS. PSAKI: All right. SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Okay. MS. PSAKI: Thank you — SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Thanks. All right. MS. PSAKI: — Secretary Granholm –- SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Thank you. MS. PSAKI: — for joining us today. SECRETARY GRANHOLM: Appreciate it. And happy Thanksgiving, again, to everybody. (Laughter.) All right. Bye-bye. MS. PSAKI: Okay, a couple more items for all of you. And then we’ll try to get around to as many people as we can in the time we have left together. Yesterday, CISA and the FBI urged organizations to remain vigilant to ransomware and other cyber threats this Thanksgiving holiday. We’ve seen in the past that sometimes those threats – there’s an uptick around holidays, so we’re mindful of that. Their — and their advisory is based on that. These — the advisory lists best practices and recommendations for organizations to implement, including multifactor authentication, strong passwords, to identify IT employees for weekends and holidays in the event of an incident, and more. We urge organizations to take a look at this advisory and implement these best practices before heading into the holidays. And this info is available online at StopRansomware.gov. Today, the Department of Health and Human Services began distributing $7.5 billion in American Rescue Plan payments to more than 40,000 rural health providers in all 50 states who serve Medicaid, Medicare, and CHIP beneficiaries. Healthcare providers in rural communities have historically faced significant financial challenges, which the pandemic has only made worse, and these payments are a key part of the administration’s effort and commitment to keeping rural hospital doors open. Also wanted to note, as we gear up for Small Business Saturday this week — go to your local small businesses on Saturday, to give a little plug: We have good news from Etsy, which represents over 5 million small businesses. The Etsy CEO, Josh Silverman, said that Etsy sellers are, quote, “well positioned to meet customer demand.” And according to survey data, Etsy small businesses are, quote, “less concerned about supply chain challenges this year than they were last year.” And Small Business for America’s Future, which represents a network of 80,000 small businesses, says their owners are prepared to handle the increased demands of the holiday season. In addition to these strong reports from small businesses, major retailers like DICK’s Sporting Goods and Best Buy are also ready for Black Friday and the holiday season. Today, the Best Buy CEO [CFO] said, quote, “We are looking forward to a strong holiday season and believe we are [strongly] well-positioned [for] both what tech customers want and fast and convenient ways to get it.” With that, Josh. Do you have any more questions? (Laughter.) Q I have just two more quick ones. MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Q First, what’s the status of FARC? Is it being delisted as a terrorist group? MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update on that. I will — I’m happy to check with our national security team and see if there’s anything we can get to all of you. Q Secondly, Apple is suing the spyware firm NSO Group. The U.S. recently blacklisted NSO. Does the administration have any additional thoughts on these foreign companies operating in the U.S. that might be snooping in on political activists, journalists, and dissidents? How do you protect people who use their phones and make them feel safe? MS. PSAKI: Well, I will also talk to our national security team about this. I suspect we’re not going to weigh in too much, given it sounds like it’s a case of litigation. But I will say, broadly speaking, obviously we’re trying to do everything we can to help prepare and provide guidance to private-sector companies and entities out there — many of whom are providers to customers and provide services to customers — as we head into holiday seasons, where we see upticks in cyber threats or ransomware attacks, to ensure that customers can feel confident and the American people can feel confident. And our view is: That is a role the private sector and the public sector can and should play together. That’s something we’re uniquely doing in this administration that hasn’t been done in the past. But I will check and see if there’s more offer on that as well. Alex. Q Thank you. Me, Alex. Okay. MS. PSAKI: (Laughs.) Or another Alex. There’s another one over here. Either way. Q I wanted to know if the U.S. has been in contact with Saudi Arabia or Russia about this move, and what has happened as part of those discussions. MS. PSAKI: We have been in touch with OPEC member countries. As you know, there’s an OPEC meeting — OPEC Plus meeting coming up next week, and we are certainly aware of that and mindful of that. We’ve been clear that our preference was producing countries take action, but we were clear we would also use tools — our own tools to take action, meaning we were asking for an increase in supply but also made clear in our conversations, we would use our own tools as needed. As you know, we’re not a party to OPEC Plus, and we, of course, can’t speak to them. But we know that the world needs oil supply to meet the growing demand as the world emerges from the pandemic. OPEC Plus has said they will release an additional 400,000 barrels, and our hope and expectation is that they will continue and remain — abide by that commitment when they meet next week. Go ahead, Jeff. Q The reserve was created for emergency purposes. Does the President believe that this is an emergency of an energy sake or more of a political crisis? MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re emerging from a once-in-a-century pandemic, and the supply of oil has not kept up with demand as the global economy has emerged from the pandemic. So, it’s certainly something that we are not just experiencing here in the United States, in terms of the supply issues, but many countries around the world, globally, are experiencing it. And the price of gas is also up around the world. I would note that this is not technically an emergency release but tailored to market circumstances. The Department of Energy has broad authority to do exchanges, which, as you know, 18 million barrels of this sale is, in fact, congressionally mandated and the other set of barrels is through an exchange. So, we don’t even classify it as an emergency. It’s under the authority of the Department of Energy. Q But is this being done primarily to try and stave off a political crisis? MS. PSAKI: This is being done in order to take — use every tool at the President’s disposal to lower the price of gas for the American people. And it follows a step he took last week where he sent a letter to the FTC asking them to look into what we see as a concerning trend, where oil — there’s an increase in supply of oil and not a decrease in the price of gas. It’s something he’s asked the FTC to look into because that’s not aligned with what our expectation or the American people’s expectation should be. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Jen. Just following up on that. We’ve heard, certainly, from some critics who say that this should only be used for supply disruptions. Previously, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer also said that it should only be used not for the ri- — for the rise in prices but just a “collapse” at — in times of an emergency. What is your response to critics who say that this sets a dangerous precedent? MS. PSAKI: I think our response is that: We’re emerging from a once-in-a-century pandemic — we’re hopeful we’re not going to face an emergence from a once-in-a-century pandemic in the future; and that we’re using existing authorities, both in the form of an 18 mil- — moving up the 18 million barrels of sale that is congressionally mandated and also using authorities that the Department of Energy have; and that, as the President of the United States or as the White House or the federal government, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to ease the burden, cut costs for the American people. If there are other proposals out there, we’d be happy to hear them. But the President is going to use every step, take every — use every tool in his toolbox to help address these costs for people across the country. Q And just one quick follow-up to Monica’s earlier question: The White House is not ruling out any possible further action if the prices do not obviously settle down here. Could we possibly see that by the end of the year? Is that — is that off the table? MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re continuing to evaluate. Obviously, we have a whole month left in the year, so I don’t want to give you a timeline from here, but we’ll continue to monitor prices, we’ll continue to monitor supply, and this is obviously a top priority for the President. Go ahead. Q Well, and following up on all of these as well: To be more explicit, do you rule out releasing more from the reserves if prices don’t go down? MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to rule out options from here. Obviously, we’re emphasizing a significant step the President took today; the Department of Energy is preparing to take, as you heard from our guest at the briefing room today. We’re looking at a range of options; we will continue to. But we feel this is an important step — something that, as the Secretary noted, over the last several weeks, as these discussions have happened and as other countries have announced parallel releases, we’ve seen the oil prices go down about 10 percent. But I don’t have anything to predict, preview, or rule out for you here today. Q Just two more quick follow-ups. The Japanese were quoted this morning as saying they weren’t certain yet when or how they would do this. So, who exactly has committed, other than us, to doing this? MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, one, there have been a number of countries who have already announced planned releases, including China, including India, Japan, Republic of — I mean, Japan, I think it has the intention to — the Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom. So, there are a number of countries that either have or will. You know, that’s part of the discussions we’ve had. Q And have you — MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to obviously speak for them. These are just the countries we’ve had discussions with — I should say — to be more specific. Q Yes, there’s no confusion. You are not the spokesperson for the Japanese. MS. PSAKI: No, I have enough on my plate. Q And then, just real quick — you keep mentioning and others have mentioned this letter from the FTC — or to the FTC. MS. PSAKI: Yeah. Q Have you heard back from the FTC? MS. PSAKI: They’re obviously an independent actor, and we will let them speak for themselves. I would point you to the fact that we’ve sent a letter to them earlier this year where we expressed a concern about kind of monopolies or oil — conglomeration of oil companies. That’s something they responded to and took action, but I would point you to them for any intention of their response. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Jen. A couple days ago, President Biden was in Michigan and he was thanking Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib for the “passport” into her district. Now she is supporting legislation that would release all federal prisoners within 10 years. Would the President ever support that? MS. PSAKI: Well, the President did enjoy visiting Michigan and visiting Congresswoman Tlaib’s district. But let me be absolutely clear: The President does not support abolishing prisons. He does not support defunding the police. He thinks measures like that will make us less safe. And he would not support legislation that includes it. What he does support is effective and accountable community policing and a fair justice system. And he supports investment in public health, education, the environment, housing, community-based programs. But he knows there are steps — and he believes there are steps that we know are going to reduce crime and make our neighborhoods safer, but that is not one of them in his view. Q Another topic: Would the President ever apologize to the acquitted Kenosha shooter, Kyle Rittenhouse, for suggesting online and on TV that he is a white supremacist? MS. PSAKI: Well, let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. This is about a campaign video released last year that used President Trump’s own words during a debate as he refused to condemn white supremacists and militia groups. And President Trump, as we know from history, and as many of you covered, didn’t just refuse to condemn militia groups on the debate stage, he actively encouraged them throughout his presidency. So, you know, what we’ve seen are the tragic consequences of that when people think it’s okay to take the law into their own hands, instead of allowing law enforcement to do its job. And the President believes in condemning hatred, division, and violence. That’s exactly what was done in that video. Q But if — you’re saying that it was just a campaign video; it wasn’t. The President also gave an interview where he said this: “[Rittenhouse] was part of a militia coming out of… Illinois. Have you ever heard this President” — referring to Trump — “say one negative thing about white supremacists?” These are all things — none of this was proven in the trial. And Kyle Rittenhouse is saying that the President had “actual malice” in “defaming [his] character.” Is that what happened here? MS. PSAKI: The President spoke to the verdict last week. He has obviously condemned the hatred and division and violence we’ve seen around the country by groups like the Proud Boys and groups that that individual has posed in photos with. But beyond that, I’ll leave it to his comments around the verdict. Q Okay. And then just one more topic. What message does it send to the middle-class Americans President Biden says that he’s trying to help, who are struggling this week to cover the cost of the most expensive Thanksgiving ever, that the President is going to take a few days off at a billionaire’s compound in Nantucket? MS. PSAKI: Well, first, I would say — I don’t know if you’ve cooked a turkey before, but a 20-pound turkey is a pretty big turkey. I think we can all agree. They’re about one dollar more. So, not to minimize that — any increase in prices is something the President is concerned about, as is evidenced by his announcement today and as his efforts to push forward on additional relief for the American people. But I just want to be clear that there are abundance of turkeys available. They’re about one dollar more for a 20-pound bird, which is a huge bird if you’re feeding a very big family. And that’s something that, again, we’ve been working to make sure people have more money in their pockets to address it as the economy is turning back on. Q But the President said today that he was “sent here” to look out for these working- and middle-class families who are strained right now. So, what should they read into him leaving now at this time of great personal and financial hardship for so many to go to Nantucket for the week? MS. PSAKI: Well, first, I would say, Peter, that I hope you’re spending time with your family. I’m spending time with my family, and I hope everybody in here is spending time with their families. This is a time to put politics aside, spend time with your loved ones, and talk about what you’re grateful for. I will also tell you, from spending some time working for this President and a past President, that: You are President no matter where you are. He will conduct his work from wherever he is, on any vacation, on any time he is in Delaware, at Camp David, or wherever he may be spending time with his loved ones. He has secure phone capabilities. He has staff traveling with him. And I think the American people can be assured that he will continue to press to lower their costs and ensure they have more breathing room. Go ahead, Monica. Q Jen, I’m curious — because of the President’s comments about the deadly events in Charlottesville being an inspiration for his decision to run for President: Has he been following the Unite the Right trial? And is there any White House reaction to the partial verdict today? MS. PSAKI: I don’t have — I’m not going to comment on it until there’s a final verdict or the — nor will the President. I will say, obviously, it’s been covered extensively on television, so I’m sure, like many people, he has seen some components of it as he’s gone about his — his duties from the Oval Office. But I would just reiterate, broadly speaking, that the President has spoken to his concerns about the division that we’ve seen in the country, spurred over the last couple of years: the allowance of violence, in some cases; the fact that white supremacists have been able to run freely around the country in moments, in protests. And that’s of concern to the President. That is one of the reasons why he ran. And addressing racial injustice — certainly not something that will be done through any verdict, but — is central to his objective as President. Q And on COVID, we’re seeing numbers again with cases rising, a thousand people a day are still dying heading into what many experts fear could be a winter surge. Is the message from the White House a little bit shifting more to “the virus is here to stay” and going from “pandemic” to “endemic”? But heading into the holiday season, where so many are traveling again, where it is so different from last year, as the President has noted, what can you tell people who are a little alarmed by these growing numbers? MS. PSAKI: Well, first, I would encourage people — we would encourage people to look at some other numbers that are very encouraging, which is: Last year, we had 250 million adults in this country who were unvaccinated — because the vaccines weren’t approved yet — and highly at risk of illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID. People were not gathering with their family members last year. This year, we’ve cut that number to 50 million adults who remain unvaccinated, given 82 percent of adults are now — have received at least one dose. We now have vaccines that are accessible. They’re free. They’re convenient. They’re lifesaving. And we now have vaccines for kids, as people are thinking about gathering with their children and young ones or grandchildren, et cetera. So, things are certainly different than they were one year ago. And boosters are readily available. And we’ve dramatically scaled-up testing and millions of rapid tests. So, I would think — we would encourage people — I would encourage people to look at the fact that: Now that vaccines are readily available — something 82 percent of the country — adults have taken the opportunity to get vaccinated — you’re nine times more likely to be hospitalized or die from the virus if you’re not vaccinated. We are in a different place than we were a year ago. And certainly, we have more work to do, but we’re going to continue the fight against the virus. Go ahead, Steven. Q Back on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. MS. PSAKI: Sure. Q The President made note of the fact that this is the largest release ever — larger than after Hurricane Katrina, larger than after the 1991 Iraq War. The Energy Secretary, in response to Rachel’s question, was not able to explain what impact this might actually have for drivers. So, how did you arrive at 50 million barrels? What — where did that number come from? It’s the largest release ever. Why? What’s the goal? MS. PSAKI: Well, as I noted a little bit earlier, Steve, 18 million barrels of the sale was, in fact, already congressionally required, and the President is accelerating that, which is important for people to understand. Yes, it’s a part of the largest release, but he just moved it forward several — a couple of months to provide immediate relief as we work to ensure there’s a bridge. The remaining 32 million is from — in the form of an exchange: putting barrels on the market now in exchange for their return in the future. And the exchange is a tool matched to today’s specific economic environment. But again, I would reiterate that we’re facing a once-in-a-lifetime recovery from a pandemic which has impacted us in many ways, including the cost of some goods around the world, including the cost of gas. And increasing the supply — something we’ve asked OPEC Plus member countries to do and we will continue to press them to do. But we’re going to use every tool at our disposal to do that. And the President took this step because he’s going to do everything he can to lower costs for the American people. He knows that the price of gas is something that is impacting people as they go into the holiday season, as they’re working and looking at their budgets, and that’s why he took this significant step today. Q I’m still curious how 50 million was achieved — was reached. But I want to ask you also — to follow up on Alex’s question about China. MS. PSAKI: Yeah. Q The President made a point of saying that India, Japan, South Korea, and the UK would release. But he also said, “China may do more as well.” Was he intending to separate China? Is China not publicly committed? You just said it a minute ago. I’m just trying to get some clarity. MS. PSAKI: They announced last week they — that they were intending to, Steve. Q So, why would the President separate China when he said that India, Japan, South Korea, and the UK would, but “China may do more”? Is — was he not wanting to speak for China? MS. PSAKI: He doesn’t want to speak for any country. But again, you know, he’s had conversations — as our national security team has — with many of these countries. And we’ll let them speak for any announcements they have to make. Go ahead, Alex. Q Did President Biden bring up this topic with President Xi when they spoke? MS. PSAKI: They did talk about it, which I think was in the readout we issued afterwards. Q Okay. But he specifically asked him to help out with this effort? MS. PSAKI: They did talk about the supply out there. I’m not going to detail it any further than that. Q And secondly, on Ukraine, just a little bit more: Do you have any updates on how the White House is assessing the situation there? Are there any plans for a phone call, for example, with President Putin? MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything to preview along those lines at this point in time. I will reiterate that we remain in very close contact with our European partners at — from the State Department, a range of levels from the President’s national security team. While I have nothing to announce or preview today, I would just remind you all that we announced we’ll be sending more than $60 million in security assistance during President Zelenksyy’s visit to the United States earlier this year as part of the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership agreement. And we have spent more than $400 million overall this year to support Ukraine’s sovereignty. So, I just wanted to note that, given that with some time ago. But that is something that we had committed to during that meeting. And we have repeatedly demonstrated, under this President’s leadership, that we are willing to use a number of tools to address harmful Russian actions. And that is something we will continue to convey, obviously, through direct conversations and in coordination with our European partners as well. Go ahead. Q Just to follow up on that Ukraine question. MS. PSAKI: Sure. Q Ukrainian officials have publicly called for more U.S. weaponry to help them defend themselves. And is the administration willing to do that? And would the U.S. provide military advisors to aid the Ukrainian government? MS. PSAKI: We are in close touch with the Ukrainian leaders, but I don’t have anything to preview today. Go ahead. Q White House officials have previously said they think inflation is transitory. Is that still the view of the White House right now? MS. PSAKI: That’s the view of the Federal Reserve and outside economic experts, most importantly. Q And secondly, in terms of gas prices, you’ve talked a lot about bringing them down. Is there a specific price per gallon at the pump that the White House is aiming to get to or would be satisfied to see? MS. PSAKI: We just want to continue to lower it, and we’ll look at a range of tools to do that. I would note that because — as Secretary Granholm touched on, because of the discussions around the parallel release of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we did see a 10 percent decrease in the price of oil. That has not translated to a reduction of the price of gas, hence the President sending the letter to the FTC. And I would note that record oil profits and oil CEOs bragging about the profits they make from the price of gas certainly sends the message that something isn’t quite right there. So, point is: There’s a number of steps that the President will continue to press on and push on, but I’m not going to make a prediction of where it will be. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Jen. Two question, if I may. The State Department is urging Americans to leave Ethiopia now that commercial flight remain available. “You have to leave now. Now is the time to leave,” two State Department officials told — said yesterday. The military will not be deployed to — for mass evacuation. Should we consider that diplomacy has failed or is failing in Ethiopia? MS. PSAKI: The President — the State Department is simply conveying directly to American citizens who wish to depart that they need to do so while commercial airlines are still up and functioning. Q One — one — MS. PSAKI: I got to just keep moving because we’re going to run out of time. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Jen. Q Jen, I’m sorry, one quick question — MS. PSAKI: No, no, I have to just keep going on. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Jen. You announced yesterday that 95 percent of federal workers who are covered under the President’s COVID vaccine requirement have complied. I’m curious about which agencies have the highest compliance rate and which have the lowest. MS. PSAKI: The good news, if you’re working tomorrow, is that OMB is going to release a chart that gives you all of this sort of data tomorrow. (Laughter.) They just needed a little bit of time to compile everything together. But we’ll have that out tomorrow, and you’ll see for yourself. Q Okay. And one more thing: Do you know if that data will specify how many people at each agency requested a religious exemption and how many got one? MS. PSAKI: There are exemptions for a varie- — not just religious exemptions. There are a couple of reasons for exemptions. That is all done through HR. I haven’t seen the exact chart or data so I can’t preview that for you, but we will be putting that out through OMB tomorrow. Go ahead. Q Just to look ahead on this issue of gas prices: When OPEC Plus meets next week, is the White House still calling on them to increase production to ease pressures in the longer term? Is that the (inaudible)? MS. PSAKI: Well, as I conveyed earlier, they’ve con- — they have committed to, I believe I said, about 400- –- if I’m correct here, let me just get it right –- release an additional 400,000 — barrels, I assume. And our hope and expectation is that they will continue and remain — abide by that commitment. Q How worried are you that this announcement today could backfire and actually get them to say, “We’re going to — we’re not going to increase production at all”? MS. PSAKI: Again, we are communicating directly with them. I’m not going to speak for them. They — as you know, they have a meeting next week. And we have been in close contact with them for months now conveying and advocating for an increase in supply –- a release of supply to meet the demand. But also, we have been very clear that we would take actions, if needed, as well. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Jen. A month ago, you said that the President would, in the coming weeks, lay out options to fundamentally alter the filibuster. Can you give any update on that? MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update. He spoke to this, as many of you know, at a CNN town hall a couple of weeks ago, himself. But I don’t have anything in addition to preview. Q Do you know –- you said “coming weeks,” so should we expect something by the end of the year? Or –- MS. PSAKI: We’ll see. We’ll see. We have a few more weeks in the end of the year. Go ahead, April. Q Jen, you spoke previously about the divisions in this nation as it relates to recent trial verdicts. What does this administration have to offer or say as we await the verdict in Georgia in the McMichael, McMichael, Bryan case? MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to speak to any case that is — where there has not been a verdict. What — and I’m sure we will have a comment once there is. But I will say broadly, April, that, of course, you know, as we’ve watched over the last — not just last year — obviously, long before that — last few years and we have seen violence on the streets. We’ve seen people lose their lives. The President spoke himself — has spoken himself many times to the case of Ahmaud Arbery. And while we’re not going to speak to the particular — an ongoing trial, I would point you to a long array of comments he’s made about his horror in that case. And as was asked earlier, you know, one of the reasons he ran for President, as you’ve all heard him speak about, is to help bring the country together, to help address racial injustice in this country –- help do that through whatever role the federal government can play. Doesn’t expect that to be all done in the first year, but we’re going to continue to press forward. Q Thanks, Jen. MS. PSAKI: Okay, great. Q Quick, Jen — MS. PSAKI: Okay, Francesca, go ahead. One more. Q Thank you very much, Jen. President Biden, you, other members of the administration have repeatedly told Americans that wages are up, unemployment is down, the shelves are being stocked, and that the administration is working to address rising prices, including in a speech that the President gave today. So why does the White House think that its messaging isn’t convincing many Americans that the economy is getting better? MS. PSAKI: Well, I’ve spoken about this a little bit in the past, but I would say that, one, we’re still in the middle of fighting a global pandemic, and people are sick and tired of that; we are too. And it impacts how people are living their lives, their fear about sending their kids out the door, about going to work. It’s impacting –- the economy is just turning back on again, and we’re seeing the impacts of that, whether it relates to the ability the — unsticking the bottlenecks in the supply chain or it relates to the rise in gas prices. The important thing for the American people to know and understand is that the President has a plan to address these issues, whether it’s the action he took today to take one of the steps, in his view — we can take to lower the price of gas; or the steps he’s taken on anti-competition; the steps he’s taken to address meat conglomerates who are making record profits in rising the price of meat out there; or whether it’s the Build Back Better Agenda that will help lower costs for working people. And what I think you’re going to see us do more and more is draw the contrast. We have a plan to address these issues — lower prices for the American people. And we’re not seeing a lot of ideas on the other side. So that’s what you’ll preview for when we come back from Thanksgiving. Everyone have a happy Thanksgiving with your families. I look forward to seeing you — or I’ll be here tomorrow, but we won’t have a briefing. But, all right. Bye, guys.

