you have to have this notion of experiment and testing. you want to be able to prove a theory. in this case, it wasn't fully proven. but because of the fear, this was still in the early stages of the pandemic, if you could call a year ago early stages, it's really a compressed period of time, isn't it? but there was a lot of concern and fear and anxiety. the federal government, u.s. government, was first looking at where to invest, as we discussed a few minutes ago. treatments, vaccines. so convalescent plasma popped up. and it was embraced for a time. but it really never panned out. in fact just last friday, a few days ago, "the lancet," which is a widely respected medical journal published in the uk, came out with an analysis of the use of convalescent plasma,

showing that there was really no effect, unfortunately. and they compared a few thousand patients given convalescent plasma to those who weren't. there was no difference, no statistical significance to suggest that it could be useful, unfortunately. so it was another -- okay, got a little ahead of the two minutes, but seems okay. okay. one item for all of you at the top, the unemployment data released this morning show us reaching the lowest level of new claims since the beginning of the pandemic and the moving average has been cut by more than a third since president biden took office just four months ago. we know the policies the president has enacted are making a difference. today's four-week average of 505,000 new claims is down from 752,000 the week the american rescue plan was signed and badly-needed economic relief started getting out the door to families and communities around the country. who doesn't love a chart? so here is a little chart of the weekly unemployment claims to show you all the trend. these numbers can be volatile,

so we caution against reading too much into any single report, and obviously we're looking at trend lines over time, but the trend is clear. in addition to declining unemployment insurance claims over the president's first three months in office, the economy has created an average of 500,000 new jobs a month. eight times more than the average of the three months prior. and this is a direct result of president biden's vision to build our economy from the bottom up and the middle out. with that, darlene, why don't we kick it off. >> reporter: thanks, jen. on the middle east, yesterday the white house said the president had spoken to the prime minister, called for a significant de-escalation. the prime minister in turn said he was going to push forward with the operation in gaza. so the question is, where does that leave the president and the administration today? also, what does what happened yesterday say about his level of influence with the prime minister? >> well, first let me say, darlene, our objective, as we've talked about the a bit in here, is to take every step we can,

through diplomatic channels, through quiet diplomacy, to bring an end to this conflict. an historic reference here, which i lived through, many of you did as well, back in 2014 the conflict on the ground went on for 51 days. 51 days. we are at about ten days now. now, every day that passes and lives are lost, palestinian lives, israeli lives, is a tragedy. but our approach here and our strategic approach here is to continue to communicate directly, stay closely interlocked with the israelis, with partners on the ground, to do everything we can to bring an end to the conflict. we have seen reports of a move toward a potential cease-fire. that's clearly encouraging. obviously we can't get ahead of any agreements that may be brokered. but i would say that, to go back to answer your original question there, darlene, we've had -- we've now held more than 80 engagements with senior leaders in israel, the palestinian authority, and across the

region, either in person or by phone. and again, our view and our approach has been to use our -- the role of the united states and the relationships with countries on the ground to conduct our efforts quietly and through diplomatic channels. >> reporter: do you have anything on a call between the president today and fattah el sisi in egypt? >> they had a call, and part of that engagement is a reflection of what we've been talking about in this briefing room, the important role that a number of countries in the region can play including the egyptians in bringing an end to the conflict. and they have an important role to play in influencing hamas. hence, the president had a conversation with him this morning. i expect we'll have a readout shortly. >> reporter: just one, quickly, if i can switch to infrastructure. senator capito has raised the possibility of using unspent covid-19 money to pay for infrastructure. is that something the white house would be open -- an

approach the white house would be open to? >> again, i know there will be a range of ideas and proposals that will come forward from senator capito, from other republicans and other democrats as well. the president's bottom line, as you have heard me say a few times before, is he does not want to raise taxes on people making less than $400,000 a year. we certainly in that scenario would need to assess whether these funds are needed and not take them away from fighting the pandemic that we continue to battle every day. go ahead. >> reporter: thank you, jen. a couple of topics, quickly. first, house republicans are claiming that they have significant circumstantial evidence that covid-19 originated in a lab. has the white house seen any circumstantial evidence that it did not originate in a lab? >> i think first i would caution you against disproving a negative there, which is never the responsible approach in our view, when it comes to getting to the bottom of the root causes of a pandemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of people in the united states.

