Psaki brief: No Price Increase Due to Tax, National Guard, Afghanistan, Russia, 4/13/2021

youtube

On 4/13/2021, during the news briefing, a reporter asked White House press secretary Jen Psaki, “if an average family of four, making under that amount, sees their heating bill go up because utility companies increased their rates to accommodate the 28 percent corporate tax rate, is that okay or acceptable to the President, you know, because it’s not technically a tax increase?”

Psaki: Well, I would say that there’s no reason that that is what needs to happen…So I would say that’s not a concern we have at this moment in time.

Question: But even though — I mean, utility companies did — maybe it’s, arguably, partially for show, but they did announce, you know, rate decreases after the 27 [2017] tax law passed, and attributed it to the tax law passing. You know —

Psaki: Is there some data that you’re expecting from economists, suggesting that will be the case? Or are you just getting ahead of what might happen when the bill passes?

Question: I mean, I’m just getting ahead of that. Like, there were those announcements. You said, like, they didn’t have the intended effects, but utility companies did say, “Hey, our — you know, we can pass on this lower rate to consumers through their utility bills.” And it’s —

Psaki: And have utility companies said — I have not seen it if they have — that they would raise the cost, if this bill passed, to invest in infrastructure and get lead out of the pipes to make sure there’s clean drinking water and create millions of jobs?

Question: I’m not aware of any specific announcements like that. But I’m just saying that was the — one of the results that occurred after the 2017 law passed.

Psaki: Well, then I don’t think we have to anticipate it as an issue quite yet.

Question: We had a lot of controversy during the Trump administration about the use of National Guard troops. Are you preparing to put in National Guard troops, if needed, if the — depending on what happens in that verdict? I know it’s a hypothetical question, but you’re — you have to prepare for all eventualities. And last night, the — or two days ago, the President was, you know, appealing for calm. Can you just tell us — walk us through your strategy and approach, given how volatile the tensions — the situation is?

Psaki: Well, while we are not going to prejudge the outcome — which I realize you’re not asking me to do, but just to state it clearly — we are working with state and local leaders to advance our shared goal of ensuring public safety and citizens’ rights to peaceful protest.

The President — we all — will continue to monitor the developments. And our team will remain in contact with these officials on the ground, as well as with civil rights leaders and community stakeholders. But I don’t think I’m going to read out more than that.

Question: Do you rule out sending in the National Guard?

Psaki: I would just leave it at what I conveyed.
For many comments, check out here

Full Transcript
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 4/13/2021 12:47 P.M. EDT
Okay, I know there’s a lot going on today and you also have a call time, so we will try to get through as much as we possibly can. But I did want to give you all a couple of updates.

Obviously, the President met yesterday with a bipartisan group of members who are — work on committees of jurisdiction; I can talk a little bit more about that. But I also wanted to give you an update on the work of our Jobs Cabinet, which will be very — which will be central to our efforts, and especially in this period of time.

We’re now — a lot of these members are going to go back, they’re going to work with their staffs, they’re going to work with each other to see what the path forward is. So, so far, Cabinet secretaries — from our Jobs Cabinet, I should say — have made 27 calls to members, including seven Republicans; those are when they connected, of course. Our legislative affairs team has made 139 calls to members, their chiefs of staff, and staff directors; 35 of those 99 calls to the House were to Republicans, along with 15 of the 40 calls into the Senate.

This is obviously ongoing, and we will venture to provide you regular updates so you have a sense of what’s happening.

We’ve held 26 House and Senate staff briefings and 9 member-level briefings, including with Republican leadership and five bipartisan groups. And this is clearly picking up.

Senior administration officials have also engaged with rural leaders, faith communities, and the private sector. They’ve held briefings with bipartisan groups of over a thousand mayors and county elected officials, and have had one-on-one conversations with governors from both parties.

