Feed aggregator

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date.  In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13818 of December 20, 2017, is to continue in effect beyond December 20, 2024.

The prevalence and severity of human rights abuse and corruption that have their source, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States, continue to threaten the stability of international political and economic systems.  Human rights abuse and corruption undermine the values that form an essential foundation of stable, secure, and functioning societies; have devastating impacts on individuals; weaken democratic institutions; degrade the rule of law; perpetuate violent conflicts; facilitate the activities of dangerous persons; undermine economic markets; and continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.

Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13818 with respect to serious human rights abuse and corruption.

                              JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    December 11, 2024.

The post Message to the Congress on the Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Serious Human Rights Abuse and Corruption appeared first on The White House.

On December 20, 2017, by Executive Order 13818, the President declared a national emergency with respect to serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world and, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), took related steps to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.

The prevalence and severity of human rights abuse and corruption that have their source, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States, continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.  For this reason, the national emergency declared on December 20, 2017, must continue in effect beyond December 20, 2024.  Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13818 with respect to serious human rights abuse and corruption.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

                              JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    December 11, 2024.

The post Notice to the Congress on the Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Serious Human Rights Abuse and Corruption appeared first on The White House.

On December 20, 2017, by Executive Order 13818, the President declared a national emergency with respect to serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world and, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), took related steps to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.

The prevalence and severity of human rights abuse and corruption that have their source, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States, continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.  For this reason, the national emergency declared on December 20, 2017, must continue in effect beyond December 20, 2024.  Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13818 with respect to serious human rights abuse and corruption.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

                              JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    December 11, 2024.

The post Notice to the Congress on the Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Serious Human Rights Abuse and Corruption appeared first on The White House.

President Biden and Vice President Harris came into office determined to end the COVID-19 pandemic while making progress toward a world that is safe from biological threats. Today we are releasing the final annual global health security report of the Biden-Harris Administration, U.S. Government Support for Global Health Security – Protecting Lives and Safeguarding Economies, which highlights progress in global health security and identifies remaining challenges.

The Biden-Harris Administration has advanced a bold agenda to prevent the devastating toll of outbreaks and pandemics, including investing more than $3 billion in strengthening global health security (GHS) since 2020. These investments have helped to: prepare countries around the world to more effectively prevent, detect and respond to biological threats; build stronger and more effective regional and global institutions to support health emergency preparedness and response; and respond rapidly to numerous outbreaks – from Ebola to mpox – to limit the health and economic impacts on the American people, as well as people living around the world. U.S. leadership in global health security is built on decades of investments in global health and research and development, as well as strong partnerships with other countries, regional and multilateral institutions, civil society, and the private sector.

REDUCING THE RISK OF NEW THREATS EMERGING AND BUILDING COUNTRY CAPACITY TO RESPOND TO THREATS

The most effective way to limit the impact of biological threats is to stop them at their source. The United States is working with countries and partners around the world to ensure they have the capacity to identify and stop emerging threats before they grow into regional or global threats. Central to these partnerships is the development of a shared plan based on gaps in each country’s capacity, as well as country ownership to sustain global health security capacities once U.S. Government support has ended. Highlights from the report include:

• More than 100 countries are building stronger global health security capacities: Over the last four years, the Biden-Harris Administrationexpanded formal Global Health Security partnerships from 19 countries to more than 50 countries and one regional group. The United States has also leveraged financial resources and diplomatic channels to mobilize support for 50 additional countries to strengthen their health security capacities, for a total of more than 100 countries receiving support. For example, through U.S. support to the Pandemic Fund and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund) COVID-19 Response Mechanism, over sixty countries received financing to strengthen core health security capacities. The United States is not the sole provider of these resources, as countries around the world contribute, including through co-financing by low and middle-income countries.

• Measuring the impact of U.S. investments: The Biden-Harris Administration is focused on measurable results of these investments. Of the 25 formal GHS partner countries that have received U.S. support for at least two years, five have achieved the U.S. target of “demonstrated capacity” in at least five technical areas, and an additional five countries are close. We can also see the impact of investments when threats emerge. For example, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) – a U.S. government GHS partner since 2015 – has successfully contained five Ebola outbreaks since 2020, dramatically improving detection and response times. In 2022 the government of DRC detected an Ebola outbreak in 48 hours and contained the outbreak with only five lives lost to the disease.

• Country ownership on global health security: Many United States GHS partner countries are leading their own responses to crises, with U.S. collaboration when needed. For example, the U.S. Government is partnering with Nigeria to build stronger capacity on zoonotic diseases, disease surveillance, and health emergency management, among other areas. In 2023, Nigeria experienced outbreaks of anthrax, a zoonotic disease that can cause severe illness in people and animals. Nigeria activated national response mechanisms to coordinate collaboration across the human and animal sectors and reduce the risk for further disease transmission. Nigeria also collaborated with Ghana to exchange strategies for anthrax prevention and control. These and other measures helped curtail the impact of anthrax in Nigeria.

• Reducing the risk of biosafety and biosecurity incidents: Expanding biosurveillance capacity and the rapid evolution of technology are critical for health security, but can also elevate the risk of accidental and deliberate incidents. The Biden-Harris Administration has taken significant steps to minimize the chances of laboratory accidents; reduce the likelihood of deliberate use or accidental misuse; ensure effective biosafety and biosecurity practices and oversight; and promote responsible research and innovation. For example, the United States secured inclusion of biosafety and biosecurity as a critical component of the Pandemic Fund grants to support laboratory strengthening. One of the projects, the Caribbean Public Health Agency Train-the-Trainer Workshop on the Safe Transportation of Infectious Substances, resulted in certified trainers well-positioned to serve as national trainers and advisors in biosafety and safe transport protocols, ensuring safer practices across the region. The U.S. global health security bilateral partnerships also build capacity in biosafety and biosecurity: the GHS partner countries with at least two years of U.S. Government support demonstrated a net improvement in biosafety and biosecurity capacity from 2018 to 2023.

• Modernizing biorisk management: The Administration released the 2024 United States Government Policy for Oversight of Dual Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential, marking a major new step in modernizing biorisk management. This policy streamlines and expands oversight of research of concern across the entire U.S. Government – setting a new global standard for effective research oversight. The Administration also introduced a new framework for biotechnology safeguards on federally funded purchases of synthetic DNA and RNA. These safeguards, which include Know-Your-Customer screening, will reduce the likelihood of misuse of synthetic biology. 

BUILDING MORE EFFECTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL HEALTH SECURITY GOVERNANCE AND FINANCING SYSTEMS

Strong national systems within the United States and other countries are essential to global health security. However, each country, including the United States, operates within a regional or global system that can either facilitate or hamper quick and effective responses to health emergencies. The Biden-Harris Administration has invested in building stronger multilateral systems and partnerships to strengthen global health security. 

Multilateral Partnerships

• Multilateral Negotiations: Through strong leadership and diplomatic outreach to World Health Organization (WHO) Member States, the United States helped secure an ambitious suite of amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) that will strengthen health emergency prevention, preparedness, and response. The United States is actively negotiating a pandemic agreement, with the goal of putting in place practical measures to prevent future pandemics, and strengthening the international community’s ability to respond rapidly and effectively in the event of a pandemic. The United States has also supported successful negotiations through the United Nations (UN) and UN agencies such as WHO on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response; antimicrobial resistance; biosafety and biosecurity; and biological weapons nonproliferation; among other areas.

• Multi-country Partnerships: The Biden-Harris Administration has worked closely with our allies and partners to advance initiatives critical to improving health security. For example, the G20 has been instrumental in establishing and sustaining stronger links between health and finance ministries. The G7 has committed to support more than 100 countries to strengthen their global health security capacities, and has led progress in transforming pandemic preparedness and response financing. The U.S. Department of State launched the Foreign Ministry Channel for Health Security to foster greater diplomatic engagement among Foreign Ministries on global health security. The Quad, a diplomatic grouping between the United States, Australia, India, and Japan, delivered more than 400 million safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine doses to Indo-Pacific countries and almost 800 million doses globally; advanced health security priorities in the Indo-Pacific region; and recently launched the Quad Cancer Moonshot, which will deliver up to 40 million doses of the human papillomavirus vaccine and support other efforts to address cervical cancer to the Indo-Pacific. Since its inception in 2014, the United States has actively engaged in the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), a partnership of over 70 countries, more than 10 international organizations and coalitions, and more than 30 non-governmental organizations, including private sector and civil society partners, working together to accelerate implementation of the International Health Regulations.

Financing

Limitations in the existing systems to finance pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response left countries and financial institutions ill prepared to effectively contain COVID-19, contributing to the health and financial crises that resulted in the deaths of over 1.2 million Americans and an estimated $14 trillion in economic losses to the U.S. economy. On day one, President Biden called on his Administration to transform the existing financing institutions and to cultivate new financing sources for global health security that are more effective and sustainable, and that are less dependent on U.S. government assistance. 

• Expanding Reliable Financing for Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness: The United States was instrumental in the creation of the Pandemic Fund in 2022, the only multilateral financing facility dedicated exclusively to pandemic preparedness financing for low- and middle- income countries. The Pandemic Fund made significant progress in its first two years, awarding grants totaling $885 million, which mobilized an additional $6 billion in investments, to support 75 countries and economies across six geographic regions. The Pandemic Fund also effectively pivoted to support countries to prepare for mpox outbreaks as part of the global response to the ongoing mpox public health emergency. The United States has supported the Pandemic Fund’s $2 billion replenishment goal by pledging up to $667 million by 2025, calling on other donors to step up their contributions and end the cycle of panic and neglect.

• Strengthening Existing Financing Institutions to Support GHS: The United States is working to evolve Multilateral Development Banks to be better equipped to respond to the increasing frequency, scope, and complexity of global challenges, including pandemics. The Biden-Harris Administration strongly supported the establishment of the International Monetary Fund Resilience and Sustainability Trust and its goal of supporting low-income and vulnerable middle-income countries to access long-term, affordable financing to address longer-term challenges, such as health emergencies.

• Improving Timely Access to Emergency Response Financing: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries and institutions lacked the liquidity to procure the medical countermeasures (MCM) needed to mount effective and timely responses. The U.S. Development Finance Corporation helped develop and lead a G7 Surge Financing Initiative, through which G7 development finance institutions (DFIs), the European Investment Bank, the International Finance Corporation, and global and regional health stakeholders are developing and deploying innovative financing tools to accelerate access to MCMs in health emergencies. The United States also supported the establishment of the Day Zero Financing Facility, a suite of tools that will enable Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, to quickly meet demand for vaccines during a pandemic, including up to $2 billion in bridge financing loans. The United States also supports the roles of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Fund, and other regional and multilateral organizations in the development of solutions to surge financing for MCMs during emergencies.

• Increasing International Coordination and Cooperation in Health Security Financing: During health emergencies donors often surge rapid financial and technical support, with limited effective means for transparency and coordination, which can lead to inefficiencies, duplication of efforts, and gaps in support. The Biden-Harris Administration has taken action to enhance the impact of financing though increased coordination and cooperation including supporting the establishment of the G20 Finance-Health Task Force to strengthen coordination between Finance and Health Ministries; and contributed to improved international mpox response coordination.

EXPANDING ACCESS TO MEDICAL COUNTERMEASURES

The Biden-Harris Administration has prioritized expanding access to quality medical countermeasures (MCMs) around the world, building on decades of global health and health security leadership by the United States. The United States has long led the world in innovation, research and development. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the vital role of U.S. biotechnology and biomanufacturing in developing and producing the life-saving diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines needed to protect American lives and livelihoods, and national and economic security against future biological threats, whether naturally-occurring, accidental, or deliberate. The Biden-Harris Administration has strengthened sustainable global manufacturing and supply chain capacity; donated vaccines, diagnostic tests and treatments and support for their delivery; expanded pandemic response financing for MCMs; and strengthened legal and regulatory systems to ensure quality products and overcome barriers to rapid access. 

• Investments in Research and Development for Preparedness: While there will always be new or evolving biological threats, developing effective countermeasures for known threats is a critical piece of preparedness. For example, the U.S. government invested billions of dollars in mRNA technology in advance of the COVID-19 pandemic. These public investments translated into millions of lives saved in the United States and around the world, and were crucial to developing the mRNA vaccine technology that can be leveraged in a future pandemic, as well as potentially treating other diseases. The U.S. supports the goals of the mRNA Technology Transfer Programme, a capacity-building initiative in low- and middle-income countries to sustainably produce mRNA vaccines. Similarly, the United States Government invested more than $2 billion in the JYNNEOS vaccine as part of smallpox preparedness. These investments directly led to product licensure for both smallpox and mpox. On September 13, 2024, WHO announced pre-qualification of the JYNNEOS vaccine for global use, including in the Africa region in response to ongoing mpox outbreaks. The JYNNEOS vaccine that has now been used to protect Americans and people living around the world from mpox; it would not exist without the investment and technical expertise provided by the United States.

• Investments in Biotechnology: The Biden-Harris Administration has prioritized transforming our biotechnology capabilities, including catalyzing advances in science, technology, and core capabilities and has advanced a whole-of-government approach to strengthening U.S. biotechnology and biomanufacturing, including for health security. The United States Government’s historic investments in science and technology, from basic science to piloting innovative financing mechanisms to real-time research during health emergencies, are transforming the tools and approaches we use to detect, contain and respond to health threats. These efforts support the ambitious international goal of developing vaccines, treatments and diagnostics within 100 days from the onset of a potential pandemic.

• Support for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI): CEPI is working to accelerate the development of life-saving vaccines against emerging disease threats, and to transform capability for rapid countermeasure development in response to future threats. Notable achievements include: the market authorization of the world’s first Chikungunya vaccine and technology transfer to regional producers for regional supply to LMICs; the advancement through clinical development of vaccine candidates against Lassa, Nipah, and coronaviruses, among others; and the launch of a new Disease X Vaccine Library with six viral families prioritized as high risk.

• Expanding Access to Publicly-supported Medical Inventions: The U.S. supports broad access to medical inventions facilitated by public investments and science, including through: the NIH proposal to promote access to products that rely on NIH-owned inventions (“Promoting Equity Through Access Planning”); fair pricing guarantees in funding agreements between manufacturers and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA); and appropriate provisions in a Pandemic Agreement for timely and equitable access to pandemic-related health products. During the COVID-19 pandemic, NIH licensed COVID-19 technologies arising from NIH intramural research to the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) for access through WHO’s COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP). Such contributions are an important step toward facilitating wider availability of lifesaving interventions around the world.

• Respecting Countries’ Rights to Protect Public Health: The United States respects countries’ right to protect public health and to promote access to medicines for all. The United States respects and does not call out countries for exercising health rights and flexibilities enshrined in the World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), including with respect to compulsory licenses, in a manner consistent with TRIPS obligations. Toward that end, the United States endorsed negotiations of a temporary waiver of WTO intellectual property rules to support access to COVID vaccines.

STOPPING BIOLOGICAL THREATS AT THEIR SOURCE

In February 2021, just a few weeks into the Biden-Harris Administration and during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, DRC and Guinea experienced two unrelated Ebola outbreaks. Since then, the United States Government has supported responses to numerous outbreaks, from Ebola disease and Marburg virus disease to mpox, avian influenza, Oropouche virus, as well as ongoing threats including dengue, cholera, measles, malaria and HIV. United States Government support to emergency response is closely linked with ongoing bilateral investments in preparedness, with the goal of each country developing the capacity and resources to lead and coordinate responses to threats as soon as they emerge. Examples of U.S. Government support to outbreak responses during the Biden-Harris Administration include:

• COVID-19 Pandemic: Starting in 2021, the United States invested $16 billion in the global COVID-19 response. The Administration accelerated global access to COVID-19 vaccines, including sharing nearly 700 million COVID-19 vaccine doses with countries around the world, as well as diagnostics and therapeutics, supporting health workers, securing supply chains, and combatting mis- and disinformation on safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines. The United States was the world’s largest donor to the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) and provided global leadership to raise additional billions in critical funding through the U.S.-hosted and co-hosted Global COVID-19 Summits to save lives globally, end the pandemic, and build stronger health security.

• Mpox Outbreaks: The worldhas faced two regional or global outbreaks of mpox during the Biden-Harris Administration. In 2022, the Biden-Harris Administration mounted a robust response to the spread of clade IIb mpox by making vaccines available to those at risk, making testing more convenient, and providing treatments to those who needed them both in the United States and worldwide. During the ongoing clade I mpox outbreak, the U.S. Government has committed over $500 million to support mpox preparedness and response activities in mpox-affected countries in Africa, and the U.S. Government has made more than one million mpox vaccine doses available for global use. The United States has delivered additional support through technical assistance and in-kind contributions to surveillance, case investigation, procurement of diagnostic kits, consumable reagents, other laboratory supplies, and personal protective equipment.
• Marburg Virus Disease (MVD): After learning of the MVD outbreak in Rwanda in September 2024, the United States committed to making nearly $11 million available to address urgent health needs in Rwanda and surrounding countries, including for surveillance and contact tracing, infection prevention and control guidance, and exit screening. Within days of learning of the MVD outbreak, CDC deployed three senior scientists to Rwanda to support its response. Although there are currently no FDA-approved vaccines or drugs against MVD, the United States contributed thousands of investigational vaccine doses and a small number of investigational therapeutics doses, which arrived in Rwanda within a week of the U.S. Government learning of the outbreak. The United States has also contributed hundreds of MVD tests and units of personal protective equipment.

• Enhanced U.S. Government Response Coordination: Building on work in previous Administrations, the Biden-Harris Administration has successfully shepherded the “Playbook for Biological Incident Response” and a “Biological Incident Notification and Assessment” protocol from concept stage to an established and well-exercised process for rapid communication and coordination when biological threats emerge. This playbook and the protocol serve to give U.S. federal agencies “off-the-shelf” tools to respond to biological threats from all sources – natural, accidental and deliberate – that avoid response delays that cost lives and resources.

While we have made progress since emerging from the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, continued investment of financial, political, and technical resources is needed to ensure success in building stronger preparedness today, sustainability of those efforts, and resilience to future biological threats. Both at home and abroad, willingness to invest critical financial and political resources has waned as global health security competes with other priorities for attention and resources. Collective action across sectors and throughout the world is needed to ensure we do not cycle once more into neglect, rather that we sustain and build on the significant progress made. Success in these efforts will make Americans safer, protect our economy and reduce international reliance on U.S. resources and expertise during times of crisis.

###

The post FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Releases Global Health Security Annual Report Demonstrating the Impact of United States Leadership and Investments appeared first on The White House.

President Biden and Vice President Harris came into office determined to end the COVID-19 pandemic while making progress toward a world that is safe from biological threats. Today we are releasing the final annual global health security report of the Biden-Harris Administration, U.S. Government Support for Global Health Security – Protecting Lives and Safeguarding Economies, which highlights progress in global health security and identifies remaining challenges.

The Biden-Harris Administration has advanced a bold agenda to prevent the devastating toll of outbreaks and pandemics, including investing more than $3 billion in strengthening global health security (GHS) since 2020. These investments have helped to: prepare countries around the world to more effectively prevent, detect and respond to biological threats; build stronger and more effective regional and global institutions to support health emergency preparedness and response; and respond rapidly to numerous outbreaks – from Ebola to mpox – to limit the health and economic impacts on the American people, as well as people living around the world. U.S. leadership in global health security is built on decades of investments in global health and research and development, as well as strong partnerships with other countries, regional and multilateral institutions, civil society, and the private sector.

REDUCING THE RISK OF NEW THREATS EMERGING AND BUILDING COUNTRY CAPACITY TO RESPOND TO THREATS

The most effective way to limit the impact of biological threats is to stop them at their source. The United States is working with countries and partners around the world to ensure they have the capacity to identify and stop emerging threats before they grow into regional or global threats. Central to these partnerships is the development of a shared plan based on gaps in each country’s capacity, as well as country ownership to sustain global health security capacities once U.S. Government support has ended. Highlights from the report include:

• More than 100 countries are building stronger global health security capacities: Over the last four years, the Biden-Harris Administrationexpanded formal Global Health Security partnerships from 19 countries to more than 50 countries and one regional group. The United States has also leveraged financial resources and diplomatic channels to mobilize support for 50 additional countries to strengthen their health security capacities, for a total of more than 100 countries receiving support. For example, through U.S. support to the Pandemic Fund and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund) COVID-19 Response Mechanism, over sixty countries received financing to strengthen core health security capacities. The United States is not the sole provider of these resources, as countries around the world contribute, including through co-financing by low and middle-income countries.

• Measuring the impact of U.S. investments: The Biden-Harris Administration is focused on measurable results of these investments. Of the 25 formal GHS partner countries that have received U.S. support for at least two years, five have achieved the U.S. target of “demonstrated capacity” in at least five technical areas, and an additional five countries are close. We can also see the impact of investments when threats emerge. For example, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) – a U.S. government GHS partner since 2015 – has successfully contained five Ebola outbreaks since 2020, dramatically improving detection and response times. In 2022 the government of DRC detected an Ebola outbreak in 48 hours and contained the outbreak with only five lives lost to the disease.

• Country ownership on global health security: Many United States GHS partner countries are leading their own responses to crises, with U.S. collaboration when needed. For example, the U.S. Government is partnering with Nigeria to build stronger capacity on zoonotic diseases, disease surveillance, and health emergency management, among other areas. In 2023, Nigeria experienced outbreaks of anthrax, a zoonotic disease that can cause severe illness in people and animals. Nigeria activated national response mechanisms to coordinate collaboration across the human and animal sectors and reduce the risk for further disease transmission. Nigeria also collaborated with Ghana to exchange strategies for anthrax prevention and control. These and other measures helped curtail the impact of anthrax in Nigeria.

• Reducing the risk of biosafety and biosecurity incidents: Expanding biosurveillance capacity and the rapid evolution of technology are critical for health security, but can also elevate the risk of accidental and deliberate incidents. The Biden-Harris Administration has taken significant steps to minimize the chances of laboratory accidents; reduce the likelihood of deliberate use or accidental misuse; ensure effective biosafety and biosecurity practices and oversight; and promote responsible research and innovation. For example, the United States secured inclusion of biosafety and biosecurity as a critical component of the Pandemic Fund grants to support laboratory strengthening. One of the projects, the Caribbean Public Health Agency Train-the-Trainer Workshop on the Safe Transportation of Infectious Substances, resulted in certified trainers well-positioned to serve as national trainers and advisors in biosafety and safe transport protocols, ensuring safer practices across the region. The U.S. global health security bilateral partnerships also build capacity in biosafety and biosecurity: the GHS partner countries with at least two years of U.S. Government support demonstrated a net improvement in biosafety and biosecurity capacity from 2018 to 2023.

• Modernizing biorisk management: The Administration released the 2024 United States Government Policy for Oversight of Dual Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential, marking a major new step in modernizing biorisk management. This policy streamlines and expands oversight of research of concern across the entire U.S. Government – setting a new global standard for effective research oversight. The Administration also introduced a new framework for biotechnology safeguards on federally funded purchases of synthetic DNA and RNA. These safeguards, which include Know-Your-Customer screening, will reduce the likelihood of misuse of synthetic biology. 

BUILDING MORE EFFECTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL HEALTH SECURITY GOVERNANCE AND FINANCING SYSTEMS

Strong national systems within the United States and other countries are essential to global health security. However, each country, including the United States, operates within a regional or global system that can either facilitate or hamper quick and effective responses to health emergencies. The Biden-Harris Administration has invested in building stronger multilateral systems and partnerships to strengthen global health security. 

Multilateral Partnerships

• Multilateral Negotiations: Through strong leadership and diplomatic outreach to World Health Organization (WHO) Member States, the United States helped secure an ambitious suite of amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) that will strengthen health emergency prevention, preparedness, and response. The United States is actively negotiating a pandemic agreement, with the goal of putting in place practical measures to prevent future pandemics, and strengthening the international community’s ability to respond rapidly and effectively in the event of a pandemic. The United States has also supported successful negotiations through the United Nations (UN) and UN agencies such as WHO on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response; antimicrobial resistance; biosafety and biosecurity; and biological weapons nonproliferation; among other areas.

• Multi-country Partnerships: The Biden-Harris Administration has worked closely with our allies and partners to advance initiatives critical to improving health security. For example, the G20 has been instrumental in establishing and sustaining stronger links between health and finance ministries. The G7 has committed to support more than 100 countries to strengthen their global health security capacities, and has led progress in transforming pandemic preparedness and response financing. The U.S. Department of State launched the Foreign Ministry Channel for Health Security to foster greater diplomatic engagement among Foreign Ministries on global health security. The Quad, a diplomatic grouping between the United States, Australia, India, and Japan, delivered more than 400 million safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine doses to Indo-Pacific countries and almost 800 million doses globally; advanced health security priorities in the Indo-Pacific region; and recently launched the Quad Cancer Moonshot, which will deliver up to 40 million doses of the human papillomavirus vaccine and support other efforts to address cervical cancer to the Indo-Pacific. Since its inception in 2014, the United States has actively engaged in the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), a partnership of over 70 countries, more than 10 international organizations and coalitions, and more than 30 non-governmental organizations, including private sector and civil society partners, working together to accelerate implementation of the International Health Regulations.

Financing

Limitations in the existing systems to finance pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response left countries and financial institutions ill prepared to effectively contain COVID-19, contributing to the health and financial crises that resulted in the deaths of over 1.2 million Americans and an estimated $14 trillion in economic losses to the U.S. economy. On day one, President Biden called on his Administration to transform the existing financing institutions and to cultivate new financing sources for global health security that are more effective and sustainable, and that are less dependent on U.S. government assistance. 

