From 7e214b773db0c9a0141fa967084f0dcb412af130 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "github-actions[bot]" Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 04:34:21 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Update at Fri Sep 27 04:34:21 UTC 2024 --- ...ty-communications-advisor-john-kirby-30.md | 533 +++++++ ...nd-fema-administrator-deanne-criswell-4.md | 1228 +++++++++++++++++ rss.xml | 68 +- 3 files changed, 1795 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) create mode 100644 press-briefings/2024-09/2024-09-26-on-the-record-press-gaggle-by-white-house-national-security-communications-advisor-john-kirby-30.md create mode 100644 press-briefings/2024-09/2024-09-26-press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-and-fema-administrator-deanne-criswell-4.md diff --git a/press-briefings/2024-09/2024-09-26-on-the-record-press-gaggle-by-white-house-national-security-communications-advisor-john-kirby-30.md b/press-briefings/2024-09/2024-09-26-on-the-record-press-gaggle-by-white-house-national-security-communications-advisor-john-kirby-30.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6fa296438 --- /dev/null +++ b/press-briefings/2024-09/2024-09-26-on-the-record-press-gaggle-by-white-house-national-security-communications-advisor-john-kirby-30.md @@ -0,0 +1,533 @@ +--- +date: '2024-09-26' +modified_time: 2024-09-26 22:22:16-04:00 +published_time: 2024-09-26 16:20:00-04:00 +source_url: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2024/09/26/on-the-record-press-gaggle-by-white-house-national-security-communications-advisor-john-kirby-30/ +tags: press-briefings +title: "On-the-Record Press Gaggle by White\_House National Security Communications\ + \ Advisor John\_Kirby" +--- + +Via Teleconference + +4:14 P.M. EDT + +MODERATOR:  Hey, everyone.  Thanks for joining.  Kirby has a few words +here at the top, and then we’ll get started with Q&A. + +MR. KIRBY:  Hey, everybody.  Good afternoon.  I know many of you are +interested in a readout of the bilat with President Zelenskyy, and we’ll +get all of that, but I just want to just kind of put a pin in sort of +where we are here on Thursday afternoon. + +Really, the meeting today is the culmination of, really, a full week for +the President on the foreign policy front — as you all know, hosting the +leaders of the Indo-Pacific Quad in Wilmington, in his hometown, to +really talk about pressing issues, not just on the security land front, +but economic, diplomatic, certainly with respect to development +opportunities, and climate change all across the Indo-Pacific.  + +It was a really successful set of discussions, of course ending with all +four gathering together to launch a global — or an international effort +to get after the cancer challenge.  So, terrific few days, couple of +days there.  + +And then he went right to the U.N. General Assembly.  You all saw his +remarks, talking about the inflection point that that we are in again +and how institutions like the United Nations can work together to really +tackle transnational challenges.  + +He also talked about the acute nature of some of the conflicts that the +United States and so many of our partners are dealing with now.  Sudan, +of course — trying to get both sides to the table to do what’s right for +the Sudanese people and stop the violence, and the fact that there are +other countries around the world that can also be helpful in leveraging +that sort of an outcome.  + +Obviously, what’s going on in the Middle East.  And you saw yesterday +some intense diplomacy by our team to get multiple nations to come +together and call for a 21-day ceasefire to try to bring the fighting +between Israel and Lebanon to a halt so that diplomacy has a little bit +of breathing space to actually work.  + +And then, of course, Ukraine.  He had a chance to meet with President +Zelenskyy yesterday in a short pull-aside and then had a more +substantive discussion today.  You saw all the announcements and the +commitments that the President made to President Zelenskyy.  A real +surge is the way I would describe this, in terms of security assistance +and support to Ukraine as they try to continue to reclaim territory and +to succeed on the battlefield here in the coming months.  + +And the big thing about this — I mean, the biggest thing about that +surge was drawing down the remaining funds that we have available for +presidential drawdown authority, and then tasking DOD to then allocate +that money over time so that all the way to the end of his term we will +be spending everything we can to continue to support Ukraine.  And there +were some other additional capabilities announced, as I think you all +saw. + +Really good couple of days with President Zelenskyy here.  He had a +chance to present the broad contours of his victory plan to President +Biden and to our national security team.  And the President directed our +team to work with his team over the next couple of weeks to dig into it +a little bit more.  And both presidents are planning to meet in Germany, +when we head over there on the 12th of October.  They’ll meet to kind of +further flesh it out and see what, together, we can do to help President +Zelenskyy really achieve this just and lasting peace that he’s trying to +achieve.  + +So, again, I know there’s a lot of focus on the bilat today, and rightly +so.  He is meeting now with the Vice President, as you and I are +talking, and I’m sure we’ll get you a readout of that discussion when +it’s over.  But it comes at the end of truly a full week of intense +foreign diplomacy, a focus for the President, and real, tangible +deliverables in just about every single venue, including on fentanyl, +that are designed to make people’s lives better and designed, as the +President said in his speech on Tuesday, to help us deal with this +critical inflection point that we’re in.  + +So, anyway, I’ll stop there. + +MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our first question will go to Steve with +Reuters.  + +Q    Could you just describe the broad contours of the — + +MODERATOR:  Steve, you should be able to unmute yourself.  + +We hear you now. + +Q    Can you hear me? + +MODERATOR:  Yep. + +MR. KIRBY:  Got you, bud. + +Q    I was just going to see if John could give us the broad contours of +the Zelenskyy victory plan.  And is it something that sounds doable to +you? + +MR. KIRBY:  Hey, Steve.  I think I’m going to let President Zelenskyy +outline his plan.  It’s his plan, and I don’t believe they have talked +publicly about it too much in detail, so I think it would be +inappropriate for me to do that.  + +I would just say, you know, broadly speaking, it contains a series of +initiatives and steps and objectives that President Zelenskyy believes +will be important, not only for helping him end the war that he’s in +now, but prevent another one, and to be able to deter and defeat any +future Russian aggression once the war is over.  + +And if you go back and you look at the President’s opening comments in +the Oval, I mean, those were sort of the two prongs that the President +also talked about as well.  We got to — our immediate focus has got to +be on what Ukraine needs now.  And, of course, his package of +announcements today and deliverables I think get at that to a +fare-thee-well.  But also, what we need to do to work for Ukraine’s +long-term future and long-term security, and that would include, of +course, you know, an eventual path to NATO, once they have worked +through reforms that they have to make and once they have been able to +put the war in the rearview mirror.  But also looking after their +long-term security needs.  You know, we announced a bilateral security +agreement with Ukraine, and they’ve secured several others with other +countries to make sure that they have the capabilities over the long +term.  + +I know that’s a long-winded answer, and I’m not trying to filibuster, +but I do think it’s better if President Zelenskyy outlines his victory +plan.  + +And as for your second — the second question you asked, you know, “Is it +achievable,” well, that’s — you know, that’s what the two teams are +going to be discussing here in coming days and weeks to see — to really +kind of pick it apart and see where we can go together. + +Q    And if I could just add quickly, John: What happens with this +effort now to secure a 21-day ceasefire in Lebanon? + +MR. KIRBY:  We’re having active discussions, as you might imagine, with +our Israeli counterparts in particular about this.  Last night, it was, +I think, a very strident call by, you know, a dozen or so nations to try +to seek a 21-day ceasefire, a temporary ceasefire that is designed, as I +said, to give diplomacy some time and some space, a little bit of +breathing room here to work, because we still believe that that’s the +best solution here.  + +Where it goes from here is: Brett is still up in New York City, and he’s +still having conversations with his counterparts, his Israeli +counterparts, to see what the right next step is and if, how, and when +that ceasefire can get moving. + +I would just add one more thing, because I understand — I mean, you +didn’t ask it this way, but I’m sure somebody will.  You know, you’ve +seen President — sorry, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comments, and we’ve +seen them as well.  I would just make a couple of points here.  + +Number one, we still believe an all-out war is not the best way to get +people back in their homes.  If that’s the goal, an all-out war we don’t +believe is the right way to do that.  + +Number two, there was a lot of care and effort put into that statement.  +As you can see from it, it wasn’t just the United States; several other +nations joined us.  That took diplomacy as well.  That took some elbow +grease to work that statement with so many other countries, including +talking to our interlocutors in Lebanon and in Israel.  And we wouldn’t +have made that statement, we wouldn’t have worked on that if we didn’t +have reason to believe that the conversations that we were having with +the Israelis in particular were supportive of the goal there.  + +And the last thing I’ll say, and I kind of already said it, is: The +conversations continue.  The discussions are ongoing.  Even as you and I +are talking, again, Brett McGurk, Amos, they’re still up there seeing +what they can do to get this moving forward.  + +So, again, seen his comments.  Somebody is going to ask me about it; I +know that.  All I can tell you is those conversations with our Israeli +friends happened yesterday, before the statement went out, and they’re +happening today.  + +Q    Thank you.  + +MR. KIRBY:  Yes, sir. + +MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Andrea Mitchell. + +Q    Hi.  Thank you very much.  Thanks, Hannah.  Thanks, John.  So, +you’re right, I do want to ask you about the 21 days, because there’s +such a fundamental disagreement.  The Prime Minister reasserted his +disagreement when he landed here in the U.S. just a couple of hours ago +and said that they were going to use all their force and achieve their +objectives.  + +So do you have a better understanding of what their objectives are +militarily, beyond getting people back in their homes?  