{"id":117732,"date":"2021-04-11T09:14:35","date_gmt":"2021-04-11T16:14:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/69.46.6.243\/?p=117732"},"modified":"2021-04-11T09:14:35","modified_gmt":"2021-04-11T16:14:35","slug":"briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-and-secretary-of-transportation-pete-buttigieg","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/?p=117732","title":{"rendered":"Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki and Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Washington, DC&#8230;Hi, everyone.  Happy Friday.  Okay, so if it\u2019s another day, we have another member of the Jobs Cabinet.  Joining us today is Secretary Buttigieg.  He served, as you all know, two terms as mayor of South Bend, Indiana, where he worked across the aisle to transform the city\u2019s future and improve residents\u2019 everyday lives.  Household income grew, poverty fell, unemployment was cut in half.  He helped spark citywide job growth and facilitated innovative public-private partnerships, like a benefits program to improve the city\u2019s transportation experience for workers.<\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/lkio7XrIRs8\" title=\"YouTube video player\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>One of the mayor\u2019s initiatives, \u201cSmart Streets,\u201d led to benefits that included small-business growth along previously neglected corridors and hundreds of millions of dollars in new private investment in the once-emptying downtown.<\/p>\n<p>He also served for seven years as an officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve, taking a leave of absence from the mayor\u2019s office for a deployment to Afghanistan in 2014.  And he is the first openly gay person confirmed to serve in a President\u2019s Cabinet.  I know you know a few things about him from the past. <\/p>\n<p>He will take a few questions at the end.  We kind of have a time limit, so, as always, I will be the bad cop.  With that, I will turn it over. <\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  Thank you.  All right.  Thanks a lot, Jen.  And thanks, everyone.  It\u2019s a real honor to be here, especially at such an important and exciting moment for the country.  I\u2019m convinced that this is the best chance in our lifetimes to make a generational investment in infrastructure, and that\u2019s what the American Jobs Plan does. <\/p>\n<p>The need is clear.  It\u2019s growing by the day.  After decades of underinvestment, we have fallen to 13th place globally in infrastructure.  Delays caused by traffic congestion alone cost over $160 billion per year, and motorists are forced to pay over $1,000 every year in wasted time and fuel. <\/p>\n<p>Americans are spending too much of their money on transportation in the wrong ways or don\u2019t have access to it at all.  And the American people are making clear to all of us, regardless of party, that they want us to get it done and they are not asking us to tinker around the edges.<\/p>\n<p>We\u2019ve risen to this challenge before as a country.  In fact, building bold infrastructure has always been central to America\u2019s story.  We built the Erie Canal, we connected east to west through the transcontinental railroad, and we developed the Interstate Highway System.  And each of those projects was audacious, was transformative, and \u2014 partly because it challenged the American people to expand our concept of infrastructure.  But in doing so, these projects have transformed our nation for the better, and they fueled the U.S. economy and way of life for the long run.  So now it\u2019s our turn. <\/p>\n<p>The American Jobs Plan will again transform America\u2019s roads and bridges, rail and transit, ports and airports for the better.  It\u2019s going to help modernize our transportation infrastructure so we can compete in the 21st century and connect communities.  It will create millions of good jobs in communities across the country. <\/p>\n<p>I want to point out again that this is the biggest investment in American jobs since World War Two. <\/p>\n<p>But I think it\u2019s important to demystify the kinds of jobs that this plan is going to create.  These are good jobs; they\u2019re not mysterious or overly futuristic or inaccessible.  We are going to need workers who are good with steel to make the cars and trucks of the future.  We\u2019re talking about building retrofits that are going to require union carpenters and insulators, painters, and glaziers.  We\u2019re going to need electrical workers more than ever.  And we\u2019re not going to be able to build the roads we need to build without construction workers, laborers, operating engineers.  Plumbers and pipefitters are going to be a huge part of the story of how we overhaul those lead service lines. <\/p>\n<p>So this is a jobs plan that is building America\u2019s economy from the middle class out, coming at just the right time.  It\u2019s meeting the challenges that we face today.  And it is fully paid for by making corporations pay their fair share. <\/p>\n<p>We think it\u2019s unacceptable that there are major profitable corporations in this country paying less in taxes than a teacher or a firefighter, not in terms of a percentage, but in terms of dollars \u2014 specifically, in many cases, paying zero.<\/p>\n<p>And there\u2019s been a lot of talk at this moment, as you know, about what infrastructure is and isn\u2019t.  I would argue that infrastructure is the foundation that makes it possible for people to live and work well.  And you can\u2019t live or work or thrive without things like roads, clean water, electricity, broadband \u2014 yes, that\u2019s infrastructure.  And investing in a full vision of infrastructure is how we build a safer and more prosperous America, and ultimately, I believe, critical to the American Dream. <\/p>\n<p>So that\u2019s why I\u2019m thrilled to be in this role, delighted by the American Jobs Plan announcement, and spending time every day speaking to stakeholders about how to make sure we get it through.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  All right.  It\u2019s time to kick us off.  Okay, Peter, go ahead. <\/p>\n<p>Q    Thank you.  President Biden says he wants $80 billion for rail.  And the other day he was talking about having trains that can go across the country as fast as a plane.  I\u2019m curious, as the Transportation Secretary, do you see a big demand for that \u2014 for a high-speed cross-country train?<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  Well, there\u2019s definitely a lot of excitement around America about ensuring that the American people can enjoy a high standard of passenger rail service.  Like the President, I don\u2019t think Americans should settle for less than citizens in other countries enjoy as a matter of course. <\/p>\n<p>Now, the truth is, we have a backlog to deal with, in addition to making sure that we can create new routes and new capacity.  And what\u2019s great about the scale of the American Jobs Plan is it\u2019s going to support both of those things: maintenance that we\u2019ve needed to do all along, and a chance to build new routes and expand what Americans can access. <\/p>\n<p>Q    And about how long away are we from something like a high-speed cross-country train?<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  Well, again, we need to add a lot \u2014 first of all \u2014 to what we\u2019ve already got, but we can build new routes with the resources that are here.  It\u2019s not the end of the story, but it\u2019s a fantastic beginning for a new chapter in American rail.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Josh. <\/p>\n<p>Q    Thanks for doing this.  As you know, there\u2019s been some criticism about the corporate tax hike.  Some people have said that user fees should fund infrastructure.  And I was curious because user fees often cover the costs of maintenance and repairs.  Does this administration have a plan to cover maintenance and repairs for all the infrastructure that\u2019s being built?<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  So, as you know, the Jobs Plan envisions this being covered through corporate taxes.  And the President believes very strongly that this is not something that should burden ordinary American families at a time when we\u2019ve got so many corporations that have paid literally zero. <\/p>\n<p>And I also would argue that there\u2019s ample evidence that American corporations can be competitive at a tax rate like 28, for the simple reason that they were extremely competitive at a tax rate like 35.  If they could handle 35, surely they can handle 28, which was lower \u2014 of course, is lower \u2014 would be lower than it\u2019s been for most of my lifetime. <\/p>\n<p>Now, we\u2019ve heard a lot of different ideas on what the payfors should be.  I think this is a good time to take those inputs on board.  But for my dime, it\u2019s pretty hard to beat the vision that the President put forward.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Does there need to be a dedicated revenue stream?<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  Well, look, we\u2019ll keep talking with Congress about this.  But as you know, for some time we\u2019ve seen general fund dollars going into supporting maintenance.  So there are a lot of different ways to do this, but the best way I\u2019ve seen \u2014 especially for these kind of capital improvements \u2014 is exactly what\u2019s in the President\u2019s plan.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Mike.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Hi, Mr. Secretary.  Having covered local \u2014 state and local government for almost 20 years before coming here, I\u2019ve seen the divisions that can erupt in \u2014 within the state, between regions of the state over \u2014 as they fight over limited pots of money to build these kinds of infrastructure projects. <\/p>\n<p>How involved do you think the federal government, the Department of Transportation, the Congress, the White House should be in making the inevitable choices that are going to have to be made, in terms of which bridge gets fixed first, which road gets widened? <\/p>\n<p>You know, there\u2019s obviously not enough money to fix everything and to do everything.  And so, how much of a role do you envision playing?  Or is it up to the states to kind of wage the wars they normally wage over this stuff?<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  Well, I think there\u2019s always been a push\/pull here \u2014 right? \u2014 because communities often know what is most needed for them.  