• Expanding Reliable Financing for Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness: The United States was instrumental in the creation of the Pandemic Fund in 2022, the only multilateral financing facility dedicated exclusively to pandemic preparedness financing for low- and middle- income countries. The Pandemic Fund made significant progress in its first two years, awarding grants totaling $885 million, which mobilized an additional $6 billion in investments, to support 75 countries and economies across six geographic regions. The Pandemic Fund also effectively pivoted to support countries to prepare for mpox outbreaks as part of the global response to the ongoing mpox public health emergency. The United States has supported the Pandemic Fund’s $2 billion replenishment goal by pledging up to $667 million by 2025, calling on other donors to step up their contributions and end the cycle of panic and neglect.

• Strengthening Existing Financing Institutions to Support GHS: The United States is working to evolve Multilateral Development Banks to be better equipped to respond to the increasing frequency, scope, and complexity of global challenges, including pandemics. The Biden-Harris Administration strongly supported the establishment of the International Monetary Fund Resilience and Sustainability Trust and its goal of supporting low-income and vulnerable middle-income countries to access long-term, affordable financing to address longer-term challenges, such as health emergencies.

• Improving Timely Access to Emergency Response Financing: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries and institutions lacked the liquidity to procure the medical countermeasures (MCM) needed to mount effective and timely responses. The U.S. Development Finance Corporation helped develop and lead a G7 Surge Financing Initiative, through which G7 development finance institutions (DFIs), the European Investment Bank, the International Finance Corporation, and global and regional health stakeholders are developing and deploying innovative financing tools to accelerate access to MCMs in health emergencies. The United States also supported the establishment of the Day Zero Financing Facility, a suite of tools that will enable Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, to quickly meet demand for vaccines during a pandemic, including up to $2 billion in bridge financing loans. The United States also supports the roles of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Global Fund, and other regional and multilateral organizations in the development of solutions to surge financing for MCMs during emergencies.

• Increasing International Coordination and Cooperation in Health Security Financing: During health emergencies donors often surge rapid financial and technical support, with limited effective means for transparency and coordination, which can lead to inefficiencies, duplication of efforts, and gaps in support. The Biden-Harris Administration has taken action to enhance the impact of financing though increased coordination and cooperation including supporting the establishment of the G20 Finance-Health Task Force to strengthen coordination between Finance and Health Ministries; and contributed to improved international mpox response coordination.

EXPANDING ACCESS TO MEDICAL COUNTERMEASURES

The Biden-Harris Administration has prioritized expanding access to quality medical countermeasures (MCMs) around the world, building on decades of global health and health security leadership by the United States. The United States has long led the world in innovation, research and development. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the vital role of U.S. biotechnology and biomanufacturing in developing and producing the life-saving diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines needed to protect American lives and livelihoods, and national and economic security against future biological threats, whether naturally-occurring, accidental, or deliberate. The Biden-Harris Administration has strengthened sustainable global manufacturing and supply chain capacity; donated vaccines, diagnostic tests and treatments and support for their delivery; expanded pandemic response financing for MCMs; and strengthened legal and regulatory systems to ensure quality products and overcome barriers to rapid access. 

• Investments in Research and Development for Preparedness: While there will always be new or evolving biological threats, developing effective countermeasures for known threats is a critical piece of preparedness. For example, the U.S. government invested billions of dollars in mRNA technology in advance of the COVID-19 pandemic. These public investments translated into millions of lives saved in the United States and around the world, and were crucial to developing the mRNA vaccine technology that can be leveraged in a future pandemic, as well as potentially treating other diseases. The U.S. supports the goals of the mRNA Technology Transfer Programme, a capacity-building initiative in low- and middle-income countries to sustainably produce mRNA vaccines. Similarly, the United States Government invested more than $2 billion in the JYNNEOS vaccine as part of smallpox preparedness. These investments directly led to product licensure for both smallpox and mpox. On September 13, 2024, WHO announced pre-qualification of the JYNNEOS vaccine for global use, including in the Africa region in response to ongoing mpox outbreaks. The JYNNEOS vaccine that has now been used to protect Americans and people living around the world from mpox; it would not exist without the investment and technical expertise provided by the United States.

• Investments in Biotechnology: The Biden-Harris Administration has prioritized transforming our biotechnology capabilities, including catalyzing advances in science, technology, and core capabilities and has advanced a whole-of-government approach to strengthening U.S. biotechnology and biomanufacturing, including for health security. The United States Government’s historic investments in science and technology, from basic science to piloting innovative financing mechanisms to real-time research during health emergencies, are transforming the tools and approaches we use to detect, contain and respond to health threats. These efforts support the ambitious international goal of developing vaccines, treatments and diagnostics within 100 days from the onset of a potential pandemic.

• Support for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI): CEPI is working to accelerate the development of life-saving vaccines against emerging disease threats, and to transform capability for rapid countermeasure development in response to future threats. Notable achievements include: the market authorization of the world’s first Chikungunya vaccine and technology transfer to regional producers for regional supply to LMICs; the advancement through clinical development of vaccine candidates against Lassa, Nipah, and coronaviruses, among others; and the launch of a new Disease X Vaccine Library with six viral families prioritized as high risk.

• Expanding Access to Publicly-supported Medical Inventions: The U.S. supports broad access to medical inventions facilitated by public investments and science, including through: the NIH proposal to promote access to products that rely on NIH-owned inventions (“Promoting Equity Through Access Planning”); fair pricing guarantees in funding agreements between manufacturers and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA); and appropriate provisions in a Pandemic Agreement for timely and equitable access to pandemic-related health products. During the COVID-19 pandemic, NIH licensed COVID-19 technologies arising from NIH intramural research to the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) for access through WHO’s COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP). Such contributions are an important step toward facilitating wider availability of lifesaving interventions around the world.

• Respecting Countries’ Rights to Protect Public Health: The United States respects countries’ right to protect public health and to promote access to medicines for all. The United States respects and does not call out countries for exercising health rights and flexibilities enshrined in the World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), including with respect to compulsory licenses, in a manner consistent with TRIPS obligations. Toward that end, the United States endorsed negotiations of a temporary waiver of WTO intellectual property rules to support access to COVID vaccines.

STOPPING BIOLOGICAL THREATS AT THEIR SOURCE

In February 2021, just a few weeks into the Biden-Harris Administration and during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, DRC and Guinea experienced two unrelated Ebola outbreaks. Since then, the United States Government has supported responses to numerous outbreaks, from Ebola disease and Marburg virus disease to mpox, avian influenza, Oropouche virus, as well as ongoing threats including dengue, cholera, measles, malaria and HIV. United States Government support to emergency response is closely linked with ongoing bilateral investments in preparedness, with the goal of each country developing the capacity and resources to lead and coordinate responses to threats as soon as they emerge. Examples of U.S. Government support to outbreak responses during the Biden-Harris Administration include:

• COVID-19 Pandemic: Starting in 2021, the United States invested $16 billion in the global COVID-19 response. The Administration accelerated global access to COVID-19 vaccines, including sharing nearly 700 million COVID-19 vaccine doses with countries around the world, as well as diagnostics and therapeutics, supporting health workers, securing supply chains, and combatting mis- and disinformation on safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines. The United States was the world’s largest donor to the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) and provided global leadership to raise additional billions in critical funding through the U.S.-hosted and co-hosted Global COVID-19 Summits to save lives globally, end the pandemic, and build stronger health security.

• Mpox Outbreaks: The worldhas faced two regional or global outbreaks of mpox during the Biden-Harris Administration. In 2022, the Biden-Harris Administration mounted a robust response to the spread of clade IIb mpox by making vaccines available to those at risk, making testing more convenient, and providing treatments to those who needed them both in the United States and worldwide. During the ongoing clade I mpox outbreak, the U.S. Government has committed over $500 million to support mpox preparedness and response activities in mpox-affected countries in Africa, and the U.S. Government has made more than one million mpox vaccine doses available for global use. The United States has delivered additional support through technical assistance and in-kind contributions to surveillance, case investigation, procurement of diagnostic kits, consumable reagents, other laboratory supplies, and personal protective equipment.
• Marburg Virus Disease (MVD): After learning of the MVD outbreak in Rwanda in September 2024, the United States committed to making nearly $11 million available to address urgent health needs in Rwanda and surrounding countries, including for surveillance and contact tracing, infection prevention and control guidance, and exit screening. Within days of learning of the MVD outbreak, CDC deployed three senior scientists to Rwanda to support its response. Although there are currently no FDA-approved vaccines or drugs against MVD, the United States contributed thousands of investigational vaccine doses and a small number of investigational therapeutics doses, which arrived in Rwanda within a week of the U.S. Government learning of the outbreak. The United States has also contributed hundreds of MVD tests and units of personal protective equipment.

• Enhanced U.S. Government Response Coordination: Building on work in previous Administrations, the Biden-Harris Administration has successfully shepherded the “Playbook for Biological Incident Response” and a “Biological Incident Notification and Assessment” protocol from concept stage to an established and well-exercised process for rapid communication and coordination when biological threats emerge. This playbook and the protocol serve to give U.S. federal agencies “off-the-shelf” tools to respond to biological threats from all sources – natural, accidental and deliberate – that avoid response delays that cost lives and resources.

While we have made progress since emerging from the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, continued investment of financial, political, and technical resources is needed to ensure success in building stronger preparedness today, sustainability of those efforts, and resilience to future biological threats. Both at home and abroad, willingness to invest critical financial and political resources has waned as global health security competes with other priorities for attention and resources. Collective action across sectors and throughout the world is needed to ensure we do not cycle once more into neglect, rather that we sustain and build on the significant progress made. Success in these efforts will make Americans safer, protect our economy and reduce international reliance on U.S. resources and expertise during times of crisis.

###

The post FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Releases Global Health Security Annual Report Demonstrating the Impact of United States Leadership and Investments appeared first on The White House.

East Room

11:36 A.M. EST
 
THE FIRST LADY:  You’re so quiet.  It’s like a classroom.  (Laughter and applause.) 
 
So, in the intermission, were you all, like, dancing and everything?  (Laughter.)  Get a little movement.  You know, you’ve been sitting for a while.
 
So, thank you for standing.  But, you know, I’m glad you get a little — like you said, Robin, a little movement, right?  It’s — that’s what it’s all about.
 
So — oh, please sit down.  Please.  (Laughter.)  If you feel all stretched out by now.
 
So, before I begin, I just want to say I’m so glad that you got to come here today because the White House is decorated.  (Applause.)  And the theme this year is “Peace and Light.”  So, I hope that you all feel that sense of, you know, peace and light and that, just for a moment, when you leave here today, that you feel — I don’t know — a little — a sense of joy, because I think we all need, like, this — you know, we all need to feel joy now during this — this time of the season, during — just during this time. 
 
So, anyway — (laughter) — okay.  Now I’ll start.  You’re all reading into that.  (Laughter.) 
 
Anyway, for decades, for centuries even, at dinner tables and in waiting rooms, in whispered conversations, you know, when we meet our friends for coffee, women have been talking to each other about our health.  Isn’t that true?
 
AUDIENCE:  Yes.
 
THE FIRST LADY:  So, today, we brought that conversation to the White House.  (Applause.)  Today, we are saying to women everywhere: We hear you, and we will get you the answers you need.
 
So, thank you for joining us for the White House Conference on Women’s Health Research.
 
The United States has the best health research in the world, yet women’s health is understudied and research is underfunded.  And so many of you have said this.  And the United States economy loses $1.8 billion in working time every year to menopause symptoms that upend women’s lives.
 
And that’s what Maria Shriver and I talked about on that Saturday afternoon in April last year.  So, Maria keeps this quote next to her phone — you have a stationary phone?  (Laughter.) 
 
MS. SHRIVER:  (Inaudible.)  (Laughter.)
 
THE FIRST LADY:  — in her office, and it says, “Why go to the moon?”  And your uncle, President Kennedy, asked, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, because they are hard.”
 
So, Maria, thank you for carrying on that mission, pushing for breakthroughs that are never easy but possible.  Thank you.  (Applause.) 
 
So, a little more than a year ago, President Biden launched — thank you, Joe — (laughter) — the first-ever White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research, building on the foundation of decades of work in women’s health from many of you in this room.
 
And Carolyn made sure yesterday, as we were doing speech prep, that I understood — she said, “Jill, you know, I know that we’re doing this now, but there are some women” — like Carolyn — “who’s been doing this research forever and ever and ever.”  And I just want you — to say we — we recognize that.  So — (applause).
 
So, it — you heard from Carolyn, you know, our incredible — and our incredible team here at the White House who’s ensured that government-funded research, you know — and they will include women from the beginning.
 
And that means designing studies and separating the data, which everyone has said, and reporting findings to create treatments specifically for women and for we- — men.  I mean, we’re not going to leave you guys out.  (Laughter.)
 
And we’ve invested nearly $1 billion in this research on women’s health.  (Applause.)
 
So, a- — over this past year, I’ve traveled around the country, and I have met, honestly, some really incredible researchers.  And I’ve been to universities and the New York Stock Exchange to bring people together and create connections across industries. 
 
And the women of this country are paying attention.  Researchers and business leaders are too. 
 
So, we brought all of you into this room to elevate all this information: discoveries that will change how we treat menopause symptoms — we’ve talked about this all this morning; research that uses genetics to find the cause of extreme morning sickness.  And I heard this a couple weeks ago, and I was particularly interested because my own granddaughter was going through the same thing — because we’re going to be great-grandparents.  (Applause.)  (Laughs.)
 
So, funders and founders who are seeing the market for women’s health products triple, advocates who are making sure that women know that solutions are at our fingertips if we just keep fighting for them.
 
Together, we’ve laid down a new line, a marker of our progress toward closing the gaps in women’s health.  Everything that you’ve heard today — and hasn’t it been, like, so informative and fascinating?  I mean, I love these forums because I always learn something new.  I just — you know, it’s just so inspiring.  Because this is our new normal. 
 
And today isn’t the finish line; it’s the starting point.  We — all of us, we have built the momentum.  Now it’s up to us to make it unstoppable.
 
It has been the honor of my life to serve as your first lady and to join you in this work, but my work doesn’t stop in January when Joe and I leave this house.  I will keep building alliances, like the ones that brought us here today, and I will keep pushing for funding for innovative research.  (Applause.)  (Laughs.)
 
So, join me.  Be the researcher who makes sure that each proposal you work on considers women from the beginning.  Be the investor who searches for the next breakthrough product of [or] treatment.  Be the voice in every space, from boardrooms to classrooms to laboratories, who asks, “What are we doing to advance women’s health?”
 
Let’s make a promise to all those women out there right now, sitting in a parking lot somewhere, in a doc- — after a doctor’s appointment, wondering why you’re not being heard — so, maybe feeling, you know, like you’re all alone.
 
And — well, I’ll just have to stop here for one second.  I did hear during that little intermission thing — like, we’re not putting our doctors down — right? — so, some doc ba- — in the back said, “You know, it sounds like you’re putting the docs down.”  We’re not putting the docs down.  I don’t want you to feel that way.  That, you know — but I think the docs are joining us and saying, “Hey, we want the answers.”  So, I just want to make that 100 percent clear.
 
So, the White House, all of us here, we will keep fighting for you until your worries turn into answers, your symptoms into solutions.  Until women everywhere benefit from the lifesaving and world-changing research that we know is possible. 
 
A new future can ring out from this conference, one that — one that answers the call from women who have been waiting for too long.  Let this be the moment that we push harder, the moment that people say changed the world of women’s health forever. 
 
Thank you.  (Applause.)  (Laughs.)  Thank you.  Thank you.  (Applause.) 
 
Thank you.  Thank you very much.  Please.
 
So, I’m so grateful to have a president who — (laughs) — who heard us — (laughter) — and took action quickly.  So, without Joe, really, this wouldn’t have been made possible.  And that’s the power of someone who understands how to make things happen in government — because God knows, Joe, you’ve been for — what? — 50 years.  (Laughter.)  (The president makes the sign of the cross.) 
 
So, someone who has fundamentally shifted how our nat- — nation approaches women’s health research.
 
So, please welcome my husband, your president and champion, I think, of all of us.  So, my husband, Joe Biden.  Come on, Joe.  (Applause.)
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  (Applause.) 
 
Thank God she said “yes” the fifth time I asked her to marry me.  (Laughter.) 
 
Please have a seat. 
 
You know, I — as they used to say in the Senate, a point of personal privilege: I — when — no man deserves one great love, let alone two.  When I was introduced to Jill, my younger brother — my youngest brother said, “You’ll love her; she hates politics.”  (Laughter.) 
 
Well, look, I — hello, everyone.  My name is Joe Biden; I’m Jill Biden’s husband.  (Laughter.)  Let’s be honest, we wouldn’t be here today without Jill. 
 
Across our administration and across Congress, across the country, the work we’re doing on women’s health research is some of the most important work this administration has ever done.
 
And I’ve always believed that our nation is at its best when we — when we plumb the endless possibilities that exist for all our women and girls.  And that includes their health.
 
Women on- — are half our population, to state the obvious.  But like Jill said, for too long, they’ve been underrepresented when it comes to health research.  And that’s real. 
 
You know, that’s why, over a year ago, we launched the first-ever White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research.  And the goal was to fundamentally change and improve how we approach and invest in women’s health research — we weren’t doing enough of it — and to pioneer the next generation of scientific research and discoveries that are going to improve care for — women receive all across the country.
 
Because the fact is the health of our moms and grandmothers, sisters and daughters, friends and colleagues affects not just women’s well-being but the prosperity of the entire nation.  And that’s a fact.  We haven’t gotten that through to the other team yet.  (Laughter.)  No — no, I mean it, across the board.  Anyway, I won’t get into that.  (Laughter.)
 
But that’s why, in my State of the Union address this year, I called on Congress to invest $12 billion in women’s health research to benefit millions of lives — (applause) — and families and communities all across America.
 
Folks, but my administration wasn’t going to wait for Congress to secure the funding.  We looked for other ways to prioritize women’s health with existing dollars that are already in the government and to get important work started.
 
And I knew where to start: Rosa DeLauro.  (Applause.)  Rosa, stand up.  I’m not joking.  As they say in souther- — you all think I’m kidding.  I’m not kidding.  (Laughter.)  She’s incredible.  Every important thing I’ve ever tried to get done that no one paid attention to, you were there for me.  I mean it sincerely.  You’re the best, Rosa.  What you did on Child Tax Credit — I mean, across the board. 
 
And, folks, women’s health is — is a — something that — that matters so, so very much.  Along with members that are here today, you — she’s going to keep this effort going to — when we leave.  When we leave — when Jill and I leave.
 
AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Fight like hell.  (Laughter.)
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we’re going to fight like hell.  And w- — I — I’m the — we’re — we’re no longer going to be president and first lady, but we’re not going away.  (Laughter.)  And so — (applause).
 
Along with members here, like Diane [Diana] and Lauren.  Where — where is Diane [Diana]? 
 
REPRESENTATIVE DEGETTE:  Right here. 
 
THE PRESIDENT:  There you go.  Stand up, kiddo.  Let them see you.  (Applause.)
 
And, Lauren, thank you. 
 
So, I’m so proud that, to date, we’ve secured $1 billion so far in women’s health research from different government agencies.
 
You know, our new agency, ARPA-H, which is patterned after Advanced — it’s called Advanced Research Projects and Agencies for Health — is based on DARPA, which is the Defense Department program for Advanced Research and Projects Agency.  That drove breakthroughs — the Defense Department broke breakthroughs in everything from the Internet to GPS.  It had a big budget for doing everything else, but it also had this specific individual budget. 
 
And ARPA-H does for biomedicine what DARPA does for technology, driving breakthroughs to prevent, detect, and treat diseases, including cancer, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and so much more.  We’re using their funding to drive breakthroughs in women’s health in ovarian cancer and menopause, in migraines, in high blood pressure for pregnant women.
 
The National Institute of Health is using their funding to break down the silos — a lot of silos in government, a lot of silos across the — in America — to make more progress and do it more quickly.
 
For example, we know that heart disease is the leading cause of death for women.  But we don’t know — we don’t know enough about how menopause may affect heart disease.  And that’s going to change now.  We’re going to learn so much more.
 
And the Department of Defense is dedicating funds to research women’s health issues like arthritis, cancer, chronic fatigue that affect women in the military, but this research is going to benefit all women — all women.
 
Our work doesn’t stop here.
 
Look, you know, the addition to — in addition to launching the Women’s Health Research Initiative earlier this year, I signed an executive order that — directing the most comprehensive set of executive actions ever taken — ever taken in the history of this country to improve women’s health issues.
 
And, look — (applause) — it ensures that women’s health is integrated and prioritized all across the entire federal government — all research projects and budget plans, across the entire government.  And it spurs new research and innovation on a wide range of women’s health needs throughout their lives.  And it does so much more — so much more.
 
Folks, there’s literally never been more comprehensive effort from the federal government to spur innovation in women’s health research in our entire history. 
 
And thank you, by the way, kiddo.  (Laughter and applause.)  I — no, I mean it.  (Applause.)  I mean it.
 
If I can digress for a moment, I — I would — I have been the beneficiary of a lot of the research that’s been done.  I had a — two cranial aneurysms.  I had two nine-hour operations.  They took the top of my head off twice; they couldn’t find a brain the first time.  (Laughter.) 
 
But all — all kidding aside, I mean the research that’s going on across the entire world.  I visited every single solitary major health center in the world — in the world — seven of them.  And, you know, a lot of wha- — what happens, even in not just women’s research, but, you know, docs who are great, they walk by the mirror, and they see a Pulitzer Pri- — a — a Nobel Prize about to be won and — rather than sharing the data.  But that’s all changing.  That’s all changing. 
 
And this initiative lays the groundwork for discoveries and research for generations to come.  Mark my words.  And the benefits we gain tomorrow will happen because we made the decision to do something about them today — today, now. 
 
And all of you in this room are leading the way, and that’s not hyperbole.  You really are.  It’s a hell of a com- — combination of people that make things change.
 
Let me close with this.  And my daughter, Ashley, sitting here, she runs a — she works for women — she runs a women’s health shel- — women’s health center — shelter in Philadelphia. 
 
And — and, you know, this holiday season is a time not for gratitude but for reflection.  Gratitude is important, but we got to reflect on what’s going on. 
 
And let me say to you that it’s been an honor of my life to serve as your president the last four years.  But I’m — and I’m forever grateful.  I really am.  (Applause.) 
 
But folks, it’s not a joke.  We’re blessed to live in America.  We’re blessed to live in America.  I’ve been to over 140 countries.  I mean, but for the grace of God, I could’ve been born a lot of other places.  Literally the greatest country on Earth, that’s who we are.  But we got to raise up even more than we are now.
 
I often say, America can be summed up in one word.  I was on the Tibetan Plateau with Xi Jinping, and he said, “Can you define America for me?”  And I — this is all on the record.  I said, “Yes, one word: possibilities.” 
 
Think about it.  We’re the only nation in the world where people — they think there’s arrogance in that.  But we’ve never failed to get things done when we set our mind to it.  It’s all about possibilities.  Anything is possible.
 
That’s what the Women’s Realth — Health Research Initiative is all about: possibilities.  You know, and that’s what this conference is all about.  That’s what you’re all about.  Researchers, innovators, investors; businesses, advocates, elected officials; public, private, and non-profit leaders unleashing the drive and discovery and the talent and imagination that you have in this room — a spirit of innovation inherent in who you guys are. 
 
I really mean it.  Think about it.  Turn and look at the people to your left and right who you know are engaged in this.  It’s all about the possibilities and belief we can do things, we can change things fundamentally.   
 
I think inherent in the American con- — conscience is setting a bold vision and taking concrete steps to make our dreams a reality, holding on to one more thing that we can never lose: hope — hope, hope, hope.  Because what we need — we need to raise the expectations of the American people up.  We got to let them know we haven’t forgotten.  Whether it’s a business or labor or whether it’s politics, whatever, we haven’t forgotten. 
 
You — you guys go out there.  You take care of all of these folks.  Guess what?  How many of them think that we just sort of forgotten?  Why aren’t we focused?
 
Because of you and your fearless determination, you’re making real progress.  You’re really making progress. 
 
There’s still so much more to do.  And we’re going to take all of us to get it done.  I know it’s a battle.  But I know I have a hell of a lot of — a hell of an army here.  (Laughter.) 
 
You know, when I look around at all of you here today — and I mean this sincerely — I know it’s a battle we’re going to win.  We’re going to win this battle.  
 
We just have to remember who in the hell we are.  We’re the United States of America.  And there is nothing we’ve ever set our mind to we’ve been unable to do when we’ve done it together.  It’s not beyond our capacity, when we work together.  And that’s what you’re all doing: working together. 
 
And so, I — and I want to close by thanking my wife for Ji- — I mean, Jill, I tell you.  Like I said, when we got married, my brother said, “Don’t worry; she doesn’t like politics.”  Well, I tell you what, you stepped up, kid.  (Laughter.)  You’ve stepped up.
 
And in case you wonder, when she speaks, I listen.  (Laughter and applause.)
 
Thank you all so very, very much.  Let’s get this done.    Thank you.  (Applause.) 
 
11:57 A.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden and First Lady Jill Biden at the First-Ever White House Conference on Women’s Health Research appeared first on The White House.

East Room

11:36 A.M. EST
 
THE FIRST LADY:  You’re so quiet.  It’s like a classroom.  (Laughter and applause.) 
 
So, in the intermission, were you all, like, dancing and everything?  (Laughter.)  Get a little movement.  You know, you’ve been sitting for a while.
 
So, thank you for standing.  But, you know, I’m glad you get a little — like you said, Robin, a little movement, right?  It’s — that’s what it’s all about.
 
So — oh, please sit down.  Please.  (Laughter.)  If you feel all stretched out by now.
 
So, before I begin, I just want to say I’m so glad that you got to come here today because the White House is decorated.  (Applause.)  And the theme this year is “Peace and Light.”  So, I hope that you all feel that sense of, you know, peace and light and that, just for a moment, when you leave here today, that you feel — I don’t know — a little — a sense of joy, because I think we all need, like, this — you know, we all need to feel joy now during this — this time of the season, during — just during this time. 
 