I also wanted to highlight that this week is Black Maternal Health Week, and in its honor, today the Vice President and Domestic Policy Advisor Susan Rice are hosting a roundtable with women who will share their experiences with complications from pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum — the impact of postpartum — post — post-childbirth, as well as their work in advocacy and research highlighting the disparities that Black women face in maternal health.

This — I think this actually started around 12:30, so I should say they’ve — they’re — they’re — the event is ongoing.

We also announced initial actions we are taking to address the maternal health crisis in the United States, including significant funding to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity rates; improve health equity and end race-based disparities nationwide; the approval of the first Medicaid Section 1115 waiver in Illinois to broadly extend postpartum coverage. This approval will help ensure access to vital health care services, promote better health outcomes, and reduce the rate of maternal morbidity and mortality. And obviously, this is an issue we will continue to work hard on.

I also just wanted to highlight that we’re also hosting, today, a virtual Small Business briefing on the American Jobs Plan. Small Business Administrator — newly confirmed — Isabel Guzman will join the event with thousands of small-business owners to highlight how the American Jobs Plan support small business.

The plan the President has proposed provides direct support to small businesses by increasing access to federal contracts and investing more than $110 billion in financing and techtical [sic]– technical assistance programs.

As you know, the President also attended a congressional tribute for U.S. Capitol Officer William Evans this morning. He paid his respects, for those of you who didn’t see, to Officer Evans, and met with his family. The President — following his remarks, I should say. The President offered his support to the Capitol Police who have weathered great stress and responsibilities since January’s insurrection, in addition to sustaining the loss of another fellow officer.

Finally, the President will deliver remarks tomorrow at the White House on the way forward in Afghanistan, including his plans and timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops in close coordination with our partners and allies and the government of Afghanistan, and his commitment to focusing on the threats and opportunities we face around the world today.

We will have an advisory with more details out later today. We, of course, are doing a series of briefings throughout the day with all of you and others. I’m going to be limited in what I’m going to share from here because I don’t want to get ahead of the President, but I will look forward to having conversation with all of you in the coming days about the details of his speech.

twitter

Psaki brief: No Price Increase Due to Tax, National Guard, Afghanistan, Russia, 4/13/2021 https://t.co/bxcPRD5ktE

— HYGO News (@HygoNews) April 14, 2021

With that, go ahead, Alex.

Question: Thanks. Let’s start with Russia. Can you share any details on the proposed summit with President Putin: Where would it be? What would the topics be? And what was his response?

And also, Putin himself suggested public talks with Biden in mid-March, and he was brushed off by the White House. So what’s — what’s the change — what’s behind the change in posture?

Psaki: Well, let me first say that, as you note, the President had a call with President Putin this morning. We put out a readout of that, but let me reiterate a couple of the highlights for those of you who were following other pieces of news.

During this call, they discussed a number of regional and global issues, including the aten- — intent of the United States and Russia to pursue a Strategic Stability Dialogue on a range of arms control and emerging security issues, building on the extension of the New START Treaty.

President Biden also made clear that the United States will act firmly in defense of its national interests in response to Russia’s actions, such as cyber intrusions and election interference. And he also emphasized the United States’ unwavering commitment to Ukraine sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The President voiced our concerns over the sudden — the aggre- — Russian military buildup and increasing aggression on the border of Ukraine, and called on Russia to deescalate tensions.

So, as it relates to your question, I will say that, you know, our approach to our relationship with Russia is one where we certainly expect the relationship to remain a challenge. We expect there will be continued difficult conversations, and we are prepared to confront those. But our goal is to have a relationship with Russia that is predictable and stable.

And having a conversation or a dialogue — which the plans will need to be developed on; this was the first conversation about it at that level, of course — the purpose of that is to, of course, be honest and candid where there are areas where we disagree and have concerns, but also work together on areas where there is mutual interest. And that may relate to arms control, as we did with the extension of New START shortly after the President was inaugurated, or even working together on pursuing an Iran nuclear deal.