And we welcome that, and I think our program design recognizes that.  So I view our role as laying out the broad policy strokes. <\/p>\n<p>Even in the existing discretionary grant programs, you\u2019ve seen this.  So, for example, with the INFRA \u2014 formerly known as FAST grants \u2014 we made sure that that first wave of calls for applications clarified that we\u2019re looking for great projects that also bear on things like equity and climate that are important to this administration.  And you\u2019ll continue to see that in the program design. <\/p>\n<p>Of course, there\u2019s always going to be competition for limited funds.  But the other thing I would say is: That competition is most ferocious when the funds are most limited.  And so, part of what we\u2019re trying to do here is make sure there\u2019s an ample set of resources to go around so that some communities may be the most successful in rounds of competition, but that it doesn\u2019t feel like other computies [sic] \u2014 communities are being left behind, because we\u2019ve got to make sure there\u2019s enough to raise the bar in the country as a whole. <\/p>\n<p>Q    And just one quick follow-up on that.  To the extent that then a lot of that decision making gets pushed to the local level because that\u2019s where they know that the \u2014 you know, how to allocate the needs, how does the federal government retain oversight over what is an enormous amount of money \u2014 both in terms of, you know, just, sort of, waste, fraud, and abuse, but also in terms of making sure that \u2014 you know, that it adheres to those kind of broader equit- \u2014 equity, you know, issues that you guys have talked so much about?<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  Yeah, I mean, that\u2019s a big responsibility for a department like mine that will be charged with carrying this out.  And the President has already made clear his very high expectations for us in the Rescue Plan dollars.  Right?  That\u2019s about $40 billion, just out of the Rescue Plan, that we got to manage well.<\/p>\n<p>But, you know, he also rightly takes pride in the remarkably low rate of waste, fraud, and abuse in the \u2014 in the Recovery Act that he led in the Obama administration.  I think now is the moment to make sure we double down on those principles to make sure that the dollars are well spent. <\/p>\n<p>And, yes, we got to make sure that they actually meet the public policy goals that are motivating us to do this in the first place.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Ed.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Secretary, thanks for doing this.  Although with you and Chris here, I\u2019m having like alternative universe flashbacks to \u2014 (laughter) \u2014 other times and other places.  Since you\u2019re Transportation Secretary \u2014 travel, obviously a big part of what you have to worry about.  To Americans eager to get back overseas, whether it\u2019s by plane or by cruise ship \u2014 as you know, there have been questions about the cruise industry, especially this past week.  <\/p>\n<p>CDC issued some guidance; there\u2019s concerns that it perhaps didn\u2019t have enough specifics \u2014 or specific benchmarks, I guess.  Have you been in touch with the CDC about that industry\u2019s concerns?  And to cruise industry leaders who say, \u201cWe should be treated more like the airlines,\u201d what would you say?<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  Well, the bottom line is safety.  Right?  And we\u2019ve \u2014 look, I\u2019m the Secretary of Transportation; I can\u2019t wait for us all to be on the move as much as possible in a safe and responsible way, but it\u2019s got to be safe and responsible.  And airlines have \u2014 airplanes have one safety profile; cruise ships have another, vehicles have another.  And each one needs to be treated based on what\u2019s safe for that sector. <\/p>\n<p>I\u2019ll tell you, I certainly care a lot about seeing the cruise sector thrive.  And I know that CDC is hopeful that a lot of these operators will be in a position to be sailing by mid-summer.  And laying out these specific, kind of, gates that they need to get through is a very important step toward that.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And to the industry leaders who say mid-summer is too late, to the governors who say that\u2019s too late for our state economies, you would say what? <\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  We want to do this as soon as we responsibly can, but we also have to make sure that it\u2019s safe.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  All right.  Steve?<\/p>\n<p>Q    Once you get the money from the Rescue Plan, is there a process for speeding the projects that you\u2019re getting construction started?  Because there\u2019s always delays and permitting and so forth.<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  Yeah, this is another thing that I was glad to see specifically discussed in the Jobs Plan release, which is the importance of efficiently delivering these dollars.  And we see that a lot of countries that have very rigorous standards around environmental and other concerns also have found ways to make sure the delivery is efficient.<\/p>\n<p>So provided it does not entail cutting any corners on things that are fundamental policy goals and legal requirements like, you know, environmental standards \u2014 you know, provided we can do it without cutting corners, I think we can find ways to make sure that the process is more efficient, to look for duplication, and try to root that out. <\/p>\n<p>And that\u2019s going to be an important part of making sure that these dollars do the most good economically.  Although I would point out this is not the same kind of stimulus pattern we were talking about in 2009.  Right?  We\u2019re looking for shovel-worthy projects, but we\u2019re also looking \u2014 or shovel-ready projects but also shovel-worthy projects that are still in that pipeline.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Jenny?<\/p>\n<p>Q    To pivot, really quickly, to planes: There\u2019s been problems discovered with the 737 MAX.  Dozens of them have been grounded, and this was months after the FAA said they were safe to fly again.  I\u2019m curious if you still have confidence in the FAA\u2019s decision to lift the grounding of the jet. <\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  So, my understanding \u2014 and we\u2019re just looking at this \u2014 but my understanding is that this is different from any of those other issues and that \u2014 obviously, that we need to make sure that they are \u2014 that there\u2019s full confidence before these specific aircraft return to the air.  And that\u2019s what the FAA will be closely monitoring.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Patsy.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thank you.  Mr. Secretary, many administration officials, including Secretary Granholm yesterday, frame infrastructure in the context of competition with China.  So my question is: Why do that?  Why design and frame a policy based \u2014 or in the context of what an adversary is doing?<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  I think because it\u2019s really important to understand that American competitiveness happens in a context.  And when you see other countries \u2014 our allies; also our strategic competitors \u2014 doing more than we are, it challenges that fundamental idea that American life is what it is partly because America is in first place in so many of these aspects of our national life.  Only America is not in first place in infrastructure.  Like I said, we\u2019re in 13th. <\/p>\n<p>So when you have a strategic competitor, like China, investing sometimes multiples of what we are in forms of transportation, we have to make a decision about whether we\u2019re content to be left behind or whether we actually want to remain number one. <\/p>\n<p>And for my dime, there\u2019s no good reason why we should settle for less, why we should be content that \u2014 it\u2019s nothing against Chinese citizens, but I\u2019m not content that a Chinese citizen can count on a dramatically better standard of, let\u2019s say, train travel than a U.S. citizen.  I think Americans should always have the best, and I think that\u2019s the tone that the President sets every day.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Just to follow up on that, is it partly also a messaging strategy to get more Republican support?<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  Well, I\u2019ll say that I\u2019ve heard a lot of voices from across the aisle also expressing concern about whether America is falling behind in any number of strategic and economic dimensions. <\/p>\n<p>And again, a lot of that depends on what we\u2019re investing.  And this is nothing new.  Right?  I mean, part of what made the Interstate Highway System so important was an understanding that our national security, in the Eisenhower era, was well served by making sure that we had a more connected economy and country.<\/p>\n<p>We\u2019re not in the Cold War, and this is not the Eisenhower era, but that principle that national security is at stake applies, especially when you consider that, today, one of the biggest threats to our national security is the global security threat posed by climate change.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  We have time for a few more.  Go ahead, Kaitlan.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Have you personally spoken with Senator Manchin about this proposal?<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  I\u2019m looking forward to speaking with him soon.<\/p>\n<p>Q    This next week?  Or \u2014<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  I don\u2019t remember the date, but I think we got a conversation in the works.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And he, of course, has an issue with the corporate tax rate going to 28 percent.  Is \u2014 in his proposal \u2014 his counter proposal \u2014 it\u2019s been 25 percent.  Can this plan be successful with a 25 percent corporate tax rate?<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  Well, as you know, the \u2014 maybe the flagship piece that people are talking about most is the rate, but there\u2019s a lot of other things alongside that \u2014 right? \u2014 in terms of what\u2019s going on with loopholes, the offshoring incentives, and other things.