Saturday, March 27, 2021

Statement by Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America

 

- March 26, 2021 -

Statement by Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America

Where’s Durham? Is he a living, breathing human being? Will there ever be a Durham report?

March 26, 2021 Remarks by President Biden in Press Conference

 

The White House Logo
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 26, 2021
 
Remarks by President Biden in Press Conference
 
East Room
1:27 P.M. EDT
 
THE PRESIDENT: Please, please sit down. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Before I take questions, I want to make -- give you a progress report to the nation on where we stand 65 days into office here on vaccinations and a few other top priorities for the American people.
 
First, on vaccinations: On December 8th, I indicated that I hoped to get 100 million shots in people’s arms in my first 100 days. We met that goal last week by day 58 -- 42 days ahead of schedule.
 
Now, today, I’m setting a second goal, and that is: We will, by my 100th day in office, have administered 200 million shots in people’s arms. That’s right: 200 million shots in 100 days.
 
I know it’s ambitious, twice our original goal, but no other country in the world has even come close -- not even close -- to what we are doing. And I believe we can do it.
 
And today, we’ve made a historic investment in reaching the hardest-hit and the most vulnerable communities, the highest-risk communities -- as a consequence of the virus -- by investing an addition $10 billion in being able to reach them.
 
I also set a goal, before I took office, of getting a majority of schools in K through 8 fully open in the first 100 days. Now, thanks to the enormous amount of work done by our administration, educators, parents, local, state education officials and leaders -- a recent Department of Education Department survey shows that nearly half of the K-through-8 schools are open now full time, five days a week, for in-person learning. Not yet a majority, but we’re really close. And I believe, in the 35 days left to go, we’ll meet that goal as well.
 
As of yesterday, more than 100 million payments of $1,400 have gone into people’s bank accounts. That’s real money in people’s pockets, bringing relief instantly, almost. And millions more will be getting their money very soon.
 
One final note: Since we passed the American Rescue Plan, we’re starting to see new signs of hope in our economy. Since it was passed, a majority -- a majority of economic forecasters have significantly increased their projections on the economic growth that’s going to take place this year. They’re now projecting it will exceed 6 percent -- a 6 percent growth in GDP.
 
And just this morning, we learned that the number of people filing for weekly unemployment insurance fell by nearly 100,000 persons. That’s the first time in a year the number has fallen below the pre-pandemic high.
 
So there are still too many Americans out of work, too many families hurting, and we still have a lot of work to do.
 
But I can say to you, the American people: Help is here, and hope is on the way.
 
Now I’ll be happy to take your questions.
 
Zeke, the Associated Press.
 
Q  Thank you, Mr. President. You mentioned your progress on COVID-19. I'd like to ask you about some of the other issues facing your presidency. One of the defining challenges you face in the coming months is how to deliver on your promise to Americans on issues like immigration reform, gun control, voting rights, climate change. All of those right now are facing stiff, united opposition from Republicans on Capitol Hill. How far are you willing to go to achieve those promises that you made to the American people?
 
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm going to -- look, when I took office, I decided that it was a fairly basic, simple proposition, and that is: I got elected to solve problems. And the most urgent problem facing the American people, I stated from the outset, was COVID-19 and the economic dislocation for millions and millions of Americans. And so that's why I put all my focus in the beginning -- there are a lot of problems -- put all my focus on dealing with those particular problems.
 
And the other problems we're talking about, from immigration to guns and the other things you mentioned, are long-term problems; they’ve been around a long time. And what we're going to be able to do, God willing, is now begin, one at a time, to focus on those as well, and -- whether it's immigration or guns or a number of other problems that face the country.
 
But the fundamental problem is getting people some peace of mind so they can go to bed at night and not stare at the ceiling wondering whether they lost their health insurance, whether they're going to lose a family member, whether they're going to be in a position where they're not going to be -- they're going to lose their home because they can't pay their mortgage, or that millions of people are going to get thrown out of their homes because of the inability to -- to pay their rent.
 
So we're going to move on these one at a time, try to do as many simultaneously as we can. But that's the reason why I focused as I have.
 
And here's the deal: I think my Republican colleagues are going to have to determine whether or not we want to work together, or they decide that the way in which they want to proceed is to -- is to just decide to divide the country, continue the politics of division. But I'm not going to do that; I'm just going to move forward and take these things as they come.
 
Q  And just to -- to follow up, Mr. President, can your presidency be a success if you can't make progress on those four challenges: climate change, immigration reform, gun control, voting rights?
 
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I plan on making progress on all of them, but that's going to be for the American people to decide.
 
I think -- you know, I doubt whether -- maybe you did; maybe others did. I thought -- many of you thought there was no possibility of my getting the plan I got passed, passed, without any Republican votes. A pretty big deal. It got passed. Growing the economy. People's lives are changing.
 
So let's see what happens. All I know, I've been hired to solve problems -- to solve problems, not create division.
 
Okay. How about Yamiche?
 
Q  Thanks so much, Mr. President. You've said over and over again that immigrants shouldn't come to this country right now; this isn't the time to come. That message is not being received. Instead, the perception of you that got you elected -- as a moral, decent man -- is the reason why a lot of immigrants are coming to this country and entrusting you with unaccompanied minors.
 
How do you resolve that tension? And how are you choosing which families can stay and which can go, given the fact that even though, with Title 42, there are some families that are staying? And is there a timeline for when we won't be seeing these overcrowded facilities with -- run by CPB [sic], when it comes to unaccompanied minors?
 
THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, I guess I should be flattered people are coming because I'm the nice guy; that’s the reason why it’s happening -- that I’m a decent man or however it’s phrased. That -- you know, that’s why they’re coming, because they know Biden is a good guy.
 
The truth of the matter is: Nothing has changed. As many people came -- 28 percent increase in children to the border in my administration; 31 percent in the last year of -- in 2019, before the pandemic, in the Trump administration. It happens every single, solitary year: There is a significant increase in the number of people coming to the border in the winter months of January, February, March. That happens every year.
 
In addition to that, there is a -- and nobody -- and, by the way, does anybody suggest that there was a 31 percent increase under Trump because he was a nice guy and he was doing good things at the border? That's not the reason they're coming.
 
The reason they're coming is that it's the time they can travel with the least likelihood of dying on the way because of the heat in the desert, number one. Number two, they're coming because of the circumstances in-country -- in-country.
 
The way to deal with this problem -- and I started to deal with it back when I was a United States senator -- I mean, Vice President -- putting together a bipartisan plan of over $700 million to deal with the root causes of why people are leaving.
 
What did Trump do? He eliminated that funding. He didn't use it. He didn't do it. And in addition to that, what he did -- he dismantled all the elements that exist to deal with what had been a problem and -- and has been -- continued to be a problem for a long time. He, in fact, shut down the -- the number of beds available. He did not fund HHS to get people to get the children out of those -- those Border Patrol facilities where they should not be and not supposed to be more than a few days -- a little while. But he dismantled all of that.
 
And so what we're doing now is attempting to rebuild -- rebuild the system that can accommodate the -- what is happening today. And I like to think it’s because I'm a nice guy, but it's not. It’s because of what's happened every year.
 
Let me say one other thing on this. If you take a look at the number of people who are coming, the vast majority, the overwhelming majority of people coming to the border and crossing are being sent back -- are being sent back. Thousands -- tens of thousands of people who are -- who are over 18 years of age and single -- people, one at a time coming, have been sent back, sent home.
 
We're sending back the vast majority of the families that are coming. We're trying to work out now, with Mexico, their willingness to take more of those families back. But we -- that's what's happening. They're not getting across the border.
 
And those who are coming across the border, who are unaccompanied children, we're moving rapidly to try to put in place what was dismantled, as I said. For example, of all the children who are coming across the border, over 70 percent are either 16 or 17 years old. We're not talking about people ripping babies from mothers’ arms or little three-year-olds standing on the border. Less than -- I think it's one and a half percent fall in the category of the very young.
 
So what we're doing is we're providing for the space, again, to be able to get these kids out of the Border Patrol facilities, which no child -- no one should be in any longer than 72 hours.
 
And today, I went to -- for example, I used all the resources available to me, went to the Defense Department, and -- and the Secretary of Defense has just made available Fort Bliss -- 5,000 beds be made easily available. Five thousand beds on the Texas border.
 
So we're building back up the capacity that should have been maintained and built upon that Trump dismantled. It's going to take time.
 
And the other thing we're doing, I might add -- am I giving you too long an answer? Because if you don't want the details --
 
Q  (Inaudible.)
 
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, but I mean -- I don't know how much detail you want about immigration. Maybe I'll stop there and fin- --
 
Q  My follow-up question is: One, if you could talk a little bit about which families -- why they're being allowed to stay. The families that are being allowed to stay, why they're being allowed to stay.
 
And in addition to that, when it comes to the filibuster, which is what Zeke was asking about, there's -- immigration is a big issue, of course, when it -- related to the filibuster, but there's also Republicans who are passing bill after bill, trying to restrict voting rights. Chuck Schumer is calling it an “existential threat” to democracy. Why not back a filibuster rule that at least gets around issues including voting rights or immigration?
 
Jim Clyburn, someone who -- of course, who you know very well, has backed the idea of a filibuster rule when it comes to civil rights and voting rights.
 
THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, I'm going to deal with all of those problems. The question is, the priorities as they come and land on my plate.
 
Let's go to the first question you asked -- the first of the second question you asked. And that is: What about dealing with families? Why are not -- some not going back? Because Mexico is refusing to take them back. They're saying they won't take them back -- not all of them.
 
We're in negotiations with the President of Mexico. I think we're going to see that change. They should all be going back, all be going back. The only people we're not going to let sitting there on the other side of the Rio Grande by themselves with no help are children.
 