So there’ll be a range of topics discussed. As we get closer and details are finalized, we’ll share those with you, but we are just at the early stages of the discussions.

Question: And then, with respect to Russia’s military buildup at the Ukrainian border, what is on the table to respond if Russia doesn’t back down? I mean, are military options being considered?

Psaki: Well, Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin are both in Brussels now. They are having discussions with their counterparts about a range of topics, including the military buildup on the border, so I won’t get ahead of those discussions. I expect they will do a readout when those discussions conclude.

Any approach or engagement with Russia or actions would be done in coordination.

Question: And then, one more on Afghanistan. Republicans are already talking as though the announcement has happened of the withdrawal of all troops by September 11th. And so I wanted to get your reaction to something Mitch McConnell just said. He suggested that it would put our “NATO partners in a shared fight… that we have not yet won.” It would “abandon the women of Afghanistan, whose…freedoms and human rights will be imperiled.” He said that the administration “plans to turn tail and abandon the fight in Afghanistan.”

So what is your response to this criticism and criticism from other Republicans that it’s too soon without any plans to sort of maintain stability there?

Psaki: Well, again, I will leave it to the President to lay out his specific plans for withdrawing troops, the reasoning, and his commitment to focusing on the threats and opportunities we face around the world today.

But I will say that the President has been consistent in his view that there’s not a military solution to Afghanistan; that we have been there for far too long. That has been his view for some time — well documented, well reported on.

He believes that — and he remains committed to supporting negotiations between the parties, which, many of you may be following, are resuming next week. And he also believes we need to focus our resources on fighting the threats we face today, 20 years — almost 20 years after the war began. And so that’s his approach on how he looks at this decision, but he will lay out more specifics tomorrow.

Okay, go ahead.

Question: Thanks, Jen. You mentioned President Biden has been consistent. As a candidate, he told CBS that he thought a smaller footprint of troops should remain in Afghanistan in the case that terrorists re-amass their capacity. But now he’s committing to withdrawing troops to a number that is zero. Can you explain that change?

Psaki: Again, I know we’re doing a number of briefings with all of you where you will have all of these questions answered. I will say that the President’s approach and his decision that he made was done through close consultation with military leaders, with his national security team, with partners and allies around the world, and with his objective of mind — in mind of ensuring we are focusing on the threats we’re facing.

We’re doing that in close coordination with our partners and allies, and I will leave it to the briefings that you will be receiving and his speech tomorrow to outline more — in more further detail.

Go ahead.

Question: So can I ask you one —

Psaki: Oh, go ahead.

Question: — on Russia. The U.S. has repeatedly called on Russia to deescalate tensions at the Ukrainian border. Does the President have any reason to believe Putin will actually listen this time?

Psaki: Well, I would say, when it comes to diplomacy, you don’t stop calling for what it — what are the right actions and the appropriate actions and the actions the global community believes are right just because you see a hesitation in taking those actions. And there is — what is different now is that there is coordination on the international front, with the Europeans, with our partners.

As I mentioned, Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin are in Brussels now having a discussion about a range of issues, including the aggression at the border. And that pressure is different. Russia is an outlier in many ways, in that regard.

So we will continue to work in our — in partnership with our allies and partners and continue to put the pressure on and call for what’s right.

Question: Thanks, Jen.

Psaki: Go ahead.

Question: A couple different topics. Just one quick follow-up on Russia. In reading the readout that you guys sent out, does the President currently characterize the relationship with Russia as “honest” and “stable,” or is that something he wants to work toward?

Psaki: I think what we’re working toward is “predictable” and “stable.” We’re not — we’re not looking for an establishment of trust as much as a predictability and stability because there are a range of threats, there are a range of opportunities in the world. And the President wants to have the bandwidth to focus on them, not on an adversarial relationship with Russia.

Question: On — you guys have had a little bit of a back-and-forth — the White House and the Michigan Governor’s Office. Is the President right now, because she’s an ally, kind of disappointed with how the governor has managed COVID in her state, at least of late?

