Newscasts - President Biden holds a news conference

enCore Energy

12/07/2024 03:01

Click the following link to watch video: https://share.newscasts.refinitiv.com/link?entryId=1_yyadjdc2&referenceId=1_yyadjdc2&pageId=Newscasts
Source: 'Reuters - Business videos'

Description:
Short Link: https://refini.tv/3W1xSP3

Video Transcript:

>> We'll hear from the secretary general then take some questions. >> Good
afternoon. We have just concluded the meeting of the NATO Ukraine Council.
President Zelenskyy opted allies on the situation on the battlefield and
Ukraine's most urgent needs. Since the start of Russia's full scale invasion,
NATO allies have provided Ukraine with unpresented support, including tens of
billions of euros in military aid. Ukraine has had a difficult winter and
spring. Gaps and delays in the provision of military support have had real
consequences on the battlefield. And Ukrainians have shown remarkable courage
and tenacity in holding the line. But we cannot and will not allow this to
happen again. At this summit, we are turning a corner and putting in place the
foundations for Ukraine to prevail. Allies have agreed to launch NATO security
assistance and training for Ukraine with a command in Germany, logistic hubs
in the eastern part of the Alliance and around 700 personnel. NATO will
coordinate the training of Ukrainian forces at facilities in allied countries.
Plan and coordinate the provision of donations, manage the transfer and repair
of equipment, and provide support to the long-term development of Ukraine's
forces. Allies have also agreed a major financial pledge to Ukraine with a
minimum baseline of 40 billion euros within the next year and to sustain our
support for Ukraine to prevail. We will review this level at forthcoming
summits to ensure that our support continues to meet Ukraine's needs.
Europeans are more than matching the overall US support for Ukraine. This
pledge will ensure greater burden sharing of military support too. It will
also provide Ukraine the reliable support it needs to deter and defend against
future Russian aggression now and in the future. At the summit, allies have
made further announcements of immediate military aid, including critical air
defense. A more allies have signed bilateral security agreements with Ukraine,
bringing the total to more than 20. We have taken further steps to deepen
Ukraine's interoperability with NATO, bolster Ukraine's defense industry, and
enhance cooperation on innovation. We have also agreed to establish NATO
Ukraine joint analysis, training and education center in Poland. All of this
support will make Ukraine stronger and more capable. In fact, everything we
are doing, the command, the pledge, more military aid, more security
agreements, and improved interoperability, put in place the foundations for
Ukraine to prevail. And they serve as a bridge to NATO. Allies have agreed
that as Ukraine continues necessary reforms, we will support them on their
irreversible path to membership. Today, we send a strong message of unity and
resolve to Moscow that violence and intimidation do not pay, and that Ukraine
can count on NATO now and for the long haul. Today, in our meeting, we also
met with our Indo-Pacific partners. And China has become a decisive enabler of
Russia's war against Ukraine through its no limits partnership, and support
for Russia's defense industrial base. This includes the transfer of dual use
materials, such as weapon components, equipment, and raw materials. We agree
that China cannot continue to fuel the largest military conflict in Europe
without this impacting Beijing's interests and reputation. Other authoritarian
states, such as Iran and North Korea, are also supporting Russia's war with
drones, ammunition, and more. This makes it even more important that we work
closely with our like minded partners in the Indo-Pacific. So we launched new
cooperative projects on disinformation, cybersecurity and artificial
intelligence, as well as support to Ukraine. We discussed expanding the scope
of our defense industrial cooperation and how to improve intelligence sharing.
These are all important steps because we see all too clearly that what happens
in Europe matters for Asia, and what happens in Asia matters for Europe. And
in this more dangerous world, we must stand together to defend our shared
security interests and uphold our shared values. With that, I'm ready to take
your questions. >> Thank you. I'll begin with Polish news agency. Go ahead,
second row. >> Good morning. Domina [inaudible 00:31:59] Republica Polish
television. I would like to ask you for comment on the recent exercises of
Belarus and China, close to Polish border with Belarus which is extremely
dangerous, especially that since three years, Poland is facing attacks from
the illegal migrants encouraging by Belarus. Could you comment please? Chinese
minister of foreign affairs told only that Poland and Belarusia to find some
diplomatic solution. And if I may add something, I think that not only in my
personal name, I would like to thank you for all cooperation with media with
journalists and for all the agency. >> The Chinese exercise together with the
Belarusian forces in Belarus is part of a pattern. It just confirms how
authoritarian regimes are aligning more and more and also how China is coming
closer to NATO in Europe, in Africa, in the Arctic, and elsewhere. So this
fits into the pattern we have seen also with a closer alignment between China
and Russia, but no now also China and Belarus. And, of course, it also fits
into the pattern of authoritarian powers working closer together in supporting
Russia's war aggression against Ukraine and neighbor to Belarus. >> We need to
remember what kind of regimes we are speaking about. We are speaking about
authoritarian regimes, China is oppressing its own people, cracking down on
democratic voices, crushed actually democratic voices in Hong Kong, more
assertive behavior in the South China Sea, threatening neighbors, threatening
Taiwan, and China is conducting a huge military buildup with no transparency
and investing heavily in new modern missiles, nuclear weapons. So again, the
fact that they are lining more and more with Russia, with Belarus just fits
into this broader picture of authoritarian powers working together. And of
course, that makes it even more important. We then work together with our
partners also in the Indo-Pacific. >> We'll go to the gentleman in the fourth
row, third chair. >> Hi, my name. Rami Gabber. I'm working for Al-Qahera News,
Egyptian TV. Actually, my question is, according to congressional law issued
last December in the United States, the United States is committed to continue
its cooperation with NATO. So from the side of the alliance, the NATO, is
there any plans to deal with any changes in power in the United States, the
elections in next November, and also on the other side of the North Atlantic.