And what we're doing there, and it's an important point to understand -- I know you understand; I don't mean to say it that way -- an important point to focus on: The vast majority of people under the age of 18 coming to United States come with a telephone number on a wristband or come with a telephone number in their pocket in the United States -- a mother, a father, a close relative, a grandmom or a grandpop.
 
What was happening before is it was taking literally weeks and weeks, and maybe even months, before anybody would pick up the phone and call to see if there really was someone there. Well, we've set up a system now where, within 24 hours, there's a phone call made as that person or that child crosses the border. And then a verification system is being put in place as of today to determine quickly whether or not that is a trafficker being called or that is actually a mom, a dad, and/or a close relative. They're establishing that right off the bat.
 
If it, in fact, is Mom or Dad, Dad says -- to take the extreme case -- “I got a birth certificate.” Then guess what? We're getting that kid directly to that parent immediately.
 
And so that's going to reduce significantly -- there's two ways to reduce child populations in circumstances that are not acceptable, like being held at a Border Patrol station. One is to get them to the place where they have a relative and set a date as to when a hearing can be held. The second way to do it is put them in a Health and Human Services facility that we're occupying now -- both licensed beds around the country that exist, as well as, for example, federal resources like Fort Bliss -- to get them safely in a place where they can be taken care of while their fate is determined.
 
Q  And can you answer the filibuster (inaudible)?
 
THE PRESIDENT: Filibuster. Filibuster. You know, with regard to the filibuster, I believe we should go back to a position on the filibuster that existed just when I came to the United States Senate 120 years ago. And that is that -- it used to be required for the filibuster -- and I had a card on this; I was going to give you the statistics, but you probably know them -- that it used to be that, that from between 1917 to 1971 -- the filibuster existed -- there was a total of 58 motions to break a filibuster that whole time. Last year alone, there were five times that many. So it’s being abused in a gigantic way.
 
And, for example, it used to be you had to stand there and talk and talk and talk and talk until you collapsed. And guess what? People got tired of talking and tired of collapsing. Filibusters broke down, and we were able to break the filibuster, get a quorum, and vote.
 
So I strongly support moving in that direction, in addition to having an open mind about dealing with certain things that are -- are just elemental to the functioning of our democracy, like the right to vote -- like the basic right to vote. We've amended the filibuster in the past.
 
But here's the deal: As you observed, I'm a fairly practical guy. I want to get things done. I want to get them done, consistent with what we promised the American people. And in order to do that in a 50-50 Senate, we've got to get to the place where I get 50 votes so that the Vice President of the United States can break the tie, or I get 51 votes without her.
 
And so, I'm going to say something outrageous: I have never been particularly poor at calculating how to get things done in the United States Senate. So the best way to get something done, if you -- if you hold near and dear to you that you like to be able to -- anyway --
 
I -- we’re going to get a lot done. And if we have to -- if there’s complete lockdown and chaos as a consequence of the filibuster, then we'll have to go beyond what I'm talking about.
 
Okay. Hang on. Sorry. Oh, Seung Min -- Ms. Kim.
 
Q  Thank you, Mr. President, to follow up on the filibuster: So do you believe it should take 60 votes to end a filibuster on legislation or 51?
 
THE PRESIDENT: (Laughs.) If we could end it with 51, we would have no problem. You're going to have to -- the existing rule -- it's going to be hard to get a parliamentary ruling that allows 50 votes to end the filibuster, the existence of a filibuster.
 
But it's not my expertise, in what the parliamentary rules and how to get there are. But our preoccupation with the filibuster is totally legitimate, but in the meantime, we got a lot we can do while we're talking about what we're going to do about the filibuster.
 
Let me get here. Okay, Cecilia Vega.  
 
Q  I'd like to circle back to immigration, please. You just listed the reasons that people are coming, talking about in-country problems, saying that it happens every year; you blamed the last administration. Sir, I just got back last night from a reporting trip to the border where I met nine-year-old, Yossell, who walked here from Honduras by himself, along with another little boy. He had that phone number on him --
 
THE PRESIDENT: Astounding.
 
Q  -- and we were able to call his family. His mother says that she sent her son to this country because she believes that you are not deporting unaccompanied minors like her son. That's why she sent him alone from Honduras.
 
So, sir, you blamed the last administration, but is your messaging -- in saying that these children are and will be allowed to stay in this country and work their way through this process -- encouraging families like Yossell says to come?
 
THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, the idea that I'm going to say -- which I would never do -- “if an unaccompanied child ends up at the border, we're just going to let him starve to death and stay on the other side” -- no previous administration did that either, except Trump. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it.
 
That's why I've asked the Vice President of the United States, yesterday, to be the lead person on dealing with focusing on the fundamental reasons why people leave Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador in the first place. It’s because of earthquakes, floods. It’s because of lack of food. It’s because of gang violence. It’s because of a whole range of things.
 
That -- when I was Vice President and had the same obligation to deal with unaccompanied children, I was able to get it slowed up significantly by working with the heads of state of those communities to do things like -- in one of the major cities, the reason people were leaving is they couldn't walk in the street because they were getting -- their kids were getting beat up or shot or in gang violence.
 
Well, what I was able to do is not give money to the head of state, because so many are corrupt, but I was able to say, “Okay, you need lighting in the streets to change things? I'll put the lighting in.” We got a contractor. We got the type of lighting. We paid directly to the contractor; it did not go through the government. And violent crime significantly was reduced in that city. Fewer people sought to leave.
 
When this hurricane occurred -- two hurricanes -- instead of us going down and helping in a major way, so that people would not have reason to want to leave in the first place because they didn't have housing or water or sustenance, we did nothing. We're going to do a lot in our administration. We're going to be spending that 700-plus million dollars a year to change the life and circumstances of why people leave in the first place.
 
That mother did not sit around with -- on the kitchen table and say, “You know, I got a great idea: The way I'm going to make sure my son get taken care of is I'm going to put a…” -- how old was he, or she?
 
Q  He’s -- he’s nine. I also met a 10-year-old.
 
THE PRESIDENT: A nine-year-old. “I'm going to send him on a thousand-mile journey across the desert and up to the United States because I know Joe Biden is a nice guy and he'll take care of him.”
 
What a desperate act to have to take. The circumstances must be horrible. So we can do something about that. That's what the Vice President is going to be doing: what I did. When President Obama asked me to come and deal, I was in -- I was in Turkey at the time, and he said, “You got to come home and take care of this.” So we put together a plan and it had an impact.
 
And so, the question here is whether -- how we go ahead and do this; what we do. There's no easy answer
 
Q  A quick follow, if I may.  Do you want to see these unaccompanied minors staying in this country, or should they be deported eventually?
 
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the judgment has to be made whether or not -- and in this young man's case, he has a mom at home; there's an overwhelming reason why he’d be put in a plane and flown back to his mom.
 
Q  Final follow, sir. You mentioned circumstances that must be horrific. The Customs and Border Protection facility in Donna, Texas -- I was there -- is at 1,556 percent capacity --
 
THE PRESIDENT: Yep.
 
Q  -- right now, with mostly unaccompanied minors. There are kids that are sleeping on floors. They are packed into these pods. I’ve spoken to lawyers who say that they -- some of these children have not seen the sun in days. What's your reaction -- what is your reaction to these images that have come out from that particular facility? Is what’s happening inside acceptable to you? And when is this going to be fixed?
 
THE PRESIDENT: Is -- that’s a serious question, right?
 
Is it acceptable to me? Come on. That’s why we’re going to be moving a thousand of those kids out quickly. That’s why I got Fort Bliss opened up. That’s why I’ve been working from the moment this started to happen to try to find additional access for children to be able to safely -- not just children, but particularly children -- to be able to safely be housed while we follow through on the rest of what’s happening.
 
That is totally unacceptable.
 
Ken.
 
Q  Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to ask you about Afghanistan. You face a May 1st deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from that country. As a candidate, in foreign affairs, you wrote that it is past time to end these forever wars. Can you commit to the American people that by May 2nd the U.S. will no longer have forces in Afghanistan?
 
THE PRESIDENT: The answer is that it’s going to be hard to meet the May 1 deadline. Just in terms of tactical reasons, it’s hard to get those troops out. So, what we’ve been doing -- what I’ve been doing and what Secretary Blinken has been doing -- has been -- we’ve been meeting with our allies, those other nations that have NATO Allies who have troops in Afghanistan as well. And if we leave, we’re going to do so in a safe and orderly way.
 
We’re in consultation, I said, with our allies and partners in how to proceed. And Secretary Blinken is meeting in Brussels this week with our NATO Allies, particularly those who have forces there.
 
And General Austin is -- just met with Kayani [Ghani] and I’m waiting for the briefing on that. He is the -- the “leader,” quote, in Afghanistan and Kabul. And there’s a U.N.-led process that’s beginning shortly on how to mechanically get people -- how to end this war.
 
But it is not my intention to stay there for a long time. But the question is: How and in what circumstances do we meet that agreement that was made by President Trump to leave under a deal that looks like it’s not being able to be worked out to begin with? How is that done? But we are not staying a long time.
 
Q  You just said “if we leave.” Do you think it’s possible that we--
 
THE PRESIDENT: We will leave. The question is when we leave.
 
Q  Do you -- sorry -- do you believe, though, it’s possible we could have troops there next year?
 
THE PRESIDENT: I -- I can’t picture that being the case.
 
Okay. Kristen.
 
Q  Thank you very much, Mr. President. Given the conditions that were just laid out at the migrant facilities at the U.S. border, will you commit to allowing journalists to have access to the facilities that are overcrowded moving forward?
 
THE PRESIDENT: I will commit when my plan, very shortly, is underway to let you have access to not just them, but to other facilities as well.
 
Q  How soon will journalists be able to have access to the facilities? We’ve obviously been allowed to be inside one, but we haven’t seen the facilities in which children are packed together to really give the American people a chance to see that. Will you commit to transparency on this issue, Mr. President?
 
THE PRESIDENT: I will commit to transparency, and -- as soon as I am in a position to be able to implement what we are doing right now.
 