Because you have +clearly made the point, as the Secretary made this morning, that to +create hostilities in the area is not going to help get people back in +their homes.  Is it to abide by the U.N. resolution?  Is it to create a +buffer zone?  How far to push them back?  What is your goal?  And what +is your best understanding with all these conversations of what their +goal is? + +MR. KIRBY:  Well, I mean, I would point you to what they’ve been saying +themselves.  I mean, Prime Minister Netanyahu himself said that one of +his principal objectives is getting people back home.  And there’s a lot +of — there’s a lot of public opinion in Israel about that exact issue, +about the desire to go back home, up in the north.  And — + +Q    No, I meant the military objective.  What does he — + +MR. KIRBY:  I know that, but — + +Q    What does he think can — okay. + +MR. KIRBY:  I know that, Andrea.  But he himself said that that was his +objective: to get people back home, to stabilize the situation so that +people would feel comfortable doing that.  + +Now, he has also said, and we have no reason to doubt, that he wants to +continue to eliminate the very legitimate, lethal threats that Hezbollah +poses to Israel.  I mean, just yesterday they launched a ballistic +missile at Tel Aviv.  + +So, he and his cabinet and the Israeli people have every right to want +to thwart that threat, that challenge to their peace and security, their +lives and their livelihoods.  So I would suspect that from a military +perspective, that’s also weighing into their calculation.  + +But, you know, I can’t answer the question any better than I did with +Steve.  Seen his comments, heard them, but all I can tell you is that we +wouldn’t have worked on that statement the way we did, we wouldn’t have +issued it when and how we did if it wasn’t supported by the +conversations that we were having with top Israeli officials yesterday, +and those conversations continue today.  + +Q    Thank you. + +MR. KIRBY:  Yes, ma’am.  + +MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Alex Marquardt.  +One second.  Where did you go, Alex?  + +Okay, we see — oh, he is back. + +Q    Hi, you got me?  + +MODERATOR:  Yes.  + +Q    Thanks, guys.  John, just want to ask you a little bit more on +that.  So we heard from Karine earlier that this was indeed coordinated +with the Israeli side.  And last night, your colleagues said pretty +definitive things like “this is an important breakthrough,” “when the +governments agree.”  So it sounds like there was an expectation that +this would happen, and then we see Netanyahu come out and say, “We +continue to hit Hezbollah with all our might.”  That doesn’t sound like +a reversal or a dismissal to you from the Israeli side? + +MR. KIRBY:  I think you ought to ask that question to Prime Minister +Netanyahu.  What I can tell you is: The discussions we had last night we +had every reason to believe were sincere.  And I will tell you, I’ve +communicated with Brett this morning, and he’s having those discussions +today, and he feels, again, that the Israeli side are willing to have +those talks.  So that’s where we are.  + +Q    But do you think there’s a difference in — you both agree that +it’ll take a diplomatic solution to get people back into their homes, +but do you think there’s a disagreement about how to get there, in that +they believe it’s military pressure and you guys are arguing, no, it’ll +take a pause? + +MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, I’m not going to get into our back-and-forth here in a +public setting, Alex, and I’m certainly not going to speak for what they +believe or don’t believe.  + +I think I’ve kind of dealt with the issue of the discussions we had +yesterday and the ones we’re having today. + +MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Haley with +Scripps.  + +Q    Hey.  Thanks for doing this.  You know, given the strong rejection +from Netanyahu on this temporary ceasefire and the indications that one +of the hopes was that diplomatic space to continue the efforts for a +ceasefire in Gaza, I’m curious how the recent language from the Israelis +is impacting those efforts and if there has been any further movement in +the past few days on that first ceasefire and hostage release.  Thanks. + +MR. KIRBY:  I wish I could tell you that we had some kind of +breakthrough to speak to.  We don’t, with respect to the ceasefire in +Gaza.  But I also would add that we are still very much interested in +trying to see if it can’t be moved forward.  And nothing has slackened +about our desire to see if there is room for another go at this.  + +But the team is still focused on it.  We still want to see it put in +place.  And nobody has turned the page on it and said, “Well, that’s +it.  We’re done.  We’re not interested in trying to find a ceasefire +that can get the hostages home.”  + +So, our team here at the National Security Council, and I’m sure the +State Department as well, is still trying to work this over to see if +there’s a path forward. + +MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Zeke with AP. + +Q    Hey, John.  I just want to take one more stab at this.  What +changed between last night, when the senior administration officials who +briefed were calling it a breakthrough, and this morning?  Were you and +was the President surprised or upset by the Prime Minister’s comments +this morning, rejecting that deal?  Or was that expected?  Thank you. + +MR. KIRBY:  I would say a couple of things.  It’s not clear to us that, +from a practical perspective, that there isn’t cause for us to continue +to have these conversations with the Israelis. + +If something has changed, you’d have to talk to Prime Minister Netanyahu +about what that something is.  What I can tell you is we’re still +talking to the Israelis today, as we were yesterday.  And I’ll leave it +at that. + +And I’m not going to characterize the President’s reaction one way or +the other.  His main goal is to make sure that we find a diplomatic path +here to deescalate along that Blue Line and that we avoid an all-out war +and escalation, not only there but elsewhere in the region.  And almost +everything he’s been doing since the 7th of October has been designed to +achieve that outcome.  + +And so, that’s where his focus is, on trying to prevent this thing from +escalating more than it already has.  And his tasking to the team in +recent days is to keep working at that goal, keep trying to see what we +can do to give diplomacy a fighting chance, and that’s what he really +wants. + +MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Nick with PBS. + +Q    Hey, John.  One last attempt at the same topic, but also trying to +move it forward.  Do you believe that Netanyahu has backtracked from +anything he said before last night?  Or do you believe that — and/or do +you believe that he’s balancing competing interests?  You mentioned +there’s a lot of public opinion in Israel.  Both the right and some on +the left actually criticized the announcement on the call for a +ceasefire deal.  + +And again, trying to push this forward, is there a message that you +would like to hear from Netanyahu tomorrow, during the UNGA speech, that +may indicate to the U.S., to the world, frankly, to Hezbollah itself, to +Nasrallah that would provide some kind of (inaudible) moving forward?  +Thanks. + +MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, look, I appreciate the seventh or eighth attempt +here.  I can’t speak for Prime Minister Netanyahu.  I can’t answer the +question why he said what he said.  And I certainly can’t begin to +speculate about what considerations went into that statement, whether +they were political or operational or otherwise.  Those are questions +that he needs to be asked and should be given the opportunity to +answer.  + +What I can tell you is: That statement we worked on last night wasn’t +just drawn up in a vacuum.  It was done after careful consultation, not +only with the countries that signed on to it, but Israel itself.  And we +had every reason to believe that in the drafting of it and in the +delivery of it, that the Israelis were fully informed and fully aware of +every word in it.  And we wouldn’t have done it, as I said, if we didn’t +believe that it would be received with the seriousness with which it was +composed.  + +And the discussions that we have had, or that we had yesterday with our +Israeli counterparts, are happening still today.  So, what prompted the +Prime Minister’s comments?  Only he can say.  What prompted our desire +to get that statement written and out the door was an earnest desire to +see diplomacy having a chance here to deescalate. + +Q    And the question about the UNGA speech and message that you want to +hear from Netanyahu tomorrow? + +MR. KIRBY:  Look, we’re not in the habit of providing speechwriting +advice to foreign leaders.  The Prime Minister will speak for himself, +and he’ll speak for the Israeli people in the way he sees fit, the same +way that President Biden did on Tuesday.  + +So, we’ll obviously be listening to hear what he has to say, of course, +with great interest, as you will.  We know that the Prime Minister knows +that the people of Israel have no stronger supporter than Joe Biden, not +only as President of the United States, but over the course of a long +career.  + +And even though he and Prime Minister Netanyahu don’t see eye-to-eye on +every issue, and that is clear, they absolutely share one overarching +goal, and that is the preservation and the safety and security of the +State of Israel.  That will never change.  We may disagree at times on +how to achieve that goal, but on the things — well, a lot of things +matter, but on that very big thing that matters, they certainly see +eye-to-eye. + +MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Michael with the +New York Times. + +Q    Hey, John.  I will avoid becoming the ninth effort to — person to +press you on (inaudible), though I think you’re still (inaudible) basic +question, which is: What did Netanyahu tell the United States last +night?  And did he mislead you guys? + +But let’s go to an easier question on Ukraine, which is: You know, is +the President going — is there anybody in the United States government +and the national security team that thinks that — or that doesn’t think +that Ukraine and Zelenskyy will ultimately have to come to some sort of +acceptance of some sort of territorial, you know, giveaway to resolve +this war?  + +And is the President comfortable leaving office in a few months, you +know, kind of knowing that war is going to continue on in this stalemate +that won’t — you know, that doesn’t have a real path towards resolution, +in part because Zelenskyy doesn’t want to confront that possibility? + +MR. KIRBY:  Of course the President would like to see this war ended, +Michael.  I mean, he’d like to see it ended today, and we all know that +it could if Putin got the hell out of Ukraine.  But of course, that +doesn’t appear to be in the offing.  + +So, President Biden would very much like to see the war ended as soon as +possible, given the unlikelihood of that eventuality.  