There are some changes we are seeing now in Europe with some right wing
parties are getting some gains in the elections. So if the NATO, in general,
has a plan to deal with all these changes in both sides of the Atlantic? >>
NATO celebrates its 75th anniversary this year. And throughout our history, we
have had many changes of governments and many different political parties in
the leadership of the different allied countries, and often there has been
concerns about whether new government, new political parties will support
NATO. And of course, in democracies, you don't have any guarantees, but the
reality is that NATO has proven extremely resilient because every time they
have a new party or a new government, they realize that every NATO ally is
safer in NATO than outside NATO. NATO is in the security interest of all
allies to stand together. And I expect that to continue to be the case because
it is good for North America to have a strong NATO, it's good for Europe to
have a strong NATO. And when it comes to United States, I would just say that
I expect that the United States will remain a strong and loyal NATO ally
partly because it is in the security interest of the United States. There are
concerns in United States about the rise of the economic strength, the
military power that China represents. And of course, United States is big 25%
of the world's GDP, the world economy. But together with NATO allies, we
represent 50%, twice as much and 50% of the military might. So the reality is
that NATO makes also the United States stronger and safer. And this is a
strong argument for the United States to continue to support and to remain a
loyal and committed NATO ally. There's also very strong bipartisan support in
the United States, according to opinion polls, but also in the US Congress.
And then thirdly, the main criticism from, for instance, former President
Trump has actually not mainly been against NATO, it has been against NATO
allies not investing enough in NATO. And this has flatly changed. When we made
the pledge in 2014 to invest more in defense, only three allies met the NATO
guideline of spending 2% of GDP, now 23 allies. So the clear message from the
United States has had an impact. European allies and Canada are really
stepping up. And 23 allies will meet the 2% guideline this year. Many will
actually spend significantly more. And today, Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau
announced that also Canada will now put in place a plan to be at 2% within a
few years. So that means that all those allies who are not yet at 2%, they
have a plan in place to be at 2%. So I welcome the fact that so many allies
have reached the 2%, but also that those allies are not yet at 2%, including
Canada now have a clear plan in place. So for all these reasons, I expect the
United States as all the allies to remain committed to NATO because it is in
our interest to be together. >> We'll go to Yon Hap. This is the last
question, I'm afraid. >> Thank you so much. This is [inaudible 00:39:18] from
Agency ROK. Secretary General, you mentioned about cooperation between NATO
and Indo-Pacific partners. I want to ask you what kind of role does NATO
specifically want ROK to play in terms of helping Ukraine's self defense right
now? And if NATO wants ROK to give military aid to Ukraine, what kind of
military aid does NATO want from ROK? And have you talked with ROK sides about
these issues during this summit? Thank you very much. >> I welcome all support
to Ukraine; humanitarian, economic, military support, but it is for each and
every country and each and every partner of NATO to decide exactly what kind
of support they deem the righ thing to provide to Ukraine. I had today a very
good meeting with the president of the Republic of Korea, President Yoon. This
is the third time he participates in a NATO summit. I think that reflects that
NATO and the Republic of Korea, we are really stepping up our cooperation. And
South Korea, Republic of Korea is a highly valued NATO partner, and we are
addressing how we can do more together, but deepen our political dialogue, but
also strengthen our practical cooperation. We have agreed an individual
tailored partnership program addressing different areas where we can work
together. And of course, in the meeting with the president today, we also
agreed and addressed the fact that what happens in Ukraine today demonstrates
how interlinked European security is with the security in the Pacific because
we all know that Russia's illegal war against Ukraine is supported by China,
by Iran, but not least by North Korea. And North Korea has delivered huge
amounts of ammunition, continues to deliver ammunition and military support to
Russia's illegal war. And of course, this is not something North Korea is
doing for free. We are very concerned about the potential support that Russia
may deliver to North Korea's nuclear missile programs, which are not only a
threat to the Republic of Korea, but to regional and global stability. So it
demonstrates that security is not regional anymore, security is truly global.
And North Korea's support to Russia's war in Ukraine and the consequences this
will have is one example of that. So for all these reasons, we really welcome
the deepened partnership between NATO and Republic of Korea. I appreciate that
I had one more possibility now today to meet with the president, and we agreed
to step up further the cooperation between NATO and South Korea. >> Thank you,
Secretary General. Sincere apologies, but that's all we have time for. Thank
you all for being here. >> Thank you so much. >> Distinguished guests, the
leaders endorsing the Ukraine Compact, those finalizing security arrangements
with Ukraine and the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization. Distinguished guests, the President of the United States and the
President of Ukraine. >> Well, I'm sure my fellow leaders are tired of hearing
from all of us, but we have an important thing to do today. It's a way to
close this conference. Good afternoon, everyone. When Putin launched his
brutal war over two years ago, I promised President Zelenskyy, the United
States and our allies and our partners would stand with him for the people of
Ukraine as they defended their country. Since then, all of you, all my fellow
leaders have build a global coalition to support Ukraine, supplied economic
and humanitarian support, supplied weapons that Ukraine needs to defend
itself. And two days ago, I announced historic donation of air defense
equipment to protect Ukrainian cities, troops, and from Russian missiles. And
here today with all these important people behind me, we take another
important step in our collective support for Ukraine. We refer to as the
Ukraine Compact, and here's how it works. Last year, the G7 nations signed
onto a declaration to protect Ukraine long term, not just for the duration of
this war, but beyond after they win. Twenty-five additional countries quickly
joined them and pledged to negotiate and sign a bilateral security agreement
with Ukraine. Now, one year later, more than 20 countries plus the European
Union have completed and signed these agreements, and more countries are
finalizing theirs as we speak. This compact brings all those countries
together in a unified, coordinated, and comprehensive architecture to support
Ukraine, not just for now, but for years in the future. In the short term,
we'll continue to supply Ukraine with the weapons, munitions, and training
they need to repel Russian forces. In the medium term, we'll help build a
future force that has the strength and the capabilities, both to defend
Ukraine and deter further aggression. In the long term, after this war is
over, if Putin ever tries it again, all the countries that endorsed the
compact have pledged to have Ukraine's back, just like we have it now. You
heard me say it before, we're building a bridge to NATO for Ukraine, a pathway
leading to an eventual membership as they continue to implement important
domestic reforms. This compact, which is on the stage here, is a central piece
of that bridge. What happens to Ukraine matters, matters to all of Europe, it
matters to NATO. Quite frankly, matters to the whole world. We're united
against Putin's senseless and brutal war. We are united behind Ukraine as it
fights to defend its freedom and its future. We're united behind a vision of
the world, where free countries like Ukraine do not have to fear aggression
from a brutal tyrant next door. I want to commend Ukrainian armed forces.