Psaki: Well, let me say, Phil — as you know, you’ve been covering it quite closely — we’ve been at war with this virus for over a year now, and Governor Whitmer has been in charge of a state that has been incredibly hard hit by COVID for that period of time. And she’s done a tremendous job, in our view, while facing an enormous set of challenges.

She has been steadfast in her commitment to keeping the people of the state of Michigan safe, and a tremendous partner in the fight against COVID. And if you go back more than a year ago, she led that fight to make sure first responders in the state had PPE they needed when cases took off, and she pushed for more testing when the federal government told governors that they were, frankly, on their own and to figure it out on their own.

She’s had to endure not just a public health crisis and a hostile state legislator — -slature, but friends who have passed from the virus, armed aggression in the state capitol, and threats against her life.

She’s also had to coordinate a disaster response to a faulty dam burst, all while doing all of this, and a devastated the Michigan community.

So we feel she’s shown some serious grit, fight, and resolve. We’re going to continue to work with her on how we can help address the uptick in her state and help deploy the resources we have available.

Question: And just one more quick one.

Psaki: Yeah.

Question: Running the full gamut today. The President has repeatedly said that he wants the infrastructure proposal he’s put on the table to be paid for. He’s obviously put proposals to pay for it. Is that a red line? Is he open to not paying for some of that proposal if that’s the direction Congress wants to go?

Psaki: Well, I’m not going to — his only red line is inaction. And he is happy to hear from, as he did yesterday, proposals that members have, whether it is to have a lower increase, or — yes, a lower increase of the — of the rate on corporations; whether there are proposals to pay for this plan in a different way. He’s open to hearing it.

His starting place is that we should pay for it. But we’re at the beginning of the discussions here, and ultimately, his only red line is investing in our infrastructure, making sure we are putting Americans back to work over the long term.

Go ahead.

Question: Thanks, Jen.

Psaki: Sorry, Mary, I’ll come back to you next.

Question: On Russia: The President proposing a summit with

Vladimir Putin would suggest that he’s looking to deescalate some tensions there. So does that mean it’s unlikely the U.S. is going to enact harsher sanctions on Russia, like sanctioning their sovereign debt?

Psaki: Well — well, I’m not going to get ahead of any announcements we have on the consequences that we will invoke on the Russian leaders for the actions they’ve already taken.

No, it does not change the calculations, the process, the review that has been ongoing. I expect we’ll have more to say soon. And certainly, the President was clear that there will be consequences, as he has said publicly. Some will be seen and some will be unseen, as we often say, and hopefully we’ll have more to share with all of you soon.

Question: And then, one on nominations. We noticed that the director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement was not included in the tranche that was announced yesterday that included CBP and USCIS. So why wasn’t that person included in that tranche? And when should we expect to see a nominee for that position?

Psaki: It’s a great question. I don’t have any personnel announcements or previews for you. Sometimes we announce things because they’re through the vetting process and a decision has been made. And while it might be cleaner to do it in a group, we want to get these names out, nominated through the process as quickly as possible. So hopefully we’ll have a nominee soon.

Go ahead.

Question: I know you’re leaving the details of this to the President tomorrow, but I do want to try on just one part of this. The administration obviously is committed to supporting Afghan women and minorities. What do you say to people who are concerned that this could put them and their lives at risk by withdrawing?

Psaki: I will say that, broadly speaking, the President and this administration supports women and girls around the world. We support it through a range of actions, through a range of initiatives, through a range of programs that we support. We will absolutely continue to do that.

The President has been consistent in his view that there — the — there is no viable end to the war — military viable end to the war in Afghanistan. He’s had that view for some time now.

And he has to make decisions through the prism of what’s in the interest of the national security of the United States, and that includes keeping our focus on where the threats are emerging around the world, whether those are emerging threats from al Qaeda in parts of North Africa, or other threats or opportunities we see in other regions. And hence, those are big motivating factors in his decision.