And that’s why +we’re doing everything we can to make sure they can prevail on the +battlefield so that if and when President Zelenskyy decides he wants to +enter into some sort of negotiated settlement, that he can do so from a +position of strength.  + +And, you know, to your first question, which I may be butchering it back +to you, so if I don’t get it right, you tell me if I’m wrong.  But the +way I interpreted it was: Does anybody think here at the NSC that +there’s no other way for this to end without him trading territory?  Is +that kind of where you were — is that what you meant? + +Q    Yeah, essentially.  Right.  I mean, essentially, in the question — + +MR. KIRBY:  Yeah, look — I mean, that’s going to be up to him.  And I +would tell you we’re not sitting around with maps of Ukraine and markers +and coming up with, you know, alternative scenarios here, or, “Gee, +maybe we could convince Zelenskyy to trade this for that.”  We’re not +involved in that kind of a game here.  We are — when we’re sitting there +looking at the map of Ukraine, it’s about trying to understand the +battlefield as it is now and trying to get ahead of where it’s going to +go, and making sure that Ukraine has what it needs to be successful on +that battlefield.  + +But as I said many, many times, if and when and how this war ends, it’s +got to be in a way that President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people can +accept.  He gets to decide the conditions.  He gets to decide the +circumstances.  And if there’s trade space, he gets to decide what that +trade space is.  He’s not getting direction from the United States and +the administration in one way or another when it comes to that.  + +And I would just tell you that — I can’t speak for the innermost +thoughts of every single policy analyst here at the National Security +Council, but I can tell you that Jake is not putting them to task, +getting them to think through what a negotiation could look like in +terms of geography.  That’s just not where our heads are.  Everybody +here that’s working this problem set is really trying to do the two +things that the President said very clearly in his pool spray.  + +And those two items, you know, I do want to draw you back to them as +much as I can, because it wasn’t by accident that he listed two +priorities: one, that they got what they need now and in the months +ahead, and that every dollar we can spend before the end of his term, by +God, we’re going to spend it.  And number two: that we are setting, as +best we can, all the conditions for the future long-term security of +Ukraine so that they can not only deter any future Russian aggression +once the war ends, but defeat it, if they have to face it.  And that, of +course, means obviously working with them on the reforms to eventually +see a path to NATO, but also, more organically, make sure that they have +a robust defense industrial base with the ability to manufacture and to +procure the kinds of defense articles that they’ll need to defend +themselves over the long term. + +Q    That’s great.  Let me just follow up one really quick way.  I guess +what I’m trying to get at with the question of territory is that there +are places in the world where the U.S. does press — I mean, Israel is a +perfect example.  The U.S. has been long on record pressing for a +two-state solution that would ultimately require both sides to +compromise on territory in the interest of long-term security.  + +And I guess the question is: After two years of war that has largely +stalemated, why isn’t the U.S. — I mean, obviously it’ll be up to +Ukraine to make the final decision, but why isn’t the U.S. pressing for +some sort of consideration that would bring the war to an end? + +MR. KIRBY:  Because we believe, as we’ve said from the outset — we +believe that, unlike the two-state solution, Mike, which is not — in my +view, not an appropriate analogy, this was a sovereign nation with +internationally recognized boundaries that was invaded by its neighbor +aggressively, and remains invaded by its neighbor.  That is a vastly +different scenario.  + +And from the beginning, from the moment he stepped off and marched on to +Kyiv, we were saying we want to see those internationally recognized +boundaries fully respected and restored.  That is Ukraine, all of +Ukraine, including Crimea.  It belongs to Ukraine.  We want to see that +outcome.  + +So I think quick — honestly, we have been very clear about geography, +and that hasn’t changed.  Now, if there’s some trade space to be had +there, that’s got to be up to President Zelenskyy.  But as far as +President Biden and the United States is concerned, Ukraine is Ukraine.  +All of Ukraine.  And the internationally recognized borders need to be +respected by everybody, most especially Russia.  + +Q    Thanks.  Appreciate it.  + +MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Our next question will go to Barak with Axios. + +Q    Hey, John.  Just a very short clarification.  I just want to see +that I understand.  You said that you would not have published the +statement about the ceasefire if you did not understand from the +Israelis that they’re on board.  Did I understand this correctly?  Is +this what you said? + +MR. KIRBY:  I didn’t say it in exactly those words, but I’m not going to +disagree with your assessment of it.  + +Q    Thank you. + +MODERATOR:  Awesome.  Thank you, everyone.  That’s all the time we have +for today.  As always, if we weren’t able to get to you, send a note to +the distro, and we’ll try to get back to you as soon as we can.  Thank +you.  + +4:46 P.M. EDT diff --git a/press-briefings/2024-09/2024-09-26-press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-and-fema-administrator-deanne-criswell-4.md b/press-briefings/2024-09/2024-09-26-press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-and-fema-administrator-deanne-criswell-4.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6904db69a --- /dev/null +++ b/press-briefings/2024-09/2024-09-26-press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-and-fema-administrator-deanne-criswell-4.md @@ -0,0 +1,1228 @@ +--- +date: '2024-09-26' +modified_time: 2024-09-26 22:19:27-04:00 +published_time: 2024-09-26 12:17:00-04:00 +source_url: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2024/09/26/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-and-fema-administrator-deanne-criswell-4/ +tags: press-briefings +title: "Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and FEMA Administrator\ + \ Deanne\_Criswell" +--- + +James S.  Brady Press Briefing Room + +12:45 P.M. EDT + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Hi, everybody.  + +Q    Hi. + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Good afternoon.  Sorry.  Somebody — we’ve been gone +too long.  Somebody has been messing with this stuff. + +Okay.  So, the president has been briefed on Hurricane Helene, and at +his direction, administration officials are in contact with their local +and state counterparts to ensure that they have everything they need.  + +This week, the president approved emergency disaster declaration request +from the governors of Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia, when +unlocked additional federal resources to — which unlock additional +federal resources to help these states respond to the storm. + +And the entire Biden-Harris administration stands ready to provide +further assistance to impacted states as needed.  + +We continue to urge residents, especially those who have been instructed +to evacuate, to heed the warnings of local officials.  + +With that, I have — I have here to my right, the FEMA administrator, +Criswell.  Come on up.  + +Deanne, thank you so much for — for being here.  + +ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Yeah.  Thank you, Karine.  Good afternoon, +everybody.  + +As you heard, I did just finish briefing President Biden on the impacts +that we are expecting to see from Hurricane Helene.  And as I told him, +we have been preparing for this storm for a number of days, and we began +moving resources into Florida on Monday.  + +I just want everybody to know that this is going to be a multi-state +event with the potential for significant impacts from Florida all the +way to Tennessee, and the president wants to make sure that everyone is +paying attention to the potential life-threatening impacts that this +storm may bring.  And he has directed me to travel there tomorrow to +assess the impacts.  + +The entire state of Florida is under some type of warning right now, +whether that’s a hurricane warning or a tropical storm warning, and we +expect life-threatening flash flooding in the state’s north as the storm +continues to move north.  + +And so, I need everybody to pay attention to their local officials.  +They are going to have the best information on the specific risks where +you are at.  We’re already seeing impacts in Florida, and the forecast +indicates that we could see up to 20 feet of storm surge.  + +So, just think back two years ago to Hurricane Ian.  The peak storm +surge from that was 14 feet, and we saw the amount of destruction and +150 people lost their lives, the majority of them from drowning.  So, +please take this threat from storm surge seriously.  + +Residents that are in these areas, they can still take action.  They can +take action now to move out of harm’s way.  And remember that you may +only need to go 10 or 15 miles inland to get away from the threat of the +storm surge itself, because water is the number one reason that we see +people lose their lives in these storms.  So, please don’t underestimate +what the impacts could possibly be.  + +So, at the president’s direction, we have over 1,100 personnel so far +across the federal government supporting the preparedness efforts for +this storm.  We also have an additional 700 personnel from FEMA that are +already in these states supporting other disasters that we can quickly +pivot to support any of the response needs as needed.  + +Some of the resources that we have already deployed include eight search +and rescue teams across Florida and Georgia, as well as resources from +the Coast Guard, the Department of Defense to immediately support any +lifesaving operations as needed.  + +Now, the Army Corps of Engineer has power restoration teams and debris +specialists who are going to be able to help restore power and support +debris removal operations as soon as it is safe to do so.  + +We have health and medical task forces from Health and Human Services to +evaluate the impacts to medical facilities.  + +We have food, water, generators, and tarps that are deployed to staging +locations across the region, and so they are easily accessible and +movable post-storm.  + +And the Red Cross is actively standing up shelters in areas that are +expected to see and feel the impacts from Helene.  + +My regional administrator is currently embedded in the Florida Emergency +Operations Center, as well as Incident Management Assistance Teams in +Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, and we have one currently moving to North +Carolina today so we can ensure seamless communications between the +federal government and the needs of the states. + +I’m very grateful, as you heard, President Biden quickly approved +prelandfall declarations for Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, and +this allows us to immediately provide any of that lifesaving support in +the coming days.  + +And I’m grateful for the rest of the federal family that is there on the +ground, working with us side by side, as we pr- — prepare to support the +American people for what is to come over the next several days. + +I just want everybody to know that the Biden-Harris administration — we +are ready for this event.  We have aggressively predeployed resources.  +We are postured for whatever response might be needed.  + +And so, let me just say one more time before I take any questions: Take +this storm seriously.  People in Hurricane Helene’s path, you need to +listen to your local officials.  If they tell you to evacuate, please do +so.  And if they tell you to shelter in place, then that’s what you +should do.  They’re going to give you the best information that you can +do for your specific situation.  Those decisions can save lives. + +And with that, Karine, I’ll take questions. + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Inaudible.) + +Q    Thanks, Karine.  Thanks, Deanne.  So, this is likely to be the 21st +billion-dollar weather or climate disaster this year.  So, does FEMA +have the resources to keep on responding to disaster after disaster like +this? + +ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  So, we have absolutely enough resources to +continue to support the lifesaving response that we need to for this +event.  I think everybody is aware that we went into Immediate Needs +Funding as our Disaster Relief Fund, the — the funding was running low.  +But the reason we do that is to make sure we have enough money for an +event just like this. + +And so, I want everybody to know that we have exactly what we need, and +there are no limitations to our ability to support the response for this +disaster. + +As we continue to go through the recovery, though, for all of these +disasters, that also takes personnel, and we’re going to continue to +work through with our states about what they need and how we can best +adjudicate those resources.  But we are seeing an increase, and we’re +seeing a strain on our staff, with more of them deployed for longer +periods of time, helping to support these communities recover. + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Trevor. + +Q    And just also related to the — the money here.  Some pretty +substantial losses projected in terms of the crop insurance, in terms of +the flood insurance.  Is there — and there’s no new money in the CR as +far as this is concerned.  Is there any expectation that you’re going to +have to go back with a supplemental — + +ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  So, we — + +Q    — request? + +ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Yeah.  So, we did put a supplemental request in +with the CR.  It does not give us a supplemental at this time, but it +gives us the ability to spend the money that was put forth in the +president’s budget.  But we’re already, through INF, $9 billion — close +to $9 billion in projects that we have put on hold that we can’t +reimburse communities for. + +Once we lift INF and once the CR goes into effect, we’ll be able to pay +those, but without a supplemental, we’ll — we will be back in INF +probably in the January time frame. + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Weijia. + +Q    Thanks, Karine.  Can you talk more about how widespread you think +prolonged power outages will be and what those power restoration teams +are doing to prepare?  Is there anything they can do proactively, you +know, before the storm? + +ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  So, Florida has a really robust plan, and they +have really aggressive targets to try to get the majority of people — I +forget what the exact percentage is; I think it was 85 or 90 percent +within 48 hours — back up.  And they have several thousand resources +that have been prepositioned to come in and support Florida Power & +Light or the other utilities to help them get the power back on. + +We expect widespread power outages from this.  When we think about +Tallahassee, it’s got a lot of tree canopy, so those trees are going to +come down and impact those power lines, and the debris and the ability +to detangle the debris from the power lines is what could take a long +time. + +The power restoration teams, they do a couple of things from the Army +Corps.  One, they can help us put generators in on critical facilities +to help make sure that those facilities have power, but they can also +make assessments on how to prioritize some of the work so we know where +we need to put our efforts to help the — the private-sector pr- — +utility companies get the power restored as quickly as possible. + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Colleen. + +Q    Could you talk a little bit about how the response has changed +based on the severity of the storms?  I think we’re seeing an increasing +— storms with increasing severity.  So, how does that change the +response for you?  I mean, I know it’s more manpower, but what — what +else?  How else does it change? + +ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  I think the biggest thing is that we want to +get things in place early.  This is why we’ve been moving resources into +the area since Monday and having — we know there’s a large population +that’s really vulnerable in Florida, and so that’s why we have so many +search and rescue teams that are able to come in and augment the really +im- — impressive amount of teams that Florida already has within the +state, right?  So, this is on top of what they already have.  + +And so, for us, it’s making sure that we are sending more than we think +that we’ll need.  And if I don’t need them, I can send them home.  What +I don’t want to do is be short.  I want to make sure that I have enough +that can support whatever the states might request. + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J. + +Q    You said that you are headed down there tomorrow.  Did you discuss +with the president whether it might be possible for him to make the trip +down in the coming days?  + +And secondly, is there a single piece of advice or warning that you +wish, in these kinds of situations, people would heed more seriously +that you might want to emphasize in this setting? + +ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Yeah.  So, the purpose of my visit is to assess +the impacts, and I’ll be briefing him on what those impacts are.  I’ll +leave it to Karine to talk with him about what, you know, actions he +might take.  + +But I think the — the message is: Take this seriously.  I mean, we look +at the cone, and the cone is the wind, but the water is what kills +people.  And so, we need to really look at where this storm surge is +going to be in Florida.  + +But Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and those Appalachians, +they’re going to have up to 20 inches of rain in an area that can have +significant flash flooding.  And that is really life-threatening, and it +comes so much faster than what we see from a storm surge, right?  +They’re going to have less warning once the rain starts there, so they +need to know what they’re going to do now, put those plans — plans in +place today for where they’re going to go, how they’re going to contact +their family and their friends, what they’re going to need to take with +them — like medicine or power devices for medical reasons.  + +Ha- — it’s not too late.  They should be able to put those plans +together today so they can take the actions that their local officials +tell them to do. + +Q    Thanks. + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Go ahead, in the back. + +Q    Thank you.  You keep talking about the need to follow evacuation +orders if local officials give them.  We know from past storms that +people don’t always heed that not because they don’t want to but because +they can’t afford to leave the area, don’t have anywhere to go, don’t +have family members to help them.  Is FEMA doing anything to work on +that particular issue, given what you’re talking about with water and +the danger that can come from that if people stay in place? + +ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Yeah.  So, part of the prelandfall emergency +declaration is specifically to reimburse states and local jurisdictions +for any of the costs that they incur to do sheltering and evacuation +because we want them to have the resources to put in place whatever +measures that they need.  + +I think the important thing on the evacuation to remember is, if you’re +told to evacuate, especially from the storm surge area, it doesn’t mean +you have to go to a whole other state.  And I think we — we often think +of those pictures of contraflow lines and — and backed-up traffic, but +you really sometimes only need to go a few miles to get out of harm’s +way.  + +And so, the local officials should be able to tell you where there’s +local evacuation centers that you can go to until the threat of the +storm has passed.  And then when we get to the point where if they are +displaced, then we have the long-term sheltering concerns that we’ll +have to work with.  But the initial sheltering concern is just getting +out of this storm’s path for right now, then we can work on what those +long-term needs are.  + +And that’s why the prelandfall declaration is so incredibly important — +that the president approved — is to make sure that those states have the +resources to stand up those shelters and to help people get to safety.  + +Q    And do you feel that the state is ready to stand up those +shelters?  I mean, you’re talking about how you’re going to reimburse +them, but is Florida ready to do that? + +ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Florida has stood up many shelters, and the +American Red Cross is also there supporting that.  I just need people to +evacuate and go to them.  + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  We’re going to wrap it up.  + +Go ahead, Jon. + +Q    Thanks, Karine.  What resources are available, not only to families +but also to small business, in the aftermath of this storm making +landfall — resources coming not only from FEMA but also from the SBA? + +ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Yeah.  There’s a number of programs that are +available.  For FEMA, we specifically made some changes into our +disaster declaration — the Stafford Act — recently, which allows people +that work from home to actually get compensated for some of their +business losses if they work from home, like if they had a computer or +other equipment that they needed to do their personal — if they’re a +photographer and they lost their cameras.  So, we just made that change +recently, in March, to be able to compensate small-business owners that +work from home.  + +SBA can speak specifically about their programs, but they’ve also made +some really amazing changes this year, which increases the dollar amount +that people can borrow from the SBA.  It extends the time where they’re +going to delay the interest until they have to pay it — or to start to +repay that loan.  