Their defense secretary leaders are here as well, and the Ukrainian people.
You're incredible. Through all of your country, you're incredible. Their
courage, the determination, the sacrifices they've made. And I commend all the
nations who stepped up when it counted to stand with Ukraine. I've said
before, Russia will not prevail in this war. Ukraine will prevail in this war,
and we'll stand with them every single step of the way. That's what the
compact says loudly and clearly. And now I want to hand it over to the
president of Ukraine who has as much courage as he has determination. Ladies
and gentlemen, President Putin. President Putin? You're going to beat
President Putin. President Zelenskyy. I'm so focused on beating Putin. We got
to worry about it. Anyway, Mr. President. >> I'm better. >> You are a hell of
a lot better. >> Thank you so much, Mr. President. Thank you so much, Mr.
President. Dear our friends, friends of Ukraine. Last year, at the NATO Summit
in Vilnius, we took a very strong step with the G7 declaration on security for
Ukraine, for Ukrainian people. And we did not waste time, and now we have a
solid architecture of security guarantees. I thank President Biden for his
leadership and all the efforts to make our security cooperation full of strong
actions. There are 23 strong agreements, and there will be agreements with
other countries. And we have a historically significant security agreement
with the United States. All of these helped us obtain the necessary air
defense systems, thanks to America and to all the partners, to all the leaders
and your societies, your people, of course, and thanks to all partners for the
[inaudible 01:05:54] and air defense systems, provision of F-16, and
assistance so that our people and our country could withstand Russian attacks
on our energy sector, as well as training, cybersecurity, intelligence
cooperation, and the development of the defense industry. This Ukraine compact
we are forming, takes our relations to a new level, a significant achievement
for Ukraine and all of us. [inaudible 01:06:36] >> Distinguished guests, the
President of the United States, Joe Biden. >> Hey, everybody. Thank you.
Please be seated. Well, good evening. We just concluded this year's NATO
Summit, and the consensus among the members was a great success. It was
especially momentous because it represented the 75th year of the most
important military defense and alliance in the history of the world. We should
never forget that NATO grew out of the wreckage of World War II, the most
destructive war in history. The idea was to create an alliance of free and
democratic nations that would commit themselves to a compact of collective
defense. Standing together, they knew we'd all be safer. An attack on one
would be treated as an attack on all. And it's worked because a would be
aggressor knows if they attacked one of us, they'll be attacked by all of us.
Sending that message is the best way to deter aggression and prevent wars in
the first place. For those who thought NATO's time had passed, they got a rude
awakening when Putin invaded Ukraine. Some of the oldest and deepest fears in
Europe roared back to life, , because once again, a murderous madman was on
the march. But this time, no one cowered in appeasement, especially the United
States. We collected intelligence that Russia was planning to invade Ukraine
months before the invasion. I directed a significant amount of intelligence to
be declassified so I could start building an international coalition to oppose
the invasion. Then in February, some of you remember, I warned the world that
the invasion was imminent. I rallied a coalition of 50 nations from Europe to
Asia, to help Ukraine defend itself. My many foreign policy experts thought as
Putin amassed Russian forces just 100 miles north of Kyiv, the capital of
Ukraine, but Putin thought it was the mother home of Russia. The capital would
fall in less than a week. But the Ukrainian people, backed by a coalition to
help build, stopped them. Today, Kyiv still stands. And NATO stands stronger
than it has ever been. During the week of this summit, several heads of states
made it a point in their statements to thank the United States and to thank me
personally for all that NATO has achieved. NATO is not only stronger. NATO is
bigger, because we led the charge to bring in Finland and Sweden in the
Alliance, and it makes a gigantic difference. Excuse me. Meanwhile, my
predecessor has made it clear. He has no commitment to NATO. He's made it
clear that he would feel no obligation to honor Article V. He's already told
Putin and I quote, "Do whatever the hell you want". In fact, the day after
Putin invaded Ukraine, here's what he said. "It was genius. It was wonderful".
Somebody forgot that, but that's exactly what he said. But I made it clear, a
strong NATO is essential to American security. And I believe the obligation of
Article V is sacred. And I will remind all Americans, Article V has been
revoked only once in NATO's long history, and that was to defend America after
9/11. I made it clear that I will not bow down to Putin. I will not walk away
from Ukraine. I will keep NATO strong. That's exactly what we did, and exactly
what we'll continue to do. Now, the future of American policy is up to the
American people. Is much more than the political question. It's more than
that. It's a national security issue. Don't reduce this to the usual testament
that people talk about, issues have been a political campaign. It's far too
important. It's about the world we live in for decades to come. Every American
must ask herself or himself, is the world safer with NATO? Are you safer? Is
your family safer? I believe the American people know. The answer to all those
questions is yes. And I believe the American people understand that America is
stronger; stronger because of our alliances. I believe the American consensus
from Truman, to Reagan, to me still holds today. America cannot retreat from
the world. We must lead the world. We are our indispensable nation, as
Madeleine Albright wrote. Now, let me turn to three other key issues. Just
this morning, we had a great economic report showing inflation is down.
Overall prices fell last month. Core inflation is the lowest it's been in
three years. Prices are falling for cars, appliances, and airfares. Grocery
prices have fallen since the start of the year. We're going to keep working to
take down corporate greed to bring those prices down further. Meanwhile, Trump
is calling for a 10% tariff on everything Americans buy, including food from
overseas, vegetables, and other necessities. And economists tell us that that
would cost the average American working family another $2,500 a year; it's a
tax of $2,500 a year. Second, our efforts to secure the Southern border is
working. After Trump killed a bipartisan effort to secure the border,
Republicans and Democrats had worked on. Because he thought it would benefit
me and make him a loser, Republicans walked away. So I took executive action
last month. As a consequence, working with Mexico, border encounters have gone
down over 50%. The current level is lower today than when Trump left office.
Third, for months, the United States has been working to secure a cease fire
in Gaza, to bring the hostages home, to create a path for peace and stability
in the Middle East. Six weeks ago, I laid out a detailed plan in writing, was
endorsed by the UN Security Council, the G7. That framework is now agreed on
by both Israel and Hamas. So I sent my team to the region to hammer out the
details. These are difficult, complex issues. There are still gaps to close.