i will say that our view continues to be that there needs to be an independent, transparent investigation, and that needs to happen with the cooperation and data provided from the chinese government. we don't have enough information at this point to make an assessment. >> reporter: part of the reason some of these lawmakers say that is because china is not cooperating right now. at what point would president biden call president xi and say we've got 587,883 dead americans, we're just trying to figure out if this happened, if covid originated in one of your labs. >> i would say we have made that call publicly many times. we have conveyed that privately. and we have certainly communicated that they were not transparent from the beginning. that's not acceptable. there's an opportunity now in the next stage of this effort for them to be transparent, to participate in international investigation that can bring a conclusion to the origins and provide information that we, republicans, democrats, everyone in this country, would love to

have access to. >> reporter: on nord stream, i know there's a lot of talk about nord stream and keystone. i want to help -- >> is there? >> reporter: well, yes. president biden blocked the keystone xl pipeline here because he said it would undermine u.s. climate leadership and undercut our ability to urge other countries to take ambitious climate action. so how is he urging other countries to take ambitious climate action, when he's letting other countries build nord stream 2? >> first, we're hardly letting other countries build nord stream 2. when the president took office, 95% of this pipeline was built. we've continued to convey we think it's a bad idea, a bad plan. and we have put in place and taken actions over the last several days to make that clear, in large part because our view is it's a russian geopolitical project that threatens european energy security and that of

ukraine and eastern plank, nato allies and partners. hence there is a geopolitical concern about this pipeline. we've taken steps over the last several days to make that clear. >> reporter: so a lot of concerns, and it seemed like there was the ability by the u.s. government to sanction some officials, to stop the project at like 95%. but you're not doing it. >> in what way were we going to be able to stop a project in another country that's been built to 95%? >> reporter: or make it more difficult with the sanctions on some of these officials involved. >> we've imposed sanctions on four russian entities, four russian vessels that engaged in sanctionable activities. we've imposed sanctions on nine vessels belonging to the russian government. so we've certainly taken significant steps. we've also made clear in public and private channels our opposition to this plan. >> reporter: quickly on israel, progressives in the house and senate are hoping to block $735 million worth of weapons to israel. would the president ever go

along with that? >> let me first say the state department oversees arms sales, and any notifications that may have gone to congress. so i would let them speak to that. the specific proposal you're asking about, we've had a long, abiding security and strategic relationship with israel that has been certainly the case for decades. >> as a candidate, though, president biden boasted he was the only one in the race who had ever brought world leaders together to solve a major problem. there is a major problem in the middle east right now. so why aren't the leaders and the people there benefiting from all of his foreign policy experience? >> do you not count the 80 engagements we've had with countries around the world including the president's call with the leader of egypt, the four calls he's had with the israeli prime minister, and the fact that there have been reports of a cease-fire, or movement toward a cease-fire? >> reporter: i would say do you not count him telling benjamin netanyahu who he says he's known for a long time that he expected

a de-escalation by yesterday, and netanyahu just ignoring him? >> well, first of all, i would say that we are continuing to work toward that, and that we have believed they are in a position to start winding their operations down. and certainly that is what we've been conveying and that is what we expect to happen in short order. >> reporter: so, last one, the president says that foreign policy is something he has done his entire life. >> mm-hmm. >> reporter: is it working? >> i would say that if you look at the fact that the american -- the global community believes that america is back, has a seat at the table, that we're going to continue to lead in the efforts to get the climate crisis under control, to lead in the efforts in engagement around the world, certainly bringing about an end to this conflict, but also moving toward diplomacy as it relates to north korea, and moving toward a place where the united states returns to the place of being a leader in the global forum as we hope to be at

nato, we're certainly working on changing the tide of the last four years. go ahead. >> reporter: there are decidedly mixed signals come out of iranians and europeans on the chances of a nuclear deal being struck. can you tell us who is right? >> i don't know if i'm going to assess in that exact phrasing, but i'll tell you this. we remain engaged as a party in these discussions. obviously our discussions, as you know, from following this, are through indirect talks through the europeans. we continue to believe that our efforts as it relates to bringing an end or preventing iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon need to happen through diplomatic channels. and those talks and engagements are continuing. we always know from having lived through these negotiations before, there will be bumpy roads, there will be different assessments. but we're continuing to work toward progress. >> reporter: on south korea, the president is seeking to tap into the u.s. vaccine supply as part of his visit. how does the white house view