So, anyway — (laughter) — okay.  Now I’ll start.  You’re all reading into that.  (Laughter.) 
 
Anyway, for decades, for centuries even, at dinner tables and in waiting rooms, in whispered conversations, you know, when we meet our friends for coffee, women have been talking to each other about our health.  Isn’t that true?
 
AUDIENCE:  Yes.
 
THE FIRST LADY:  So, today, we brought that conversation to the White House.  (Applause.)  Today, we are saying to women everywhere: We hear you, and we will get you the answers you need.
 
So, thank you for joining us for the White House Conference on Women’s Health Research.
 
The United States has the best health research in the world, yet women’s health is understudied and research is underfunded.  And so many of you have said this.  And the United States economy loses $1.8 billion in working time every year to menopause symptoms that upend women’s lives.
 
And that’s what Maria Shriver and I talked about on that Saturday afternoon in April last year.  So, Maria keeps this quote next to her phone — you have a stationary phone?  (Laughter.) 
 
MS. SHRIVER:  (Inaudible.)  (Laughter.)
 
THE FIRST LADY:  — in her office, and it says, “Why go to the moon?”  And your uncle, President Kennedy, asked, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, because they are hard.”
 
So, Maria, thank you for carrying on that mission, pushing for breakthroughs that are never easy but possible.  Thank you.  (Applause.) 
 
So, a little more than a year ago, President Biden launched — thank you, Joe — (laughter) — the first-ever White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research, building on the foundation of decades of work in women’s health from many of you in this room.
 
And Carolyn made sure yesterday, as we were doing speech prep, that I understood — she said, “Jill, you know, I know that we’re doing this now, but there are some women” — like Carolyn — “who’s been doing this research forever and ever and ever.”  And I just want you — to say we — we recognize that.  So — (applause).
 
So, it — you heard from Carolyn, you know, our incredible — and our incredible team here at the White House who’s ensured that government-funded research, you know — and they will include women from the beginning.
 
And that means designing studies and separating the data, which everyone has said, and reporting findings to create treatments specifically for women and for we- — men.  I mean, we’re not going to leave you guys out.  (Laughter.)
 
And we’ve invested nearly $1 billion in this research on women’s health.  (Applause.)
 
So, a- — over this past year, I’ve traveled around the country, and I have met, honestly, some really incredible researchers.  And I’ve been to universities and the New York Stock Exchange to bring people together and create connections across industries. 
 
And the women of this country are paying attention.  Researchers and business leaders are too. 
 
So, we brought all of you into this room to elevate all this information: discoveries that will change how we treat menopause symptoms — we’ve talked about this all this morning; research that uses genetics to find the cause of extreme morning sickness.  And I heard this a couple weeks ago, and I was particularly interested because my own granddaughter was going through the same thing — because we’re going to be great-grandparents.  (Applause.)  (Laughs.)
 
So, funders and founders who are seeing the market for women’s health products triple, advocates who are making sure that women know that solutions are at our fingertips if we just keep fighting for them.
 
Together, we’ve laid down a new line, a marker of our progress toward closing the gaps in women’s health.  Everything that you’ve heard today — and hasn’t it been, like, so informative and fascinating?  I mean, I love these forums because I always learn something new.  I just — you know, it’s just so inspiring.  Because this is our new normal. 
 
And today isn’t the finish line; it’s the starting point.  We — all of us, we have built the momentum.  Now it’s up to us to make it unstoppable.
 
It has been the honor of my life to serve as your first lady and to join you in this work, but my work doesn’t stop in January when Joe and I leave this house.  I will keep building alliances, like the ones that brought us here today, and I will keep pushing for funding for innovative research.  (Applause.)  (Laughs.)
 
So, join me.  Be the researcher who makes sure that each proposal you work on considers women from the beginning.  Be the investor who searches for the next breakthrough product of [or] treatment.  Be the voice in every space, from boardrooms to classrooms to laboratories, who asks, “What are we doing to advance women’s health?”
 
Let’s make a promise to all those women out there right now, sitting in a parking lot somewhere, in a doc- — after a doctor’s appointment, wondering why you’re not being heard — so, maybe feeling, you know, like you’re all alone.
 
And — well, I’ll just have to stop here for one second.  I did hear during that little intermission thing — like, we’re not putting our doctors down — right? — so, some doc ba- — in the back said, “You know, it sounds like you’re putting the docs down.”  We’re not putting the docs down.  I don’t want you to feel that way.  That, you know — but I think the docs are joining us and saying, “Hey, we want the answers.”  So, I just want to make that 100 percent clear.
 
So, the White House, all of us here, we will keep fighting for you until your worries turn into answers, your symptoms into solutions.  Until women everywhere benefit from the lifesaving and world-changing research that we know is possible. 
 
A new future can ring out from this conference, one that — one that answers the call from women who have been waiting for too long.  Let this be the moment that we push harder, the moment that people say changed the world of women’s health forever. 
 
Thank you.  (Applause.)  (Laughs.)  Thank you.  Thank you.  (Applause.) 
 
Thank you.  Thank you very much.  Please.
 
So, I’m so grateful to have a president who — (laughs) — who heard us — (laughter) — and took action quickly.  So, without Joe, really, this wouldn’t have been made possible.  And that’s the power of someone who understands how to make things happen in government — because God knows, Joe, you’ve been for — what? — 50 years.  (Laughter.)  (The president makes the sign of the cross.) 
 
So, someone who has fundamentally shifted how our nat- — nation approaches women’s health research.
 
So, please welcome my husband, your president and champion, I think, of all of us.  So, my husband, Joe Biden.  Come on, Joe.  (Applause.)
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  (Applause.) 
 
Thank God she said “yes” the fifth time I asked her to marry me.  (Laughter.) 
 
Please have a seat. 
 
You know, I — as they used to say in the Senate, a point of personal privilege: I — when — no man deserves one great love, let alone two.  When I was introduced to Jill, my younger brother — my youngest brother said, “You’ll love her; she hates politics.”  (Laughter.) 
 
Well, look, I — hello, everyone.  My name is Joe Biden; I’m Jill Biden’s husband.  (Laughter.)  Let’s be honest, we wouldn’t be here today without Jill. 
 
Across our administration and across Congress, across the country, the work we’re doing on women’s health research is some of the most important work this administration has ever done.
 
And I’ve always believed that our nation is at its best when we — when we plumb the endless possibilities that exist for all our women and girls.  And that includes their health.
 
Women on- — are half our population, to state the obvious.  But like Jill said, for too long, they’ve been underrepresented when it comes to health research.  And that’s real. 
 
You know, that’s why, over a year ago, we launched the first-ever White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research.  And the goal was to fundamentally change and improve how we approach and invest in women’s health research — we weren’t doing enough of it — and to pioneer the next generation of scientific research and discoveries that are going to improve care for — women receive all across the country.
 
Because the fact is the health of our moms and grandmothers, sisters and daughters, friends and colleagues affects not just women’s well-being but the prosperity of the entire nation.  And that’s a fact.  We haven’t gotten that through to the other team yet.  (Laughter.)  No — no, I mean it, across the board.  Anyway, I won’t get into that.  (Laughter.)
 
But that’s why, in my State of the Union address this year, I called on Congress to invest $12 billion in women’s health research to benefit millions of lives — (applause) — and families and communities all across America.
 
Folks, but my administration wasn’t going to wait for Congress to secure the funding.  We looked for other ways to prioritize women’s health with existing dollars that are already in the government and to get important work started.
 
And I knew where to start: Rosa DeLauro.  (Applause.)  Rosa, stand up.  I’m not joking.  As they say in souther- — you all think I’m kidding.  I’m not kidding.  (Laughter.)  She’s incredible.  Every important thing I’ve ever tried to get done that no one paid attention to, you were there for me.  I mean it sincerely.  You’re the best, Rosa.  What you did on Child Tax Credit — I mean, across the board. 
 
And, folks, women’s health is — is a — something that — that matters so, so very much.  Along with members that are here today, you — she’s going to keep this effort going to — when we leave.  When we leave — when Jill and I leave.
 
AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Fight like hell.  (Laughter.)
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we’re going to fight like hell.  And w- — I — I’m the — we’re — we’re no longer going to be president and first lady, but we’re not going away.  (Laughter.)  And so — (applause).
 
Along with members here, like Diane [Diana] and Lauren.  Where — where is Diane [Diana]? 
 
REPRESENTATIVE DEGETTE:  Right here. 
 
THE PRESIDENT:  There you go.  Stand up, kiddo.  Let them see you.  (Applause.)
 
And, Lauren, thank you. 
 
So, I’m so proud that, to date, we’ve secured $1 billion so far in women’s health research from different government agencies.
 
You know, our new agency, ARPA-H, which is patterned after Advanced — it’s called Advanced Research Projects and Agencies for Health — is based on DARPA, which is the Defense Department program for Advanced Research and Projects Agency.  That drove breakthroughs — the Defense Department broke breakthroughs in everything from the Internet to GPS.  It had a big budget for doing everything else, but it also had this specific individual budget. 
 
And ARPA-H does for biomedicine what DARPA does for technology, driving breakthroughs to prevent, detect, and treat diseases, including cancer, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and so much more.  We’re using their funding to drive breakthroughs in women’s health in ovarian cancer and menopause, in migraines, in high blood pressure for pregnant women.
 
The National Institute of Health is using their funding to break down the silos — a lot of silos in government, a lot of silos across the — in America — to make more progress and do it more quickly.
 
For example, we know that heart disease is the leading cause of death for women.  But we don’t know — we don’t know enough about how menopause may affect heart disease.  And that’s going to change now.  We’re going to learn so much more.
 
And the Department of Defense is dedicating funds to research women’s health issues like arthritis, cancer, chronic fatigue that affect women in the military, but this research is going to benefit all women — all women.
 
Our work doesn’t stop here.
 
Look, you know, the addition to — in addition to launching the Women’s Health Research Initiative earlier this year, I signed an executive order that — directing the most comprehensive set of executive actions ever taken — ever taken in the history of this country to improve women’s health issues.
 
And, look — (applause) — it ensures that women’s health is integrated and prioritized all across the entire federal government — all research projects and budget plans, across the entire government.  And it spurs new research and innovation on a wide range of women’s health needs throughout their lives.  And it does so much more — so much more.
 
Folks, there’s literally never been more comprehensive effort from the federal government to spur innovation in women’s health research in our entire history. 
 
And thank you, by the way, kiddo.  (Laughter and applause.)  I — no, I mean it.  (Applause.)  I mean it.
 
If I can digress for a moment, I — I would — I have been the beneficiary of a lot of the research that’s been done.  I had a — two cranial aneurysms.  I had two nine-hour operations.  They took the top of my head off twice; they couldn’t find a brain the first time.  (Laughter.) 
 
But all — all kidding aside, I mean the research that’s going on across the entire world.  I visited every single solitary major health center in the world — in the world — seven of them.  And, you know, a lot of wha- — what happens, even in not just women’s research, but, you know, docs who are great, they walk by the mirror, and they see a Pulitzer Pri- — a — a Nobel Prize about to be won and — rather than sharing the data.  But that’s all changing.  That’s all changing. 
 
And this initiative lays the groundwork for discoveries and research for generations to come.  Mark my words.  And the benefits we gain tomorrow will happen because we made the decision to do something about them today — today, now. 
 
And all of you in this room are leading the way, and that’s not hyperbole.  You really are.  It’s a hell of a com- — combination of people that make things change.
 
Let me close with this.  And my daughter, Ashley, sitting here, she runs a — she works for women — she runs a women’s health shel- — women’s health center — shelter in Philadelphia. 
 
And — and, you know, this holiday season is a time not for gratitude but for reflection.  Gratitude is important, but we got to reflect on what’s going on. 
 
And let me say to you that it’s been an honor of my life to serve as your president the last four years.  But I’m — and I’m forever grateful.  I really am.  (Applause.) 
 
But folks, it’s not a joke.  We’re blessed to live in America.  We’re blessed to live in America.  I’ve been to over 140 countries.  I mean, but for the grace of God, I could’ve been born a lot of other places.  Literally the greatest country on Earth, that’s who we are.  But we got to raise up even more than we are now.
 
I often say, America can be summed up in one word.  I was on the Tibetan Plateau with Xi Jinping, and he said, “Can you define America for me?”  And I — this is all on the record.  I said, “Yes, one word: possibilities.” 
 
Think about it.  We’re the only nation in the world where people — they think there’s arrogance in that.  But we’ve never failed to get things done when we set our mind to it.  It’s all about possibilities.  Anything is possible.
 
That’s what the Women’s Realth — Health Research Initiative is all about: possibilities.  You know, and that’s what this conference is all about.  That’s what you’re all about.  Researchers, innovators, investors; businesses, advocates, elected officials; public, private, and non-profit leaders unleashing the drive and discovery and the talent and imagination that you have in this room — a spirit of innovation inherent in who you guys are. 
 
I really mean it.  Think about it.  Turn and look at the people to your left and right who you know are engaged in this.  It’s all about the possibilities and belief we can do things, we can change things fundamentally.   
 
I think inherent in the American con- — conscience is setting a bold vision and taking concrete steps to make our dreams a reality, holding on to one more thing that we can never lose: hope — hope, hope, hope.  Because what we need — we need to raise the expectations of the American people up.  We got to let them know we haven’t forgotten.  Whether it’s a business or labor or whether it’s politics, whatever, we haven’t forgotten. 
 
You — you guys go out there.  You take care of all of these folks.  Guess what?  How many of them think that we just sort of forgotten?  Why aren’t we focused?
 
Because of you and your fearless determination, you’re making real progress.  You’re really making progress. 
 
There’s still so much more to do.  And we’re going to take all of us to get it done.  I know it’s a battle.  But I know I have a hell of a lot of — a hell of an army here.  (Laughter.) 
 
You know, when I look around at all of you here today — and I mean this sincerely — I know it’s a battle we’re going to win.  We’re going to win this battle.  
 
We just have to remember who in the hell we are.  We’re the United States of America.  And there is nothing we’ve ever set our mind to we’ve been unable to do when we’ve done it together.  It’s not beyond our capacity, when we work together.  And that’s what you’re all doing: working together. 
 
And so, I — and I want to close by thanking my wife for Ji- — I mean, Jill, I tell you.  Like I said, when we got married, my brother said, “Don’t worry; she doesn’t like politics.”  Well, I tell you what, you stepped up, kid.  (Laughter.)  You’ve stepped up.
 
And in case you wonder, when she speaks, I listen.  (Laughter and applause.)
 
Thank you all so very, very much.  Let’s get this done.    Thank you.  (Applause.) 
 
11:57 A.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden and First Lady Jill Biden at the First-Ever White House Conference on Women’s Health Research appeared first on The White House.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

SUBJECT:       Delegation of Functions and Authorities Under Sections 1352 and 1353 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code:

Section 1.  (a)  I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Energy, the functions and authorities vested in the President by section 1352(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (Public Law 118-31) (the “Act”).

(b)  I hereby delegate to the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of State and Energy and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the functions and authorities vested in the President by section 1352(e)(1)(A) of the Act.

(c)  I hereby delegate to the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the functions and authorities vested in the President by section 1352(f)(2) of the Act.

(d)  I hereby delegate to the Secretary of Defense for funds transferred to Department of Defense accounts and to the Secretary of Energy for funds transferred to Department of Energy accounts, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the functions and authorities vested in the President by sections 1353(c), 1353(e)(1)(D), and 1353(e)(3) of the Act.

(e)  I hereby delegate to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Energy, as appropriate, the functions and authorities vested in the President by sections 1353(a), 1353(e)(1)(A), 1353(e)(2), and 1353(f)(1) of the Act.

Sec. 2.  The delegation in this memorandum shall apply to any provision of any future public law that is the same or substantially the same as the provision referenced in this memorandum.

Sec. 3.  The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

                              JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

The post Memorandum on the Delegation of Functions and Authorities Under Sections 1352 and 1353 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 appeared first on The White House.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

SUBJECT:       Delegation of Functions and Authorities Under Sections 1352 and 1353 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code:

Section 1.  (a)  I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Energy, the functions and authorities vested in the President by section 1352(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (Public Law 118-31) (the “Act”).

(b)  I hereby delegate to the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of State and Energy and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the functions and authorities vested in the President by section 1352(e)(1)(A) of the Act.

(c)  I hereby delegate to the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the functions and authorities vested in the President by section 1352(f)(2) of the Act.

(d)  I hereby delegate to the Secretary of Defense for funds transferred to Department of Defense accounts and to the Secretary of Energy for funds transferred to Department of Energy accounts, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the functions and authorities vested in the President by sections 1353(c), 1353(e)(1)(D), and 1353(e)(3) of the Act.

(e)  I hereby delegate to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Energy, as appropriate, the functions and authorities vested in the President by sections 1353(a), 1353(e)(1)(A), 1353(e)(2), and 1353(f)(1) of the Act.

Sec. 2.  The delegation in this memorandum shall apply to any provision of any future public law that is the same or substantially the same as the provision referenced in this memorandum.

Sec. 3.  The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

                              JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

The post Memorandum on the Delegation of Functions and Authorities Under Sections 1352 and 1353 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:31 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Good afternoon, everybody.   

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Foggy day.  Foggy day. 

So, this afternoon, President Biden delivered a major address on his economic legacy.  After decades of trickle-down econ- — economics, President Biden has written a new playbook that’s growing the economy from the middle out and the bottom up.  His administration has delivered the strongest recovery in the world and laid a strong foundation for years to come by investing in America, empowering workers and u- — unions, lowering costs, and supporting small businesses. 

Over the last four years, we have made remarkable progress, and the results speak for themselves: over 60 million jobs created, the lowest average unemployment rate of any administration in 50 years, inflation down faster than almost any other advanced economy, and incomes up almost $4,000.  The list goes on. 

As you heard the president say, we face an inflection point.  Do we continue to grow the economy from the middle out and bottom up, or do we backslide to trickle-down economics? 

With that, I will turn it over to Jared Bernstein, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, to further discuss the economic progress that we have made. 

Jared.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Thank you.  Great to be here with you again.  I want to thank my team, as always, for helping me to prepare to speak to you today. 

The president, as you just heard, gave a legacby — legacy speech today wherein he spoke about the strong economy that his administration is leaving to the incoming team and how we got here, given what we faced when we took office. 

He then lays out a set — a set of — he laid out a set of benchmarks, which I will go through with you in a minute, against which the incoming administration’s economic stewardship should be judged. 

The speech makes clear that while the pandemic was the acute source of economic stress four years ago, the damage done by decades of Republican fealty to trickle-down economic policy was a long-term underlying source of economic pain for millions of America — Americans. 

The speech goes through the policy implications of that agenda — offshoring jobs with no concern for workers and their communities, anti-unionism, and disinvesting in American infrastructure workers’ industries — and contrasts that with the Biden-Harris agenda of middle-out, bottom-up growth, which implies a very different agenda: investing in workers in key industries of future growth and prod­­­­uctivity, union power, full employment, labor markets, fair taxation, and taking on corporations and lobbies like Big Pharma on behalf of the American middle class. 

The timing is not accidental.  As Karine said, a quote from the speech, “With the outcome of this election, we face an inflection point.  Do we continue to grow from middle out and bottom up by investing in all of America and in all of Americans, supporting unions and working families, or do we backslide to an economic theory that benefited those at the top while working people in the middle class struggled for a fair share of the growth?”  

The president, as his speech — at the end of his speech, the president ticked through a set of benchmarks, indicators by which the — the conditions of the current economy that the incoming team has inherited can be assessed and judged. 

Sixteen million jobs with the manufacturing and a construction boom.  In four years, we’ll know if the — that job growth and booms will continue or not. 

Historic lows in unemployment.  Record new businesses.  Significantly closing the racial wealth gap.  More people covered by health insurance than at any time in history.  Our tax code is fairer.  We’ve gone after concentrated corporate power, and in four years we’ll know if this power goes back to big corporations or not. 

Let me end my introductory comments today with a little bit of a reflection on the economics, speaking as the chair of the CEA, of the economic theory behind what the president talked about in his speech today.  I should say the economic theory and the economic outcome.  This is far from just a theoretical or an academic exercise. 

The president talked about achieving a soft landing, and this is the idea of considerably lower inflation without giving up much on the economy’s demand side — that is, lower inflation without higher employment.  As you know, many economists told us we couldn’t get there.  We’d have to have a recession to have as much disinflation as we’ve seen. 

In fact, that did not occur, and one of the reasons it didn’t is because the job market.  You know, I heard the president mention full employment a couple times in his speech today.  The job market has stayed uniquely strong for uniquely long, and that’s given workers bargaining clout along with his union agenda. 

And so, as prices have come down — as inflation, I should say — as inflation has come down and wages have gone up, we’ve had real wage gains now for about a year and a half on a — on a yearly basis.  Last seen: 1.5 percent real year-over-year.  That’s — that’s real — tha- — that’s a considerable pace of real wage gains. 

This helps support strong consumer spending, and that’s been a core factor keeping this economy moving forward a- — above trend growth rates and leading to a situation that you heard the president talk about today, where the U.S. economy really is the envy of the world.  And I say that as someone who recently came back from Europe, where I was frequently accosted by people who wanted to just talk about how we’ve achieved the innovation, the productivity, the persistent full employment that — that we have. 

That’s the consumer side of the story — the consumer spending side of the story.  It’s 70 percent of our nominal GDP, so it’s extremely important to keep the economy moving forward. 

But I often think of consumption as today’s story and investment as tomorrow’s story.  I think what the president talked about today that was so important and so compelling — especially given the fact that many of these benefits are going to unfold 2, 4, 5, 10 years from now, if the incoming folks nurture the seeds we’ve planted versus take them out — this investment agenda i- — has the potential and is already transforming economic growth, production, innovation, building up new domestic sectors in this economy in the area of clean energy, battery production, chips.  And — and that kind of investment agenda, that speaks to future growth rates.  That speaks to future opportunities.  That speaks to future productivity growth. 

Now, we’ve already — as the president said in his speech today, there’s been a trillion dollars of private investment that has flooded into those sectors — into clean energy, into semiconductors, into providing infrastructure for this country.  All of that, again, is a complement to the consumer spending side of the agenda, the soft-landing agenda that sets us up for a future based on the kinds of investments the president talked about today.

With that, I’ll turn to your questions. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Josh.

Q    Good to see you, Jared.  Thanks for doing this and subjecting yourself to all of us.  (Laughter.) 

One of the benchmarks that President Biden didn’t mention in his speech was the U.S. budget deficit, which is closing out the fiscal year last year, like, above 6 percent of GDP.  How sustainable is that as an inheritance of the incoming administration?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  The president spoke about this a bit in the speech in the context of doubling on the TCJA tax cuts, of course, most of which expire at the end of next year.  And he talked about over fi- — I think he mentioned 5 trillion in deficit-financed tax cuts if Republicans fail to offset that. 

I think that stands in stark contrast to the budgets that — that we’ve passed that have three — the most recent one with $3 trillion of deficit reduction. 

So, the first point is that if you look at the fiscal outlook that we’ve tried to craft in our budgets — now, obviously, we were — were not able to get those through Congress, but we certainly — that’s what we’ve been fighting for — they’re characterized by significant deficit reduction and a great deal more fairness in the tax code, which is something he talked about today. 

So, I think he correctly took a stance that the extens- — the full extension of the — of the Trump tax cuts would be both significantly damaging our fiscal outlook and, even worse, creating more unfairness in the tax code and increasing after-tax inequality.

In terms of whether 6 percent deficits are sustainable, I think that when we — what — what you really want to see, it’s very h- — I think it’s hard and probably not that advisable to say, “This number is okay and that number isn’t.  Once you get to this level of debt to GDP, you’re in trouble.  Once you go over it” — you know, the — the markets don’t really work that way. 

Given the extent of the debt that we face so far, we still have very successful auctions to — you know, to — to explain, you know, what I’m talking about. 

But I do think that what you want to see is, when you get to a full-employment economy with above-trend growth, you’d like to see that number coming down.  So, I think it’s much more of a delta story.  You’d like to see that number coming down, and one of the reasons you don’t is because decades of trickle-down economics and Republican tax cuts have broken, have severed the linkage between strong economic growth and revenue flows to the Treasury.  We tried to correct that in our budgets, but the politics have blocked us from getting it there. 

Q    But basically, you believe the current situation is not sustainable based off your budget proposals? 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  I think that when you get to an economy — I think that when you’re an economy like ours — no, I wouldn’t say it that way.  I would say, when you’re an economy like ours, with all the kinds of indicators the president discussed today — full employment, above-trend GDP growth, historically low unemployment — yes, your budget deficit should be going down because the revenues that come into — the revenues that come into your coffers are outpacing your — your outlays. 

And that’s the budgets that we’ve written.  That’s something we’ve tried to embed in our budgets, and, you know, we haven’t been able to get them passed. 

What’s worrisome — and the president talked about this today — is that the incoming administration is making sounds of going in the other direction, which I would consider fics- — fiscally reckless. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Andrea.

Q    Jared, it’s been a — a little while since I’ve seen you, so I want to ask you a question about the speech and — and the context for it.  I mean, so many voters cited inflation and just their pessimism about the economy in their — in exit interviews as — as we were watching the election. 

So, what is the — what is the purpose of sort of going out and saying, “Well, we did all this right”?  Against that backdrop, it’s kind of like water under the bridge, right?  You know, sort of, your account of the economic progress is against the backdrop of people having said, “No, that’s not what we want to do.”

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Well, as I tried to express in my topper here, in my introductory remarks, the purpose was really twofold.  One was to lay out a set of benchmarks.  I mean, I think the president quoted Reagan in the speech, saying, “Sometimes facts can be stubborn things,” but they are facts. 