We're making progress. The trend is positive. And I'm determined to get this
deal done and bring an end to this war, which should end now. Let me conclude
where I began. We're the United States of America. We all are the
indispensable nation. Our leadership matters. Our partnerships matter. This
moment matters. We must rise to meet it. I'll take your questions. I've been
given a list of people to call on here. Reuters, Jeff Mason. >> Mr. President,
your political future has hung over the NATO Summit a little bit this week.
Speaker Pelosi made a point of suggesting that your decision on whether to
stand the race was still open. George Clooney and a handful of lawmakers have
called on you to step aside. Reuters is reporting tonight that UAW leadership
is concerned about your ability to win. >> UAW and just endorse me, but go
ahead. >> Thank you. My question for you is, how are you incorporating these
developments into your decision to stay? And separately, what concerns do you
have about Vice President Harris' ability to beat Donald Trump if she were at
the top of the ticket? >> Look, I wouldn't have picked Vice President Trump to
be vice president, though I think she was not qualified to be president. So
let's start there. Number 1. The consideration is that I think I'm the most
qualified person to run for president. I beat him once, and I will beat him
again. Secondly, I served in the Senate a long time. The idea that senators
and congressmen running for office, worry about the ticket is not unusual. And
I might add, there are at least five presidents running or incumbent
presidents who had lower numbers than I have now later in the campaign. So
there's a long way to go in this campaign, and so I'm just going to keep
moving. And because, look, I got more work to do. We've got more work to
finish. We've made so much progress. Think about it. Think about where we are
economically, relative to the rest of the world. Name me a world leader who
wouldn't want to trade places with our economy. We've created over 800,000
manufacturing jobs,1.5 million jobs, so things are moving. We got more to go.
Working class people still have need help. Corporate greed is still at large.
Their corporate profits have doubled since the pandemic. They're coming down,
and so I'm optimistic about where things are going. Danny Kemp, AFP. >>
Thanks. >> Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to ask you about you mixed up
Presidents Zelenskyy and Putin earlier today. And you now have your key
allies, including the British Prime Minister, the President of France, and the
German Chancellor having to step in and make excuses for you on that.
Officials here are saying off the record that your decline has become
noticeable. Hasn't this now, frankly become damaging for America's standing in
the world? Thank you. >> Did you see any damage to our standing in my leading
this conference? Have you seen a more successful conference? What do you
think? And the Putin piece, I was talking about Putin and I said, and now, at
the very end. I said, here, Putin, I said, no, I'm sorry, Zelenskyy. And then
I add five other names. Look, guys, the idea, anybody suggests that we haven't
had an incredibly successful conference. How many time did you hear in that
conference, I know it sounds too self serving, but other leaders, heads of
state in thanking me saying, the reason we're together is because of Biden,
because Biden did the following? Well, anyway, I thought it was the most
successful conference I've attended in a long time and find me a world leader
who didn't think it was. Next one, sorry, Nancy Cordis, CBS. >> Thank you, Mr.
President. You mentioned other instances in history where presidents have
faced a challenge. But what makes this moment in history so unique is that it
is not your enemies who are calling on you to reconsider your decision to stay
in the race. It's your friends, supporters, people who think you've done a
great job over the past four years. Have you spent time thinking about what it
would mean for your legacy, which you've worked decades to build if you stay
in the race, despite the concerns voters say they have, and you lose to
someone who you yourself have argued is unfit to return to the Oval office? >>
Look, I'm not in this for my legacy, I'm in this to complete the job I
started. As you recall, understandably, many of you and many economists
thought my initial initiatives that I put forward can't do that. It's going to
cause inflation, things are going to skyrocket , the debt's going to go up.
What are you hearing now from mainstream economists? Sixteen economic noble
lawyers said I've done a hell of a job. That under my plan so far and what's
going to happen in the future, if I'm re-elected, that things are going to get
much better. Our economy is growing. I was determined when I got elected to
stop the trickle down economic theory that if the wealthy did very well,
everybody else would do well. My dad was a well red and decent guy. I don't
remember much trickling down on his kitchen table. Middle class people and
working class people need help. And so what happened is, I was able to
implement as president what I believed when I was a senator. And that is that
the way to build this economy is from the middle out and the bottom up. That
way we grow the economy, and the wealthy still do very well. They do fine. And
guess what? Mainstream economists has said, we haven't done well. What have we
not done that isn't working right now? And so we got more to do though, we got
to finish the job. And by the way, I come from the corporate state of the
world. Delaware has more corporations registered in Delaware than every other
state in the nation combined. I'm not anti-corporate, but corporate profits
have doubled since the pandemic. Doubled. It's time things get back in order a
little bit. It's time, for example, if I'm re-elected, we're going to make
sure that rents are kept at 5% increase of corporate rents for apartments and
the like in homes are limited to 5%. We're going to make a lot of changes that
I've been talking about because we're going to continue to grow this economy.
And by the way, I know remember how I got so roundly criticized for being so
pro-union, not labor. Union. Well, guess what? I've been the most pro-union
labor president in history. Not a joke. And guess what? We had the Treasury
Department do a study. When unions do better, everybody does better. And we
talk about how, for example, remember when we talked about getting the
computer chip industry back in the United States, used to be 40% of the
industry. We invented the chip, 40% of the industries in the United States,
and former presidents decided that the best way to do is find the cheapest
labor in the world, send the product over there and import what the product
was. And so what I do? I was told not to go over to Asia, including Europe,
but Asia. And I remember going to South Korea, convincing them to invest $20
billion in the United States to build computer chip factories. And I asked why
when they finally decided to do it? And the answer was because you have the
safest economy in the world, and you have the best workers in the world. So
the whole idea here is, there's over $50 billion in investment in computer
chip manufacturing, just coming into the bin. None of you thought that would
happen. But it's happening. And it's going to grow economies all through and
by the way, red states and blue states, matter factors as much in red states
as the blue states. I made no distinction. So my generic point is that the
idea that we can't continue to build and grow the economy make it fair. And
like I said, from my standpoint, when the middle class does well, that's when
the whole economy grows. The poor of a shot, the wealthy do well, but the
wealthy got to start paying their taxes. >> As a call of sir, you mentioned
that your Vice President Kamala Harris would be elaborating on that. What is
it about her attributes and her accomplishments over the last four years that
make her ready to serve on Day 1, if necessary? >> First of all, the way she's
handled the issue of freedom of women's bodies to have control over the
bodies. Secondly, her ability to handle almost any issue on the board. This
was a hell of a prosecutor. She was a first rate person, and in the senate,
she was really good. I wouldn't have picked her unless I thought she was
qualified to be president. From the very beginning, I made no bones about
that. She is qualified to be president. That's why I picked her. Felicia
Schwartz, Financial Times. Thank. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Presidency is
the most straining job in the world, and it's 24/7. How can you say you'll be
up for that next year, in two years, in four years, given the limits you've
acknowledged that you have today? >> The limits I've acknowledged that have?
