bathroom, i will not go. i promise you i will not go anywhere. i will stay right here. >> presidential recordings, only on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> there are a lot of places to get political information. only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from, where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here, or here, or here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> white house press secretary face questions about the possibility of china assisting russia as a conflict in ukraine

drags on. asked her to confirm whether president biden was considering a trip to europe in the near future. ms. psaki: good to see you. i have nothing at the top for you. what is on your mind josh? >> to questions. first, after the meeting. since the war began, has china provided a military or economic aid to russia or stressed any specific intention to do so? ms. psaki: i am not the position to detail any intelligence at this time. >> moving on the russia and ukraine talk. what does the u.s. see at this

time for optimism for a cease-fire litigation in which caret and stick do you think both respond? ms. psaki: sure. as has been set in the past, long as they choose to put dissipate in them, of course. we tried to boost them by providing not just economic and humanitarian assistance, but military assistance. we believe it strengthens their position in these talks. our view continues to be that despite words that are 70 stocks coming out of the stocks, diplomacy requires engaging in good faith to de-escalate, and what we are really looking for is evidence of that. we are not seeing any evidence at this point that president putin is doing anything to stop the onslaught for de-escalate.

that is really what we would be looking for. >> what are the consequences for china if they do aid russia? ms. psaki: i am not going to get into specific consequences, i think what we have conveyed and what was conveyed by our national security this meeting is that should they provide military or other assistance, that would of course violate sanctions or support the war effort there would be significant consequent is for us far as what the specifics look like, we would coordinate with our partners and allies to make that determination. >> they communicated that there would be consequent is. ms. psaki: we have also said that publicly and number of times. >> is there a potential trip to europe in the next couple of weeks and what would be the point of going to europe? ms. psaki: we are of course closely engaged with the nato

partners and european allies as you have heard us number of times. there has not been any final decisions about a trip so i do not have any previews of what that would look like if he was to take a trip. >> the president has said that in february the u.s. would respond if targets were done in ukraine. one of my colleagues was injured today and we are still waiting to hear if he is ok, what is that response going to look like? ms. psaki: let me first say that benjamin hall, and other are not final reports yet or we would wait for your organization to confirm those, but our thoughts and your presidents thoughts and demonstrations thoughts are with him and his family and all of you at fox news as well, but as terms of specific actions, i think you have seen the president lead the world in taking and putting in place

consequences and putting in place repercussions and steps in response to the actions of russia and the brutal actions that have certainly impacted ukrainian people and have now impacted americans. in terms of next steps and what the next consequence would be, i do not have anything to preview out this time. >> we have seen the president so far unwilling to draw a redline on the atrocities that we are watching from the sidelines. we have seen maternity words being bombed and illegal weapons being used, pediatric doubt that hospitals being boss -- targeted, president obama drew the redline for syria a chemical weapons. is there any thought process of what we are willing to lash out at? ms. psaki: i think it is important to reiterate that what we are seeing terrific and barbaric. steps of the president has taken and what the world is taking has essentially led the russian financial system to be on the brink of collapse. we have provided more military

assistance the ukrainian military and the ukrainian government than any other country in the world and more historic assistance than any other year to ukraine in history. we are doing that so that we can support them in this difficult moment. i would say that at this moment in time, we have been part that hardly on the sidelines and have been leading the effort around the world to respond to every step and escalatory step. >> is their concern and if we do not draw the line that if would let them to be easier to use them in the future because they will go unpunished? ms. psaki: you are the presidency on friday there would be severe consequences in the world respond if they were used. but we have been doing over the course of the last several weeks if not months is providing as much information for the global community to the media and others about what to expect. when you have president putin suggesting and russian officials suggesting that the united states and ukrainians are the

ones who are working on a chemical weapons program, it is clear that this is a pattern that we have seen in the past of them trying to set up a predicate for their own actions. >> what does that end up looking at for the world response? what the u.s. is not going to do, in terms of not wanting to trigger war with a nuclear power. do we believe that putin is a rational kind of person who would pay attention to some thing like that? why do we think that he would just create a pretext that is fabricated for something like that? ms. psaki: i think what is important here, is that for any president we have to weigh what -- how we can lead the world and very clear that actions are horrific than they are not acceptable and aligned with global norms.