<\/p>\n<p>And I haven\u2019t had a chance to get a sense of how he views those things adding up \u2014 whether he envisions another element that makes up for the gap between 25 and 28.  Those are the kinds of things I want to take up with him and get a \u2014 have a good conversation on. <\/p>\n<p>Because I think, you know, for anyone who is on board \u2014 and, by the way, I have yet to talk to anybody who \u2014 including in conversations with Republicans \u2014 who is against the idea of a big investment in infrastructure.  Right? <\/p>\n<p>So most of the dialogue we\u2019re having is around how we\u2019re going to pay for it, and we\u2019re really eager to hear the alternative suggestions for how to pay for it.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And have Republicans given you, so far, alternative suggestions for how to pay for it that you believe are viable?<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  Not in any detail, no.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Alana?<\/p>\n<p>Q    Just to follow up on what Kaitlan said because she actually asked my question.  (Laughs.)<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Some coordination.  (Laughter.)<\/p>\n<p>Q    Not in coordination.  But you would be oppo- \u2014 so you would be willing to lower the corporate tax rate in exchange for maybe closing additional loopholes?  Or \u2014 like, the 28 percent, is that a fixed rate that you are dead set on?<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  Well, we\u2019ve heard the President say that this is going to be a process of negotiation, that we\u2019re going to take ideas on board, that there\u2019s going to be refinement as we go.<\/p>\n<p>I haven\u2019t heard a proposal that I consider to be better than the one the President put forward, but it\u2019s early in that legislative process.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Rob, make it a good one.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Well, I\u2019ve got a couple from people who can\u2019t be here today because of COVID-19 restrictions, as their print pooler.  So, first of all, from Chris Megerian of the LA Times: To follow up on the high-speed train question, how about California high-speed rail?  Is that a project that could be funded through the infrastructure bill?<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  Potentially.  I mean, I think it\u2019s important to recognize that communities of different types and in each part of the country can benefit from high-speed rail or even from raising the standards of what most other countries would consider regular-speed rail and their availability here in the U.S.  But this is not crafted in a way that\u2019s targeting any one area; this is about lifting our game as a country.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And, if I may, from Ben Gittleson at WABC in New York: Does the administration support congestion charging in New York City?  And will the administration do anything for drivers who will ultimately pay that premium?<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  So this is a decision for the different parties that are all involved in that.  Our responsibility mostly has to do with the environmental assessment process that goes on.  We\u2019re certainly very interested to see that process unfold.  And, you know, we think different solutions work differently for different parts of the country.  It\u2019s not an example of something that\u2019s best designed here in Washington and then imposed on local communities.  But, obviously, there\u2019s a real challenge with congestion there and a real revenue opportunity as well. <\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Secretary.<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  Thanks very much.  Real honored to be here.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Appreciate you coming.  And we\u2019ll have him \u2014 invite him back.<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  Sounds good.  Thank you.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thanks.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  And thank you for Chris too, while you\u2019re here.  (Laughter.)<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  (Laughs.)  You\u2019re welcome.  I was a little concerned when I saw him deputized to be backup Easter Bunny \u2014 (laughter) \u2014 but I\u2019m counting on \u2014 I\u2019m counting on you all to treat him well.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  That\u2019s right.  The indoctrination we agreed upon.  Thank you so much.<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  Thank you.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Thank you for joining us.<\/p>\n<p>SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG:  Thanks.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Okay.  All right, Chris will always be the bunny in our eyes.  (Laughter.)<\/p>\n<p>So, a couple of items for you just while we are wrapping up the week.  As you know, the administration has submitted to Congress President Biden\u2019s discretionary funding request for fiscal year 2022.  I know we did a call this morning, but just to give you all a little bit more from here:<\/p>\n<p>As Congress prepares to begin the annual appropriations process, the request lays out the President\u2019s discretionary funding recommendations across a wide range of policy areas, and outlines a strategy for reinvesting in the foundations of our country\u2019s resilience and strength.  The request, which represents only one element of the administration\u2019s broader agenda, includes major investments \u2014 proposed investments, I should say \u2014 in K-through-12 education, cutting-edge medical research, housing, civil rights, and a range of other priorities that are vital to our future. <\/p>\n<p>Later this spring, we will release the President\u2019s full budget, which will present a unified, comprehensive plan to address the overlapping crises we face in a fiscally and economically responsible way.  And that will also include a number of the proposals you\u2019ve seen him introduce over the last \u2014 well, the big proposal he just introduced and other proposals that he will introduce between now and then.<\/p>\n<p>Our country is confronting historic crises: a pandemic, an economic downturn, climate change, and a reckoning on racial injustice.  At the same time, we\u2019re also inheriting a legacy of chronic underinvestment, in our view, in priorities that are vital to our long-term success and our ability to confront the challenges before us. <\/p>\n<p>So the President is focused on reversing this trend and reinvesting in the foundations of our strength.  And this process provides another opportunity to do that, and so the funding proposal is an indication of our priorities.<\/p>\n<p>You may have also noticed another flag flying above the White House today.  In keeping with the President and the First Lady\u2019s commitment to honor the sacrifices of all those who serve \u2014 including veterans, their families, caregivers, and survivors \u2014 the President and First Lady have restored the POW\/MIA flag to its original location on top of the White House Residence. <\/p>\n<p>In a true display of bipartisanship, Senators Hassan, Warren, and Cotton wrote to the President at the beginning of the administration requesting the POW\/MIA flag fly high above the Residence.  This follows passage of a bipartisan \u2014 bipartisan legislation in 2019, led by those same senators, which requires the flag to be displayed whenever the American flag flies on federal buildings.<\/p>\n<p>Today also happens to be National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day \u2014 a day when we remember and honor those who were in captivity in service to our nation and recognize those who awaited their return.<\/p>\n<p>I have two more items; one of them is a week ahead. <\/p>\n<p>The Semiconductor Summit \u2014 of great interest to many of you, I know.  On Monday afternoon, following President Biden\u2019s release of his Ameri- \u2014 let\u2019s see.  Hold on.  On Monday afternoon, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and NEC Director Brian Deese will host a virtual CEO Summit on Semiconductor and Supply Chain Resilience to discuss both the American Jobs Plan, as well as steps to strengthen the resilience of American supply chains for semiconductors and other key areas \u2014 something we discuss in here quite frequently.<\/p>\n<p>They will also be joined by Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, who has been one of the leading voices in the administration. <\/p>\n<p>We provided a list to the pool of the attendees or the companies that will be represented at that, which you should all have.  And if not, let us know, and we will give it to you directly, after the briefing.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, for the week ahead, the President will, of course, continue making the case in public and in meetings with members of Congress for the critical need to pass the American Jobs Plan and make historic investments in infrastructure.<\/p>\n<p>On Monday, he will meet with Democratic and Republican members of both the House and Senate to discuss the American Jobs Plan and the need for a bold, once-in-a-generation investment in America to put millions of people to work.  I expect we will provide that list on Monday, once attendees are confirmed.  It will be bipartisan and bicameral, that meeting.<\/p>\n<p>As Speaker Pelosi\u2019s office announced earlier today, on Tuesday, the President will pay his respects in a congressional tribute for U.S. Capitol Police Officer William Evans as he lies in honor in the Capitol Rotunda.<\/p>\n<p>Later that day, he will meet with members of the Congressional Black Caucus at the White House.<\/p>\n<p>On Thursday, the President will meet with members of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.<\/p>\n<p>And on Friday, the President will welcome the Prime Minister of Japan.  As you all already know, this will be the President\u2019s first in-person visit with a foreign leader, reflecting the importance of our bilateral relationship.  And I expect they will take some questions after that meeting.<\/p>\n<p>With that, Josh.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thanks, Jen.  Three things, real quick.  First, the discretionary spending proposal \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Q    \u2014 tries to make investments in the country that the administration says couldn\u2019t be made because of the 2011 Budget Control Act and the caps on spending.  