Refinitiv Newscasts - U.S. President Joe Biden holds formal news conference 1

FAR

20/01/2022 01:49

Click the following link to watch video: https://share.newscasts.refinitiv.com/link?entryId=1_igamuwr0&referenceId=1_igamuwr0&pageId=RefinitivNewscasts
Source: Reuters

Description: U.S. President Joe Biden conducts formal news conference, as he
marks his first year in office.
Short Link: https://refini.tv/3rALnpC

Video Transcript:

>> Microphone check. >> G announced test mic test 1.2.3.4. Yeah. Ladies and
gentlemen, the President of the United States. >> Hello folks, nice to be
here. Good afternoon everyone. Tomorrow will mark one year since I took
office. It's been a year of challenges, but it's also been a year of enormous
progress. We went from two million people being vaccinated at that moment, I
was sworn in, to 210 million Americans being fully vaccinated today. We've
created six million new jobs, more jobs than one year than any time before.
The unemployment rate dropped to 3.9%, child poverty dropped by nearly 40%.
The biggest drop ever in American history. New business applications grew by
30%, the biggest increase ever. And for the first time a long time this
country's working people actually got a rise. The bottom 40% saw their income
go up. The most of all those categories. We've cut health insurance premiums
for millions of American families and we just made surprise medical bills
illegal in this country. You know those bills you get that you don't expect
them of up to $2-5 thousand from the hospital beyond, what you thought you
were going to have to owe because of the consultation you weren't told was
going to cost that much? No more. They're now illegal. Thanks to the American
rescue plan and other actions we've taken. We've seen record job creation,
record economic growth in the past year. Now, thanks to the black partnership
for such a bill, we're about to make a record investment in rebuilding America
who will take us to be the number 1 best infrastructure in the world but now
we're way below that. We'll be creating better jobs for millions of people,
modernizing our roads, our bridges, our highways, our ports, our airports,
everything from making clean water, removing lead pipes. That every American
can turn on the faucet and drink clean water. Urban, rural and suburban
communities. It's going to make affordable high-speed internet available to
every American in urban, rural, and suburban areas. We've never done that
before. Now we're in the process of getting that done. Still for all this
progress, I know that there is a lot of frustration and fatigue in this
country. And we know why? COVID-19, Omicron has now been challenging us in a
way that it's the new enemy. But while it's caused of construct concern, it's
not caused for panic. We've been doing everything we can, learning and
adapting as fast as we can, and preparing for future beyond the pandemic. All
I know that after almost two years of physical, emotional, and psychological
weight of this pandemic, and it has the impact it's had on everyone. For many
of us, it has been too much to bear. We're in a very different place now
though. We have the tools, vaccines, boosters, mask, test, pills to save lives
and keep businesses and schools opened. Seventy five percent of adults are
fully vaccinated. We've gone from 90 million adults with no shots in arms last
summer and down to 35 million with no shots as at today. And we're adding
about nine million more vaccinations each week. We're going to stick with our
vaccination efforts because vaccinations work. So get vaccinated please , and
get your booster. Look, we're also increasing testing. Should we have done
more testing earlier? Yes. But we're doing more now. We've gone from zero at
home test a year ago to 375 million tests on the market in just this month, if
you buy a test that'll store your insurance will [inaudible 00:14:58] you. On
top of that, we're making one billion at home test available for you to order
and be delivered to your home for free. Just visit covidtest.gov to know how
to get that free test the kids to your home. In addition, there are 20,000
sites where you can get tested in person for free now. And now we have more
treatments for people who keep people out of the hospital than any other point
in the pandemic, including lifesaving antiviral pills. We've purchased 20
million of these new Pfizer pills more than any country in the world. Bottom
line of COVID-19, is that we're in a better place than we've been and had been
thus far, clearly better than a year ago. We're not going back to lock downs.
We're not going back to closing schools. School should stay open. Because the
American rescue plan will provide to the states $130 billion to keep our
students and educators safe and schools open. Funding for ventilation system
in schools, social distancing, hygiene for classrooms, and the school buses.
In addition, we've added another $10 billion for COVID-19 tests to be able to
be administered at schools. Many states and school districts have spent this
money very well. Unfortunately, some haven't. I encourage the states and
school districts that use the funding to protect our children and keep our
schools open, use it. The COVID-19 is not going to give up and accept things,
it's not going to go away immediately, but I'm not going to give up and accept
things as they are now. Some people may call what's happening now, a new
normal. I call it a job not yet finished. It will get better. We are moving
toward a time in COVID-19 won't disrupt our daily lives. COVID-19 won't be a
crisis, but something to protect against and a threat. Look, we're not there
yet, but we will get there. Now the second challenge we're facing, our prices,
COVID-19 has created a lot of economic complications, including rapid price
increases across the world economy. People see it at the gas pump, the grocery
stores, and elsewhere. So here's what we're going to do. A critical job in
making sure that the elevated prices don't become entrenched rests with the
federal reserve, which has a dual mandate, full employment and stable process.
The federal reserve provided extraordinary support during the crisis for the
previous year and a half. Given the strength of our economy and the pace of
recent price increases, its appropriate. As the federal chairman, chairman
Powell has indicated to recalibrate the support that is not necessary. I
respect the fed's independence. I've nominated five superb individuals to
serve on the federal Board of Governors, men and women, from a variety of
ideological perspectives. They're eminently qualified, historically diverse,
and I've earned bi-partisan praise. I call in the United States Senate to
confirm them without any further delay. And here at the White House, and for
my friends in Congress, the best thing to tackle high prices is a more
productive economy with greater capacity to deliver goods and services to the
American people and a growing economy where folks have more choices and more
small businesses compete and where more goods can get to market faster and
cheaper. I've laid out a three part plan to do just that. First, fixed the
supply chain. COVID-19 has had a global impact on the economy. When a factory
shuts down in one part of the world, shipments to shops and homes and
businesses all over the world are disrupted. COVID-19 has compounded that many
times over a couple of months ago. In this very room we talked, we heard dire
warnings about how the supply chain problems could create a real crisis around
the holidays. So we acted, we brought together business and labor. And that
much predicted crisis did not occur, 99% of the packages were delivered on
time and shelves were stocked. And not withstanding the recent storms that
have impacted many parts of our country, the share of goods in stock at stores
is 89% now, which is barely changed from the 91% before the pandemic. I often
see empty shelve being shown on television, 89% are full, which is only a few
points below what it was before the pandemic. But our work's not done. My
infrastructure law will supercharge your effort upgrading everything from
roads and bridges, to ports and airports, railways and transit, to make the
economy move faster and reduce prices for families. Second thing, my build
back better plan will address the biggest cost of working families face every
day. No other plan will do more to lower the costs for American families and
cuts the cost for childcare. Many families, including the people sitting in
his room if they have children and are working full-time. Many families pay up
to $14,000 a year for childcare in big cities, less than that in smaller ones.
My plant cuts that in half. That will not only be a game changer for so many
families budgets, but it will mean so much. Nearly two million woman who've
left the workforce during the pandemic because of things like childcare. My
build back better plan cuts the price of prescription drugs. So insulin that
today costs some people as much as $1000 a month, will cost no more than $35 a
month. It cuts the cost of elder care, the lower its energy to cost, and it
will do all this without raising a single penny in taxes on people making
under $400,000 a year or raising the deficits. In fact, my plan cuts the
deficit, and it boost the economy by getting more people into the workforce.
That's why 17 Nobel Prize winners for economics, say will ease long term
inflationary pressure. The bottom line, if price increases are what you're
worried about, the best answer is my build back better plans. Third thing
we'll do, promote competition. Look in too many industries, I had full of
giant companies dominate the market in sectors like meat processing, railroad
shipping, and other areas. This isn't a new issue, its not been the reason
we've had high inflation today is not the only reason. It's been happening for
a decade, but over time it has reduced competition, squeezed out small
businesses and farmers, ranchers, and increase the price for consumers. We end
up with an industry like the meat processing industry, where four big
companies dominate the markets. Pay ranchers less for their cattle they grow,
charge consumers more for beef, hamburger meat wherever they're buying. Prices
are up. Look, I'm a capitalist but capitalism without competition is not
capitalism, it's exploitation. I signed an executive order to tackle unfair
competition on our economy. We're going continue to enforce it along with
working with Congress where we can. A close of this, we have faced some of the
biggest challenges that we've ever faced in this country these past few years.
Challenges to our public health, challenges to our economy , but we're getting
through it, and not only are we getting through it, we're laying the
foundation for the future, where America wins the 21st century by creating
jobs at a record pace. Now we need to get inflation under control. We have
developed an extraordinarily effective booster shots and anti viral pills. Now
we need to finish the job due to COVID-19 under control. I've long said it's
never been a good bet to bet against the American people or America. I believe
that more than ever today. We've seen the great determination of the American
people this past year, but the best days of this country are still ahead of
us, not behind us. Now I'm happy to take questions. Yes? >> Thank you. Mr.
