James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
4:13 P.M. EDT
MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. Okay —
Q Or maybe not.
MS. PSAKI: Oh, what did you think was going to happen? (Laughter.) I'm sorry to disappoint. Okay, sorry to disappoint. You never know who's behind the door.
Okay. Okay, tomorrow — just one item for all of you at the top: Tomorrow, the President will travel to Elk Grove Village, Illinois — a trip he had planned to do last week — to meet with public and private sector leaders who have implemented vaccination requirements. The President will visit with a company local to the Chicago area that is imposing its own vaccine requirement ahead of the OSHA rule.
The President's message will be clear: Vaccination requirements work. Vaccination requirements get more people vaccinated, helping to end the pandemic and strengthen the economy.
That's why he's leading and implementing on — implementing vaccination requirements for 100 million workers, two thirds of all workers in the United States, and that's why we're seeing growing momentum for vaccination requirements across the sectors and across the country.
Alex, go ahead.
Q Thanks, Jen. I was hoping to get you to weigh in on three different debt limit scenarios since there's so many —
MS. PSAKI: Great.
Q — developing. So, off the top, Senator Mitch McConnell has proposed for Republicans to either support a short-term hike in the debt limit through December or to support a expedited reconciliation process where Democrats would vote to hike it long term. What's the White House response to that? Is there support for either of those from the President?
And then, I was hoping to get clarification on something the President said yesterday. He seemed to suggest that he would support a carveout in the filibuster, if all else fails, to hike the debt limit. Is that where he stands? Would he be open to that?
MS. PSAKI: Well, right now — and perhaps this the awkwardness of 4:15, while people are still meeting on the Hill — right now, Democratic members are meeting on the Hill to discuss options on the path forward. I think Republican members may also be meeting or discussing among themselves.
My understanding, at the point I walked out here, is that there's been no formal offer made. A press release is not a formal offer.
And regardless, even the scant details that have been reported present more complicated, more difficult options than the one that is quite obvious, in the President's view, and is in front of the faces of every member up on the Hill. We could get this done today. We don't need to kick the can. We don't need to go through a cumbersome process that every day brings additional risks.
So, they're discussing up there. We'll, obviously, be in close touch with them, as we will continue to be, and we'll see where we — where we are at the end of today.
Q And then one foreign policy question. Does the White House have a position yet on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act which passed unanimously in the Senate?
And just broadly in that same context, how do you respond to the criticism from Senator Rubio and some Republicans that the administration is sort of letting Beijing have some advantage on human rights abuses to try to win over their cooperation on climate issues?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we would absolutely dispute that notion. Unlike the former President, this President has spoken out against human rights abuses, has raised his concerns about human rights abuses directly with President Xi, and we have done that at every level from our national security team.
In terms of the legislation, obviously we have spoken out about our concerns of human rights abuses in Xinjiang. And I would also note that the President also led an effort to have coordination on the international stage to address this issue, unlike his predecessors.
But I'd have to talk to our legislative team about specific views on the — in the piece of legislation. I know I spoke to it briefly last week, but I'll — I'll come back to you with that.
Go ahead, Steve.
Q Jake Sullivan reached a deal with the Chinese today for President Biden and President Xi to have a virtual summit before the end of the year. Do you see this happening around the G20 Summit? And what's the advantage of them seeing each other face-to-face?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as I understand it, what came out of the discussions was an agreement to continue dialogue at a very high level.
So, what we've said, of course — and we continue to believe — is that leader-level engagement is an important part of our effort to responsibly manage the competition with China, especially given the coalescing of power in Chinese leadership.
We're still working through what that would look like, when, and, of course, the final details. So we don't quite have them yet.
Q Secondly, the President indicated last night that he had spoken to President Xi about Taiwan. Was this in their more recent phone call? And what exactly did he tell him?
MS. PSAKI: So just — you didn't ask this, but some others have asked us — he did not have a new call that you're not aware of.
Q Okay. Okay.
MS. PSAKI: So, just for full clarity on that. He has spoken with him twice, as you know.
And certainly, reiterating our position as it relates to — you know, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act and our view that we need to uphold that commitment — our commitment under the act — that is what the President reiterated to President Xi last time he talked, and it is something that is raised nearly every time he speaks at a leader level and at other levels as well.
Q And last thing — and sorry to prolong — the Energy Secretary, Granholm, in a conference today did not rule out a ban on crude oil exports to keep U.S. energy prices down. Is that something that's seriously being looked at?
MS. PSAKI: I would defer to the Energy Secretary, but I don't have anything new to report on that from internally in the White House.
Q Thank you.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.