And it’s a tremendous resource to really help small +businesses get back on their feet.  + +Q    And how do you decide where to position yourself tomorrow with the +storm making landfall? + +ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  So, we’re looking at where we think the biggest +impact is going to be, and right now, it looks like it’s a dead-on hit +to Tallahassee.  And so, we’ll fly as close to Tallahassee as we can +get, and then I’ll meet up with the governor and his team so I can see +what the impacts are, hear what the — the team is thinking.  And then we +will assess, right?  + +I’ve got staff on the ground that will have the intel as to where the +hardest-hit areas are.  And then, typically, we like to either get an +aerial view, so I can fly over and see what some of those damages are, +or on the ground, if need be.  + +But I’m also prepared to move up to Georgia, North Carolina, South +Carolina, as we start to see what those impacts are and assess that.  + +And because me being on the ground helps me validate some of the damages +more quickly, so we can get major declarations in place faster.  + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  Last question.  Go ahead. + +Q    Thank you.  At the start of this year, you wrote out reforms to cut +some of the red tape for the individual assistance program.  Now that so +many people are in the path of this storm, can you give an update on how +quickly you expect survivors to be able to tap into that, given those +changes that were put in effect more than six months ago at this point? + +ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Yeah.  We’ve seen some really tremendous, +positive impact from the changes that we have made.  In fact, one of the +changes we made was we decoupled the requirement to apply for an SBA +loan in order to be eligible for our programs, and it’s really saving +people several days in the process.  And we’re getting a large number of +people that wouldn’t have come back to us, which is great.  + +We’re also seeing people get funding quicker, right?  We have Serious +Needs Assistance that can get them a very small amount of money to help +with some of their immediate costs but, also, the Individual and +Households Program that can help them with if they’re underinsured.  + +And so, it really all depends on what their specific need is.  The money +that they will see the fastest typically is that initial $750.  Any +damages to their home, we still have to assess and see what those +damages are and then can make that determination.  + +But we have teams that go right out in the field.  They can register +them in the field.  And that really helps to speed up the process.  + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  All right.  Thank you so much, Administrator.  + +ADMINISTRATOR CRISWELL:  Thank you, Karine.  + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Appreciate it.  Thank you.  + +Q    Thank you.  + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thank you, thank you. + +I just wanted to add, the president asked to have the administrator come +to the podium today because of how serious we want to make sure that +people out there are taking this.  They need to take this very +seriously.  + +And also, obviously, we wanted to lay out our federal response posture +so that folks know that we are there for them, and we will obviously be +there on the ground as the FEMA administrature — administrator just laid +out.  + +So, please, please take this very, very seriously and listen to your +local officials.  Just want to reiterate that once more. + +I have one more thing.  It’s a busy day here at the White House.  One of +the other things that we’re going to be doing: As you all know, today, +the president and the vice president are announcing new actions to redu- +— to reduce gun violence and save lives. + +From the American Rescue Plan to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to +issuing more executive actions to reduce gun violence than any other +administration, the president and the vice president have continued to +use every tool available to protect people from epidemic — from the +epidemic of gun violence.  + +Homicide rates are down 17 percent compared to the same — this — the +same time last year, and the number of mass shootings this year is 20 +percent lower.  But more must be done.  + +So, President Biden is going to sign an executive order to accelerate +progress on two key priorities, combating emerging — emerging firearms +threats and impr- — improving school-based active shooter drills.   + +Additionally, federal departments and agency will be announcing a range +of additional actions to reduce gun violence, from promoting safe gun +storage and red flag laws to improving the background check system.  + +The Biden-Harris administration will continue to do everything it can to +put an end to this senseless, senseless violence, while calling on +Congress to fulfill their duty and pass commonsense gun safety +legislation. + +With that, Colleen. + +Q    Thanks, Karine.  Democratic Mayor of New York City Eric Adams has +been charged with bribery, wire fraud, and seeking campaign funds from a +foreign government.  Does the president believe he should resign?  + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to comment on any ongo- — on this +ongoing — particular ongoing matter.  I’m going to let the DOJ speak to +this.  + +Q    Okay.  And then two other quick things.  Does the president hope +that Vice President Kamala Harris, should she be elected president — +will she continue the Office of Gun Violence Prevention?  Is he hoping — + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I’m not going to speak for the vice president or +get ahead of — of ourselves here.  + +But what I will say is, as you know, the vice president has been a +leader on this issue — she leads the Office of — of Gun Violence — and +has taken this seriously, not just as a vice president but throughout +her career, and has been, obviously, a key partner in all of the — all +of the actions that this president has done and has taken. + +So, I could assur- — I — I think it’s safe to say that she will continue +to lead on making sure that we deal with this epidemic.  Gun violence is +an epidemic.  We need to continue to protect our communities, protect +our schools.  + +And so, I could assure you that she’s going to continue to stay +laser-focused on this issue. + +Q    Okay.  One other quick thing.  As you know, Ukraine wants to fire +long-range weapons into Russia, and some Republicans today backed the +idea.  I wondered why the White House doesn’t share that same +assessment. + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So — so, I think we can expect that one of the +conversations that the two leaders will have would be on this topic.  +And so, you know, there will be also a broader discussion on the +significant amount of military aid we are providing Ukraine.  You saw +our announcements this morning.  + +Although I’m not expecting there be any new announcements on this +particular action or a decision coming out of this meeting.  I expect +the leaders will discuss the weapons system the president announced, as +I just stated.  + +And I do want to take a little bit of a step back here.  I want to +remind everyone watching the briefing how the United States, how this +president has mobilized a massive — a massive amount of military +equipment and capability to help Ukraine really fight back, push back +against Mr. Putin and his aggression. + +It’s been almost three years — almost three years, and this president +has been there day one.  He has been able to bring more than 50 nations +together to support Ukraine in their fight for their democracy.  And so, +that’s what you can expect. + +And the president is very proud of the impact of that support, what it’s +had, and is proud of that coalition.  + +And so — and certainly, you’ll see more of that in Germany.  As we +announced, the president is going to be going to Germany.  + +And so, I will leave it there and not go any further. + +Go ahead, Selina. + +Q    Thanks, Karine.  Mayor Eric Adams suggests that he’s being targeted +by the Biden administration over his criticism of the migrant crisis.  +Now, this is the kind of accusation that’s similar to what we’ve heard +from former President Donald Trump.  So, what is the president’s +reaction to that kind of language being used from a Democrat? + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we have been always very clear.  The president +was clear, even when he was running in 2020, that he was going to make +sure that DOJ is independent, and the DOJ is handling this case +independently.  I’m not going to go beyond that. + +Q    And Adams was also at a reception last night with the president at +the Met.  Did they talk? + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I can confirm to you that the president did not see +the mayor and they did not speak. + +Go ahead, M.J. + +Q    You just mentioned that, obviously, you expect the two leaders +today to discuss the issue of the use of long-range missiles into +Russia.  Do you know if the president has any openness to changing his +policy stance on that? + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — look, I said it’s going to be one of a range of +topics that they’re going to discuss. + +And let’s not forget, the president and — both presidents saw each other +recently, just yesterday.  They’ve had multiple bilateral engagements.  +This is a continuation of that — a continuation of the — the support +that you have seen from the United States and, obviously, what the +president has been able to do in the past two-plus years in bringing +nations together to continue to give support to — to Ukraine. + +What I said is I could expect this con- — this to come up as a topic, +but I wouldn’t expect any new announcements.  I’m just not going to go +beyond that.  You all will see the president momentarily and President +Zelenskyy in a — in — in there — in this pool spray, as you know, in the +Oval.  And so, you’ll have an opportunity to hear directly from both of +them. + +I just don’t have anything beyond — there’s no announcement that I would +expect coming out of this — + +Q    Okay.  And just — + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — new announcement. + +Q    Just separately on this Lebanon ceasefire proposal that was +released last night.  I’m sure you saw the prime minister’s office said, +“The news about a ceasefire is incorrect.”  What is the disconnect +here?  You know, we had senior U.S. officials saying last night — +suggesting really strongly that they expected the two sides to agree to +this proposal.  And here we are, however many hours later, and the prime +minister’s office is saying no. + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, a couple of things.  As you mentioned, the joint +statement last night, you saw that.  We and our allies, partners don’t +believe in an all-out war.  That’s not the answer here.  That’s not what +we want to see. + +And that is something that we’ve been pretty consistent about throughout +the past several months.  