President, I know some of my colleagues will get into some specific issues,
but I want to zoom out on your first year in office. Inflation is up, your
signature domestic legislation is stalled in Congress. In a few hours from now
and effort in the Senate to deal with voting rights and voting reform
legislation is going to fail. COVID-19 is still taking the lives of 1500
Americans every day and the nations divisions are just as raw as they were a
year ago. Did you over-promise to the American public what you could achieve
in your first year in office and how do you plan to course-correct going
forward? >> Why are you such an optimist? Look, I didn't over-promise, but I
have probably outperformed when anybody felt what happened. The fact of the
matter is that we're in a situation where we have made enormous progress. You
mentioned the number of deaths from COVID. Well, it was three times that not
long ago. It's coming down, everything's changing. It's getting better. Look,
I didn't over-promise. But I think if you take a look at what we've been able
to do, you'd have to acknowledge we made enormous progress. But one of the
things that I hadn't been able to do so far, is get my Republican friends to
get in the game of making things better in this country. For example, I was
reading the other day and I wrote the quote down, so I don't miss quotum. I
quote from Governor Sununu when he decided he wasn't going to run for the
Senate in New Hampshire. Here's what he said, "They were all for the most
part, content with the speed at which they weren't doing anything. It was very
clear that we just had the whole line for two years. Okay, so I'm just going
to be a roadblock for the next two years? That's not what I do." Sununu said.
"Honestly it bothered me that they were okay with that." Then he goes on to
say, "I said, okay, we're not going to get stuff done if we win the White
House back. Why didn't we do anything in 2017 and 2018?" Then he said, "How
did Republican Sununu spoke to answer the challenge?", he said, "Crickets
yeah, crickets. They had no answer". I did not anticipate that there'd be such
a stalwart effort to make sure that the most important thing was that
President Biden didn't get anything done. Think about this. What are
Republicans for? What are they for? Name me one thing they are for. And so the
problem here is that I think what I have to do in the change in tactic, if you
will, I have to make clear to the American people what we are for. We've
passed a lot, we've passed a lot of things that people don't even understand
what's all within it understandably. Remember when we passed the Affordable
Care Act and everybody thought that it really was getting pummeled and beaten
and it wasn't until after you're out of office and that next campaign went off
your campaign. I wasn't in office in the morning, I went to a whole bunch of
districts campaigning for Democrats and Republican districts who said they
wanted to do away with health care, with Obamacare. I started pointing out
that if you did that, preexisting conditions would no longer be covered.
Listen, we didn't know that, and guess what, we won over 38 seats because we
had explained to the people exactly what in fact had passed. One of the things
that I remember saying and I'll end this, I remember saying to President Obama
when he passed the Affordable Care Act, I said, "You have to take a victory
lap" , and he said, "There's so many things going on, we don't have done a
time to take a victory lap." As a consequence, no one knew what the detail of
the legislation was. They don't know a lot of the detail of what we pass. So
the difference is, I'm going to be out on the road a lot and making the case
around the country with my colleagues who were up for reelection and others
making the case of what we did do and what we want to do, what we need to do.
I don't think I've over-promised at all and I'm going to stay on this track.
One of the things that I remember, and I'll end is, I was talking with Jim
Clyburn, who was a great help to me in the campaign in South Carolina. Jim
said, and when he endorsed me, there was a clip on television for the last
couple of days of Jim, and he said that, we want to make things accessible and
affordable for all Americans at healthcare, at education, at prescription
drugs. That's making sure you have access to all the things that everybody
else has. We can afford to do that, we can't afford not to do it. So I tell my
republican friends, here I come. This is going to be about what are you for
and lay out what we're for. Mary Russia, ABC. >> Thank you, Mr. President. You
mentioned your Republican colleagues, but right now your top two legislative
priorities, your social spending package and voting rights legislation are
stalled, blocked by your own party after months of negotiation, you are only
guaranteed control of Washington for one more year before the midterms. Do you
need to be more realistic and scale down these priorities in order to get
something passed? >> No. I don't think so. When you say more realistic, I
think it's extremely realistic to say to people, because, let me backup. You
all really know the politics in this country in your networks and other issues
spend a lot of time, which I'm glad you do, polling this data, determining
what the American people's attitudes are, etc. American people overwhelmingly
agree with me on prescription drugs. They overwhelmingly agree with me on the
cost of education. They overwhelmingly agree with me on early education. They
overwhelming, and go on the list on childcare. And so we just have to make the
case what we're for and what the other teams are for. Look, we knew all along
that a lot of this was going to be an uphill fight. One of the ways to do this
is to make sure we make the contrast as clear as we can. One of the things
that we're going to have to do is just make the case. I don't think there's
anything unrealistic about risk, I'm not asking for castles in the sky. I'm
asking for practical things the American people have been asking for, for a
long time, and I think we can get it done. >> You're saying that you're not
going to scale down any of these priorities. But so far that strategy isn't
working. You haven't been able to get some of these big legislative ticket
item done. >> I got two real big ones done, bigger than any president has ever
gotten in the first year. >> But currently Mr. President, you're spending
package, voting rights legislation, they're not going anywhere. >> That's
true. >> Is there anything that you are confident you can get signed into law
before the mid-term elections? >> Yes. I'm confident we can get pieces big
chunks of the bill back better law, signed into law, and I'm confident that we
can take the case to the American people, that the people they should be
voting for, who are going to oversee whether you're elections in fact are
legit or not, should not be those who are being put up by the Republicans to
determine that they're going to be able to change the outcome of the election.
So whether or not we can actually get an election, by the way, I haven't given
up, we haven't finished the vote yet on what's going on, on voting rights in
the John Lewis bill and others. But look, I've been engaged a long time in
public policy. I don't know many things that have been done in one fell swoop.
And so I think the most important thing to do is try to inform not educate,
inform the public on what's at stake in stark terms and let them make
judgments and let them know who's for them and whose against them, who's there
and who's not there, and make that the case. And that's what I'm going to be
spending my time doing in this off-year election. >> You mentioned Republicans
and reaching out to them. Some Republicans who may be open to major changes on
voting rights, for instance, like Mitt Romney, he says, he never even received
a phone call from this White House. Why not? >> Look, Mitt Romney's a straight
guy. One of the things that we're doing, I was trying to make sure we got
everybody on the same page in my party on the score. I didn't call many
Republicans at all. The fact, is that I do think that Mitt is a serious guy. I
think we can get things done. I predict to you, we'll get something done on
the electoral reform side of this. But rather than judge what's going get done
or not get done, all I can say is I'm going to continue to make the case why
it's so important to not turn electoral process over to political persons from
the setup deliberately to change the outcome of elections. Alice and Harris,
please. >> Thank you Mr. President. Speaking of voting rights legislation, if
this isn't passed, do you still believe the upcoming election will be fairly
conducted and its results will be legitimate? >> Well, it all depends on
whether or not we're able to make the case to the American people that some of
this is being set up to try to alter the outcome of the election. Look, maybe
I'm just being too much of an optimist. Remember how we thought not that many
people were going to show up to vote in the middle of a pandemic with the
highest voter turnout in the history of the United States of America. Well, in
fact, no matter how hard they make it for minorities to vote, I think you're
going see them willing to stand in line and defy the attempt to keep them from
being able to vote. I think you're going to see the people we try to keep from
being able to show up showing up and making the sacrifice they need to make in
order to change the law back to what it should be. But it's going to be
difficult. I make no bones about that, it's going to be difficult. But we're
not there yet, we've not run out of options yet, and we'll see how this moves.