Q Hey, Jen. So, I understand that you're obviously waiting for more details of this proposal from the Senate Minority Leader, but, you know, would the President accept a short-term deal to raise the debt ceiling while you try and find a broader path out of this crisis?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as I said a few minutes ago, we don't need to kick the can. We don't need to go through a cumbersome process that every day brings additional risks. And you heard many of the business leaders convey that, even as we look to risk tomorrow, the next day, as American — the American people are looking at the retirement accounts, worrying about their Social Security savings, members of the military worrying about their payments. We don't need to incur that risk uncertainty.
And I think it's important to also remember we're at this point because Republicans in Congress treated the savings accounts and retirement savings of the American people, Social Security checks of retirees, and veterans benefits like a game of Monopoly, putting the stability and security of the American people at risk.
We're at this point because Republicans in Congress blocked efforts by Democrats to raise the debt limit and protect the full faith and credit of the United States, despite having voted for it three times during the Trump administration.
So, obviously, as has been reported, and the vote has been delayed, there's still an opportunity for Republicans to join us in being adults in the room and ensure that people have confidence in the economic security and their own retirement savings.
Q The Minority Leader's proposal, though, seems to go at one of the key arguments that the President was making yesterday about why he's opposed to using budget reconciliation, which is that it would take time, it's cumbersome, it could lead to, you know, unexpected scenarios.
So, is the Minority Leader taking off the arguments against reconciliation by offering this one-month extension? And if not, then what are your remaining objections? Is it simply that you don't want Democrats to take a vote that will put a specific dollar amount on raising the debt ceiling?
MS. PSAKI: Democrats are very willing to be the adults in the room and take a vote to raise the debt limit. They're not even asking Republicans to do that anymore, since they've clearly shown their refusal to do exactly that.
The point I'm making is that there is a very clear — the least risky option here that can ensure that there is confidence from the American people about their own checking accounts or about their own retirement savings, that's something Republicans still have the opportunity to participate in and be a part of.
Q And just on Afghanistan, if I could. The ISIS-K suicide bomber had — you know, who was — who carried out the attack that resulted in the deaths of 13 U.S. service members and dozens more Afghans had been released from the Parwan prison at Bagram Air Base just days before that attack took place, when the Taliban took control of that base.
Should the Biden administration have done more to secure Bagram or transfer ISIS-K prisoners outside of that? And do you now accept that this attack would not have happened had the United States retained control of Bagram?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I can't speak to the specific case. I'd let it — leave it to the intelligence community to speak to that. So I'd point you to them.
I'd remind you that, as it relates to Bagram, there was a decision made to close Bagram because it wasn't strategically in the interest of the United States and our national security to keep it open with 5,000 troops there protecting Bagram at a distance that was far away from the capital and far away from where people from the embassy would be evacuated. So, that was the broad-based decision.
I understand you're asking me a different question than that, but I just wanted to reiterate.
Q But would he have made the same decision had he known that it would result —
MS. PSAKI: Again, I can't speak —
Q — in the deaths of 13 service members?
MS. PSAKI: — to this particular report. I'd point you to the intelligence community.
Go ahead.
Q Thanks, Jen. You know, Congress has passed countless short-term government funding measures. They have funded the government for 48 hours before. Wouldn't a short-term debt ceiling hike be preferable to default?
MS. PSAKI: The preference would be just getting this done today so we can move on to more business for the American people. And that option is still on the table.
Q But you — you know, the White House brought in all of these banking CEOs today to talk about how catastrophic it would be if the U.S. were to default. Why not send the markets that assurance, if you have the opportunity, that, at least for the next eight weeks, the debt ceiling is going to be secure?
MS. PSAKI: Well, if we're looking at the best options, why kick the can down the road a couple of more weeks? Why create an additional layer of uncertainty? Why not just get it done now? That's what we're continuing to press for, and that's our first choice.
Go ahead.
Q Thanks, Jen. A week ago, the National School Boards Association wrote to the President to say that their teachers feel like some parents protesting recently "could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism." And then, the Attorney General put the FBI on the case.
So, does the administration agree that parents upset about their kids' curriculums could be considered domestic terrorists?
MS. PSAKI: Well, let me unravel this a little bit, because the National School Board Association is not a part of the U.S. government. I'd point you to them.
What the Department of Justice said in a letter from the Attorney General is that, quote, "Threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation's core values." That is true. These were threats against public servants, threats against members of the school board. Regardless of the reasoning, threats and violence against public servants is illegal. That's what he was conveying from the Department of Justice.
Q But the Department of Justice does now have the FBI on this. Something that the School Boards Association is asking for is for the administration to consider using the PATRIOT Act to investigate some of these school board protestors. So, would the administration be okay with the FBI using the PATRIOT Act to surveil these parents, if that is what they decide?