And one of the reasons I haven’t gone down -- I have all my -- my chief folks have gone down -- is I don’t want to become the issue. I don’t want to be, you know, bringing all of the Secret Service and everybody with me to get in the way. So this is being set up, and you’ll have full access to everything once we get this thing moving.
 
Q  Okay. And just to be clear: How soon will that be, Mr. President?
 
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know, to be clear.
 
Q  Okay. And do you bear responsibility for everything that’s happening at the border now? I hear you talking a lot about the past administration. You decided to roll back some of those policies, did you move too quickly to roll back (inaudible) policies?
 
THE PRESIDENT: To roll back what? I’m sorry.
 
Q  Did you move too quickly to roll back some of the executive orders of your predecessor?
 
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, all the policies that were underway were not helping at all -- did not slow up the amount of immigration -- and there’s many people coming.
 
And rolling back the policies of separating children from -- from their mothers, I make no apology for that. Rolling back the policies of “Remain in Mexico,” sitting on the edge of the Rio Grande in a muddy circumstance with not enough to eat and -- I make no apologies for that.
 
I make no apologies for ending programs that did not exist before Trump became President that have an incredibly negative impact on the law, international law, as well as on human dignity. And so, I make no apologies for that.
 
Q  If I could just ask you about foreign policy, Mr. President. Overnight, we learned that North Korea tested two ballistic missiles. What, if any, actions will you take? And what is your red line on North Korea?
 
THE PRESIDENT: Let me say that, number one, U.N. Resolution 1718 was violated by those particular missiles that were tested -- number one. We’re consulting with our allies and partners. And there will be responses -- if they choose to escalate, we will respond accordingly.
 
But I’m also prepared for some form of diplomacy, but it has to be conditioned upon the end result of denuclearization. So that’s what we’re doing right now: consulting with our allies.
 
Q  Just a very quick follow-up --
 
THE PRESIDENT: You’ve only got another hour now, okay?
 
Q  Diplomacy: Can you define what you mean? And former President Obama warned the incoming President Trump that North Korea was the top foreign policy issue that he was watching. Is that how you assess the crisis in North Korea?
 
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
 
Okay. Hang on a second here, Kristen. Nancy, CBS.
 
Q  Thank you very much, Mr. President. I want to go back to voting rights. And as Yamiche mentioned, Republican legislatures across the country are working to pass bills that would restrict voting, particularly, Democrats fear, impacting minority voters and young voters -- the very people who helped to get you elected in November.
 
Are you worried that if you don’t manage to pass voting rights legislation that your party is going to lose seats and possibly lose control of the House and the Senate in 2022?
 
THE PRESIDENT: What I’m worried about is how un-American this whole initiative is. It’s sick. It’s sick. Deciding in some states that you cannot bring water to people standing in line, waiting to vote; deciding that you’re going to end voting at five o’clock when working people are just getting off work; deciding that there will be no absentee ballots under the most rigid circumstances.
 
It's all designed -- and I'm going to spend my time doing three things: One, trying to figure out how to pass the legislation passed by the House, number one. Number two, educating the American public. The Republican voters I know find this despicable. Republican voters, the folks out in -- outside this White House. I’m not talking about the elected officials; I’m talking about voters. Voters.
 
And so I am convinced that we’ll be able to stop this because it is the most pernicious thing. This makes Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle. I mean, this is gigantic what they’re trying to do, and it cannot be sustained.
 
I’m going to do everything in my power, along with my friends in the House and the Senate, to keep that from -- from becoming the law.
 
Q  Is there anything else you can do about it besides passing legislation?
 
THE PRESIDENT: The answer is “yes,” but I’m not going to lay out a strategy in front of the whole world and you now.
 
Q  And then, on a related note, have you decided whether you are going to run for reelection in 2024? You haven’t set up a reelection campaign yet, as your predecessor had by this time.
 
THE PRESIDENT: (Laughs.) My predecessor need do [sic] -- needed to. My predecessor. Oh God, I miss him.
 
Q  Have you -- have you --
 
THE PRESIDENT: No, the answer is “yes.” My plan is to run for reelection. That’s my expectation.
 
Q  And then, on -- on one other note, on bipartisanship: Your old friend, Mitch McConnell, says you have only spoken to each other once since you took office and that you have moved far left since taking office. Do you see it the same way he does? Have you rejected bipartisanship?
 
THE PRESIDENT: No, I haven’t at all. I’ve been meeting -- when is the last time a President invited the opposite party down at least a half a dozen times to talk about issues? Everything from how we work -- we’re working with a group of 20 members of the Senate right now and House on how we reestablish our ability to make computer chips and how we get ahead of the game, how we can work together. And we’re working together on a bunch of things.
 
But, look, I know Mitch well; Mitch knows me well. I would expect Mitch to say exactly what he said. But this is a matter of making sure that -- I would like Republican -- elected Republican support, but what I know I have now is that I have electoral support from Republican voters. Republican voters agree with what I'm doing.
 
And so, unless Mitch says the last thing I did is -- the last piece of legislation is so far left -- well, then he ought to a look at his party. Over 50 percent of them must be over that edge as well because they support what I did.
 
Okay. Where am I here? Let me see. Kaitlan.
 
Q  Thank you very much, Mr. President. I have a question for you, but first I'd like to follow up on a question from Yamiche, and that’s on the filibuster.
 
THE PRESIDENT: That counts as a question, but go ahead.
 
Q  Okay. I’ll make it quick. It’s a quick question.
 
THE PRESIDENT: No, no -- you can.
 
Q  Regarding the filibuster: At John Lewis’s funeral, President Barack Obama said he believed the filibuster was a “relic” of the Jim Crow era. Do you agree?
 
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
 
Q  And if not, why not abolish it if it’s a relic of the Jim Crow era?
 
THE PRESIDENT: Successful electoral politics is the art of the possible. Let's figure out how we can get this done and move in the direction of significantly changing the abuse of even the filibuster rule first. It's been abused from the time it came into being -- by an extreme way in the last 20 years. Let's deal with the abuse first.
 
Q  It sounds like you're moving closer to eliminating the filibuster. Is that correct?
 
THE PRESIDENT: I answered your question.
 
Q  You also just made some news by saying that you are going to run for reelection.
 
THE PRESIDENT: I said, “That is my expectation.”
 
Q  So is that a “yes” that you are running for reelection?
 
THE PRESIDENT: Look, I -- I don’t know where you guys come from, man. I’ve never been able to travel. I’m a great respecter of fate. I’ve never been able to plan four and half, three and a half years ahead for certain.
 
Q  And if you do --
 
THE PRESIDENT: It --
 
Q  If you do run, will Vice President Harris be on your ticket?
 
THE PRESIDENT: I would fully expect that to be the case. She’s doing a great job. She’s a great partner. She’s a great partner.
 
Q  And do you believe you’ll be running against former President Trump?
 
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, come on. I don't even think about -- I don't -- I have no idea. I have no idea if there will be a Republican Party. Do you? I know you don’t have to answer my question, but, I mean, you know, do you?
 
I mean, look, this is -- the way I view things -- I’ve become a great respecter of fate in my life. I set a goal that’s in front of me to get things done for the people I care most about, which are hardworking, decent American people who are getting -- really having it stuck to them.
 
I want to change the paradigm. I want to change the paradigm. We start to reward work, not just wealth. I want to change the paradigm.
 
If you notice -- don’t you find it kind of interesting that my Republican friends were worried about that the cost and the taxes that had to be had -- if there is any tax to be had, as they talk about it -- in dealing with the -- the act that we just passed which puts money in people's pockets -- ordinary people.
 
Did you hear them complain when they passed close to a $2 trillion Trump tax cut -- 83 percent going to the top 1 percent? Did you hear them talk about that all? I love the fact that they’ve found this whole idea of concern about the federal budget. It’s kind of amazing.
 
When the federal budget is saving people's lives, they don't think it's such a good idea. When the federal budget is feathering the nest of the wealthiest Americans -- 90 of the Fortune 500 companies making billions of dollars not paying a cent in taxes; reducing taxes to the point that people who are making -- you know, if you're a husband and wife, a schoolteacher and a cop, you're paying at a higher rate than the average person making a billion dollars a year is -- something is wrong. Their newfound concern.
 
I'm concerned -- look, I meant what I said when I ran. And a lot of you still think I'm wrong, and I respect that. I said, “I'm running for three reasons: to restore the soul, dignity, honor, honesty, transparency to the American political system; two, to rebuild the backbone of this country -- the middle class, hardworking people, and people struggling to get in the middle class. They built America, and unions built them.” The third reason I said I was running was to unite the country. And, generically speaking, all of you said, “No, you can't do that.” Well, I've not been able to unite the Congress, but I've been uniting the country, based on the polling data. We have to come together. We have to.
 
So, from my perspective, you know, it’s a -- to me, it’s about just, you know, getting out there, putting one foot in front of the other and just trying to make things better for people -- just hardworking people. People get up every morning and just want to figure out how to put food on the table for their kids, to be able have a little bit of breathing room, being able to have -- make sure that they go to bed not staring at the ceiling, like my dad, wondering whether -- since he didn’t have health insurance, what happens if mom gets sick or he got sick. These are basic things. Basic things.
 
And I'm of the view that the vast majority of people, including registered Republicans, by and large, share that -- that same -- that same view, that same sense of what is -- you know, what's appropriate.
 
Justin. Justin Sink, Bloomberg.
 
Q  Thanks, Mr. President. I wanted to ask about your relationship with China now that you've been in office for a couple months. There's obviously the meeting in Alaska that was a little theatrical, and there's the continued human rights abuses.
 
So, today, I'm wondering: Are you more likely than you were when you came into office to maintain tariffs on China? Are you considering banning imports of forced-labor products? And would you consider cutting off U.S. investment or Chinese access to international payment systems?
 
THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, they’re each specifically legitimate questions, but they only touch a smidgen of what the relationship with China really is about.
 
I've known Xi Jinping for a long time. Allegedly, by the time I left office as Vice President, I had spent more time with Xi Jinping than any world leader had, because President Obama and the Chinese President Hu decided we should get to know one another since it was inappropriate for the President of the United States to spend time with the vice president of another country. But it was obvious he was going to become the new leader of China.
 
So, I spent hours upon hours with him alone with an interpreter -- my interpreter and his -- going into great detail. He is very, very straightforward. Doesn't have a democratic -- with a small “D” -- bone in his body. But he's a smart, smart guy. He's one of the guys, like Putin, who thinks that autocracy is the wave of the future and democracy can't function in an ever -- an ever-complex world.
 
So, when I was elected and he called to congratulate me, I think to the surprise of the China experts who were -- his people were on call as well as mine, listening -- we had a two-hour conversation. For two hours.
 
And we made several things clear to one another. I made it clear to him again what I've told him in person on several occasions: that we're not looking for confrontation, although we know there will be steep, steep competition.
 
Two, that we’ll have strong competition but we’ll insist that China play by the international rules: fair competition, fair practices, fair trade.
 
Thirdly, in order to compete effectively, I indicated that we're going to deal with China effectively, and we're going to need three things to do that. I tell him, our people. First, we're going to invest in American workers and American science. I said that all through the campaign and I say it again. And we're -- and I’m setting up my administration to be able to do that, which is that, you know, back in the ‘60s, we used to invest a little over 2 percent of our entire GDP in pure research and investment in science. Today, it's 0.7 percent. I'm going to change that. We're going to change that.
 
The future lies in who can, in fact, own the future as it relates to technology, quantum computing, a whole range of things, including in medical fields. And so what I'm going to do is make sure we invest closer to 2 percent.
 
One of the reasons why I've set up the -- the PAB [PCAST] -- the President's board with scientists and the like, again -- is we're going to invest in medical research -- cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, the things -- industries of the future -- artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biotech. And we're going to make real investments. China is out investing us by a longshot, because their plan is to own that future.
 
The third -- the second thing we're going to do is we're going to reestablish our alliances. And I've been very clear with him, it's not anti-Chinese. And we've talked about it.
 
I want to make sure that, for example, later today, after this -- as a matter of fact, shortly after this, which is fine; we've been going close to an hour. I'm happy to go longer. But one of the things that I'm going to be doing, I'm going to be speaking with the 27 heads of state in Europe and very shortly -- I think within the next hour or so. I don't know the exact time.
 
And earlier this month -- and apparently it got the Chinese’s attention; that's not why I did it -- I met with our allies and how we're going to hold China accountable in the region: Australia, India, Japan, and the United States -- the so-called Quad. Because we have to have democracies working together.
 
Before too long, I'm going to have -- I'm going to invite an alliance of democracies to come here to discuss the future. And so we're going to make it clear that in order to deal with these things, we are going to hold China accountable to follow the rules -- to follow the rules -- whether it relates to the South China Sea or the North China Sea, or their agreement made on Taiwan, or a whole range of other things.
 
And the third thing, and the thing that I admire about dealing with Xi is he understands -- he makes no pretense about not understanding what I'm saying any more than I do him -- I pointed out to him: No leader can be sustained in his position or her position unless they represent the values of the country. And I said as -- “And, Mr. President, as I've told you before, Americans value the notion of freedom. America values human rights. We don’t always live up to our expectations, but it’s a values system. We are founded on that principle. And as long as you and your country continues to so blatantly violate human rights, we’re going to continue, in an unrelenting way, to call to the attention of the world and make it clear -- make it clear what’s happening.”

And he understood that. I made it clear that no American President -- at least one did -- but no American President ever back down from speaking out of what’s happening to the Uighurs, what’s happening in Hong Kong, what’s happening in-country.

That’s who we are. The moment a President walks away from that, as the last one did, is the moment we begin to lose our legitimacy around the world. It’s who we are.

So I see stiff competition with China. China has an overall goal, and I don’t criticize them for the goal, but they have an overall goal to become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world. That’s not going to happen on my watch because the United States are going to continue to grow and expand.

Q  All right. Just to follow up on the meeting of democracies: Is that where you expect, in a multilateral way, to make these decisions about sanctions? Or --

THE PRESIDENT: No, that’s not where I make the decision; that’s where I make sure we’re all on the same page. All on the same page. Look, I predict to you, your children or grandchildren are going to be doing their doctoral thesis on the issue of who succeeded: autocracy or democracy? Because that is what is at stake, not just with China.

Look around the world. We're in the midst of a fourth industrial revolution of enormous consequence. Will there be middle class? How will people adjust to these significant changes in science and technology and the environment? How will they do that? And are democracies equipped -- because all the people get to speak -- to compete?

It is clear, absolutely clear -- and most of the scholars I dealt with at Penn agree with me around the country -- that this is a battle between the utility of democracies in the 21st century and autocracies.

If you notice, you don't have Russia talking about communism anymore. It's about an autocracy. Demand decisions made by a leader of a country -- that's what's at stake here. We’ve got to prove democracy works.

Q  And, Mr. President, sorry, I know you haven't had a chance to address the tragedies in Georgia and Colorado. You had said to stay tuned for actions that you might take on gun control. Wondering if you've made a decision either about sending the manufacturer liability bill that you had promised on day one to Capitol Hill, or executive actions like going after ghost guns or giving money to cities and states to battle gun control.

THE PRESIDENT: All the above. It's a matter of timing.

As you've all observed, successful presidents -- better than me -- have been successful, in large part, because they know how to time what they’re doing -- order it, decide and prioritize what needs to be done.

The next major initiative is -- and I'll be announcing it Friday in Pittsburgh, in detail -- is to rebuild the infrastructure -- both physical and technological infrastructure in this country -- so that we can compete and create significant numbers of really good-paying jobs. Really good-paying jobs.

And some of you have been around long enough to know that used to be a great Republican goal and initiative. I still think the majority of the American people don't like the fact that we are now ranked, what, 85th in the world in infrastructure.

I mean, look, the future rests on whether or not we have the best airports that are going to accommodate air travel, ports that you can get in and out of quickly, so businesses decide.

Some of you, if you were ever local reporters, and you found your governor or mayor trying to attract business to your community, what's the first thing that businesses asked? “What's the closest access to -- access to an interstate highway? How far am I from a freight rail? Is the water -- is the water available? Is there enough water available for me to conduct my business?” All the things that relate to infrastructure.

We have somewhere -- I asked the staff to write it down for me, and they did -- not for this, but for a longer discussion. We have somewhere, in terms of infrastructure -- we have -- we rank 13th globally in infrastructure. China is investing three times more in infrastructure than the United States is.

Bridges: More than one third of our bridges -- 231,000 of them -- need repairs. Some are physical safety risks or preservation work. One in five miles of our highways and major roads are in poor condition. That's 186,000 miles of highway. Aviation: 20 percent of all flights -- 20 percent of all flights weren't on time, resulting in 1.5 million hours lost in production. Six to ten million homes in America still have lead pipes servicing their water lines. We have over 100,000 wellheads that are not capped, leaking methane.

What are we doing? And, by the way, we can put as many pipefitters and miners and -- to work capping those wells at the same price that they would charge to dig those wells.

So, I -- I just find it frustrated -- frustrating to talk about.
 
Last point I'll make on the infrastructure -- and I apologize for spending more time on it, but -- is that if you think about it, it’s the place where we will be able to significantly increase American productivity, at the same time providing really good jobs for people. But we can't build back to what they used to be. We have to build -- the environment has -- global warming has already done significant damage.
 
The roads that used to be above the water level -- didn't have to worry about where the drainage ditch was -- now you got to rebuild them three feet higher. Because it's not going to go back to what it was before; it will only get worse, unless we stop it.
 
There's so much we can do. Look at all of the schools in America. Most of you live in the Washington area now. But in your hometowns -- I don't know where you're all from -- how many schools where the kids can't drink the water out of the fountain? How many schools are still in the position where there's asbestos? How many schools in America we're sending our kids to don't have adequate ventilation? How many homes, buildings, office complexes are wasting billions of barrels of oil over time because they can't hold in the heat or the air conditioning because it leaks through the windows that are so porous and the connections? It's amazing.
 
So there's so much we can do that's good stuff, makes people healthier, and creates good jobs.
 
And I think that I got one more question here. Janet from Univision.
 
Q  Thank you, Mr. President. We, too, have been reporting at the border. And just like Cecilia, we ran into a pair of siblings who came in on Monday, who were detained by CBP -- had the phone number for their mother who lives in the U.S.  We have contacted the mother. That’s the only way they know her kids are here because CBP, today, Thursday, has not contacted that mother. So when can we expect your promise of things getting better with contacting and expediency and processing?
 
THE PRESIDENT: Well, they’re already getting better, but they’re going to get real -- they’ll get a whole hell of lot better real quick, or we’re going to hear of some people leaving, okay?
 
We can get this done. We’re going to get it done.
 
I had a long meeting with the entire team and several Cabinet-level officers the other night. We're going to be moving, within the next -- within the next week, over 100,000 -- I mean, 1,000 people out of the Border Patrol into safe, secure beds and facilities. We're going to significantly ramp up. We’re already out there contacting everyone, from getting some of the employees at HHS -- and there's a lot of them doing other things -- and move them into making those calls. We're in a -- we're in the process of rearranging and providing for the personnel needed to get that done.
 
But I admire the fact that you were down there; you're making the calls yourself. It’s real.
 
The next thing that has to happen though -- as you well know has to happen -- there have to be some certitude that this is the -- actually mom, dad, or whomever. And there's ways to do that. There's ways to do that -- a little bit like determining whether or not you got the right code for your credit card, you know? “What was your dog's name?” kind of a thing. I'm being a bit facetious, but not really. And also seeking harder data, from DNA to -- to birth certificates, which takes longer. 
 