>> And on Omicron and education, teachers are in revolt in so many places,
parents are at odds over closing schools and remote learning. You say we're
not going to go back to closing schools, you said that just moments ago, yet
they're closing in some areas. What do you say to those teachers, and
principals, and parents about school closings, and what can your
administration do to help make up for learning loss for students? >> First of
all, I'll put in perspective the question you asked : Very few schools are
closing. Over 95% are still open. I don't think it's deliberate on your part,
but you phrased the question, anyone who watches this on television, "My God,
all those schools must be closing. What are we going to do?" 95% are still
open, number 1. Number 2: The idea that parents don't think it's important for
their children to be in school and teachers know it as well, that's why we
made sure that we had the ability to provide the funding through the Recovery
Act, the first act we passed, to be able to make sure schools were able to be
safe so we have the ventilation systems available for them, we have the way
they scrub down the laboratories kids go to to go to the bathroom, cafeterias,
buses, etc. All that money is there. There's billions of dollars made
available, it's there. Not every school district has used it as well as it
should be used, but it's there. And so in addition to that, there is now
another $10 billion for testing of students in the schools. So I think, as
time goes on, it's much more likely you're going to see that number go back up
from 95% back up to 98, 99%. But the outfit, the individuals in the district
that says, we're not going to be open, and I'm not being critical of any of
you, it's always going to get front page. It's always going to be at the top
of the news. But let's put it in perspective, as high as 98% of the schools in
America are open, functioning, and capable of doing the job. How about Jenn
Epstein Bloomberg? >> Mr. President, thank you. Your top foreign policy
advisors have warned that Russia is now ready to attack Ukraine, but there's
still little unity among European allies about what a package of sanctions
against Moscow would look like. If the US and NATO aren't willing to put
troops on the line to defend Ukraine and American allies can't agree on
sanctions package, hasn't the US and the West lost nearly all of it's leverage
over Vladimir Putin? And given how ineffective sanctions have been in
deterring Putin in the past, why should the threat of new sanctions give him
pause? >> Well, because he's never seen sanctions like the ones I promised
will be imposed if he moves, number 1. Number 2, we're in a situation where
we've had very frank discussions, Vladimir Putin and I, and the idea that NATO
is not going to be united, I don't buy. I've spoken to every major NATO
leader. We've had the NATO Russia Summit, we've had other, the OSCE has met,
etc. And so I think what you're going to see is that Russia will be held
accountable if it invades. And it depends on what it does. It's one thing if
it's a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and
not do, etc. But if they actually do what they're capable of doing with the
force of mass on the border, it is going to be a disaster for Russia if they
further invade Ukraine, and that our allies and partners are ready to impose
severe cost and significant harm on Russia and the Russian economy. And we're
going to fortify our NATO allies. I told him on the Eastern Flank if, in fact,
he does invade, I've already shipped over $600 million worth of sophisticated
equipment, defensive equipment, to the Ukrainians. The cost of going into
Ukraine in terms of physical loss of life for the Russians, they'll be able to
prevail over time, but it's going to be heavy, it's going to be real, it's
going to be consequential. In addition to that, Putin has a stark choice :
either de-escalation or diplomacy, confrontation of the consequences. For
example, everybody talks about how Russia has control over the energy supply
that Europe absorbs. Well, guess what? That money that they earn from that
makes about 45% of the economy. I don't see that as a one-way street. They go
ahead and cut it off, it's like my mother used to say, you bite your nose off
to spite your face. It's not like they have all these wonderful choices out
there. I spoke with the prime minister of Finland. We're talking about our
concern on the part of Finland and Sweden about what Russia is doing. The last
thing that Russia needs is Finland deciding to change its status. They didn't
say they're going to do that, but they're talking about what, in fact, is
going on and how outrageous Russia has been. We're finding ourselves in a
position where I believe you'll see that there'll be severe economic
consequences. For example, anything that involves dollar denominations, if
they invade, they're going to pay. Their banks will not be able to deal with
dollars. So there's a lot that's going to happen. But here's the thing, my
conversation with Putin, we have no problem understanding one another, he has
no problem understanding me, nor me him. The conversations were, I pointed
out, I said, "You've occupied before other countries, but the price has been
extremely high. How long?" You can go in, and over time at great loss, an
economic loss, go in and occupy Ukraine, but how many years? 1, 3, 5, 10? What
is that going to take? What tools does that take? It's real, it's
consequential. So this is not all just a cakewalk for Russia. Militarily, they
have overwhelming superiority in relation to Ukraine, but they'll pay a stiff
price immediately, near-term, medium-term, and long-term if they do it. I'm
sorry. David Sanger, New York Times. >> Thank you, Mr. President, I wanted to
follow-up on your answer there about Russia and Ukraine. When you were in
Geneva in June, you said to us about President Putin. I think the last thing
he wants now is a cold war. Since then, of course, you've seen him gather
these troops, 100000 troops around Ukraine. The Secretary of State said today
he thought he could invade it at any moment you've seen the cyber attacks. And
you've seen the demand that he have a sphere of influence in which you would
withdraw all American troops and nuclear weapons from what used to be the
Soviet Bloc. So I'm wondering if you still think that the last thing he wants
as a cold war and has your view of him changed in the past few months? And if
it has and he does invade, would your posture be to really move back to the
containment policy that you saw so often when you were still in the Senate? >>
The answer is that I think he still does not want any full-blown war. Number
one. Number two, do I think he'll test the west? Test the United States and
NATO, as significantly as you can, yes, I think he will. But I think he will
pay a serious and dear price for it that he doesn't think now will cost them
what it's going to cost them. And I think he'll regret having done it. Now,
whether or not, I think that how can I say this in a public forum? I think
that he is dealing with what I believe he thinks is the most tragic thing
that's happened to Mother Russia. That the Berlin wall came down, the empire
has been lost, the near abroad has gone etc. The Soviet Union has been split.
But think about what he has, his eight time zones, burning tundra that will
not freeze again naturally. A situation where he has a lot of oil and gas, but
he is trying to find his place in the world between China and the West. David
I'm not so sure he has, is certain what he's going to do. My guess is he will
move in. He has to do something. And by the way, I've indicated him. The two
things he said to me that he wants guarantees him. One is Ukraine will never
be part of NATO. And two that NATO or there will not be strategic weapon
station in Ukraine. We could work out something on the second piece,
pretending what he does along the Russian line as well, the Russian border in
the European area of Russia. The first piece, we have a number of treaties
internationally and in Europe that suggests that you get to choose who you
want to be with. But the likelihood that Ukraine is going to join NATO in the
near term is not very likely based on much more work they have to do in terms
of democracy and a few other things going on there. And whether or not the
major allies in the west would vote to bring Ukraine in right now. There's
room to work if he wants to do that, but I think as usual, he's going to, and
probably I shouldn't go any further, but I think it will hurt him badly. >>
You're offering some way out here, some off ramp and it sounds like what it is
is at least an informal assurance that NATO is not going to take in Ukraine
anytime in the next few decades. And it sounds like you're saying we would
never put nuclear weapons there. He also wants us to move all of our nuclear
weapons out of Europe and not have troops rotating through the old Soviet
Bloc. Do you think there's space for there as well? >> No. No there is no
space for that. We will permanently station. But the idea we're not going to,
we're going to actually increase troop presence in Poland and Romania, etc. If
in fact he moves. Because we have a sacred obligation in article 5 to defend
those countries. They are part of NATO we don't have that obligation relative
to Ukraine although we have great concern about what happens to Ukraine. Thank
you. Maureen, USA today. >> Thank you, Mr. President, I wanted to follow up on
your comment on build back better and also asks you a question about the
pandemic. You said that you're confident you can pass big chunks of build back
better this year. Does that wording mean that you are thinking about you're
looking at breaking the package up into individual portions? And then on the
pandemic, now that the Supreme Court has blocked the vaccination or test rule
for larger businesses, are you reconsidering whether to require vaccines for
domestic flights as a way to boost vaccination rates? >> No, look, first of
all, on the last part of the question. The Supreme Court decision I think was
a mistake, but you still see thousands and thousands of people who worked for
major corporations having to be tested as a consequence of the decision made
by the corporation, not by the standard I said that is there. I think you see
that increase, not decrease, number one, what was the first part of your
question? >> On your comment that you made that you're confident that major
chunks of build better capacity, are you breaking it up, does that- >> Yes. Is
clear to me that we're going to have to probably break it up. I think that we
can get and I've been talking to a number of my colleagues on the hill, I
think it's clear that we would be able to get support for the 400 - 500 plus
billion dollars for energy and the environmental issues that are there, number
one. Number two, I know that the two people who've opposed, the Democratic
side at least support a number of things that are in there. For example, Joe
Manchin strongly supports early education, three-year and four years of age,
strongly supports that. Strong support for, I think a number of the way which
to pay for this, pay for this proposal. I think there is, and I'm not going to
negotiate against myself as to what should and shouldn't be in it, but I think
we can break the package up, get as much as we can now, come back and fight
for the rest later. Wall Street Journal. Ken Thomas >> Thank you, Mr.