That deal had to be reached with Republicans.  Now, I\u2019m curious, what gives you more confidence that an increase in discretionary spending can be reached with today\u2019s Republicans than the Republicans of a decade ago?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, I would first say that any budgetary proposal, including a discretionary proposal that is not a full budget, is an opportunity to outline the priorities of the existing administration.  And it is a reflection of the President\u2019s view that a number of these discretionary programs were underfunded over the last several years, and therefore prompted a plus-up and a proposed plus-up \u2014 because if we are going to address a range of issues where there is agreement among Republicans as well, that we need to work together to, you know, support additional funding to address these various crises in our country. <\/p>\n<p>So I will say we\u2019re at the beginning of our process.  This is the beginning of what we know is a long journey.  It\u2019s meant to give discretionary guidance so that officials and staffers on the Hill \u2014 the former \u2014 the people who followed in the footsteps of Shalanda Young \u2014 can get to work.  That\u2019s exactly what it will do, and we\u2019re looking forward to having those conversations.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Two, does the President have any thoughts on the votes of Amazon workers in Alabama against unionization \u2014 something he, kind of, encouraged them to take that vote?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, the President has said that whether to organize a union is a worker\u2019s choice.  And the National Labor Relations Board has a process for ensuring there\u2019s an accurate count of the votes cast in selection so that we can know what choice the workers have made.<\/p>\n<p>So the President is going to wait \u2014 just for your own planning \u2014 for the NLRB to finish its process and declare a result to make a further comment. <\/p>\n<p>But I will say, broadly, as you know and you alluded to in your question, we know it\u2019s very difficult for workers to make the choice to form a union.  That\u2019s why the President\u2019s American Jobs Plan includes the right \u2014 protecting the Right to Organize Act, which would give more workers the ability to organize and bargain collectively for \u2014 with their employees.  And that\u2019s a fundamental priority for him; something he\u2019s fought for throughout his career.  But we will wait for further comment until the NLRB concludes their analysis.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And then, North Korea\u2019s leader said the country\u2019s economic woes right now are the worst since the famine in the 1990s.  Does that create any additional security risks for the U.S.?  And are we under any obligation to deal with the humanitarian crisis? <\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, first, I would say that no actions that we are taking, as it relates to sanctions, are meant to be targeted at the North Korean people.  They are in the conditions and the circumstances they\u2019re in because of the actions of their leadership.<\/p>\n<p>We continue to work with international leaders and organizations to provide humanitarian assistance.  It\u2019s something that we believe is important and vital to do from a humane standpoint, even while we have issues with their nuclear aspirations.<\/p>\n<p>Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Is the \u2014 we looked at the Pentagon budget.  You\u2019re proposing a modest increase.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Mm-hmm.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Is that enough to meet the priorities set out by the administration since you\u2019re facing an increasingly assertive China, and Russia poses a threat to Ukraine?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  You\u2019re absolutely right, Steve.  And we\u2019ve spoken, of course, about our concerns about exactly those issues.  I will say that, first, that this is a proposal for \u2014 to give guidance to the Hill, and hardworking budget staffers on the Hill, as they put together the 2022 \u2014 excuse me \u2014 budgetary plans.<\/p>\n<p>The focus of the plus-up on defense is meant to address a couple of issues over that period of time: promoting diversity and inclusion in the armed forces; fulfilling our commitments to military families \u2014 part of it goes to military and civilian pay increases, or that\u2019s what proposed \u2014 is proposed; prioritizing defense investments in climate resilience and energy efficiency.  We believe it provides a robust funding level for the military forces needed to deter war and ensure our nation\u2019s security is grounded in the administration\u2019s Interim National Security Guidance. <\/p>\n<p>But again, there will be a full budget later this spring that will be proposed by this White House.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And, secondly, China has been conducting military exercises around Taiwan.  How do you interpret these moves?  Are you concerned that they might invade Taiwan?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, our \u2014 first, let me say that we\u2019re not looking, as you know, for confrontation with China.  We are \u2014 our focus and our relationship is one based on steep competition. <\/p>\n<p>We have been clearly \u2014 publicly and privately expressed our concerns \u2014 our growing concerns about China\u2019s aggression towards Taiwan.  China has taken increasingly coercive action to undercut democracy in Taiwan.  We\u2019ve seen a concerning increase in PRC military activity in the Taiwan Strait, which we believe is potentially destabilizing.<\/p>\n<p>So we are watching that closely.  I can\u2019t make any other predictions from here.  Of course, the Department of Defense and others would be in the lead on making those assessments. <\/p>\n<p>Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Jen, thank you.  The President\u2019s commission on expanding the Supreme Court is out.  We know he\u2019s going to wait for the results.  What is the President\u2019s view on the \u2014 of the calls for Justice Breyer to step down?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  He believes that\u2019s a decision Justice Breyer will make when he decides it\u2019s time to no longer serve on the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<p>Q    So should those groups pushing for him go back off?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I think I can just speak to what the President\u2019s view is of the Supreme Court justice\u2019s ability to make his own decision.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And outside the inauguration, when he was sworn in, has he had any conversations with Supreme Court justices?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Not that I\u2019m aware of.  I\u2019m happy to check if there\u2019s anything we can read out.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Next week, Congress gets back.  You announced this bicameral, bipartisan meeting.  You\u2019re entering an interesting phase where, in the House and the Senate, there is now a single vote margin between the two parties.  And, in essence, one, two, or three members of your own party could upend the President\u2019s legislative agenda.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Mm-hmm.<\/p>\n<p>Q    How are you guys recalibrating to deal with this closer majority \u2014 or closer margin in both chambers, as you try to get these incredibly expensive and ambitious plans passed?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, first, I would say that that \u2014 what an interesting time to be in Washington and be all of you.  You know, our focus has long been working with Democrats and Republicans.  That is the President\u2019s objective.  And obviously, the close margins make that a necessity. <\/p>\n<p>And so when we are inviting \u2014 when he is inviting members here, he\u2019s inviting not just one wing of a party, not just one wing even of his own party; he wants to have the discussion about how we can work together to address our nation\u2019s outdated infrastructure and rebuilding our workforce for the future.<\/p>\n<p>Now, from our vantage point and from our viewpoint, we\u2019ve seen there have been a number of Republicans in the Senate \u2014 I\u2019ll give you more homework, but you probably know this off the top of your head, Ed \u2014 who have supported infrastructure bills; who have supported, you know, the WRDA bills; who have supported legislation that is consistent with what the President is proposing. <\/p>\n<p>And as Secretary Buttigieg just conveyed: In a lot of the discussions we\u2019re having, most of the disagreement is about \u2014 some is about the size.  Some think it\u2019s too small.  Some think it\u2019s too big.  It\u2019s like Goldilocks.  We\u2019ll have those discussions.  But also about the payfors.  And so those are the conversations that we will have.<\/p>\n<p>But, largely, the margins in Washington don\u2019t change our approach, because the President was elected because he was committed to working with both parties, to working together to address the crises our country is facing. <\/p>\n<p>Go ahead, Peter.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thank you very much.  To follow up on Ed\u2019s questions about the Supreme Court \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Q    \u2014 action today: President Biden once said, in 1983, he thought court-packing was \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Whoa.  A time-back machine. <\/p>\n<p>Q    Oh, yeah.  He said he thought that court-packing was a \u201cbonehead idea\u201d when FDR tried it.  So why ask a panel now to go and see if it is a good idea?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, first, he\u2019s \u2014 the panel is being asked to do a number of \u2014 take a number of steps, including the pros and cons on exactly that issue.  But they will also be looking at the Court\u2019s role in the constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justice on the Court \u2014 justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court; and the Court\u2019s case selection rules and practices.<\/p>\n<p>And the makeup of this commission, which was vital for the President, was \u2014 is there are progressives on the Court, there are conservatives on the Court.  People will present different opinions and different points of view, and then they\u2019ll have a report at the end of 180 days.