So, I want to do this as quickly as humanly possible and as safely as possible.
 
Q  As you well know, treating the root cau- -- causes in Latin America doesn't change things overnight. How do you realistically and physically keep these families from coming to the U.S. when things will not get better in their countries right away?
 
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I can't guarantee that. But I know, you know, that old thing: The journey of 1,000 miles starts with the first step.
 
You know as well as I do; you cover it: You have serious -- it's not like somebody at a sitting hand-hewn table in Guatemala -- I mean, in -- in somewhere in Mexico or in Guadalupe, saying, “I got a great idea. Let's sell everything we have. Give it to a coyote. Have him take our kids across the border and into a desert where they don’t speak the language. Won’t that be fun? Let’s go.” That’s not how it happens. People don’t want to leave.
 
When my great grandfather got on a coffin ship in the Irish Sea, expectation was: Was he going to live long enough on that ship to get to the United States of America? But they left because of what the Brits had been doing. They were in real, real trouble. They didn't want to leave. But they had no choice. So you got -- we can't -- I can't guarantee we're going to solve everything, but I can guarantee we can make everything better. We can make it better. We can change the lives of so many people.
 
And the other thing I want to point out to you and I hope you point out: I realize it's much more heart wrenching -- and it is -- to deal with a five- and six- and seven-year-old. But you went down there, and you saw: The vast majority of these children -- 70 percent -- are 16 years old, 17 years old, and mostly males. Doesn’t make it -- that doesn’t make it good, bad, or indifferent. But the idea that we have tens of thousands of kids in these God-awful facilities that are, really, little babies crying all night -- and there's some; that's true. That's why we got to act.
 
And yesterday, I asked my team -- both the director of the two agencies, as well as others -- I asked them what would they, in fact -- and I asked their opinion because they're the experts -- but I said, “Focus on the most vulnerable immediately.”
 
But there’s no reason why, in the next month, as people cross the border, that phone call can’t be made in the first 48 hours and begin.
 
Q  If I may ask one last question: Have you had any talks with Senate Republicans who are threatening this administration with not considering the immigration legislation that was passed in the House until the situation at the border has been resolved?
 
THE PRESIDENT: No, because I know they have to posture for a while. They sort of got to get it out of their system. This is a -- but I’m ready to work with any Republican who wants to help solve the problem and make the situation better.
 
But, folks, I’m going. Thank you very, very much. I appreciate it. Thank you.
 
2:29 P.M. EDT

March 26, 2021 Remarks by President Biden Before Marine One Departure

 

The White House Logo
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 26, 2021
 
Remarks by President Biden Before Marine One Departure
 
South Lawn
 
2:59 P.M. EDT
 
Q    Have you invited President Xi and Putin to the climate summit?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  I haven’t yet, but they know they're invited.  But I haven’t invited -- I haven’t spoken to either one of them yet individually. 
 
I just got off the phone speaking with the British Prime Minister.  And yesterday, I spoke with all the members of the EU.  So -- but I haven’t spoken to those two.
 
Q    Can you comment on the new Georgia election law, Mr. President?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Say again?
 
Q    The new Georgia election law.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  It’s an atrocity.  The idea -- if you want any indication that it has nothing to do with fairness, nothing to do with decency -- they passed a law saying you can't provide water for people standing in line while they're waiting to vote.  You don’t need anything else to know that this is nothing but punitive design to keep people from voting.  You can't provide water for people about to vote?  Give me a break. 
 
3:00 P.M. EDT  
 

March 26, 2021 Remarks by President Biden After Air Force One Arrival

 

The White House Logo
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 26, 2021
 
Remarks by President Biden After Air Force One Arrival
 
Delaware Air National Guard Base
Wilmington, Delaware
 
 
Q    On COVID, sir, do you have any theories about the origins of COVID ahead of the WHO report on the origins of COVID?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Do I have --
 
Q    Any theories on the origins of the coronavirus --
 
THE PRESIDENT:  No -- no, I don’t.  I have theories, but I’m not a scientist.  I’m going to wait until the scientific community makes that judgment.
 
Q    You spoke to the British Prime Minister.  What was the conversation about?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we talked a lot about climate change.  We talked a lot about the need also for Britain and the United States to -- to stand together and deal with the whole notion of whether or not NATO stands together, whether we stand united, and whether or not I'd be able to come, and I hope I can, to the NATO meeting in -- I think it's in late June.  So we talked about scheduling and when I come over and how we’d work that out.
 
Q    Any commitments on either side during the call?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, there was full agreement.  One of the things I suggested to do is -- we talked about China and the competition they’re engaging in in the Belt and Road Initiative.  And I suggested we should have, essentially, a similar initiative coming from the democratic states, helping those communities around the world that, in fact, need help.
 
Q    What does it mean to have Baby Beau on the plane with you, on Air Force One?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  It’s really great.
 
Q    President Biden, you issued strong words about the Georgia voting bill --
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Not -- not as strong as I was really thinking.
 
Q    Is there anything the White House can do to protect voting rights in Georgia?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we’re working on that right now.  We don’t know quite exactly what we can do at this point.  The Justice Department is taking a look as well.
 
Q    Mr. President, how does the voting issue affect your thinking on the filibuster?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, look, we’ll see.  The question is whether or not -- you know, you have to have 50 votes -- 51 votes to have to win to be able to move the filibuster and any change in the filibuster.  And right now, that doesn’t exist.  That doesn’t exist.
 
So, you know, look, I -- the only thing I’ve been relatively good at in my long career in the Senate is figuring out when to move and when not to move.  We got to have the votes.
 
Q    (Inaudible) gun control?
 
Q    Can we expect any gun control executive orders?   
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Pardon me?
 
Q    Can we expect any gun control executive orders soon?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we’re looking at that right now.  We’re looking at what kind of authority I have relative to imported weapons, as well as whether or not I have any authority to -- these new weapons that are being made by 3D equipment that aren’t registered as guns at all, there may be some latitude there as well.
 
Q    On the Suez Canal, sir: What offer has the DOD, has the Pentagon made to help Egypt?  Can you say?  What all can the U.S. do to assist?   
 
THE PRESIDENT:  We have equipment and capacity that most countries don’t have, and we’re seeing what we can do -- what help we can be.
 
Thank you.
 
END

March 26, 2021 Readout of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Call with Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom

 

The White House Logo
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 26, 2021
 
Readout of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Call with Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom

President Joe Biden spoke today with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. The two leaders underscored their continued commitment to combating COVID-19 and ensuring global health security. They discussed the importance of developing ambitious climate goals, noting the opportunities provided by the Leaders Summit on Climate and the UK’s G7 presidency. They agreed to work closely together on shared foreign policy priorities, including China and Iran. The leaders also affirmed the importance of preserving political stability in Northern Ireland.

March 26, 2021 Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki, March 26, 2021

 

The White House Logo
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 26, 2021
 
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki, March 26, 2021

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:45 P.M. EDT
 
MS. PSAKI:  Hi, everyone.  Happy Friday.  We tried to make this outdoors.  It was not technologically possible yet.  One day, maybe.
 
I have a couple of items for you at the top.  Today, as a part of our “Help is Here” tour, the Vice President and Education Secretary Cardona are traveling to New Haven, Connecticut, to emphasize a bold and historic achievement of the American Rescue Plan: cutting child poverty in half.  In Connecticut, they will hold a listening session at a Boys & Girls Club and visit a child development center.
 
The American Rescue Plan makes the single biggest investment in childcare since World War Two.  This is hopefully going to help bring more women back into the workforce and address what the Vice President and the President have both called a crisis.  It increases the Child Tax Credit from $2,000 to $3,000 per child and $3,600 for children under the age of six.  It also gives families an additional tax credit to help out childcare costs for children younger than 13. 
 
As you all have probably seen, there have been some tornadoes in the South.  We are monitoring those closely -- the severe weather outbreak that's impacting, of course, the southeastern part of the United States.  We extend our deepest condolences to the people in Alabama and Mississippi who lost loved ones as a result of the severe weather outbreak. 
 
We continue to be in close communication with state and local officials and stand at the ready should a need for federal assistance be made or be required.  We have not received requests at this point yet, but we stand ready to respond to those should we receive those requests. 
 
Next week, this is a -- we will update the week ahead.  This does not have a lot in it, so -- but next week, the President will continue laying out his vision for the future of our country. 
 
On Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday, he will not be traveling.  He will be doing public events at the White House.  We'll have more details of those in the coming days.  And on Wednesday, as all of you know, he will travel to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where he will deliver a speech laying out more details of his plan to build the economy back better.
 
And, with that, Josh, go ahead.
 
Q    Thanks, Jen.  Georgia has signed into law new restrictions on voting.  President Biden has expressed his moral outrage over that.  There's legislation in Congress, but does the administration plan to take any executive actions or file any lawsuits opposing these new laws?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, the administration has taken executive actions on voting rights, and, of course, we will continue to review options in that regard. 
 
I will say we expect to have a statement from the President on these -- these voting laws -- this voting law, I should say, that passed in Georgia.  He's worried about how this initiative -- how this initiative sets in place allowing states to -- preventing states, I should say, to bring water to people standing in line waiting to vote; deciding what you're going to end vote -- deciding to end voting at five o'clock when working people are just getting off of work -- making it more challenging, not easier to vote; deciding that there will be no absentee ballots under the most rigid circumstances.
 
Like the late Congressman John Lewis said, there's nothing more precious than the right to vote and speak up.  The President certainly believes that.
 
There are pieces of legislation, as you noted, but -- that he is watching closely, that he will be engaging with members of Congress on, including the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to make it easier for all eligible Americans to vote, to have access to the ballot box, and to prevent attacks on the sacred right to vote. 
 
I’ll also note that when he was in Georgia just two weeks ago, he met with Stacey Abrams while he was there, and he will also continue to encourage and engage with outside leaders and activists on steps they can take.
 