President. I wanted to ask you about the economy. As you said earlier,
Americans are feeling the squeeze of inflation. Oil prices have been at about
a seven-year high recently. How long should Americans expect to face higher
prices when they're at the grocery store, when they're at the gas pump? Is
this something that they're going to see into the summer, into next fall? And
separately, you talk about the importance of the Fed. But isn't that an
acknowledgment that you're limited in what you can do? If you're relying on
the Fed to make decisions and you're unable to get a build back better
proposal through, aren't you simply limited in what you can do to deal with
inflation? >> As you know Ken, inflation has everything to do with the supply
chain. And I think what you're seeing is that we've been able to make progress
on speeding up the access to materials. For example, 1/3 of the increase in
cost of living is cost of automobiles. The reason automobiles have skyrocketed
in prices is because of the lack of computer chips. So we have the capacity,
and we're going to do everything in our power to do it, to become self-reliant
on the computer chips that we need in order to be able to produce more
automobiles. That's underway. We've already passed within the context of
another bill, money for that before the House of Representatives now. But I
think there's a way we can move to, if we can move to get, for example, that
one thing done, it can make a big difference in terms of the total cost of
living. Now, with regard to whole issue of energy prices, that gets a little
more complicated. But you saw what happened when I was able to convince
everyone from including China, India, number of other countries to agree with
us to go into their version of the petroleum reserve to release more into the
market. So that brought down the price about ¢12, ¢15 a gallon, some
places more. There's going to be a reckoning along the line here whether or
not we're going to continue to see oil prices continue to go up in ways that
are going up now relative to what impact that's going to have on the
producers. And so it's going to be hard. I think that's the place where most
middle-class people, working class people get hit the most. They pull up to a
pump and all of a sudden, instead of paying $2.40 a gallon, they are paying $5
a gallon, that's going to be really difficult. But we're going to continue to
work on trying to increase oil supplies that are available. And I think
there's ways in which we can be of some value-added in terms of the price of
natural gas and the like to take the burden off the European countries that
are now totally dependent on Russia. But it's going to be hard. It's going to
be very hard. But I think that we have to deal with for example, like I said,
you have a circumstance where people are paying more for a pound of hamburger
meat than they ever paid. Well, one of the reasons for that is you don't have
that many folks out there, the ones that are the big for controlling it all.
And so you're going to see more and more. We're going to move on this
competition piece to allow more and more smaller operations to come in and be
able to engage in buying and providing the access to much cheaper meat than
exists now. But it's going to be a haul. I assume the reason you said if I
can't get build back better relates to what those 17 Nobel Laureate economist
said that if in fact we could pass it, it would actually lower the impact on
inflation, reduce inflation over time, etc. So there's a lot we have to do.
It's not going to be easy, but I think we can get it done. But it's going to
be painful for a lot of people in the meantime. That's why the single best way
to take the burden off middle-class and working-class folks is to pass the
build back better piece. There are things that they're paying a lot of money
for now. If you get to trade off higher gas, and you're putting up with higher
price of hamburgers and gas, versus whether or not you're going to be able to
pay for education and or childcare and the like. I think most people would
make the trade. The bottom line would be better in middle-class households.
But it's going to be hard, and it's going to take a lot of work. >> You
mentioned China. Do you think the time has come to begin lifting some of the
tariffs on Chinese imports? Or is there a need for China to make due on some
of its commitments in the phase 1 agreement? Some business groups would like
you to begin lifting up those tariffs on China. >> Well, I know that and
that's why my trade rep is working on that right now. The answer is so
uncertain. I'd like to be able to be in a position where I could say that
meeting the commitments, more of the commitments and be able to lift some of
it. But we're not there yet. Nancy, CBS. >> Thank you so much, Mr. President.
This afternoon, the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell said that the
midterm elections are going to be a report card on your progress on inflation,
border security, and standing up to Russia. Do you think that that's a fair
way to look at it? And if so, how do you think that report card looks right
now? >> I think the report card look pretty good, if that's where we're at.
But look, Mitch has been very clear. He's doing anything to prevent Biden from
being a success. I get on with Mitch. I actually like Mitch McConnell. We like
one another. But he has one straightforward objective, make sure that there's
nothing I do that makes me look good, in his mind, with the public at large.
And that's okay. I'm a big boy. I've been here before. But the fact is that I
think that I'm happy to debate and have a referendum on how I handle the
economy, whether or not I've made progress. I’m taking too long to answer
your question. I apologize. I think that the fundamental question is what's
Mitch for? What’s he for on immigration? What's he for? What's he
proposing to being better? What's he for dealing with Russia that's different
than I'm proposing and many of his Republican friends and his colleagues are
supporting as well? What's he for on these things? What are they for? So
everything is a choice. Look, I've laid out a proposal on immigration that if
we passed it, we'd be in a totally different place right now. We're not there
because we don't have a single republican vote. My buddy John McCain is gone.
So I mean, it's going to take time. And again I go back to Governor Sununu's
quote. A rhetorical question. I know this is not fair to ask the press
question. I'm not asking you. But think about it. Did you ever think that one
man out of office could intimidate entire party where they're unwilling to
take any vote contrary to what he thinks should be taken for fear of being
defeated in the primary? I’ve had five Republican senators talk to me,
"bump into me," or sit with me, who told me they agree with whatever I’m
talking about to do. But Joe, if I do it, I'm going to be defeated in the
primary. We got to break that. It's got to change. Sounds like I'm being
solicitous. You're all British held, well-informed, more informed than any
group of people in America. But did any of you think that you'd get to a point
where not a single Republican would diverge on a major issue? Not one? >>
Those five Republican senators are? >> Sure. No, are you kidding me? I
maintain confidentiality. But I'm sure you've spoken to some. >> On voting
rights, sir. >> Yes. >> At your first press conference 10 months ago, I asked
you if there was anything you could do beyond legislation to protect voting
rights. And at that time you said yes, but I'm not going to lay out a strategy
before you and the world now. Now that legislation appears to be hopelessly
stalled, can you now lay out your strategy to protect voting rights? >> Well,
I'm not prepared to do that in detail in terms of the executive orders that
may be able to engage in and other things I can do. But what are the things we
have done? We've significantly beefed up a number of enforcers in the Justice
Department who are there to challenge these unconstitutional efforts in on the
part of the Republicans to stack the election and subvert the outcomes. We
have began to organize in ways that we didn't before, the communities beyond
the civil rights community to make the case to the rest of the American people
what's about to happen. What will happen if in fact these things move forward?
If I talk to you, not you, use you to the tosses, if I've talked to the public
about the whole idea of subversion of elections by deciding who the electors
are after the fact, I think people would have looked at me like, It taught
constitutional law for 20 years, three credit course and separation of powers.
And on Saturday mornings when I was a senator, and I never thought we'd get a
new place where we were talking about being able to actually, what they tried
to do this last time out, send different electors to the state legislative
bodies to represent who won the election, saying that I didn't win, but
Republican candidate won. I doubt anybody thought that would never happen in
America in the 21st century, but it's happening. And so I guess what I'm
saying, Nancy, is that I think that there are a number of things we can do,
but I also think we will be able to get significant pieces of the legislation
if we don't get it all now to build, to get it so that we get a big chunk of
the John Lewis legislation as well as the fair elections process. >> Sir, on
COVID, if you don't mind, you touted the number of Americans who are now fully
vaccinated with two shots. But even some of your own medical advisors say that
people aren't fully protected unless they have that third shot, a booster. Why
hasn't this White House changed the definition of fully vaccinated to include
that third booster shot? Is it because the numbers of fully vaccinated
Americans would suddenly look a lot less? >> No, it's not that at all. It's
just this has become clearer and clearer. And every time I speak of, I say, if
you've been vaccinated, get your booster shot. Everybody get the booster shot,
it's the the optimum protection you can have. You're protected very well with
two shots. If it's the Pfizer anyway, you're protected, but you are better
protected with the booster shot. >> The definition right now. >> The answer
is, yes. Get the booster shot. It's all part of the same thing. You're better
protected. Alex Alper, Reuters. >> Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to
follow up briefly on a question asked by Bloomberg. You said that Russia would
be held accountable if it invades and it depends on what it does. It's one
thing if it's a minor incursion and we end up having to fight about what to do
and what not to do. Are you saying that a minor incursion by Russia into
Ukrainian territory would not lead to the sanctions that you have threatened
or are you effectively giving Putin permission to make a small incursion into
the country? >> Good question. And so I did shout that, didn't I? Most
important thing to do, big nations can't bluff, number 1. Number 2, the idea
that we would do anything to split NATO, which would have a profound impact on
one of, I think, probably impact on one of Putin's objective is to weaken NATO
would be a big mistake. So the question is if it's something significantly
short of a significant invasion or not even significant, just major military
forces coming across, for example, it's one thing to determine that if they
continue to use cyber efforts. Well, we can respond the same way, a cyber.