>> There's been reporting that you've acknowledged that you need to go to bed
earlier and your evening around 8:00. >> That's not true. Look, what I said
was, instead of my every day, starting at 7:00 and going to bed at midnight,
it'd be smarter for me to pace myself a little more. And I said, for example,
the 8:00, 7:00, 6:00 stuff, instead of starting a fund raiser at nine o'clock,
start it at eight o'clock, people get to go home by 10 o'clock. That's what
I'm talking about. And if you look at my schedule since I made that stupid
mistake in the debate, my schedule has been full bore. Where's Trump been?
Riding around his golf cart, filling out his score card before he hits the
ball? Look, he's done virtually nothing. And I have, I don't know how many,
don't hold me to. Roughly 20 major events. Someone with thousands of people
showing up. I just think it's better. I always have an inclination, whether I
was playing sports or doing politics, just to keep going, not style. I just
got to just pace myself a little more. Pace myself. And the next debate, I'm
not going to be traveling in the 15-time zones a week before. Anyway, that's
what it was about. And by the way, even with that, I love my staff. But they
add things all the time. I'm catching hell from my wife for that. Anyway. I'm
sorry, Zeke Miller, Associated Press. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Two
questions for you. First, on the NATO summit President Zelenskyy in your
meeting with him, he pressed you to lift your limitations on the Ukrainian use
of American weapons, saying that in his public remarks afterwards saying that
Ukraine cannot win the war unless those limitations are lifted? Are you
reconsidering your position on that? And then, secondly, following up on
Felicia's question, there, leaders of your own party have said that they are
not worried about that debate, they're worried about the next bad night and
the bad night after that. How can you reassure the American people that you're
up to the task and that there won't be more bad nights at a debate stage or
somewhere else? >> First thing about Zelenskyy, asking for the ability to
strike deep into Russia. We've allowed Zelenskyy to use American weapons in
the near term and the nearer abroad into Russia. Whether or not he has, he
should be attacked, for example, Zelenskyy, he's not. If he had the capacity
to strike Moscow, strike the Kremlin, would that make sense? It wouldn't. The
question is, what's the best use of the weaponry he has in the weaponry we're
getting to him? I've got a more long range capacity, as well as defensive
capacity. And so our military is work on for the advice of my commander in
Chief, the chief of staff of the military, as well as the Secretary of Defense
and our intelligence people. And we're making a day to day basis on how far
they should go in. That's a logical thing to do. Second question related to.
>> Bad nights, sir. How can you reassure the American people that you won't
have more bad nights, whether they'd be on a debate stage or it's a matter of
foreign policy? >> Well, I tell you what, the best way to assure them is the
way I assure myself. And that is, am I getting the job done? Can you name me
somebody who's got more major piece of legislation passed in 3.5 years? I got
created 2,000 jobs just last week. If I slow down, I can't get the job done.
That's a sign that I shouldn't be doing it. But there's no indication of that
yet? None. Who we got here? Merrick. Polskie Radio. >> Thank you, Mr.
President. How are you? >> I'm well. >> The elections in the US have
consequences around the world. You have pretty high standing in Europe. I just
asked President Macron about you and he said, we are happy to have him as the
president of the United States. But there's a concern many people in Poland
across Europe are worried that the former president may win the election. And
there's a lot of concern that Donald Trump may weaken NATO stop supporting
Ukraine or push Ukraine to give up territories to Russia. >> They're correct.
>> And yourself was warning just two minutes ago about it. So my question is,
do you think that Europe will be left on its own if Donald Trump wins the
election? And what's your advice to European leaders to prepare for possible
US disengagement? >> Well, look, I think, how can I say this without sounding
too self serving? I'm not heading my European allies come up to me and say,
Joe, don't run. What I hear them say is, you've got to win. You can't let this
guy come forward. He'd be disaster. I think he said in one of his rallies,
[inaudible 03:11:49] this recently where NATO, I just learned about NATO or
something to that effect. Foreign policy has never been his strong point, and
he seems to have an affinity to people who are authoritarian. That worries, as
I can tell you from whole, that worries Europe. That worries Poland, and
nobody, including the people of Poland think that if he wins in Ukraine, he's
going to stop in Ukraine, that that's going to be the end of it. And so what I
can say is, I think I'm the best qualified person to do the job to make sure
that Ukraine is not fall, that Ukraine succeeds, that the European Alliance
stays strong. You may recall, no one was talking about Finland joining NATO. I
remember talking to Putin right after he got elected in Geneva. And he was
talking about what we should do, we couldn't be in Eastern Europe, etc. And I
said, you're looking for the findalization of Ukraine. I said, you're going to
get the Natorization of Finland. And about four weeks later, I got a call.
That's not true. Probably five months later when the President of Finland,
could he come and see me? Came in my office, and I invited him to the Oval
Office. We sat down and talked. He said [inaudible 03:13:12] join NATO, could
I help? And I did. Wasn't automatic. And then I got a call from the Swedes. I
beg your pardon. And so Finland joined NATO, 800 mile border is significant.