So, lay out a set of facts that are unequivocally correct about above-trend growth trending at 3 percent on real GDP, lowest average unemployment in 50 years, 16 million jobs, and so on — real gains in average income of $4,000 since we got here.  Lay down a set of facts, benchma- — 20 million new businesses — small businesses created.  Lay down a set of benchmarks against which the progress of the incoming administration should be judged. 

I mean, this is — the — the incoming team, in no small part, ran hard against this economy.  And so, it’s entirely possible that, in some short amount of time, that they start making very different sounds about how — how they own these great results.  And we wanted to be sure that we set down the benchmarks that the Biden economic agenda delivered. 

Secondly, how did we get there?  So, those are the benchmarks, but how did we get there.  We certainly didn’t get there with trickle-down economics.  We got there with the new playbook that Karine and I referenced, and that’s a playbook that invests in American workers.  It invests in American bargaining power.  It believes in union strength.  It believes in fair competition.  It believes in fair taxation and a more reasonable fiscal outlook.  It believes in pushing back on concentrated corporate power.

All of those parts of the Biden economic agenda got us to where we are in terms of the positive indicators that we had in this — that I — we outlined today. 

Now, at the same time, nobody is denying the inflation that you — you asked about, and, in fact, the president hit that head on in two ways. 

One, first, he talked about our efforts to get inflation down.  So, remember, in mid-June, you saw inflation peak, and after that, it turned around and came down pretty quickly to now it’s within target — it’s — it’s close to the Federal Reserve’s target rate, and that’s why you see them cutting rates. 

And so, how did we get there?  Well, we did a great deal of work on trying to unsnarl supply chains; the president talked about his release of oil from the strategic reserves; and, of course, a full set of cost-cutting measures going after junk fees, health care, and so on. 

The incoming administration has talked about repealing measures that would directly raise costs, not to mention adding a set of sweeping tariffs that would act like a national sales tax, pushing the wrong way on inflation. 

So, it seems to us entirely important to reference all of those developments in this — in this case.

Q    Can I just follow up?  So, you know, given that there’s this lag in the economy — like something happens, and then there’s a lag when you see the effect — you know, how long will it be before, say, Trump’s tariffs sort of make themselves felt?  Because, you know, I think your — you know, the White House itself looked at the possibility of repealing or removing the U.S.-China tariffs to sort of address inflation and realized there would be only a very modest impact, so —

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Okay.  So, first of all —

Q    Like, what — what’s your prediction —

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Sure.  I can give you some economics on that —

Q    — for the lag?  Yeah.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  — the lag structure. 

First of all, it’s really important in this conversation dis- — to distinguish between targeted tariffs that are designed to protect American industry and American taxpayers’ investment against unfair overcapacity trade practices of the type that China has engaged in with sweeping tariffs of multi-digit percent tariffs on everything coming in from Europe and China.  Totally different worlds. 

The first prodec- — protects produ- — American producers.  The second hurts American consumers. 

How quickly does that happen?  Quite quickly. 

So, let’s talk about how a tariff works.  And, again, I think we’ve gotten some misguided explanations in this regard from the other side.  The other country doesn’t — the — the exporting country doesn’t pay the tariff.  Technically, the tariff is paid by the importing company.  It’s paid upon customs receipt by the importer.  Now, that business then typically pushes that tax or tariff forward to their consumers. 

And that’s why studies have shown that fairly quickly — I don’t want to cite a number, but I think it’s months ra- — versus — I don’t want to cite a time period, but I think it’s more months than — than quarters.  So, pretty quickly, I think, we’ve seen in the past. 

Oh, you know what’s a good example is the washing machine tariffs.  That — they hit very quickly.  I think it was a matter of weeks or months before we saw the price effects on washing machines and on dryers — American dryers, even though they weren’t tariffed.  So, the price effects worked pretty quickly. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Thank you.  Thanks, Chair.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Hi, M.J.

Q    Hi.  Nice to see you. 

You know, over the last year or so, I think we’ve all seen you field a lot of questions about this disconnect between what you describe as a strong economy versus the people’s generally pessimistic economic outlook.  I just wondered — and it’s related to the last question — what would you say is the reason that there wasn’t enough of an improvement in people’s economic outlook by Election Day?  I assume you’ve had some time to reflect on the results of the election. 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  It seems clear, if you look not just at our election but at elections and approval ratings across the globe, that not just inflation — because by the time the e- — election came along, inflation was back down within distance of 2 percent, so it was back down close to the Fed’s target — so, not inflation, but the price level, the cumulative impact of inflation — so the fact that people could still remember what things used to cost, that was a force that really whacked incumbents in every elect- — I think, virtually every election we’ve seen across the globe.  So, that was a very powerful force. 

Now, look, from our perspective, we needed to do two things.  We needed to get inflation down, because you’ll never get — people will never be able to acclimate to the higher price level unless inflation comes back down to around 2 percent.  And that was behind our work on unsnarling supply chains, which became very important in this space.  One of the graphics that, you know, I — I like to tout from our CEA team is, if you look at supply chain measures of stress, which go way up and way down, pandemic and post-pandemic, and you plot them against commodities, goods inflation, they — they track each other very closely with a bit of a lag.

And so, getting inflation back down to target was very much an important part of agenda.  But that just means prices are rising more slowly.  It doesn’t mean they’re falling.  And, in fact, to have a broad decline in the price level, you would need a deep recession that nobody wants. 

So, what you need to happen is for incomes to catch up. 

Now, that — those dynamics were happening.  They were occurring.  And I’ve spoken about this from the podium before.  I theorized, you know, probably a couple of years ago — and one of my colleagues and I are trying to write an academic paper about this — I theorized a couple of years ago that if inflation came down and people had enough time to acclimate to the new price level — an acclimation that would be very much aided and, in fact, was essentially — it had — had to be aided by rising real wages or incomes — eventually they’d start to get — you know, to get acclimated and to feel better. 

And, you know, pa- — one — one tr- — you know, sort of, ape- — what’s the word I want?  Sort of a trivial example of that is, you know, when I started driving, gas was 60 cents a gallon, but I don’t walk around annoyed that gas isn’t 60 cents a gallon because, while prices have gone up, incomes have gone up more. 

That’s where we are.  Inflation is back down.  Prices — the price level remains too high from the perspective of consumers and voters, and that’s partly — you know, a big part of the answer to your question. 

I sense you want to say something else.

Q    Well, just this — this long memory that people have on —

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Yeah.

Q    — price levels.  I mean, do you feel like you, the president’s economic team, the president himself, could have done anything differently over the last few years to better address that, better, you know, sort of meet people where they are?  I mean, you’ve known that that is where people’s heads —

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Yeah.

Q    — have been at for a while. 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  You know, the question of “could you have done something different and better,” I always feel like, “Sure.”  You know, you could always im- — nobody’s perfect, and you can always improve on what you did. 

But on the issues I’m talking to you about, we were one of the first folks to be — to be talking about this, to be understanding the difference between inflation and price levels from people’s perspective. 

I mean, I don’t know if you remember, but I brought this to our senior staff one day.  You know, I brought this — well, I think it might have been the only time I did this — I brought a handout to our senior staff and said, “Let me talk to you about the difference between inflation and the price level and how people feel about that.”  And, you know, economics doesn’t think that much about the price level.  It thinks a lot about inflation.  And, you know, not at all a critique of the mandate of the Fed, that — that’s the cr- — congressional mandate and the one they follow, but it’s full employment and stable inflation. 

So — and you’ll hear Chair Powell talk about that — that, “I recognize the price level is a stress to people, but my job is to get inflation down.”

So, it’s something we’ve been on for a long time, and it’s behind the cost-cutting work that we tried to do here.  We cut costs in health care.  The president talked tobay [today] about junk fees.  You saw the energy results from the SPR release and so on. 

We tried to get a lot more competition going in the grocery sector, where there’s definitely not enough competition, leading to pretty high markups and profit levels that we’ve talked about and used the bully pulpit to convey our — our concern about, but, you know, we live in a capitalist economy, and so prices are generally determ- — determined by private markets. 

But where we could — and health care is a great example, because the government is in 9 percent of the health care market.  So, health care is about 18 percent of GDP; about half of that is the government.  So, there’s an area where we could and did make a huge difference: insulin; capping prescription drugs, which kicks in, by the way, in a couple of weeks — the $2,000 cap on prescription drugs.  We’re very proud of that agenda.

You know, could we have done more or talked about it differently?  You know, I — I think we did what we could.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Annie.

Q    Hey, Jared.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Hey.

Q    Good to see you. 

One of the things the president mentioned today at Brookings was some — he — he had a note of regret about not signing the COVID checks the way that Donald Trump did.  And I just was wondering if that’s something you ever talked about or if, you know, following up on M.J.’s question about what could have been done differently, was that a debate that happened at all?  Would you have recommended anything to the president in that regard?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  It’s not something I recall talking or debating about.

I mean, I will say two things about that.  One is — just to bring it back to the economic space in which I’m — I’m more comfortable — certainly, those checks were instrumental in what I described earlier, which was getting businesses and consumers to the other side of the crisis. 

You know, we gave people more buying power than they had at a time — and there’s been a lot of second-guessing on this, so I’d love to set the record kind of straight — in 20- — in January of 2021, it was peak COVID deaths.  Okay?  The unemployment was stuck at 6.7 percent.  And I just looked back the other day; the last jobs report when we came in was a negative.  It had been revi- — it’s been revised differently.  I think it’s actually been revised to be a bigger negative, but it was a negative.  In other words, we’d lost, I think, 140,000 jobs, according to the print that was in December of ’20.

So, this was a very challenging economy.  You know, people who say, “It was fine, and you shouldn’t have done anything,” are forgetting.  You know, that’s — that’s amnesia. 

So — so, we’re very proud of the fact that this income got into people’s hands quickly.  Who was asking about the lag a second ago?  Boy, there’s a really tight lag there.  You know, this — this money got out quickly.  It got into the economy quickly, and it very quickly set up an economic expansion that is today the envy of the world.  The president isn’t hyperbolic when he says that, and I say that having recently come back from Europe.  Is the en- — that set up that full employment expansion that we’ve enjoyed since then.

And two — so, I said there’d be two points.  Two, he was kidding. 

Q    Oh, wait, he was kidding about signing the checks?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  He was — he was kidding.

Q    Oh.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Danny. 

Q    Thanks.  Thanks, Jared.  I just wondered if you have had the chance yet to speak to your successor in the Trump administration, and if you’ve got any advice for him.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  I have not.  I don’t know who will be sitting in my chair yet, so I haven’t spoken to that person. 

And then, advice?

Q    Yeah.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  That’s a good question — one I haven’t thought of.  I would say, read the president’s speech today.  (Laughs.)  Really, I’m not — I’m not being facetious. 

The president’s speech today is the best advice I could give to any member of the incoming economic team, because what it says is we have planted some very important seeds in growing domestic industry, which I think both the outgoing and the incoming administration share the strong desire to see American industry stand up independently, more resilient supply chains. 

Yes, we still believe in very robust trade flows.  So, obviously, part of my advice would be not to do sweeping tariffs.  Certainly, small tariffs — you know, targeted tariffs that protect against unfair dumping, sure.  But I would be — it would be to nurture — you know, I mean, I guess this — this may not be the most mellifluous advice that they want to hear, but nurture the seeds that we’ve planted. 

This is not a blue-state thing or a red-state thing.  And, in fact, the president was very clear on this today, most of the investments under the IRA, under CHIPS, even under Infrastructure, are going to red states, not blue states.  Most of them are going to people with relatively lower incomes or lower levels of education, so very much a working-class issue.

So, nurture the seeds.  Don’t stomp on them. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Is there anything that you have seen or heard from the incoming administration’s economic plans that you like or that could be in line with what you have done here?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  You know, I’ve heard, certainly, commentary about getting on a more fiscally sustainable path.  So, I’m thinking about Josh’s question a moment ago.

What I can’t put together is how you get there from here — well, not from here — how you get there from what I — I believe to be their fiscal agenda. 

And, in fact, there have been many scorekeepers across town who have been scoring the cost of not just extending fully the TCJA tax cuts but going further — tax cuts for overtime, tax cuts for Social Security, tax cuts for tips.  And so, if you — if you tout that all up, by one study, there was an upper bound of north of $10 trillion in terms of adding to the deficit and the debt. 

So, I like some of the sound I’m hearing about getting on a more sustainable fiscal path, but then I’m hearing a po- — a policy agenda that goes the wrong way on that.

Q    Just to follow up, you said that most of these projects are in red states.  Certainly, the — your administration didn’t get a whole lot of political benefit from that.  But I’m wondering, why is that?  Is it because it’s easier, there’s less red tape, there’s less regulations in red states, you can get projects up and going faster than in blue states?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  No, it’s — it’s not so much that.  It’s more that — that these projects were targeted to communities that had been historically left behind.  This president believes — and I think he probably shares this belief with, you know, the incoming president to some extent — this president believes that while there are absolutely positive attributes to globalization, the idea that globalization didn’t leave behind American communities and didn’t hurt anybody and uplifted everybody is clearly wrong and — and even bereft.  I mean, to blithely say, you know, “Here’s another trade deal; everybody is going to love it and be fine,” is just denying the impact of the China shock and the hollowing out that happened to the very communities we’re talking about. 

So, these plans were designed in part to disproportionately send their investments to communities that had been hollowed out and left behind: energy communities, communities where factories — where anchor factories were lost.  And that’s behind where those investments have flowed. 

Q    But a lot of battleground states are — were deindustrialized and left behind. 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Well, it — that —

Q    I mean, you could of put projects anywhere. 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  — no — so, go to —

Q    Why red states, is what I’m asking.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  No, no.  Go to Investment.gov —

Q    Well, yeah.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  — and you’ll see that there are lots of projects there too.  So, it’s not that — it’s not that 90 percent were in red and 10 were in blue.  It — I don’t know what the division is, but I think it’s probably fairly close.  It’s that a lot more — you know, when the president talked about this today, he framed it as, like, “This may not” — you know, “Some may look at this and say this is not my greatest political move.”  You know, that’s not where he’s coming from.  When he said, “I’m president for all Americans,” he meant it, and he over delivered.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Yeah.  Hi, Jared.  Thanks for doing this.  I have a question sort of about legacy.  Biden billed this — billed the speech this m- — this afternoon as about an economic playbook, something that is successful and should be replicated, but it didn’t have a lot of electoral success and it didn’t — you know, in the minds of voters, as other folks have said, they don’t see it as a — a success for them.  I — I just wonder, what gives you or what gives the president confidence that this — this should be or would be —

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  So, here you have to —

Q    — replicated in the future?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  That’s a totally fair question.  Here you really have to get under the hood, and I’ve done this.  If you ask people what they think about paying $35 for insulin versus $400 a month, it’s not going to surprise you that that polls somewhere between 80 and 150 percent.  I’m making the second number up, but it polls north of 80 percent. 

If you ask people how they feel about an infrastructure project that restored a bridge in their area, again, your — you get poll num- — you’ll get approval numbers in — in the high 70s and high 80s.

If you ask people — and now I’m talking about Democrats and Republicans — how you feel about this new computer fab that’s going — a micro- — a microprocessor chip fab that’s going up in your town, in your area, that’s going to provide, you know, thousands of jobs building these fabs, which are three foot- — football fields long, and lots of jobs staffing them, jobs that the president today said can pay up to, you know, $100,000 for a non-college-educated person, not only are they going to say, “Yes, we like that,” but a number of Republicans — I think a double-digit number of Republicans — have sent notes to the incoming administration saying, “Don’t repeal that stuff.”  

So, part one, get under the hood and look at how people feel about many of the actions that the president talked about today. 

Part two, which — you know, I’m not denying the premise of your question at all — it gets back to inflation.  And I probably haven’t said enough about that today.  I talked to M.J. and others about the difference between the price level and how if you remember what things cost, that really sticks in the craw of many in the electorate, not just here but globally.  But re- — this — this inflation was a global inflation, so let’s not forget that.  In fact, cumulatively — we have good scatter plots on this in our forthcoming Economic Report of the President — this in- — this inflation cumulatively was about the same in the U.S. as it was in Europe and G7 countries. 

Where we stand out from the pack is not in cumulative inflation; it’s in growth.  It’s in productivity.  It’s in innovation.  It’s in job creation.  And so, that’s — you know, that’s — that’s an important part of the puzzle too. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, we got to start to wrapping it up. 

Go ahead, Peter.

Q    Thank you for being here, Jared.  I just want to ask you — a lot of this has been sort of reactive to the new administration that’s coming in.  The president-elect posted, in the course of last hour as we’ve been gathering, that any company or person investing a billion dollars or more into the country will receive fully expedited approvals and permits, including environmental approvals. 

Is there any consequence to something like that?  Maybe this is a question that’s more about the environment more broadly, but economically, is there any reason why there’s — this should be something that’s reconsidered against tough scrutiny?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  I would hesitate to respond to a tweet from the incoming president, just because I’d like to know more about what he’s talking about and whether that’s something they’re actually planning or something —

Q    To be fair, that’s all we know about what he’s talking about. 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Right.

Q    Yeah, that’s fair. 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  So — so, I probably wouldn’t say much about that. 

I will say the following that speaks to that a little bit.  I keep flacking our forthcoming book.  So, in — (laughter) — in the Economic Report of the President, out in a few weeks, one of the chapters in that — one of — and it — it’s not like we make any money; it’s just point and click.  So, it’s a — you know, this is just the intellectual sharing.  (Laughter.) 

We’ve had tremendous foreign direct investment.  And, yes, we’ve definitely tried to make — you know, clean the brush out so — there’s — I’m cer- — to — to help diminish the burm- — burden from permitting and things like that.  And there’s more to do in that space, and I think there are members of Congress — I — I — that — that is, I believe, a bipartisan issue that we — we could be working on.  So, if the Trump team is serious about trying to clear some of that brush, sure.

But one thing I often hear too — one thing I hear too often from — from him and them is without regard for any impacts of some of the — some of the guardrails that are there for a reason.  So, that’s why you shouldn’t really just respond to a tweet.  You need to look at what’s the impact of taking down guardrails that are embedded in that — in that tweet, but not — not realized — not recognized.  But without — you know, even with the current situation being as it is, we’ve had tremendous inflows of foreign direct investment. 

I mean, TSMC, as you well know, I suspect, is building plants and already testing chips — and, I think, quite successfully — in their — in their fabrication plants in — in Arizona, I believe.

And, of course, across the country, we’ve seen these investments play out. 

And when I think about the pictures in this chapter, the — you know, the — the foreign direct investment charts like — they spike up like that.  We’ve certainly seen historical investments in manufacturing facilities in this country. 

We recently hit a hi- — a peak in its contr- — in the contribution of manufacturing facilities in this country, its contribution to GDP was recently the highest it’s been since the early 1980s.  So, that’s not just domestic investment, that’s global investment.  We’re very proud of it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  All right.  Go ahead, Jared.  Last question.

Q    Thank you.  So, the — the — I guess, more broadly, the audience for the address today, was it, like, you said, just for the American people to — to know sort of what you were and then kind of how to judge the next four years, or is this kind of a call to action for members of Congress, for Democrats to think before maybe they go along with some of these policies legislatively?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  I mean, I think that in some ways, sure, the latter of what you said, in the sense that the president was very clearly outlining two very alternative economic playbooks, and he was very critical of the former — the trickle-down model — and — and, you know, very much underscoring the progress that we’ve made with the invest in America, invest in workers, worker — invest in unions, invest in tax fairness, invest in domestic industries in this country. 

That’s the agenda, you know, that he obviously argued today is far superior to growing the economy in a lasting way to trickle-down tax cuts for rich people, which, as I said earlier, simply worsen the fiscal outlook and enrich their beneficiaries. 

What I would say in terms of, you know, a me- — I don’t know that there was some sort of, you know — no hidden message to politicians in there, but I’ve tried to say today, one, I think, useful way of looking at what he talked about today is this investment agenda.  You know, strong consumer spending at 70 percent of our economy, that’s important.  But investment, you know, is another 10, 15 percent, and that’s important too. 

Consumer spending helped us get to where we are, helped us — strong consumers on the backs of a strong labor market, easing inflation, strong real wage and income gains, that’s helped get us to where we are.  And, in fact, a healthy American consumer off the backs of a strong full-employment job market will always propel this economy forward because consumer spending is 70 percent of our GDP.  In Europe, it’s 55 percent.  In China, it’s 40 percent.  So, that’s a natural place for us to have gone.

But for investing in the future, you got to plant seeds.  So, the message to anyone — D, R, whomever — from the speech today is nurture those seeds.  Take those seeds that we’ve planted — and, by the way, these are not sprouts in the ground.  I mean, these are seeds that have a hundred — that have a trillion dollars of private capital backing them.  So, they’re sprouting. 

I think I better put this tortured metaphor aside pretty soon.  (Laughter.)  But, you know, th- — those sprouts need to be nurtured.  And I don’t care if you have a D or an R next to your name, you need to roll up your sleeves and start nurturing.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  Nurturing. 

All right.  Thank you so much, Chair.  Appreciate it.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We will be nurturing —

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  I’ll bet you will.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — those seeds.  (Laughter.)

All good?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Yeah, it’s good.   

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Thank you so much, Jared.  Appreciate it. 

Q    We’ll take signed copies of the book.  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s right.

All right.  Just have two more things to share with all of you at the top, and then we’ll get — we’ll continue. 

So, today, following the G7’s June agreement and the president’s October commitment, the United States has disbursed $20 billion to a New World Bank fund that will provide economic support for Ukraine.  The U.S. and G7 loans will be paid back by the interest earned from Russia’s immobilized sovereign assets, increasingly putting the cost of the war on Russia, not on U.S. taxpayers.

After Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, the G7 made a commitment that Russian sovereign assets in our jurisdictions will remain immobilized until Russia ends its aggression and pays for the damages it has caused Ukraine.  The United States and G7 are now making good on that commitment. 

Together, we will leverage income earned from frozen Russian sovereign assets to provide a total of $50 billion of extraordinary revenue acceleration, ERA, loans to Ukraine.  This will lend vital support to the people of Ukraine as they defend their country, and it also makes clear aggressors and tyrants will be responsible for the damage they cause. 

And finally, tomorrow, the president and the first lady will host the first-ever White House Conference on Women’s Resear- — Health Research.  The conference will bring together business — business, philanthropic leaders, academic researchers, advocates, investors, and administration officials to dicu- — discuss the president and first lady’s historic leadership to advance women’s health research. 

President Biden and First Lady Jill Biden created the White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research to fundamentally change how our nations approaches and funds women’s health research.  The reality is, despite making up more than half the population, women have historically been understudied and underrepresented in health research.

To help close these gaps, President Biden called on Congress to make a transformative investment of $12 billion in new funding for women’s health research in his 2024 State of the Union.  He also signed an executive order to advance women’s health research and innovative, directing the most comprehensive set of executive actions ever taken to expand and improve women — research on women’s health.

Since its launch in November of 2023, we’re proud that the initiative has galvanized nearly $1 billion in funding to close gaps in research.  And tomorrow, you will hear directly from the president, you will hear directly from the first lady, who are going to discuss this progress and the work that still remains. 

And stay tuned for more.

With that, Josh, as always, it’s good to see you.

Q    Good to see you. 

Given the killing of the UnitedHealthcare executive, what would you say to Americans who might sympathize with Luigi Mangione’s purported manifesto indicating that insurance companies ultimately care more about their profits than the health of their customers?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just s- —

Q    Is that — is that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m sorry.

Q    — premise, like —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Do you — is that premise accurate in any way?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just say at the top — offer up, certainly, our condolences to the victims and his loved ones.  We are certainly tracking the latest regarding this deadly shooting. 

As you all know, local enforcement is leading the investigation, and the FBI certainly is supporting.  So, we will know more as they complete their work, and we’re going to give them the space to do just that. 

And we are grateful to law enforcement for apprehending the suspect, and we stand ready to provide further support if needed. 

And so, while we’re certainly not going to comment on the investigation, we condemn — we condemn violence in the strongest term. 

And so, I’m just going to be really careful here and not comment on this case, as we do normally.  It’s not — it’s our usual step forward, as — as we talk about these types of situations. 

Obviously, this is horrific.  Violence to combat any sort of com- — corporate greed is unacceptable.  And so, that is as far as I’m going to go.

I’m going to let the investigation move forward, and I’m not going to speak to any manifestos or anything that has —

Q    But —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — is coming out to this.

Q    Let me follow.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    This administration has made price gouging a priority.  It’s talked about junk fees.  The president just outlined part of this in his economic speech. 

Are Americans treated fairly by their insurance companies?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I think what — I want to be careful, because this is indeed connected to this case, connected to this ongoing investigation.  I do want to be mindful in how — what I say from here, and I’m going to let this open investigation continue and let — let the law enforcement do their job.  I think it’s important that we give them the space to do that, and I don’t want to speak to what has been said by this particular individual. 

Obviously, we are going to continue to condemn any form of violence.  That is unacceptable. 

And so, that is as far as I can go from here, given that this is an ongoing investigation, and speaking to it would not be the right thing to do right now from this podium.

Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Okay.  A couple questions about drones.  There have been repeated drone sightings in the Northeast, especially in New Jersey.  These are not small drones; some of them are pretty large.  They’re flying at low altitudes.  They’re flying in flocks.  Has the president been briefed on this situation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we are certainly aware.  The president is aware.  So, we’re closely tracking the activity and coordinating closely with relevant agency, including DHS and FBI, to continue the — to investigate these incidents. 

Don’t have anything beyond that to share.  Obviously, this is something that DHS and FBI are tracking very, very closely, and so I would have to refer you to — to them directly.

But aware, keeping an eye out, and looking into the incidents that you just mentioned.

Q    Right.  A couple still, though, but —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, yeah.