MS. PSAKI: Good afternoon. Okay, a couple of items for you today. Not much going on around here, obviously. You’ve all seen the President’s statement we issued this morning on the House passing his Build Back Better Agenda for the middle class, which came just three weeks after the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal also passed. And since this came through today, I wanted to just highlight and note for the American people a couple of the big benefits that are in this package that we’re looking forward to moving through the Senate. Today, families pay an average of $8,600 per year on pre-K. Under the President’s plan, many of them — most of them — will pay $0. The average family pays 13 percent of their income on childcare. Under the President’s plan, no middle-income family will pay more than 7 percent of their income. Two parents with one toddler earning $100,000 per year will save more than $5,000 per year. Under the President’s plan, a family of four earning $80,000 per year will save nearly $3,000 per year — or $246 per month — on health insurance premiums. With this plan, countless Americans will save countless Americans thousands of dollars by negotiating prescription drug prices — for example, limiting cost-sharing for insulin products to make sure they’re no higher than $35, starting in 2023. Insulin is essential for many people around the country. It will cap it at $35. That is a big deal. And one of the biggest financial burdens on families is housing costs, as we’re seeing around the country. Build Back Better will take historic steps to reduces those costs by helping to build, rehabilitate, or preserve 1 million homes. Finally, it also reduces the deficit by $112 billion over 10 years. And several economists and analysts from leading rating agencies like Fitch Moo- — Fitch Ratings and Moody’s Analytics have made clear the President’s agenda will not contribute to higher prices. Their findings echo 17 Nobel prizewinners in economics who have already stated they believe the Build Back Better Act will “ease longer-term inflationary pressures.” Also wanted to provide a brief update on COVID. Obviously, a lot going on in our efforts to take on the pandemic. This morning, as we all saw, the FDA authorized boosters for all American adults six months after primary vaccination. The CDC will make the final clinical recommendation, we expect, this afternoon. This is a very encouraging step to further protect Americans, especially as we enter the winter months. If you’re one of the approximately 100 million people in this country already eligible for a booster, our recommendation is that you get the extra protection afforded by a booster as soon as possible. They are widely available across the country and accessible. Thanks to the President’s operational planning since August, over 32 million Americans already have their booster, and boosters are available at over 80,000 locations. Second, we’re making strong progress protecting kids, with already 10 percent of 5- to 11-year-olds getting their first shot. Kids that have gotten vaccinated this week will be fully vaccinated by Christmas. And we’re continuing to make a big push to reach parents and kids through visits to one of our 30,000 sites for kids by the First Lady, innovative partnerships with DC Comics, and a White House visit from Ciara earlier this week. Third, we’ve shipped over 250 million vaccines to the world — more than all countries combined — and made an announcement of a historic opportunity for mRNA manufacturers to receive funding and resources from the U.S. government to produce an additional 1 billion doses next year. Last, over 80 percent of 12-and-older Americans have gotten one shot. This is a huge number. We’re continuing to push for more vaccinations. And finally, our view — the recent polling will show you — that vax requirements work. And recent polling indicates 60 percent of companies are moving forward with a vaccine requirement, which is a big step forward. Just another little update of something happening here today. Today, first week in the job, our Infrastructure Implementation Coordinator Mitch Landrieu and the seven Cabinet members and other agencies responsible for implementation as outlined in the executive order — Departments of Commerce, Energy, Transportation, Labor, Interior, Agriculture, EPA, and OPM — held their first meeting. Also attending was Brian Deese, who is co-chairing the Task Force, senior staff from across the White House — Gina McCarthy, Susan Rice, Louisa Terrell, Evan Ryan, and Jason Miller. I have certainly invited him to speak to all of you, and he has conveyed to me he is putting his head down and getting to work, as the President has asked him to do, but will eager — be eager to speak to you probably sometime after Thanksgiving. Finally, one note. We gave a lengthy update — don’t worry, I will not do that again — on supply chains yesterday. Today, we have new data from Freightos, a leading freight indicator, that I just wanted to highlight that shows shipping prices have declined by almost 25 percent over the past two weeks — specifically the price for shipping — of shipping a container between China and the West Coast, which has declined for two straight weeks. And, of course, this reduction in prices and shipping costs helps ensure that we are cutting costs for consumers as well. I guess last thing here is the Week Ahead. We did announce earlier this week that the President and First Lady will travel to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to celebrate Thanksgiving — or “Friendsgiving,” as some people call it — with service members and military families — thank them for their service — as part of the Joining Forces initiative. That is on Monday. On Tuesday, the friend — the President, the First Lady, the Vice President, and the Second Gentleman will participate in a service project in Washington, D.C. And later that day, the President and the First Lady will travel to Nantucket, Massachusetts, where they will remain for the Thanksgiving holiday. Aamer, why don’t you kick us off? Q Thanks. Now that the bill has passed the House, can you talk a little bit about the game plan in the days and weeks ahead to get it through the Senate? And, I guess, in the media, does the President have plans of talking today or over the weekend to Senator Manchin and Senator Sinema? And just, if you could basically let us know what’s the plan going forward to get this through to the endzone. MS. PSAKI: Well, the President is absolutely committed, of course, to getting this through the Senate, signing it into law, and ensuring these impacts, these cost-cutting measures are put in place into law as soon as possible. A number of these steps, including cutting childcare costs, could have an impact early next year if — once we get this through the Senate. We have been — we have remained in touch, even as we’ve been working to get it through the House, at a high senior staff level — senior White House officials — with Senator Sinema, Senator Manchin, other members of the Senate, as we know that is the next important step here. And that will continue. And I’m sure the President will engage when that is — when it is the right moment to do that with them as well. But I don’t have anything to predict for you over the next couple of days. Q The President announced today his intention to nominate two new members to the Postal Service Board of Governors. Is he looking to remove Postmaster Dejoy? MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first say we are, of course, deeply troubled — continue to be deeply troubled, as many Americans are, by the early reporting on Postmaster General DeJoy’s potential financial conflicts of interest and take serious issues with the job he’s doing running the Postal Service. As you know, the President does not have the authority to fire the Postmaster General; it’s ultimately up to the Board of Governors by majority. So what was announced today is the President’s intention to nominate two leaders to the bipartisan United States Postal Service Board of Governors to replace outgoing Governors Ron Bloom and John Barger. Both Derek Kan and Dan Tangherlini are experienced public servants. And certainly, again — just to reiterate — it’s up to the board to make a determination about leadership, but we have continued concerns about — about the Postmaster General’s leadership. Go ahead. Q Yes, I wanted to ask a few questions about oil. Has the U.S. heard back from China, Japan, South Korea, and India on a coordinated release of emergency stockpiles? MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update to provide to you today. I would reiterate for those who weren’t following this as closely: We have been in touch with a range of officials and leaders from countries — including China, including other countries around the world — that are oil producers about ensuring there is adequate supply out there, but I don’t have any update for today. Q Okay. Is Biden considering using authority under a 2015 budget bill to declare an emergency and to limit or stop exports of oil for up to a year? MS. PSAKI: We have a range of options at our disposal, but I don’t have any new ones to introduce to all of you today. Q And finally — I’m sorry — any message for OPEC ahead of its December 2nd meeting? MS. PSAKI: Well, our message continues to be — privately as well as publicly, of course; it’s always good when it’s consistent and important — that we want to ensure that the OPEC member countries and OPEC as an organization meets the demand needs that are out there with the adequate supply. That is something we’ve pressed them on in the past. And I don’t have any new conversations privately to convey, but I’ll see if there’s more we can report to all of you about the meeting. Go ahead. Q We know that the President was at Walter Reed earlier today. Can you provide an update on how the physical went and the colonoscopy as well? And what information will you be releasing? MS. PSAKI: We will have a comprehensive written summary that will be released to all of you later today as soon as it’s finalized. I’m not going to get ahead of that. It’s, of course, done by medical experts, which — as is appropriate. But we will release that out to all of you later this afternoon. As I noted in a tweet — I hate to reference that, but here we are: Earlier this morning, the President had a conversation with Vice President Harris as well as Chief of Staff Ron Klain at around 11:35 this morning. He was in good spirits. He resumed his duties as President at that point in time. There was also two sets of letters that we released publicly around — one was at 10:10 a.m., the other was at 11:35 a.m. — about the transfer of power under the 25th Amendment and the resumption of power. So — but that’s a reflection of how he is and how he is feeling. Q Okay. And then if I could, the vaccine mandate for the civilian federal workforce is set to take effect on Monday. Can you provide us an update on what the implementation is going to be like? And are there any concerns about possibly having staffing shortages because of that? MS. PSAKI: There are not. Let me give you just an update on this overall — again, for people who haven’t been paying as close attention. So, November 22nd is the deadline — not 12:01 a.m. that morning, but by the end of the day. But we don’t see it as a cliff. We’ll be providing more guidance in days to come. We are the largest employer in the country. So it is — the U.S. government that is, of course — so it’s going to take some time to collect the data, even as it comes in that day. And once we have gone through the data and have that, we will share that with all of you publicly. But especially as we know, we will — what we have seen is there is a surge in attestations and vaccination as we get closer to the deadline, which is certainly encouraging. But we want to have the final data Monday, through the day, before we release that publicly. It’s going to take a little bit of time to process. But, no, we do not anticipate facing any governmental operational disruptions due to this requirement. And, in fact, the requirement will avoid disruptions, in our view, in our labor force because vaccinations help avoid COVID. Q And how will the boosters for Moderna and Pfizer, which are pretty close to being approved — how will that factor into these vaccine requirements for federal workers? MS. PSAKI: Well, we abide by the CDC guidance — which we follow it and will continue to — which is two shots of an mRNA vaccine or one J&J shot; that has not changed. And so we’re not going to get ahead of any changes they could make in the future. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Jen. A couple of questions on the Build Back Better plan and also how things went last night in the House. Does the White House have any response to Representative McCarthy’s eight-hour speech last night that delayed the vote? MS. PSAKI: Well, Kevin McCarthy said a lot of words — a lot of words; I just want to emphasize that — over the course of eight and a half hours. For those of you who didn’t watch all of it: He mused about — he shared his wish that he could have been in Tiananmen Square. He mused about whether or not Abraham Lincoln was actually assassinated. He shared his whole his hope or his thought or dream — I’m not sure — about picturing America in a swim meet after World War Two against every other country. But in eight and a half hours, what he did not talk about was cutting the cost of childcare, cutting the cost of eldercare, what we were going to do around the country to bring more women into the workforce, to protect our climate, and that — for generations to come. That, in our view, tells you all you need to know about Kevin McCarthy’s agenda and what he supports. Q Okay. And Senator Manchin — on the topic of Senator Manchin: He says he’s still not decided on this bill. Is there anything that the White House is doing to get him to come around on the bill? I know you mentioned this a few moments ago, but is there anything specific that you guys are doing to kind of convince him? MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve been in close touch, as you all know, with Senator Manchin for several months now. That will continue. That can include answering questions he may have, hearing concerns he may have. We are in touch with him, with his staff through senior White House officials at this point in time. And we believe he’s been operating and negotiating in good faith. That has been our experience to date. So now, as everyone knows, the next step is getting it through the Senate. That’s what our focus will be on. And I expect we’ll continue the discussions and negotiations as they have occurred to date. Q Could you tell us when was the last time the President spoke with him? MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update on that. But I would note that a lot of this work happens — and I think members of Congress and their staff will tell you this — at a staff level. It’s answering questions. It’s following up. The President has had him here a number of times, as you certainly all know well, but I don’t have an update on the last call. Q Thank you. MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Q Following up on that, the President has made it clear how important paid leave is to him in this bill. Would the President sign the Build Back Better Act if paid leave got dropped from the bill? MS. PSAKI: Well, you’re right that the President absolutely wants to see paid leave in a final package. That’s why he proposed it in his initial proposal when he laid out his speech back in May, outlining his Build Back Better Agenda. He thinks it’s long overdue. He thinks it will help bring more women into the workforce. It will ensure that more women have seats at the table. And it’s something he would like to see in the package. He also knows and recognizes that you need the majority of members in the Senate — all — every single Democrat — to support something to get it across the finish line. And what he looks at — and I’m not going to prejudge what the outcome is here — is the totality of — and this is how the American people look at things — the totality of packages of what is included. This bill, no matter what — everybody supports universal pre-K, cutting the cost of childcare, historic investment in addressing the climate crisis, making sure there’s more housing units available, investing and making sure eldercare is less expensive. There are disagreements — everybody knows that — publicly, but he knows he’s not going to get everything he wants in this package. If it’s not in there, he’ll continue to fight for it. Q So what is the backup plan if paid leave does get dropped from the Build Back Better Bill? MS. PSAKI: He’ll continue to fight to make it law. Q And just a logistical question. Will we get all the results of the President’s physical this afternoon, or are there some lab results or test results that we won’t see until a later date, like next week? MS. PSAKI: I expect it will be a comprehensive summary of everything today and don’t anticipate, at this point, that there would be lagging results later. Go ahead. Q So, first, following up on the physical. If this was a routine physical, why wasn’t it on the schedule that you gave us last night? Why the secrecy there? MS. PSAKI: Well, just to peel the curtain back for the American people on how this works and how it typically works — if you look back at history here: This morning, we notified the pool — the press pool — many of you are part of that and rotate through that. We called the President of the White House Correspondents Association — Q Very early. (Laughter.) MS. PSAKI: — very early this morning — who was awake. We called the network bureau chief — chair — that’s rotating, as you know, and indicated that the President — not only would the pool be gathering, but the President would be going to get a routine physical. I then sent out a tweet to many, many people out there at around 6:15 a.m. And we have put out many, many updates since then, and we will put out a comprehensive written summary later this afternoon. That’s pretty standard for how it’s approached — sharing this information. It’s — it follows protocols that have been followed in the past. And, again, you all will receive a comprehensive summary later this afternoon. Q Okay. Moving on to the Build Back Better plan: Is the President going to stop saying that the Build Back Better plan does not increase the deficit “one single cent” if we now know that that is not true? MS. PSAKI: It is true. And I would note that several economists and experts out there — I would note — I think you’re probably talking about the CBO score. Q Which Joe Biden himself, in 2010, called the “gold standard” for Democrats and Republicans. MS. PSAKI: Well, Peter, since we’re all here to communicate with the public about accurate information, what I would just note is that one of the components that experts — Democrats and Republicans, including former heads of the CBO — have pointed to is that IRS — IRS enforcement is not something that there’s a lot of experience in the CBO scoring. They still scored it, but it is undervalued by the assessment of many economists and experts, including people who have been critical of us in the past, who estimate — including former Treasury Secretaries of both parties — who estimate there will be significant savings, significantly higher than what is estimated currently. So, our assessment and the assessment by many economists out there is that there will be savings. Over 10 years, it will actually reduce the deficit. Q The CBO’s projection is that it’s going to — that there’s going to be at least a $160 billion increase to the deficit over 10 years. That is 16 trillion cents. So the President was not telling the truth. MS. PSAKI: Well, Peter — just to go back to the content facts here — so CB- — so the IRS enforcement component, something recommended by former Secretary Hank Paulson, former Secretary Larry Summers — Democrats and Republicans of both parties — who feel there could be significant savings over the course of time. I’m just going to note something that form- — Trump-appointed IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig said: ” The administration estimates $400 billion in additional revenue can be generated over the next decade from enforcement efforts focused on higher-end incomes, shrinking the tax gap. This figure is no surprise”. Republican former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson cowrote an op-ed with other former Treasury Secretaries, saying that there could be considerably more revenue than we projected, from the White House, from this. So, again, this is an area where experts — economic experts — neither of us are one; I think we can confirm that — Q Confirmed. MS. PSAKI: — have confirmed that there are significant savings that will come from this. That is why moderate members of the House, I think they would tell you — and many of them have spoken to this, including Congressman Kurt Schrader, who was one of the moderates who was on the borderline, given deficit impacts — have said they felt comfortable with it because of the expertise out there about the impact of IRS enforcement. Q When the last administration tried to say that the CBO was incorrect, you tweeted, “Watching [Mulvaney] try to walk away from [a] CBO score and explain [the] budget outline is awkward and uncomfortable to watch.” So what is the difference between the Trump administration saying, “Don’t listen to the CBO” and the Biden administration saying, “Don’t listen to the CBO”? MS. PSAKI: Actually, we’ve praised the overall work of the CBO on the Build Back Better Act repeatedly. And that’s what we believe. But again, I would point to the fact that there isn’t a great deal of history or experience in scoring IRS enforcement. That’s something that economists across the board have noted. That’s something that leaders on the Hill — Democrats and Republicans — have been briefed on for several months now. And that’s why it wasn’t really a surprise to them and why the vote, in part, moved forward. Go ahead, Kristen. Q Jen, thank you. Can you explain the timing of the physical today? What was behind it? Did the fact that the President is turning 79 years old tomorrow have anything to do with the timing? Did he want to have that before his birthday? MS. PSAKI: The President is well aware that his birthday is a matter of public record, as the President of the United States. I can confirm that. I will say, Kristen, we knew that we were going to do — he wanted to do and committed to do a physical before the end of the year, so this is obviously — meets that timeline. And obviously, we work through scheduling availability and requirements in order to do that because any President is typically at Walter Reed for a couple of hours. Q And not to harp on this point — but, you know, I think there was an expectation there would be a press conference tomorrow. He obviously had a very — MS. PSAKI: Tomorrow? Q I’m sorry. Yesterday. MS. PSAKI: Oh. Q He obviously — it was a late night for all of us here in Washington. MS. PSAKI: Yeah, it’s okay. Q He obviously had a very full day yesterday. Was there any last minuteness to the decision of his going in today? MS. PSAKI: In — I’m sorry, I don’t really understand your question. Q For the physical. MS. PSAKI: To do it or not — I’m not — Q To do it. To do the physical. MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure I’m understanding your question. Did we schedule it yesterday? Q Was this planned in the — days in advance? MS. PSAKI: We had planned to do the physical, yes. But I would — Q Days in advance? MS. PSAKI: Right. But what’s the root of your question, just to make sure I answer it? Q Just when was it planned? When did he first schedule the physical? We — just because he had such a full day yesterday. MS. PSAKI: Sure. Q And he had a colonoscopy today. A lot of people that know — MS. PSAKI: That is — that is the nature of being President. And as you — and as I would note, in the pool report — and this may be why you’re asking — the co- — the