such requests from advanced economies like south korea? is there a higher bar? can you give us some color on those requests? >> just for clarification, so you mean the president of south korea is looking to tap into our vaccine supply? you know, we certainly expect that the leaders will discuss ways the united states can support -- so it's supporting south korea's fight against covid-19 as well as how we can work together to combat the pandemic around the world. certainly they will raise a range of issues. i know this is one they intend to raise, which is hence why you're asking me about it. i would say as it relates to the vaccine supply we're announced, we're going to be sharing with the world. we will look at that and make decisions which are still ongoing with a couple of criteria in mind, how to do it equitably, how to ensure we're reaching parts of the world that need it the most, how to do it in a way that's fair and has a

regional balance. so i don't expect that assessment to be made in advance of tomorrow. but certainly we welcome the opportunity to discuss with them how we can work together to address the global pandemic. >> reporter: one more question on south korea. john kerry and others have called on south korea to double its 2030 targets for carbon cutting emissions, saying it won't go far enough to meet the 2050 goals. shall we expect any movement on that, shall we expect south korea to come a little bit higher on those 2030 goals as part of these talks? >> we are working with south korea on areas of mutual interest. certainly climate ambition, addressing the climate crisis that's facing the global community is part of that. sectoral decarbonization and clean energy deployment we expect will be a part of the discussion. we're looking forward to discussions on economy-wide decarbonization in line with the global goals to reduce global emissions.

what steps they can take, perhaps what steps we can make, will be part of the discussions. in terms of the outcome tomorrow, i'm not in a position to get ahead of that. thank you. >> reporter: thank you, jen. understanding there have been more than 60 phone calls between -- >> 80. >> reporter: okay, 80, between the administration and international leaders, why are the president and vice president now reaching out to regional counterparts beyond prime minister netanyahu? why not make them some of the first phone calls? >> the president spoke with president abbas. these conversations have been happening at a very high level. the secretary of state, other high levels of the administration, our national security adviser. we've read out many of these calls, not every single one, but we've read out many of them as well. we have felt those conversations are constructive, that they have been helpful partners in working to bring an end, to get to the point we're at now where we're working to unwind.

we're encouraging the unwinding and the end of the conflict on the ground. there are moments when it's the right moment for the president to have a call with a global leader himself. >> reporter: could the president have tried to move forward with a cease-fire earlier if he had started reaching out to fattah el sisi and other partners in the region days ago? >> we have been in touch with and working in lockstep with our partners in the region. the way diplomacy works is, that does not always require a call with a global leader. we've been working at a high level to bring an end to the violence, to the conflict on the ground. any share a desire to do exactly that. there's no question that their relationship, ability to engage with hamas, ensures that they can play a very powerful and impactful role in this regard. but the reason -- let me just say one more point. the reason that we're at this point in terms of the evolving conversations and statements and

readouts that we have put out is because the situation on the ground has also evolved. and those readouts reflect that. >> reporter: i want to be very clear about where things stand. is it the administration's understanding that both sides have now agreed to a cease-fire at this point? >> we have seen reports of a potential cease-fire which we certainly see as an encouraging. but we are not in a position to get ahead of any agreements that may be brokered. >> reporter: you're not in a confirm to confirm in is a cease-fire? >> no. but we've certainly seen those reports, those are encouraging, that's certainly what we're encouraging and what we're working toward. >> reporter: i should ask you about the commission to investigate what happened on january 6. >> sure. >> reporter: obviously the bill passed through the house, it's facing steep odds in the senate. house speaker nancy pelosi has said that if necessary she would be open to moving forward with a commission that would only have the support of democrats. would the white house support that and have any concerns that the optics of that would ultimately undercut any