Q    — has the — has the federal government ruled out that these are controlled by foreign entities?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And do you know if they’re conducting surveillance
over these areas?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I cannot make any pr- — any kind of predictions or — or comments about that specifically from here.  This is something that DHS is looking at and FBI, so I would have to refer you to them. 

I don’t have anything beyond that we’re tracking this very closely.  Obviously, we’re all aware of the incidents that have been reported.  I — I’m not going to go into what they could be or could not be from here.  That is something that obviously is being looked at — those — those respective agencies that I just mentioned.

Q    When was the president briefed on this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a timeline, but he certainly have — has been made aware of this in his — in his update.

Q    Okay.  And the New Jersey governor said, you know, it’s frustrating that there aren’t answers about where these are coming from, that people are very concerned about this.  What’s the White House message to the people up there who are frustrated that there isn’t any information right now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  And — and, obviously, we hear them and we understand that.  We are closely tracking this.  We are monitoring the incidents that have been put forward and — and certainly made public.

And we have two respect- — two agencies that I’ve already mentioned that are looking into this, working closely with folks on the ground, trying to get to the bottom of it. 

I don’t have anything more to share beyond that. 

Go ahead, Andrea.  I was trying to see who else I can call —

Q    (Laughs.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — because I know I called on you already.

Q    So, I just want to follow up on your comment — or your — your —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — desire to not comment, necessarily, on the UnitedHealthcare thing.  But you did use the words “corporate greed.”  So, just to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You mean, just in general in this administration?  Or — or —

Q    Well, I mean, in terms of — in ter- — you — you talked about the horrific response.  I’ll just read it back.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    “Obviously, this is a horrific response.” 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, you mean in my answer.

Q    You know, your — “This is horrific.  Violence to combat any sort of corporate greed is unacceptable.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    So, I mean, are you saying that you buy the argument that this violence was specifically targeted —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    — at some sort of corporate greed by UnitedHealthcare?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I’m saying is that anything — right? — any type of violence on whatever it is — right? — whether it’s political violence or — or any kind of violence, we are going to — we’re going to continue to say it is unacceptable and we’re going to condemn any form of violence. 

And that’s what — I was bringing it more so in a broader spectrum of — of what we have been pretty consistent in saying at this podium, in this administration — certainly this president as well.

Any form of violence — any form of violence, whether — what it is, we are going to certainly condemn it.

Q    And then just to switch gears.  The president today, during his remarks at Brookings, talked about leaving office but not going away and continuing to work on polarization and division issues.  Do you have anything to share with us in terms of the president’s plans?  He’s cut short his, you know, sort of — you know, what will he be doing over the holidays?  Can you just sort of give us a little readout on — on what he’s planning and whether, you know, there — there would be a foundation or — or how he envisions working on polarization?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, you’re talking what his —

Q    Post.  Post.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — what his world will look like post his presidency?  Look, I’m going to let the president speak to that.  Obviously, he gave you a little bit of a window of his thinking of what he sees his world post-January 20th.  I don’t want to get ahead of him. 

This is someone, if you think about it — right? — in — in — more broadly, he has had a 52-year career in public service.  So, he is a public servant to his core and always believes in doing everything that he can to make Americans’ lives better.  And you saw him do that in the last almost four years.  And he’s going to continue, certainly, doing that in the next 41 days — the last 41 days of his administration. 

And so, that is inherently who he is.  He talks about continuing to do the work that he truly believes in. 

Obviously, he talked about polarization.  This is something that he’s talked about for some time.  And this is also a president — whether he was president, vice president, or senator — and you know this, if — if you followed his career very closely — he has — he has found ways to reach across the aisles to get things done on behalf of the American people.  And so, I’m sure that is something that he wants to continue to — to speak to. 

But I — I don’t have anything to share.  I’m going to let him certainly lay that out when he feels is the right time to do so.

Q    And just, really quickly, I know that Kirby spoke with us earlier, but the — the question that I have is on Syria and the — it looks like the government there now is sort of — or the ch- — direction seems to be to embrace an open market economy.  Can you say anything more about further contacts that you’ve had with — with the opposition forces there in Syria and what your — your, sort of, understanding is about the direction that that government will take?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, what I will say is — and what you’ve heard from many of my NSC colleagues over the past couple days, and certainly from the president on Sunday when he spoke to the developments in Syria on — on Sunday, when he gave — gave remarks in the Roosevelt Room — so, what we can say and what I can say is that we are in contact with all the Syrian groups, including through — with inter- — intermed- — including intermediaries, as we work to do whatever we can to support the Syrian people through a transition.  And so, that’s what I can speak to. 

You heard the president say that various leaders of the rebel — rebel grou- — groups, including HTS, are saying what we view to be the right things publicly, obviously.  But what is important is what they’re saying closely matches their — what they’re saying — their actions closely match their words, and that’s what needs to be seen. 

But I’m not going to go beyond that at this time.  But certainly, we are in touch with Syrian groups.

Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just quickly following up on the — the murder of Brian Thompson.  Can you give us any sense of how the president himself has been processing those headlines?  I think even just setting aside the debate that it has prompted about the health care industry, I think just the image itself has been so shocking to a lot of people. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  And — and I’m going to be honest, I haven’t had a — a deep-dive conversation with this — the president about this.  Obviously, I know that he has been updated.  Certainly, have — have talked to him about what — what has been reported, and he’s been updated by senior members — other senior members of his team.  So, haven’t gone into the images or anything like that specifically. 

But what I can say and what we’ve been really consistent — and I just mentioned this to one of your colleagues — is denouncing violence and how horrific this — obviously, this incident is.  And it is important to certainly continue to — to say it’s unacceptable, continue to say that we condemn it. 

And we are trying to be really mindful because this is an ongoing legal matter.  And so, what we say at this podium, as you know, goes far and wide and — and has impact.  So, we’re trying to su- — be super, super careful from here. 

But the thing that I can say is condemn the violence that we have — that we saw certainly last couple of da- — the — couple days ago on this — on this issue.

Q    And just separately, can you confirm that the president still opposes the death penalty?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  N- — he — his view has not changed on that.

Q    Okay.  Given that his view on that hasn’t changed, can you talk to us a little bit about — I know you’re not wanting to, you know, share anything that you’re not prepared to share yet, but given that that has been his stance, is he currently considering the possibility of the commutation of inmates that are currently on death row?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Again, I’m not going to go ahead of the president’s thinking.  Certainly, we will have more to announce on pardons and commutations, as I’ve said many times before, but there’s a process.  He’s reviewing it.  He’s thinking through it.  I’m just not going to get into any specifics from here at this time. 

When he’s ready to make announcements, we’ll certainly, obviously, share that with all of you.

Go ahead.

Q    Quickly, you mentioned the president can speak for himself on a lot of these issues.  Will he give a year-end press conference?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything to share.  Obviously, the president is going to — wants to continue to engage with all of you.  I don’t have anything to share on — on that.

Q    The former defense min- — Israeli defense minister was here today.  Any updates on where the hostage negotiations stand?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything to update you on that.  As you know — and we’ve been pretty consistent about this and — and pretty forthright on saying how we’re — certainly continue to be committed and working 24/7 to get the hostages home.  This is a priority for this president, and he wants to do everything and continue to do everything that we can to do that.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan is going to be traveling to Israel this week to meet with Israeli officials as part of our close consultations on a range of important issues, including our efforts to reach a hostage release and ceasefire deal in Gaza, and so — and the latest development in Syria and — and for discussions about Lebanon and Iran. 

So, that is happening.  Jake will be going to the region.  And, as you probably already know, he’s going to be meeting with the hostage — the hostage — the families of hostages in Gaza.  And so, they’re going to be meeting this afternoon, if they haven’t already.  And this is something that — as you know, he has spoken to this before.  Jake Sullivan regularly meets with the families of these hostages, and he has done that multiple time throughout this past — past year.  And so, that is — that is something that he’s — he will be — he’s been doing — he’s going to be doing today. 

And so, we have been really clear.  This president has been really focused on his commitment on bringing Americans who have been wrongfully detained, held hostage.  I think we have brought home over 75 Americans who are unjustly detained around the world.  And so, that commitment continues. 

And so, that is certainly what we’re going to work on 24/7 from here.

Q    And — and to that note, the president said that he believes that Austin Tice, the American journalist held in Syria, is alive.  What exactly is that based off of?  And has there been any movement in terms of securing his release? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just say at the top that that is a priority.  You heard that from the president when he took, I think — he made a statement and certainly took a question about this on Sunday.  Finding Austin Tice is a ti- — top priority of this administration. 

The FBI and State Department have offered up to $11 million in reward to — to anyone who can provide information. 

We do not know where he is located.  We do not know.  But we continue to hope that he is alive.  And I think that’s what you hear from this — this president: that he is hopeful that he is still alive. 

And we’re talking through, certainly, this with the Turks and others to find him and to bring him home, and that is our commitment from this president.

I will say, more broadly, to answer the question, there is no indication that he’s not alive, but there’s also no indication about his location or his condition. 

So, again, we are hopeful.  We are hopeful that he is, and we’re going to continue to do the work to bring him home.

Q    Sorry, just to follow up.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    So, when the president says he believes he is alive, are you saying he’s really saying that he’s hopeful he’s alive?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, there’s no indication he’s not alive.  There isn’t.  But at the same time, we do not know his location and we do not know his condition.  That is just the — sadly, the realities that we’re in.

You heard what I just laid out about what the FBI and the State Department have done: offered up $11 million in r- — awar- — rewards to anyone who can provide more information.  I think that shows our commitment to bringing him home, and that’s what you’re going to continue to see from this president.

Again, I — I talked about how he has — in his administration, has brought home more than 75 Americans who have been wrongfully detained.  And so, I think you can see this president and hear this president’s commitment to doing that, getting Austin Tice home to his family.

Go ahead, Peter.

Q    Can you detail how recently — or when most recently President Biden himse- — himself spoke to the Tice family, what the engagements with the family look right now, and then, what, with some specificity, is being done to try to secure more information?  Is there a hostage recovery effort that’s taking place that is physically in Damascus on the ground?  There are American troops there.  What more can you tell us about that outfit?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t — I would have to check in.  I don’t have a — any update on — on a conversation that — when is the last time the conversation — the president had a conversation —

Q    None — none since the fall of Assad, that you know of? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just — I — I don’t — I just want to be super mindful. 

Q    Got it.  Got it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just haven’t had that conversation, so I don’t have anything to share with you on the last time the president has spoken with Austin’s family.

As you know, Jake Sullivan, the national security advisor, spoke to his family just last week.  So, that has occurred.  There has been engagement and — and — from us with the family.  So, just want to make that clear. 

Look, I — I just laid out how the FBI and the State Department has offered up $11 million in — in rewards — right? — to try and get more information. 

We do not know his location and we do not know his condition.  And so, we are trying to do everything that we can to get that information. 

We are committed to bringing him home.  And so, that is what you heard from the president, certainly, on Sunday when he was asked directly this question — or asked a question arou- –about Austin.  And so, that is — continues to be our commitment. 

So, we are certainly working through the Turks and others to find — to find him and bring him home. 

So, that is the actions that we have been taking.  And so, I don’t have anything else to share beyond that.

Q    If you have anything more to share, I trust you’ll tell us. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.

Q    Let me ask you, if I can — following up on a question that was asked to Jared that — that raised this thought for me: Have you had any conversations with your successor —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — to the podium, Karoline Leavitt?  And, specifically, what advice would you give to her when she takes the podium?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I was asked a questions like — a question like this when her announcement was made.  And certainly, I wish her all the luck.  And this is a great job.  I love this job.  It has been an honor and a privilege to serve as the White House press secretary to this president — to President Biden, to this administration.  And — and I hope she enjoys it, and I hope — you know, again, I — I just wish her well.

This has been an experience that I will always remember — (laughs) — a lifetime — one of — one of those experiences that will live with you forever.  And — and, you know, I know people say how tough this job is and how unre- — unrelenting it could be, but I enjoy it.  I’ve enjoyed this opportunity.  I’ve enjoyed speaking on behalf of the president of the United States.  That is a big deal.  That is an important job. 

I have not spoken to her, but certainly wish her well.

Q    Obviously, you wish her well.  So, those are good wishes. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    But in terms of advice, what is your advice? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look — look, one of the things that we have — I hope you all agree — in this administration, is we have brought back the norms of how to engage with the press, having these press briefings, doing these back-and-forths, and trying to do that in the most respectful way that we can.  And I think it’s important.  It’s important.

We did that not because of all of you here — obviously, we respect the work that you do, but also what — what — the job that you do and what it means to the American people.

Q    So, to be clear, would you urge the new White House to have a daily press briefing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I am not going to —

Q    That seems easy.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, no.  No, no.  No, no.  I — I think they have to decide for themselves how they want to move forward with a Trump administration.  That is for them to decide. 

What I can say is bringing back the norms, I thought — I think — we believe, not even “I” think — the president believed was incredibly important to do.  Having this back-and-forth with all of you, we believe was important to do on behalf of the American people. 

Being able to have the freedom of the press — right? — and respecting the freedom of the press is, indeed, very much a part of our democracy.  The — we call you all the “fourth of state,” right?  That is incredibly important to have — to have that be part of this administration.  The job that you do, reporting on what we’re doing, even when we disagree with
all of you — not all of you; with some of you.  (Laughter.)

I won’t say “with all of you” — a blanket “all of you.”  (Laughter.)

But even when we disagree, just generally — right? — even when we disagree, we believe it’s important to have that back-and-forth, and it’s healthy, it is part of our democracy, and we want to continue to respect — certainly continue to respect that.

I’m not — it is up to them.  I’m not sitting behind the — the Resolute Desk, and that is for that person to decide — the next person to decide how they’re going to move forward. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yep. 

Go ahead.

Q    Yeah, two quick ones.  One on the U.S. Steel matter.  Is the — can you give us an update on the timeline?  And is the president committed to making a decision one way or the other before he leaves office, or is it —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — a possibility he’ll let —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — his successor make that decision?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any update for you on that.  I don’t have an update.

Q    Next one.  Same question: TikTok.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What about TikTok?  (Laughter.)

Q    Is the president — is the president —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I was — I was —

Q    — committed to making a determination —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Do I like TikTok?  What — (laughs).

Q    — on TikTok —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — before he leaves office, or is that something he might leave to his successor?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look — so, I’m going to refer you to the Department of Justice, who has put out a statement on this, and the court’s finding that, and I quote, the government “has offered pers- — persuasive evidence demonstrating that the act is narrowly tailored to protect national security” and — another quote here — “to counter a well-substa- — substantiated national security threat.”

I’ll just reiterate: The administration and a strong par- — bipartisan majority of Congress that passed this law have been clear that we want to — we want to see is a divestment, not a ban.  We’ve been very clear about that.  You’ve heard us talk about that from here ad nauseam, I’m sure, for all of you. 

So, this is not about banning the app.  This is about preventing the PRC from being able to exploit data gathered on many Americans.  So, this is about protecting our privacy and — American privacy.  And so, that’s what we’ve been very clear about that. 

Outside of that, I would have to refer you to the Department of Justice.

Q    This is a presidential determination under the law that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would — I would refer you to the Department of Justice since there was just a — a decision made about this, so I’m going to refer you to this on that.

Go ahead.  I —

Q    Thank you.  Two questions.  One on Brazil.  One on Haiti.

Haiti —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Haiti — do you have a reaction to the massacre that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — recently happened?  One hundred and eighty people were killed. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we are horrified — horrified by the reporting that nearly 200 people in Haiti were needlessly mass- — massacred, as you just stated, by self-serving criminal gang members.  And so, we strongly, strongly condemn this vicious and — and criminal act.  And we call upon all of the international community to immediately stand with the people of Haiti and provide assistance to the Kenyan-led multinational security support mission. 

But it is incredibly sad to us, what we — been reported, and it’s horrific.  And, I mean, these are people who were needlessly massacred, again, by self-serving criminal gang members.  And it is — it is certainly disheartening to hear.

Q    And in Brazil, the president — President Biden met with President Lula of Brazil last month.  Today, President Lula was — he was undergoing surgery.  Has the president been following this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, he is aware, and — and, you’re right, the president was in Brazil recently.  He — he enjoyed President Lula’s warm — warm welcome to Brazil just a couple of weeks ago, just last month.  And so, we are pleased to hear that his operation this morning went well.  And certainly, we wish him a speedy recovery.  And as you just asked me, the president is aware and is tracking. 

Okay.  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  One of the first things that the president did when he took office was rescind former President Trump’s order creating a Schedule F that would have allowed thousands upon thousands of civil servants to be fired if they were determined to be in a — in a policy-making position.  And the administration has finalized regulations that would make doing that harder for a future president, but the president never got behind any of the bipartisan bills that would have prohibited future presidents from reclassifying civil servants, employees to make them more easily fireable.  Does he regret not doing that, considering that President-elect Trump has indicated he wants to immediately bring back Schedule F and begin firing lots of civil servants?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I will say is — and you stated this in your question to me, and I think the president has led by example.  You said what he was — what he did the first couple of days, couple of weeks, even months when he stepped into this office, into this administration, and trying to protect, certainly, and turning back some of the policies — policies that were put forward.  And the reason he did that is because this is a president who believes that public servants deserve — they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect because they are working on behalf of — of their fellow Americans. 

And so, he took those actions because he believed that.  And he took that — those actions because he was able to lead by example in this office. 

And so, I’m not going to get into what the next administration is going to do or not do, but what I can say is — really, very much into how you led into your question to me, is that he respects public servants, and he certainly has led by example from here.

Q    But the president, he had a democratic trifecta when he came into office, and yet he did not put any of his political capital into getting Congress to include, in any of the must-pass bills, legislation that would have prohibited future presidents from doing what Donald Trump has — has vowed to do.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And the regulations that the administration has finalized can be undone.  They can be unwound.  And all of what happened — of what the administration did can be for naught. 

Why did the president not, if he — if he respects and — respects civil servants so much, did he not put any political capital into safeguarding —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — their status in legislation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, first, Andrew, I’m not going to litigate each policy, each legislation.  I’m just not going to do that from here.  And so, that is something that I’m not going to get into.

What I will say is the president took action.  You said it in your question.  He took action to undo some of the policies that were put forward by the last administration that harmed these public servants that were working very hard to the work — to do the work on behalf of the American people.  And he did lead by example.  He did.  He took steps, and — and he did that because he believes in respecting and showing some dignity to those workers.

And he undid a lot of the harm that was caused — policies, obviously, to these public servants.  And I think that is showing leadership.  That is showing how you can take action to do the right thing. 

And so, I would — so, I would obviously take a little offense to your question, but I’m not going to litigate each legislation.  You said it yourself in asking me this question — original question.  The president did take action.  He did lead by example, and I think that’s important here.

I’m going to take one last question.  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just quickly.  Has the president been briefed on the fires out in California?  Is the White House in touch with officials?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He — he certainly has been kept up to date to the fires in Malibu, California, more specifically.  So, we are certainly praying for communities out west that have been, in fact, impacted by the wildfires.  And administration officials, as we normally are, are in close touch with local and state officials on the ground.  Their counterparts and FEMA has issued a — a Fire Management Assistant Grant to help reimburse California for firefight- — -fighting cost.

And so, we are obviously always grateful to the brave firefighters who go out there and put their lives on the line to protect people and save lives.  And so, we stand ready — as we normally do, stand ready to pr- — to provide any further support.  And so, we certainly, as we do at all times when we see this type of extreme weather that’s created, this type of havoc that communities on the ground, folks on the ground, need to certainly pay close attention to what’s being said to them.  Evacuate, if needed.  And we want them to be stafe [safe] and to stay safe.

All right.  Thanks, everybody.  I’ll see you (inaudible).
Q    Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, everybody.

3:42 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Jared Bernstein appeared first on The White House.

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:31 P.M. EST

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Good afternoon, everybody.   

Q    Good afternoon.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Foggy day.  Foggy day. 

So, this afternoon, President Biden delivered a major address on his economic legacy.  After decades of trickle-down econ- — economics, President Biden has written a new playbook that’s growing the economy from the middle out and the bottom up.  His administration has delivered the strongest recovery in the world and laid a strong foundation for years to come by investing in America, empowering workers and u- — unions, lowering costs, and supporting small businesses. 

Over the last four years, we have made remarkable progress, and the results speak for themselves: over 60 million jobs created, the lowest average unemployment rate of any administration in 50 years, inflation down faster than almost any other advanced economy, and incomes up almost $4,000.  The list goes on. 

As you heard the president say, we face an inflection point.  Do we continue to grow the economy from the middle out and bottom up, or do we backslide to trickle-down economics? 

With that, I will turn it over to Jared Bernstein, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, to further discuss the economic progress that we have made. 

Jared.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Thank you.  Great to be here with you again.  I want to thank my team, as always, for helping me to prepare to speak to you today. 

The president, as you just heard, gave a legacby — legacy speech today wherein he spoke about the strong economy that his administration is leaving to the incoming team and how we got here, given what we faced when we took office. 

He then lays out a set — a set of — he laid out a set of benchmarks, which I will go through with you in a minute, against which the incoming administration’s economic stewardship should be judged. 

The speech makes clear that while the pandemic was the acute source of economic stress four years ago, the damage done by decades of Republican fealty to trickle-down economic policy was a long-term underlying source of economic pain for millions of America — Americans. 

The speech goes through the policy implications of that agenda — offshoring jobs with no concern for workers and their communities, anti-unionism, and disinvesting in American infrastructure workers’ industries — and contrasts that with the Biden-Harris agenda of middle-out, bottom-up growth, which implies a very different agenda: investing in workers in key industries of future growth and prod­­­­uctivity, union power, full employment, labor markets, fair taxation, and taking on corporations and lobbies like Big Pharma on behalf of the American middle class. 

The timing is not accidental.  As Karine said, a quote from the speech, “With the outcome of this election, we face an inflection point.  Do we continue to grow from middle out and bottom up by investing in all of America and in all of Americans, supporting unions and working families, or do we backslide to an economic theory that benefited those at the top while working people in the middle class struggled for a fair share of the growth?”  

The president, as his speech — at the end of his speech, the president ticked through a set of benchmarks, indicators by which the — the conditions of the current economy that the incoming team has inherited can be assessed and judged. 

Sixteen million jobs with the manufacturing and a construction boom.  In four years, we’ll know if the — that job growth and booms will continue or not. 

Historic lows in unemployment.  Record new businesses.  Significantly closing the racial wealth gap.  More people covered by health insurance than at any time in history.  Our tax code is fairer.  We’ve gone after concentrated corporate power, and in four years we’ll know if this power goes back to big corporations or not. 

Let me end my introductory comments today with a little bit of a reflection on the economics, speaking as the chair of the CEA, of the economic theory behind what the president talked about in his speech today.  I should say the economic theory and the economic outcome.  This is far from just a theoretical or an academic exercise. 

The president talked about achieving a soft landing, and this is the idea of considerably lower inflation without giving up much on the economy’s demand side — that is, lower inflation without higher employment.  As you know, many economists told us we couldn’t get there.  We’d have to have a recession to have as much disinflation as we’ve seen. 

In fact, that did not occur, and one of the reasons it didn’t is because the job market.  You know, I heard the president mention full employment a couple times in his speech today.  The job market has stayed uniquely strong for uniquely long, and that’s given workers bargaining clout along with his union agenda. 

And so, as prices have come down — as inflation, I should say — as inflation has come down and wages have gone up, we’ve had real wage gains now for about a year and a half on a — on a yearly basis.  Last seen: 1.5 percent real year-over-year.  That’s — that’s real — tha- — that’s a considerable pace of real wage gains. 

This helps support strong consumer spending, and that’s been a core factor keeping this economy moving forward a- — above trend growth rates and leading to a situation that you heard the president talk about today, where the U.S. economy really is the envy of the world.  And I say that as someone who recently came back from Europe, where I was frequently accosted by people who wanted to just talk about how we’ve achieved the innovation, the productivity, the persistent full employment that — that we have. 

That’s the consumer side of the story — the consumer spending side of the story.  It’s 70 percent of our nominal GDP, so it’s extremely important to keep the economy moving forward. 

But I often think of consumption as today’s story and investment as tomorrow’s story.  I think what the president talked about today that was so important and so compelling — especially given the fact that many of these benefits are going to unfold 2, 4, 5, 10 years from now, if the incoming folks nurture the seeds we’ve planted versus take them out — this investment agenda i- — has the potential and is already transforming economic growth, production, innovation, building up new domestic sectors in this economy in the area of clean energy, battery production, chips.  And — and that kind of investment agenda, that speaks to future growth rates.  That speaks to future opportunities.  That speaks to future productivity growth. 

Now, we’ve already — as the president said in his speech today, there’s been a trillion dollars of private investment that has flooded into those sectors — into clean energy, into semiconductors, into providing infrastructure for this country.  All of that, again, is a complement to the consumer spending side of the agenda, the soft-landing agenda that sets us up for a future based on the kinds of investments the president talked about today.

With that, I’ll turn to your questions. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Josh.

Q    Good to see you, Jared.  Thanks for doing this and subjecting yourself to all of us.  (Laughter.) 

One of the benchmarks that President Biden didn’t mention in his speech was the U.S. budget deficit, which is closing out the fiscal year last year, like, above 6 percent of GDP.  How sustainable is that as an inheritance of the incoming administration?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  The president spoke about this a bit in the speech in the context of doubling on the TCJA tax cuts, of course, most of which expire at the end of next year.  And he talked about over fi- — I think he mentioned 5 trillion in deficit-financed tax cuts if Republicans fail to offset that. 

I think that stands in stark contrast to the budgets that — that we’ve passed that have three — the most recent one with $3 trillion of deficit reduction. 

So, the first point is that if you look at the fiscal outlook that we’ve tried to craft in our budgets — now, obviously, we were — were not able to get those through Congress, but we certainly — that’s what we’ve been fighting for — they’re characterized by significant deficit reduction and a great deal more fairness in the tax code, which is something he talked about today. 