also thinking about our national security interest. starting world war iii is certainly not international get security interest. >> president works with twitter specifically to address this information on vaccines, given that russia has banned the country -- living within the u.s., ms. psaki: i don't have private conversations with twitter or any, that i will check and see if there's more. >> we seen any or colleague seen anymore sign that china has got

the message and that they will heed your warning echo? ms. psaki: we will watch closely their actions. beyond that, my colleagues have read up in a call we can bring it up lately to for you

the g-7 countries make up more than 50%. the range of tools in our disposal and coordination with our european partners should we need to use them, but again we do not have anything to update you on in terms of our assessment. this is an area we are watching closely while this weaning has been planned for some time as a follow-up far november call, the president has with president she, it was kindly an important moment to have this conversation, especially given the reports we have seen in the invasion of right ukraine. >> with chemical weapons, you noted on friday that russia would pay a severe price. but the price look like. i was talking with more sanctions or any big picture of what that would entail? ms. psaki: that would be a conversation that we would have with our partners around the world. there is no question that if russia would decide to use

chemical that there would be a severe reaction. >> would you say with russia that everything is on the table including ending trade negotiations, sanctions, is at all in table? ms. psaki: i am not at a position to detail it further on from here. we will continue to have this conversation now. we have been clear that there would be consequent this. >> what is the endgame looking like as far as these conversations with china? do you want them to shift their strategic priorities and not have a relationship with russia that we are having right now are you look for something more modest? ms. psaki: less about changing their mind and more about making clear with them what the consequences would be should they take additional action to

support this invasion. >> an official said antiarmor antiaircraft systems are an incoming process right now, are we talking about weapon systems that have already been delivered or is there consideration? ms. psaki: give you all more detail, as we all saw be announced the president authorized an additional $200 million of security assistance which utilized the maximum amount of funding available as more continuity, but as i understand it, they have been using it very effectively on the ground to push back on russia both on the air and on the ground. that includes as you noted antiarmor and anti-tank, and anti-air munitions of other

types and other types of assistance to face the threats that they are facing. i understanding as it is a continuation of the types of security assistance that we have been providing and of course the president is looking forward to their significant amount of funding that as you have noted in the omnibus which would enable us to offer additional assistance to add to that package. >> a quick addition to that question, secretary of state this weekend said she is seeing some signs of real serious negotiation from some officials about the russian posture, will you elaborate? ms. psaki: he also said they would have to back any words of action essentially. that is in a port in context via they would have caught talks today and there have been reports that they additional talks.

what we are really looking for is a specific delivery of actions. we are needing term ever there have been five or six attempts to emblem in of humanitarian corridor. those of not been effective. those have not work. you seen through video footage reports of those that have not been abided by and those are keeping -- >> other actors and adversaries of the eye states and china, iran, north korea are also testing the web with china's work with russia as you are dealing with that threat with taiwan, iran, korea, also

showing its provocative nature. ms. psaki: we have not assessed those to be related as you have said. if you look at the missile strike that we saw over the weekend, no u.s. facilities were hit, no personnel were harmed, we were not the targets of that. we have obviously seen tasks and information that we put out publicly as it relates to north korea, we have seen dozens of tests over the course of past administrations as well. i would say that we have not been testing it through those. >> has demonstration reach out to american companies that have property, and for structure in russia to expect that to be nationalized by russia and toulouse those assets? ms. psaki: we have been engaged with u.s. companies and not encouraging them. we have been in -- private sector companies and have been conveying to them publicly that

there would be consequences should that happen. >> former white house said there was a trend today on twitter that if there was an increasing covid cases this spring, based on european there could be a rise in cases, do you feel that there is real-time data that is needed to give the best information to the public possible? ms. psaki: yes, we are. i would note that i did not see this thread. let me know and i do not know who is related to the ba.2 variant, but what we do know is that is an important context, is that it circulated in the united states for some time and we have been watching it closely, but we have current 35,000 cases in this country may inspect some -- socially this low level, but we link that to increased.