findings? >> well, we're not at that point yet. we've certainly seen the speaker's comments. what i will say, since you gave me the opportunity, is that the attack on the capitol on january 6th was an unprecedented assault on our democracy. it demands a full and independent investigation into what happened. this is not a political issue, in the president's view. this is a question of how we secure our democracy and the rule of law. so it's incredibly disappointing to see how many representatives have opted to turn this into a political issue instead of doing what's right for our country and our constitution, and they still have the opportunity to do the right thing. >> reporter: just to follow up, would you be open to the possibility of a commission -- >> there hasn't been a vote in the senate yet. obviously our hope is that the senate republicans do the right thing, put partisan politics aside, vote in a way that supports the preservation of our democracy, of our constitution. they have the opportunity to do that. if they don't, we'll have a conversation about it. >> reporter: finally, there is a lot of skepticism on capitol hill that there will in fact be

a bill that they'll pass, the george floyd bill, by the anniversary of george floyd's death next week. has the white house accepted that, that it is all but an impossibility at this point that it will pass and what will the president do on the anniversary? >> i don't have anything to preview yet in terms of the president's schedule next week. we'll certainly mark the anniversary as it was a moment that impacted millions of americans and certainly the president on a personal level. i will say, kristen, obviously we are in close touch and we certainly defer to the expectations of the key negotiators here. i would note senator booker has indicated there is good energy to the talks. senator scott has said the key for us is to keep making progress. and we certainly support those efforts. the president talked about the george floyd justice in policing act in his joint session speech, put a marker down, because he feels it's important to be bold, to be ambitious. and that's exactly what he feels

we're hopefully working toward. go ahead. >> reporter: so yesterday, president biden told the prime minister that he wanted to see significant de-escalation yesterday. so did he see that significant de-escalation? and does he believe they are on the path to the cease-fire? >> well, kaitlan, i would say our objective is to continue to push and encourage all parties on the ground, israel, of course, the president has spoken to prime minister netanyahu, as you know, four times, more than any other world leader, and to start winding their operations down. we have seen reports of a potential cease-fire. that is certainly encouraging. and we believe that they are at the point where they certainly should be positioned to bring an end to this conflict. but again, as i started off conveying, we're also in a place where we want to bring this to an end as quickly as possible. that is clearly our objective.

but we are only on about day 10 or 11 here. when we look back at 2014, that was about 51 days. and we'll continue to press behind the scenes, press through intensive, quiet diplomacy, to bring an end to the conflict. >> reporter: i'm just wondering, he did set the deadline of significant de-escalation yesterday. so i'm wondering if they met the mark to his liking. >> again, i'm not going to give a public evaluation by the president of day by day actions. what i can tell you is we're continuing to work behind the scenes, with officials to convey that they should be in a position now to start winding their operations down. that's what we're hopeful to see. >> reporter: what are the national security reasons for waiving the sanctions on the company and ceo behind nord stream 2? >> i know we made this announcement from the state department yesterday, they spoke to us from their end. we put in place a number of

sanctions, as you know, on russian officials and russians who are engaged in the building of nord stream 2 to send a clear message that we think this is a bad deal, that it is a geopolitical plan that we feel puts our eastern flank allies and partners and ukraine at risk. so that is why we put those in place. >> reporter: what's the reason for waiving the sanctions? >> we certainly have an important vital relationship with our leaders in germany and we make a range of decisions through a range of global factors. >> reporter: okay. my last question, about 15 days ago, i think, michael fanone, a d.c. metropolitan police officer who was there on january 6, was beaten, tased, suffered a lot of trauma he says he's still living through, he says he sent you a letter talking about the emotional anxiety he struggles with on a daily basis and he

says it's time to fully recognize the actions of the officers on that day. i was wondering if the white house has a response to him. >> i am happy to check on the status of the letter. obviously the president's view is that there are a number of officers who lost their lives, paid a tremendous sacrifice on a day that will be a stain on our democracy for many years to come, and certainly many who survived. this will be a long-lasting trauma. i would have to check on the letter and the status of that. >> reporter: okay, thank you. >> reporter: thanks, jen. you've said a couple of times you believe the israelis are in a position to start winding their operations down and that's what the administration expects to happen in short order. have the israelis conveyed that they are going to wind down operations, and can you define "short order"? what type of timeline are you looking for? >> i will let them convey what they feel they've accomplished. our view is we believe the israelis have achieved significant military objectives they laid out to achieve in

relation to protecting their people and to responding to the thousands of rocket attacks from hamas. and so that's why in part we feel they are in a position to start winding their operation down. we continue to believe that they have a right to defend themselves. but this is where we see, again, our evolution of the readouts we're sending, of what we're saying, what the president is conveying to the prime minister, is also a reflection of what we're seeing on the ground and what our officials who are working in close lockstep with both israeli officials, palestinians, others, are also seeing on the ground. it's a reflection of all of that. in terms of their assessment of that, i will certainly leave that to them. and obviously our objective is to work toward a cease-fire. >> reporter: there has not been a message from the israelis to the administration that they are going to -- >> i'm not going to read out their messages from them. they can do that. i can read out what we're conveying to them. >> reporter: why is the president not publicly calling for an immediate cease-fire rather than a path to a cease-fire?