So, I think he correctly took a stance that the extens- — the full extension of the — of the Trump tax cuts would be both significantly damaging our fiscal outlook and, even worse, creating more unfairness in the tax code and increasing after-tax inequality.

In terms of whether 6 percent deficits are sustainable, I think that when we — what — what you really want to see, it’s very h- — I think it’s hard and probably not that advisable to say, “This number is okay and that number isn’t.  Once you get to this level of debt to GDP, you’re in trouble.  Once you go over it” — you know, the — the markets don’t really work that way. 

Given the extent of the debt that we face so far, we still have very successful auctions to — you know, to — to explain, you know, what I’m talking about. 

But I do think that what you want to see is, when you get to a full-employment economy with above-trend growth, you’d like to see that number coming down.  So, I think it’s much more of a delta story.  You’d like to see that number coming down, and one of the reasons you don’t is because decades of trickle-down economics and Republican tax cuts have broken, have severed the linkage between strong economic growth and revenue flows to the Treasury.  We tried to correct that in our budgets, but the politics have blocked us from getting it there. 

Q    But basically, you believe the current situation is not sustainable based off your budget proposals? 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  I think that when you get to an economy — I think that when you’re an economy like ours — no, I wouldn’t say it that way.  I would say, when you’re an economy like ours, with all the kinds of indicators the president discussed today — full employment, above-trend GDP growth, historically low unemployment — yes, your budget deficit should be going down because the revenues that come into — the revenues that come into your coffers are outpacing your — your outlays. 

And that’s the budgets that we’ve written.  That’s something we’ve tried to embed in our budgets, and, you know, we haven’t been able to get them passed. 

What’s worrisome — and the president talked about this today — is that the incoming administration is making sounds of going in the other direction, which I would consider fics- — fiscally reckless. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Andrea.

Q    Jared, it’s been a — a little while since I’ve seen you, so I want to ask you a question about the speech and — and the context for it.  I mean, so many voters cited inflation and just their pessimism about the economy in their — in exit interviews as — as we were watching the election. 

So, what is the — what is the purpose of sort of going out and saying, “Well, we did all this right”?  Against that backdrop, it’s kind of like water under the bridge, right?  You know, sort of, your account of the economic progress is against the backdrop of people having said, “No, that’s not what we want to do.”

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Well, as I tried to express in my topper here, in my introductory remarks, the purpose was really twofold.  One was to lay out a set of benchmarks.  I mean, I think the president quoted Reagan in the speech, saying, “Sometimes facts can be stubborn things,” but they are facts. 

So, lay out a set of facts that are unequivocally correct about above-trend growth trending at 3 percent on real GDP, lowest average unemployment in 50 years, 16 million jobs, and so on — real gains in average income of $4,000 since we got here.  Lay down a set of facts, benchma- — 20 million new businesses — small businesses created.  Lay down a set of benchmarks against which the progress of the incoming administration should be judged. 

I mean, this is — the — the incoming team, in no small part, ran hard against this economy.  And so, it’s entirely possible that, in some short amount of time, that they start making very different sounds about how — how they own these great results.  And we wanted to be sure that we set down the benchmarks that the Biden economic agenda delivered. 

Secondly, how did we get there?  So, those are the benchmarks, but how did we get there.  We certainly didn’t get there with trickle-down economics.  We got there with the new playbook that Karine and I referenced, and that’s a playbook that invests in American workers.  It invests in American bargaining power.  It believes in union strength.  It believes in fair competition.  It believes in fair taxation and a more reasonable fiscal outlook.  It believes in pushing back on concentrated corporate power.

All of those parts of the Biden economic agenda got us to where we are in terms of the positive indicators that we had in this — that I — we outlined today. 

Now, at the same time, nobody is denying the inflation that you — you asked about, and, in fact, the president hit that head on in two ways. 

One, first, he talked about our efforts to get inflation down.  So, remember, in mid-June, you saw inflation peak, and after that, it turned around and came down pretty quickly to now it’s within target — it’s — it’s close to the Federal Reserve’s target rate, and that’s why you see them cutting rates. 

And so, how did we get there?  Well, we did a great deal of work on trying to unsnarl supply chains; the president talked about his release of oil from the strategic reserves; and, of course, a full set of cost-cutting measures going after junk fees, health care, and so on. 

The incoming administration has talked about repealing measures that would directly raise costs, not to mention adding a set of sweeping tariffs that would act like a national sales tax, pushing the wrong way on inflation. 

So, it seems to us entirely important to reference all of those developments in this — in this case.

Q    Can I just follow up?  So, you know, given that there’s this lag in the economy — like something happens, and then there’s a lag when you see the effect — you know, how long will it be before, say, Trump’s tariffs sort of make themselves felt?  Because, you know, I think your — you know, the White House itself looked at the possibility of repealing or removing the U.S.-China tariffs to sort of address inflation and realized there would be only a very modest impact, so —

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Okay.  So, first of all —

Q    Like, what — what’s your prediction —

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Sure.  I can give you some economics on that —

Q    — for the lag?  Yeah.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  — the lag structure. 

First of all, it’s really important in this conversation dis- — to distinguish between targeted tariffs that are designed to protect American industry and American taxpayers’ investment against unfair overcapacity trade practices of the type that China has engaged in with sweeping tariffs of multi-digit percent tariffs on everything coming in from Europe and China.  Totally different worlds. 

The first prodec- — protects produ- — American producers.  The second hurts American consumers. 

How quickly does that happen?  Quite quickly. 

So, let’s talk about how a tariff works.  And, again, I think we’ve gotten some misguided explanations in this regard from the other side.  The other country doesn’t — the — the exporting country doesn’t pay the tariff.  Technically, the tariff is paid by the importing company.  It’s paid upon customs receipt by the importer.  Now, that business then typically pushes that tax or tariff forward to their consumers. 

And that’s why studies have shown that fairly quickly — I don’t want to cite a number, but I think it’s months ra- — versus — I don’t want to cite a time period, but I think it’s more months than — than quarters.  So, pretty quickly, I think, we’ve seen in the past. 

Oh, you know what’s a good example is the washing machine tariffs.  That — they hit very quickly.  I think it was a matter of weeks or months before we saw the price effects on washing machines and on dryers — American dryers, even though they weren’t tariffed.  So, the price effects worked pretty quickly. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Thank you.  Thanks, Chair.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Hi, M.J.

Q    Hi.  Nice to see you. 

You know, over the last year or so, I think we’ve all seen you field a lot of questions about this disconnect between what you describe as a strong economy versus the people’s generally pessimistic economic outlook.  I just wondered — and it’s related to the last question — what would you say is the reason that there wasn’t enough of an improvement in people’s economic outlook by Election Day?  I assume you’ve had some time to reflect on the results of the election. 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  It seems clear, if you look not just at our election but at elections and approval ratings across the globe, that not just inflation — because by the time the e- — election came along, inflation was back down within distance of 2 percent, so it was back down close to the Fed’s target — so, not inflation, but the price level, the cumulative impact of inflation — so the fact that people could still remember what things used to cost, that was a force that really whacked incumbents in every elect- — I think, virtually every election we’ve seen across the globe.  So, that was a very powerful force. 

Now, look, from our perspective, we needed to do two things.  We needed to get inflation down, because you’ll never get — people will never be able to acclimate to the higher price level unless inflation comes back down to around 2 percent.  And that was behind our work on unsnarling supply chains, which became very important in this space.  One of the graphics that, you know, I — I like to tout from our CEA team is, if you look at supply chain measures of stress, which go way up and way down, pandemic and post-pandemic, and you plot them against commodities, goods inflation, they — they track each other very closely with a bit of a lag.

And so, getting inflation back down to target was very much an important part of agenda.  But that just means prices are rising more slowly.  It doesn’t mean they’re falling.  And, in fact, to have a broad decline in the price level, you would need a deep recession that nobody wants. 

So, what you need to happen is for incomes to catch up. 

Now, that — those dynamics were happening.  They were occurring.  And I’ve spoken about this from the podium before.  I theorized, you know, probably a couple of years ago — and one of my colleagues and I are trying to write an academic paper about this — I theorized a couple of years ago that if inflation came down and people had enough time to acclimate to the new price level — an acclimation that would be very much aided and, in fact, was essentially — it had — had to be aided by rising real wages or incomes — eventually they’d start to get — you know, to get acclimated and to feel better. 

And, you know, pa- — one — one tr- — you know, sort of, ape- — what’s the word I want?  Sort of a trivial example of that is, you know, when I started driving, gas was 60 cents a gallon, but I don’t walk around annoyed that gas isn’t 60 cents a gallon because, while prices have gone up, incomes have gone up more. 

That’s where we are.  Inflation is back down.  Prices — the price level remains too high from the perspective of consumers and voters, and that’s partly — you know, a big part of the answer to your question. 

I sense you want to say something else.

Q    Well, just this — this long memory that people have on —

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Yeah.

Q    — price levels.  I mean, do you feel like you, the president’s economic team, the president himself, could have done anything differently over the last few years to better address that, better, you know, sort of meet people where they are?  I mean, you’ve known that that is where people’s heads —

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Yeah.

Q    — have been at for a while. 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  You know, the question of “could you have done something different and better,” I always feel like, “Sure.”  You know, you could always im- — nobody’s perfect, and you can always improve on what you did. 

But on the issues I’m talking to you about, we were one of the first folks to be — to be talking about this, to be understanding the difference between inflation and price levels from people’s perspective. 

I mean, I don’t know if you remember, but I brought this to our senior staff one day.  You know, I brought this — well, I think it might have been the only time I did this — I brought a handout to our senior staff and said, “Let me talk to you about the difference between inflation and the price level and how people feel about that.”  And, you know, economics doesn’t think that much about the price level.  It thinks a lot about inflation.  And, you know, not at all a critique of the mandate of the Fed, that — that’s the cr- — congressional mandate and the one they follow, but it’s full employment and stable inflation. 

So — and you’ll hear Chair Powell talk about that — that, “I recognize the price level is a stress to people, but my job is to get inflation down.”

So, it’s something we’ve been on for a long time, and it’s behind the cost-cutting work that we tried to do here.  We cut costs in health care.  The president talked tobay [today] about junk fees.  You saw the energy results from the SPR release and so on. 

We tried to get a lot more competition going in the grocery sector, where there’s definitely not enough competition, leading to pretty high markups and profit levels that we’ve talked about and used the bully pulpit to convey our — our concern about, but, you know, we live in a capitalist economy, and so prices are generally determ- — determined by private markets. 

But where we could — and health care is a great example, because the government is in 9 percent of the health care market.  So, health care is about 18 percent of GDP; about half of that is the government.  So, there’s an area where we could and did make a huge difference: insulin; capping prescription drugs, which kicks in, by the way, in a couple of weeks — the $2,000 cap on prescription drugs.  We’re very proud of that agenda.

You know, could we have done more or talked about it differently?  You know, I — I think we did what we could.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Annie.

Q    Hey, Jared.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Hey.

Q    Good to see you. 

One of the things the president mentioned today at Brookings was some — he — he had a note of regret about not signing the COVID checks the way that Donald Trump did.  And I just was wondering if that’s something you ever talked about or if, you know, following up on M.J.’s question about what could have been done differently, was that a debate that happened at all?  Would you have recommended anything to the president in that regard?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  It’s not something I recall talking or debating about.

I mean, I will say two things about that.  One is — just to bring it back to the economic space in which I’m — I’m more comfortable — certainly, those checks were instrumental in what I described earlier, which was getting businesses and consumers to the other side of the crisis. 

You know, we gave people more buying power than they had at a time — and there’s been a lot of second-guessing on this, so I’d love to set the record kind of straight — in 20- — in January of 2021, it was peak COVID deaths.  Okay?  The unemployment was stuck at 6.7 percent.  And I just looked back the other day; the last jobs report when we came in was a negative.  It had been revi- — it’s been revised differently.  I think it’s actually been revised to be a bigger negative, but it was a negative.  In other words, we’d lost, I think, 140,000 jobs, according to the print that was in December of ’20.

So, this was a very challenging economy.  You know, people who say, “It was fine, and you shouldn’t have done anything,” are forgetting.  You know, that’s — that’s amnesia. 

So — so, we’re very proud of the fact that this income got into people’s hands quickly.  Who was asking about the lag a second ago?  Boy, there’s a really tight lag there.  You know, this — this money got out quickly.  It got into the economy quickly, and it very quickly set up an economic expansion that is today the envy of the world.  The president isn’t hyperbolic when he says that, and I say that having recently come back from Europe.  Is the en- — that set up that full employment expansion that we’ve enjoyed since then.

And two — so, I said there’d be two points.  Two, he was kidding. 

Q    Oh, wait, he was kidding about signing the checks?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  He was — he was kidding.

Q    Oh.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead, Danny. 

Q    Thanks.  Thanks, Jared.  I just wondered if you have had the chance yet to speak to your successor in the Trump administration, and if you’ve got any advice for him.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  I have not.  I don’t know who will be sitting in my chair yet, so I haven’t spoken to that person. 

And then, advice?

Q    Yeah.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  That’s a good question — one I haven’t thought of.  I would say, read the president’s speech today.  (Laughs.)  Really, I’m not — I’m not being facetious. 

The president’s speech today is the best advice I could give to any member of the incoming economic team, because what it says is we have planted some very important seeds in growing domestic industry, which I think both the outgoing and the incoming administration share the strong desire to see American industry stand up independently, more resilient supply chains. 

Yes, we still believe in very robust trade flows.  So, obviously, part of my advice would be not to do sweeping tariffs.  Certainly, small tariffs — you know, targeted tariffs that protect against unfair dumping, sure.  But I would be — it would be to nurture — you know, I mean, I guess this — this may not be the most mellifluous advice that they want to hear, but nurture the seeds that we’ve planted. 

This is not a blue-state thing or a red-state thing.  And, in fact, the president was very clear on this today, most of the investments under the IRA, under CHIPS, even under Infrastructure, are going to red states, not blue states.  Most of them are going to people with relatively lower incomes or lower levels of education, so very much a working-class issue.

So, nurture the seeds.  Don’t stomp on them. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Is there anything that you have seen or heard from the incoming administration’s economic plans that you like or that could be in line with what you have done here?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  You know, I’ve heard, certainly, commentary about getting on a more fiscally sustainable path.  So, I’m thinking about Josh’s question a moment ago.

What I can’t put together is how you get there from here — well, not from here — how you get there from what I — I believe to be their fiscal agenda. 

And, in fact, there have been many scorekeepers across town who have been scoring the cost of not just extending fully the TCJA tax cuts but going further — tax cuts for overtime, tax cuts for Social Security, tax cuts for tips.  And so, if you — if you tout that all up, by one study, there was an upper bound of north of $10 trillion in terms of adding to the deficit and the debt. 

So, I like some of the sound I’m hearing about getting on a more sustainable fiscal path, but then I’m hearing a po- — a policy agenda that goes the wrong way on that.

Q    Just to follow up, you said that most of these projects are in red states.  Certainly, the — your administration didn’t get a whole lot of political benefit from that.  But I’m wondering, why is that?  Is it because it’s easier, there’s less red tape, there’s less regulations in red states, you can get projects up and going faster than in blue states?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  No, it’s — it’s not so much that.  It’s more that — that these projects were targeted to communities that had been historically left behind.  This president believes — and I think he probably shares this belief with, you know, the incoming president to some extent — this president believes that while there are absolutely positive attributes to globalization, the idea that globalization didn’t leave behind American communities and didn’t hurt anybody and uplifted everybody is clearly wrong and — and even bereft.  I mean, to blithely say, you know, “Here’s another trade deal; everybody is going to love it and be fine,” is just denying the impact of the China shock and the hollowing out that happened to the very communities we’re talking about. 

So, these plans were designed in part to disproportionately send their investments to communities that had been hollowed out and left behind: energy communities, communities where factories — where anchor factories were lost.  And that’s behind where those investments have flowed. 

Q    But a lot of battleground states are — were deindustrialized and left behind. 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Well, it — that —

Q    I mean, you could of put projects anywhere. 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  — no — so, go to —

Q    Why red states, is what I’m asking.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  No, no.  Go to Investment.gov —

Q    Well, yeah.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  — and you’ll see that there are lots of projects there too.  So, it’s not that — it’s not that 90 percent were in red and 10 were in blue.  It — I don’t know what the division is, but I think it’s probably fairly close.  It’s that a lot more — you know, when the president talked about this today, he framed it as, like, “This may not” — you know, “Some may look at this and say this is not my greatest political move.”  You know, that’s not where he’s coming from.  When he said, “I’m president for all Americans,” he meant it, and he over delivered.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Go ahead.

Q    Yeah.  Hi, Jared.  Thanks for doing this.  I have a question sort of about legacy.  Biden billed this — billed the speech this m- — this afternoon as about an economic playbook, something that is successful and should be replicated, but it didn’t have a lot of electoral success and it didn’t — you know, in the minds of voters, as other folks have said, they don’t see it as a — a success for them.  I — I just wonder, what gives you or what gives the president confidence that this — this should be or would be —

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  So, here you have to —

Q    — replicated in the future?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  That’s a totally fair question.  Here you really have to get under the hood, and I’ve done this.  If you ask people what they think about paying $35 for insulin versus $400 a month, it’s not going to surprise you that that polls somewhere between 80 and 150 percent.  I’m making the second number up, but it polls north of 80 percent. 

If you ask people how they feel about an infrastructure project that restored a bridge in their area, again, your — you get poll num- — you’ll get approval numbers in — in the high 70s and high 80s.

If you ask people — and now I’m talking about Democrats and Republicans — how you feel about this new computer fab that’s going — a micro- — a microprocessor chip fab that’s going up in your town, in your area, that’s going to provide, you know, thousands of jobs building these fabs, which are three foot- — football fields long, and lots of jobs staffing them, jobs that the president today said can pay up to, you know, $100,000 for a non-college-educated person, not only are they going to say, “Yes, we like that,” but a number of Republicans — I think a double-digit number of Republicans — have sent notes to the incoming administration saying, “Don’t repeal that stuff.”  

So, part one, get under the hood and look at how people feel about many of the actions that the president talked about today. 

Part two, which — you know, I’m not denying the premise of your question at all — it gets back to inflation.  And I probably haven’t said enough about that today.  I talked to M.J. and others about the difference between the price level and how if you remember what things cost, that really sticks in the craw of many in the electorate, not just here but globally.  But re- — this — this inflation was a global inflation, so let’s not forget that.  In fact, cumulatively — we have good scatter plots on this in our forthcoming Economic Report of the President — this in- — this inflation cumulatively was about the same in the U.S. as it was in Europe and G7 countries. 

Where we stand out from the pack is not in cumulative inflation; it’s in growth.  It’s in productivity.  It’s in innovation.  It’s in job creation.  And so, that’s — you know, that’s — that’s an important part of the puzzle too. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right, we got to start to wrapping it up. 

Go ahead, Peter.

Q    Thank you for being here, Jared.  I just want to ask you — a lot of this has been sort of reactive to the new administration that’s coming in.  The president-elect posted, in the course of last hour as we’ve been gathering, that any company or person investing a billion dollars or more into the country will receive fully expedited approvals and permits, including environmental approvals. 

Is there any consequence to something like that?  Maybe this is a question that’s more about the environment more broadly, but economically, is there any reason why there’s — this should be something that’s reconsidered against tough scrutiny?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  I would hesitate to respond to a tweet from the incoming president, just because I’d like to know more about what he’s talking about and whether that’s something they’re actually planning or something —

Q    To be fair, that’s all we know about what he’s talking about. 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Right.

Q    Yeah, that’s fair. 

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  So — so, I probably wouldn’t say much about that. 

I will say the following that speaks to that a little bit.  I keep flacking our forthcoming book.  So, in — (laughter) — in the Economic Report of the President, out in a few weeks, one of the chapters in that — one of — and it — it’s not like we make any money; it’s just point and click.  So, it’s a — you know, this is just the intellectual sharing.  (Laughter.) 

We’ve had tremendous foreign direct investment.  And, yes, we’ve definitely tried to make — you know, clean the brush out so — there’s — I’m cer- — to — to help diminish the burm- — burden from permitting and things like that.  And there’s more to do in that space, and I think there are members of Congress — I — I — that — that is, I believe, a bipartisan issue that we — we could be working on.  So, if the Trump team is serious about trying to clear some of that brush, sure.

But one thing I often hear too — one thing I hear too often from — from him and them is without regard for any impacts of some of the — some of the guardrails that are there for a reason.  So, that’s why you shouldn’t really just respond to a tweet.  You need to look at what’s the impact of taking down guardrails that are embedded in that — in that tweet, but not — not realized — not recognized.  But without — you know, even with the current situation being as it is, we’ve had tremendous inflows of foreign direct investment. 

I mean, TSMC, as you well know, I suspect, is building plants and already testing chips — and, I think, quite successfully — in their — in their fabrication plants in — in Arizona, I believe.

And, of course, across the country, we’ve seen these investments play out. 

And when I think about the pictures in this chapter, the — you know, the — the foreign direct investment charts like — they spike up like that.  We’ve certainly seen historical investments in manufacturing facilities in this country. 

We recently hit a hi- — a peak in its contr- — in the contribution of manufacturing facilities in this country, its contribution to GDP was recently the highest it’s been since the early 1980s.  So, that’s not just domestic investment, that’s global investment.  We’re very proud of it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Okay.  All right.  Go ahead, Jared.  Last question.

Q    Thank you.  So, the — the — I guess, more broadly, the audience for the address today, was it, like, you said, just for the American people to — to know sort of what you were and then kind of how to judge the next four years, or is this kind of a call to action for members of Congress, for Democrats to think before maybe they go along with some of these policies legislatively?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  I mean, I think that in some ways, sure, the latter of what you said, in the sense that the president was very clearly outlining two very alternative economic playbooks, and he was very critical of the former — the trickle-down model — and — and, you know, very much underscoring the progress that we’ve made with the invest in America, invest in workers, worker — invest in unions, invest in tax fairness, invest in domestic industries in this country. 

That’s the agenda, you know, that he obviously argued today is far superior to growing the economy in a lasting way to trickle-down tax cuts for rich people, which, as I said earlier, simply worsen the fiscal outlook and enrich their beneficiaries. 

What I would say in terms of, you know, a me- — I don’t know that there was some sort of, you know — no hidden message to politicians in there, but I’ve tried to say today, one, I think, useful way of looking at what he talked about today is this investment agenda.  You know, strong consumer spending at 70 percent of our economy, that’s important.  But investment, you know, is another 10, 15 percent, and that’s important too. 

Consumer spending helped us get to where we are, helped us — strong consumers on the backs of a strong labor market, easing inflation, strong real wage and income gains, that’s helped get us to where we are.  And, in fact, a healthy American consumer off the backs of a strong full-employment job market will always propel this economy forward because consumer spending is 70 percent of our GDP.  In Europe, it’s 55 percent.  In China, it’s 40 percent.  So, that’s a natural place for us to have gone.

But for investing in the future, you got to plant seeds.  So, the message to anyone — D, R, whomever — from the speech today is nurture those seeds.  Take those seeds that we’ve planted — and, by the way, these are not sprouts in the ground.  I mean, these are seeds that have a hundred — that have a trillion dollars of private capital backing them.  So, they’re sprouting. 

I think I better put this tortured metaphor aside pretty soon.  (Laughter.)  But, you know, th- — those sprouts need to be nurtured.  And I don’t care if you have a D or an R next to your name, you need to roll up your sleeves and start nurturing.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  (Laughs.)  Nurturing. 

All right.  Thank you so much, Chair.  Appreciate it.

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  We will be nurturing —

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  I’ll bet you will.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — those seeds.  (Laughter.)

All good?

CHAIR BERNSTEIN:  Yeah, it’s good.   

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  All right.  Thank you so much, Jared.  Appreciate it. 

Q    We’ll take signed copies of the book.  (Laughter.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  That’s right.

All right.  Just have two more things to share with all of you at the top, and then we’ll get — we’ll continue. 

So, today, following the G7’s June agreement and the president’s October commitment, the United States has disbursed $20 billion to a New World Bank fund that will provide economic support for Ukraine.  The U.S. and G7 loans will be paid back by the interest earned from Russia’s immobilized sovereign assets, increasingly putting the cost of the war on Russia, not on U.S. taxpayers.

After Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, the G7 made a commitment that Russian sovereign assets in our jurisdictions will remain immobilized until Russia ends its aggression and pays for the damages it has caused Ukraine.  The United States and G7 are now making good on that commitment. 

Together, we will leverage income earned from frozen Russian sovereign assets to provide a total of $50 billion of extraordinary revenue acceleration, ERA, loans to Ukraine.  This will lend vital support to the people of Ukraine as they defend their country, and it also makes clear aggressors and tyrants will be responsible for the damage they cause. 

And finally, tomorrow, the president and the first lady will host the first-ever White House Conference on Women’s Resear- — Health Research.  The conference will bring together business — business, philanthropic leaders, academic researchers, advocates, investors, and administration officials to dicu- — discuss the president and first lady’s historic leadership to advance women’s health research. 

President Biden and First Lady Jill Biden created the White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research to fundamentally change how our nations approaches and funds women’s health research.  The reality is, despite making up more than half the population, women have historically been understudied and underrepresented in health research.

To help close these gaps, President Biden called on Congress to make a transformative investment of $12 billion in new funding for women’s health research in his 2024 State of the Union.  He also signed an executive order to advance women’s health research and innovative, directing the most comprehensive set of executive actions ever taken to expand and improve women — research on women’s health.

Since its launch in November of 2023, we’re proud that the initiative has galvanized nearly $1 billion in funding to close gaps in research.  And tomorrow, you will hear directly from the president, you will hear directly from the first lady, who are going to discuss this progress and the work that still remains. 