Our joint statement was a clear call — it was +a call for a temporary ceasefire to open up space — open up space for +diplomacy to achieve a deal that allows civilians on both sides of the +border to return to their homes safely and securely.  And I would add +that the statement was indeed coordinated with the Israeli side.  + +There are now discussions ongoing today in New York.  Our teams are +continuing to have discussions, and so you’ll probably hear more later — +later in the day.  But those discussions are ongoing. + +Q    If it was coordinated with the Israeli side and the expectation +last night, as it was shared by senior U.S. officials, was that the two +sides would agree to this imminently, why are we hearing from the prime +minister’s — + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would — + +Q    — office today — + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would have to refer you to the prime minister’s +office.  + +I — I’m just laying out the facts and what we know and what we want to +avoid.  We do not believe an all-out war is the answer, and we’ve been +very clear about that.  The president has been very clear about that.  + +I just laid out the facts and what we’re trying to do.  This is a clear +call for a temporary ceasefire.  We want to provide space.  We talk +about how di- — diplomacy is — is the way to move forward.  That’s what +the president believes.  + +I laid out that — that the statement was indeed coordinated with the +Israeli side.  + +I can’t speak for them.  They will have to speak for themselves.  + +I — I’m just laying out what we know, how this came together, and what +we — what our end goal is — right? — is that — is what we want to see.  + +Q    Do you still expect an agreement to come out imminently?  + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As I — as I just mentioned, we have our teams who are +in New York right now.  They’re currently having those discussions, +currently negotiating or discussing this further in New York.  And so, +I’m — I’m sure that we will have more to share later in the day.  + +Go ahead, Francesca. + +Q    Thanks, Karine.  The president never had a direct conversation with +the Israeli prime minister about this.  Do you expect that he’ll call +him today or that he’ll speak with him tomorrow about this? + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As you know, they have spoken many, many times — +probably more than a dozen times, easily — in this past several months, +almost a year now, since October 7th.  They have decades-long +relationship, and so they know each other very well.  And when they have +discussions, they are very honest and — and frank.  + +I don’t have a conversation to read out, a call to preview at this +time.  + +As I stated — and I’ve said this before; we have said this before — our +teams talk pretty regularly, practically on a daily basis.  And so, that +certainly continues as we’re talking about this — this ceasefire, the +statement that you saw from the G7 plus our key Middle East partners +overnight.  + +Q    So, essentially, he di- — he did not feel that he needed to talk +directly with the prime minister because his team was talking to — + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, their teams talk regularly, as — as they’re +doing right now in New York today.  And so, that is something that will +continue to — continue to be the case.  But they have spoken mu- — +multiple times.  + +As a conversation between the prime minister and the president, I just +don’t have anything to preview at this time. + +Q    And one quick question on Ukraine. + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure. + +Q    His approval today of the long-range bombs, should we take that as +a sign that he is more open to allowing Ukraine to strike deeper into — + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I — + +Q    — Russian territory? + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, our policy has not changed.  They’re going to +talk on a range of issues today.  + +What we can say and what we can commit to is that we will continue to +support Ukraine as they — as they continue their fight against Mr. +Putin’s aggression into Ukraine.  And so, that is our commitment.  +That’s what the president is focused on.  I don’t have anything else to +add. + +Go ahead. + +Q    Karine, on the — the long-range missile issue.  Is — does the White +House have a reaction to Putin’s comments that that would invite a +nuclear response on — + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Here’s what — + +Q    — on the United States? + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, we have — we say this all the time: Mr. Putin +can end this war today.  He can.  He started this war.  He started this +war.  Not the Ukrainians — he started this war.  It could end today.  It +could end today if he decides to stop the aggression that he started +into Ukraine.  + +And so, we have been very clear about that, and we’ll continue to do +so.  + +Q    And there’s been no change on the administration’s policy on NATO +membership for Ukraine since the — the NATO Summit? + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything else to share be- — beyond what +we’ve been pretty clear on as it relates to that.  + +Q    And then one more is: Was there any reaction to former President +Trump’s comments that Ukraine’s cities are gone, questioning giving more +aid to the country while they refuse to make a deal, or this comment +that he wants them to win, kind of suggesting that Demo- — he wa- — that +he — they want — + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look — + +Q    — Zelenskyy wants Democrats to win the election? + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I am not going to respond to everything that the +former president says, especially since he’s a candidate in this +election.  + +The president has been very clear to his commitment — not just him but +more than 50 nations that are supporting Ukraine in their efforts to +fight for their democracy, to fight against Mr. Putin’s aggression.  + +And let’s not forget, the president was able to make NATO stronger so +that we can be able to continue to do the work that NATO is supposed to +do.  And — and an example is what is happening in Ukraine.  And so, that +is his focus.  That’s going to be continued.  + +What he is going to — you’ll see this today in the bilat that he has +with President Zelenskyy.  You saw that this week at the U.N. assembly, +when he’s — he met with mult- — he saw multiple leaders, obviously.  He +was with multiple leaders and had a couple of opportunities, as we read +out to all of you, to — to meet with some of them.  + +And so, this is what the president is going to co- — going to focus on, +and that’s what we- — I’m going to speak to.  + +Go ahead. + +Q    Thank you, Karine.  On the Zelenskyy meeting, why is it that +President Biden and Vice President Harris are holding these meetings +separately?  Is the suggestion that one would say something different +than the other and that there might be some dueling diplomacy there? + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  There’s no dueling diplomacy.  It’s not unusual.  The +vice president has met with President Zelenskyy separately many times.  +Nothing new here.  + +Q    Okay. + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I wouldn’t read too much into it. + +Q    And then critics have said that Zelenskyy’s trip to Pennsylvania +was a political stunt.  Did the administration communicate at all with +Ukraine on who would be attending that trip or make any effort to make +it a bipartisan event? + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just lay this down, because I know that +there’s been a lot of talk about this.  So, the Ukrainians asked to +visit the facility which employs American workers, as you know, who are +manufacturing critical supplies that the Ukrainian military is using +every day on the front lines of freedom because of its centrality of the +— of their — to their country’s continued existence.  + +This came from Ukrainian, not us.  This is something that they wanted to +do. + +After they made that request, DOD did what it has done for years: figure +out how to provide transportation for foreign leaders traveling on U.S. +soil, which is common, which happens when they come to the U.S.  And the +whole world knows this is someone Putin wants dead.  He’s made very +clear when it comes to President Zelenskyy.  + +Also, just two months ago, President Zelenskyy traveled to Utah and held +an event with the Republican governor, a very similar event, and +Republican officials were there at that event in Utah.  And there wasn’t +a single demand — not one, not one single demand — for an investigation +when that occurred a couple months ago in Utah.  + +So, this was business as usual for a Ukrainian request during wartime — +during wartime.  And so, I — I would encourage — we would encourage the +House Republicans to drop this, these kind of — this is a political +stunt.  They need to drop this.  And — and anything else, any — I think +I gave a lot here, a lot of layou- — good layout of how this all +occurred, but anything else specific I would for- — I would certainly +refer you to DOD. + +Q    Just clarifying, though, that the administration didn’t — or the +campaign, I guess, didn’t play a role in determining the guest list, +because they’re — they’re claiming that having no Republicans there in a +battleground state made it effectively a campaign event. + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — this is something that Ukrainians asked for.  They +did this a couple months ago in Utah — in Utah with a Republican +governor, and Republican elected officials were there as well.  We +didn’t hear any type of investigation request when we went to a +Republican state.  We didn’t. + +Q    On the gun event today.  What kind of gun does the vice president +have, and when did she buy it? + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s something for her office to speak to.  + +Q    The reason I’m asking is because you have this event today, but the +VP, as district attorney, sponsored Proposition H in 2005.  It would +have banned handguns within San Francisco city limits and required that +residents turn in the handguns that they already owned by a certain +deadline or face mandatory jail time.  But she’s out on the campaign +trail now saying that she’s a proud gun owner and is not going to take +away your guns.  So, can the White House get us an answer on that?  +Because she hasn’t and her — her campaign officials also haven’t +answered that question, even on television.  + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, a couple of things here.  When it comes to the +VP and — and owning a gun, she can speak for herself.  The campaign +could speak for that.  Her office can speak for that.  I’m not — that — +that’s for — for them to speak to.  + +It is not in co- — there is no conflict here when we’re saying that we +want to see responsible gun ownership.  That’s what we want to see: +responsible gun ownership.  I think that is what’s important here.  + +At the end of the day, gun violence is an epidemic in our — in our +country.  Think about our schul- — schools, our grocery stores.  It’s an +epidemic.  + +We have done the work.  