Obviously, there's a range of groups and organizations that may take legal action that will be leading in activism.  Some of that is going to be more appropriate from outside of the White House.
 
Q    And then two more questions.  Japan's Prime Minister has said he expects to invite President Biden to attend the Tokyo Olympics when he comes to the White House.  That would be a big statement about the status of the pandemic worldwide.  Does the President plan to accept that invite?
 
MS. PSAKI:  He hasn't received it yet.  I want to go to the Olympics.  Does that matter?  (Laughs.)
 
As we've said, we respected the decision to delay the Games last summer.  We understand the careful considerations that the Japanese government and the International Olympic Committee are weighing as they prepare for the Tokyo Olympics this summer.  The government of Japan has stressed that public health remains the central priority as they plan to host the Games. 
 
We, of course, look forward to welcoming the Prime Minister to Washington soon.  The date has not been formally set yet.  And beyond that, I don't have any predictions on what the President's travel will look like this summer.
 
Q    And then there's this ship stuck in the Suez Canal.  Has the U.S. offered to help or provide any kind of assistance to resolve the problem?
 
MS. PSAKI:  We are tracking the situation very closely.  We understand that Egyptian officials are working to remove the tanker as soon as possible and continue traffic.
 
As part of our ap- -- active, I should say, diplomatic dialogue with Egypt, we've offered U.S. assistance to Egyptian authorities to help reopen the canal.  We are consulting with our Egyptian partners about how we can best support their efforts.  So those conversations are ongoing, and hopefully we'll have more to say about that soon. 
 
Go ahead, Steve. 
 
Q    Thank you.  We heard what the President said yesterday about Afghanistan.  When do you think he will formally postpone the May 1 withdrawal date? 
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, first, let me convey the President has not made a decision at this point.  As he said yesterday, it would be tough to meet the May 1st deadline for full withdrawal for logistical reasons.  That's consistent what -- with what Secretary of State Tony Blinken also said in Brussels earlier this week.  Any withdrawal plan will be informed by consultation with key leaders within the administration and the thinking of our partners and allies, which is, of course, what our Secretary of State is working on doing. 
 
Our commitment is to bringing a responsible end to the conflict, removing our troops from harm's way, ensuring that Afghanistan can never again become a haven for terrorists that would threaten the United States or any of our allies.  But right now, we're consulting with our allies and partners, and the President has not yet made a decision.
 
Q    When do you think he will decide, Jen?  Is it imminent?  Or --
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, obviously, May 1st is coming soon, but I don't have any timeline on when his decision will be made.
 
Q    And, separately, on North Korea, when do you expect your review of that policy to be completed?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, we are in the final stages of our intensive multi-stakeholder North Korea policy review.  And we're, of course, discussing our review with national security advisors of South Korea and Japan at our trilateral dialogue coming up next week.  And those consultations are an important part of our review process. 
 
Go ahead. 
 
Q    Thanks, Jen.  First, I want to follow on the Suez.  How concerned is the U.S. about the blockage and its effect on global commerce, trade, goods getting to the U.S. and other places?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, we do see some potential impacts on energy markets from the role of the Suez Canal as a key bidirectional transit route for oil.  And obviously, that's one of the reasons we offered assistance from the United States, and we are in close consultation with the Egyptians about that.
 
We're going to continue to monitor market conditions and we'll respond appropriately if necessary, but it is something we're watching closely. 
 
Q    And then, on the pandemic: Dr. Redfield, the former CDC director, said this morning that he believes that the virus originated from the lab in Wuhan.  Does President Biden have any views on where the virus may have originated, or has the U.S. come to a conclusion on that yet?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, as you know, the WHO is examining this and will be releasing a report soon.  We'll review that report once it's available. 
 
We continue to learn more about the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic, including its origins, so we can better prepare for future crises. 
 
I know Dr. Walensky addressed this and I think Dr. Fauci did as well this morning, and we'll look closely at that information when it’s available.
 
Q    Are the President's views being informed by that WHO report or his advisors?  I mean, what is he --
 
MS. PSAKI:  By his health and medical advisors, certainly.  And so they'll review -- they will be, of course, the people reviewing the reports and more data when it becomes available.
 
Q    And then, last one on the forced labor in Xinjiang, in China.  Some companies have come under pressure from the Chinese government, and some retailers have actually dropped pledges not to use products made with forced labor from that region.  So, you know, what is the U.S. doing to stop or deter China from making those kind of threats against companies that have resulted in this problem?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, we certainly have been watching this issue closely, as you well know, and we've taken our own strong actions in order to prevent China from profiting off of its horrific human rights abuses in Xinjiang and to stop imports of products made with forced labor in China. 
 
American consumers and consumers everywhere deserve to know that their goods are -- that the goods they are buying are not made with forced labor, and many companies are standing up for consumers’ rights.
 
The international community, in our view, should oppose China's weaponizing of private companies’ dependence on its markets to stifle free expression and inhibit ethical business practices.  So it is something we are watching closely.
 
We’ve, of course, taken our own action.  I would expect that State and Commerce will have more to say on this later today.
 
Q    And just one quick follow-up, though.  It's -- because it seems like you've been having this message out there for the first couple months of this administration, but it's -- China only seems more emboldened to threaten these companies.  So what more can be done from the White House to try to deter them from making these threats?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, we can work with our international partners, obviously, as I conveyed, on how we're going to push back on China's efforts to weaponize private companies.  And we can convey publicly, as we are now, and of course engage with private sector entities about these efforts. 
 
But a lot of that action would happen from Commerce and, in some cases, the State Department.  And again, I expect they'll have more specifics to say later today on this. 
 
Go ahead, Kaitlan.
 
Q    A few questions.  On the WHO investigation that's coming out, Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor, said a few months ago that they had deep concerns about the way the investigation was being conducted.  Do they still have those deep concerns?
 
MS. PSAKI:  In part because there was a lack of transparency and there was a lack of -- we weren’t ensured that we would have access to the data available, so there was a delay.  They actually delayed the release of that report, which we were encouraged by.  We'll have to take a look at it and make sure we have access to the underlying information.
 
Q    So what happens if the report comes out and President Biden is not satisfied with it?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Not satisfied with the report? 
 
Q    (Inaudible.)
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, we've also -- we've also called for an international investigation and look into what's -- what's happened and the origin -- not just the origin, I should say -- the lack of transparency from the Chinese.  We have reinstituted or reengaged with -- through staffing of our -- of our team on the ground in Beijing. 
 
So we'll see what the report says.  Where we have concerns, we'll look at the underlying data, if we have access to that.  And then we'll have to make a determination through an interagency process on what's next. 
 
Q    And just to get some clarity on yesterday, are we -- should we still be expecting executive orders from the President on gun measures?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Yes.
 
Q    Imminently?  Or what’s -- what do you -- like a month from now?  Or what do you think the timeframe on this is?
 
MS. PSAKI:  I can't give you an exact timeframe, in part because they have to go through a review process, which is something that we do from here.
 
You know, I will note that, you know, when we -- when the President was the Vice President in the Obama-Biden administration, he helped put in place 23 executive actions to combat gun violence.  It's one of the levers that we can use -- that any federal government, any President can use to help address the prevalence of gun violence and address community safety around the country. 
 
At the same time, he continues to believe that there is an opportunity to engage with Congress.  There are two background bill -- background check bills that are -- have been proposed, have been introduced, have been working their way through.  There have also been legislation introduced to ban an assault weapon -- ban assault weapons.
 
But he also believes that there is an opportunity -- and sometimes that the best path forward is working through states.  And there has been progress made.  We've seen over the last several years: 20 states now have extended background checks, 19 states have red flag laws, 7 states now have assault weapons bans.  We know they work. 
 
And so we have to address this epidemic, address the threat of gun violence across many avenues.  And he will -- he's committed to doing that. 
 
Q    Okay.  And then also, does he have reaction to the Georgia state representative who was arrested overnight when knocking on the Georgia governor's door as he was signing that election law?
 
MS. PSAKI:  I think anyone who saw that video would have been deeply concerned by the actions that were taken by law enforcement to arrest her when she's simply -- by the video that was provided -- seemed to be knocking on the door to see if she could watch a bill being signed into law. 
 
The larger conc- -- the largest concern here -- obviously, beyond her being treated in the manner she was -- which is, of course, of great concern -- is the law that was put into place, which, again, the President will -- we’ll have a statement from the President, I expect, later this afternoon on. 
 
It should not be harder, it should be easier to vote.  We should not put limitations in place.  People should be able to vote from home.  They should be able to use absentee ballots.  There should be a range of restrictions that are undone, not put back in place.  And so that's of great concern -- one he certainly shares with the -- with the elected official who was arrested.
 
Q    Does he plan to reach out to her?
 
MS. PSAKI:  I don't have any calls to preview for you.  If he does, I will certainly provide an update to all of you.
 
Go ahead.
 
Q    Thank you, Jen.  A couple follow-ups on yesterday.  The President said he thinks the filibuster is a legacy of the Jim Crow era.  Did he think that it was a legacy of the Jim Crow era in 2005 when he defended the filibuster and said, “Altering Senate rules to help…one political fight or another could become standard operating procedure, which, in my view, would be disastrous”? 
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, Peter, one of the things he talked about yesterday was the fact that between 1917 and 1971, the filibuster was used about 58 times.  Last year -- last year alone, it was used five times that many.  It is not being used for the intended purpose.  It is being abused. 
 
And, yes, there are scenarios, as it as it relates to voting rights, where it is -- it is oppressing; it is -- it is allowing for systematic racism in the country.  So that's the concern he was expressing.
 
Q    And a follow on that, there are some concerns on the right that if you get rid of the filibuster, it effectively means one-party rule.  So is that what the President was getting at when he was asked about 2024 and he said, “I have no idea if there will be a Republican Party.” 
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, that certainly wasn't what he was getting at, given, as part of his answer, he conveyed that his objective and his hope is to work with Republicans.  He wants to get work done for the American people.  He wants to put in place solutions, put people back to work, get the pandemic under control, make voting easier and more accessible. 
 