And stay tuned for more.

With that, Josh, as always, it’s good to see you.

Q    Good to see you. 

Given the killing of the UnitedHealthcare executive, what would you say to Americans who might sympathize with Luigi Mangione’s purported manifesto indicating that insurance companies ultimately care more about their profits than the health of their customers?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just s- —

Q    Is that — is that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I’m sorry.

Q    — premise, like —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Do you — is that premise accurate in any way?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just say at the top — offer up, certainly, our condolences to the victims and his loved ones.  We are certainly tracking the latest regarding this deadly shooting. 

As you all know, local enforcement is leading the investigation, and the FBI certainly is supporting.  So, we will know more as they complete their work, and we’re going to give them the space to do just that. 

And we are grateful to law enforcement for apprehending the suspect, and we stand ready to provide further support if needed. 

And so, while we’re certainly not going to comment on the investigation, we condemn — we condemn violence in the strongest term. 

And so, I’m just going to be really careful here and not comment on this case, as we do normally.  It’s not — it’s our usual step forward, as — as we talk about these types of situations. 

Obviously, this is horrific.  Violence to combat any sort of com- — corporate greed is unacceptable.  And so, that is as far as I’m going to go.

I’m going to let the investigation move forward, and I’m not going to speak to any manifestos or anything that has —

Q    But —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — is coming out to this.

Q    Let me follow.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Sure.

Q    This administration has made price gouging a priority.  It’s talked about junk fees.  The president just outlined part of this in his economic speech. 

Are Americans treated fairly by their insurance companies?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Look, I think what — I want to be careful, because this is indeed connected to this case, connected to this ongoing investigation.  I do want to be mindful in how — what I say from here, and I’m going to let this open investigation continue and let — let the law enforcement do their job.  I think it’s important that we give them the space to do that, and I don’t want to speak to what has been said by this particular individual. 

Obviously, we are going to continue to condemn any form of violence.  That is unacceptable. 

And so, that is as far as I can go from here, given that this is an ongoing investigation, and speaking to it would not be the right thing to do right now from this podium.

Go ahead, Karen.

Q    Okay.  A couple questions about drones.  There have been repeated drone sightings in the Northeast, especially in New Jersey.  These are not small drones; some of them are pretty large.  They’re flying at low altitudes.  They’re flying in flocks.  Has the president been briefed on this situation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we are certainly aware.  The president is aware.  So, we’re closely tracking the activity and coordinating closely with relevant agency, including DHS and FBI, to continue the — to investigate these incidents. 

Don’t have anything beyond that to share.  Obviously, this is something that DHS and FBI are tracking very, very closely, and so I would have to refer you to — to them directly.

But aware, keeping an eye out, and looking into the incidents that you just mentioned.

Q    Right.  A couple still, though, but —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, yeah.

Q    — has the — has the federal government ruled out that these are controlled by foreign entities?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And do you know if they’re conducting surveillance
over these areas?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I cannot make any pr- — any kind of predictions or — or comments about that specifically from here.  This is something that DHS is looking at and FBI, so I would have to refer you to them. 

I don’t have anything beyond that we’re tracking this very closely.  Obviously, we’re all aware of the incidents that have been reported.  I — I’m not going to go into what they could be or could not be from here.  That is something that obviously is being looked at — those — those respective agencies that I just mentioned.

Q    When was the president briefed on this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have a timeline, but he certainly have — has been made aware of this in his — in his update.

Q    Okay.  And the New Jersey governor said, you know, it’s frustrating that there aren’t answers about where these are coming from, that people are very concerned about this.  What’s the White House message to the people up there who are frustrated that there isn’t any information right now?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  And — and, obviously, we hear them and we understand that.  We are closely tracking this.  We are monitoring the incidents that have been put forward and — and certainly made public.

And we have two respect- — two agencies that I’ve already mentioned that are looking into this, working closely with folks on the ground, trying to get to the bottom of it. 

I don’t have anything more to share beyond that. 

Go ahead, Andrea.  I was trying to see who else I can call —

Q    (Laughs.)

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — because I know I called on you already.

Q    So, I just want to follow up on your comment — or your — your —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — desire to not comment, necessarily, on the UnitedHealthcare thing.  But you did use the words “corporate greed.”  So, just to —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  You mean, just in general in this administration?  Or — or —

Q    Well, I mean, in terms of — in ter- — you — you talked about the horrific response.  I’ll just read it back.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    “Obviously, this is a horrific response.” 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Oh, you mean in my answer.

Q    You know, your — “This is horrific.  Violence to combat any sort of corporate greed is unacceptable.”

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    So, I mean, are you saying that you buy the argument that this violence was specifically targeted —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I —

Q    — at some sort of corporate greed by UnitedHealthcare?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What I’m saying is that anything — right? — any type of violence on whatever it is — right? — whether it’s political violence or — or any kind of violence, we are going to — we’re going to continue to say it is unacceptable and we’re going to condemn any form of violence. 

And that’s what — I was bringing it more so in a broader spectrum of — of what we have been pretty consistent in saying at this podium, in this administration — certainly this president as well.

Any form of violence — any form of violence, whether — what it is, we are going to certainly condemn it.

Q    And then just to switch gears.  The president today, during his remarks at Brookings, talked about leaving office but not going away and continuing to work on polarization and division issues.  Do you have anything to share with us in terms of the president’s plans?  He’s cut short his, you know, sort of — you know, what will he be doing over the holidays?  Can you just sort of give us a little readout on — on what he’s planning and whether, you know, there — there would be a foundation or — or how he envisions working on polarization?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, you’re talking what his —

Q    Post.  Post.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  — what his world will look like post his presidency?  Look, I’m going to let the president speak to that.  Obviously, he gave you a little bit of a window of his thinking of what he sees his world post-January 20th.  I don’t want to get ahead of him. 

This is someone, if you think about it — right? — in — in — more broadly, he has had a 52-year career in public service.  So, he is a public servant to his core and always believes in doing everything that he can to make Americans’ lives better.  And you saw him do that in the last almost four years.  And he’s going to continue, certainly, doing that in the next 41 days — the last 41 days of his administration. 

And so, that is inherently who he is.  He talks about continuing to do the work that he truly believes in. 

Obviously, he talked about polarization.  This is something that he’s talked about for some time.  And this is also a president — whether he was president, vice president, or senator — and you know this, if — if you followed his career very closely — he has — he has found ways to reach across the aisles to get things done on behalf of the American people.  And so, I’m sure that is something that he wants to continue to — to speak to. 

But I — I don’t have anything to share.  I’m going to let him certainly lay that out when he feels is the right time to do so.

Q    And just, really quickly, I know that Kirby spoke with us earlier, but the — the question that I have is on Syria and the — it looks like the government there now is sort of — or the ch- — direction seems to be to embrace an open market economy.  Can you say anything more about further contacts that you’ve had with — with the opposition forces there in Syria and what your — your, sort of, understanding is about the direction that that government will take?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look, what I will say is — and what you’ve heard from many of my NSC colleagues over the past couple days, and certainly from the president on Sunday when he spoke to the developments in Syria on — on Sunday, when he gave — gave remarks in the Roosevelt Room — so, what we can say and what I can say is that we are in contact with all the Syrian groups, including through — with inter- — intermed- — including intermediaries, as we work to do whatever we can to support the Syrian people through a transition.  And so, that’s what I can speak to. 

You heard the president say that various leaders of the rebel — rebel grou- — groups, including HTS, are saying what we view to be the right things publicly, obviously.  But what is important is what they’re saying closely matches their — what they’re saying — their actions closely match their words, and that’s what needs to be seen. 

But I’m not going to go beyond that at this time.  But certainly, we are in touch with Syrian groups.

Go ahead, M.J.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just quickly following up on the — the murder of Brian Thompson.  Can you give us any sense of how the president himself has been processing those headlines?  I think even just setting aside the debate that it has prompted about the health care industry, I think just the image itself has been so shocking to a lot of people. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.  And — and I’m going to be honest, I haven’t had a — a deep-dive conversation with this — the president about this.  Obviously, I know that he has been updated.  Certainly, have — have talked to him about what — what has been reported, and he’s been updated by senior members — other senior members of his team.  So, haven’t gone into the images or anything like that specifically. 

But what I can say and what we’ve been really consistent — and I just mentioned this to one of your colleagues — is denouncing violence and how horrific this — obviously, this incident is.  And it is important to certainly continue to — to say it’s unacceptable, continue to say that we condemn it. 

And we are trying to be really mindful because this is an ongoing legal matter.  And so, what we say at this podium, as you know, goes far and wide and — and has impact.  So, we’re trying to su- — be super, super careful from here. 

But the thing that I can say is condemn the violence that we have — that we saw certainly last couple of da- — the — couple days ago on this — on this issue.

Q    And just separately, can you confirm that the president still opposes the death penalty?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  N- — he — his view has not changed on that.

Q    Okay.  Given that his view on that hasn’t changed, can you talk to us a little bit about — I know you’re not wanting to, you know, share anything that you’re not prepared to share yet, but given that that has been his stance, is he currently considering the possibility of the commutation of inmates that are currently on death row?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Again, I’m not going to go ahead of the president’s thinking.  Certainly, we will have more to announce on pardons and commutations, as I’ve said many times before, but there’s a process.  He’s reviewing it.  He’s thinking through it.  I’m just not going to get into any specifics from here at this time. 

When he’s ready to make announcements, we’ll certainly, obviously, share that with all of you.

Go ahead.

Q    Quickly, you mentioned the president can speak for himself on a lot of these issues.  Will he give a year-end press conference?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything to share.  Obviously, the president is going to — wants to continue to engage with all of you.  I don’t have anything to share on — on that.

Q    The former defense min- — Israeli defense minister was here today.  Any updates on where the hostage negotiations stand?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have anything to update you on that.  As you know — and we’ve been pretty consistent about this and — and pretty forthright on saying how we’re — certainly continue to be committed and working 24/7 to get the hostages home.  This is a priority for this president, and he wants to do everything and continue to do everything that we can to do that.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan is going to be traveling to Israel this week to meet with Israeli officials as part of our close consultations on a range of important issues, including our efforts to reach a hostage release and ceasefire deal in Gaza, and so — and the latest development in Syria and — and for discussions about Lebanon and Iran. 

So, that is happening.  Jake will be going to the region.  And, as you probably already know, he’s going to be meeting with the hostage — the hostage — the families of hostages in Gaza.  And so, they’re going to be meeting this afternoon, if they haven’t already.  And this is something that — as you know, he has spoken to this before.  Jake Sullivan regularly meets with the families of these hostages, and he has done that multiple time throughout this past — past year.  And so, that is — that is something that he’s — he will be — he’s been doing — he’s going to be doing today. 

And so, we have been really clear.  This president has been really focused on his commitment on bringing Americans who have been wrongfully detained, held hostage.  I think we have brought home over 75 Americans who are unjustly detained around the world.  And so, that commitment continues. 

And so, that is certainly what we’re going to work on 24/7 from here.

Q    And — and to that note, the president said that he believes that Austin Tice, the American journalist held in Syria, is alive.  What exactly is that based off of?  And has there been any movement in terms of securing his release? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, let me just say at the top that that is a priority.  You heard that from the president when he took, I think — he made a statement and certainly took a question about this on Sunday.  Finding Austin Tice is a ti- — top priority of this administration. 

The FBI and State Department have offered up to $11 million in reward to — to anyone who can provide information. 

We do not know where he is located.  We do not know.  But we continue to hope that he is alive.  And I think that’s what you hear from this — this president: that he is hopeful that he is still alive. 

And we’re talking through, certainly, this with the Turks and others to find him and to bring him home, and that is our commitment from this president.

I will say, more broadly, to answer the question, there is no indication that he’s not alive, but there’s also no indication about his location or his condition. 

So, again, we are hopeful.  We are hopeful that he is, and we’re going to continue to do the work to bring him home.

Q    Sorry, just to follow up.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    So, when the president says he believes he is alive, are you saying he’s really saying that he’s hopeful he’s alive?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, there’s no indication he’s not alive.  There isn’t.  But at the same time, we do not know his location and we do not know his condition.  That is just the — sadly, the realities that we’re in.

You heard what I just laid out about what the FBI and the State Department have done: offered up $11 million in r- — awar- — rewards to anyone who can provide more information.  I think that shows our commitment to bringing him home, and that’s what you’re going to continue to see from this president.

Again, I — I talked about how he has — in his administration, has brought home more than 75 Americans who have been wrongfully detained.  And so, I think you can see this president and hear this president’s commitment to doing that, getting Austin Tice home to his family.

Go ahead, Peter.

Q    Can you detail how recently — or when most recently President Biden himse- — himself spoke to the Tice family, what the engagements with the family look right now, and then, what, with some specificity, is being done to try to secure more information?  Is there a hostage recovery effort that’s taking place that is physically in Damascus on the ground?  There are American troops there.  What more can you tell us about that outfit?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, I don’t — I would have to check in.  I don’t have a — any update on — on a conversation that — when is the last time the conversation — the president had a conversation —

Q    None — none since the fall of Assad, that you know of? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just — I — I don’t — I just want to be super mindful. 

Q    Got it.  Got it.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I just haven’t had that conversation, so I don’t have anything to share with you on the last time the president has spoken with Austin’s family.

As you know, Jake Sullivan, the national security advisor, spoke to his family just last week.  So, that has occurred.  There has been engagement and — and — from us with the family.  So, just want to make that clear. 

Look, I — I just laid out how the FBI and the State Department has offered up $11 million in — in rewards — right? — to try and get more information. 

We do not know his location and we do not know his condition.  And so, we are trying to do everything that we can to get that information. 

We are committed to bringing him home.  And so, that is what you heard from the president, certainly, on Sunday when he was asked directly this question — or asked a question arou- –about Austin.  And so, that is — continues to be our commitment. 

So, we are certainly working through the Turks and others to find — to find him and bring him home. 

So, that is the actions that we have been taking.  And so, I don’t have anything else to share beyond that.

Q    If you have anything more to share, I trust you’ll tell us. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yes.

Q    Let me ask you, if I can — following up on a question that was asked to Jared that — that raised this thought for me: Have you had any conversations with your successor —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — to the podium, Karoline Leavitt?  And, specifically, what advice would you give to her when she takes the podium?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, I was asked a questions like — a question like this when her announcement was made.  And certainly, I wish her all the luck.  And this is a great job.  I love this job.  It has been an honor and a privilege to serve as the White House press secretary to this president — to President Biden, to this administration.  And — and I hope she enjoys it, and I hope — you know, again, I — I just wish her well.

This has been an experience that I will always remember — (laughs) — a lifetime — one of — one of those experiences that will live with you forever.  And — and, you know, I know people say how tough this job is and how unre- — unrelenting it could be, but I enjoy it.  I’ve enjoyed this opportunity.  I’ve enjoyed speaking on behalf of the president of the United States.  That is a big deal.  That is an important job. 

I have not spoken to her, but certainly wish her well.

Q    Obviously, you wish her well.  So, those are good wishes. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    But in terms of advice, what is your advice? 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Well, look — look, one of the things that we have — I hope you all agree — in this administration, is we have brought back the norms of how to engage with the press, having these press briefings, doing these back-and-forths, and trying to do that in the most respectful way that we can.  And I think it’s important.  It’s important.

We did that not because of all of you here — obviously, we respect the work that you do, but also what — what — the job that you do and what it means to the American people.

Q    So, to be clear, would you urge the new White House to have a daily press briefing?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I am not going to —

Q    That seems easy.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  No, no, no.  No, no.  No, no.  I — I think they have to decide for themselves how they want to move forward with a Trump administration.  That is for them to decide. 

What I can say is bringing back the norms, I thought — I think — we believe, not even “I” think — the president believed was incredibly important to do.  Having this back-and-forth with all of you, we believe was important to do on behalf of the American people. 

Being able to have the freedom of the press — right? — and respecting the freedom of the press is, indeed, very much a part of our democracy.  The — we call you all the “fourth of state,” right?  That is incredibly important to have — to have that be part of this administration.  The job that you do, reporting on what we’re doing, even when we disagree with
all of you — not all of you; with some of you.  (Laughter.)

I won’t say “with all of you” — a blanket “all of you.”  (Laughter.)

But even when we disagree, just generally — right? — even when we disagree, we believe it’s important to have that back-and-forth, and it’s healthy, it is part of our democracy, and we want to continue to respect — certainly continue to respect that.

I’m not — it is up to them.  I’m not sitting behind the — the Resolute Desk, and that is for that person to decide — the next person to decide how they’re going to move forward. 

Q    Thank you.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yep. 

Go ahead.

Q    Yeah, two quick ones.  One on the U.S. Steel matter.  Is the — can you give us an update on the timeline?  And is the president committed to making a decision one way or the other before he leaves office, or is it —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — a possibility he’ll let —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I — I —

Q    — his successor make that decision?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I don’t have any update for you on that.  I don’t have an update.

Q    Next one.  Same question: TikTok.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  What about TikTok?  (Laughter.)

Q    Is the president — is the president —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I was — I was —

Q    — committed to making a determination —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Do I like TikTok?  What — (laughs).

Q    — on TikTok —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — before he leaves office, or is that something he might leave to his successor?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, look — so, I’m going to refer you to the Department of Justice, who has put out a statement on this, and the court’s finding that, and I quote, the government “has offered pers- — persuasive evidence demonstrating that the act is narrowly tailored to protect national security” and — another quote here — “to counter a well-substa- — substantiated national security threat.”

I’ll just reiterate: The administration and a strong par- — bipartisan majority of Congress that passed this law have been clear that we want to — we want to see is a divestment, not a ban.  We’ve been very clear about that.  You’ve heard us talk about that from here ad nauseam, I’m sure, for all of you. 

So, this is not about banning the app.  This is about preventing the PRC from being able to exploit data gathered on many Americans.  So, this is about protecting our privacy and — American privacy.  And so, that’s what we’ve been very clear about that. 

Outside of that, I would have to refer you to the Department of Justice.

Q    This is a presidential determination under the law that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  I would — I would refer you to the Department of Justice since there was just a — a decision made about this, so I’m going to refer you to this on that.

Go ahead.  I —

Q    Thank you.  Two questions.  One on Brazil.  One on Haiti.

Haiti —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    Haiti — do you have a reaction to the massacre that —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — recently happened?  One hundred and eighty people were killed. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, we are horrified — horrified by the reporting that nearly 200 people in Haiti were needlessly mass- — massacred, as you just stated, by self-serving criminal gang members.  And so, we strongly, strongly condemn this vicious and — and criminal act.  And we call upon all of the international community to immediately stand with the people of Haiti and provide assistance to the Kenyan-led multinational security support mission. 

But it is incredibly sad to us, what we — been reported, and it’s horrific.  And, I mean, these are people who were needlessly massacred, again, by self-serving criminal gang members.  And it is — it is certainly disheartening to hear.

Q    And in Brazil, the president — President Biden met with President Lula of Brazil last month.  Today, President Lula was — he was undergoing surgery.  Has the president been following this?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, he is aware, and — and, you’re right, the president was in Brazil recently.  He — he enjoyed President Lula’s warm — warm welcome to Brazil just a couple of weeks ago, just last month.  And so, we are pleased to hear that his operation this morning went well.  And certainly, we wish him a speedy recovery.  And as you just asked me, the president is aware and is tracking. 

Okay.  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  One of the first things that the president did when he took office was rescind former President Trump’s order creating a Schedule F that would have allowed thousands upon thousands of civil servants to be fired if they were determined to be in a — in a policy-making position.  And the administration has finalized regulations that would make doing that harder for a future president, but the president never got behind any of the bipartisan bills that would have prohibited future presidents from reclassifying civil servants, employees to make them more easily fireable.  Does he regret not doing that, considering that President-elect Trump has indicated he wants to immediately bring back Schedule F and begin firing lots of civil servants?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, what I will say is — and you stated this in your question to me, and I think the president has led by example.  You said what he was — what he did the first couple of days, couple of weeks, even months when he stepped into this office, into this administration, and trying to protect, certainly, and turning back some of the policies — policies that were put forward.  And the reason he did that is because this is a president who believes that public servants deserve — they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect because they are working on behalf of — of their fellow Americans. 

And so, he took those actions because he believed that.  And he took that — those actions because he was able to lead by example in this office. 

And so, I’m not going to get into what the next administration is going to do or not do, but what I can say is — really, very much into how you led into your question to me, is that he respects public servants, and he certainly has led by example from here.

Q    But the president, he had a democratic trifecta when he came into office, and yet he did not put any of his political capital into getting Congress to include, in any of the must-pass bills, legislation that would have prohibited future presidents from doing what Donald Trump has — has vowed to do.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    And the regulations that the administration has finalized can be undone.  They can be unwound.  And all of what happened — of what the administration did can be for naught. 

Why did the president not, if he — if he respects and — respects civil servants so much, did he not put any political capital into safeguarding —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah.

Q    — their status in legislation?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  So, first, Andrew, I’m not going to litigate each policy, each legislation.  I’m just not going to do that from here.  And so, that is something that I’m not going to get into.

What I will say is the president took action.  You said it in your question.  He took action to undo some of the policies that were put forward by the last administration that harmed these public servants that were working very hard to the work — to do the work on behalf of the American people.  And he did lead by example.  He did.  He took steps, and — and he did that because he believes in respecting and showing some dignity to those workers.

And he undid a lot of the harm that was caused — policies, obviously, to these public servants.  And I think that is showing leadership.  That is showing how you can take action to do the right thing. 

And so, I would — so, I would obviously take a little offense to your question, but I’m not going to litigate each legislation.  You said it yourself in asking me this question — original question.  The president did take action.  He did lead by example, and I think that’s important here.

I’m going to take one last question.  Go ahead.

Q    Thanks, Karine.  Just quickly.  Has the president been briefed on the fires out in California?  Is the White House in touch with officials?

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  He — he certainly has been kept up to date to the fires in Malibu, California, more specifically.  So, we are certainly praying for communities out west that have been, in fact, impacted by the wildfires.  And administration officials, as we normally are, are in close touch with local and state officials on the ground.  Their counterparts and FEMA has issued a — a Fire Management Assistant Grant to help reimburse California for firefight- — -fighting cost.

And so, we are obviously always grateful to the brave firefighters who go out there and put their lives on the line to protect people and save lives.  And so, we stand ready — as we normally do, stand ready to pr- — to provide any further support.  And so, we certainly, as we do at all times when we see this type of extreme weather that’s created, this type of havoc that communities on the ground, folks on the ground, need to certainly pay close attention to what’s being said to them.  Evacuate, if needed.  And we want them to be stafe [safe] and to stay safe.

All right.  Thanks, everybody.  I’ll see you (inaudible).
Q    Thanks, Karine.

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Thanks, everybody.

3:42 P.M. EST

The post Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Jared Bernstein appeared first on The White House.

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date.  In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to global illicit drug trafficking declared in Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, is to continue in effect beyond December 15, 2024.

The trafficking into the United States of illicit drugs, including fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, is causing the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans annually, as well as countless more non-fatal overdoses with their own tragic human toll.  Drug cartels, transnational criminal organizations, and their facilitators are the primary sources of illicit drugs and precursor chemicals that fuel the current opioid epidemic, as well as drug-related violence that harms our communities.  International drug trafficking –- including the illicit production, global sale, and widespread distribution of illegal drugs; the rise of extremely potent drugs such as fentanyl and other synthetic opioids; as well as the growing role of Internet-based drug sales — continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.  Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14059 with respect to global illicit drug trafficking.

                             JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    December 11, 2024.

The post Message to the Congress on the Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Global Illicit Drug Trade appeared first on The White House.

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date.  In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to global illicit drug trafficking declared in Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, is to continue in effect beyond December 15, 2024.

The trafficking into the United States of illicit drugs, including fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, is causing the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans annually, as well as countless more non-fatal overdoses with their own tragic human toll.  Drug cartels, transnational criminal organizations, and their facilitators are the primary sources of illicit drugs and precursor chemicals that fuel the current opioid epidemic, as well as drug-related violence that harms our communities.  International drug trafficking –- including the illicit production, global sale, and widespread distribution of illegal drugs; the rise of extremely potent drugs such as fentanyl and other synthetic opioids; as well as the growing role of Internet-based drug sales — continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.  Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14059 with respect to global illicit drug trafficking.

                             JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    December 11, 2024.

The post Message to the Congress on the Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Global Illicit Drug Trade appeared first on The White House.

On December 15, 2021, by Executive Order 14059, I declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by global illicit drug trafficking.  

The trafficking into the United States of illicit drugs, including fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, is causing the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans annually, as well as countless more non-fatal overdoses with their own tragic human toll.  Drug cartels, transnational criminal organizations, and their facilitators are the primary sources of illicit drugs and precursor chemicals that fuel the current opioid epidemic, as well as drug-related violence that harms our communities.  International drug trafficking — including the illicit production, global sale, and widespread distribution of illegal drugs; the rise of extremely potent drugs such as fentanyl and other synthetic opioids; as well as the growing role of Internet-based drug sales — continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.  For this reason, the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, must continue in effect beyond December 15, 2024.  Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14059 with respect to global illicit drug trafficking.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

                             JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    December 11, 2024.

The post Press Release: Notice to the Congress on the Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Global Illicit Drug Trade appeared first on The White House.

On December 15, 2021, by Executive Order 14059, I declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by global illicit drug trafficking.  

The trafficking into the United States of illicit drugs, including fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, is causing the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans annually, as well as countless more non-fatal overdoses with their own tragic human toll.  Drug cartels, transnational criminal organizations, and their facilitators are the primary sources of illicit drugs and precursor chemicals that fuel the current opioid epidemic, as well as drug-related violence that harms our communities.  International drug trafficking — including the illicit production, global sale, and widespread distribution of illegal drugs; the rise of extremely potent drugs such as fentanyl and other synthetic opioids; as well as the growing role of Internet-based drug sales — continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.  For this reason, the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, must continue in effect beyond December 15, 2024.  Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14059 with respect to global illicit drug trafficking.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

                             JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    December 11, 2024.