the de-escalation, not, right now stop this. >> i think the president has been clear he wants to see a wind-down of the violence, an end to the violence, and a winding of their operations down as quickly as possible, and lead to a cease-fire as quickly as possible. so i don't think he's attempting to mince words there in what he hopes the outcome to be. >> reporter: is there any consequences if israel does not show progress toward that de-escalation, toward the path to a cease-fire? >> our focus is on getting to a path to a cease-fire and bringing an end to the violence and suffering of the israeli people, the palestinian people, many people in the region. so i'm not going to get ahead of that to predict consequences. go ahead. >> reporter: on infrastructure, senator capito said that she expects a counteroffer from the white house tomorrow. can you confirm the deadline, is there a deadline to tomorrow to make a counteroffer? >> we had constructive conversations at a staff level on tuesday on the hill with

senator capito, other ranking members, secretary buttigieg, secretary raimondo. we expect those conversations to continue tomorrow. >> reporter: on another piece of legislation on the hill that i know is a priority of yours, the endless frontier act. obviously you guys care a lot about semiconductors. it seems like the negotiations have hit a couple of hiccups which, you know, is kind of normal. but at what point is the white house getting involved in smoothing this over? i know this was supposed to go on a faster track than your infrastructure proposal. are you as involved at all through your legislative affairs team or do you leave this to senator schumer? >> we're strong supporters of the endless frontier act. we are hopeful and looking forward to signing it into law. >> reporter: are you behind the scenes pushing to resolve the hiccups that are currently holding up -- >> our legislative team is

closely involved with members and with their staff on moving it forward. >> reporter: one last one, also on infrastructure. if you can lay out what the white house and the president himself is doing to urge congressional democrats to support his proposed tax increases. >> i'm sorry. say that one more time. >> reporter: what the president and your legislative affairs team, how that outreach -- what type of outreach you're doing with hill democrats on the proposed tax increases. >> well, i would say the vast majority of hill democrats support raising taxes on the highest income and also on corporations, as do the vast majority of americans. so i would flip that question around and really the question we're posing out there is, if you don't want to pay for these proposals, these historic investments in infrastructure, these investments in ensuring that we are making our workforce

more competitive and rebuilding roads, rails, and bridges around the country, investing in broadband, if you don't want to do it by raising taxes on the top 1% going back to the tax rates of president george w. bush, raising them on corporations, many of whom didn't pay any taxes in the last few years, what's your alternative? that's really the question we're asking. most people in the country and in the democratic caucus support raising taxes on the highest income and on corporations. go ahead. >> reporter: thanks, jen. on infrastructure, given there were staff level talks earlier in the week, can you give us an idea if the ball has been moved forward, has there been any, you know, movement on maybe the pay-fors? you just talked about the importance of the president's proposal and asking republicans to submit their own. did they do that? i mean, how constructive was this and how much did the ball move from where it had been prior to tuesday? >> i wish there was a daily ball-moving monitor. you guys would probably love that too. it doesn't always work that way, as you know, with negotiations

and discussions with members and their staff. our team felt they were constructive conversations. there obviously needs to be followup. as we fully expected, because negotiations and compromise require many, many conversations, sometimes back and forth proposals. we expect those to continue tomorrow, those discussions. and we're looking forward to that. but i'm not going to be evaluating kind of the percentage of progress after each meeting. >> reporter: do you expect the talks with republicans to continue beyond tomorrow? there are some -- >> we'll see. >> reporter: -- democrats on the hill talking about it's time to move on. >> the president's view and the view of senior member of this administration is that he was elected, the american people expect him to work with members of both parties, to attempt to work with members of both parties to get business done on their behalf and he's doing exactly that. so we're looking forward to constructive conversations tomorrow. we'll have to evaluate how those go and what the next step is. but i'm not going to get ahead