And they're already allies, but they weren't part of NATO. And you heard, I
think you maybe I can't recall where he said a public in our closed meeting,
but he wouldn't mind being repeated. He said, the people of Finland decided
they had to be part of NATO was in our interest because of the joint ability
to be together to dissuade any attack on Finland. And the same thing with
Sweden. It took a lot of selling to some folks, particularly in Turkey and
other places to agree to the expansion, but it expanded, and we're a hell of a
lot stronger because of it, we're more secure because of it. And by the way, I
was able to get 50 other nations, 50, 5-0 to support Ukraine. Fifty. We're
able to bring about a coalition of Europe and Asia, Japan and South Korea. We
just talked about ARCAS, and we talked about the relationship between
Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, the United States. We're making
the world safer and stronger because we have to deal with the new arrangement
that exists in the world. The Cold War is over, the post war era is over. What
is going to replace it? And I respectfully suggest, I have a pretty good idea
what that should be. I've convinced a lot of people to follow it, and we're
just going to get stronger. >> David Syer. Where's he? >> Thank you, Mr.
President. >> Be nice, David. >> Mr. President, the NATO Declaration that was
issued yesterday was very notable because it described China as a decisive
enabler of the war in Ukraine for its provision of critical goods to the
Russians. That's part of a broader partnership that seems to have cemented in
place in the past two or three years, I think one that you were a little bit
doubtful of when we asked you about it some time ago. So I'd be interested to
know whether you have a strategy now of trying to interrupt the partnership
between China and Russia. And whether or not, in a second term, you would
pursue that if you could describe that strategy to us. And along the way,
could you also tell us whether you think, just to follow up on Felicia's
question, that if you were in a room with Vladimir Putin again, the way you
were three years ago, or with President Xi, that a few years from now, you
will be able to go negotiate with them, handle them one on one? >> Well, the
first part of the question is, we discussed and I raised in the NATO Summit
and others raised, the future of China's involvement, what they're going to
do. What they're doing with Russia in terms of accommodating, facilitating.
They're they're not supplying weapons themselves, they're supplying mechanisms
for them to be able to get weapons. And China's position is, basically, and
I've spent more time with Xi Jinping than any world leader has over 90 hours
since being vice president all the way through, for real and by the way, I
handed all my notes, but my point is that Xi believes that China is a large
enough market that they can entice any country, including European countries,
to invest there in commitments from Europe to do A, B, C, or D or not to do
certain things. What's happened is, we had a long discussion about what we
cannot. We have to make clear China has to understand that if they are
supplying Russia with information and capacity, along with working with North
Korea and others to help Russia in armament, that they're not going to benefit
economically as a consequence of that by getting the investment they're
looking for. And so, for example, and I've re-established direct contact with
China after that member of the balloon "going down", and all of a sudden thing
came to an end. Well, we set up a new mechanism. There's a direct line between
Xi and me and our military has direct access to one another and they contact
one another when we have problems. The issue is that we have to make sure that
Xi understands there's a price to pay for undercutting both the Pacific Basin,
as well as Europe, and as it relates to Russia and dealing with Ukraine. And
so, for example, as you know this area really well, if you want to invest in
China, you have to give a 51% Chinese owner, you have to make sure that you do
by their rules, and that you have to provide all access to all the data and
information you have. There was a while there, as you recall from the last
administration and other administrations, where the access to that market was
enticing enough to get companies to come in because they had access to, not a
billion, but a lot of people in the market and so they were doing it. But that
got curtailed when we started saying, we're going to play by the same rules.
For example, the idea they don't abide by the international rules related to
subsidizing products by the government funding. So, guess what? They're not
going to be able to export their electric vehicles to the United States
without a significant tariff. Others are doing the same thing around the
world, but it is a concern. It is a concern that you have both China, South
and North Korea, Russia, Iran, countries that are not necessarily coordinated
in the past, looking to figure out how they can have impact. >> Are you
planning to interrupt that impact? >> Yes, I do, but I'm not prepared to talk
about the detail of it in public. And I think you'll see that some of our
European friends are going to be curtailing their investment in China, as long
as China continues to have this indirect help to Russia in terms of being able
to help their economy, as well as help them as a consequence that their
ability to fight in Ukraine. The other thing that we talked a lot about is
that, and I raised it and I can't swear that everyone agreed because not
everybody got to talk about it, but we need a new industrial policy in the
West. For example, we talked about how both the EU, as well as NATO has to be
able to begin to build their own munition capacity, has to be able to generate
their own capacity to provide for weapons. It came as a surprise to some of us
how we had fallen behind in the West in terms of the ability to construct new
material, new weaponry, everything from vehicles to weapon systems. And so one
of the things that came out of this was, we're going to be meeting again with
a number of my colleagues, my European colleagues, i, what do we do to
increase the capacity of the West, particularly in Europe and Japan, to be
able to generate the ability to produce their own weapon systems, not just for
themselves, but to be able to generate that? It's the same as what Russia's
trying to figure out that they went to China, and they didn't get the weapons,
but then then they went to North Korea. But we're going to be in a position
where the West is going to become the industrial base for the ability to have
all the defensive weapons that we need. That was a discussion as well. >> I'm
sure you answered on whether you would be ready to go deal with Putin and Xi
two or three years from now. >> I'm ready to deal with them now and three
years from now. Look, like I said, I'm dealing with Xi right now and direct
contact with him. I have no good reason to talk to Putin right now. There's
not much that he is prepared to do in terms of accommodating any change in his
behavior. But there isn't any world leader I'm not prepared to deal with, but
I understand and a generic point is Putin ready to talk? I'm not ready to talk
to Putin unless Putin is ready to change his behavior. Look, Putin's got a
problem. First of all, in this war that he is supposedly have won, and by the
way, don't hold me the exact number, but I think that Russia had 17.3 percent
of Ukraine that they've conquered now at 17.4 in terms of percentage of
territory, they've not been very successful. They've called horrible damage
and loss of life, but they've also lost over 350,000 troops, military, killed
or wounded. They've over a million people, particularly young people with tech
technical capability, leaving Russia because they see no future there. They've