We have seen violent crimes go down because of +the work that this president and this vice president has done.  There is +an office to prevent gun violence, and that is something that she +leads.  + +But we’re not — we’re asking for responsible gun ownership.  That’s what +we want to see.  That’s what’s impartant — important here.  + +And if people don’t — don’t want to — don’t understand that, I don’t +know how to further even explain that to them.  + +Our kids, our schools — there’s an epidemic here.  There’s an epidemic.  +There are drills happening in our schools right now — that’s something +that the president is going to speak to — that is traumatizing some of +our kids because of this epidemic.  + +And so, that should be the focus: How do we make sure that we end this +epidemic?  We want to see responsible gun ownership.  That’s what we +want to see.  + +Q    I think the question is not about responsible gun ownership, +though.  It’s about, you know, her past position, saying that — +supporting a measure that would have required that non-law enforcement +or military residents of a city turn in their handguns, so no gun +ownership or face possible mandatory jail time, versus what she’s saying +now.  And then also not answering the question of her gun ownership. + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Again, that’s something that she’s going to have to +speak to.  What I can speak at this moment in this time, what we’ve been +trying to do for the last three and a half years is making sure that we +are dealing with an epidemic that is existing in our communities, that +we see in our schools, that we see in — in grocery stores.  + +It is an epidemic here, and what we’re trying to do is prevent gun +violence.  And we have seen that go down — we have — because of this +work, because of the executive actions, because of a bipartisan +legislation that was able to be done under this administration to deal +with gun violence, something that we hadn’t seen in 30 years.  + +So, there is some bipartisan support here to deal with a responsible way +of having gun ownership.  We need to do more here.  We need to do more. + +Go ahead. + +Q    Thank you, Karine.  Back on the long-range missiles into Russia.  +Our latest reporting is that President Biden has not changed his +position on this in part because the Pentagon has assessed it would do +very little to change the trajectory of the war.  So, does the president +plan to be blunt with Zelenskyy about that assessment today and to give +him a yes-or-no answer at least as far as it stands today?  + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, again, I’m not expecting any new announcements.  +That is something that I’m going to be clear about.  What our focus here +is is that we are focused on ensuring — ensuring that Ukraine has what +it needs to prevail in this war.  That is the president’s focus.  + +That’s what they’re going to continue to discuss about.  That’s what +they’re going to — the president is going to continue to support Ukraine +on — not just us, the 50-plus countries that the president was able to +get together to support Ukraine, making NATO stronger.  + +I’m not going to get into any reporting about this.  I’ve been very +clear.  And you’re going to see both presidents momentarily in the — in +the bilat.  You’ll hear directly from the president.  And so, I’ll just +leave it there. + +Q    Okay.  And then, following up again on the ceasefire deal in +Lebanon.  You said that the statement was coordinated with Israel.  Are +you saying that the U.S. has any reason to believe that, despite what we +are seeing and despite the public comments, Israel agrees with the +U.S.?  + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I am saying is that they’re g- — discussions +continue in New York.  I laid out the facts as they were — as they are +and wanted to be very clear about that.  + +Let me just — really just read out a couple of things from the joint +statement that you all saw from the G7, plus key partners — Middle East +ca- — partners: + +“The situation between Lebanon and Israel since October 8th, 2023 is +intolerable and presents an unacceptable risk of a border — of a broader +regional escalation. This is in nobody’s interest, neither of the people +of Israel nor of the people of Lebanon.  + +It is time to conclude a diplomatic settlement that enables civilians on +both sides of the border to return to their homes in safety.  + +Diplomacy however cannot succeed amid an escalation of this conflict.”  + +So, we want to see a ceasefire — a 20-day ceasefire.  Those discussions +continue.  It was something that we laid out, right?  It was a — a plan +that we laid out.  And so, we want to certainly see that move forward +and those discussions continue in New York with our teams. + +Q    And you’ve made that abundantly clear, but I guess my question is, +Israel is not on the list of countries that came up with the proposal or +has agreed to it. + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, you’re right.  It was a G7 — + +Q    So — + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — G7, plus the key Middle East partners that — that +put — put forward this — this joint statement last night.  + +Q    So, why do you have any reason to believe that they’re going to +agree to this? + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  As I stated, and you put — pointed this out when you +asked me your question: Israel was aware of this statement.  And now — +what I can tell you right now, we are having continued discussions.  +That is happening with our teams in New York.  + +And I’m not going to get into private diplomatic engagement, but I can +assure you, these conversations are continuing.  + +Q    Thank you, Karine.  + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead. + +Q    Just a quick follow-up on that statement that you read.  It refers +to the situation as a “situation,” “a conflict,” and an “escalation.”  +Do we agree at the White House that what we’re witnessing between Israel +and Lebanon right now is, in fact, war? + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m not going to get into semantics from here.  What +we know and what we are seeing is that this cannot continue, and we want +this to end.  Right?  We want a peaceful solution here.  + +I’m no- — I’m just not going to get into semantics from here. + +Q    I guess I asked because we’ve heard the president say, as he said +multiple times this week, that he wants to avoid a full-scale war — + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah. + +Q    — an all-out war.  He said it remains a “possibility.”  That’s why +they’re pursuing this diplomatic solution.  + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah. + +Q    But, I guess, just for our understanding of what — what that — what +an all-out war looks like, versus what we’re witnessing now.  + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, look, I’m not going to get into — here’s — +here’s what we want to see.  We want to see a 21-day ceasefire to give +us the space to have that conversation so that we can have a negotiation +to end this.  That’s what we want to see.  + +And so, we believe this gives us an opportunity to do this by calling +for a 21 ceasefire — 21-day ceasefire, to be more clear.  + +And so, it’s important.  It is intolerable what’s happening.  It cannot +continue.  For both sides, it cannot continue.  And so, we’re going to +do everything in our power.  The president has been very clear to get to +that point.  + +I think it was important.  It was important to see a joint statement +from the G7 and key Middle East partners.  I think it was important to +see that.  It is — you see — you see countries coming together and +seeing what’s happening.  The tensions need to stop.  We need to get to +a ceasefire.  + +And so, that is what we’re trying to get to here.  We’re going to +continue to have this discussion on getting to that 21-day ceasefire.  +That’s continuing in New York.  As you know, UNGA continues — right? — +even though we’re back here.  And so, our teams are there.  They’re +having those discussion.  They’re doing these diplomatic conversation.  + +You hear us talk about it all the time: Dipl- — diplomatic resolution is +key, and that’s what we’re trying to get to.  And that’s what I think +you can see, the type of movement that you have seen from this president +— right? — when he was at UNGA, having conversations with other +leaders.  And now we’ve come to a place where we have put this forward, +and this is what we believe.  We see this 21-day ceasefire — it gives us +the space — it gives us the space to have that conversation.  + +Q    Thank you. + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead. + +Q    Thank you, Karine.  I’m going to have another go at the ceasefire.  + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure. + +Q    So, the White House said that you don’t want to see a wider war, +and you wanted to see this 21-day ceasefire.  But yesterday, a senior +administration official described this proposal as a “breakthrough.”  So +— + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  A — a “breakthrough”? + +Q    Yeah.  So, what makes you believe that (inaudible) is listening to +you when they did not listen to you over maybe 10 months and the White +House failed to secure a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas?  The — the +party changes.  Now it’s Israel and Hezbollah, as opposed to Israel and +Hamas.  So, where do you get this optimism?  When the president always +say we are two days away from securing the ceasefire, we’re three days +away — until now, you’re unable to secure a ceasefire and release U.S. +hostages.  So, where is this optimism coming that both Hezbollah and +Israel can listen to the White House?  + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, here’s the thing.  As I stated, our teams have +been in discussion.  The president certainly has been engaging our +teams, in particular, with Israel and Lebanon throughout this week.  And +based on those conversations — right? — we have had with Israel and +Lebanon, and we have had with our partners as well, we felt comfortable +in releasing this statement because of those ongoing dialogue, that +diplomatic conversation — resolution that we’re trying to get to calling +for a ceasefire. + +And it is up to the parties to respond.  I mean, it is.  It is up to the +parties to respond.  + +But we felt comfortable in releasing that statement last night because +we have been having those discussions with Lebanon and Israel. + +And — but to your point, it is up to the parties to respond. + +Now we put out the statement — the joint statement last night.  +Conversations continue, discussions continue in New York, and so we’re +going to continue to move that way.  But we have to do something, +right?  We have to continue to act.  And diplomacy is the way to deal +with what we have been seeing.  + +Q    I understand. + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Right. + +Q    But does the White House have leverage over either party so we +don’t go to a wider war?  + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We’re trying to prevent a wider war.  