of the conversations tomorrow. >> reporter: the commission that hangs in the balance in the senate, you said a few minutes ago, this is a matter of preserving our democracy. if it's that important, is this an issue where the president is going to be lobbying members, picking up the phone, calling to republicans, perhaps speaking to the country, using the bully pulpit to push lawmakers on this or is he going to sort of save those calls for other issues? >> he's made clear what his view is on the mark on our democracy that was january 6th. and he's conveyed that clearly, publicly, on numerous occasions. i don't think there's any secret about where he stands on the commission. we also put out a statement of administration policy on this as well just a couple of days ago. and certainly as he's having discussions with members, if appropriate, he raises a number of issues. but i think it was important for us no convey where we stand in our view that this is an issue, a commission, that shouldn't be viewed through a partisan lens. we don't think the american people view it that way either.

go ahead. >> reporter: jen, thanks. the texas governor yesterday signed an abortion law that banned the procedure at six weeks. what specifically is the white house looking to do? what specific steps will the white house take to protect abortion access? >> first, as you noted, but for those who haven't followed this as closely, this is the most restrictive measure yet in the nation and the most restrictive recent assault on women's fundamental rights under "roe v. wade." and critical rights continue to come under withering and extreme attack around the country. the president and vice president are devoted to making sure every american has access to health care. now more than ever he continues to support the rbust effort he put forget during the campaign to codify "roe v. wade." some actions will be through legal processes and through the courts. those are decisions for the department of justice and others to make. but certainly the president supports and believes we should codify "roe v. wade." and that is his view regardless

of these backward-looking steps that are being taken by states in the country. >> reporter: jen, both pfizer and moderna's ceos are saying covid boosters could be ready as early as december. how is the white house preparing for that in terms of contracts with companies? what will that mean for efforts to send the shots overseas? >> sure. first we would wait for the fda to make that official recommendation to the american public. i will say when we purchased such a large quantity of supply and doses, we were also factoring in a range of contingencies. and that includes that potential. we don't know if that will be, what the fda concludes. but we plan for that. and in addition to the supply that we've already ordered, we're going to be focused on continuing to work with manufacturers to increase supply, globally, of course, through our own manufacturing facilities, and we'll continue to build from the supply we've already ordered. >> reporter: one more really quickly. last week 25 members of congress sent the president a letter asking him to appoint a special envoy to northern ireland.

i'm wondering if he has any plans to do that and if so what the time frame would be. >> we did see that letter. certainly that decision and recommendation will probably be made by the state department in terms of what is needed on the ground. so i don't have any personnel announcements to convey or a timeline for that. go ahead. >> reporter: thanks. will president biden press president moon to join the indo-pacific quad? if south korea is not a part of the quad, does that leave a big hole in your hope of containing china? >> the quad has four members, not to be too mathematical about it. i would say that already exists. i would say that south korea is an incredibly important partner to the united states, hence the president is having one of his first bi-lats in person with the president of south korea and i think that sends a clear message. now, in terms of working with south korea to address regional security issues or strategic issues in the region, certainly there will be an opportunity to talk about that.

we expect that north korea will be a central topic of the discussion, of course, tomorrow. but they also will discuss climate. they will also discuss economic partnership. they will also discuss china. and those will all be a part of this bilateral conversation and meeting tomorrow. >> reporter: in tells me of like a full-fledged membership. i know you would have to rename it. is that going to come up? is the president going to push for that? >> look, i think that south koreans may bring up a range of issues, of course. i'm just framing for you what we expect the focus of the discussions to be about. and i would also convey that there are a range of forums and formats through the international, you know, community where the u.s. works with a range of countries. we may work with, of course, japan and south korea on a range of issues. there's been a history of that, trilateral cooperation, as you know. there are a range of international organizations that we are part of and south korea is also a part of.