meetings yesterday didn’t end until after eight o’clock last night. Obviously, the President was closely watching the vote last night, as we all were — maybe not through the totality of the eight-and-a-half-hour missives, but he was watching closely last night as well. Q Is there any discussion about having a doctor brief us, given that he is the oldest sitting Commander-in-Chief? MS. PSAKI: We will be releasing a comprehensive summary — a written summary — that will have details from the doctor and other experts who were consulted — medical experts who were consulted — that you’ll receive later today. So that, I think, is what our intention is. Q I also just want to ask you on a different topic, broadly speaking. The country is sort of waiting for, anticipating a jury verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse case. What is the President’s direct message to people who want to protest, express their opinions after the verdict? And might we hear from the President after there is a verdict? MS. PSAKI: Well, I certainly — I just want to preface: I’m not going to prejudge a verdict on an ongoing deliberation over a case. And clearly, once it’s concluded, I’m sure there will be something we have to say from the White House. But — and we have been in close touch with officials on the ground through law enforcement channels to ensure we are supporting any effort toward peaceful protests. That’s certainly what we will continue to encourage as anyone looks to have their voice heard, regardless of the outcome. Go ahead. Q There was one conspicuous thing missing from the week ahead that Bloomberg is particularly interested in, which is the Fed chair, of course. MS. PSAKI: “What’s the President’s favorite Thanksgiving meal?” No, okay. (Laughter.) Q Yeah. On what — is it accurate to say that it’ll happen on Monday or Tuesday, since that’s the time that the President is going to be in? MS. PSAKI: The President intends to make a decision. And I expect we’ll have more to share in advance of his departure. So, by process of elimination, expect they’ll more — there’ll be more to report early next week. Q Okay. Government funding runs out December 3rd. I’m wondering if the White House right now is looking for a CR to get, you know, towards New Year’s or if you’d like a longer government funding. MS. PSAKI: It’s a great question. I — just given the pure volume of legislative work this week, I have not had a conversation with the legislative team about this. Obviously, we would typically work closely with leadership on determining what that might look like. Let me see if there’s more we can report on that to you. Q And then, yesterday, you got a bunch of questions about the EV tax credit in Build Back Better. The Canadians are obviously upset about it. It would make sense that because Senator Manchin has said that he doesn’t support it, that the President’s message to the Prime Minister is that it’s probably going to drop out of the final version of the bill. Is that sort of an accurate representation of what their conversation was? Or how would you characterize what his message for the Canadians was yesterday? MS. PSAKI: I think his message was exactly what I conveyed publicly, which is that there’s a long history of using tax credits here to incentivize choices. That’s true. They’ll lower the cost here of electric vehicles by twenty- — $12,500 for a middle-class family. That’s something we want to incentivize in the United States. And we feel it’s an industry that will help move towards a more clean energy future — something that will help address the climate crisis that we share an interest with with the Canadians. Certainly, as the Canadian leaders read out, this was an issue they raised. I’ll leave that to them to characterize further. And the President said, of course, we’re happy to continue having a conversation. However, this is something the President is deeply committed to because he believes good-paying union jobs that will help us move toward a clean energy indus- — help us support clean energy industries is in our economic and national security and national interest. Q One last one to just — on the conversation you had with Peter. The CBO estimated that this — the tax enforcement would bring in a little over $200 billion. You guys are obviously saying $400 billion. I’m wondering if you can — I don’t think they’re just throwing darts. I also take the point that you guys think that they’re not experienced at, sort of, figuring out how much this enforcement will bring in. But “twice as much” is a big discrepancy. And so, I’m wondering why you disagree so, so dramatically with the CBO on this? MS. PSAKI: Well, I wouldn’t characterize it exactly in that — those terms. I would, again, point to — and just another person I haven’t introduced here — but Doug Elmendorf, who you all are familiar with, who directed the CBO from 2009 to 2015, said estimating the returns on additional IRS enforcement was challenging because large funding infusions to the agency had little precedent and it was difficult to quantify the “indirect effects” of more auditors. So, I would note that we also technically, I guess, have disagreements with economic experts who are projecting it would have even larger savings. I mean not — not bad disagreements, but our projections are not exactly the same as Larry Summers, who said that the proposal could result in almost $800 billion in revenue and has a Washington Post op-ed about it where he talks about that; and others who have projected it would have even larger savings. So, I think it’s just an indication of the difficulty, but what we’re pointing to and what we think is an important indication for the American people and for many members of Congress who are concerned, as the President is, about deficit reduction — and this bill will save money in the deficit over the course of 10 years — is that this is something where it will have that impact. It has a larger impact than even we are projecting. And that’s what we felt was important to point to. Go ahead. Q In an effort to flesh out the historical record of the day, is there anything you can tell us about the 85 minutes that Kamala Harris served as Acting President? MS. PSAKI: I will leave that to the Vice President and her team to characterize. You know, I would note that — and you didn’t ask me exactly this, but I know other people have been talking about this and, as a woman myself, I will note that, you know, the President, when he selected her to be his running mate, obviously he knew he was making history — was making history that was long overdue, in our view. And part of that was selecting someone who could serve by your side, as your partner, but also step in if you were — if there was a reason to. And that includes the application of the 25th Amendment, as was done this morning. He also, of course — we also know we make history every time they’re working together, every time she’s out there speaking on behalf of the government as the Vice President of the United States. But certainly, today was another chapter in that history, I think, that will be noted for many women, young girls across the country. Q You have disclosed that the President received a colonoscopy today. Are you in a position right now to talk about any other procedures or tests he might be undergoing as we speak? MS. PSAKI: We will disclose all of that, but I’m going to leave it to the medical experts to do that, and they will do that later this afternoon in a written summary. Go ahead. Q Yeah, thanks, Jen. In his statement yesterday, when he talked about the U.S. purchasing Pfizer’s COVID-19 pill, the President mentioned that he wanted to make that pill free for the public. Can you lay just, sort of, how that would work, ensuring that that pill might be free? MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, vaccines around the country are largely free, so that is — there is a precedent for that, you know, across the country and something he wants to ensure it’s available and accessible to people to protect them from COVID. And I think this falls into the category — falls into the — falls into our expansive effort to fight the pandemic, get it under control, and get on the other side of it. So, in terms of how it would work like with contracts? Or — Q Yeah. Does it require negotiations with insurance companies or pharmacies or — MS. PSAKI: It’s a great question. Let me talk to our COVID team and see what else it would require. Q Okay. And then, on Ethiopia, the situation there seems to continue to be deteriorating. What advice does the White House have for Americans that are still in the country, especially given that the FAA sort of warned there could be inadvertent risks to commercial flights in the area? MS. PSAKI: Well, as things have deteriorated there, we have taken strong measures to encourage Americans to leave Ethiopia as soon as possible while they can do so safely via commercial travel, which is still ongoing, because things can change in an instant and flight options could disappear. And the State Department goes to great lengths to assist U.S. citizens in crisis. We want to ensure Americans who may be in Ethiopia should not expect the United States will be able to facilitate a military evacuation in a dangerous environment. There are no plans — and people should understand this who are on the ground — to fly the U.S. military into Ethiopia to facilitate evacuation. So, the State Department is using every measure they have to communicate directly and broadly with Americans there about the fact that it is time to depart. Q And just really quick: You were asked yesterday about the Chinese tennis star, Peng Shuai, and you didn’t have anything to say then. I wonder if you have any sort of update from the White House on whether the U.S. or the President is following that. MS. PSAKI: Yeah. We are deeply concerned by reports that Peng Shuai appears to be missing after accusing a former PRC senior official of sexual assault. We join in the calls for PRC authorities to provide independent and verifiable proof of her whereabouts and that she is safe. I can’t speak, of course — I know you’re not asking this — but to the details of the case or any more details of where she might be, obviously. But I want to be clear where the United States stands, generally speaking. First, any report of sexual assault should be investigated, and we support a woman’s ability to speak out and seek accountability, whether here or around the world. Second, we’ll continue to stand up for the freedom of speech. And we know the PRC has zero tolerance for criticism and a record of silencing those that speak out, and we continue to condemn those practices. Go ahead. Q Can I go back to some news from yesterday? MS. PSAKI: Sure. Q You were asked about this idea of a “diplomatic boycott.” I’m wondering if you can offer any additional details or define for us what a “diplomatic boycott” means. MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have any more updates from here today, and it’s just an indication that there hasn’t been a final decision. Q Okay. And then also, at the outset, you mentioned today that the infrastructure czar and seven Cabinet Secretaries were meeting. Can you provide any additional details about what they were discussing, sort of what their priorities are, any additional info on that meeting? MS. PSAKI: Well, I can tell you that going back to last Friday when the Cabinet — when the President had a meeting with his Cabinet, the focus of that was on infrastructure implementation. And he basically went around to each Cabinet member who had purview, or was going to oversee a key part of the implementation, to get an update from them on what their approach would be. Some departments, as you know, will be creating entirely new programs. Some will have a level of funding, including the Department of Transportation — some will have a level of funding, like the Department of Commerce, they’ve never had for some of these programs before. So, it was different project to project. So what I would anticipate is that they will — that our implementation coordinator will receive an update on the work that is happening by each of these members and that these will be regular meetings that will continue to ensure that there is implementation that is effective and efficient, and that we are reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. Q Okay. Can I ask you one quick question — sorry, last one — on the turkeys, if you don’t mind. MS. PSAKI: Oh, the — those turkeys. Yes. (Laughter.) Q Can you confirm where they are going after they may pardoned? I’ve heard Purdue University. MS. PSAKI: Oh, wow. There’s a — Q This is a really random question. MS. PSAKI: This is an important question. (Laughter.) I — we will get you that after the briefing. I can confirm that part of it is staying in a hotel, which — my daughter did not believe me, but that is accurate. Q On the turkeys who are pardoned — MS. PSAKI: They stay in advance — the turkeys do — Q I see. MS. PSAKI: — in a hotel. But we will get you the det- — I think there have been details put out by the — I’m not sure if it’s the “Turkey Bureau,” but we will get you all of the details after the briefing. Q On the turkeys, are any humans going to be pardoned by President Biden? There are people who are serving life in prison for marijiuana who want him to honor his commitment to release everyone in prison for pot. Are people going to get pardoned as well by President Biden? MS. PSAKI: I will just reiterate that the President is, of course — I have nothing new to update you on. But the President is, of course — will look to the use of his clemency powers. He’s talked about his approach — or his view on nonviolent drug offenders, but I don’t have anything to update you on, on that, today. Q Jen, in the wake of the President’s physical and on the topic of his health, a new Politico/Morning Consult poll found that 50 percent of voters surveyed did not agree with the statement that “President Biden is in good health,” and that voters are almost evenly split on the question of if he is in “good mental health.” I understand that the President disagrees with this assessment, the White House disagrees with this assessment. But I’m curious: Where do you think these voters concerns are coming from? MS. PSAKI: I can’t speak to the assessments of voters. There are certainly quite a bit of conspiracy theory pushing out there on a range of social media platforms and even through the mouths of elected officials. So, that could certainly be a root cause, as you know. But I would say that we are not only following past precedent of what has been done, if you look back — and I know this was noted in the statement we put out this morning of the times where there was a transfer of power under the Bush administration. We’re looking at past precedent there and making sure we’re following that but also going beyond in many cases. And the comprehensive summary that we put out this afternoon will have, certainly, an overview of the — the President’s routine physical and their assessments. And that is something we will make widely available. Q And just one more on Build Back Better: How confident is the President that he will be able to keep all 50 senators on board with minimal changes? And on the topic of changes, is there anyone sort of engaged on paid family leave, but is there any red line for him on something that absolutely has to stay in the bill? MS. PSAKI: Well, the President would have loved to have seen — seen his entire original proposal passed. But he also knows from having served 36 years in the Senate, that’s not how it goes. He’s somebody who governs from the position of “compromise” not being a dirty word. He sees consensus as the way you get things done, and that’s certainly how we’re going to approach the next few weeks as well. So, his bottom lines have not changed. He wants to lower costs for the American people, give them more breathing room, ease the burden on — of areas like childcare, eldercare, healthcare. Those are all components that are solidly in this package. And he won’t raise taxes on people making less than $400,000 a year. So those are his continued bottom lines. Go ahead. Q Following up on Build Back Better, Jen — Q Thanks, Jen. I — MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Katie. Q Kyle Rittenhouse has been declared not guilty by a jury on one count of first-degree reckless homicide. On the second count, first-degree reckless endangerment, he has also been found not guilty. What is the White House’s response to that? Q Not guilty on all counts, correct? Q All counts. MS. PSAKI: I — obviously this happened while I was out here. So, let me talk to the President and talk to our team, and we will get you a statement as soon as we can. Q Does the President think the judge in the Rittenhouse trial saying that the victims in Kenosha should not be referred to as “victims” but rather “looters” or “protesters” is appropriate? MS. PSAKI: Again, I’m not going to give an assessment of this from here. Let us get you a comp- — a statement as soon as we can. Q And last question on the physical: Will you be offering a full list of the people who treated the President and their assorted specialties? MS. PSAKI: We will be offering — we will be referencing additional medical experts who the President spoke with, but I don’t think — I am not going to prejudge what the final comprehensive summary will look like. Q Build Back Better, Jen. Catholic bishops — MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Q Thanks, Jen. It’s in the news — Q — fear faith-based preschools could be excluded from receiving Build Back Better money — Q — that the booster shots — MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Q — because they would — MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Q Is the administration — Q (Inaudible.) MS. PSAKI: I don’t think you need to talk over her. She’s just asking a question. Go ahead. Q Okay. I’ll go after her then. I’ll go after her. Q Is the administration considering changing the definition of what it means to “fully vaccinated”? And is there any concern, at a state level, that there could be some confusion about what it means to be “fully vaccinated,” given that some governors have started to change that definition? MS. PSAKI: Well, some governors, I know, have offered booster shots in advance of — or have expanded that. Right? I’m not sure if they’ve changed the definition, which is typically done by the CDC. We follow CDC guidance. CDC guidance continues to be: two mRNA shots and one Johnson & Johnson. We don’t prejudge and I can’t preview for you if they’re going to change that at any point in time. But that’s what we will continue to follow and that’s what we would advise others to follow around the country. Go ahead, in the back. Q Okay, Jen, on Build Back Better, Catholic bishops — Jen — MS. PSAKI: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Q Okay, here we go: Catholic bishops fear — MS. PSAKI: You know what? I’m moving on over here. Q — faith-based preschools — MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Go ahead. Q — I’ll go next. I’ll go next, please. Thank you. Q Do you have — do you have any reaction to the report that the U.S. is considering deporting a group of Afghans who did not meet the vetting requirements back to Afghanistan? MS. PSAKI: I would have to look into the specific details, but I would note that our — our thorough vetting processes are in place for a reason — and we follow those to the letter of the law — and ensure that we are not only welcoming people who served by our side for many years during a challenging, long war but also that we are making sure the American people know they’re safe. But I have to look into these specific examples. Q And then one on Russia if I may. According to Kremlin spokesman — spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, some certain preparations are underway for the virtual meeting between President Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Can you confirm that? MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any meeting to preview or call to preview for you at this point in time. If something like that is confirmed or finalized, we’re happy to share that information. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Jen. Ahead of Thanksgiving, I wanted to ask you about hunger in the country, specifically hunger among military families. We’ve seen some of these recent reports that as many as 15 percent of enlisted military families were dealing with food insecurity even before the pandemic. Secretary Austin, as you know, talked about this as an issue just this week. I know that Chairman McGovern has been pushing the White House to hold a summit on hunger. Is that something the White House is really considering? And is there anything new the White House is doing on this? MS. PSAKI: Well, because of the American Rescue Plan, we’ve cut childhood hunger in half over the last year. And I would tell you that when we look to getting the Build Back Better agenda passed, to the impact it’s going to have on lowering childcare, lowering eldercare — the cost of eldercare, lowering the cost of healthcare — these are all costs on families that impact what they’re able to afford in their daily lives. And, certainly, the impact on military families — as a military family himself — or, I should say, the President and Dr. Biden — that is heartbreaking. And they’re going to continue to fight to do more to make sure there are not hungry families, whether they’re military or not, in this country. In terms of a summit, I don’t have any plans to preview for you on that front. Q Can I just follow up, because there’s two — in both the House and the Senate version of the NDAA, it called for a basic needs allowance to help military families that are low income and having a hard time. But there’s a difference — this is wonky, but the Senate — MS. PSAKI: It’s okay. We’re a safe place. Wonky. Q — the Senate version would basically count the housing allowance as income, which a lot of activists say would mean that a lot of low-income families would no longer qualify for that basic needs allowance, so thousands of military families could suddenly not qualify for that extra money and that extra help. OMB said that they just need more, you know, comprehensive data and analysis to determine if they support the inclusion or exclusion. Is there any update on where the White House stands on that? MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to check and see if there’s any update on it. Obviously, our objective — overarching objective is not to make it more challenging for anyone, including — especially military families — to put food on the table. That — making sure that’s not the case is central to the President’s agenda. But I will see if there’s more to report on that. Go ahead. Q Again, Jen, Catholic bishops fear — MS. PSAKI: Chris, did you have a question? Q — faith-based preschools could be excluded from — MS. PSAKI: We don’t need to scream or shout over other people in here — Q — receiving Build Back Better money. I’m raising — MS. PSAKI: — so we’re going to keep moving on. Q — I’m rais- — I’ve got a legitimate question here. MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Okay. Legitimate question. Q I had a question about Section 230. Yesterday, the Justice Department announced that they were going to defend Section 230 in a lawsuit filed by the former president, but as a candidate, President Biden repeatedly called for the repeal of Section 230. So, does the Justice Department’s actions yesterday represent a change in President — the President or the administration’s attitude? MS. PSAKI: He called for reforms of Section 230; that continues to be his position. Q I have a question that concerns religious liberty — MS. PSAKI: Go ahead in the middle. Q — religious freedom. MS. PSAKI: Go — wait — go ahead in the middle, Brett. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Jen. Appreciate it. Q Hoping you can respond that. Q Does the White House have any reaction to Senator Rubio this morning calling the President’s pick to lead the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency a “communist” or any of the criticism that she faced at her hearing yesterday? MS. PSAKI: Well, I did see some of that commentary. I also enjoyed the pushback from Senator Elizabeth Warren, who maybe we should just point to as our response. But I would say the President nominated her to serve in this job because she is eminently qualified, and she’s somebody who would represent the role and the United States effectively in the position. And certainly we’re hopeful she’s confirmed. Go ahead. Q Jen, thank you. I’m not an economist either — MS. PSAKI: (Laughs.) Q — but I can divide by 10 years. And even if you take — would you be willing to go so far as to say that even if you take the lower CBO expectation of what the IRS would bring in in a Build Back Better Act, that the deficits on an annual basis will be so low that it might — it would be palatable to the American people and palatable to Senator Manchin in particular? Would you go so far as to say? MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to speak for Senator Manchin or all of the American people; I can only speak for the President and the White House. But what I think it’s important for the American people to understand, and certainly Senator Manchin too, is what I’ve noted a little bit already to date: The former head of the CBO conveyed how difficult it is to score IRS enforcement. We have former Treasury Secretaries who don’t always agree with us — former Secretary Paulson, former Secretary Larry Summers — conveying that there could be much greater savings. So, what I’m conveying to you is that our calculations and assessments, and those of outside economists, are that it will actually be — this bill will actually reduce the deficit, and it will also lower costs and reduce inflationary pressures. Q Can I follow up there for a second? Seventeen billion dollars, or whatever, a year is a drop in the bucket compared to the natural deficits the country is actually running up right now. Is that — do you think that’s palatable, then, to Senator Manchin, to the American people? MS. PSAKI: I can’t speak for Senator Manchin or the American people. What I can speak for is what we believe our assessment is based on outside economists and experts of what the actual savings will be over the course of time. And it will reduce the deficit over the course of 10 years. And that’s what we’re communicating to the American people and to Senator Manchin. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Jen. A couple questions on Ukraine and Russia (inaudible). Yesterday, the Ukrainian government pleaded for more military aid to defend itself against Russia. At the same time, Putin is complaining that Western countries don’t take his “red lines,” as he called them, seriously, and blamed Western countries for the tension in Ukraine, particularly with these weapons supplies to Ukraine. So, given those two conflicting things, what is the President’s — you know, what’s the way forward for him? Does he go with Putin’s red lines, or does he go with United States wants to help Ukraine defend itself, as it says? MS. PSAKI: Well, we go with what is in the interests of the United States and what is in our own national security interests. You know, the President’s — Putin’s speech — which is what I think what we’re referring to here — touched on a range of topics, including U.S.-Russian relations and the need to maintain dialogue to address many disagreements. We agree. That’s a part of an important discussion, even as I don’t have anything to preview about what that will look like or what’s next. We welcomed President Putin’s statement about resolving the Donbas conflict peacefully using the Minsk Agreements. We support reenergized efforts to reach a settlement under the Minsk framework and call for immediate steps to restore the July 20 ceasefire. We also continue to have serious concerns about Russian military activities and harsh rhetoric toward Ukraine, and call on Moscow to deescalate tensions. We have been — have had extensive interactions with our European allies and partners in recent weeks, including with Ukraine. And we’ve discussed our concerns about Russian military activities and harsh record — harsh rhetoric toward Ukraine with the Russians over the course of time as well. So, I wouldn’t say we’re reacting to any component of President Putin’s speech. We are going to continue to proceed and welcome steps or comments where we feel they are encouraging or positive, and convey concern where we see action or rhetoric that is — that is not in line with what we feel should be happening. Q How about Ukraine’s request for — they’re saying, “We need more weapons.” It’s pretty clear — their message. MS. PSAKI: I don’t have thing to preview or predict for you in terms of additional assistance. We’ve provided, as you know, a range of assistance — military and non-military assistance to Ukraine, and strong supporters of Ukraine over the course of time. Q And then a follow-up on Ukraine. MS. PSAKI: I’m just going to keep going around. Chris, go ahead. Q So, it’s been several months since the — people were hopeful that the pandemic was ending, that the mask-wearing guidance went away. Now numbers are ticking back up, we’re going into a second winter that could be deadly, and we’re still having, you know, more than a thousand deaths a day. What is the White House’s message to the American people who are, you know, frustrated over this turn of events and now potentially need to get a third shot and continue to get shots into the future to protect themselves from the virus? MS. PSAKI: Well, first, we would say: We understand. We are tired and exhausted by the pandemic as well. And what we can do is encourage action; we’re encouraging every eligible American to get the extra protection a booster offers. They’re readily available across the country. It doesn’t take a lot of time. It should be easy for people to do. And that is what our focus is on. We’re encouraging all children — all parents of children who are eligible for the vaccine to get vaccinated. We’ve already seen 10 percent of 5- to 11-year-olds vaccinated. Getting kids protected is a key part of moving forward in fighting the pandemic. We also have taken actions like securing 10 million Pfizer and 3 million Merck antiviral pills. So, the American people should know that we are continuing to look for any way available and possible to get the pandemic under control, to make sure people know we’re moving in a continued, better direction on this. And we believe that moving forward with requirements and other measures that will boost vaccinations is also a positive step. We know we’re heading into the winter. We are — that’s one of the reasons we’ve been encouraging people who are eligible to get the boosters. We’ve been encouraging parents of kids to get their kid — who are eligible — to get their kids vaccinated. Again, they could be fully vaccinated by Chris- — by Christmas, or the holiday season, at this point in time. So, that’s what our focus is on now. We believe we have strong measures to keep people safe, and we just need to continue to press forward in communities across the country. Q Is there nothing else that the administration can do? Is it basically up to the American people at this point? Or is there — you know, what powers — other powers do you have to take more steps? Or is it really just on Americans now to do what they can? MS. PSAKI: Well, I would say, you know, under the President’s leadership, we not only purchased enough supply to ensure the entire American population is vaccinated, we’ve made it readily available across the country. We’ve made it accessible. We have also secured 10 million doses of — as I noted — of the antiviral pills. We’ve ensured we’ve run mass-vaccination communications campaigns across the country. So, I would say the American — the federal government and the President — this has been his number one priority, and we’ve done everything humanly possible. At a certain point, it is true that people have to go get shots, get themselves vaccinated, and protect themselves. But we want to do everything we can to make it as easy as humanly possible. Let me go all the way to the back. Q Thank you, Jen. I really appreciate it. Nominees to serve in senior State Department positions and as U.S. ambassadors have been told by handlers that the backlog for confirmations is, quote, “unprecedented” and to expect to wait months longer even than they already had expected with a really delayed process. Is President Biden considering the possibility of recess appointments, at least for postings of high operational and strategic importance? MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything to preview on that front, but I will note it is unprecedented. And I would also note that there have been statements, including from former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates just a few days ago, emphasizing the — how concerning the historic nature of this is. Whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican or nonpolitical at all, I think most people recognize we should have ambassadors serving in posts around the world. We should have an ambassador to China serving in that country right now, an eminently qualified one, who the President has nominated. We should have ambassadors at posts around Europe — all around Europe — at a time where ensuring we are supporting NATO is a pivotal message to send to Russia and other countries around the world. And these are not only being blocked by some but also delayed. A lot of these — and I talked about this a little bit yesterday — but the fact is that many of these ambassadors will move forward with bipartisan support once there’s a vote. And what’s happening now is there’s an insistence on a lengthy debate process instead of moving forward through unanimous consent, which would mean just basically allowing for a vote without going through a lengthy floor process that would use a lot of time on the floor. That can happen. So, there’s a lot of ways that this can move forward. I don’t have anything to preview for you in terms of recess appointments, but it is frustrating, it is unprecedented, and it does certainly hurt our national security. Go ahead, all the way in the back. John, what do you have for me today? Q Thank you, Jen. Does the administration still recognize the government of Prime Minister Ahmed Ali as the legitimate government of Ethiopia? And are they standing by it firmly? MS. PSAKI: I don’t know if the State Department has spoken to this, and I don’t want to speak out of turn here. So let me check with them and see if there’s any update on this front. Obviously, we have expressed significant concern. We’ve put in place sanctions. I will see if there’s anything more official I can convey to all of you from here. Q And just as a follow-up to the previous question on ambassadorships: The President has not named anyone to the key ambassadorships in Ukraine and in Hungary right now. Are any of those pending? Because this is not anything tied up in Congress; it’s from the administration. MS. PSAKI: Fair. And obviously, as is true of other personnel appointments, the President certainly wants to ensure we have the right person to nominate for each of those vital and important positions. But there are dozens of qualified nominees who are waiting to be confirmed, and we’re certainly eager to see that move forward. Q Thanks, Jen. MS. PSAKI: Thanks, everyone. Happy Friday.

MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. Q Hi. MS. PSAKI: Okay. A lot going on here. I will warn you: We have some charts — (laughter) — to begin our briefing today. Settle in, everyone. Just to give you all an update and really give the American people an update on where we are on our work on economic recovery, where we’re seeing progress — and wanted to, of course, show you some visuals as evidence of that. So, let me start: Today’s unemployment claims data are another welcome sign of our economy’s strength as Americans get back to work. As of this morning, we’ve had seven consecutive weeks of decline in new unemployment claims. And to translate that into English for people listening or watching at home: Unemployment claims are — basically, every week, Americans who no longer — who lose their jobs not at their own fault, they go and they file a claim, looking for unemployment insurance. So, the drop in these unemployment claims — there’s actually a different chart on this; I don’t know if they can pull it up, but — that we’ve seen consecutively over the last several weeks and months is a good sign. (The display changes.) No, the other chart would be good — (Ms. Psaki points to the chart on her right.) Okay, great. So you can see here just the dramatic drop we’ve seen since January all the way down over the last several weeks. That’s, ultimately, a good sign. And today, in a new report, the OECD confirmed that we have returned to the pre-pandemic size of our economy faster than our global peers. While developed economies around the world are facing similar challenges on inflation because a global pandemic is causing global supply-chain issues — something we’re experiencing; something countries around the world are experiencing — this is further evidence that the President’s success in getting Americans vaccinated, getting economic support to the middle-class means that our recovery has positioned us better than any of our peers for a continued strong economic recovery. And this new report is evidence of that. So, now we go — sorry, back to the other chart. As we’ve said before, we are coming out — given we’re coming out of an unprecedented economic shutdown as a result of the pandemic, we know that small increases in price can impact the family’s budget. And what we’re working to do now is both to address any issues that are slowing down the transfer of goods, moving around — it’s basically — the supply chain is basically as goods are moving around the world. So, we’re working to address those disruptions. Makes things — make sure goods are getting to shelves faster and easing price pressure. And there’s a lot of good data out there. New data shows we’re moving more goods than ever before. Ports are moving these goods more quickly. And large retail stores like Walmart, Target, BestBuy, and TJ Maxx are fully stocked. You’ve seen CEOs put out statements over the last several days confirming that. And Americans should feel good about the progress that’s being made in addressing these disruptions and also ensuring that shelves are stocked at these big retail stores around the country. So — and this gives you, kind of, some examples of where we’ve made progress. So, if you look at this, this is where we’ve seen — you know, we’ve talked a lot about the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, where about 40 percent of volume comes in. And we’ve seen an increase in goods that are coming over there, year-to-date, compared to the previous peak. This means — and a lot of economists have talked about this — that more goods — because people are not spending their money as much on going to restaurants and doing things that American families normally do, they’re buying a lot of goods. People are buying televisions. They’re buying things online. This is happening around the world. And there is a 16 percent increase; that’s why. We’ve also seen, because of the President’s Port Action Plan, some progress that we’ve made. One of the issues, as you all know, especially folks who work in television, you have seen containers out there that will — were held for some time. We’ve made progress on that: a 32 percent increase [decrease] in the long-dwelling containers. So that’s a good step forward. That means more goods are moving. A good, positive step. I’d also note — and we see this in the retail sales data and information that’s been put out there — that retail sales are up, up from Jan- — from September 30th of 2020. Again, further evidence that people are buying more stuff, as we’ve talked about. And then, the last piece I just wanted to point out here — and this is evidenced by, as I talk about these CEOs who have put out statements saying their stores — their shelves are stocked, that on-the-shelf availability is now at 90 percent as of the 14th of November, so just a couple of days ago. Last piece I just wanted to note here — and I know Chris mentioned this yesterday, but since we’re talking about all of the different impacts on people’s costs and how the American people are navigating this: Yesterday, the President wrote a letter to FTC Chair Lina Khan, calling to her attention the mounting evidence of anti-consumer behavior by oil and gas companies. As the President noted in his letter, prices at the pump have continued to rise, even as refined fuel costs go down and industry profits go up. Obviously, that’s not the right correlation. Usually, prices at the pump correspond to movements in the price of unfinished gasoline, which is the main ingredient in the gas people buy at stations. But in the last month, the price of unfinished gasoline is down more than 5 percent, while gas prices at the pump are up 3 percent in that same period. And that is not what, obviously, that trajectory should look like. And this unexplained gap between the price of unfinished gasoline and the average price at the pump is well above the pre-pandemic average. It’s not what we look to comparatively for years pre-pandemic. If the gap between refined fuel costs and pump prices were at typical pre-pandemic levels, then Americans would be paying nearly 25 cents less per gallon. So, clearly, that’s not how it should be working. That’s why the President sent the letter. And this is clearly a place where he is, of course, encouraging, asking the FTC to look into this. I’d also note — one of the last things, I promise — just lots going on: We’re also hosting a meeting of governors and federal and state officials on the frontlines of helping families address home heating costs this winter. That’s something that — especially in the Northeast, colder parts of the country, other parts where energy costs have been higher — has been of concern and an issue. This focus — the focus of the meeting will be on deploying unprecedented resources provided by the American Rescue Plan, including more than doubling funding for Low Income Home Energy Assistance Programs — “LIHEAP,” as many call it, although we hate acronyms around here — as well as Emergency Rental Assistance that can be used for utility bills. There are a lot of states and governors who’ve already done this with their state and local funds, but this is something that we’re going to play an aggressive role in working with governors to help implement to make sure that lower-income families around the country are able to afford their heating this winter. And we’re also working with utility companies to help address that as well. I have a couple of other things, but I’m going to stop there because I just want to get to your questions. Go ahead. Q Okay. Thank you. The President, just now, to Peter’s question about the upcoming Beijing Games, said that — when Peter asked if a diplomatic boycott was under consideration, he said was indeed “something we’re considering.” Could you just explain what a “diplomatic boycott” would mean? I’m assuming that doesn’t mean athletes; it means something narrower. And then, secondly, coming so soon after the meetings with President Xi, what does that say about the meetings this last week? Were they not constructive that the President would be considering this big move? MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, let me take the second question first. It doesn’t say anything about the meeting. They didn’t talk about the Olympics during the meeting. It wasn’t a topic that was discussed during the meeting. I would note that we’ve said from beginning — the beginning of this administration as it relates to how we engage with China — that we see it through the prism of competition, not conflict. That is our objective. That the President is going to raise issues where he has concern, and he’s going to look for areas to work together. And his lengthy three-and-a-half-hour meeting the other night is — was certainly a reflection of that: both areas where we could work together and areas where we have concerns were raised, as you all know from the readouts following the meeting. But, you know, there are areas that we do have concerns: human rights abuses. You’ve seen not just in words we’ve used but certainly in actions we’ve taken at the G7 and other sanctions that we have serious concerns about the human rights abuses we’ve seen in Xinjiang. And certainly there are a range of factors as we look at what our presence would be. So, I don’t have any other update for you on, Aamer. I certainly understand the interest, but I want to leave the President the space to make decisions. Q Is it possible that you could just, at least, broadly — because I’m sure that a lot of Americans that are interested in upcoming Games and a lot of athletes want to know what that could potentially mean, what a “diplomatic boycott” entails. MS. PSAKI: I certainly understand that. I just don’t have an update on where it will — what our presence will be. Q And then, does the White House have any reaction to Oklahoma informing National Guard members there it doesn’t need to abide by Pentagon vaccine rules? MS. PSAKI: Sure, well, first, Aamer, of course, the Department of Defense is the appropriate place. But let me — since you asked me the question, what we’re talking about here and why there are requirements in place for members of our nation’s military, including National Guard, is we need to ensure that we are really ready, no matter what, to protect the United States. And as Secretary Austin has conveyed, a vaccinated force is a “more ready force.” And that is one of the reasons he has been so — has led on this effort to implement this requirement of vaccinating the total force, including the National Guard. So, in accordance with that, we’ve been encouraging all states to continue to offer the vaccine, inform their members that it is a federal requirement. And we believe and continue to believe that no leader should be getting in the way of any action that will ensure or prevent or hinder operational readiness for our military, which is something certainly the Secretary of Defense has conveyed. Q And one last thing on — Canada’s [Deputy] Prime Minister called the tax credit that the President said he’d be speaking with Prime Minister Trudeau about a “clear violation” of the updated American trade agreement. Does the White House have any response to that? MS. PSAKI: We — we don’t view it that way, I think it’s safe to say. I would say that, in our view, Aamer, the electric vehicle tax credits is an opportunity to help consumers in this country. It’s not the first time that there have been incentives and tax credits to help consumers — lower prices for consumers, help incentivize a move towards a clean energy industry — something that is good for our climate; certainly, yes, good for businesses here in the United States; something that will help create good-paying union jobs in an industry that’s already starting to head that way. But it’s something where consumers would benefit. And obviously, our view is that we have a great relationship with Canada. The President is very much looking forward to the meeting today. And there’s a lot of ways we can discuss working together on economic issues, strategic issues, addressing the global pandemic. And I’m sure they will cover a range of topics in the meeting today. Go ahead. Q So, a couple of questions about bilateral relationships that are not in focus at the White House today. MS. PSAKI: Okay. Q So, first, you were talking about gas prices, so I wanted to ask you about Saudi Arabia. It’s a country that Secretary Blinken has described as one where you have a very strong relationship, and yet they have time and time again resisted, refused your calls to increase oil production. Would that ever hurt your bilateral relationship? Would you ever punish them for that? Would you ever change that relationship as a result of that? MS. PSAKI: Well, I certainly don’t want to make a prediction of that from here, but I will reiterate that we have raised with OPEC member countries, including Saudi Arabia, even though we’re not a member of OPEC, the need to ensure that there is available supply out there on the market. I think the reason why I led by talking about the FTC letter is because as we’ve seen the price of global oil — global price of oil come down, we haven’t seen the price of gas come down. So there also is a responsibility for oil companies here in the United States and elsewhere to make sure that they are not gas gouging consumers across the country. Q Okay, one other. On Iran, there has been some reporting that the administration has been privately floating with allies the idea that you might give some sanctions relief or come to some kind of interim deal in order to get those nuclear negotiations off to a good start. I know that your public position thus far has been that that is not something that you’re doing. Would you ever consider that? Is that something that you would ever consider doing to get those negotiations started? MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of any change in our position or approach to the negotiations. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Jen. Whose decision was it to break with tradition and not hold a formal press conference after the trilateral summit today? Was that something requested by the Canadians or the Mexicans? And why? MS. PSAKI: Well, I would say first, I don’t think it’s as scandalous as that in terms of the backstory. Just to preface, there hasn’t been a North American Leaders’ Summit since 2016. So, when we’re talking about precedent, just to be clear, we’re talking about prior to that. The President very much, of course, was looking forward to hosting Prime Minister Trudeau and President Obrador at the White House today. I would note that in the last three weeks, the President has hosted two press conferences — three if you count the one after he announced — he did — announced the signing of the bipartisan infrastructure bill, where he took a number of questions. He’s also — including today, he’s taken questions from reporters a total of at least 10 times this month. There was a change in schedule as things move around, as they sometimes do. As you know, he signed three important pieces of legislation today — important for law enforcement — that had broad, bipartisan support. That moved everything later in the day, and schedules change and adjust, but you saw him take questions just a few minutes ago. Q Got it. Mexico, coming into this meeting, said that it’s seeking access to more vaccines. Is that something that the President is planning to promise today? MS. PSAKI: Well, I know part of the preview that we did last night, they talked about how — and certainly we’ll do a written readout once these meetings conclude that will be more detailed — but how, obviously, COVID and addressing the COVID pandemic will be a part of the discussion. Now, a big part of that coming into the meeting from our perspective was the fact that we had lent or provided vaccine supply to Mexico and Canada, and we wanted to talk to them about providing that supply broadly into the region — something that would obviously be up to public health officials. In terms of what they may request, I can’t speak to that, but certainly we’re going to continue to play a role in addressing the global pandemic. Q And then (inaudible) back to the question about the Chinese Olympics. Is there a timeline for when the White House would decide about a diplomatic boycott? Is it weeks? Is it months? Would you make a decision closer to the actual date of the Olympics? MS. PSAKI: I certainly understand the question. I just want to give the national security team and the President space to make the decision, so I can’t give you a prediction of a timeline. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Jen. A grim milestone this week: More than 100,000 people died of drug overdoses in the last year. Experts say a lot of that is driven by fentanyl, which is coming across the southern border in record amounts. So why is not — why isn’t the administration doing more to stop the drugs from coming in? MS. PSAKI: Well, first, I would say that the President is meeting with the President of Mexico today, as you know, and that we work with Mexico every day to disrupt transnational criminal organizations, which are responsible, as you know, for the majority of fentanyl, heroin, and methamphetamine entering the United States, as well as spreading violence and insecurity in Mexico. So, during the summit today, we certainly expect that discussing this topic — our joint goal is to combat transnational crime and terrorism, the movement of these types of drugs across the border — will be part of the discussion. And when it concludes, we’ll provide a readout. Q Okay. And then following up on the meeting with President Xi: American intel agencies have told the President they cannot crack the origins of COVID without China’s help. President Biden had a chance to ask for China’s help. Why didn’t he? MS. PSAKI: Well, I would say that the President’s push for the Chinese to be — participate more, provide more transparent data and information, we’ve never held back on that front. We’ve argued for it publicly. We’ve argued for it at every level. And the President did talk in his meeting about the importance of transparency, which is — this is exactly an example of. Q He talked about the importance of transparency, but did he ask President Xi to cooperate specifically with this U.S. intel agency-led investigation into the origins of COVID? MS. PSAKI: Peter, it’s clear that that’s what we want. That’s what we’ve been pressing on. I don’t have any more to read out for you from the meeting. Q You’re saying that it’s clear. Is it clear to somebody who has a Zoom meeting with the President that that’s what he means if that’s not what he says? MS. PSAKI: I think the President has spoken publicly on this a number of times. Our national security officials have conveyed very clearly. I don’t think it’s a secret that’s what we want. That’s what we’ve been pressing for. Q And then just a final one on that: Are they “old friends” or not? Because the President has claimed that they’re not, you claim that they’re not, but then President Xi said that they are. MS. PSAKI: The President didn’t say that. The President considers him someone he has known for some time, someone he can have candid relationships with. I can’t speak for how the Chinese categorize or describe people they know in the world. I can only describe how the President views the relationship. Go ahead. Q Jen, is Mexico doing enough to stem the flow of migrants into the U.S.? And I ask that question amid new numbers that show, in the last year, I think it was 1.7 million individuals who were detained at the border trying to cross illegally. MS. PSAKI: This is definitely going to be — as you know, Peter, but just to reiterate — a part of the discussion today. Every country in the Western hemisphere has, of course, been impacted in some ways by migration events in recent years. A lot of — Mexico has been as well. That’s my point there. And leaders in the region have a shared interest in humane migration management. We, of course — our view is we have to address these issues together. So, this is certainly an opportunity today to have a further discussion about it — about what more can be done. And certainly, more can be done and should be done. Q Yesterday, during the preview call in advance of this, a senior administration official said, “There is not a real focus, this time around, on our borders.” For those who are concerned about the situation at the border, why isn’t that a real focus of today’s conversation? MS. PSAKI: Well, I think they also did talk about, though, how the root causes of migration, including people who are coming from the south of Mexico — or this is how I read the backgrounder — was going to be a part of the discussion. And I can assure you or others who may have confusion about that that migration, addressing the root causes, ensuring we’re doing it in a humane way but reducing the number of people who are coming to the border will be part of the discussion. Q Let me ask one last question. I’m not sure if the White House has a position on this, but I ask because it’s gained a lot of attention in the U.S. among individuals and, frankly, around the world: There’s a tennis star from China, Peng Shuai, who has been missing, it seems, for a matter of days, if not weeks. Her social profile now comes up with nothing. Does the White House have concerns, have any comment, any position on that situation, given she’s such a high-profile individual who spent a lot of time playing tennis, frankly, in the United States? MS. PSAKI: No. We — we have, of course, seen the reports. We, unfortunately, just don’t have any additional information on it or additional comment. Go ahead. Q Thanks. I know you might not be able to give a concrete update on the idea of a diplomatic boycott, but two senators — Senator Todd Young and Tim Kaine — told our Hill reporter, Allie Pecorin, that their understanding is the administration does support this idea of a diplomatic boycott. So, can you at least tell us if the President has been talking to senators about this? MS. PSAKI: Well, I mean, the President was just asked about this and gave an answer. Of course, we’re in regular touch at a range of levels with members of Congress about a range of issues, including our relationship with China and including an issue like this that there’s been a lot of reporting and interest in. But, beyond that, I don’t have an update, given he just answered the question himself. Q And then sort of following up on the question about the electric car tax credits. But kind of more broadly, maybe you can talk to whether there’s been any concern from the White House, heading into these meetings today, whether the President’s big push to make things in America and buy American in the long term could be, right now, making it harder to get Mexico and Canada on board to help with some of the supply chain issues. MS. PSAKI: Well, our view is that we have a lot we can work with — a lot of work we can do, I should say — with the Canadians on addressing supply chain issues, something that’s in our mutual interest. And there’s mutual benefit in doing that. We’ve done a lot of work on this end. We certainly know that the ability for goods to move effectively around — connecting infrastructure, making sure it’s efficient — even at a time where the purchasing of goods is up, increased massively around the world — here, Canada, everywhere around the world — that’s in our mutual interest. I would say — just to go back to, you know, what I said in response to Aamer’s question: I mean, the electric vehicles component of the package is something the President is personally very excited about because he believes it’s an industry of the future, an industry that can help create good — good-paying union jobs. And it will help consumers. It will help incentivize the purchasing of electric vehicles and the driving of electric vehicle — something that’s good for our climate. But all diplomatic relationships have areas where there might be tough topics to discuss, where people have concerns they raise — that’s the purpose of these in-person meetings. Q It doesn’t sound like he’s interested in negotiating on that one and maybe letting there be a Canadian, sort of, carveout for tax credits for Canadian-made electric vehicles. MS. PSAKI: As he said — as he said there — Q (Inaudible), like he said. MS. PSAKI: As he said, they’re going to discuss it, and we’ll see what they discuss. And we’ll give you guys a readout. But I think, in response to Aamer’s question, I was just answering how we view it and, of course, reiterating the President’s excitement about this component of his package. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Jen. While he’s meeting with the Mexican President today, do you expect them to come to an agreement on returning to the Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy? MS. PSAKI: I don’t believe that’s intended to be a big topic at this meeting. Q You don’t think they’ll come to an agreement on that today? MS. PSAKI: I think it was previewed as not a — not a major topic of discussion, so I wouldn’t anticipate that. Q Okay. And the House could vote as soon as tonight to advance the Build Back Better bill for the President. He has touted this, of course, as he did yesterday in Michigan, as a big boost for the middle class. Is he comfortable where the current provisions stand for these state and local tax deductions, given it would be a pretty significant tax break for the wealthy? MS. PSAKI: Well, let me start by first — you know, obviously it wasn’t what he proposed in his initial package, as you know, but just to come back to that. The President also, though — it’s been conveyed to him by leaders in the House and Senate that this needs to be included in order for this legislation to move forward. And he certainly understands that and takes these legislators, who’ve been doing this a long time, very effectively at their word. But even as we look at the content of it, it’s a long-term sustainable reform, in our view, that doesn’t add at all to the deficit over the decade. And over that period, it will mean that millionaires and billionaires actually pay more than they would otherwise. It would raise the cap to $72,500, fully paying for itself across the decade. It’s a sustainable solution, in our view, that means those with lower incomes would be able to fully write off their state and local taxes. So, it is a component that wasn’t initially proposed. This is a part of compromise. It’s not something that would add to the deficit as it’s proposed — as it is concluded in the package, and certainly we’re comfortable with it moving forward. Q You are comfortable with it moving forward? MS. PSAKI: Again, this is not what we proposed, but this is compromise; it’s in the package. I just wanted to give you a sense of where it stood. Q Does the President support the Senate adding an income threshold to that? MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to parse different components that are being discussed as we’re working to finalize it. The President — again, this is a part of the bill that the President — that has been proposed that is important to key members, as you all know; that’s why it’s in the package. The President’s excitement about this is not about the SALT deduction; it’s about the other key components of the package, and that’s why we’re continuing to press for it to move forward. Go ahead. Q Thanks so much. In regards to the supply chains, I wanted to ask: How serious is the administration considering the option of nearshoring — you know, creating incentives to encourage some manufacturing to move from China to Mexico, for example? So far, the focus has been on, as she was saying earlier, Buy American policies. Is nearshoring one of the things the administration is taking seriously? MS. PSAKI: I’d have to talk to our economic team of whether that is one of the top areas or top policies they’re looking at. As you know, we’re looking at a range of ways we can continue to build on the progress that, in our view, we’ve made already to date. That includes making sure we’re implementing, as it relates to the infrastructure bill, the ports piece on the early end of that, because we know that’s a key component of making sure goods are moving effectively around the country. But I will ask them if that’s something that is under consideration. Q On another — could you respond to Senator Rubio’s decision to place a hold on Biden’s nominee for the ambassador to China? Obviously, a key position. Rubio’s concerns are that Nicholas Burns has some business relationships in China. MS. PSAKI: Well, I would first say that anyone who knows Nick Burns’s background knows that he is eminently qualified for this position. He is somebody who could effectively do the job from the first day. He is — he is serving in it. And he is somebody also — this is a country where we vitally need an ambassador at a time where we have a lot of business, engagement, and follow-up work to be done. So, we are certainly eager to see his nomination move forward. Go ahead. Q Can I ask you — forgive me — for an update on Fed timing? I know that it’s still — (laughter) — MS. PSAKI: You don’t have to — you don’t have to apologize. It’s okay. It’s an important topic. Q The Canadians are in the building; I have to apologize. MS. PSAKI: Yeah. (Laughter.) Oh, wow. Sick burn. (Laughs.) You as one — Q Built into the DNA. MS. PSAKI: Yes, built in the DNA. Q Next to — so, Thanksgiving, as well, for the chair, still? MS. PSAKI: It still remains, as Chris said yesterday, that he intends to make a decision in advance of Thanksgiving. And hopefully all of you financial reporters can rest easily with your turkey and mashed potatoes or whatever you like to eat — Q Delighted. MS. PSAKI: — that you don’t have to be chasing it by then. Q Is that an announcement that we can expect to be for the other open positions, or is it just the chair that he’s going to be (inaudible)? MS. PSAKI: I don’t have an update beyond that, but I think you can certainly expect the nominee for the — that he will make a decision and will have more to say before Thanksgiving on the chair. Q And on the SPR, he discussed with President Xi the notion of jointly releasing reserves. Can you say whether you’ve had discussions with other countries about whether the U.S. would consider a joint release of oil reserves? MS. PSAKI: So, the President — we have — national security — members the national security team, I should say, have discussed with a range of countries — including China, as was noted in the readout — the need to meet the supply demands out there over the longer term as well. I don’t have an update — I know you weren’t exactly asking about China, but — about that. But that is an ongoing conversation and one we’re having with a number of partners. Q Can you list any of those countries? MS. PSAKI: I don’t have additional details. I will see if there’s more we can provide. Q And not in a “quiz” way but, you know, a “transparency” way — MS. PSAKI: Right. What if you say a country, and I’ll wink or nod? I don’t know. Q Maybe not. And finally, reconciliation — or sorry, debt limit. Schumer and McConnell are meeting on that today. Does the White House think reconciliation is the best path forward? Or do you prefer another path on raising the debt limit after Secretary Yellen’s timing that she provided earlier this week? MS. PSAKI: Yes. And for others who didn’t see it or may not watch it as closely, Secretary Yellen put another update letter out there giving kind of a rough timeline around December 15th of when we would, you know, have more questions about whether we could pay our bills at that point. You know, our view is that it has been done 81 times, if I’m getting my math correctly, through regular order. We saw that happen a few weeks ago. That is certainly our preferred path. We think there’s no reason to mess with the — to fool around with the faith and credit of the United States, and that’s certainly what we’re going to continue to press forward on. Go ahead. Q Back on EV tax credits: It’s not just the Canadians that are upset; Tesla is upset. Toyota is upset because the bill that is written in the House would give a leg up to the companies that happen to have contracts with the UAW. How committed is the President to keeping that provision in the bill? MS. PSAKI: The President is pretty committed to the bill providing good-paying union jobs. Q The President seemed to say this morning — I think I’ve heard him say — that he would take questions after he meets with the leaders today. Do you know more of what we can expect in that regard? MS. PSAKI: Well, he just took questions a little bit ago, so we’ll see what the end of today looks like. And if the President wants to take questions, that’s certainly his right to take questions. Q Should we expect a press conference tonight or tomorrow? MS. PSAKI: I would not expect — no, but you can take question — you can ask questions in any format. Right? I don’t think you need a formal embroidered chair for it, I don’t think. Q We would like a press conference. MS. PSAKI: Okay. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Jen. On immigration, several Democratic lawmakers, outside groups, administration officials have told us they don’t think that the administration has a cohesive immigration policy, and that’s contributed to the higher numbers — the record numbers that we’re seeing at the border. Do you think the administration has a cohesive immigration policy? And how would you characterize it? MS. PSAKI: We do. We have a — a bill that the President proposed and put forward on his first day in office. We believe there not only needs to be a more fair system, a humane system, but we need the — we believe there needs to be a more effective asylum processing. We need — that we believe there needs to be smarter border security investment. And we believe that there needs to be more done to address the root causes. That is all a part of the President’s proposed legislation. And we are eager to work with anyone in the House or Senate — Democrat or Republican — who wants to work with us on putting forward — moving forward on long-overdue immigration reform. Q But, you know, in the meantime, the legislation has stalled in Congress. In the meantime, do you think there’s a piece of strategy that the White House is implementing based on just executive actions and what you guys do at the border in trying to control the numbers? MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I would note that those who may be critical could be a part of the solution in working together to address what we know is a often cyclical challenge of people coming — larger numbers of people coming to the border. Yes, increases more recently, but we’ve seen it in the past as well. And as we see challenges in processing at the border, that is not going to be solved with a short-term solution. We need a longer-term solution. So, I would note that we have seen progress as we look at numbers over the course of time, month by month, but we need a longer-term legislation, comprehensive reform put in place. And we welcome the interest of anyone to work with us on that. Q Does the President plan to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos? MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any travel or anything to preview for early next year. It now feels like it’s coming soon, even though I long felt like it was long ago. So no plans to preview, but if there’s anything more, we — I’m happy to update you all on that. Go ahead. Q Hi, Jen. What is the President’s reaction to the DHS Inspector General’s decision not to investigate the horseback patrol incident in Del Rio? There’s still an inquiry by the Office of Professional Responsibility, but there’s not an announced timeline for its completion. The President, in September, said there would be consequences. Secretary Mayorkas said an investigation would turnaround in a week. Were the President and the Secretary too hasty in those remarks? MS. PSAKI: I know the Secretary spoke to this, I think, yesterday, and I would just point you to his comments. I don’t have an additional comment from here. Go ahead. Q Hi, Jen. Thank you. MS. PSAKI: Jonathan, you’re in a different spot. Q I know. MS. PSAKI: I’m adjusting. Q Different — different viewpoint. Thank you. Two questions for you. Does the White House have any reaction to — today, the governor of Oklahoma called off the execution of a death-row inmate, a Julius Jones, just hours before he was to be killed. It’s a case that’s attracted a lot of attention from activists, students in the state. Mr. Jones instead will be given — he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. MS. PSAKI: Well, the President has made clear over time that he