Question: And on police reforms and racial justice, you know, it doesn’t appear the Democrats have the votes needed to pass the George Floyd Policing Act, as the administration hopes. Is the White House open to negotiations on this, possibly even giving maybe another look at Tim Scott’s JUSTICE Act the Democrats blocked last year?

Psaki: Well, we will leave that — I know Senator Scott, Senator Booker, and others are in close discussion and coordination about what a path forward may look like. We certainly understand that there could be changes to proposals that have been forward — put forward to date. We believe that the George Floyd Act has a lot of the components that will help rebuild the trust, help address — put in place many of the reforms that are, frankly, long overdue.

So, we — but we also recognize that democracy in action means changes take place. So we’ll have to see what the discussions look like and whether the President could support any changes that would be made through that process.

Question: And if I could, I just want to get your reaction to some comments from Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib that are getting a fair amount of attention. Responding to Daunte Wright’s shooting, she says, “I am done with those who condone government-funded murder. No more policing, incarceration, and militarization. It can’t be reformed.” What do you make of those comments? Do you disavow her calls for no more policing?

Psaki: Look, I — what I can state from here is that that’s not the President’s view. The President’s view is that there are necessary, outdated reforms that should be put in place; that there is accountability that needs to happen; that the loss of life is far too high; that these families are suffering around the country; and that the Black community is exhausted from the ongoing threats they feel.

But he also believes that there is a forum for putting in place legislation, the George Floyd Act, that can help put many of these necessary reforms in place, and that part of what needs to happen is rebuilding trust in communities in order to get to a better place.

Go ahead, Steve.

Question: Just a follow-up to that. There are people all across the country who are demonstrating and actively calling for reform. What expectations should they have for change in the Biden era? What — what is this President going to bring to bear if, for example, qualified immunity isn’t removed from the law — if you can’t get that in a bipartisan agreement?

Psaki: Well, first, we’re not going to get ahead of what the discussions are about a bipartisan agreement. I think what Americans — who are exhausted, who have suffered, who are worried about their kids and their family members — should know is that the President sees racial equity as a central focus of his presidency, and his actions bear that out.

He has, obviously, signed a number of executive actions. He is a strong supporter of putting in place — working through legislation that can put in place permanent reforms. And he will continue to elevate and talk about the need to address these issues across the country at a range of opportunities. And hopefully that gives some reassurance to the public about his commitment.

Question: Quick question about yesterday’s infrastructure meeting.

Psaki: Yeah.

Question: There were some rumblings on the Hill that one of the things that was mentioned in the discussion was an increase in the gasoline tax. Can you explain the context and what was actually discussed?

Psaki: Sure, I think that was a little bit of a garble — unintentional. But in yesterday’s meeting with members of Congress, the President mentioned the gas tax, only to make a point that even a significant increase in the gas tax — which some people have proposed — would pay for only a fraction of the investment the country needs.

Now, fundamentally, he does not believe that paying for this historic investment in rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure and creating millions of jobs should be on the backs of Americans. So he doesn’t believe that anyway; he’s proposed his own means of paying for it. But he was using it as an example of how it wouldn’t even make a sizable dent in paying for the package.

Question: So it is not under consideration here?

Psaki: Correct. Correct.

Go ahead, Andrea.

Question: So, on the international front: You have tensions, obviously, with Russia over Ukraine and Crimea; there are a lot of concerns about what’s happening in China and the South China Sea and also in Taiwan. Are you confident — is the President confident that the U.S. military is postured correctly and prepared to deal with multiple crises occurring almost simultaneously at a time when you’re withdrawing troops from Afghanistan?

Psaki: Absolutely. The President has utmost confidence in General Austin and his leadership. “Secretary” Austin, I guess I should say — switching — switching titles. And he believes we have the best military men and women serving in the world, and so he has absolute confidence.

He also believes that we should lead with diplomacy, and his actions, his leadership, his approach certainly bear that out.