got a problem. But what they do have control of is they are very good at
controlling and running the public outcry that relates to how they use
mechanisms to communicate with people. They lie like hell through the
constituencies, they lie like hell about what's going on. And so the idea that
we're going to be able to fundamentally change Russia in a near term is not
likely, but one thing for certain, if we allow Russia to succeed in Ukraine,
they're not stopping in Ukraine. I recommend, I know you know this because
you've written about it, read Putin's speech after they moved in, what it was
all about in Kyiv. Anyway, read what his objective is. So I think that I'm
prepared to talk to any leader who wants to talk, including if Putin called me
and wanted to talk. Last time I talked to Putin was trying to get him to work
on an arms control agreement related to nuclear weapons in space. That didn't
go very far. So my point is, I'm prepared to talk to anybody, but I don't see
any inclination. There is an inclination on the part of the Chinese to keep in
contact with me because they're not sure where this all goes. And look what's
happened in Asia. We have strengthened the Asian Pacific area more than
anybody else has. Going on, I asked my NATO allies that we bring on the group
from the South Pacific, Australia, New Zealand, Japan. I already mentioned
Australia. And I met twice now, I think with the 14 leaders of the Pacific
Island nations. And we've slowed down what's going on there. We've slowed down
China's reach, but there's a lot of work to do. This is a moving target and I
don't take it lightly. Sam from NPR. >> Thank you, Mr. President. As Mahald
with NPR, I have two questions. Earlier, you spoke about the cease fire plan
between Israel and Hamas. We're now looking at 10 months of war and I'm
curious if there's anything that you feel personally you wish you would have
done differently over the course of the war. And then secondly, if I may, I
wanted to ask you about your presidential campaign. I remember covering your
campaign in 2020 and there was a moment where you referred to yourself as
"bridge candidacy," a transition to a younger generation of leaders. I want to
understand, what changed? >> Two things. Let's go back to when you talked
about, would I have changed anything that's happening with Israel and the
Palestinians and the Palestinian movement. The answer is, as you recall, from
the very beginning, immediately I went to Israel, but I also got immediate
contact with el-Sisi in Egypt, I met with the king of Jordan, I met with most
of the Arab leaders to try to get a consensus going as to what had to be done
to deal with getting more aid, and food, and medicine into the Gaza Strip. And
we pushed it really hard and Israel occasionally was less than cooperative,
number 1. The Israeli war cabinet, I've been dealing with Israel since Golda
Meir. Some of the reporters around here cover me all the time have heard me
say this. The last first time I met with Golda Meir, I sat across from her on
her desk, and her assistant was Rabin sitting next to me. That's how far back
I go. I know Israel well and I support Israel, but this war cabinet is one of
the most conservative war cabinets in the history of Israel. And there's no
ultimate answer other than a two-state solution here. And so what was able to
be done in terms of the plan I put together was there would be a process for a
two-state solution. And we'd get the Arab nations, particularly from Egypt, to
all the way to Saudi Arabia, to be in a position where they would cooperate in
the transition so that they could keep the peace in Gaza without Israeli
forces staying in Gaza. The question has been from the beginning, what's the
day after in Gaza? And the day after in Gaza has to be no occupation by Israel
and the Gaza Strip, as well as the ability for us to get in and out as rapidly
as you can, all that's needed there. I've been disappointed that some of the
things that I've put forward have not succeeded as well, like the port
reattached from Cyprus. I was hopeful that would be more successful. But
that's why when I went to Israel immediately after the massacres that occurred
as it had hands of Hamas, one thing I said to Israelis and I met with the war
cabinet and with BB, don't make the same mistake America made after bin Laden.
There's no need to occupy anywhere. Go after the people who did the job. You
may recall, I still get criticized for it, but I was totally opposed to the
occupation and trying to unite Afghanistan. Once we got bin Laden, we should
have moved on. And no one's ever going to unite that country. I've been over,
not every inch, the entirety from the poppy fields all the way to the North.
So don't make the same mistake we made. Don't think that's what you should be
doing is doubling down. We'll help you find the bad guys, Sinwar and company,
and all this criticism about I wouldn't provide the weapons they needed. I'm
not providing them 2,000 pound bombs. They cannot be used in Gaza or any
populated area without causing great human tragedy and damage. But remember
what happened when you had the attack on Israel with rockets and ballistic
missiles. I was able to unite the Arab nations as well as Europe and nothing
happened, nothing got hurt. It sent an incredible lesson to what was going on
from the Middle East. So there's a lot of things, in retrospect, I wish I had
been able to convince the Israelis to do, but the bottom line is, we have a
chance now. It's time to end this war. It doesn't mean walk away from going
after Sinwar and Hamas. And if you notice, you know better than most, there is
a growing dissatisfaction on the West Bank from the Palestinians about Hamas.
Hamas is not popular now and so there's a lot of moving parts. I just have to
keep moving to make sure that we get as much done as we can toward a cease
fire. And by the way, look at the numbers in Israel. My numbers are better in
Israel than they are here. But then again, they are better than a lot of other
people here too. >> If I may rephrase the question about bridge candidacy in
2020, you referred to yourself as being a bridge candidate for a younger,
fresher generation of democratic leaders, and I wanted to know what changed.
>> What changed was the gravity of the situation I inherited in terms of the
economy, our foreign policy, and domestic division. And I think I won't put
words in anybody's mouth. >> Most presidential historians give me credit for
having accomplished more than most any president since Johnson and maybe
before that, to get major piece of legislation passed. And what I realized was
my long time in the Senate had equipped me to have the wisdom and know how to
deal with the Congress , to get things done. We got more major legislation
passed that no one thought would happen. And I want to finish it to get that
finished. If tomorrow, if we had a circumstance where there was a lineup and I
hadn't inherited what I did and we just moved things along. Anyway, it's going
to change. >> Last question. >> Haley Bull, Scripps. No, Josh Wingrove. I'm
sorry. What's the next one? I'll do two more questions. >> Thank you, Mr.
President. Many of your colleagues, Democrats in the Hill are watching tonight
as they assess what they want to say about your candidacy. I'm wondering how
you're thinking of this right now. It seems like your answer is clear, but
they're watching how things go tonight, tomorrow in Michigan, next week in
Texas and Nevada. Are you thinking that way, about whether how the next week
or two goes would inform them? Are you thinking that way about how the next
two weeks go? Will that affect your decision, or are you fully determined on
running in November as the party's nominee? >> I'm determined on running, but
I think it's important that I lay fears by letting them see me out there. For
the longest time it was, Biden's not prepared to sit with us unscripted.