so i don't have anything to predict or anticipate in terms of a change in membership of the quad. i would just note that the fact that they are here tomorrow, that it's a full bilateral program, makes clear the importance that have strategic relationship. >> reporter: has president biden ruled out the possibility of face-to-face meeting with kim jong-un of the north? is that even a possibility? >> i don't expect that to be top on his agenda. >> reporter: a quick one on taxes. do you have any fears that the new irs enforcement plan might create some political blowback, wariness on the public, the idea that the tax man is coming, am i facing an audit. what should people know about that? >> i think it's one of the reasons that we want to be absolutely clear that what additional enforcement from the irs would be focused on are people who are not paying their fair share. that is not hard working, middle class americans who are, you know, working hard, paying taxes, putting food on the table. there are a range of other entities that are less likely to

pay their fair share of taxes. so we will be, you know, continue to be absolutely clear about that. lower, middle class americans are for the most part across the board compliant with their tax obligations. but there are cases where corporations are not paying their fair share and they're able to play by their own rules, paying half or less of what they owe. that's really what the focus is. go ahead, in the back. >> reporter: thank you, jen. the president has called on the wealthy to pay their fair share. i'm wondering if the president would like to see reforms to the way that "s" corporations are treated, given that the obama administration said that those corporate structures could sometimes be used as loopholes and yet president biden, between 2017 and 2020, used an "s" corporation to do his tax returns and, as reported in bloomberg, to avoid paying nearly $500,000 in self-employment taxes. >> i will say first that he received no income from capri in

2020, which is the "s" corp. it's dormant. i will not be engaging in any business other than to receive potential royalties which would relate to books he has already written. and of course as you know, you only know about this because the president released his tax returns, which has long been historic precedent even if it wasn't over the last several years. in terms of additional tax reform proposals, i don't have any to announce for you today. i would note the president paid a higher rate than most high income individuals and most corporations around the country. >> reporter: and then another one with regards to the question of what's happening currently in the middle east. i know you touched on, you know, the iran nuclear deal. but, you know, there is reporting earlier that the leader of the iranian revolutionary guard said that the rocket attacks from palestine hitting israel was a

sign of a, quote, new palestine. i'm wondering if that type of rhetoric coming out of iran has any effect on the president's eagerness to rejoin the treaty, the iran nuclear agreement, and sort of if there is any interplay between those two spheres. >> i think it's important to be very clear. iran are bad actors, and they're bad actors in the region. that is very clear. that is our position. however, we believe, the president believes, that it is in the best interests of the united states and in the best interests of countries in the region to have more visibility into iran's nuclear capabilities and to prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon. >> reporter: can i ask one more on the colonial pipeline? >> yes. >> reporter: has the president been briefed on any intelligence suggesting the darkside hacking group which claimed responsibility, operates under the indirect supervision of russian intelligence services?

is there any relationship we have seen? >> i think the president was clear last week in what the intelligence assessment is about the russian government's involvement or knowledge of the hacking. at the same time, they are a criminal entity that is on russian soil and therefore they have a responsibility. go ahead. >> reporter: hi. i just wanted to go back to israel really quick. so yesterday congresswoman ocasio-cortez accused israel of targeting media, schools, targets of other kinds. i know you've talked about the white house's message to democrats. but does the president specifically denounce these comments? >> i think we have a responsibility here to speak about this as the issue that it is, which is a conflict that is killing people in a region, and our efforts to bring that to an end. the president doesn't see this through the prism of domestic

politics. he sees this through the prism of what role the united states can play as a leader in the global community to engage in quiet, intensive diplomacy to bring an end to the suffering and the tragedy on the ground. >> reporter: just to follow up on that, so of course this isn't just a domestic issue, but there is infighting between democrats. and one of president biden's big messages is unity. so what is being done to unify his own party on this issue? and how is this infighting not hurting that message of unity? >> here is where there is agreement. we all want to see an end to the conflict on the ground. we all want to see an end to the suffering for palestinian people, for the israeli people. there is a disagreement on tactics. there is a disagreement on some aspects of how we engage. but we all agree that we want to end the suffering and that is certainly a unifying message. go ahead in the back. >> reporter: thanks, jen. i want to pick up on a couple of things my colleagues have asked

on infrastructure and taxes. on infrastructure, has any progress been made? you know you said the conversations are constructive, the talks will keep on going. but has any progress been made through the lens of the white house? >> here's what's progress. we have democrats and republicans, the ranking members of a range of important committees in the senate, having discussions with members of our senior white house team, a democratic administration, about an agreement that we need to invest in our nation's infrastructure. are we on the same page of every component of how it should be paid for or on the numbers? no. do we know we'll have a successful outcome? no, we don't know that yet, because this is democracy in action, this is compromise, this is negotiations. it looks foreign because we haven't seen this in some time. but it's ongoing. so we're not going to give a day by day grade, it's not particularly constructive to do that. >> reporter: what's most important, the top line or the pay-for? what's a bigger lift at this point? >> look, i'm not going to rank order them, but i will say that it's not been a secret that the