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Okay.  And then, about immigration: The U.S. government is now reportedly spending $60 million a week to shelter migrant children; that adds up to $3.1 billion in a year.  Where is that money coming from?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, first, I would say that, as you may recall, the prior administration requested and received nearly $3 billion in supplemental funding from Congress for the UC program back in 2019.  That came after the previous administration had already made multiple transfers of hundreds of millions of dollars.<\/p>\n<p>And our commitment is to ensuring HHS has the funds it needs now to safely and humanely care for children, which of course is resource intensive; we know that.  There are 200 permanent shelters around the country, and there are needs related to the pandemic, social distancing, enhanced ventilation, and testing that are additional needs given the time that we\u2019re living in.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And because of the time that we\u2019re living in, is there concern, if this is HHS money, that it is \u2014 that these shelters \u2014 the Washington Post says the costs are going to rise significantly \u2014 that the shelters might be draining pandemic response elsewhere.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  No, that is not what our concern is.  We \u2014 at all.  We have funding for the pandemic response.  I\u2019m just conveying to you what we feel this cost is and why it is at the rate it is at this point in time.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And then, just one more.  Texas Governor Greg Abbott says that he asked the Biden administration to shut down a temporary shelter for migrant kids at the Freeman Coliseum in San Antonio because he says he\u2019s gotten information that children there are being sexually assaulted.  Is that facility going to be shut down?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, first, we take the safety and the wellbeing of children in our care very seriously, hence our earlier conversation about the funding spent to keep them safe during the pandemic.<\/p>\n<p>We are \u2014 his claims will be looked into and investigated by the Department of Health and Human Services.  Currently, we have no basis for his call to shut down the Freeman \u2014 the San Antonio Freeman Coliseum as an intake site, but we will \u2014 of course, we take these \u2014 this \u2014 these allegations seriously, and they will be investigated.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And the last one would just be \u2014 you said this week that you guys are trying to make the processing more efficient and effective and that you\u2019re addressing this in a humane way that keep these kids as safe as we possibly can.  If these allegations are true, how is that consistent with what you guys are trying to do?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, again, we are looking into these allegations; we take them seriously.  And our focus remains on the safety and wellbeing of children, hence we\u2019re looking into them and taking it very seriously.<\/p>\n<p>Go ahead, Kaitlan.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thank you.  On the commission for the Supreme Court, when President Biden first disclosed this idea \u2014 I believe he was still a candidate when he said this \u2014 he said he wanted recommendations as to how to reform the court system because, quote, \u201cIt\u2019s getting out of whack.\u201d  Yet this commission is not going to actually make recommendations.  So why \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  They will be.  They\u2019ll be doing a report 180 day \u2014 at 180 days.  That will be released to the public.<\/p>\n<p>Q    But it\u2019s a report, but it\u2019s not them actually making recommendations to the President.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, I\u2019m sure he\u2019ll take a look at that report that this diverse group of members are putting together, thinking through over the next 180 days, and it will impact his thinking moving forward.<\/p>\n<p>Q    So, but it won\u2019t explicitly say, \u201cHere is a recommendation from what we\u2019ve studied to do XYZ\u201d?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  It\u2019s meant to be a report and a summary of their discussions and their findings.  I don\u2019t know what it will look like, and I\u2019m not going to get ahead of what their process will be.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Okay.  And then, on the lawmakers who were being invited on Monday \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Q    \u2014 who picked the group of lawmakers that are being invited?  Was it the President?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  The White House.  You know \u2014<\/p>\n<p>Q    Legislative Affairs?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  (Laughs.)  These decisions are made in coordination between the legislative affairs team and, of course, with the approval of the President on who will be invited. <\/p>\n<p>And I will just say that whenever we have the final list, this will be the first of what we envision, as you can see by his schedule next week, to be many meetings and many of them bipartisan as well.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And is it important for him to have Senator Manchin there on Monday?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I\u2019m not sure if he will be a part of it or not.  He is somebody that we\u2019re, of course, in close touch with and we look forward to working with as we move the American Jobs Plan forward.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Okay.  And my last question on Johnson &#038; Johnson \u2014 given just how much money the federal government has given them, and the President has ordered an additional 100 million doses from them \u2014 has he actually spoken with any of the executives at Johnson &#038; Johnson, given these uneven numbers of doses that we\u2019re seeing coming in and how slow they\u2019ve been to get an even, steady supply of production?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, I would say that our COVID Coordinator, Jeff Zients, and other members of our COVID team are typically the appropriate points of contact with leaders from any of these companies.  We always expected there to be \u2014 to be up and down \u2014 their production. <\/p>\n<p>We, of course \u2014 as you all know because we\u2019ve been talking about it, they have taken steps and they\u2019ve worked closely with HHS to work toward FDA approval.  That\u2019s obviously up to the FDA for the Emergent facility, which will certainly enhance their production capacity.<\/p>\n<p>But we see this as \u2014 you know, our role here is to take steps we can from the federal government along the way to help ensure that we are getting as much J&#038;J supply and doses out to states, out to the American people, so that it can contribute to our recovery from the pandemic.<\/p>\n<p>But we always knew \u2014 we\u2019ve known for some time that there would be ups and downs on the road.<\/p>\n<p>Q    But I think, also, we thought that they would have a lot more ready by now than what they have produced.  I mean, according to the initial federal contract (inaudible), it\u2019s far different than what that was supposed to be.  Understandably, there are issues, but does the President feel that this rises to the level that he should make a phone call to someone at Johnson &#038; Johnson to discuss what\u2019s been going on?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  He\u2019s confident in the role that the COVID team plays.  And we\u2019ve also been assured by Johnson &#038; Johnson that they remain committed to meeting their contract of delivering 100 million doses by the end of May.<\/p>\n<p>Go ahead, Mike.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Two things.  First, to follow up on Kaitlan\u2019s question about the commission \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Q    \u2014 it is my understanding that the commission has actively decided not to make any specific recommendations for or against the cou- \u2014 the issues that they\u2019re examining, whether that be term limits on justices or expanding the size of the Court.  That does differ from what the President seemed to say as a candidate.  Is \u2014 are you suggesting that he wants the commission to change that direction and actually come to him with specific recommendations?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  No, I\u2019m only suggesting that he put together \u2014 he asked his team to put together this commission to reflect a diversity of viewpoints, which it certainly will.  And I\u2019m certain that when that report is released in 180 days \u2014 their work has not even begun yet \u2014 he\u2019s going to sign \u2014 once he signs the executive order, it can officially begin \u2014 that he will \u2014 that will, of course, impact his thinking, moving forward.<\/p>\n<p>But he wants smart legal experts, people who have been thinking about these issues for some \u2014 for decades, to have a discussion and a debate about it and deliver him a report that we will, again, be delivering to the public and you all can read once it is completed.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Okay.  And then, on Afghanistan, there are reports out about growing frustration among the commanders in the military and the President\u2019s generals about the President\u2019s indecision on the question of what to do by May 1st.  What do you \u2014 what do you say, what does the President say to, you know, his generals and the people that are dealing with the situation in Afghanistan as to why we\u2019re now just weeks from this deadline and we still don\u2019t have an answer as to which way it\u2019s going to go \u2014 whether the troops are leaving or not?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, I know there was a report with unnamed sources, so we don\u2019t know who those sources are, of course \u2014 which I know is typically frustrating to all of you.<\/p>\n<p>But the President\u2019s commitment is to bringing a responsible end to the conflict, removing our troops from harm\u2019s way, and ensuring that Afghanistan can never again become a haven for terrorists and would \u2014 that would threaten the United States or any of our allies. <\/p>\n<p>He wants to make that decision in close consultation with partners around the world, with the advice of his national security team, and do it in a way that ensures we are protecting our national interests and the safety and security of our troops \u2014 all at the same time, where there\u2019s diplomatic negotiations with the Taliban.