Biden's not prepared in any way. And so what I'm doing is that I've been
doing, I think we've done over 20 events from Wisconsin to North Carolina to
demonstrate that I'm going out in the areas where we think we can win, where
we can persuade people to move our way, or people are already there. And look,
the other thing is, we have the most extensive campaign organization that
anybody's had in a long long time. We have well over 1,000 volunteers,
knocking on doors, making tens of thousands of phone calls. We have
headquarters. I forget exactly how many. I don't want to cite a number and
then find out I'm off. But we have scores of headquarters in all the toss up
states, we're organized, we're moving. And that's awful hard to replace in the
near term. And here's the other thing. I was in the Senate a long time. Very
proud of what I've done in the Senate. I was chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee for a long time, and I was ranking member and chairman of the
Judiciary Committee. I'm going to be going down to the Johnson Library. I'm
going to be going around making the case of the things that I think we have to
finish and how we can't afford to lose what we've done or backslide on civil
rights, civil liberties, women's rights; that little button we have.
Controlled guns, not girls. The idea we're sitting around, this where common
was so good as well, we're sitting around, more children are killed by a
bullet than any other cause of death. The United States of America , what the
hell are we doing? What are we doing? We got a candidate saying promised
[inaudible 03:37:11] don't worry. I'm not going do anything. You got a Supreme
Court that is what you might call the most conservative court in American
history. This is ridiculous. There's so much we can do still. And I'm
determined to get it done. It's about freedom. And by the way, I'll end this.
Well, I'm not going to do that, Haley has to come up too. But I remember I
made a speech on democracy in Philadelphia, at Independence Hall. And I'm not
being critical. Just observe it. The bulk of the press, what the hell he
talking about that for? You did. Democracy is not an issue. Except the polling
data showed 60% of the people thought I was right. I'm not asking you a
question, you don't have to answer, obviously. But do you think our democracy
is under siege, based on this court? Do you think democracy is under siege
based on Project 2025? Do you think he means what he says when he says he's
going to do away with the civil service, eliminate the Department of
Education? I mean, we've never been here before. And that's the other reason
why didn't you say hand off to another generation. I've got to finish this job
because there's so much at stake. >> We've had some discussions over the past
few days with your press secretary about the question of health exams. And you
said you take a cognitive test every day in this job. Are you open to taking
another physical or test before the election? Governor Whitmer of Michigan,
for instance, said it wouldn't hurt to take a test. >> Well, look. Two things.
One. I've taken three significant and intense neurological exams by a
neurologist. In each case, as recently as February, and they say I'm in good
shape. Although I do have a little problem with my left foot because it's not
as sensitive because I broke my foot and didn't wear the boot , but I'm good.
I'm tested every single day about my neurological capacity to decisions I make
every day. You talk to my staff, all of you talk to my staff. My staff talks a
lot. But the fact of the matter is, I don't think you have them telling you
that all the major ideas we've undertaken haven't been in part initiated by
me. I remember when the staff and I said, I'm going to go to South Korea.
We're going to get the Chip. What are you doing? I'm going to get Japan and
Korea back together again after essentially having hostilities toward one
another since the end of World War II. I'm going to move and see that we can
expand. The only thing age does is creates a little bit of wisdom if you pay
attention. And so the point I'm making is, I think it's important that if the
neurologist tells me, he thinks I need another exam. And by the way, I've laid
every bit of the record out, I haven't hidden a thing. You ought to ask Trump
for his. I laid it all out. And every single day, I'm surrounded by good docs.
If they think there's a problem, I promise you, or even if they don't think
it's a problem, they think I should have a neurological exam again, I'll do
it. But no one's suggesting that to me now. And I'll ask you another question.
No matter what I did, no one's going to be satisfied. Did you have seven docs?
Did you have two? Who did you have? Did you do this? How many times? So I am
not opposed. If my doctors tell me that I should have another neurological
exam , I'll do it. But that's where I am. Haley Bull, Scripps. >> Thank you,
Mr. President. You said you're making decisions on a day to day basis when it
comes to support for Ukraine. Does that mean you have not closed the door on
further considering lifting restrictions for US made weapons inside Russia?
And if I may, your convention is coming up where your delegates are pledged to
make you the official nominee. If they have second thoughts, are they free to
vote their conscience? >> Obviously, they're free to do whatever they want,
but I get overwhelming support. I forget how many votes I won in the primary.
Overwhelming. And so, tomorrow, if all of a sudden I show up at the
convention, everybody says, we want somebody else. That's the democratic
process. It's not going to happen. >> Even if that means they vote for someone
else? >> Sure. Look, and I'll end this with this. I served in the Senate a
long time. I understand the impetus of candidates running for local office,
and whether they think the top if they can help them or not. In my state of
Delaware, which was a red state when I started in terms of where you now talk
red and blue. I don't recall most of the Democratic presidents winning my
state when I was a candidate. The truth of the matter is, I understand the
self interest of a candidate. If they think that run with Biden at top is
going to hurt them, then they're going to run away. I get it. But so far, go
and look at the polling data in their states. And by the way, I think you'd
all acknowledge, and you're all experts, I'm not being solicitous about the
press. You're your experts on this stuff. How accurate does anybody think the
polls are these days? I can give a series of polls where you have likely
voters, me versus Trump, where I win all the time. When the unlikely voters
vote, he win sometimes. The bottom line is all the polling data right now,
which I think is premature because the campaign really hasn't even started. I
mean, it hasn't started in earnest yet. Most of the time it doesn't start till
after September after Labor Day. So a lot happened. But I believe I'm the best
qualified to govern. And I think I'm the best qualified to win. But there are
other people, could be Trump too. But it's awful to start from scratch. And we
talk about money raised. We're not doing bad. We got about $220 million in the
bank. We're doing well. So with that, does anyone want to follow up on any of
that you just asked me? >> Yes. You earlier explained confidence in your vice
president? >> Yes. >> If your team came back and showed you data that she
would fare better against former President Donald Trump, would you reconsider
your decision to stay in the race? >> No. Unless they came back and said,
there's no way you can win. Me. No one is saying it. No poll says that.
Thanks. >> This ends tonight's press conference. Thanks everybody. >>
Respectfully, earlier you misspoke in your opening answer, you referred to
Vice President Harris as Vice President Trump. Right now Donald Trump is using
that to mock your age and your memory. How do you combat that criticism from
tonight? >> Listen to him. >> This concludes tonight's press conference. Thank
you, everybody. Thanks, everyone. >> [inaudible 03:47:12]