Question: And just on China, with the climate summit coming up: I mean, do you see opportunities to sort of rebuild the relationship or to sort of address the tensions in the — longstanding tensions in the relationship with China — over the climate summit — to sort of use that as an opportunity to move forward?

Psaki: I — we obviously have not made a determination about bilateral proportions or meetings that would take place as a part of the summit. We’ve invited over 40 leaders.

But I would say that we are engaged, as you know, at a range of levels. We are approaching our relationship as one not of conflict but of competition.

We believe that the most important steps we can take is to rebuild and support our own economy here at home, and to also be candid about areas where we have concerns, whether it’s human rights abuses or technological abuses. And that is certainly how we approach our relationship.

So while the summit is still coming together, I’m not sure I would go that far, given there are over 40 leaders we have invited and we’re still finalizing the details of the — of the events.

Question: On the domestic front, in terms of the George Floyd Policing Act, do you anticipate major protests and riots if — depending on the verdict in the Chauvin case? And what are you doing to prepare for that? We had a lot of controversy during the Trump administration about the use of National Guard troops. Are you preparing to put in National Guard troops, if needed, if the — depending on what happens in that verdict?

I know it’s a hypothetical question, but you’re — you have to prepare for all eventualities. And last night, the — or two days ago, the President was, you know, appealing for calm. Can you just tell us — walk us through your strategy and approach, given how volatile the tensions — the situation is?

Go ahead.

Question: Do you rule out sending in the National Guard?

Psaki: I would just leave it at what I conveyed.

Go ahead.

Question: On the President’s tax plans, he has said that individuals, households under $400,000 per year aren’t going to see their taxes go up. Does that also apply to indirect effects from the corporate tax changes that might not technically be tax increases? Look, if an average family of four, making under that amount, sees their heating bill go up because utility companies increased their rates to accommodate the 28 percent corporate tax rate, is that okay or acceptable to the President, you know, because it’s not technically a tax increase?

Psaki: Well, I would say that there’s no reason that that is what needs to happen. We saw — we have evidence of what happens. Back in 2017, when Republicans prioritized tax cuts for big corporations over investing in working people, there were many arguments made about what the impact would be: the benefits would be passed on to consumers, they would invest in R&D, there would be jobs created.

None of that happened. There were stock — stock buybacks, more incentives to offshore, record compensation for executives. We have seen countless studies where the biggest impacts to these corporations would likely be on capital.

So I would say that’s not a concern we have at this moment in time.

Psaki: Is there some data that you’re expecting from economists, suggesting that will be the case? Or are you just getting ahead of what might happen when the bill passes?

Question: I’m not aware of any specific announcements like that. But I’m just saying that was the — one of the results that occurred after the 2017 law passed.

Psaki: Well, then I don’t think we have to anticipate it as an issue quite yet.

Go ahead, Hans.

Question: Just, on Iran. They’ve announced they’re going to go to 60 percent uranium enrichment. What does that do to the ongoing indirect talks? Does it complicate them? Are those talks still on?

And then I’ll — I’ll have a couple of follow-ups.

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, let me say that, first, we take seriously Iran’s provocative announcement of its intention to begin enriching uranium to 60 percent, which the P5+1 should be unified in rejecting. This step both calls into question Iran’s seriousness with regard to the nuclear talks and underscores the imperative of returning to mutual compliance with the JCPOA.

We share and — a common-stated objective of returning to mutual compliance with the JCPOA with Iran. And we have been engaged constructively in what we felt was constructive dialogue last week, even as it was indirect in Vienna. And we — while they were difficult and while we expect this to be long, we expect and — we have not been alerted of any change in planned attendance in the meetings that will resume later this week.

So we are certainly concerned about these provocative announcements. But our goal remains seeing through a diplomatic process which we expect to resume in Vienna later this week.

Question: Okay. Just to be very clear, you expect to — you expect the indirect negotiations to continue, even though you’re questioning their seriousness to those negotiations.