They have FSB people in Ukraine now trying to undermine the solidarity within
Ukraine about Russia and to try to promote Russian interests. But it's very
important that we keep everyone in NATO on the same page. And that's what I'm
spending a lot of time doing. And there are differences. There are differences
in NATO as to what countries are willing to do depending on what happens, the
degree to which we're able to go. And I want to be clear with you. The serious
imposition of sanctions relative to dollar transactions and other things are
things that are going to have a negative impact on the United States, as well
as a negative impact on economies of Europe as well, a devastating impact on
Russia. And so I got to make sure everybody's on the same page as we move
along. I think we will if there's something where there's Russian forces
crossing the border, killing Ukrainian fighters, etc., I think that changes
everything. But it depends on what he does, in what extent we're going to be
able to get total unity on the NATO front. >> If I may ask a quick one on
Iran, I just wanted to get your sense of whether the Vienna talks are making
any progress. If you still think it's possible to reach a deal for both sides
to resume compliance with the Iran nuclear deal or if it's time to give up on
that. Thank you. >> Doing reverse. It's not time to give up, there is some
progress being made. The P5 plus 1 is on the same page, but it remains to be
seen. Kristen, NBC. >> Mr. President, very quickly on Russia. I do have a
number of domestic policy issues, but on Russia very quickly, it seemed like
you said that you have assessed you feel as though he will move in. Has this
administration, have you determined whether President Putin plans to invade or
move into Ukraine as you said? >> Look, the only thing I'm confident of is
that decision is totally, solely, completely Putin's decision. Nobody else is
going to make that decision. No one else is going to impact that decision.
He's making that decision. And I suspect it matters which side of the bed he
gets up on in the morning as to exactly what he's going to do. And I think it
is not irrational, if you wanted to, to talk about dealing with strategic
doctrine and dealing with four structures in Europe and in the European parts
of Russia. But I don't know whether he's decided he wants to do that or not.
So far, on the three meetings we've had, OSCE anyway, have not produced
anything because the impression I get from my Secretary of State, my National
Security Advisor and my other senior officials that are doing these meetings
is that there is a question of whether the people they're talking to know what
he's going to do. So the answer is based on a number of criteria as to what he
could do, for example, for him to move in and occupy the whole country,
particularly from the North from Belarus, he's going to have to wait a little
bit till the ground's frozen so he can cough. To move in a direction where he
wants to talk about what's going on, we're continuing to provide for defense
capacities to the Ukrainians. We're talking about what's going on in both the
Baltic and the Black Sea, etc. There's a whole range of things that I'm sure
he's trying to calculate how quickly you can do what he wants to do and what
does he want to do. But he's an informed individual. And I believe he's
calculating what the immediate short-term and the near-term and the long-term
consequences of Russia will be. And I don't think he's made up his mind yet.
>> I want to ask you about your domestic agenda. You've gotten a lot of
questions about voting rights, Mr. President, but I want to ask you about
black voters, one of your most loyal constituencies. >> Yes. >> I was in
Congressman Cline Ben's district yesterday in South Carolina, you opened this
news conference talking about him. I spoke to a number of black voters who
fought to get you elected, and now they feel as though you're not fighting
hard enough for them and their priorities. And they told me they see this push
on voting rights more as a last minute PR push than it is a legitimate effort
to get legislation passed. So what do you say to these black voters who say
that you do not have their backs as you promised on the campaign trail? >>
I've had their back, I've had their back my entire career. I've never not had
their back. And I started on the voting rights issues long ago. That's what
got me involved in politics in the first place. And I think part of the
problem is, look, there's significant disagreement in every community. On
whether or not the timing of assertions made by people is been in a most
timely way. So I'm sure that there were those who were saying that why didn't
Biden push John Lewis bill as hard as he pushed it the last month? Why didn't
he push it six months ago as hard as he did now? The fact is that there's a
timing that is not of one's own choices, it's somewhat dictated by events that
are happening in country and around the world as to what the focus is. But
part of the problem is as well, I have not been out in the community nearly
enough. I've been here an awful lot. I find myself in a situation where I
don't get a chance to look people in the eye because of both COVID and things
that are happening in Washington, to be able to go out and do the things that
I've always been able to do pretty well. Connect with people, let them take a
measure of my sincerity. Let them take a measure of who I am. For example, as
I pointed out in South Carolina, last time when I was Chairman Judiciary
Committee, I got the Voting Rights Act extended for 25 years and I got strong
sermon default for it. That's what I've been doing my whole career. And so the
idea that I didn't either anticipate or because I didn't speak to it as
fervently as they want me to earlier, in the meantime, I would spent a lot of
time spent hours and hours talking with my colleagues on the democratic side
trying to get them to agree the different fact this occurred if this push
continue that they would be there for John Lewis anyway. But I think that's a
problem that is my own making by not communicating as much as I should have.
Yet you find that when you deal with members of the Black Caucus and others in
the United States Congress, I still have very close working relationships, so
it's like every community. I'm sure that there are those in the community and
I'm a big labor guy, I'm sure there's people in labor saying why haven't I
been able to do A, B, C, or D? So it's just going to take a little bit of
time. >> You put Vice President Harris in charge of voting rights. Are you
satisfied with her work on this issue? And can you guarantee, do you commit
that she will be your running mate in 2024 provided that you run again? >> Yes
and yes. >> Okay. You don't care to expand? >> Pardon me. >> Do you care to
expand on that? >> No, there's no need to. I mean, I answered the question.
She's going to be my running mate, number 1. And number 2, I did put her in
charge that she's doing a good job. >> Let me ask you, big picture,
particularly when you think about voting rights and the struggles that you've
had to unify your own party around the voting rights. Unity was one of your
key campaign promises. In fact, in your inaugural address, you said your whole
soul was in bringing America together, uniting our people. People heard the
speech that you gave on voting rights in Georgia recently, in which you
described those who were opposed to you, to George Wallace and Jefferson
Davis, and some people took exception to that. What do you say to those who
are offended by your speech? And is this country more unified than it was when
you first took office? >> Number 1. Anybody that listened to the speech, I did
not say that there were going to be a George Wallace or a Bull Connor. I said
we're going to have a decision in history that is going to be marked just like
it was then. You either voted on the side, I didn't make you George Wallace or
didn't make you Bull Connor. But if you did not vote for the Voting Rights Act
back then, you were voting with those who agreed with Connor. And I think
Mitch did a real good job of making it sound like I was attacking them. If you
notice, I haven't attacked anybody publicly, any senator, any congressmen
publicly. And my disagreements with them have been communicated to them
privately or in person with them. My desire is still is. Look, I
underestimated one very important thing. I never thought that the Republicans
like for example, I said they've got very upset. I said, there are 16 members
of the present United States Senate who voted to extend the Voting Rights Act.
Now, they got very offended by that. That wasn't an accusation, I just stated
a fact. What has changed? What happened? Why is it on a single Republican? Not
one, that's not the Republican Party, so that's not an attack. >> Is the
country more unified than when you first took office? >> The answer is, based
on some of the stuff we've got done, I'd say yes. But it's not nearly unified
as it should be. Look, I still contend, and I know you'll have a right to
judge me by this. I still contend that unless you can reach consensus in a
democracy, you cannot sustain the democracy. And so this is a real test
whether or not my counterpart in China is right or not. When he says,
"Autocracies are the only really good prevail because democracies take too
long to make decisions and the countries are too divided." I believe we're
going through one of those inflection points in history. That occurs every
several generations or even more time than that, where things are changing
almost regardless of any particular policy. The world's changing in big ways.
If you heard me say this before, we're going to see more change in the next 10
years than we saw in the last 50 years, because of technology, because of
fundamental alterations and alliances that are occurring, not because of any
one individual, just because of the nature of things. And so I think you're
going to see an awful lot of transition. And the question is, can we keep up
with it? Can we maintain the democratic institutions that we have, not just
here but around the world, to be able to generate democratic consensus on how
to proceed. It's going to be hard, but it requires leadership to do it. And
I'm not giving up on the prospect to being able to do that. Thank you. >> Mr.
President. Thank you sir. There are deep questions among Americans about the
competence of government and the messy rollout of 5G this week to the
Afghanistan withdrawal, to testing on COVID, what have you done to restore
American's faith in the competence of government? And are you satisfied by the
view of the competence of your government? >> Look, let's take Afghanistan. I
know you all would like to focus on that which is legitimate. We were spending
a trillion dollars a week. I mean, a billion dollars a week in Afghanistan for
20 years. Raise your hand if you think anyone was going to be able to unify
Afghanistan under one single government? I spend the graveyard of empires for
solid reason. It is not susceptible to unity number 1. So the question was, do
I continue to spend that much money per week in the state of Afghanistan
knowing that the idea that being able to succeed, other than sending more body
bags back home is highly, unusual. My dad used to have an expression. He says
son, everything is equally important. Nothing is important to you. There is no
way to get out of Afghanistan after 20 years easily. Not possible, no matter
when you did it. And I make no apologies from what I did. I have a great
concern for the women and men who were blown up the line at the airport by a
terrorist attack against. But the military will acknowledge. And I think you
will who know a lot about foreign policy. That had we stayed and I not pull
those troops out. We would be asked to put somewhere between 20 and 50,000
more troops back in. Because the only reason more Americans weren't being
killed and others is because the last president signed an agreement to get out
by May the 1st. And so everything was copacetic had we not gotten out, the
acknowledgment is we'd be putting a lot more forces in. Do I feel badly?