That is what +we’ve been working towards for some time, and we have had these +discussions with both Israel, with Lebanon, with our — our partners, and +we felt comfortable enough to release this statement.  We believe that +diplomatic resolution is key here, and we — we can’t stop.  We got to +continue to try, right? + +But it is up to our partners to respond.  It truly is.  + +But just because we released the statement, it doesn’t stop there.  It +doesn’t.  So, we’re going to have diplomatic discussions as it’s +happening in New York.  It doesn’t stop from last night — releasing this +joint statement.  And we’ll see where we get.  We’ll see where we get +to. + +Q    One — one last question. + +Q    Karine — + +Q    The number would be in — the people who are being killed in Lebanon +is over 600 now, 2,000 wounded.  Do you believe that these are +legitimate target, including that the — the number of the dead also are +women and children?  And do you believe that Israel still operate within +international law? + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Here’s what I can say.  We want to see the tensions +end.  We want to see a ceasefire.  That is what we’re — it is — it is +not — it’s — what we’re seeing right now — and this is in our statement +— it is intolerable, what’s going on right now.  It cannot continue, and +it’s not good for either side.  It is just not.  This is why we’re +trying to get to a diplomatic solution here.  + +And you mentioned children and women.  Nobody wants to see that.  We +don’t want to see that.  And so, we’re trying to get to a diplomatic +solution.  That’s why we called for — you know, we laid out a path, a +call for a 21-day ceasefire, and that’s why we’re continuing to have +these diplomatic solutions — right? — diplomatic conversations.  + +We have to do this.  We have to.  That is the way out of this. + +And I know we have to wrap pretty soon.  Go ahead, Gerren. + +Q    Thanks, Karine.  In response to a criminal complaint filed against +Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, Congressman Clay Higgins of Louisiana, in a +social media post, described Haitians as, quote, “gangsters” and Haiti +as, quote, the “nastiest country in the western hemisphere.”  He has +since deleted that post.  CBC Chairman Steven Horsford tried to censure +him in the House yesterday.  It was blocked by Republicans.  But what is +the White House’s reaction to Higgins’ post and the failed effort to +hold him accountable? + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — look, I’m not going to speak to House actions and +how they go about their business.  That is for them to decide how +they’re going to deal with individual congressional members.  + +What I will say more broadly — and we have been very clear from here, +the president has been clear, the vice president has been clear — I +think what we are seeing right now, what we have heard from national +leaders about what is going on in Springfield, Ohio — the baseless, +baseless lies and conspiracy theories — it’s dangerous and it is false.  +And to go after immigrants in that way who have — who are — who are +there legally, helping a community economically, who are welcomed in +that community, and saying these baseless lies is dangerous.  + +And so, what this president and this vice president believes is that we +cannot pull apart our communities.  They want to bring together our +communities.  That is what you have been seeing over the last three and +a half years.  + +And conspiracy theories like this are harmful.  And we have seen this +already, how dangerous this is, how dangerous this is to go after, in +this particulars instance, Haitian migrants who were welcomed in that +community.  And it has not just been denounced from us — denounced from +the governor of Ohio, denounced by the police department — local police +department, the city manager of Springfield.  I mean, on and on, by +Republicans, who have denounced this.  + +And so, it’s unfortunate that we have national leaders who are playing +political stunts and political games.  And so, that is what we’re going +to continue to speak to.  We are about bringing our communities +together, not tearing them apart.  + +Q    Just one more question. + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure. + +Q    Death row inmate Marcellus Williams was executed in Missouri on +Tuesday, despite concerns about evidence and jury selection process in +his 1998 case.  Despite the St. Louis County prosecutor and the victim’s +family requesting that he live, Missouri’s governor, attorney general, +and the Supreme Court ultimately failed to intervene.  + +Considering this and the president’s stance against the death penalty, +what does he personally think of Williams’ execution? + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, obviously, I can’t speak to this case spe- — +specifically.  I can’t do that from here.  + +But the president has long talked about his serious concerns about the +death penalty as currently implemented and whether it is consistent with +the values fundamental to our sense of justice and fairness.  He +supports the at- — the attorney general’s decision to issue a moratorium +on federal executions while the Department of Justice conducts a +comprehensive review of policies and procedures governing the federal +death penalty.  + +And so, I’ll leave it there.  + +I know I got to go.  Go ahead.  Go ahead. + +Q    Thank you, Karine.  Just to follow up again on the Lebanon.  Is the +administration meeting at all with Prime Minister Netanyahu while he’s +in the U.S.? + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any meetings to preview. + +What I can tell you, as I’ve said multiple times, our teams in New York +are meeting.  And so, I will just leave it there.  And — and they’re in +regular conversation as it re- — as it relates to the Israeli +government.  Our teams here are in regular conversations on a daily — +practically daily basis.  And so, the teams are in New York having — +having meetings about this particular ceasefire call that we put +forward.  + +Q    And you mentioned that the efforts doesn’t stop with the +announcement last night.  + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Say that one more time. + +Q    You mentioned that the diplomatic efforts — + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, it hasn’t. + +Q    — has not stopped. + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I mean, it’s happening right now in New York. + +Q    Right. + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes. + +Q    My question is: In order to make it different than, you know, the +announcement that obviously President Biden was comfortable in +announcing a few months ago on the Gaza ceasefire — in order to make +that different than the announcement he made last night with other +leaders, would he consider conditioning aid to Israel? + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything else to — to lay out beyond the +statement that you saw from not just us, the G- — the G7 leaders and +also key Middle East partners as well.  Don’t have anything beyond +that.  + +That has that — we have not changed, obviously, our position on that.  +We want to have a diplomatic resolution.  That is what we have been +saying for some time now, and this is one of the ways that we want to go +— move forward on this. + +Q    Just very briefly also on — + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah. + +Q    — on Afghanistan.  The Taliban have formally sought to join the +upcoming BRICS Summit.  What is the administration’s stance on the +Taliban’s bid to join BRICS?  And how do you assess the geopolitical +implications of Taliban’s growing ties with China and Russia? + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, we’ll let the Taliban speak for themselves +here.  But we have been very clear that we judge the Taliban by what +they do, not by what they say.  We’ve been very consistent about that.  + +The Taliban want international legitimacy, to be removed from sanction +lists, and foreign financing to restart the Afghan economy.  These +aspirations require the Taliban to live up to their commitments.  At +minimum, Afghanistan cannot strengthen its economy unless women are able +to participate in all aspect of society without limitations.  + +So, we will continue to engage with the Taliban on matters of our +interest, for example, on respect for the rights of women and girls and +the return of wrongfully detained U.S. citizens.  And that’s how we’re +going to move forward with them.  + +All right.  We got to go? + +AIDE:  Yeah.   + +MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Thanks, guys.  + +Q    Thank you, Karine. + +1:37 P.M. EDT diff --git a/rss.xml b/rss.xml index cfa725ef1..d8bbcb9a5 100644 --- a/rss.xml +++ b/rss.xml @@ -200,6 +200,23 @@ legislation + + + On-the-Record Press Gaggle by White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby + + + https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2024/09/26/on-the-record-press-gaggle-by-white-house-national-security-communications-advisor-john-kirby-30/ + + + Thu, 26 Sep 2024 16:20:00 -0400 + + + https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2024/09/26/on-the-record-press-gaggle-by-white-house-national-security-communications-advisor-john-kirby-30/ + + + press-briefings + + Statement from President Joe Biden on the Passing of William “Bill” Lucy @@ -268,6 +285,23 @@ statements-releases </category> </item> + <item> + <title> + Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell + + + https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2024/09/26/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-and-fema-administrator-deanne-criswell-4/ + + + Thu, 26 Sep 2024 12:17:00 -0400 + + + https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2024/09/26/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-and-fema-administrator-deanne-criswell-4/ + + + press-briefings + + President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Approves North Carolina Emergency Declaration @@ -336,40 +370,6 @@ statements-releases </category> </item> - <item> - <title> - FACT SHEET: President Biden and Vice President Harris Announce Additional Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Save Lives - - - https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/09/26/fact-sheet-president-biden-and-vice-president-harris-announce-additional-actions-to-reduce-gun-violence-and-save-lives/ - - - Thu, 26 Sep 2024 05:00:00 -0400 - - - https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/09/26/fact-sheet-president-biden-and-vice-president-harris-announce-additional-actions-to-reduce-gun-violence-and-save-lives/ - - - statements-releases - - - - - Remarks by Vice President Harris at a Campaign Event | Pittsburgh, PA - - - https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/09/25/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-at-a-campaign-event-pittsburgh-pa/ - - - Wed, 25 Sep 2024 23:59:00 -0400 - - - https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/09/25/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-at-a-campaign-event-pittsburgh-pa/ - - - speeches-remarks - - Remarks by Vice President Harris at a Campaign Event | Pittsburgh, PA