Psaki: Well, look, I think, Hans, we are — we believe that the diplomatic path is the only path forward here, and that having a discussion, even indirect, is the best way to come to resolution. It doesn’t mean that we hold back on concerns we have and don’t encourage our P5+1 partners to expressing those same concerns and having that as part of the discussion.

Question: Also on a diplomatic front: Was the U.S. given any heads-up about the attack from, potentially, Israel on the power facility in Natanz?

Psaki: I have nothing further to read out about our understanding of the origin or the intention of the attack.

Question: Was the U.S. at all, in any way, involved in the attack on the power facility in Natanz?

Psaki: As I said yesterday, we were not.

Question: If I could just do — we’ll switch gears to Russia, real quick.

Psaki: Sure.

Question: The statement said “in the coming months” for this potential summit. Is that going to be this summer?

Psaki: We’ll see. “In the coming months” would be the summer.

Question: Does the President have any preference on where the location should be?

Psaki: It’s a great question. I know Alex was asking a similar one. We’re still just at the early part of this process. And so, as we have more details, we will share them with all of you.

Question: Can we narrow it down — northern hemisphere? (Laughter.)

Psaki: I don’t think we’re quite there yet. You’re sounding like there’s a place you’d like to summer with President Biden and President Putin. I can pass that along, certainly, but — okay, go ahead.

Hard to follow, but I’m sure you have a very serious and good question. Go ahead. (Laughter.)

Question: Thanks for that, I suppose. My question is on LGBTQ rights. You told me, weeks ago, President Biden stands by his campaign promise to sign the legislation within 100 days. We are now on day 83 of the presidency, and it looks like that bill isn’t close to making it by that deadline and the President is facing cris- — multiple crises, as evidenced by the questions in this briefing. Does the President continue to stand by that campaign promise?

Psaki: He does. He continues to work toward it. And as you know, in order to sign legislation, it needs to come to his desk. And while he has certainly been a vocal advocate in his support for the Equality Act, he — and, obviously, as you know and noted, it passed the House; it needs to work its way through the Senate. He — it requires the Senate passing it in order for him to sign it.

Question: But what are the President’s efforts like in getting the Senate to pass the legislation?

Psaki: Well, certainly, he’s put out a statement of administration policy. He has talked about his view that this is legislation that should pass. And he has a range of conversations about a range of topics, but also so does our legislative team who work to move forward his agenda every single day.

Question: And then one thing that’s related to this is the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in the case of Fulton vs. the City of Philadelphia, which will determine whether there’s a First Amendment right to reject child placement in the homes of same-sex couples. Is the administration doing any contingency planning for that decision in terms of the Equality Act or anything else?

Psaki: Tell me a little bit more — contingency planning — as if what if there’s a different outcome than we would like from the Supreme Court ruling?

Question: Yeah, it is — based on the outcome of this decision and how that squares with the passage of this legislation. And, I think, some observers say that one decision or another might let the air out and allow — and change — change the landscape for the passage of the Equality Act?

Psaki: That’s an interesting question. I’d probably have to talk to our legislative team. We typically, as you know, don’t get ahead of Supreme Court rulings. But I will talk to them and see if there’s anything we can convey directly to you.

Go ahead.

Question: Thank you.

Psaki: Oh, I’m sorry. Go ahead. I’m just going to keep track so I get to everybody, but go ahead.

Question: Yeah, no — I have a question on immigration. So, you know, with Guatemala and Honduras and Mexico deploying their troops at their borders, what are — what is the White House or the Biden administration’s next plans to kind of help mitigate migration at the U.S.-Mexico border?

Psaki: At our own border?

Question: Yeah.

Psaki: Well, I would say that part of our effort here in working with these countries is the recognition that irregular migration is a hemispheric issue that requires all countries in the region to play their part. So part of our effort here was to work with Mexico and Northern Triangle governments to implement collaborative migration measures.