has grave concerns about whether capital punishment, as currently implemented, is consistent with the values that are fundamental to our sense of justice and fairness. And certainly, as looking at a case like this, you reflect — and I think he and we all reflected on his point of view or his view and his policy position in that regard. And I’d note, for us, on a federal level, the Attorney General has halted executions at the federal level. Con- — we are in the process of conducting an important review of the federal death penalty, and the President believes that is an important step forward. But this, as you know, was a state-level sentence — the action needed to be taken on the state level. And so, there wasn’t a real role that the federal government could officially play in that regard, but certainly the President has grave concerns about the death penalty and the implementation of that are — you know, I think are — were reflected in how he viewed this case. Q Okay. And another matter, just picking up the thread on ambassadors. MS. PSAKI: Yeah. Q There’s some growing calls among some Democrats for Senate Majority Leader Schumer to do things, quote, “the hard way” and perhaps keep the Senate in nights, weekends, whatever it might be to get some of these Senate — these ambassador confir- — nominees confirmed. Does the White House endorse that position? What more do you guys want to see about getting more ambassadors put in place? So very few have been at this point. MS. PSAKI: Well, one thing that could happen if — you know, just to go kind of full-nerd Senate process here — is that a lot of these nominees, as you’ve seen over the — not everyone — but many of these nominees — ambassadorial nominees, eminently qualified nominees — end up passing with a majority — vast majority vote — I mean, Democrats and Republicans. And they could just be voted through or passed through through unanimous consent. You don’t need to use all the hours on the floor — right? — to have the process proceed, where there’s hours of debate. There have been delays and holds, as you know, from a variety of individuals; Senator Cruz is one of them. So that has been a challenge as well. But certainly, we believe that it is far past time to move forward with these nominees, that, you know, we are hindered by not having people and ambassadors in places around the world at a time — and I was — You know, I think if you haven’t all seen the — the statement my former Senat- — Secretary Gates, he had a pretty strong, compelling statement out there about the importance of moving forward with some of these nominees. We’re at almost December in the administration. So, I would just say that’s how we broadly view it. But it is true also that Leader Schumer has — is trying to move forward quite a bit on the legislative agenda. He has effectively and efficiently done that to date. And one of the challenges here — the big challenge that I don’t think should be undervalued or underreported — is the holds, is the insistence on lengthy processes that is really not necessary in every case. Go ahead. Q Some states have already expanded booster shot eligibility to all adults. Does the White House believe that that should be done nationwide? Does the President think that all adults should be getting their booster shots now? MS. PSAKI: Well, there’s a process that is underway, as you know. And we’ve said from — back several months ago, that once the FDA and the CDC approved boosters for individuals over a certain age — or once they — it goes through the process to approve it, we’d be ready with the supply. And we’ll be ready with the supply. But science first, data first, so we’ll wait for the process to proceed. Q And is the White House concerned about the rising numbers going into the holiday season, into the winter? We’re seeing numbers tick up across the country right now. What are the White House’s plans to deal with that? MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re continuing to implement vaccination programs, of course, across the country. We have been encouraged by some of the numbers we’ve seen in terms of the uptick of people who are eligible, who are getting their booster shots. About 30 million Americans have done that to date — obviously, more than that are eligible. So, we’d like to see more people getting booster shots who are eligible to get that extra protection against COVID-19 now, especially going into the holiday season. We know now that, now that kids age 5 to 11 are eligible, that if you get your vaccine shot, you get your first shot now, you’ll — your kids will be protected by the holiday season. So, we’re continuing to press and remind people that this is a big travel time of year, a big crowd time of year — winter — obviously, colder weather, more people inside. And we are upping our outreach to emphasize that. Go ahead, Karen. Q Thanks. Yesterday, Congress passed a bill to give the Congressional Medal of Honor to the 13 service members who were killed in the attack at the Kabul airport. Some of those families were critical at the time of the withdrawal and the President’s efforts to honor their loved ones. When will he sign that legislation? And is this something where he would host something at the White House to award those medals to the families? MS. PSAKI: Well, first, let me say that the President doesn’t look at the loss they had or the grief that these families endured through the political prism. And some of them were critical. They have every right — every right to speak publicly about their points of view. That continues to be his viewpoint. In terms of the status of it, I just have to check with our legislative team on what that looks like. I’m happy to do that. Q And would he even do a ceremony at the White House? Is it — MS. PSAKI: I don’t know what it looks like yet because I have to check on the status. As you know, he met many of these families back in August, following what I would still say was one of the worst days of his presidency, and conveyed to them that he would be open to staying in touch if that was appealing to them. And everybody deals with and copes with grief, the loss of a loved one in different ways. He remains open to that, but I don’t have any updates beyond that. Q Can I just do one quick one on paid leave. There’s reportedly an effort underway by some Democrats to start working on a separate paid leave proposal out of the Build Back Better plan that could have bipartisan support. Is this something that the President has endorsed as a strategy, given that the House has not even voted yet on the Build Back Better and where it goes in the Senate then? MS. PSAKI: Well, the President wants — wants paid leave to be in the final package. And, of course, it is in the House package — in the House bill that will be voted on soon. But without prejudging the outcome here, we also know that it needs to have support in the Senate in order to move forward, and that has been challenging to date. But the President is committed to getting this done. And without getting involved in the specific legislative tactics of it, which I don’t think he’s quite engaged with on this topic at this point, he wants to get paid leave done. He thinks it’s long overdue, and he’s committed to getting it done. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Jen. Yesterday, oil and gas companies paid nearly $190 million for drilling rights on federal reserve — oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. This comes just after President Biden was at COP26 in the United Kingdom. Given that these leases are going to last well past 2030, does this current round undermine at all Biden’s pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? MS. PSAKI: I think I may have spoken to this the other day. And I think there’s a legal court case around this — on the implementation or the allowing of these oil leases to move forward. But I would say — so, I would refer you to those comments. Go ahead, Katie. Q Thanks, Jen. How do you have a summit where migration is one of the major issues without bringing up the policy like “Remain in Mexico”? Where does the White House think the proper forum for that is if it’s not one like this? MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, there are — there’s legal ramifications around this and legal discussions around this. So, I think that’s part of the reason it hasn’t been intended to be a major focus of discussion. But certainly, migration will be, as will every — steps that can be taken to reduce the number of people who are coming to the border — coming from Central America through Mexico — and we believe we can do that in a cooperative manner. Q And one on Vice President Harris: What is the strategy behind her having her own separate set of bilats today? Will she be focusing on different issues with each leader? I’m just wondering the thinking is behind that. MS. PSAKI: I don’t think that’s historically uncommon when leaders come to the United States to have meetings with the Vice President, as well as the President. Certainly there — there are overlaps of discussions, but it gives them an opportunity to have high-level engagement while they’re in the United States, with both the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States. It is something we certainly thinks sends an indication about the value we place in these relationships. Go ahead. Q Thank you, Jen. There’s a growing sense among world leaders and others that on foreign policy President Biden is markedly different from former President Trump on tone, but on substance, in some of the ways, it’s very similar and not that different than Donald Trump’s “America First” policy. So, in light of today’s bilats and trilat, I just wanted to give you a chance to respond. MS. PSAKI: Like what are their examples? Q So, for instance, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said — told Politico today, “President Biden has doubled down on some of Trump’s policies and, in other cases, taken actions that are directly against Canada’s interests.” I think the two main areas would be trade and immigration. And then a little while earlier, on the submarine kerfuffle with the French, the French foreign minister said, “This brutal, unilateral, and unpredictable decision reminds me a lot of what Mr. Trump used to do.” And I can get you more examples. MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, look, I would say I’m not sure those are that specific, and I’ve already spoken to the electric vehicles component. I think it’s hard for any analyst to look at the President’s approach to reengaging with allies around the world, which is something that has been front and center to the President’s approach to global engagement, to rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement, to acknowledging that climate is one of the biggest crises we face around the world, to ensuring that we are working to promote human rights around the world, freedom of press around the world. I think that the list of differences is probably a laundry list, and the list of similarities probably fits on the back of a tiny napkin. Q One last timing question: On the diplomatic boycott of the Olympics, can you give us any sense of a timeframe for when we should expect that decision? MS. PSAKI: I don’t — I don’t have a timeframe to give you today, Ashley. Obviously, the Olympics are in February, and I want to give the President and the national security team a little space. But as any updates are there to provide — we certainly understand the interest, and we’ll provide them to all. Go ahead. Q You talked about the letter the President wrote to the FTC. How fast does the President expect that letter to bring down gas prices? MS. PSAKI: Well, I think what we’re looking at here is highlighting and elevating an issue that should be pretty apparent to people across the country. And I would note, since you gave me the opportunity, that, in the letter, the President also noted that the two largest oil and gas companies in the United States, measured by market capitalization, just to speak your kind of language, are on track to nearly double their net income over 2019. So just to give you a sense, they’re set to earn $32.9 billion this year. In 2019, the two companies only earned $17.2 billion in combined net income. And I would also note that BP’s CEO said while announcing an additional $1.25 billion share buyback earlier this month, quote, “When gas prices are strong, this is literally a cash machine.” So, that’s noted in the President’s letter. This is a letter sent to the chair of the FTC. They are, of course, independent. They make independent choices. I would note that in a previous letter that was sent related to concerns we had about gas — oil and gas mergers, they responded obviously. And there have been reports out there, I would note — a Reuters report out there — that showed that this had an impact on oil and gas mergers. So, I can’t predict for you. I understand what you’re asking, but, given the independence of the FTC, I would point you to them. But certainly we see this discrepancy between the — the price that is coming down as it relates to oil, and the price of gas is concerning. Q So any consideration to reversing some of the policies that led to this — maybe reconsidering the Keystone Pipeline — as the Prime Minister of Canada is here? MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the problem with that argument is that the Keystone Pipeline isn’t even really function- — I mean, it was only partially built. It isn’t even really functioning. So, suggesting that changing that would lower the price of gas, I don’t know that that makes substantive sense. Q But the market looks out — you know, they look at where it will be in the future. And canceling the Keystone Pipeline, not allowing other pipelines to go forward, or challenging other pipelines might reduce or cause some concern in the market. MS. PSAKI: Well, we look at every pipeline on an individual basis. The President made the decision when only about, I think, 8 percent of the pipeline had been built not to move forward as we looked at the environmental impacts and weighed them with the economic impacts. And the decision was certainly made. So, there’s a range of options on the table. I, unfortunately, don’t have anything more to preview for you today. But certainly lowering the cast [sic] — the cost of gasoline — something that people around the world, as you know, are experiencing, not just here in the United States — is of utmost concern and a priority to the President. A Canadian day. Q Thank you, Jen. Two quick questions. The first one, I just want to follow up to the previous question. Trade commercial — trade protection and policies are perceived as just as intransigent this administration as Trump’s policies. How do you distinguish those? MS. PSAKI: Give me more information. In what way? You’re talking about the electric vehicles component? Q For instance. Lumber, also — the same attitude as adopted by this administration as by the previous one. MS. PSAKI: And on lumber in which way? Are you talking about tariffs, or what specific component? Q On tariffs. On how difficult it is for Canadians to access the American market or favor the Americans — I understand that the President is fighting for good, middle-class jobs, as you keep repeating. But it’s good, middle-class jobs on the other side of the border that are killed by this attitude. MS. PSAKI: Well, I would, again, reiterate a little bit of what I’ve said. One, they’re going to have a discussion about all of these issues. And as you’ve seen, Prime Minister Trudeau and his delegation, as you know from reporting on them, will certainly raise this and other issues in the — in the meetings, and we’ll do a readout of that, as I’m sure they will do a readout of that. But the President’s view continues to be that ensuring — that investing in the electric vehicle industry here in the United States is something that helps consumers by lowering the cost of electric vehicles, making them accessible by — dramatically lowering the cost of purchasing an electric vehicle by, I believe, about $12,500 makes it accessible to people in this country. That’s also good for our climate — something we very much agree with Canadian leaders on — and the need to take steps on here in the United States, as one of the world’s biggest emitters. So that’s a part of the discussion too. So, I would say, again, that I think there are far more differences across the board — and I think probably people from the former President’s team would probably agree with this as well — in their approach to foreign policy than there are similarities. But this is an area where the President believes good un- — good-paying union jobs is important to our market here but also that investing in a clean energy industry that will help create jobs in the future is imperative. But lots of work we can do with the Canadians. Q And quickly, Jen — it’s been a month now that 16 Americans and 1 Canadian were kidnapped in Haiti. What has the administration been doing — what has the administration been doing? MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve had — we have a significant presence on the ground, including with law enforcement officials from the FBI and others, who are working constantly to bring these individuals home. I wish I had an update for you today. I know everybody is seeking an update. But, unfortunately, there’s nothing I have to report at this moment. Go ahead, in the back. Q So, Russia said that recent conversations between National Security Advisor Sullivan and his Russian counterpart, Patrushev, was part of the preparation for the next contact between Presidents Biden and Putin. So, are you planning such a meeting or phone call? And are you satisfied with the results of the Geneva Summit, given the current situation around the tensions from Ukraine and the situation at the Polish-Belarusian border? MS. PSAKI: Well, as you noted, we have held discussions with Russian officials about Ukraine and U.S.-Russia relations recently. And as we announced yesterday, the National Security Advisor spoke with the Secretary of the Russian Security Council about regional and global matters of concern. I don’t have anything to preview for you in terms of an additional contact or call or anything like that with President Putin. But, certainly, after their summit earlier this summer, we agreed there would be continued levels of contact and engagement at a high level, and that has proceeded since that point in time. Q So you’re not ruling it out? Is that right? MS. PSAKI: I am not ruling out that the President of the United States will speak with the President of Russia at some point in the future. Go ahead. Q Oh, me. Sorry. MS. PSAKI: Oh, I was going to go right behind you because today is also a Mexico day. Q Fine. Q Thank you. The North American Leaders’ Summit has many subjects on the table: energy; you said “organized crime”; of course, COVID; and certainly USMCA. In all of these areas, what do you — the — what does the United States government needs to see to consider this summit — this summit successful, especially in terms of the Mexican government? Do you expect any agreement today, and in which areas? Thank you, Jen. MS. PSAKI: Sure. So, you know, the bottom line is today is an opportunity to resume a level of engagement with the Canadians and the Mexicans and their leadership — at the leadership level that had been stalled for four years — hadn’t happened since 2016. And it’s an opportunity to build on discussions that these leaders were also a part of — whether it was the G20, COP26 — in different capacities. So, today is an opportunity for leader-to-leader engagement, have a discussion about a range of challenges we all face, whether it’s improving vaccine distribution and pandemic preparedness — something that is certainly on the minds of all leaders; strengthening North American supply chains; enhancing competitiveness; concrete actions on reducing methane emissions, a follow-up to the COP26 Summit; and developing a regional compact on migration and protection for the Americas. In terms of what will come out of here, we’ll have the — the meetings have a couple of more hours. So, I’ll let them proceed before I preview that. But, certainly, the President was looking forward to the opportunity to engage face to face, have discussions about these important vital and issues with these leaders. Shelby. Q Thank you, Jen. MS. PSAKI: Okay. And we’ll do Shelby. Last one. Q Thanks. OSHA suspended the vaccine implementation and enforcement because of a court order. Given this update, is the administration still urging businesses to move forward with the President’s vaccine and weekly testing rule? And are you still working off of that January 4th compliance deadline? MS. PSAKI: We are. Let me be very clear: Our message to businesses right now is to move forward with measures that will make their workplaces safer and protect them — their workforces from COVID-19. That was our message after the first day issued by the Fifth Circuit. That remains our message and nothing has changed. I would note that recent polling — I think that just came out yesterday — showed that 60 percent of businesses are moving forward with measures that keep their workplaces safe. They’re essentially implementing components or versions of these vaccine requirements because they know it’s in the interests of their workforces — to protect their workforces, to make sure they can bring more people back to the workforce. And we certainly see that as a positive sign. So, we are still heading towards the same timeline. The Department of Justice is vigorously defending the emergency temporary standard in court. And we are confident in OSHA’s authority. All right, thanks, everyone. Q Jen, Senator Manchin just walked out while we were in here. Are you able to provide any readout of the meeting that I suppose just happened? Did he meet with the President or with staff? MS. PSAKI: He was not in the meeting with the Mexican President and the Canadian President [Prime Minister]. (Laughter.) That would just make an added component of today. Q It would indeed. MS. PSAKI: I believe he was — he was participating in a swearing in ceremony for Dr. Gupta, per Dr. Gupta’s request. Q All right, thank you. Q Thanks, Jen. MS. PSAKI: Thanks, everyone.

v.@PressSec Jen Psaki: "The president selected the vice president to serve as his running mate because he felt she was exactly the person he wanted to have by his side to govern the country. She's a key partner, she's a bold leader."

Inflation airhead: NBC's Stephanie Ruhle says the "dirty little secret" of people complaining about paying higher prices for food and fuel for their homes is they can afford it just fine. According to her, people should have been saving during the pandemic and stocks look good.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said Sunday he has no regrets about hyping the infamous dossier by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele now that Special Counsel John Durham has further discredited the already debunked document. See Also: https://www.tranganhnam.xyz/2021/11/rep-adam-schiff-says-he-couldnt-have.html Schiff, chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, had dramatically read some of the most explosive claims from the dossier into the Congressional Record during a March 2017 House Intelligence Committee hearing, including the now-debunked claim that the Trump 2016 presidential campaign colluded with Russia.

Full Schiff: When Trump aides refuse subpoenas, they ‘seem to feel that they’re above the law' See Also: https://www.tranganhnam.xyz/2021/10/rachel-maddow-reviews-series-of-donald.html In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), chair of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the House January 6th Select Committee, talks about the resistance some former Trump aides have shown to responding to subpoenas.

Jen Psaki on skyrocketing gas prices: "Our view is that the rise in gas prices over the long term makes an even stronger case for doubling down our investment and our focus on clean energy options."

MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. Q Welcome back. Q Welcome back! MS. PSAKI: Thank you. Okay. I have a couple of items for all of you at the top. First, let me say it’s great to be back with all of you, although as a longtime hater of heels, I do miss my slippers, so — which I’m sure some of the women in this room can agree with. But just to reiterate, I had intended to go on the trip with the President about two weeks ago. I did not go on the trip because I had members of my household who had tested positive for COVID. So out of an abundance of caution, I stayed home. I received four negative tests, and then, on October 31st, I received a positive test. And I put out that information out of an abundance of transparency. I had not seen the President or had close contact for five days, given the trip. And when I did see him five days prior, we wore masks and we were sitting outside. As I noted in my initial statement — and was still the case even after that — I had mild symptoms, primarily fatigue. And I remain incredibly grateful for the vaccine and the impact of the vaccine in keeping me safe and other people in my house safe as well. I also noted in my initial statement that I would be abiding by a 10-day quarantine, which, for the math, it started on November 1st, which was the day after I received a positive test. It ended on Wednesday, November 10th. And then, yesterday, per White House protocols, I had a negative test, and hence I am here back with all of you today. So, I just wanted to outline that at the top. I have a couple of other things. Q Thank you. MS. PSAKI: Thank you. So, we’ve obviously had a very busy week as it relates to fighting COVID. Our vaccination program for kids ages 5 to 11 hit full strength this week. Vaccines for kids are now available at 20,000 trusted and convenient locations. Our rollout is helping parents turn months of anxiety into action. On Wednesday, we estimated that nearly a million kids have already received their first shot, and 700,000 additional appointments are already scheduled through pharmacies alone. That doesn’t obviously track everybody, but that’s still a significant progress. And we anticipate many more will be getting vaccinated in the weeks to come. The First Lady visited a children’s vaccination site this week in Virginia and is headed to Texas next week to visit another site to help communicate with families, with parents about the safety and the efficacy of these vaccines. I also wanted to give an update on the success of vaccine requirements. New data show that as vaccination requirements expanded, our vaccination rate also increased. In the past week, we’re averaging nearly 300,000 first shots for people ages 12 and older per day. These are new people getting vaccinated. For comparison, in mid-July, before the pandemic began im- — before the President began implementing vaccine requirements, we were averaging less than 250,000 first shots per day. It’s clear that these requirements, driven by the President’s leadership, are getting more people vaccinated, accelerating our path out of the pandemic, saving more lives. The vaccine requirements we put forward are going to continue to accelerate our path out of the pandemic. That’s how we see our path forward. I’d also note that we’re encouraged by the progress companies like JetBlue are making as they implement their own vaccine requirement. Here, we are firmly in the camp of accelerating our path forward, as we have conveyed. I also wanted to note that over 27 million Americans have now gotten their booster. And on testing: This week, we invested an additional $650 million in Rescue Plan funding to help point-of-care diagnostic test manufacturers scale up their production. It builds on aggressive actions we’ve taken over the past several months, including to quadruple the supply of at-home tests to over 200 million per month starting December. I know I ordered some from Walmart myself. They came the next day, and I use them at home. Finally, on ensuring equity throughout our response: The President’s COVID Health Equity Task Force submitted its recommendations to help us build on this progress. Already, we’ve announced a $785 million investment in Rescue Plan funding to support community-based organizations that are continuing to build vaccine confidence across communities of color, rural areas, and low-income populations. Finally, I would note 99 percent of schools are open for in-person learning, and we’re helping parents get their kids vaccinated, which means now 95 percent of people in this country are eligible to be vaccinated. Finally, a week ahead:  On Monday, the President and the First Lady will participate in a Tribal Nations summit coinciding with national Native American Heritage Month. This will be the first summit since 2016 and the first time that this summit has been hosted at the White House. The President will address Tribal leaders and announce a number of steps to improve public safety and justice for Native Americans, and protect private lands, treaty rights, and sacred places. The Vice President will be speaking at the summit on Tuesday, and members of the Cabinet will be joining to discuss dozens of agency-specific policy deliverables. Also on Monday, the President will host, as you know, a bipartisan bill-signing ceremony for his Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal, where he will be joined by members of Congress who helped write the historic bill and a diverse group of leaders who fought for its passage — governors and mayors of both parties, and labor and business leaders. Also on Monday — very busy day — have your coffee and spinach, or whatever — whatever your — whatever you like for breakfast. On Monday evening, the President will meet virtually with President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China. The two leaders will discuss ways to responsibly manage the competition between the United States and the PRC, as well as ways to work together where our interests align. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the President will continue traveling across the country to highlight how his Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal delivers for the American people. So, on Tuesday, he’s going to be visit — visiting the New Hampshire 175 bridge over the Pemigewasset — see how I did that? — River in Woodstock, New Hampshire, which has been on the state’s “red list” of bridges in poor condition since 2013. There, he will discuss how the Infrastructure Deal will repair and rebuild our nation’s roads and bridges while strengthening resilience to climate change. On Wednesday, he will travel to Detroit to visit GM’s Factory ZERO electric vehicle assembly plant. He will highlight how his infrastructure plan will build electric vehicle charging stations across the country, making it easier to drive an electric vehicle, and also investing in a huge clean energy industry that will put many people back to work. In both Michigan and New Hampshire, he will underscore the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal will create good-paying union jobs across the country. On Thursday, the President will host Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada and President Obrador of Mexico for the first North American Leaders’ Summit since 2016. He will participate in individual bilateral meetings with each leader ahead of the summit that day as well. And last, but certainly not least, on Friday, he will pardon the National Thanksgiving Turkey, continuing the transition [tradition], in a ceremony in the Rose Garden. This is the 74th anniversary of the National Thanksgiving Turkey presentation. We’re all very excited to meet the soon-to-be-famous turkey and its alternate. Did you all know there’s always an alternate? Two lives are actually — two turkey lives are actually saved — which were raised in Jasper, Indiana. With that, Zeke. Q Thanks, Jen. And welcome back. MS. PSAKI: Thank you. Q On the health and COVID subject, could you speak a little bit about how frequently the President gets tested for COVID-19 right now? And then also, has — when does he plan to undergo his annual physical? MS. PSAKI: He will be doing his physical soon. As I’ve noted before, as soon as he does that, we will provide that information transparently to all of you. He is regularly tested under the guidance of his doctor. We do provide that information regularly to all of you. I’m happy to check and see when the last time he was tested and provide that to you after the briefing as well. Q Thanks. And does the White House have any reaction to the sentencing of American journalist Danny Fenster in Myanmar? Any interaction from the White House or efforts on the part of the White House to try to get him free? MS. PSAKI: I will say that, obviously, we are always concerned about the detention of individuals around the world — journalists, dissidents, people who are speaking freely and speaking on behalf of the media as well. In terms of direct action, it really would be under the purview, at this point, of the State Department. I would point you to them for any updates on the status or engagement that they have with officials there. Q And then, lastly, after this morning’s APEC meeting, there was no resolution on the U.S. bid to host in 2023. Can you confirm that Russia is the obstacle to the U.S. hosting — or hosting that summit in a couple years? And then, on the topic of Russia, there have been a number of reports over the last couple of days about concerns on the U.S. government over a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine with the troop buildup over there. Has the President reached out to President Putin? What’s the level of engagement right now between the White House and Moscow? MS. PSAKI: Sure. Let me start with your first question. APEC hosting requires the consensus of all 21 economies. We thank the vast majority of members for their strong support so far. One economy — and I’m not going to — I’m not going to confirm which economy that is — but is still undergoing consultations and has not yet joined the consensus. And our hope is certainly that we move past this impasse, that it is resolved, and that we can continue the positive momentum on economic cooperation through APEC. And then, in terms of — your second question, say it one more time. I apologize. Q (Inaudible) that Russian troop buildup on Ukraine concerns the U.S. government about a potential invasion over there. And any White House-to-Moscow engagement in the last couple of days regarding that buildup? MS. PSAKI: Well, in recent week, and certainly days, we’ve extensive interactions with our European allies and partners, including with Ukraine — but about our concern about these reports. And during these meetings, we’ve, of course, been discussing our concerns about the Russian military activities and their harsh rhetoric toward Ukraine. We’ve also held discussions with Russian officials about Ukraine and U.S.-Russian relations generally. As we’ve made clear in the past and we’ve made clear directly to them as well: Escalatory or aggressive actions by Russia would be of great concern to the United States. We call for an immediate restoration of the July 2020 ceasefire. And we stand with our partner, Ukraine, and condemn Russian aggression against Ukraine in all forms. And, obviously, our European conversations are about shared concern about the reports of this buildup and rhetoric. Go ahead. Andrea. Q Hey. So, welcome back. MS. PSAKI: Thank you. Q Thank you so much, Jen. I wanted to ask you about the Xi meeting that’s coming up on Monday. MS. PSAKI: Sure. Q So are you expecting anything sort of concrete to come out of it? Or is this really more about reestablishing a — kind of a better basis for dialogue? Can you just say a few words? MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, let me — I think this is why you’re asking me the question. So, let me just go back just briefly of, kind of, what our strategy has been to date. I mean, this meeting is coming after 10 months of President Biden taking action so we can outcompete China in the long term. And that means investing in ourselves at home to strengthen our own competitive hand. It means working with our partners and allies to make sure we have a united approach and a coordinated approach as it relates to engagement with China. We, of course, believe in intense competition. We believe and understand intense competition is part of that relationship. We also believe that that requires intense diplomacy. So, this is a reflection of that. And if you go back to the President’s phone call on September 9th, where this was discussed — and, obviously, there was follow-up engagement — one of the disc- — part of the discussion was about the importance of that leader-to-leader engagement, not because we are seeking — and we’re not — specific deliverables or outcomes, more because this is about setting the terms, in our view, of an effective competition where we’re in a position to defend our values — which certainly will be part of the President’s conversation — and those of our allies and partners, and also discuss areas where we can work together. So, I would see this, Andrea, as more of a continuation of that intensive diplomacy, given that we believe intense competition requires that. And I wouldn’t see this as an — I wouldn’t set the expectation, I should say, that this is intended to have, you know, deliv- — major deliverables or outcomes. Q Yeah, so there were reports that President Xi could ask the President to attend the Olympics in February. What kind of signal would it send if the President were to attend the Olympics, given the concerns that have been raised about China’s actions toward Taiwan, its increased aggression and, kind of, flights there in that region? Is that — would that be a problematic situation for the President? MS. PSAKI: Well, I understand why, but we’re getting a few steps ahead of where we are. I will also note for all of your planning purposes — and don’t want to ruin your Sundays — but there will be a preview call of the summit on Sunday that all of you will be invited to. So, in terms of the Olympics or any invitation, I don’t have anything for you on that at this point. Q Okay, just a quick one on the economy — on inflation. So, one in four Americans, according to a new survey, have experienced some kind of loss of income as a result of higher prices. The President has expressed concern about this. I know that you were working on different fronts — MS. PSAKI: On cue. Q — to address this, but, I mean, how urgent is it? And how — you know, is there any sort of specific concern that this is going to affect not just political outcomes, but just the overall economy? MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, Andrea, first, let me say that, you know, a lot of talk about inflation — I’m not saying from you, but in general out there — has been — it’s become a political cudgel and it shouldn’t be. It’s impacting, as you said, millions of Americans no matter their political party. And that’s certainly of concern to the President. I would note that everyone from the Federal Reserve to Wall Street agree with our assessment that inflation is already expected to be subs- — to substantially decelerate next year. I know you’re not talking about that, but that’s an important component here. And economists across the board also agree that the President’s economic agenda — the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill that he will sign on Monday and the Build Back Better Bill that we’re working to move forward — will not add to inflationary ples- — pressure, and will ease inflationary pressure over the long term. But when we move past the economic jargon, which I realize is what you’re asking me, and talk about the real impacts on people’s lives, we’re really talking about costs to people. Right? And you talked about this on Wednesday. So it’s cost of childcare, cost of housing, cost of gas, cost of household goods. That’s how people are experiencing this on a day-to-day basis. And that is, of course, of concern to the President. Our view is that the real risk here is inaction. And the reason we — I wanted to do this slide today — one, I love slides and graphics, so on my first day back we had to have one — but is because if we don’t act on Build Back Better, what we’re doing is we are — won’t be able to cut childcare costs in 2020. We know that is a huge impact on people’s daily lives and American families. We won’t be able to make preschool free for many families starting in 2022, saving many families $8,600. We won’t be able to get ahead of skyrocketing housing costs. I mean, that’s a part of this bill too. It has a major investment in building new housing — affordable housing units so that people can move into them and live in them and address the pending housing crisis. And we won’t be able to save American — Americans thousands of dollars by negotiating prescription drug prices. So our view is this — this makes a strong case — this is a strong case for moving forward with this agenda because what we’re really talking about is cost to American families, how it’s impacting them. And that’s something that if we don’t act now, we won’t be able to address these things in the short term either. Go ahead. Q Thanks so much, Jen. And welcome back. The President has picked Dr. Rob Califf as his pick for FDA commissioner. We’ve already seen Senator Joe Manchin come out in opposition against him, citing his “significant ties to the pharmaceutical industry,” as Senator Manchin put it. Is the White House confident that Dr. Califf can get confirmed as FDA commissioner? MS. PSAKI: We are. And I will say that the President chose Dr. Califf — and this was in his statement, but let me reiterate some of this — because he’s one of the most experienced clinical trialists in the country, has the experience and expertise to lead the Food and Drug Administration during a critical time in our nation’s fight to put an end to the coronavirus pandemic. I’d also note that how we see this or how this President sees this nomination is a continuation of what he views as excellent work under the leadership of Acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock, who’s led the agency through a challenging time because of what’s happening in the world and, of course, fighting the pandemic. I would note that four years ago — five years ago, sorry — my math was a little off there — he was confirmed by a vote of 89 to 4. One of those four is the individual you mentioned. And every senator can vote for or against members — or people who are nominated. That’s their role. But we feel he’s a qualified person who has the exact experience for this moment. Q Thank you. And how many Republicans should we expect to see at the signing ceremony here on Monday? MS. PSAKI: We will see. We’ve invited a broad group of Republicans: some in Congress, governors, mayors, individuals who played a role in helping move the Infrastructure Bill forward. And as we get close to Monday or on Monday, we’ll provide you, of course, a list of attendees. Q Have any Republicans, like Senator Mitch McConnell, said that they will not be at that signing ceremony? MS. PSAKI: I think he’s spoken to this publicly, so I’ll point you to that. But, certainly, we have the invite out to a range of members. We’re — we would — the President looks forward to thanking them for their work, for working together to get this done for the American people. Q And the — Q Have any confirmed at all? Q — last question on the President Xi meeting on Monday: Will the President hold a press conference afterward like he did following this meeting with President Putin? And does he plan to bring up the COVID-19 origins with President Xi, given he has said that China has been blocking investigators from getting access to information that’s critical to them? MS. PSAKI: That is a remaining concern. And there will be a broad range of topics that will be discussed, and the President is certainly not going to hold back on areas where he has concern. Again, I would point you to the fact that we’ll do this preview call on Sunday, where they’ll talk in more detail. It’s Monday evening, so I would not expect a press conference that — later after the call, given the time difference. Q But anytime next week to hear the President talk about this meeting? MS. PSAKI: I think there is one planned for after the — by — the meetings with the Mexican and Canadian leaders next week. Go ahead. I’ll come back you. I just want to jump around. Q Sorry. You just said the real risk on inflation is inaction. But, so far this week, we haven’t seen any action from the administration on gas prices. The President, in Europe, said, you know, we would see action sooner rather than later; on Wednesday, that it was his “top priority.” So is he going to tap the SPR, ease biofuel blending requirements, ban crude exports? And if the answer is you still haven’t kind of decided on any of this, is the message to Americans headed into Thanksgiving — where everybody will be driving to see their family and friends — that you think that the current prices are acceptable? MS. PSAKI: We certainly don’t think that. The message to Americans is that we’re not just closely and directly monitoring the situation — which, of course, we’ve been doing — but we’re looking at every tool in our arsenal. You mentioned some of them. While I don’t have anything to preview today, the President is quite focused on this, as is the economic team. And I would note, again, that we have taken a range of actions. We’ve communicated with the FTC to crack down on illegal pricing; are engaging with countries and entities abroad, like OPEC, on increasing supply; and we’re looking at a range of options we have at our disposal. But I don’t have anything here to preview for you. Q Axios reported that the President is considering appointing an infrastructure czar to oversee that program. Would that be somebody that comes in from outside the White House or the administration, or would we expect to have the Transportation Secretary or somebody like that to sort of hold this position? MS. PSAKI: He does have an intent — he does intend to name a infrastructure coordinator and someone who could oversee the implementation of the bill. I don’t have anything to preview yet on that personnel announcement. I expect we’ll have something soon, and you can expect it will be someone from outside of the administration. Q And then, last one. Senator Manchin was critical of, sort of, inflation this week. Obviously, there’s a question of if it’ll impact his vote on the Build Back Better issue, and I’m wondering if you’ve received any assurances from him that it will not. But also, it plays into sort of a larger critique that he’s had about the Fed having, at some point, ramped down — he wishes that they’d ramped down bond buying and (inaudible). So I’m wondering if that is a criticism that the White House agrees with, especially as the President is sort of evaluating this position going forward. MS. PSAKI: I’m just not going to get into critiquing the Federal Reserve from here or their decisions, given they make independent decisions. I would note that — and I’ll let Senator Manchin, of course, speak for himself and his support or concerns he may have. You know, what we’re focused on is getting this bill passed through the House next week. And we have every intention of working with leadership to get exactly — to get that done. And we will remain, at a senior-staff level, at this point, engaged closely with Senator Manchin and answer any questions he has. I will note that most — the vast majority of outside economists agree that this is not a bill that will add to inflationary pressure, and in fact, over the longer term, it will ease inflationary pressure. And I would note just a couple of people who, at times, haven’t always been positive about our proposals. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said about Build Back Better, “I don’t think that’s an inflation problem.” He said if he was in Congress, he would vote for it. Moody’s Analytics chief economist, Mark Zandi: “I don’t think the Build Back Better agenda will be inflationary. I think it’s designed to lift long-term economic growth by improving productivity. That’s public infrastructure, roads, bridges, broadband. That will make us more productive. That should ease inflation.” As we know, increased economic productivity and growth eases inflationary pressure. And, of course, our favorite, the 17 winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics, who wrote that “because this agenda invests in long-term economic capacity and will enhance the ability of more Americans to participate, it will ease longer-term inflationary pressure.” I would also note, and then I will keep cooking around here, but that one of the reasons they don’t have concerns, as they’ve said in many of these interviews that I was just pulling out components of, is because it’s fully paid for. And the reason it’s fully paid for is because we’re asking corporations, the wealthiest Americans to pay more in taxes. That is something — I don’t — you don’t need to be kind of a sleuth here to understand why some Republicans are speaking out against this package. Is it because they’re opposed to lowering childcare costs? Is it because they’re opposed to making sure that preschool is available for families? Is it because they’re opposed to lowering healthcare costs? No, it’s because they don’t want to raise taxes on corporations. We all know that. Hope people will ask them those questions. Go ahead. Q Jen, can I ask you about COVID very quickly? MS. PSAKI: Sure. Q And welcome back, by the way. MS. PSAKI: Thank you. Q The Colorado governor just signed an executive order making everyone 18 and older eligible for a booster shot, which defies guidance from the FDA and from the CDC, which says that the booster shot should only go to those who are at higher risk or seniors. What does the White House make of that decision and move? MS. PSAKI: Well, we, here in the federal government, are guided by science and our country’s public health officials who are constantly reviewing the data to make their own independent, evidence-based decisions. As you noted, this isn’t currently the guidance that’s being projected by our health and medical experts because they are looking at and understanding the data. So, we would certainly continue to advise leaders across the country to abide by public health guidelines coming from the federal government. Q If I can, quickly, just to detail your own experience: Do you have any lingering symptoms? Have you had anything that stuck with you? MS. PSAKI: I do not, fortunately. And as I noted earlier, I was — experienced a little bit of light fatigue in the first couple of days but none that prevented me from participating in meetings here, engaging with the President and the team on the road, and certainly probably calling members of my team so many times they were tired of hearing from me. Q As it relates to the White House, has the White House determined whether it is safe to hold holiday parties, and will the White House do so this year? MS. PSAKI: You know, it’s going to look a little bit different, Peter, and I don’t have anything to outline for you at this point in time. But certainly we expect to celebrate the holiday season. And we’ll have more details, I expect, in the coming weeks on that for you. Q So, for clarity, when you say it’s going to look different, that means there will be holiday parties and they will look different but you’re not going to detail how they’ll look different yet? MS. PSAKI: We’ll have more to convey to all of you about what it will look like, and I just don’t have those details at this point in time. Q Let me ask one last question if I can, quickly. Across this country, we’ve seen this new phenomenon lately chanted at sporting events and on signs. The phrase is, “Let’s go, Brandon.” A sort of code for a profane slogan attacking President Biden. What does the President make of that? MS. PSAKI: I don’t think he spends much time focused on it or thinking about it. Q The President said when he came into office on Inauguration Day — he said he was going to help get rid of the “uncivil war” in this country. So I guess, through that lens right now, does the President think there are things that he can do differently? Or how does he react to the stuff he sees out there when it is one of his primary promises or desires to help bring Americans together? MS. PSAKI: Well, it takes two to move towards a more civil engagement and discourse in this country. And the President is going to continue to operate, as you said, from the promise he made early on, which is that he wants to govern for all Americans. He’s going to deliver for all Americans, as is evidenced by the infrastructure bill that he’s going to sign on Monday, that’s going to help expand broadband to everyone, no matter your political party, no matter whether you voted for him or not. That’s going to replace lead pipes, make sure kids have clean drinking water, whether you’re a Democrat or Republican or not political at all. That’s how he’s going to govern. And certainly we’re hopeful we’ll have partners to move toward more civil discourse with in the future. Q Thank you. MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Jacqui. Q Thanks, Jen. Welcome back. MS. PSAKI: Thank you. Q Democrats are calling for the President to release barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to