What's happening to as a consequences of the incompetence of the Taliban? Yes,
I do. But I feel badly also about the fistulas are taking place in Eastern
Congo. I feel badly about a whole range of things around the world that we
can't solve every problem. And so I don't do that as a competence issue. The
issue of whether or not there's competence in terms of whether or not we're
dealing with 5G or not. We don't deal with 5G, the fact is that you had two
enterprises, two private enterprises that had one promoting 5G and the other
one are airlines or private enterprises. They have government regulation
immediately. What I've done is pushed as hard as I can to have 5G folks hold
up and abide by what was requested by the airlines until they could more
modernized over the years so that 5G would not interfere with the potential
for the moment. And so any 5G tower within certain number of miles in the
airport should not be operative. So I understand. But anything that happens is
consequential, is viewed as the government's responsibility, I get that. Am I
satisfied with the way in which we have dealt with COVID and all the things
that go along with it? Yeah, I'm satisfied. I think we've done remarkably
well. The idea that on testing we've done, we should have done a quicker but
we've done remarkable sense that what we have is we have more testing going on
than anywhere in the world and we're going to continue to increase that. Did
we have it at the moment exactly when we should have moved and could we move
them month earlier? Yeah we could have. Whatever else is going on, I don't
view that as somehow marketing competence. Look, think of what we did on COVID
when we were pushing on AstraZeneca to provide more vaccines. Guess what? They
didn't have the machinery to be able to do it. I physically went to Michigan,
stood there in a factory with the head of the AstraZeneca and said we'll
provide the machinery for you. This is what we'll do, we'll help you do it so
that you can produce this vaccine more rapidly. I think that's pretty hands-on
stuff. We also said right now, when people, the hospitalizations are
overrunning hospitals and you have docs and nurses out because of COVID. They
have COVID. We put thousands of people back in those hospitals. Look at all
the military personnel we have there, first responders. Nobody is ever
organized. Nobody has ever organized a strategic operation to get as many
shots and arms by opening clinics, keeping and being able to get so many
people vaccinated. What I'm doing now is not just getting significant amounts
of vaccines to the rest of the world, but they now need the mechanical way is
how they get shots and arms. So we're providing them to know how to do that.
Now should everybody in American know that? No, I didn't necessarily know
that. They're just trying to figure how to put three squares on the table and
stay safe. But so I do think the place where I was a little disappointed, I
wish we could have written a differently is when we did the legislation to
provide the funding for COVID and the money we provided for the states to be
able to deal with keeping schools open. Some of them didn't do a very good
job. Some are still holding the money. I don't have the authority to do
anything about that. I think that's not particularly competent. There're
things that could and should have been done that could have moved faster. So I
understand the frustration. I remember I think it was, I forget which cabinet
members saying to Barack Obama where something was going on. And he said,
Well, you can be sure Mr. President of the millions of employees you have out
there, somebody's screwing up right now. Somebody's screwing up. I think you'd
have to look at things that we're used to look unbalance. What is the
trajectory of the country? Is it moving in the right direction now? I don't
know how we can say it's not. I understand the overwhelming frustration, fear,
and concern with regard to inflation and COVID. I get it. But the idea if I
told you, when we started I told you I would do first-year, I'm going to
create over six billion jobs. I'm going to get unemployment down in 3.9
percent. I'm going to generate an unnamed it all. You'd look at me like you're
nuts, maybe I'm wrong. >> President, at least in our recent memory with as
much Washington experience as you enter this office width. But yet, after we
sit here for more than an hour, I'm not sure I've heard you say if you would
do anything differently in the second year of your term, do you plan to do
anything differently? Are satisfied with your team here at the White House
sir? >> I'm satisfied with the team. There's three things that I'm going to do
differently, now that I've gotten the critical crises out of the way in the
sense of, knowing exactly where we're going. Number 1, I will be out of this
place more often. I'm going to go out and talk to the public. I'm going to do
public forum. I'm going to interface with them. I'm going to make the case as
what we've already done, why it's important and what we'll do if what will
happen if they've support what else I wanted to do. Number 2, I'm bringing in
more and more now that I have time I mean, literally like you is I'm not
complaining. It's 12,14 hours a day. No complaints. I really mean this
sincerely. But now that certainly the big chunks have been put in place and we
know the direction. I'm also going to be out there seeking the more advice of
experts outside from academia to editorial writers, to think tanks. And I'm
bringing them in just like I did early on, bringing in president's historians
to get their perspective on what we should be doing. Seeking more input, more
information, more constructive criticism about what I should and shouldn't be
doing. And the third thing that I'm going to be doing a lot more of is being
in a situation where I'm able to. I'm going to be deeply involved in the off
these off-year elections. We're going to be raising a lot of money. We're
going to be out there and making sure that we're helping all those candidates
and scores them already asked me to command and campaign with them to go out
and make the case in plain, simple language as to what it is we've done what
we wanted to do and why we think it's important. How many more hours am I
doing this? I'm happy to stick around. You always ask me the nicest questions.
I know you do. None of them make a lot of sense to me. Try away. Come on. >>
On new year, why are you trying so hard in your first year to pull the country
so far to the left? >> Well, I'm not. I don't know what you consider to be too
far to the left if in fact we're talking about making sure that we had the
money for COVID, making sure we had the money to put together the bipartisan
infrastructure, making sure we were able to provide for those things that in
fact, would significantly reduce the burden on working class people, but they
have to continue to work hard. I don't know how that is pointing to the left.
If you may recall, you guys have been trying to convince me that I am Bernie
Sanders. I'm not, I like him but I'm not Bernie Sanders. I'm not a socialist.
I'm a mainstream democrat and I have been. And mainstream Democrats, if you
notice, the 48 of the 50 Democrats supported me in the Senate. I'm virtually
everything I've asked. Yes, sir. >> I wanted to clarify, a moment ago, you
were asked whether or not you believed that we would have free and fair
elections in 2022 if some of the State legislators reforms their voting
protocols. You said that it depends. Do you think that they would in any way
be illegitimate? >> Oh, yeah. I think it easily could be illegitimate. Imagine
if in fact Trump has succeeded in convincing Pents to not count the votes. >>
In regard to 2022, sir. >> 2022, imagine if those attempts to say that the
count was not legit, you have to recount it or we're not going to count, we're
going to discard the following votes. Sure. I'm not saying it's going to be
legit as the increase in the prospect of being illegitimate is a direct
proportion that was not being able to get these reforms passed. You're not
going to see me, and I don't think you're going to see the Democratic Party
give up on coming back at assuming that the attempt fails today. >> One more,
sir. You campaigned and you ran on a return to civility. And I know that you
dispute the characterization that you called folks who would oppose those
wedding bells as being Bull Connor or George Wallace but you said that they
would be in the same camp. >> No, I didn't say that. Look what I said. Go back
and read what I said and tell me if you think I called anyone who voted on the
side of the position taken by Bull Connor that they were Bull Connor. That is
an interesting reading in English. I assume you got into journalism because
you like to write. >> So did you expect that that would work with senators
margin or cinema. >> No, here's the thing. There's certain things that are so
consequential. You have to speak from your heart as well as your head. I was
speaking out forcefully on what I think to be at stake. That's what it is. And
by the way, no one forgets who was on the side of King reversed on or Bull
Connor. No one. The history books will note it. And when I was making the
case. Don't think this is a freebie. You don't get to vote this way and then
somehow it goes away. This will stick with you the rest of your career and
long after you're gone. >> Mr. President. I'm more on Yobe Franklin, sir. >>
Okay. Hang on guys. We've only gone an hour and 20 minutes. I'll keep going.
But let me get something straight here. How long are you guys ready to go? You
want to go for another hour or two? Okay. I tell you what folks, I'm going to
go another 20 minutes to a quarter of. Okay? Yes, sir. >> President Biden,
thank you. >> I want to thank my communication staff for the great help here.
>> Well, President Biden on the coronavirus, we're tragically approaching
nearly 1 million Americans who died. And I'd like to ask you why it is during
your three and a half hour virtual summit in November with the Chinese
President, you didn't press for transparency and also whether that has
anything to do with your son's involvement in an investment firm controlled by
Chinese state-owned entities? >> The answer is that I did raise the question
of transparency. I spent a lot of time with him. The fact is that they're just
not being transparent. >> Transparency on the coronavirus origins? >> Yes. >>
And you did during the virtual summit? >> Yeah. >> Is there a reason you're
press staff was unaware of that? And what did you say to the Chinese
president? >> And they weren't with me the entire time. Look, I made it clear
that I thought that China had an obligation to be more forthcoming on exactly
what the source of the virus was and where it came from. Yes. >> Mr.