largest area of disagreement is pay-fors. and obviously if you have a higher top line number, you need more pay-fors. it doesn't require a mathematician for that. >> reporter: on taxes, with the guidelines of the treasury department that they put out today as it relates to the irs, what is the argument that you would make that the inflows and outflows of someone's account should be monitored by the irs and since the treasury department says those who make under $400,000 aren't going to be audited any more than they have been in the past, essentially are you creating a two-tier audit system, those who make more than $400,000, and those who make less? >> well, i would say that lower and middle income americans who are working hard, getting their paychecks, are not typically the issue at hand here. and what the tax compliance report conveyed today is that --

or confirmed today, i should say, is that it's past time to reform our broken tax system, that teachers, firefighters, nurses, and other hard working americans, they report their income, they pay required taxes. wealthiest americans and corporations, because they often operate under different tax systems, it already is a system that is living in two americas, they are able to pay lower tax rates. that's not fair. that's basically what the president is conveying. >> reporter: when you say to the person who does well, pays their taxes, and just doesn't want the government seeing the outflows and inflows, they play by the book, and they say i don't think it's right. >> again, i think what our focus is on here is ensuring that any american pays the taxes that they are owed. and if they are paying the taxes that they owe, they have little to worry about. but there's no question that given for the last ten years the irs has been repeatedly underfunded, currently has

20,000 fewer staff including fewer enforcement staff than it did a decade ago, that proposals like the president's proposal to increase -- a 10% increase in funding for the irs, that would largely be used to strengthen enforcement on wealthy and corporate tax ensure those at tp pay their fair share is certainly something that i think the vast majority of americans would feel is fair and effective. go ahead. >> thank you, jen. going to bring you back to the middle east. the u.n. chief just said, and i'm quoting him, if there is hell on earth, it is the life of palestinian children in gaza. so far 65 children have been killed, 40 women. in total 50,000 people have been displaced. since this administration for human rights protection is the forefront of your foreign policy, why can't you do more to protect the life of palestinian children and exert more pressure on one of your closest allies, which is israel, to avoid killing children? >> well, i would say that what

our effort has been focused on, nadia, is conveying behind the scenes that certainly while israel has a right to defend itself, that it is time now to bring an end to this conflict, that there has been too much suffering, too much tragedy. every life lost, every one of these children who has lost their life, every family who has had to mourn the life of a loved one is certainly too many. we have certainly had a shift in our approach as it relates to our engagement from the palestinians from the last administration, including the fact that the consulate was closed. they had ended assistance during the last administration, and they did not have that open line of communication engagement. they also ended humanitarian assistance and security assistance to the palestinians, which we have resumed. so we have certainly taken a different approach, and we believe our role here can be playing a role behind the scenes conveying that it's time to bring an end to the conflict. >> iran talks from vienna is

indicating that by next round, iran might come into compliance, and the u.s. might lift the sanction. do you consider that june 18th, which is the day of the iranian election and is the end of iran commitment to the ipea is the deadline for the white house to try to achieve something? >> well, i'm not going to set new deadlines today. i'm sure that won't surprise you. there are certainly political factors that are factors for countries like iran that are key parties in these discussions and negotiations. our, of course, goal, is to mutually return to compliance with the jcbpoa, and we would be prepared to lift the sanctions necessary for compliance only if iran were prepared to return its nuclear program to its jcpoa status. we will see where we get, but that is our bottom line. thanks, everyone.

weeknights this month, we're featuring american history tv programs as a preview of what's available every weekend on c-span3. tonight, a look at the history between the united states and france. we begin with the author who talks about the french officers who fought with the continental army against the british in the american revolution. she explains their experiences fighting for enlightenment ideals, eventually led to revolution in france itself within a decade. the american revolution institute of the society of the cincinnati hosted this event. watch tonight beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern, and enjoy american history tv every weekend on c-span3. u.s. trade representative katherine tai testifies about