while it is more transmissible, the tools we have, including mrna vaccines are all effective tools. we know because it has been in the country. as we are watching, and i think a lot of the reporting has been about the u.k., but also china. china has a zero-tolerance policy as you all know, but they did not connect their vaccination and booster campaigns as mrna vaccines that that is abort context, too. as you see the vaccine impact, what i would say for the earlier part of the question is that we are still addressing the place artists concerning is the place that we need additional covid funding. we had talked about this a little bit in the past, last week running together, but without covid response resources and additional money, there could be additional impact on testing capacity and the uninsured fund which offers testing and treatments for tens of millions of americans who

lack health insurance. that means some programs if we do not get funding could abruptly end or be paired back and i could impact how we are able to respond to any variant had >> one more quick question. the president when he came on today had a mask on. that something has been advised to do is that something he feels more comfort will doing? ms. psaki: often he does that when it is required by a specific event. he did that when he went to texas last week. i can check on that. he was tested yesterday and tested negative. >> on ukraine, he made clear that he has a redline in terms of russia in terms of russia and not doing anything to become direct compensation. in broad strokes, does he have a similar redline now with china? does he not want to get into a direct confrontation with china and is there certain things he does not want to do regarding the alpha ms. psaki: let me see

i can answer your question, but tell me if we do not. i do not like that phrasing redline, but you are obviously correct that what he has is very clear and consistent that he does not have the intention of sending u.s. troops to ukraine. that has not changed. i would look at while we are certainly looking closely at the actions of china, whether is support of any kind for russia, there would certainly be consequent sister that, i do think we look at it through a slightly different prism. russia is invading ukraine actively. i do not know if i answer your question or not. >> to follow up, no ground troops in ukraine, but there have also been other things, like no-fly zones, not providing the flight -- fighter jets, the president has been reluctant. significant consequent is for the chinese, but i am wondering

if there are certain things that will not be considered because it could lead to a direct confrontation with china. the same way you are in russia. ms. psaki: i think we look at it slightly differently. the president has not been wanting to send troops because it is a military conflict. we will not be fighting in a military conflict with china nor are we predicting matt because it is slightly different. >> how high is the administration expecting gas prices to go and is there a limit at? ms. psaki: i do not have a prediction from here as far as what it could look like. there are outside predictors and what we are trying to do is mitigate the impact. you have seen of course the

price of oil go down a little bit, any president will continue to look at a range of the steps that he can take. whether that is engaging through his team or even to himself personally with a big global producer, or looking at a range of domestic options. we have seen it go up, we look at a lot of the same data that you look at. boulet and other data that has showed us how it has gone up in this. of time where russia troops have lined up on the border. in terms of how far, we believe it will continue to go up, but we have trying to take steps that we can mitigate that. >> i understand you do not want to lay out what the steps would be if russia used chemical weapons, but what i am confused about is we know there will not be any u.s. troops, no guns, no no-fly zones, but other than the things that we have already done which you have already described as severe, but can you give us

some examples of what more you can do since you have ruled out all of these. severe consequences, what does that mean? we know what it does not mean. ms. psaki: i understand your question, but i will not outline it from here. >> what you are asking us to believe is that there are severe consequences that you have not used yet but are not on the no list. ms. psaki: but you will not tell us what those things might be. >> we will have those things privately to our national security teams and through our partners around the world. >> what i am wondering, what about the things that, what if there are not any more? ms. psaki: that is inaccurate. >> the white house any any assurance from a public and senators that they would support

the nomination and did senator manchin get anyone that the white house the heads up about the opposition of the nomination? ms. psaki: we were aware of his opposition ahead. >> i did senator manchin make you aware of his opposition? did he call and tell you? ms. psaki: i will not be more specific. >> has the administration planning to -- china's decision to lock down the tax reduction? ms. psaki: we are monitoring this incredibly closely and her team is quite focused on it. what i will say is because of