President, I would like to ask you about foreign policy. One of the first
priority that you declared when you came to office was to end the war in
Yemen, the catastrophic war in Yemen. You appointed a special envoy. Today,
one of your allies, United Arab Emirates, is asking your administration to put
back the Houthi rebels or militias back on the terror list. Are you going to
do that? And how are you going to end the war in Yemen, sir? >> The answer is,
it's under consideration and ending the war in Yemen takes the two parties to
be involved to do it. And It's going to be very difficult. Yes. >> Thank you
very much for this honor. James Rosen with Newsmax. I'd like to raise a
delicate subject but with utmost respect for your life accomplishments and the
high office you hold. A poll released this morning by Political Morning
Consult found 49% of registered voters disagreeing with the statement, "Joe
Biden is mentally fit". Not even a majority of Democrats who responded
strongly affirmed that statement. >> I'll let you all make the judgement
whether they're correct. >> So the question I have for you, sir, if you'd let
me finish, is why do you suppose such large segments of the American
electorate have come to harbor such profound concerns about your cognitive
fitness? Thank you. >> I'd no idea. Yes, sir. >> Thanks, Mr. President I
appreciate it. I wanted to address or ask about attention that's been in this
press conference on unifying the country because you campaigned on two things;
one of them is being able to accomplish big things and the other is the
ability to unify the country. And even today you've talked about a different
posture with Republicans and I wonder if you still think it's possible to do
both of those things. >> We have to. As long as I hold public office, I'm
going continue to attempt to do both things. >> One more follow up. Around
this time last year when you were campaigning in Georgia, I think one of the
things you told people was, the power is literally in your hands. If voters
give Democrats, the House and the Senate and the presidency, that all these
big things can get accomplished and we've seen stalemate, we've seen things
being stymied. Why should folks believe you this time around? >> Can you think
of any other president has done as much in one year? Name one for me? >> I'm
asking you? >> I'm serious. You guys talk about how nothing's happened. I
don't think there's been much on any incoming president's plate that's been a
bigger menu than the plate I had, given to me. I'm not complaining, knew that
running in. And the fact of the matter is we got an awful lot done. And
there's more to get done. But look, let me ask a rhetorical question. No, I
won't. Anyway, thank you. Yes. Be careful, don't get hurt man. >> I'm going to
take. Mr. President, thank you. Sebastian Smith from AFP. Another question on
Ukraine. Ukraine borders four NATO member countries. Are you concerned that a
real conflagration in Ukraine, if the Russians really go in there, that it
could suck in NATO countries that are on the border and you end up with an
actual NATO-Russia confrontation of some kind. And secondly, are you
entertaining the thought of a summit with Vladimir Putin as a way to perhaps
try and put this whole thing to bed, address their concerns and negotiate a
way out of this? >> The last question, yes. When we talked about whether or
not we'd pick the three meetings we talked about. And we talked about we would
go from there if there was reason to go to a summit. We talked about a summit
has been before the Ukraine item came up in terms of strategic doctrine and
what the strategic relationship would be, so I still think that is a
possibility. Number 1. Number 2, I'm very concerned that this could end up
being. Look, the only war that's worse than one that's intended is one that's
unintended. And what I'm concerned about is this could very easily get on hand
because of what you said, the borders of Ukraine and what Russia may or may
not do. I am hoping that Vladimir Putin understands that he is short of a full
blown nuclear war. He's not a very good position to dominate the world. And so
I don't think he thinks that, but it is a concern and that's why we have to be
very careful about how we move forward and make it clear to him that there are
prices to pay that could in fact cost his country an awful lot. But of course,
you have to be concerned when you have a nuclear power. If he invades, it
hasn't happened since World War II. This is the most consequential thing
that's happened in the world in terms of war and peace since World War II.
Yes. >> Nearly two years have passed since the beginning of the global
coronavirus outbreak and you again today acknowledge that Americans are
frustrated and they're tired. Based on your conversations with your health
advisors, what type of restrictions do you imagine being on Americans this
time next year and what does the new normal look like for social gatherings
and travel to you? >> Well, the answer is, I hope the new normal would be that
we still have 37 million people not vaccinated. I hope the new normal is
people have seen and with their own interest is, and have taken advantage of
what we have available to us. Number 2, with the pill that is a problem that
appears to be as efficacious as it seems to be, that they're going to be able
to deal with this virus in a way that after the fact you have the ability to
make sure you don't get very sick. Number 3, I would hope that what happens is
the rest of the world does what I'm doing and provides significant amounts of
the vaccine to the rest of the world. Because it's not sufficient that we just
have this country not have the virus or be able to control the virus. But that
can't pull the wall high enough to keep a new variant out. It requires one of
the things that I want to do, and we're contemplating how to get done and that
is how do we move in a direction where the world itself is vaccinated? It's
not enough just to fully vaccinated 340 million people in the United States.
It's not enough to do it. We have to do a lot more than we're doing now and
that's why we have continued to keep the commitment of providing vaccines and
available cures for the rest of the world as well. >> If I could Sir, and I
should have said this before, Francesca Chambers McClatchy, how do you plan to
win back moderates and independence who cast a ballot for you in 2020 but
polls indicate are unhappy with the way you're doing your job now? >> I don't
believe the polls. Well, why don't you just go down room there. >> Thank you,
Mr. President, a follow up on some of the questions about the vaccination
program. You've given dozens of speeches this year urging Americans to get
vaccinated. You've talked to roll up and Republicans, you've said it's
people's patriotic duty. There have been very few mentions of the fact that
young children under the age of five still in third year of this pandemic in
this country, don't have access to the vaccine. Can you speak to frustrated
parents a little bit about why that continues to be the case and when that
might change? >> Because the science hasn't reached the point where they're
convinced that in fact it is safe. That's what they're doing now. You could've
asked me that. I got asked that question about three months ago about people
between the ages of seven and 12. Well, and finally, they've got to the point
where they felt secure in the number of tests they had done and the test they
had run, that it was safe. So it will come. But I'm not a scientist, I can't
tell you when, but it is really very important that we get that next piece. >>
One more follow-up on build back better. When you said it's going to likely be
broken up into chunks, you mentioned that the climate pieces seem to have
broad support. You mentioned the center manager as a supporter of early
childcare, you left out the child tax credit. And I wonder if it's fair to
read between the lines and assume that that is a piece given center, mentions
opposition to it. The extension of that is likely one of those components that
may have to wait until [inaudible 01:44:28] >> It's too really big components
that I feel strongly about that I'm not sure I can get into package. One is
the childcare tax credit and the other is help for cost of community colleges.
They are massive things that I've run on. I care a great deal about and I'm
going to keep coming back. And whenever four I get to be able to try to get
chunks or all of that done. Yes, sir. Next man next to your left. >> Thank
you. Mr. President, my name is [inaudible 01:44:58] Univision national news.
This is actually my first press conference here. Is it good to meet you in
person? >> We always have more impressive conversations. >> Awesome, awesome.