And it's really on Republicans in Congress to decide if they're going to be part of the solution or if they're going to be part of obstruction.  So he's leaving it up to them to make the decision on what role they want to play in history.
 
Q    On the border, the President said yesterday, “the vast majority, the overwhelming majority of people coming to the border and crossing are being sent back.”  But only 13 percent of the 13,000 families that tried to cross last week were sent back, according to Axios.  So where do we get a majority out of 13 percent? 
 
MS. PSAKI:  The vast majority of adults are being sent back. 
 
Q    Okay.  So the family units, 87 percent of them are being taken into the United States to either be resettled or await -- await their hearings.  I'm just curious, 87 percent in the country of the family units is not a majority being sent back. 
 
MS. PSAKI:  A majority of adults, which every adult is not a part of a family unit, as I'm sure you're fully tracking.
 
Q    Correct.
 
MS. PSAKI:  And tens of thousands of people are coming to our border.  We know that.  And so the majority of adults are being turned away. 
 
Our policy remains the same: We are implementing Section [Title] 42.  As the President touched on and I touched on a little bit earlier this week, we -- there are capacity issues in Mexico which we are in discussions with them about addressing.  And they are not in a position to accept and take the families that they have in the past.  So that's part of the diplomatic discussions that we're having.
 
Q    Okay, and just one more about yesterday.  We noticed, starting at the end of the campaign and then into the transition and here at the White House, anytime that the President has an event where he's given a list of reporters to call on, Fox is the only member of the five-network TV pool that has never been on the list in front of the President.  And I'm just curious if that is an official administration policy.
 
MS. PSAKI:  We're here having a conversation, aren't we?
 
Q    Yes, but the President --
 
MS. PSAKI:  And do I take questions from you every time you come to the briefing room?
 
Q    Yes, but I’m talking about the President.
 
MS. PSAKI:  Has the President taken questions from you since you came in -- since you -- since he came into office? 
 
Q    Unfortunately --
 
MS. PSAKI:  Yes or no?
 
Q    -- only when I have shouted after he goes through his whole list.  And the President has been very generous with his time with Fox.  I'm just curious about this list that he is given. 
 
MS. PSAKI:  So --
 
Q    The only member of the five-network pool never on it, dating back to when he resumed in-person events in Wilmington during the end of the campaign. 
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well I would say that I'm always happy to have this conversation with you, even about your awesome socks you're having on today -- you’re wearing today -- and have a conversation with you even when we disagree.  The President has taken your questions.  And I'm looking forward to doing Fox News Sunday this Sunday for the third time in the last few months.
 
I think we got to move on because we got limited time.
 
Go ahead, Kristen.
 
Q    Jen, thank you.  The President talked about the importance of kids going back to the classrooms.
 
MS. PSAKI:  Mm-hmm.
 
Q    In many schools all across the country, they are not going back to the classrooms and there aren’t imminent plans to do so because teachers unions say that they want their teachers to be vaccinated first, even though the CDC says that's not required.  How are you going to deal with that?  And are there any discussions about the saying to teachers unions, “You have to go back to the classrooms”?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, first, actually, 76 percent of schools are -- do have teaching, do have kids in the classroom for part of the week; and about 46 percent are back five days a week.  And we expect that to continue to increase over time.
 
Q    Right, but the President said, “the majority.”  He wants the majority to be back --
 
MS. PSAKI:  Right, by day 100.  And we’re on --
 
Q    -- five days a week.  Yes.  Right.
 
MS. PSAKI:  -- track to meet that objective. 
 
I will say that we took a step, in this administration, to prioritize teachers through our pharmacy program.  We -- that program is working; it's effective.  Teachers can go.  They are prioritized at pharmacies.  It's something we had the power to take and implement, even without -- even -- and we feel it's very much in line with the CDC guidelines because it is one of the mitigation steps.  And it's a step we had the power to take and put into place. 
 
We actually don't see an issue coming up with schools not reopening.  They are reopening.  More are reopening every single week.  And we certainly feel we're on track to meet our goal. 
 
Q    And when you look at some of the polling, as it relates to the vaccinations, still about 30 percent of adults say they don't plan to get one.  How do you get things back to normal with those types of figures?  And when, specifically, do you plan to move forward with the vaccine campaign to try to improve education --
 
MS. PSAKI:  It's launching, Kristen.  It's happening.  We are launching a public campaign.  There are some details that have been out and reported, I believe, in the Wall Street Journal.  We'll get all that information out to all of you.
 
I will say that what we have learned from our own data is that part of our investment and focus needs to be in trusted voices and trusted partners.  We’ve seen some improvement in confidence among a range of communities in the efficacy of the vaccine.  That's -- that's good news, right? 
 
What we have seen concern about and what we still have concern about is access, and that is the big issue.  Because now when we start to get to -- get to the point where we are trying to reach more and more and more communities -- of course, vaccinate adults, Americans in this country -- a lot of people can't take a day off to go get a vaccine.  They don't have the flexibility to be in the slot available.  They maybe can't drive three miles to their local pharmacy. 
 
So our big investment right now is in access.  That means increasing investments in mobile units, in community health centers, in mass vaccination sites, but it also means, in terms of the public campaign, investing in trusted voices and empowering local groups and organizations to have the funding, the information, and the assistance they need.
 
Q    And just to follow up with my question with the President yesterday: I asked him about transparency and access for journalists into some of the facilities at the border.  The President said, “I will commit when my plan…is underway” to have access.  It sounded to a lot of people like he was saying, “I will let more cameras in once I'm satisfied with the conditions.”  How is that consistent with transparency?
 
MS. PSAKI:  That's not actually what he meant.  I'll first say, we did allow access, including an NBC camera, exclusively, into the shelter facility on Wednesday.  And we're committed to increasing access and doing additional pools, making it available these facilities -- including the Border Patrol facilities, as well as the shelters. 
 
What he was conveying is, right now, his focus is on moving these kids out of these Border Patrol facilities -- right? -- and making sure it's done in a way that keeps them safe and keeps everyone safe.
 
That does not imply that we are not going to allow access until that is done; it implies that is his first focus.  So, thanks for asking the question.  That was his -- that was his intention.
 
Q    And do you have a timeframe for when -- I noted that NBC did go in as pool.  Do you have a timeframe for when the next round of cameras might be allowed in?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Oh, we're working on it.  Hopefully soon.  It's something we're certainly committed to, and we're just working with DHS and HHS on when we can make it possible.
 
Go ahead, in the back.
 
Q    So, obviously -- on guns -- obviously, there's lots of pieces of legislation the President --
 
MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.
 
Q    -- is advocating for.  But when he spoke yesterday about priorities, some gun control groups felt frustrated.  They felt like he was saying gun control is not a priority compared to infrastructure, compared to Build Back Better.  What's your response to groups who took that message away from the President's comments yesterday?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, first, the President understands their frustration, and he understands it as one of the few people in government who ever beat the NRA twice by leading the fight to pass the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.  He understands it as a person who led the effort of President Obama's request to strengthen gun measures after Sandy Hook and when that was voted down.  Helped put in place 23 executive actions to combat gun violence.
 
You'll see more executive action, as Josh and others were asking about -- and that review is underway -- and more efforts by him and the administration to move forward in the weeks ahead, whether that is on legislation; supporting efforts that are happening in states, which we have seen is very effective and impactful and largely due to the advocacy and activism of a lot of these groups. 
 
But, you know, we would say that the frustration should be vented at the members of the House and Senate who voted against the measures the President supports.  And we'd certainly support their advocacy in that regard.
 
Q    And on the border: Secretary Mayorkas put out a statement saying this is the highest case of border crossings in 20 years.  Yesterday, President Biden made it seem like this is not too unusual compared to other previous years; that, in terms of the number of people trying to cross the border, it's about average.  But those don’t seem to square.  How does the administration view this, in terms of whether this is precedented or whether this is an increase?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, the President was making the point that we have seen increases at the border: in 2014, when he was the Vice President; 2018 and 2019.  And he conveyed that, over the last six months of the Trump administration, there was an increase of about 31 percent.  We've seen an increase of about 29 percent over the last several months since he took office.
 
So, the point is, we've dealt with this before.  It is often seasonal.  It is often cyclical.  And he just wanted to convey that in his effort to communicate and be -- provide educational information to the public.  But that doesn't change the fact that he is addressing this by putting forward every resource at our disposal in the administration. 
 
Just in this past week, we've taken steps to bring a number of new facilities online, from Fort Bliss, where there are 5,000 beds; to Lackland Air Force Base, where there are 350 beds; San Diego Convention Center, 1,400 beds.  These three sites alone provide, at peak capacity, an additional sixty -- 6,750 beds.
 
One of our biggest issues, as we've talked about before, is moving these kids out of the Border Patrol facilities into the shelters.  And we need to have places that are safe, that have educational resources, health resources, mental health resources, legal resources.  This is a step toward doing that.
 
The other piece where he has been very focused, as we all have been, is on expediting processing at the border.  And earlier this week, the Office of Refugee Resettlement also instituted a revised policy for certain children who have a parent or legal guardian in the United States.  This will add more capacity and more swiftly unite kids with relatives and sponsors. 
 
So, of course, there should be a difference if it's a direct family member -- a mother or father -- and a different kind of adult.  Right?  So there are steps we are taking to try to expedite even the processing.
 
So, our focus is on actions and solutions.  We certainly know this is a challenge.  It's something he is briefed on regularly and has -- is pushing his team to take more rapid action.
 
Go ahead, Peter.
 