<\/p>\n<p>So he has been clear \u2014 publicly, I think \u2014 that it is operationally challenging to get troops out by May 1st, but I certainly expect you will hear from him on what his decision is in advance of that period of time.<\/p>\n<p>Q    But is it responsible for the \u2014 I mean, you talk about a \u201cresponsible management of the situation.\u201d  Is it responsible to let a deadline like that come within a matter of days even perhaps, without \u2014 with the military not really knowing for sure what their posture is going to be?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I can assure you that the President\u2019s approach is responsible and that he is taking the advice, the counsel, the consultations of members of his military leadership, members of his diplomatic leadership, and also our partners and friends around the world into \u2014 into consideration as he\u2019s making his decision. <\/p>\n<p>And his view is that\u2019s the responsible approach. <\/p>\n<p>Q    And one last thing that occurred to me \u2014 I wouldn\u2019t want Friday to go by without asking \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Is it about the dog? <\/p>\n<p>Q    No.  No. <\/p>\n<p>Q    It\u2019s about the cat.  (Laughter.)<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  It had a dog feeling in the air today.  (Laughter.)  <\/p>\n<p>Q    The speech to Congress.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Oh, sure. <\/p>\n<p>Q    You know, you did a \u201cweek ahead.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I know.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Didn\u2019t seem to have that included in there for next week. <\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  It will not be next week.<\/p>\n<p>Q    It will not be next week.  So do you have any better \u2014 I think you said, yesterday or the day before, you\u2019re still working with the Speaker\u2019s office, but nothing new to add?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Nothing new to report.  And I would just remind you that whenever a date is finalized, the invitation would be officially issued \u2014 right? \u2014 from the Speaker\u2019s office.  So \u2014 but we are \u2014<\/p>\n<p>Q    I mean, I guess the more serious question \u2014 part of the question about that would be, though, you\u2019ve obviously now \u2014 you\u2019re stacking up things that you need to sell \u2014 that you and the White House and the President need to sell to the American public.  You\u2019ve got the Jobs Plan; now, you\u2019ve got the budget that, you know, you\u2019ve added on there.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Q    You know, Presidents typically use these moments of a speech to the Congress and to the public as a as an opportunity to sell this, to kind of make the pitch.  Are you guys depriving yourselves of some opportunities to do that by delaying this?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I promise you we will have something to sell in the speech, and we will use it for that \u2014 for that opportunity.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Okay.  Thank you. <\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Go ahead, Patsy.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thank you.  Jen, my question is about the U.S. global response to the pandemic.  Now, we know that we\u2019ve given $4 billion to COVAX, there\u2019s the initiative with the Quad, some vaccine sharing with Mexico.  But what we haven\u2019t heard from the administration is a kind of comprehensive and detailed strategy in terms of what the U.S. is doing to help the world recover from the pandemic not just in terms of vaccine sharing, but also supporting a financing mechanism or manufacturing, what have you.  And I know that you\u2019ve just appointed the Global COVID Response Coordinator.  When can we expect her to be here to share the administration\u2019s strategy with us?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, we\u2019re happy to invite her.  She works out of the State Department.  Right?  So I would expect that she might speak there first, if you or a colleague is over there covering.<\/p>\n<p>I would say, look, that our approach is that the President remains committed to playing a constructive role in the global effort to defeat the virus.  That includes contributing through COVAX; it includes, obviously, lending sup- \u2014 lending doses to Canada and Mexico; it includes considering a range of requests that are coming in from around the world. <\/p>\n<p>But as we\u2019ve also seen, this is a very unpredictable virus, and his first priority is ensuring that the American people are vaccinated.  And that means we need to plan for supplies so that we can \u2014 when we know what\u2019s most effective for kids, that we can plan around also, different things that come up \u2014 as we\u2019ve seen over the last week or so with Emergent and Johnson &#038; Johnson \u2014 that we have enough supply and enough capacity and we\u2019ve done enough contingency planning for that. <\/p>\n<p>That\u2019s our first priority, but we will continue to be \u2014 work to play a constructive role in the global community. <\/p>\n<p>Q    I understand that the strategy is to be oversupplied and overprepared for domestic needs, but at what point should the administration consider pivoting from just focusing on domestic needs and start responding to global needs, particularly at a time when China and Russia, as you know, is increasing, in terms of their vaccine diplomacy. <\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, when we are confident in our supply at home, we will share vaccines, including through COVAX.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And I have one more on \u2014 <\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Okay. <\/p>\n<p>Q    Yesterday, you mentioned that the administration is concerned about Russia\u2019s increased military presence in the border with Ukraine.  Can you confirm reporting that the administration is considering to send warships as a show of support to Ukraine in the region?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I would point you to DOD for anything about our military assets. <\/p>\n<p>Go ahead, Jenny.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thanks.  On the climate summit, I think we\u2019re now two weeks away, and I \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Q    \u2014 I asked a couple weeks ago if there was any plans to have a bilateral with the Chinese President on the sidelines of it.  So, first, has the White has made a decision on that? <\/p>\n<p>And then, two, do you plan any bilaterals on the sidelines to conduct any business outside of the overall climate summit that\u2019s taking place?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  It\u2019s a great question.  We\u2019re still figuring out what the additional components \u2014 or what the format of the summit will look like.  We\u2019ve invited about 40 leaders from around the world, so there\u2019s obviously a lot of scheduling to be done.  But I expect we won\u2019t have a final update on that until we get to be probably within days of the summit.<\/p>\n<p>Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thank you very much.  Two questions if I might.  One, on Ukraine: So you\u2019ve had a response to SolarWinds and the past election meddling pending for \u2014 well, ever since we\u2019ve been doing this.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Is there \u2014 is there any concern that the new challenges from Russia are kind of piling up now?  And is the administration, which is obviously still a new administration, ready for that? <\/p>\n<p>And, as an example, does the administration have, ready to go, a response if Russia were to send some of those troops or all of them into Ukraine, which is obviously, you know, not impossible?<\/p>\n<p>And if you do have a response ready to go, have you communicated it to the Kremlin as a means of deterrence, you would hope? <\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, first, I would say that \u2014 of the actions that have already been taken, that we\u2019ve had ongoing reviews about \u2014 we\u2019ve been clear, but I will reiterate: There will be consequences, some unseen and some seen.  We will hope to have more about those soon.  I know you guys are tired of hearing that, but hopefully soon.<\/p>\n<p>As it relates to the escalating Russian aggressions in Eastern Ukraine, including Russia\u2019s troop movements on Ukraine\u2019s borders, we are, of course, in close consultation and working with partners and allies in the region to assess, to share intelligence, to determine what\u2019s happening, and what can be done about it.  But I\u2019m not going to get ahead of that internal diplomatic process. <\/p>\n<p>Q    Have you \u2014 have you, you know, made that call, as it were, to the Kremlin to say, you know, \u201cYou do this; this is what\u2019s going to happen\u201d to try and put them off, or not?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I wouldn\u2019t say that\u2019s exactly how it goes down, but, you know, we \u2014<\/p>\n<p>Q    (Inaudible.)<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  \u2014 of course, communicate closely.  I will say, we communicate at many levels, as you know.  There was a call that was done at the defense-secretary level just last week with the Russians.  There was also a call done by our Secretary of State.  We, of course, communicate at many levels that are even far below that.  And, of course, the President spoke with the President of Ukraine just last Friday. <\/p>\n<p>So I can assure you there\u2019s ongoing diplomatic engagement between us and a number of countries in the region, including Russia, including Ukraine, including our European partners and allies who share a number of our concerns about the aggression of Russian movements on the border. <\/p>\n<p>Q    Thank you.  And the other question \u2014 domestic.  On the infrastructure, where \u2014 on a scale of 1 to 10, if you could do that \u2014 does the \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Oh, probably not, but try me.  (Laughter.)  I always love yes-and-no questions. <\/p>\n<p>Q    I know.  