The post Press Release: Notice to the Congress on the Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Global Illicit Drug Trade appeared first on The White House.

East Room

7:25 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Loretta, thank you.   Thank you, thank you, thank you.

You know, first of all, welcome to the White House, all the Special Olympics. 

And thank you, Loretta, for that introduction and your leadership — and one of our nation’s great special athletes. 

You’ve appeared in 8 World Games, completed in 10 different sports, won 12 medals, run 26 marathons — holy God — speak 5 languages, earned 3 honorary degrees.  And you’re only 71 years old.  (Laughter.)  You’re amazing.  You’re truly amazing.  All of you are. 

Before I really begin, what I want to say — let me say something about the Shriver/Kennedy family.  You know, your mom — your mom just didn’t open her heart to that Special Olympian.

When I got elected in 1971 — ‘72, I was 29 years old.  I wasn’t legally old enough to be president [senator]; you have to be 30 to be sworn in. And shortly after I got elected, I had to wait 17 days to be eligible to be sworn in — but in the meantime, on the anniversary coming up on the 18th of this month, I was down in Teddy’s office — Teddy Kennedy’s office, who took care of me — hiring staff.  And I got a phone call from my local fire department, telling me there had been an accident.  And the poor firewoman they put on the call for me said — I said, “How are they?”  They said, “Uh, uh, um, she’s dead.  Your daughter is dead.  And I’m not sure your two sons will make it.” 

And I — I, for a while, was very angry at God.  And I have — and if you come to my office, I hope you get to see it — a cartoon my dad gave me years later, when I was saying something about “I wish my deceased wife would have been able to see a certain thing in my house.”  And he went up to the local store — local shopping center and came back with a cartoon, and it was in a gold frame.  I’ve had it for, now, 34 years at my desk.  And it’s “Hägar the Horrible.”  And Hägar the Horrible, the Viking, his ship was struck by lightning, and he’s standing on the top of a sinking ship and looking up at God and say, “Why me?”  And the next frame is a voice from Heaven comes back and says, “Why not you?”  “Why not you?”

That was my dad.  It was just about getting up, making sure —

And while I was getting up, your mother helped me.  Your mother, your family contacted me, because I didn’t want to be sworn in.  I told my governor-elect that I wasn’t going to be sworn in.  I didn’t want to do it.  And — but your family —
your family —

And, by the way, one of the reasons I won was because of Sargent Shriver.  He showed up — (applause) — no. 

One of the oldest historic towns in America is New Castle, Delaware.  We have a thing in it, before every election, on election night, called the Torchlight Parade, and it’s been going on for, now, 90 years — longer.  And we — I needed help.  I — N- — Nixon won my state by 60 percent of the vote, and I won by 3,200 votes.  And, like you, I had a sister smarter than me.  (Laughter.)  And (inaudible).

And your dad went out of his way.  Your dad came to that event and energized the crowd and talked about “this young guy is going to be okay.”  I’ll never forget it.

So, you know, I know from a different angle what a lot of you must feel when you have someone reach out to you when you’re really down and things aren’t working. 

And, you know, but here in the East Room, we hosted heads of state.  And we ordered — I order- — we’ve ordered — ordered — awarded Medals of Freedom.  Just the other night, we celebrated Kennedy Center’s Honors.  But being here with the Special Olympians is something I cherish in my — from all my time being president.  I mean that.  And for that, I want to thank Tim and the whole Shriver family for making it possible.  (Applause.)

I think you all underestimate what you do for the community, but you give people hope.  They look at you.  They see your damn bravery.  They see your courage.  They see you standing up under circumstances they don’t think they can handle, and you do it.  And it’s all about hope. 

My dad used to have an expression.  He’d say, “Joey, a
job is about a lot more than a paycheck.  It’s about your dignity.  It’s about being able to look people in the eye and say, ‘We’re like everybody else.’” 

When you’re treated with dignity, it changes everything.  And you make people realize they have an obligation to do that.

Tim, you and your childr- — your siblings, your children, your grandchildren continue your parents’ mission of service, empowering others to reach their God-given talent.  Eunice and Sarge would be proud.  I feel them here today, and always do, by the way. 

Thank you for all the supports [supporters] of the Sp- — Special Olympics, including for Congress who are here tonight.  One of my good friends, Steny Hoyer, is over there.  (Applause.)

Steny talks about the Eastern Shore of Maryland.  It’s really the Western Shore of Delaware.  (Laughter.)

And Tony Coelho — where’s Tony?  Congressman?  Tony, good man.  (Applause.)

And Senator Roy Blunt.  Roy?  (Applause.)  Thank you, Roy. 

We’ve worked for decades to make our country more accessible and more just. 

Above all — above all, the athletes here, and to your loved ones, I say, thank you, because you give us hope.  If you can do what you did, why can’t we do so much more?  (Applause.)  You’re some of the most — you’re some of the most driven people I’ve ever met. 

For me and Jill, it’s a true honor to host you here at the White House.  And this is your house, the People’s House.  I mean it: your house.

The Special Olympics are close to my heart.  As it was mentioned already, ’71, I attended the Delaware first-ever Special Olympic competition: a track meet at old Wilmington High School.  I was a county councilman at the time, an organization that I had just begun.  I’ve just be- — I’ve become a big fan ever since.

In 2009, I flew with Mark Shriver to Boise, Idaho, for the Winter Games.  In 2010, Jill and I were proud to host all of you at the Naval Observatory, the vice president’s residence.  In 2011, Jill led the presidential delegation to the World Summer Games in Athens. 

In 2018 — my son Beau, who passed away because of a year in Iraq — set up the Beau Biden Foundation and partnered with you to protect people with intellectual disabilities and abuse.  And when he passed away, all that he had raised for his conflict went to you.  It’s something — sometimes our — our son — well, I won’t get into that.

Throughout it all, it’s been clear the Special Olympics is a movement of hope.  That’s what it’s all about: hope and inclusion — no one is excluded — spreading joy, building confidence, opening hearts.

President Lincoln once said everyone deserves, quote, “a fair chance in the race of life.”  That’s what this is all about.

Disability isn’t something broken to be fixed.  For millions of Americans, disability is a source of identity and pride.  Every American has an equal right to be recognized for who they are with dignity and with respect.

That’s why, as a senator, I cosponsored our nation’s first major disability rights bill, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  Now, I know I look like I’m only 40, but I’ve been around a while.  (Laughter.)  That was in 1990, and, ladies and gentlemen, that act had a profound impact on people.

Look, the fact is that there’s so much more.  Why, when I was vice president and president, our administrations made major investments in education, employment, community-based care for people with disabilities.

And that’s why Kamala and our whole administration have worked to stop the use of subminimum wage so no — so tens of thousands of Americans can finally get fairly paid for what they do when they do it and not subminimum wage.  (Applause.)

That’s why we continued to push to end so-called Social Security marriage penalty, so people with didlebil- — dis- –disabilities who don’t lose part of their monthly benefits when then marry a person in a similar circumstance that they love.

You know, I want to thank Patrice, another star athlete who’s here tonight, working so hard to make all this happen. 

And that’s not all.  We also sent your CEO, Mary, to represent the United States this year at the historic G7 meeting that finally recognized sports as essential — as essential to global disability policy because of you.  It matters.  You’re affecting people’s lives all around the world, not just here.

Let me close with this.  I know this work is about a lot more than sports.  It’s about community.  It’s about health.  It’s about opportunity.  It’s about who we are as a nation.  What is our character?  Where is our heart?

The Special Olympics oath is “Let me win, but if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt.”

That’s the basic American spirit — your spirit.  You instill it in everybody.  You represent literally — and I mean this from the — I give you my word as a Biden — you represent the best America has to offer — the very best America has to offer.

You know, I mentioned — I’ve mentioned many times before that my mom had an expression.  My mom was Catherine Eugenia Finnegan Biden.  She’d look at me, “Joey” — I used to stutter very badly when I was young, even into high school.  She’d — “Joey, look at me.  Look at me.”  “I’m looking at you, Mom.”  She said, “Remember who you are.  You’re a Biden.”  And I thought, “Well, that’s like (inaudible).”  (Laughter.)  She said, “Look at me.  Joey, bravery resides in every heart, and someday — someday it will be summoned in every heart.”

Day after day, that’s what you and your entire organization do.  You rise up.  You lift one another up.  You summon immense courage.

And every Special — Special Olympic athlete here tonight and across America, we love you. 

Every new person I bring to the Special Olympics, they walk away stunned.  They walk away stunned about your courage.

I’d like to make a toast to the moment.  To supporters and volunteers and, above all, the incredible athletes and their brave and courageous hearts — you got something for me to toast? 

I have to admit to you.  I’m going to hold this with my left hand.  My grandfather, Ambrose Finnegan, was an all-American football player at Santa Clara.  He’d say, “Joey” — I’m the only Irishman you’ve ever met that’s never had a drink in his life.  (Laughs.)  Anyway.  But “when you toast without liquor” — which I don’t have here, I’ve got to admit it — (laughter) — “you’ve got to do it with your left hand, not your right hand.”

(The president offers a toast.)

So, cheers.  Cheers.  And please, please keep inspiring the country.

And I really — I’m going to say one more thing.  I should shush up, but one more thing.  You know, I think you underestimate — I generally believe you underestimate the impact you’ve had on so many people — so many people.  Especially when they’re down, especially when they think it’s over, you lift us up.

So, thank you, thank you, thank you.  I love you. 

And my — there’s an old — my — my grandfather used to use this — what he facetiously referred to as an “Irish blessing.”  He said, “May those who love us, love us; and those who don’t, may God turn their ankles, so we know they’re coming by their limp.”  (Laughter and applause.)

Enjoy the White House.  It’s your house.  (Applause.)

7:39 P.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden at a Christmas For All Dinner in Celebration of Unity, America, and Special Olympics appeared first on The White House.

East Room

7:25 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Loretta, thank you.   Thank you, thank you, thank you.

You know, first of all, welcome to the White House, all the Special Olympics. 

And thank you, Loretta, for that introduction and your leadership — and one of our nation’s great special athletes. 

You’ve appeared in 8 World Games, completed in 10 different sports, won 12 medals, run 26 marathons — holy God — speak 5 languages, earned 3 honorary degrees.  And you’re only 71 years old.  (Laughter.)  You’re amazing.  You’re truly amazing.  All of you are. 

Before I really begin, what I want to say — let me say something about the Shriver/Kennedy family.  You know, your mom — your mom just didn’t open her heart to that Special Olympian.

When I got elected in 1971 — ‘72, I was 29 years old.  I wasn’t legally old enough to be president [senator]; you have to be 30 to be sworn in. And shortly after I got elected, I had to wait 17 days to be eligible to be sworn in — but in the meantime, on the anniversary coming up on the 18th of this month, I was down in Teddy’s office — Teddy Kennedy’s office, who took care of me — hiring staff.  And I got a phone call from my local fire department, telling me there had been an accident.  And the poor firewoman they put on the call for me said — I said, “How are they?”  They said, “Uh, uh, um, she’s dead.  Your daughter is dead.  And I’m not sure your two sons will make it.” 

And I — I, for a while, was very angry at God.  And I have — and if you come to my office, I hope you get to see it — a cartoon my dad gave me years later, when I was saying something about “I wish my deceased wife would have been able to see a certain thing in my house.”  And he went up to the local store — local shopping center and came back with a cartoon, and it was in a gold frame.  I’ve had it for, now, 34 years at my desk.  And it’s “Hägar the Horrible.”  And Hägar the Horrible, the Viking, his ship was struck by lightning, and he’s standing on the top of a sinking ship and looking up at God and say, “Why me?”  And the next frame is a voice from Heaven comes back and says, “Why not you?”  “Why not you?”

That was my dad.  It was just about getting up, making sure —

And while I was getting up, your mother helped me.  Your mother, your family contacted me, because I didn’t want to be sworn in.  I told my governor-elect that I wasn’t going to be sworn in.  I didn’t want to do it.  And — but your family —
your family —

And, by the way, one of the reasons I won was because of Sargent Shriver.  He showed up — (applause) — no. 

One of the oldest historic towns in America is New Castle, Delaware.  We have a thing in it, before every election, on election night, called the Torchlight Parade, and it’s been going on for, now, 90 years — longer.  And we — I needed help.  I — N- — Nixon won my state by 60 percent of the vote, and I won by 3,200 votes.  And, like you, I had a sister smarter than me.  (Laughter.)  And (inaudible).

And your dad went out of his way.  Your dad came to that event and energized the crowd and talked about “this young guy is going to be okay.”  I’ll never forget it.

So, you know, I know from a different angle what a lot of you must feel when you have someone reach out to you when you’re really down and things aren’t working. 

And, you know, but here in the East Room, we hosted heads of state.  And we ordered — I order- — we’ve ordered — ordered — awarded Medals of Freedom.  Just the other night, we celebrated Kennedy Center’s Honors.  But being here with the Special Olympians is something I cherish in my — from all my time being president.  I mean that.  And for that, I want to thank Tim and the whole Shriver family for making it possible.  (Applause.)

I think you all underestimate what you do for the community, but you give people hope.  They look at you.  They see your damn bravery.  They see your courage.  They see you standing up under circumstances they don’t think they can handle, and you do it.  And it’s all about hope. 

My dad used to have an expression.  He’d say, “Joey, a
job is about a lot more than a paycheck.  It’s about your dignity.  It’s about being able to look people in the eye and say, ‘We’re like everybody else.’” 

When you’re treated with dignity, it changes everything.  And you make people realize they have an obligation to do that.

Tim, you and your childr- — your siblings, your children, your grandchildren continue your parents’ mission of service, empowering others to reach their God-given talent.  Eunice and Sarge would be proud.  I feel them here today, and always do, by the way. 

Thank you for all the supports [supporters] of the Sp- — Special Olympics, including for Congress who are here tonight.  One of my good friends, Steny Hoyer, is over there.  (Applause.)

Steny talks about the Eastern Shore of Maryland.  It’s really the Western Shore of Delaware.  (Laughter.)

And Tony Coelho — where’s Tony?  Congressman?  Tony, good man.  (Applause.)

And Senator Roy Blunt.  Roy?  (Applause.)  Thank you, Roy. 

We’ve worked for decades to make our country more accessible and more just. 

Above all — above all, the athletes here, and to your loved ones, I say, thank you, because you give us hope.  If you can do what you did, why can’t we do so much more?  (Applause.)  You’re some of the most — you’re some of the most driven people I’ve ever met. 

For me and Jill, it’s a true honor to host you here at the White House.  And this is your house, the People’s House.  I mean it: your house.

The Special Olympics are close to my heart.  As it was mentioned already, ’71, I attended the Delaware first-ever Special Olympic competition: a track meet at old Wilmington High School.  I was a county councilman at the time, an organization that I had just begun.  I’ve just be- — I’ve become a big fan ever since.

In 2009, I flew with Mark Shriver to Boise, Idaho, for the Winter Games.  In 2010, Jill and I were proud to host all of you at the Naval Observatory, the vice president’s residence.  In 2011, Jill led the presidential delegation to the World Summer Games in Athens. 

In 2018 — my son Beau, who passed away because of a year in Iraq — set up the Beau Biden Foundation and partnered with you to protect people with intellectual disabilities and abuse.  And when he passed away, all that he had raised for his conflict went to you.  It’s something — sometimes our — our son — well, I won’t get into that.

Throughout it all, it’s been clear the Special Olympics is a movement of hope.  That’s what it’s all about: hope and inclusion — no one is excluded — spreading joy, building confidence, opening hearts.

President Lincoln once said everyone deserves, quote, “a fair chance in the race of life.”  That’s what this is all about.

Disability isn’t something broken to be fixed.  For millions of Americans, disability is a source of identity and pride.  Every American has an equal right to be recognized for who they are with dignity and with respect.

That’s why, as a senator, I cosponsored our nation’s first major disability rights bill, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  Now, I know I look like I’m only 40, but I’ve been around a while.  (Laughter.)  That was in 1990, and, ladies and gentlemen, that act had a profound impact on people.

Look, the fact is that there’s so much more.  Why, when I was vice president and president, our administrations made major investments in education, employment, community-based care for people with disabilities.

And that’s why Kamala and our whole administration have worked to stop the use of subminimum wage so no — so tens of thousands of Americans can finally get fairly paid for what they do when they do it and not subminimum wage.  (Applause.)

That’s why we continued to push to end so-called Social Security marriage penalty, so people with didlebil- — dis- –disabilities who don’t lose part of their monthly benefits when then marry a person in a similar circumstance that they love.

You know, I want to thank Patrice, another star athlete who’s here tonight, working so hard to make all this happen. 

And that’s not all.  We also sent your CEO, Mary, to represent the United States this year at the historic G7 meeting that finally recognized sports as essential — as essential to global disability policy because of you.  It matters.  You’re affecting people’s lives all around the world, not just here.

Let me close with this.  I know this work is about a lot more than sports.  It’s about community.  It’s about health.  It’s about opportunity.  It’s about who we are as a nation.  What is our character?  Where is our heart?

The Special Olympics oath is “Let me win, but if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt.”

That’s the basic American spirit — your spirit.  You instill it in everybody.  You represent literally — and I mean this from the — I give you my word as a Biden — you represent the best America has to offer — the very best America has to offer.

You know, I mentioned — I’ve mentioned many times before that my mom had an expression.  My mom was Catherine Eugenia Finnegan Biden.  She’d look at me, “Joey” — I used to stutter very badly when I was young, even into high school.  She’d — “Joey, look at me.  Look at me.”  “I’m looking at you, Mom.”  She said, “Remember who you are.  You’re a Biden.”  And I thought, “Well, that’s like (inaudible).”  (Laughter.)  She said, “Look at me.  Joey, bravery resides in every heart, and someday — someday it will be summoned in every heart.”

Day after day, that’s what you and your entire organization do.  You rise up.  You lift one another up.  You summon immense courage.

And every Special — Special Olympic athlete here tonight and across America, we love you. 

Every new person I bring to the Special Olympics, they walk away stunned.  They walk away stunned about your courage.

I’d like to make a toast to the moment.  To supporters and volunteers and, above all, the incredible athletes and their brave and courageous hearts — you got something for me to toast? 

I have to admit to you.  I’m going to hold this with my left hand.  My grandfather, Ambrose Finnegan, was an all-American football player at Santa Clara.  He’d say, “Joey” — I’m the only Irishman you’ve ever met that’s never had a drink in his life.  (Laughs.)  Anyway.  But “when you toast without liquor” — which I don’t have here, I’ve got to admit it — (laughter) — “you’ve got to do it with your left hand, not your right hand.”

(The president offers a toast.)

So, cheers.  Cheers.  And please, please keep inspiring the country.

And I really — I’m going to say one more thing.  I should shush up, but one more thing.  You know, I think you underestimate — I generally believe you underestimate the impact you’ve had on so many people — so many people.  Especially when they’re down, especially when they think it’s over, you lift us up.

So, thank you, thank you, thank you.  I love you. 

And my — there’s an old — my — my grandfather used to use this — what he facetiously referred to as an “Irish blessing.”  He said, “May those who love us, love us; and those who don’t, may God turn their ankles, so we know they’re coming by their limp.”  (Laughter and applause.)

Enjoy the White House.  It’s your house.  (Applause.)

7:39 P.M. EST

The post Remarks by President Biden at a Christmas For All Dinner in Celebration of Unity, America, and Special Olympics appeared first on The White House.

On Wednesday, December 11, 2024, the President signed into law:

H.R. 2950, the “Coastal Habitat Conservation Act of 2023,” which codifies the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Costal Program and supports efforts to assess, protect, and enhance important costal landscapes.

Thank you to Representatives Huffman and González-Colón, and Senators Cardin and Graham for their leadership.

H.R. 5302, the “Michel O. Maceda Memorial Act,” which designates the Air and Marine Operations Marine Unit of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection located at 101 Km 18.5 in Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico, as the Michel O. Maceda Marine Unit.

Thank you to Representatives González-Colón, Mark Green, Salazar, Radewagen and Soto, and Senators Rick Scott, Rubio, and Padilla for their leadership.

H.R. 5536, the “Grant Transparency Act of 2023,” which establishes transparency requirements for notices of funding availability for Federal grant programs.

Thank you to Representatives Fry and Crockett, and Senators Cornyn, Hassan, and Peters for their leadership.

H.R. 5799, the “James R. Dominguez Memorial Act of 2023,” which designates the checkpoint of the United States Border Patrol located on United States Highway 90 West in Uvalde County, Texas, as the James R. Dominguez Border Patrol Checkpoint.

Thank you to Representatives Tony Gonzales, Cuellar, Vicente Gonzalez, and Ciscomani, and Senators Cornyn, Sinema, Cruz, and Manchin for their leadership.

H.R. 7218, the “BOLD Infrastructure for Alzheimer’s Reauthorization Act of 2024,” which reauthorizes programs supporting research and resources related to Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias through fiscal year 2029.

Thank you to Representatives Guthrie, Tonko, Chris Smith, and Waters, and Senators Collins, Capito, and Kaine for their leadership.

H.R. 7438, the “FIFA World Cup 2026 Commemorative Coin Act,” which directs the Department of the Treasury to mint and issue coins in commemoration of the FIFA World Cup 2026 and will be held in the United States for the first time in 32 years.

Thank you to Representatives LaHood, Larsen, Bacon, and Castor, and Senators Young and Butler for their leadership.

H.R. 7764, the “Commission to Study the Potential Transfer of the Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History to the Smithsonian Institution Act,” which establishes a commission to study the potential transfer of the Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History to the Smithsonian Institution.

Thank you to Representatives Wasserman Schultz, Turner, Boyle, and Max Miller, and Senators Casey, Crapo, Fetterman, Collins, and Rosen for their leadership.

H.R. 8932, the “FAFSA Deadline Act,” which requires the release of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid by October 1.

Thank you to Representative Houchin and Senator Cassidy for their leadership.

The post Press Release: Bills Signed: H.R. 2950, H.R. 5302, H.R. 5536, H.R. 5799, H.R. 7218, H.R. 7438, H.R. 7764, H.R. 8932 appeared first on The White House.

On Wednesday, December 11, 2024, the President signed into law:

H.R. 2950, the “Coastal Habitat Conservation Act of 2023,” which codifies the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Costal Program and supports efforts to assess, protect, and enhance important costal landscapes.

Thank you to Representatives Huffman and González-Colón, and Senators Cardin and Graham for their leadership.

H.R. 5302, the “Michel O. Maceda Memorial Act,” which designates the Air and Marine Operations Marine Unit of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection located at 101 Km 18.5 in Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico, as the Michel O. Maceda Marine Unit.

Thank you to Representatives González-Colón, Mark Green, Salazar, Radewagen and Soto, and Senators Rick Scott, Rubio, and Padilla for their leadership.

H.R. 5536, the “Grant Transparency Act of 2023,” which establishes transparency requirements for notices of funding availability for Federal grant programs.

Thank you to Representatives Fry and Crockett, and Senators Cornyn, Hassan, and Peters for their leadership.

H.R. 5799, the “James R. Dominguez Memorial Act of 2023,” which designates the checkpoint of the United States Border Patrol located on United States Highway 90 West in Uvalde County, Texas, as the James R. Dominguez Border Patrol Checkpoint.

Thank you to Representatives Tony Gonzales, Cuellar, Vicente Gonzalez, and Ciscomani, and Senators Cornyn, Sinema, Cruz, and Manchin for their leadership.

H.R. 7218, the “BOLD Infrastructure for Alzheimer’s Reauthorization Act of 2024,” which reauthorizes programs supporting research and resources related to Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias through fiscal year 2029.

Thank you to Representatives Guthrie, Tonko, Chris Smith, and Waters, and Senators Collins, Capito, and Kaine for their leadership.

H.R. 7438, the “FIFA World Cup 2026 Commemorative Coin Act,” which directs the Department of the Treasury to mint and issue coins in commemoration of the FIFA World Cup 2026 and will be held in the United States for the first time in 32 years.

Thank you to Representatives LaHood, Larsen, Bacon, and Castor, and Senators Young and Butler for their leadership.

H.R. 7764, the “Commission to Study the Potential Transfer of the Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History to the Smithsonian Institution Act,” which establishes a commission to study the potential transfer of the Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History to the Smithsonian Institution.

Thank you to Representatives Wasserman Schultz, Turner, Boyle, and Max Miller, and Senators Casey, Crapo, Fetterman, Collins, and Rosen for their leadership.

H.R. 8932, the “FAFSA Deadline Act,” which requires the release of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid by October 1.

Thank you to Representative Houchin and Senator Cassidy for their leadership.

The post Press Release: Bills Signed: H.R. 2950, H.R. 5302, H.R. 5536, H.R. 5799, H.R. 7218, H.R. 7438, H.R. 7764, H.R. 8932 appeared first on The White House.

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. today announced the designation of a Presidential Delegation to Belgium and Luxembourg to attend the Commemoration of the 80th Anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge on December 13-14, 2024.

The Honorable Bill Nelson, Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, will lead the delegation.

Members of the Presidential Delegation:

The Honorable Thomas M. Barrett, United States Ambassador to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

The Honorable Michael M. Adler, United States Ambassador to the Kingdom of Belgium

The Honorable Harry Coker, Jr., National Cyber Director, Office of the Cyber Director, The White House

The Honorable Terri Tanielian, Special Assistant to the President for Veterans Affairs, Domestic Policy Council, The White House

The Honorable Sheila Casey, Executive Director of Joining Forces, The White House

###

The post President Biden Announces Presidential Delegation to attend the 80th Anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge in Bastogne, Belgium and Luxembourg City, Luxembourg appeared first on The White House.