Q    Thank you, Jen.  The President has said he wants bipartisan support, I think, for an infrastructure package as well.  Is that possible when Republicans are pretty adamant they don't want tax increases?  In other words, how can you achieve bipartisan support for infrastructure if Republicans are drawing the line -- a hard line on taxes?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, first, I would say, Peter, that I don't think most Republicans think that the United States -- one of the wealthiest countries in the world -- should be 13th in the world as it relates to infrastructure.  You know, roads that are broken down, infrastructure that isn't working, a lack of access to broadband -- that's not a Democratic issue.  And the President is going to continue to make that case.
 
Now, we don't know what the votes will be.  We haven't proposed a package yet, and certainly what it will be tied to and the payfors will be a part of that discussion. 
 
But he certainly believes there's been a history of support for investing in infrastructure.  He has had bipartisan meetings in the White House.  He's worked with Democrats and Republicans on getting legislation -- you know, getting steps taken in the past.  And he's -- he's hopeful that -- that there's an agreement on that, moving forward.
 
Go ahead, Anita.
 
Q    Thanks.  Six former commissioners -- FDA commissioners have called on the President to go ahead and nominate an FDA commissioner.  You probably saw this week that the second in command there is -- has announced that she's leaving.  I'm wondering what -- when the President plans to appoint someone or nominate someone for the FDA.
 
But more broadly, I wondered if you could talk a little bit about why the President is behind Presidents Obama and Trump on appointing both at the FDA and a variety of other vacancies, including the Deputy Secretary at DHS and the Solicitor General.
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, I’ll also point out that the President is also the first President to have all 15 Cabinet nominees confirmed on this timeline and without a single one dropping out, if we're just making comparisons between administrations.
 
He certainly wants to have an FDA commissioner in place.  He wants it to be the right person.  And, you know, there sometimes is a journey on personnel and determining who the right person is for the job, who’s willing to do the job, who’s available to do the job.  And it's a priority, but I don't have a pre- -- an update for you on when he will nominate someone.
 
Q    And in general, just on some of these other positions?  I take your point about the Cabinet.  I’m asking about some others though.
 
MS. PSAKI:  What was your question again?
 
Q    Well, just more broadly why he’s behind on some of these other positions that are not the actual Cabinet that you referred to.
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, I think it’s a little bit of apples and oranges.  We obviously have made a great deal of progress on, again, the people who are running and leading these agencies more than any administration since the Reagan administration.  We feel very good about that. 
 
We've also walked into a White -- a presidency where he is dealing with a pandemic that is still killing 1,000 people a day; 10 million people out of work; racial injustice across the country; a climate crisis.  So he's got a few things on his plate.  But he is committed to personnel, moving things forward, and certainly wants to have a full team across agencies.
 
Q    And then, if I could just follow up on something: You mentioned Title 42, which closes the border to nonessential travel.  Several -- before President Biden was President, several lawmakers, including then-Senator Harris, now Vice President obviously, called it an unconstitutional “executive power grab” that had “no known precedent or clear legal rationale.”  Why is that still something that is -- that he has not rescinded?  What is -- is he reviewing that?  What is the situation there?  He clearly doesn't agree with the Vice President on that.
 
MS. PSAKI:  It's in place for public health reasons, given we're in the midst of a pandemic.  And that’s why it’s in place.
 
I think we’re going to have to move on.  Go ahead.
 
Q    A couple other COVID questions, Jen.  Since January, the number of Americans who have been tested for COVID has dropped off dramatically as more people are getting vaccinated. This is a real concern for public health officials who think that testing is a cornerstone to keeping the pandemic in check.  So what is the administration's plan to make sure that those testing numbers don't fall off further as more people get vaccinated?
 
MS. PSAKI:  You're absolutely right, and testing is a key part of returning to normalcy, whether it's schools or workplaces or businesses, especially as we still have a majority of the population that still needs to be vaccinated, although we're working to expedite that. 
 
There is funding in the American Rescue Plan.  There is funding to also allow for that -- institute -- or give funding, I should say, to schools to also make that available there.  So it's something that we'll continue to communicate about to governors, to school leaders, to businesses about the importance of testing.  And we have resources now that have been passed in the American Rescue Plan to help alleviate some of the cost.
 
Q    Okay.  And one more.  The NFL has announced that it is not going to require players, coaches, staff members to get the COVID vaccine if they want to play, practice, et cetera.  Is that a mistake?  And should this vaccine be required for athletes?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, I would certainly -- I don't know that we're making NFL policy from here, but it is certainly recommended by public health officials, by officials from our federal government, because it's how we can keep people safe and healthy, whether it's our family members or our friends or people in the stands who are attending these games. 
 
So certainly we would advise any entity to follow public health guidelines, to recommend that their players, the members of the NFL, follow those public health guidelines -- whether it's mask wearing, social distancing, washing hands, and certainly getting the vaccine when they have access.
 
Go ahead.
 
Q    So a question again about voting rights.  The President has expressed support for H.R. 1.  He’s going to put out a statement later today.  What else does he have planned as far as travel or working with senators to push this legislation forward?  And what other specifics can you share about his use of the bully pulpit to push that forward? 
 
And I have one more question on behalf of another reporter.
 
MS. PSAKI:  Okay.  No problem.
 
First, as the President conveyed yesterday, he feels that voting rights are -- pushing back on voting rights, making it harder to vote, is un-American.  It is something that should not be a part of society in any regard.  Even many Republicans across the country oppose the efforts that have been undertaken in states like Georgia to make it more difficult.  He will certainly continue to vocalize that, as he did quite passionately yesterday.
 
He met with Stacey Abrams when he was in Georgia, and he will, of course, use his role as President to engage with and work with members of Congress and leaders to help to move these pieces of legislation forward in the Senate.
 
Q    Okay.  And the other question is: When children arrive at the border -- migrant children arrive -- and they're not with their biological parents or with their aunts, uncles, grandparents, they are sometimes separated from them and they become an unaccompanied minor at that point.  Is the administration looking at changing that policy to let (inaudible) stay together when they’re not a biological parent?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, I think that there are steps that are taken to ensure, because there has been a history of child trafficking -- right? -- and we want to prevent that from being a risk that is children are -- that is posed to children.
 
I'm not aware of any consideration of changes.  I'm happy to check and see if there's anything underway.
 
Q    This obviously would decrease the number of unaccompanied minors if they can stay with an aunt, an uncle, a grandparent.
 
MS. PSAKI:  That certainly is true, but I think you have to -- we have to ensure that individuals are vetted, that they are who they say they are.  And there have unfortunately been cases in the past where that has not been the scenario, so we are mindful of that as well.
 
Go ahead.
 
Q    I have a question about the Iowa Second Congressional District race.  Four Republican senators, in a letter to corporations, are calling the battle for the -- for Democrats to take back the seat “an unacceptable attempt to undermine a legitimate democratic process.”  Does the President agree with their assessment?
 
MS. PSAKI:  I believe that the process that is outlined by the House of Representatives is what's being followed here to ensure every vote is counted.  So, no, he wouldn't agree with that.
 
Q    And then just one more question.  Will the White House comply with House Democrats’ request for documents from the last six weeks of the Trump administration, as part of their investigation into what happened on January 6?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Those -- a lot of those documents would be in the National Archives, I believe, so I'm not sure it would be White House documents.  But if they're White House documents, I can certainly ask our lawyers, but I think most of them would be in the National Archives, from a past administration.
 
Go ahead.
 
MS. PSAKI:  Thank you, Jen.  Has the President been briefed or seen the images of migrants that have passed away at the border in the past couple of days, including a nine-year-old girl?  And does he have any response to that?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, I would say this is -- he's regularly briefed by his immigration team and kept abreast of all developments at the border. 
 
I would say that those images are a reminder of how dangerous this journey is and why this is not the time to come.  And it's just -- is a reminder of how important it is that we work together.  This is not a partisan issue.  This is an issue where we're talking about people's lives, children's lives.  And we're focused on working with anyone who wants to be part of a solution to address the challenges we're facing.
 
Q    And when you and the President yesterday talked about negotiating with Mexico, what is Mexico asking for to take the migrants back?
 
MS. PSAKI:  I don't think we're going to get into private negotiations.  I will just say that it's not a question of “if” but “when” -- when we work through with the Mexican government being able to have the capacity to take some of these families back.
 
Part of the discussion, of course, when Ambassador Jacobson and others were in the region was on exactly these issues, but it was just the first trip.  As we announced just a couple of days ago, the Vice President will be playing an important role here.  We have just announced an envoy, and these discussions will be ongoing.  And we didn't expect this first trip to be conclusive.
 
Q    And as you make now the infrastructure package your next priority, where does immigration reform fall on the list of priorities for this White House?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Any White House, including ours, has to walk and chew gum at the same time, move forward on a range of priorities, a range of crises facing the country.  So we will continue to work with members of Congress, work with outside groups, continue to advocate for moving long-overdue immigration reform forward.
 
Go ahead.
 
Q    Yesterday, the President mentioned that -- inviting an alliance of democracies “before too long.”
 
MS. PSAKI:  Yeah.
 
Q    Can you define when “before too long” might be, and whether it would be to the White House?
 
MS. PSAKI:  (Sneezes.)
 
Q    Bless you.
 
MS. PSAKI:  Thank you.
 
Q    Whether they would come to the White House, and how many countries does he envision inviting?
 
MS. PSAKI:  That's a great question.  There's not -- it's something he talked about broadly on the campaign trail.  I don't have any additional details at this point in time.  I expect we'll have some more on our climate summit soon, which is -- would be the next summit-type of international engagement.  But I don't have anything to preview for you on that particular event.
 
Q    Prime Minister Suga’s visit to Washington was announced, like, two weeks ago by the Japanese government, but I wondered what is -- why is there a holdup in announcing the date?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Oh, it's not -- it's not -- it's -- we're working out the final date and logistics.  We're looking forward to welcoming the Prime Minister here.  But I wouldn't read anything into it beyond that.
 
Thanks, everyone.  Happy Friday.
 
1:22 P.M. EDT