Well, this is a 1-to-10, so \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Okay. <\/p>\n<p>Q    \u2014 you\u2019ve 10 choices. <\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Go ahead. <\/p>\n<p>Q    Does the President, who is an avowed bipartisan guy, put getting one or more Republicans to support this \u2014 I know you\u2019ve been saying consistently that it doesn\u2019t \u2014 in a way, it doesn\u2019t matter what they do on the Hill because the public supports what the President is doing, and you point to polls, and they do say that.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  We don\u2019t say it doesn\u2019t matter; it\u2019s just an impact.  And there\u2019s a question that I hope your colleagues on the Hill ask a number of Republicans, which is: Why would they oppose investment in our nation\u2019s infrastructure when the vast majority of the American public thinks it\u2019s imperative we do?<\/p>\n<p>But as the Secretary just said, the disagreement is not really about the need to modernize our nation\u2019s infrastructure.  It\u2019s about the size; it\u2019s about the payfors.  And we absolutely understand there will be compromise, there will be debate.  That\u2019s all a part of the process.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Isn\u2019t it a little dangerous to be always citing the polls though, as you\u2019re \u2014 basically all your credibility rests in the polls?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Do you not think the American people\u2019s view is important as it relates to what elected officials do on the Hill?<\/p>\n<p>Q    Sure.  But don\u2019t polls change a lot, whereas the elected officials are elected officials representing (inaudible)?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  There\u2019s been pretty consistent support for infrastructure.  And I think it\u2019s an important point.  We feel like it\u2019s an important point.  Because when we talk about bipartisanship, we\u2019re talking about how we meet the needs of the American people \u2014 Republicans, independents, Democrats.  Rebuilding bridges is not a Democratic idea.  Ensuring kids don\u2019t have access to \u2014 have access to clean water is not a Democratic idea.  Broadband access probably actually impacts more rural areas that might be leaning more Republican than Democratic, if you look at it \u2014 the maps across the country.<\/p>\n<p>So our point is: This is addressing not a political issue; this is addressing a vital need in the country that\u2019s not \u2014 that impacts all of the American people. <\/p>\n<p>Q    I think that\u2019s a seven.  (Laughter.)<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  A seven?  (Laughter.) <\/p>\n<p>Q    (Inaudible.)<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Okay, fair.  I don\u2019t even know \u2014 I don\u2019t even know what the rating numbers are about anymore. <\/p>\n<p>Rob, go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    We saw the statement earlier, but has the President been in touch with Buckingham Palace and Number 10 about the death of Prince Philip?  And does he have any plans to attend the funeral?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  He has not been in touch directly himself, no.  We put out a statement in his name and the First Lady\u2019s name earlier today.  I\u2019m not aware of any plans at this point in time.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And Hunter Biden\u2019s book is out this week.  To what extent was the White House, the President, the transition \u2014 whatever that timing might have been \u2014 involved in vetting its contents?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  We were not.  It was a book he wrote himself.  The President and First Lady put out a statement making clear \u2014 in February, I should say, when the book was announced \u2014 that they\u2019re deeply supportive of their son sharing his account about his painful experiences with addiction, which is exactly what the book does, and that they\u2019re hopeful that it can help millions of people who have struggled with the same challenges.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And if I may, one for a reporter who can\u2019t be here for the COVID-19 restrictions, Allison Harris of NewsNation.  A Blue Star Families report shows that almost half of active-duty troops won\u2019t get vaccinated against COVID-19.  Members of Congress have sent a letter \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Because of their hesitation?<\/p>\n<p>Q    Yes \u2014 or I believe so.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Okay.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Members of Congress have written to the President, urging him to issue a waiver of informed consent so that troops would be mandatorily vaccinated.  Is that something the President is considering \u2014 would consider?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I certainly think he would refer to the advice and view of the Secretary of Defense, so I\u2019d point you to them for any point of view on that letter.<\/p>\n<p>Q    I think \u2014 okay, thank you.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Okay, go ahead, Alana.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thank you.  CBP data said this week that the number of unoccupied migrant children crossing the border \u2014 unaccompanied minor children, sorry \u2014 had increased 100 percent from February to March.  If these numbers continue to rise, is there a point that the administration would consider reversing or modifying the policy of accepting all unaccompanied minor migrants under \u2014 using Title 42 authorities?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Would be \u2014 would we no longer accept \u2014 just so I understand the question \u2014<\/p>\n<p>Q    Yeah \u2014<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  \u2014 children who are under 18? <\/p>\n<p>Q    Mm-hmm.  Would you consider reversing or modifying?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I would say, one, our \u2014 the reason for accepting these children is that we feel it is not the humane step to send these kids back on their treacherous journey.  Our focus is on addressing the needs, opening up shelters, ensuring there is access to health and educational resources, expediting processing at the border.  And those are the steps we feel that are most effective from a policy standpoint at this point.<\/p>\n<p>Q    And then, just one more question on Amazon.  The President supports the PRO Act, but how does he expect it to get through Congress, particularly if infrastructure is not<br \/>\ndone under reconciliation?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  How does he expect to get the PRO Act passed through Congress?  It is something that he certainly strongly supports, and it\u2019s consistent with his advocacy for the ability and rights of workers to organize. <\/p>\n<p>I don\u2019t have anything on the legislative strategy and how \u2014 what that will look like moving forward.  I\u2019d certainly point you to the Hill on that. <\/p>\n<p>Q    Thank you.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Go ahead, in the back.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thanks, Jen.  I want to ask you about the case of a 10-year-old Nicaraguan boy, who was \u2014 videos went viral when he was seen walking the desert by himself, saying that he had been dumped by the group that he was with.  Through our reporting, we now know that this child had been deported with his mom days prior.  His mom is kidnapped in Mexico.  He was able to free himself through a family member who paid ransom, and that\u2019s how he ended up back in the U.S. <\/p>\n<p>So I have two questions for you on that.  One, why does the U.S. government continue to deport these people back to Mexico to dangerous situations and not to their countries of origin? <\/p>\n<p>And the second question is: The President, back in October of 2020, in a conversation with Univision, said that he would grant deportation moratorium to Nicaraguans, as well as Venezuelans and Cubans.  That happened for those two other groups and not for Nicaraguans.  Do you have an update on that, and why that hasn\u2019t happened?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I don\u2019t have an update on the second.  I\u2019m happy to check and see with our diplomatic team what the status is and if there\u2019s any particular update.<\/p>\n<p>I would say, in terms of deportation, it\u2019s handled, as you know, in a case-by-case basis.  I would have to look into the specific details of this case.  The Department of Homeland Security might have more specifics, if they can share them, on why they were sent back directly to Mexico.<\/p>\n<p>Q    But it\u2019s not just this family; all of the families are being sent right back to Mexico and not to their home countries. Do you know why?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I don\u2019t have any more information.  And they\u2019re all handled on a case by case.  We don\u2019t typically speak about each case, given privacy concerns, but I can see if there\u2019s more we can share on this particular case.<\/p>\n<p>Q    I want \u2014 and let me ask you what happened earlier in the week when the President of El Salvador did not welcome and did not want to meet with Mr. Zu\u00f1iga.  What do you make of that? And how can you work with that government if those relationships seem fractured in a way?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, you\u2019re right that when Special Envoy Zu\u00f1iga was in El Salvador, he did not meet with the President, but he did have productive meetings with the Foreign Minister and other senior officials, such as the Attorney General, OAS representatives, members of civil society, private sector leaders, and others. <\/p>\n<p>So we felt it was still quite a constructive trip.  These meetings, in our view, lay the foundation to build on the already strong bilateral dialogue we have with the administration at all levels, and we\u2019ll continue it from here.<\/p>\n<p>Q    So can you move forward without the President being involved \u2014 the President of that country?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I don\u2019t think they\u2019re predicting he won\u2019t be involved.  They \u2014 he just didn\u2019t have a meeting when Ricardo Zu\u00f1iga was in El Salvador, on the last trip.  But he had a number of other constructive meetings, which we feel are a strong basis and foundation for moving forward.<\/p>\n<p>Go ahead, in the back.