I got a couple of questions for you. Number 1, you said that you want to
convey your message by getting out there in the country. I wonder if you're
planning on traveling also to South America and other countries in the Western
Hemisphere. Given the fact that China has gained a lot of influence in the
region. And the second question is, what will be your message for residents in
this country that are struggling every time they go to the gas station, they
returned to go to the grocery store and see the price is quite high and the
pharmacy. I happen to come from, South Texas, what I saw a lot of people's
struggling financially in the last few months. And so I wonder what is the
message you want to spread to them? >> Well, I tried to express, I've tried to
answer that seven different ways today about how to deal with inflation. But
let me answer the first question. I spend a lot of time in South America and
in Latin America. When I was Vice President, I spent the bulk of my years
basically in Europe and over in Latin America. I'm in contact with the leaders
of the countries in South America and we're working closely with making sure
that we do everything, for example, to deal with helping the countries in
question, particularly those in Central America, to be able to help them with
their ability to do with; people don't sit around in Guatemala and say I got a
great idea. Let's sell everything we have, give the money to a coyote, take us
across a terribly dangerous trip up through Central America and up through
Mexico and drop and stickers across the border or drop us in the desert. Won't
that be fun? People lead because they have real problems. And one of the
things I've done when I was a Vice-President, I got support with, although I
don't have much Republican support anymore. Is to provide billions of dollars
to be able to say to those countries, why are people leaving and how are you
going to reform your own system? And that's we've worked on a long time. It
still needs a lot more work and we've focusing on that. I also believe I've
spent a lot of time talking about and dealing with policy having to do with
Maduro, who is a little more than a dictator right now. And the same thing in
Chile, and not the same thing, but with Chile as well as Argentina. So look, I
made a speech while ago when I was Vice President saying that, if we were
smart, we have an opportunity to make the Western Hemisphere a democratic
chemistry. And we were moving in the right direction on the last
administration, in the Obama, Biden administration. But so much damage was
done as a consequence to the foreign policy decisions the last president made
in Latin America, Central America, and South America that we now have, when I
call for some of them democracies, I call that in a number of nations showed
up for this, some of the democracy, what is it that's going to allow us to
generate? We've actually had a reduction in the number of democracies in the
world. And it seems to me there's nothing more important we used to talk about
when I was a kid in college, about America's backyard, it's not America's
backyard. Everything south of the Mexican border is America's front yard and
we're equal people. We don't dictate what happens in any other part of this
continent or the South American continent. We have to work very hard on it,
but the trouble is, we're having great difficulty making up for the mistakes
that were made the last four years. And it's going to take some time. Yes,
gentleman on the back. Now I'll go to this side. >> Thank you, Mr. President
Alexander [inaudible 01:49:14] Yahoo news. And thank you for holding this
press conference. I hope there's more of them. >> You tell me I have extra
three hours we can do it. >> We'll stay for a couple more. You said you were
surprised by republican obstruction of your agenda. But didn't the GOP take
exactly the same tactic when you were vice president to Barack Obama. So why
do you think they would treat you any differently than they treated him? >>
First of all, they weren't nearly as obstructionist as they are now. Number 1,
I stated that, but you had a number of Republicans we work with closely from
John McCain, I mean, a number of Republicans we worked closely with, even back
in those days, Lindsey Graham. And so the difference here is, there seems to
be a desire to work on and I didn't say my agenda. I'm saying what are they
for? What is their agenda? They had an agenda back in the administration. The
eight years we were president, vice president, but I don't know what their
agenda is now. What is it? The American public is outraged about the tax
structure we have in America. What are they proposing to do about it? You
heard anything, I mean, anything. I haven't heard anything. The American
public is outraged about the fact that the state of the environment, the vast
majority of the public, what have they done? Anything to ameliorate the
climate change that's occurring other than to deny it exists. So what I'm
saying is the difference between then and now is not only the announcement
that was made, anything to stop Barack Obama. I get that part. But what
eventually happened? We were able to get some things done. We're able to work
through some things on the stuff that was really consequential in terms of
ideologically divisive. It was a real fight. But I don't think there's a time
when I, I mean I wonder what would be the Republican platform right now? What
do you think? What do you think your position on taxes are? What do you think
their position on human rights is? What do you think, their position is on
whether or not we should think about the cost of prescription drugs. What do
you think? I mean, I honestly don't know what they're for, yet I know a lot of
these senators and congressmen, and I know they do have things they want to
support. Whether they're things I want or not. But you don't hear much about
that. And every once in a while when you hear something where there's a
consensus, it's important but a small item and it doesn't get much coverage at
all, where it occurs, being coverage. I mean, there's not much discussion
about it. So I just think it's a different. And I don't know that no matter
how strongly one supports as a Republican and or supports the former president
of the United States. I don't know how, we can't look at what happened on
January 6th and think that's a problem. That's a real problem. >> One more
question, Mr. President. >> Quarter of guys. I'm going to do this. Just if you
may ask me easy questions, I'll give you quick answers. >> There's an
increasing concern, I think among some Democrats that even if schools do
continue to open, and I get that most of them are now open. Republicans will
weaponize this narrative of you and other leading Democrats allowing them to
stay closed in the midterms next year. Obviously, that issue has a lot of
traction with suburban parents as I think. >> What do you mean? I'm confused
by the question, I'm sorry. >> Could school re-openings or closures become a
potent midterm issue for Republicans to win back the suburbs? >> I think he
could be, but hopefully you got that look. Maybe I'm kidding myself. But as
time goes on, the voter who is just trying to figure out, as I said, how to
take care of their family, put three squares on the table, stay safe, be able
to pay their mortgage or their rent, etc, is becoming much more informed on
the motives of some of the political players and the political parties. And I
think that they are not going to be as susceptible to believing some of the
outlandish things that have been said and continue to be said. Every
president, not necessarily in the first 12 months, but every president vin the
first couple of years, most every president, excuse me, of the last
presidents, at least four of them have had polling numbers that are 44%
favorable. So we see this idea that, but you all, not you all, but now it is
who binds it. One poll showed me at 33%. The average is 44-45%. One polled me
at 49%. I mean, the idea that the America and Republic of China sift their way
through what's real and what's fake, and I've never seen a time when the
choice of what political coverage the voter looks to has as much impact on,
it's what they believe, they go to get reinforced in their views, whether it's
MSNBC or whether it's Fox or what that mean. And one of the things I find
fascinating, it's happening and you all are dealing with it every day and it
will impact on how things move, is that a lot of the speculation in the
polling data shows that the cables are heading south, they're losing
viewership. Fox is okay for a while, but it's not playing. And a lot of the
rest are predicted to be not very much in the mix in the next 4-5 years. I
don't know if that's true or not, but I do know that we have put everybody in,
put themselves in certain alleys, and they've decided that, how many people
who watch MSNBC also watch Fox, and they know you're a politician trying to
find out what's going on in both places. Again, I'm no expert in any of this,
but the fact is, I think you have to acknowledge that, what gets covered now
is necessarily a little bit different than what gets covered in the past. I've
had a couple, oh, I shouldn't give you this. The nature of the way things get
covered, is in my observation over the years I've been above in public life
changed and it's changed because of everything from a thing called the
Internet, has changed because of the way in which we have self-identified
perspectives based on what channel you turn on, what cable you look at. And
it's never quite been like that. Anyway. >> On behalf of the Correspondents'
Association, thank you very much for standing for our questions, we hope the
public has found it as enlightening as those of us in the room have. I want to
ask you sir about one of the [inaudible 01:58:08] >> I can still stand, it's
amazing >> We appreciate it. We very much do. So the question I want to ask
you gets to accountability, sir, on one of the top public concerns, of course,
which is the coronavirus and the government's response to it. Whether it's
confusion over what style of mask to wear, when to test, how to test, where to
test. The public is confused, sir, and you see that in the drop-off in pulling
on this question, why did you tell Jeff that you are satisfied with your team?
Why are you not willing to make or interested in making any changes, either at
the CDC or other agencies, given the fact that the messages have been so
confusing? >> Well, first of all, the message is to the extent they're being
confusing is because the scientists they're learning more. They're learning
more about what's needed and what's not needed. And so, the fact is that the
one piece that is gotten a lot of attention is the communications capacity of
the CDC. Well, she came along and said, look, I'm a scientist and I'm
learning. I'm learning how to deal with stating what is the case that we've
observed. Look, I think that it's a little bit like saying, when we went
through the whole issue of how to deal with polio when the polio shoved, what
was said in the beginning was, all those changes a little bit, we move this
way and that way, or when we dealt with anything else, I mean, this was a
brand new virus. A brand new phenomena. Some of it was deadly, other was more
communicable. This is an unfolding story. It's the nature of the way diseases
spread, we're going to learn about it and a lot of other areas not just
COVID-19. And so I look at it this way, think about how astounding it was
within the timeframes they took to be able to come up with a vaccine. You used
to write about that, pretty amazing, how rapidly they came up with a vaccine
that saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Did everything get right? No.
Anyway, I'm talking too much. >> Thank you, Mr. President. I have two really
simple questions I promise. You campaigned on canceling $10,000 in student
loans, do you still plan to do so and when? And then my second question is,
now that you've clarified the Bull Connor comments, do you plan to reach out
to Republicans like Mitt Romney to talk about reforming the electoral contact?
>> Yes, I'm happy to speak out. I've talked to Mitt in other occasions. And by
the way, I reached out to the minority leader as well at the time that he made
his speech. And so I have no reluctance to reach out to any Republican, and
I've made it clear. Look, I've now had the opportunity to travel because of
funerals and eulogies I've met and attended with congressmen and senators
would come along with me. I don't hold the number, but somewhere between 20
and 25 senators and congress persons have traveled with me. And I find you
should get a list of them and ask how we sat for the 2, 3, 4, 5 hours that
we've flown together, sit back in the conference table and talk to them. Ask
them questions, they ask me questions, I learn a heck of a lot. But as
president, you don't quite have that ability to do that as often as I'd like
to be able to do it. And one of the things that I do think that has been made
clear to me speaking of polling, is the public doesn't want me to be the
president senator, they want me to be the president and let senators be
senators. And so I've made many mistakes, I'm sure. If I've made a mistake,
I'm used to negotiating to get things done and I've been in the past
relatively successful at it in the United States Senate, even as Vice
President, but I think that role as president is a different role. Folks, it
is now almost six. With all due respect, I'm going to see you in next
conference. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. President. >> Thank you. >> I'm really
sorry about that. >> You know what? I think it was Christine when you went
right at it. She [inaudible 02:03:22] I think that's what happened. But that's
okay