bring down costs. And that would be somewhat of an immediate action to mitigate these high gas prices as opposed to waiting for the BIF money to be implemented to address the long-term supply chain issues or the Build Back Better to be passed. Why has the President not yet done that? Does he plan to do that soon? MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything to preview for you. I can just reiterate what I conveyed a little bit earlier: is that certainly the cost of gas is on the minds of the — on the mind of the President, as it is on the mind of many Americans across the country. And there are several steps we’ve taken, including pushing the FTC, or asking the FTC to look into price gouging — something we’ve seen and we have concerns has been an issue over the past few months as the availability and supply of oil has gone up and prices have not come down; pushing OPEC to release more supply to meet the demand. And certainly there are a range of other domestic options, but I just don’t have anything to preview at this point in time. Q And then, can I get your response to this report from the Tax Policy Center that under the Build Back Better plan, most millionaires would get a tax cut; two thirds of people making over a million dollars would get a cut on average of $16,800, mostly because of SALT? Separately, it finds that 20 to 30 percent of middle-class households would pay more in taxes — granted, it’s a small amount — between $100 and $230 depending on income levels. But how does the White House frame this reconciliation plan as a tax cut for the middle class, paid for by the rich, when this analysis is showing the opposite? MS. PSAKI: It actually doesn’t. Just to give a little bit more context of what the report showed, it also showed that the average family with children making $75,000 to $100,000 per year will get an income tax cut of about $2,230. It also showed the average — Q Isn’t that not until last year though? MS. PSAKI: It showed the average taxpayer with income above $1 million per year will see their income taxes go up by $65,000. Seventy-five percent of the tax cuts go to families making less than $200,000 per year, with 54 million families making less than $200,000 a year getting a tax cut. What we also don’t buy into, which is part of your second part of this, is that any tax that dares touch big corporations — many of whom are making record profits and not paying any taxes at all — is somehow a tax on the middle class. Most economists agree with us: Build Back Better will clearly lower taxes, lower costs, raise wages, and economic growth — increase economic growth for the middle class. The strategy — and just look at the 2017 tax cuts — that was argued at the time, that giving tax cuts to big corporations would trickle down to lower income people — it didn’t. None of that happened. So we’re just not buying into that notion Q But doesn’t that not take effect — that cut that you’re referencing — until 2023? So, I guess what I’m getting at is: Next year, 2022, the expectation is that middle-class families will be paying, granted, a little bit more, but still a little bit more if this passes. And then, also, you’re still dealing with issues like gas prices being high. You guys have talked about the actions you’re going to take or are looking at, but these are long-term solutions, mostly, that you’re talking about. So what will be done in the immediate future to address the next year? MS. PSAKI: Actually, many of them are short term. But what is true and is not often out there is that a lot of these pandemic relief programs are ending — right? — are ending. So if you look at the spending — (gestures upward trajectory) — I don’t really have a graph right now; I’m kind of making a fake one — but if you look at the spending from pandemic relief, that is going to go down because a lot of those programs are ending. So when people are out there — this isn’t your question, but just made me think of it — when people are out there criticizing the influx of money into the economy, that’s actually misleading and inaccurate. What we’re really talking about here is we’re ending those programs. The President supports that. There are programs, to your point, like the Child Tax Credit, that if we don’t extend the Child Tax Credit, 40 million Americans will no longer get the benefit of the Child Tax Credit. That’s an immediate benefit that would be happening next year. I mentioned, before, investing in housing and building lower inc- — or available housing that allows for options for lower-income and middle-income families. That is something that will have an impact. Cutting childcare costs in half — that’s something that will happen next year. That — those are all ways that we’re working — we’re trying to and focused on lowering costs for Americans. That would be a part of this bill. Q And then, I want to ask you about real — real quick about Ukraine. I know you discussed earlier the Russian troops amassing on the Ukrainian border. Field hospitals, as we all know, started being set up in April, indicating that there might be some action there. Blinken’s comments about concern about Russia rehashing the 2014 invasion and then Jake Sullivan underscoring the commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. But has — it doesn’t seem there’s been any indication of more support on the way from the U.S. right now. MS. PSAKI: To the Ukrainians? Q To the Ukrainians. And then — so why is that? And then, also, why did we send the CIA Director to Russia instead of the Secretary of Defense or our ambassador or Blinken to handle this kind of a diplomacy issue? Like, who is he speaking for in that trip? MS. PSAKI: He’s speaking for the U.S. government. I’d also note that the CIA Director is also the former ambassador to Russia and the former Deputy Secretary of State. So he does come to it with quite a bit of experience. But the President looks at his national security team as a group of smart, engaged individuals who are representing his national interests overseas, and that’s what he’s doing. I will note, on the Ukraine question, part of the reason I mentioned the engagement with European allies and partners is because, as you know, we operate in lockstep with our allies and partners. That’s how we’ve approached things. We are — we have a shared concern about reports of military buildup on the border. I don’t have anything to preview at this point in time, but that is something that we are very actively engaged with not just the Russians on and the Ukrainians, but also our European partners as well. I just want to skip around because I know we’re not getting to enough people in the back, so I hear. Okay, let’s go all the way. Time. Q Thank you. Thank you very much, Jen. I had a question about the meeting between Xi Jinping and President Biden on Monday. The U.S. Holocaust Museum this week came out with a report that China’s actions towards the minority population of Uyghurs in the country may amount to genocide. Its use of forced slave labor and forced sterilizations and other actions, is that something that the President is going to bring up with Xi Jinping? And is that something the President will hold up as something that Xi Jinping needs to take action on, to reverse, before the U.S gets closer in its relationship with China? MS. PSAKI: Well, I would say that one of the purposes of this leader-to-leader engagement is to also discuss areas where you have strong concern and disagreement. And, you know, it’s not just the President’s words, though; we’ve also acted. We are engaged, first of all, with members of Congress on technical advis- — providing technical assistance on legislation that’s currently working its way through Congress. But in addition to that, we’ve also taken concrete measures on our own, including visa restrictions, Global Magnitsky and financial sanctions, export controls, import restrictions, the release of a business advisory, and rallying the G7 to commit to take action to ensure all global supply chains are free from the use of forced labor. So this is an area where we have been — the President has been vocal, he has taken action. Again, in terms of topics that will be discussed, there will be areas where we work together, and he will not hold back, as he never has, on areas where we have concern. But I will leave it to the preview call on Sunday to give you more detail on that. Q Does the President believe that his personal relationship with Xi Jinping — going back to having a meal together in a noodle shop in Beijing in 2011 and their — the time that they spent together — will that have an impact on his ability to engage with Xi Jinping and get China to take actions that it’s been reluctant to take so far? MS. PSAKI: I would say that he — you’ve heard him talk about this before, Brian, and he feels that the history of their relationship — having spent time with him — allows him to be quite candid as he has been in the past and he will continue to be as we look ahead to next week. Q Just a follow-up on China. MS. PSAKI: Let’s go all the way in the back. There you go. Q On the Monday virtual meet, will concerns on the border tensions with India also be raised between the two leaders? MS. PSAKI: Again, I know there’s a lot of interest in this meeting. I certainly understand it. We’re going to be previewing it later this weekend. There’ll be a range of topics discussed — you know, some where we have concern; some where we have areas where we can work together; some certainly security related; economic. There’ll be a range of topics, but I’ll leave it to the Sunday preview call. Go ahead. Q Thanks, Jen. I wanted to ask about the numbers that came out this morning about the record number of people quitting their jobs in September. Is there a concern that this number might go even higher when the vaccine mandate goes into place? And what is the administration doing to help companies who are concerned about retaining workers once the mandate kicks in? MS. PSAKI: You’re talking about because of the vaccine mandate — Q Right. MS. PSAKI: — being implemented? And is it specific companies? I just haven’t seen this data, so give me a little more information. Q So there are some companies that are concerned, once the vaccine mandate goes into place, that they may have trouble retaining workers, especially hourly workers who may not want to get the vaccine. Are you afraid that these numbers of people quitting their jobs will go up? And what is the administration doing to help companies who are worried about this? MS. PSAKI: Well, first I’ll say that hasn’t actually been what we’ve seen at the vast majority of companies who have implemented vaccine mandates. And as you know, the deadline hasn’t come up for where it would be required. It’s coming up in the coming months. But many companies — the airlines, of course; hospital systems — have implemented vaccine requirements. The vast majority of people have participated in them and abided by those requirements, and now they have a healthier, safer, more predictable workforce. So, we haven’t actually seen that to date, so I don’t know that we would have that to predict in the future. Q But also, companies that are worried about losing their workers are probably waiting to implement a vaccine mandate. Right? So as (inaudible) — MS. PSAKI: I would see if companies convey that, we can speak to that. But, obviously, we’re working to implement the OSHA requirements — the regulations that were put out just last week. And our view is that — and the view of a lot of outside economists and experts too — is that this will require more certainty for companies and that they will know their workplace is safe; that people will feel safe going to their workplace, which has been an issue throughout the pandemic; and that they will also know that workers are less likely to get sick from COVID, which has been, you know, in a range of industries, an enormous issue and created a great deal of unpredictability across the board. Go ahead. Q Jen, can I follow on that? MS. PSAKI: I’ll come back to you, Weijia. Q Jen, with the Transgender Day of Remembrance fast approaching, 2021 is the — has the highest number of recorded deaths of transgender and non-binary people, totaling out at 45 this year, according to the Human Rights Campaign. The President brought attention to this issue as a candidate, but has he been briefed on it as — in the White House? MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure, Chris, and I’m happy to ask the President and see with our domestic policy team if they have briefed him on that. That’s devastating, and that’s terrible and heartbreaking to hear. It is a commitment of the President to address violence, address threats to transgender people and anyone who’s facing those threats. But I will see if he has been briefed on that. Q What options are on the table for him to pursue on this issue? MS. PSAKI: In terms of reducing violence? Let me just see if he’s been briefed. And I’ll talk to our domestic policy team and maybe we can connect you directly with them to get more information. Go ahead, Weijia. Q Thanks, Jen. So that report that my colleague was citing — MS. PSAKI: Yeah. Q — was not directly just about people quitting because of COVID mandates. MS. PSAKI: Oh, okay. Q Yeah. MS. PSAKI: That’s helpful. Q But the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that, in September alone, 4.4 million people — MS. PSAKI: Yeah. Q — quit their jobs after 4.3 million in August. So how are those figures accounted for when the President talks about the record 5.6 million jobs created in the first nine months, when he talks about job growth, economic growth, et cetera? MS. PSAKI: Well, what you also see in the data, Weijia — I’m not sure if this data, but other data — is that people feel the vast majority of the American public, even when there — as there are concerns about cost of household goods and other childcare costs, et cetera — that this is a good time to change careers and look for a new job. So, we’re also seeing that, and I think that’s likely reflected in that data as well. And we’ve seen that happen psychologically during the pandemic and also because people, you know, may have taken the moment to decide what they wanted to do with their lives. So, in terms of — we have still created that number of jobs. There are people who are changing jobs. I can check with our economic — I’m not sure what your question is though. Are you asking how many of the new jobs created are people changing jobs? Or — Q Well, I’m asking, you know, in two months alone, some 9 million people quit their jobs, and I don’t know that they’re all going to new jobs. So, is there any concern about this trend dubbed “the great resignation”? Is there anything you can do to reverse it? MS. PSAKI: Well, we know we’ve seen labor shortages in some industries. In some industries, that’s because they need to have a more competitive package to offer to workers. It’s a worker’s market right now. We know that. People are looking for more dependable benefits. They’re looking for wages that are higher. And that’s something that is incumbent on a lot of industries to meet the moment on. But I can certainly dig more into this data and see if there’s more to provide. Q And then, just a quick question on the infrastructure bill — because, in Baltimore, the President talked about how it will ease congestion at ports. MS. PSAKI: Yeah. Q But those projects are going to take time. So, when do you think that funding will actually have a direct impact on the bottlenecks we’re seeing now? And in the meantime, is there anything more the administration can do ahead of the holiday season? MS. PSAKI: Well, one of the steps we took — there’s no question that addressing — being able to ensure that goods are moving around the country more safely, more easily, without congestion is a big objective of this infrastructure bill the President will sign on Monday, and it will help, hopefully, address that over the long term. As we know, the supply chain issues are global, and we’re seeing them — you know, countries around the world impacted by the global supply chain issues. So — but what he’s doing here and what he’s been quite focused on is really attacking the issue at ports and the congestion at ports, which we know is a big way that goods are coming in and where goods are moved. So, we announced — I think it was last week or earlier this week; it’s all running together — that within 45 days we’ll be launching $240 million in grants to improve ports. And in the weeks and months that follow, billions of dollars of additional money will be flowing to improve our critical port infrastructure. We’ve also seen big, dramatic improvements at a number of these ports, where they are quite crowded because the increase in demand and in goods that are moving has increased by about 20 percent. But because of the steps that have been taken, in terms of moving empty containers, in terms of putting in place, you know, requirements or consequences for congestion, that that has dramatically — we’ve already seen improvements in that. So, the President announced this major ports plan. We’re going to get these — this funding out. He’s really focusing on the areas where we have the largest amount of traffic that’s coming into the country, which certainly makes sense. And that’s a part of what we can do more immediately. Q Thanks, Jen. MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Q Following up on Weijia’s first question about workforce imbalances, you said that it’s a worker’s market and that some industries need to create more competitive packages, that it’s a good thing people have more choices. Is that your way of saying that the White House doesn’t view this as a problem at all? MS. PSAKI: I think I also said in response to Weijia’s question that there are some industries where we’re seeing labor shortages; there are a couple of reasons for that. But some of the people — the workers — and we’ve seen this statistically in a lot of surveys — people — many people across the country feel this is a good time to change jobs — right? — to look for a more competitive job. What I’m saying is: Ultimately, that’s a good thing. It is challenging in certain industries when they do have labor shortages. Some industries, in terms of some short-term ind- — industries that have short-term workers or seasonal workers, COVID is an issue there and continuing to address COVID. In our view, putting in place requirements to provide more certainty, that’s an issue. Another issue is childcare, something we’re working to attack and go after aggressively so that we can lower the cost of childcare and make sure people have a range of options to bring more women into the workforce. So, there’s a range of issues; I’m not saying it’s one thing. Certainly, we have concern about any industry that has a shortage of workers, but also, I don’t think we should undervalue the fact that many workers feel this is a time to look for a better job with greater pay and more benefits. Q And then following up on the questions about gas prices again — just kind of taking a step back, there’s some Republicans who have taken this moment where they’ve seen gas prices spike to criticize sort of the administration, big picture. Right? Canceling the Keystone Pipeline, halting leases for — new drilling leases on federal lands, saying that, sort of, the administration’s policies writ large have contributed to the rise in gas prices. What’s your response now to that? MS. PSAKI: Our response is that, one, we haven’t — we haven’t cancelled existing. There are existing leases that are continuing. And just to be clear, I know you know — Q Sorry. Not new leases. MS. PSAKI: Not new leases. Q You’re right. MS. PSAKI: But just to be clear — and I know that’s been a criticism — so that’s why I said that — and not an accurate one. Look, our view is that the rise in gas prices over the long term makes it an even stronger case for doubling down our investment and our focus on clean energy options so that we are not relying on the fluctuations and OPEC and their willingness to put more supply and meet the demands in the market. That’s our view. We feel that — but we also feel that there are a number of actors here, including price gouging, that we have concerns and we’ve seen out there — we feel we’ve seen; we’ve asked the FTC to look into the need for OPEC to release more — that are the larger issues here and that’s why we’ve been focused on those options. Q Jen — MS. PSAKI: Let me just keep going around. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Thanks. Just following up on this — and I kind of want to go at this inflation question a bit differently. MS. PSAKI: Sure. Q I mean, it seems like the White House is making a lot of promises on inflation. But there are some concerns that the White House or a President doesn’t have any — a lot power over inflation. And even when you talk about energy prices, in particular, like gasoline — you’re talking about the FTC doing investigations — that’s a common tactic. It usually doesn’t turn out very much. Tapping the SPR, that’s a short-term thing; it’s not a long-term thing. So, I guess my question is: For the White House, you’re making these promises — how do you deliver, especially on things like gasoline, food prices? Yes, you can, you know, deal with childcare costs, but these kind of bread-and-butter issues, how do you actually deliver on that? MS. PSAKI: Well, the — some of the biggest costs — the reason I touched on those is: Some of the biggest costs for households and Americans — and the way they feel inflation is not typically looking at a graph, right? They’re looking at the costs and how things are impacting them — are things like housing and childcare and healthcare. Q But also, gasoline is a very big cost. MS. PSAKI: Correct. But those are big, big costs on people’s households. And that’s why I addressed and raised those issues. I’d also note that every outside economist — most — a vast majority, I guess I should say — predicts that inflation will come down next year. That is what outside experts are predicting. So, what we’re really talking about is how we cut costs in the short term. I’ve outlined a number of ways we would cut costs. I would note that we don’t have partnership from — with — from most Republicans on that. We hear a lot of screaming about inflation. We don’t hear a lot of solution agreements or willingness to participate in a solution, and that’s really — or a discussion of a solution. And that’s really what we’re looking for at this point in time. So, I noted that the way that we can, and how outside economists are projecting we can address inflationary issues, is by continuing to push this agenda forward — pass the agenda — because it will help spur economic growth, it will help spur productivity, and also because it’s fully paid for. And that’s why outside economist Larry Summers, Moody’s, Mark Zandi don’t think it will have a negative inflationary impact. Q On a separate issue: On November 16th, there are about 200 acting positions in the federal government that will kind of lose their authority under the Federal Vacancies Act. Like, what is the White House planning to do about that? You know, is there any — are there plans in place about those acting positions, acting roles? MS. PSAKI: We’d certainly love to get more people confirmed, as you know. I will check and see if there’s anything we can outline further for you. Go ahead. Q Just a quick follow-up on Dr. Califf. Obviously, it was — so, when Senator Manchin released his statement yesterday, he talked about his ties to the pharmaceutical industry and then subsequently the industry’s role in the opioid pandem- — or epidemic. So, I’m wondering if the White House is concerned that this could be a tough vote for Democrats who come from states where the opioid epidemic is severe, such as New Hampshire and Nevada. MS. PSAKI: Well, I would say that, one, the President has been very clear on his view on the role of the pharmaceutical industry in the opioid epidemic. He has also been an advocate for lowering the cost of prescription drugs by allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug costs, something we know the pharmaceutical industry does not support. So, I think the President is hardly in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry. I think they would — they would agree with that component. That is true of the vast, vast majority of Democrats out there as well. And what the President — the reason he nominated Dr. Califf is because he feels he is qualified, he has the experience, he’s ready to take on this job the day he’s confirmed, and that’s probably why — the reason why he was supported and passed with overwhelming support of Democrats and Republicans just five years ago. Q Jen, can I ask you a question on Ethiopia? MS. PSAKI: Sure. Q Thank you and welcome back. MS. PSAKI: Thank you. Q Missed you the most. (Laughter.) And thank you for taking question across the room — Q Who is behind you? MS. PSAKI: Oh, it’s our regional reporter. We’ll get to him in a second. Go ahead. Q Thank you for taking question across the room. Maybe the (inaudible) is see if we can limit the questions to two; that would be great for everyone to have an opportunity. Ethiopia seems to be on the brink of a civil war. The U.S. State Department is urging Americans to leave the country and even providing loan for those who cannot afford to leave Ethiopia now. The U.S., the EU, and the U.N. are urging Ethiopian leaders to embrace peace but we do not seem to be near any peace at the moment. Is there anything else the White House can do to avoid another Afghanistan-like exit? MS. PSAKI: Well, I would first say — and you may or may not have seen this — but this morning, the Treasury and State Departments announced the designation of six targets associated with the Eritrean government in response to the growing humanitarian and human rights crisis and expanding military conflict in Ethiopia pursuant to the President’s executive order in September. And I know you’ve been asking when we would take some action pursuant to that executive order, and so we took some action this morning. I would also note that we are briefly delaying plans to roll out sanctions targeting elements aligned with the TPLF and Ethiopian military to allow time and space to see if these AU-led talks can make progress. If they do not seize the opportunity and the parties continue escalating the war, we will move forward with these sanctions. But we are currently leaving space for these talks to continue. Just one follow-up and then I got to go to him, and then there’s a Cabinet meeting. Go ahead. Q It’s the President’s birthday on Saturday. Is there anything that he’ll be doing? He’s 79 years old. How does he keep fit? Does he exercise? MS. PSAKI: (Laughs.) Q We see him cycling. Does he do anything else? MS. PSAKI: He certainly does enjoy a good ride on his bike and does keep fit, eats healthy, except for the occasional ice cream. Who among us doesn’t love ice cream? And again, as someone asked earlier, you know, the President will be receiving a physical at some point soon — Q Before the end of the year? MS. PSAKI: — and we will release those details to you. Yes. Q Thank you. MS. PSAKI: And we will release those details to you as soon as that happens. All right. Hello, thank you for joining us. We have here Rick Barrett from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Q Hi, Jen. Thanks for taking my question today. MS. PSAKI: Oh, I don’t know if we can hear you very well. Maybe we can — (Reporter in italics can be heard over livestream feed but not in the Briefing Room.) Q Oh, can you hear me better now? MS. PSAKI: — fix some audio issues. Let’s see if we can fix the audio issues because I just have to go in a minute. Let’s try again. Can — can we try talking again — we can see if we can hear you? Q Yeah, Jen. Is that any better now? Q No. MS. PSAKI: Oh, no. Q No? Q Well, Jen, can I ask you one? I’ll — MS. PSAKI: All right. He’s going to come back next Friday. Okay, last one. Q Thank you, Jen. I wanted to ask you a quick follow-up. You mentioned a second ago that the White House was offering technical assistance to members of Congress when it comes to human rights legislation. What techn- — what provisions were you talking about specifically? MS. PSAKI: Well, I was answering a question. I don’t remember who asked it. That was — oh, it was Brian — right? — who asked about our concern about human rights abuses in Xinjiang, something we have taken a lot of steps on. As you know, and I think you’ve asked about, there’s legislation. It’s pretty common for the White House to work with Congress on either technical assistance or other assistance. We want to make sure any bill is implementable. Q A provision that would have banned science funding for entities that were implicated in the Uyghur genocide was stripped out of the reconciliation package last week. Is that something that the President was disappointed to see? MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any other reaction. Obviously, we’re working closely with Congress. We share the concern about the human rights abuses. We are going to continue to take action as the President’s record shows. Okay, thanks, everyone. Q Jen, you thanked the vaccine. Do you have anything to say to celebrities who have promoted — like Aaron Rodgers — who promoted alternative — dubious alternatives to vaccines? MS. PSAKI: You know how we feel about misinformation: We’re against it. Thanks, everyone.