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thank you.  Do you see any changes in the Chinese behavior or approach, of which the Biden administration is asking China to do that?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Sorry, the masks make it hard sometimes to hear, and I know you\u2019re all the way in the back.  Do we see changes \u2014 do we \u2014 say it one more time.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Yeah.  You have reached out to Chinese \u2014 even the President has spoken to the Chinese President.  They\u2019re having several rounds of talks of \u2014 over the phone with the Chinese.  Do you see any changes in the Chinese behavior and approach to address your concerns?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, I would say we\u2019re less than 100 days into our administration.  What we can control is how we approach our relationship with China.  We see it as one that is about competition, not about conflict.  And our focus is also on approaching the relationship from a position of strength.  So that includes rebuilding, investing in our workforce at home.  Things like infrastructure investment, ensuring we have broadband access across our country, certainly fit into that category.  And also working very closely with our partners and allies in the region and also across Europe.  So that\u2019s how we\u2019re approaching it. <\/p>\n<p>In terms of assessments of their changes in behavior, I would leave that to all of you to assess.<\/p>\n<p>Q    But how do you characterize the response from the Chinese in the first 100 days?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I\u2019m not \u2014 I don\u2019t have a new assessment from here.  We are approaching this from a position of patience; we\u2019re not in a hurry.  We are working to strengthen our conditions at home, better support our workforce, ensure that we are approaching the relationship from a position of strength.<\/p>\n<p>Q    In your week ahead, you said the Prime Minister of Japan will be coming here next Friday.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yep.<\/p>\n<p>Q    This is the first foreign leader visiting this \u2014 the White House under Biden.  Can you give us a sense of what\u2019s the, kind of, preparation you\u2019re having?  Is there going to be a joint statement or joint press conference with the foreign leader?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I expect they\u2019ll have statements and will take some questions, as well, while they\u2019re here.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Okay.  Just one more on Russia \u2014 follow-up on Russia: The \u2014 Bloomberg has said that the review is over and you \u2014 the administration is discussing potential retaliatory measures at this stage.  Can you confirm that?  Is the review over?  Are you considering some actions against Russia?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  I can confirm there will be consequences \u2014 some seen, some unseen.  And we hope to have more on that soon.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thank you.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Go ahead.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Hi, thanks.  I wanted to ask about the infrastructure plan and climate \u2014 specifically, clean energy tax credits.  Treasury released a summary recently with a few more details on this, but I\u2019m just wondering if you guys have \u2014 the White House has, kind of, a topline number for all those credits; how it affects the overall climate impact of the plan; and what role those might play in selling the plan to some Democrats on the left who have suggested they think the plan doesn\u2019t go far enough on climate.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Sure.  Well, I will say that the plan, we feel, reflects on the President\u2019s view that there is a profound urgency and existential threat that we are facing from our climate crisis.  That the climate crisis is presenting an existential threat, I guess, is the more grammatically correct way to say it.  And we believe that he wants to take every opportunity we can to help address that.<\/p>\n<p>So, the American Jobs Plan will position the United States to meet President Biden\u2019s goals of creating a carbon neutral power sector by 2035 and a clean energy sector by 2050.  It will do that by building modern, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure; ensuring clean, safe drinking water is a right and available to all communities; revolutionizing electric vehicle manufacturing; mobilizing the next generation of conservation and resilience workers. <\/p>\n<p>This will not be the totality of what we do to address the climate crisis in the Biden-Harris administration, but it is certainly an important step and one that we\u2019ve had positive response from, from a number of members.<\/p>\n<p>Q    But specifically on those \u2014 on the clean energy tax credits, do you have any other, again, topline numbers or has it \u2014 or do you have any idea of when those may be forthcoming?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  And just so I understand, the topline numbers in terms of the impact of the tax credits?<\/p>\n<p>Q    (Inaudible) if you add it up, it describes some of the credits you guys want to extend, et cetera.  But does the White House have actual dollar figures for how many billions of dollars that represents, et cetera?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  We did put out a 25-page factsheet.  If it\u2019s not in there, we will certainly get you more specifics.  And we hope to have state-by-state details early next week. <\/p>\n<p>Q    Thanks, Jen.<\/p>\n<p>AIDE:  Jen.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Oh.<\/p>\n<p>Q    We have a \u2014 that\u2019s the other question.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  What?  We \u2013<\/p>\n<p>Q    Who\u2019s this?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Oh, he\u2019s a new member of our \u2014 I\u2019m just kidding.   What we\u2019re going to start doing is we are going to start taking a question from a regional reporter who does not live in Washington, can\u2019t be here.  Many of you started your careers that way.  So thank you for reminding me because I was going to walk off. <\/p>\n<p>Hello, it\u2019s very nice to meet you.  Thanks for \u2014 and you\u2019re from Anchorage, Alaska \u2014 come to us from Anchorage, Alaska.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Yes, I\u2019m here at the state capital in Juneau today, though.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Great, thanks for joining us.  So this is the White House Press Corps.  They won\u2019t ask you questions, but how can we help you?  What question do you have for us today? <\/p>\n<p>Q    Well, thanks for the opportunity.  The Secretary discussed the CDC limits on cruise ships, but here in Alaska, there\u2019s a second block that applies because ships must stop in Canada on the way to Alaska, and Canada isn\u2019t allowing cruise ships right now. <\/p>\n<p>Here in the state, Republicans and Democrats have requested a temporary waiver of that \u2014 of the law that requires that \u2014 (audio technical difficulties).<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Uh-oh.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Oh.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Oh no.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Did you hit your mute button?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Uh-oh.  You didn\u2019t hit your mute button, did you?  That may be on our end.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Can you hear me now?<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Yes, apologize for that.  We heard the first part of your question, but you may have to repeat it so we can hear it.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Okay.  So Republicans and Democrats here have requested a temporary waiver of the rule that blocks cruise ships from coming to Alaska without that Canadian stop.  And I was curious what the administration thinks of those requests and whether action is possible before the end of the summer tourist season.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Well, we heard about this earlier from some of your colleagues here in the White House Briefing Room \u2014 not specific to Alaska, but the cruise industry in general.  It\u2019s certainly an industry that we want to thrive, and we just want to ensure it is \u2014 we are reopening capacity in a safe manner and doing that as quickly as we can. <\/p>\n<p>I will say that we have been working with Senator Murkowski and Alaska officials on engaging Canada and finding ways to assist the cruise ships.  That\u2019s a process that\u2019s ongoing.<\/p>\n<p>Unfortunately, I don\u2019t have more details, but it is something we are fully aware of, that we are working with your senators on to help address.  And we certainly recognize the importance of the cruise ship industry to the Alaska economy.<\/p>\n<p>Q    Thank you.  Thank you.<\/p>\n<p>MS. PSAKI:  Thank you so much for joining us \u2014 we appreciate it \u2014 from Alaska. <\/p>\n<p>Okay.  Well, thank you, guys.  Happy Friday.  Have a great weekend.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Washington, DC&#8230;Hi, everyone. Happy Friday. Okay, so if it\u2019s another day, we have another member of the Jobs Cabinet. Joining us today is Secretary Buttigieg. He served, as you all know, two terms as mayor of South Bend, Indiana, where he worked across the aisle to transform the city\u2019s future and improve residents\u2019 everyday lives. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":117733,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_cbd_carousel_blocks":"[]","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[20,5,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-117732","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-featured","category-government","category-news","last_archivepost"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Fullscreen-capture-4112021-91020-AM.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117732","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=117732"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117732\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/117733"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=117732"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=117732"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=117732"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}