Of course, if these are effective, then there will be fewer people who are coming to our own borders. So there is an impact, even of that announcement that we just made that en- — that ensures that countries have deployed, security personnel, migration officials, and other officials at the different border to — at their borders to address migration.

Question: And, you know, last month, we saw some really large numbers at the border of migrant apprehensions. How is the Biden administration working with local officials, with local governments and local nonprofits along the border who some are picking up some — some of the costs like, you know, COVID testing and hotel bookings?

Psaki: Yeah.

Question: And so, kind of, how is the government working with these local officials?

Psaki: Well, they play a tremendously important role in helping ensure, as you noted — in some cases, it is working with NGOs and local authorities and officials on testing. In other cases, there are — covering the cost of hotels and others for quarantining. So they play a really tremendous role in helping ensure we are working in a humane way with those who are coming to our border in a range of ways.

Now, we continue to convey, which is our policy, that the border is not open; that we are turning away the majority of people, of adults who come to the border. But we still have children, we still have some migrant families who Mexico cannot accept for a variety of reasons, and these NGOs play an incredibly important role.

I know we’re at the end of our time here, so let me just — because there’s a gather, that’s why. But let’s see if we can just get to you two quickly. Go ahead.

Question: Just a few about the vaccine and one on Iran, if I can. Several times from the podium, you’ve acknowledged that the Biden administration may not be the best messenger for certain groups on the vaccines, such as white evangelicals, conservative white folks. Can you take us inside the process as to how you’re determining who the best messengers are for those communities? Are you reaching out specifically to targeted people? Are you relying on volunteers? What does that process look like?

Psaki: Well, a big part of our effort — and I appreciate you asking this question — is to create, in part, a Community Corps, which is a program that gets fact-based messages into the hands of local messengers. And what we’ve seen through our data is that local messengers — whether that is elected officials, mayors, doctors, sometimes clergy, civic leaders — are the most effective messengers of anyone.

And that’s why a large part of our $3 billion funding that we have — are focused on getting out into the country — is on working with community-based organizations to strengthen vaccine confidence in the highest-risk and hardest-hit communities.

So it really depends community to community, but we work with faith-based organizations, we work with community health workers, we work with disability organizations, we work with organizations across the board of all different backgrounds and affiliations so that they can get the message clearly out to communities.

Question: So, I guess, how are you determining which organizations know who these influential people are who are going to reach these certain groups that you feel like perhaps you’re not going to reach?

Psaki: Are — how we determine who community leaders are in communities? And like —

Question: Reach these groups that you’re trying to, you know —

Psaki: Well, I think as I’m conveying here, a lot of this is based on local — taking a local role — approach. And it’s — a lot of it’s driven through HHS, so they may be best able to answer your question.

I just want to get to our last person here. Go ahead.

Question: a question from my colleague. Do you have a comment on Japan’s plans to release wastewater from Fukushima into Pacific Ocean — into the Pacific Ocean?

Psaki: Let me get you a comment from our national security team after the briefing. I’m happy to do that, or directly to your colleague, I should say.

Question: Could you clarify who initiated the phone call with President Putin? Was it President Biden?

Psaki: I’m not — I don’t think I’m going to have more detail on that. I’ll check if I do.

Question: The last thing — the last one: Does President Biden want to restore travel with — between the United States and Europe, as well as with the United Kingdom, before summer?

Psaki: You mean as it relates to COVID restrictions?

Question: Yes.

Psaki: Look, our focus — of course, we’d love to have travel return, just like everybody would like to return to normalcy. But we rely on the advice and the guidelines done by our health and medical experts, and so we’ll defer to them on the timeline for that.

Question: Do you see a chance for restoring travel between Europe and the United States for the summer? Many people need to plan in advance.

Psaki: Sure, we — and we understand that. But also, we will rely on the guidance and the timeline of our health and medical teams.

Thanks, everyone. 1:50 P.M. EDT