the steps that we've taken and the number of steps that we have taken that are prepared and strengthen the supply chain, we are feel that has helped us and will help us sustain, but in terms of where we are right now, where we are looking right now is the impact on some of these ports around the impacted parts of china, we know here that are port action plan that we had a strong inventory and we can rely on it for about 90% of goods, groceries, and drugstores are in stock currently and we have reduced the number of import containers for over nine days by over 60%. in terms of specific impact of ports in china, we are monitoring we do not have a new assessment. an up-to-date assessment, i should say at this time did >> >> is russia deliberately

targeting civilians at this time? ms. psaki: we are looking at whether or not we will designate this as a war crime. we will look at this through a legal process internally. a process we are still walking -- working through here. >> we were told that reporter should not focus our conversations on the invitation on oil from venezuela, should we be rolling out the u.s. importing on oil? ms. psaki: it is not an active conversation at this time. >> any thomas acknowledging -- this her attendance there bring any sort of concern about

supreme court? with a second time in two weeks, haitian migrants have landed by boat and given the concerns we had last year until rio what is the administration's reaction to the landing? ms. psaki: i am sure we can give you an update to the humanitarian assistance in the world, in terms of the individuals arriving in florida i think he said, i would point you to the homeland security. we are still applying and that applies no matter which country they are flying -- coming from. >> the president of columbia said last week that we had offered president biden the possibility of joining more colombian oil to u.s. as an alternative, is that an option

the white house is considering echo ms. psaki: we are continuing to talk about the options. it is not just about the sublimely u.s., but insuring the supply for the global market and we do appreciate our partnership with columbia. present biden did discuss economic recovery during their conversation been beyond that i do not have an update on what that might look like. >> ms. psaki: again, they had a wide-ranging conversation at, a very constructive conversation, this is very about supply and the bubble markets but i do not have an update at this point in time did. >> reported that in case the united states would specialize into an operation, the something that is on the table? ms. psaki: i think it is

answered it a few minutes ago. >> you said earlier president biden transferring to europe, could you confirm if a trip is under consideration? ms. psaki: we discussed a range of ways mechanics of conferring with our friends around the world. >> president zelensky would be delivering a and address to the house and senate on wednesday morning. what is the white house reaction to this address and are there any concerns that the white house has about to be raining president speaking directly with congress as opposed to the white house on a serious position and request? ms. psaki: we speak frequently with president zelensky. he had a -- on friday. we are in touch with ukrainian officials nearly everyday if not everyday. i reagan reiterate that there is

strong bipartisan report for ukraine. we all look forward to talk watching his speech on what david >> does the white house still see a path to getting her confirmed in an evenly divided senate? ms. psaki: we will continue our work with chairman brown to garner bipartisan support. again, she is one of the most qualified individuals to be qualified -- nominated to this position. >> you still believe that she can be confirmed? ms. psaki: yes, we would not be pushing for it if she was not a nominee. >> as wiki said you could not, ms. psaki: we do not have a privacy act waiver.

>>'s biden plot planning to visit the ukrainian border to visit the refugees? is that something you like to do? ms. psaki: i have nothing more on the reports. we have a range of conversations with our nato partners and european allies about the next steps in diplomacy, but i have nothing else to confirm for you in terms of the reports bid. >> not just china, but some of the biggest economies in the world like india and brazil, something like latin america like mexico, they are part of the economic warfare against russia, is this something that undermines european countries echo? ms. psaki: it does not undermine

our efforts. we have had a great deal of success and that in every country has to decide where they want to stand. where they want to be as we look as the history books are written. >> we have to move on. >> we always thought the vladimir putin -- ms. psaki: the impact of the president's leadership on the global stage and the economic consequences that have been put into place led russia and the russian economy to be on the brink of collapse. there is no question that over time, that will have an impact. >> furthering that point, we mentioned on this briefing that have been no actions on the part of putin to stop the onslaught. that is after all of these severe economic sanctions have been levied, so i am wondering, what is the administration think

of further severe actions? why do they think those will deter him from chemical weapons? ms. psaki: the reason we spoke out last week about chemical weapons is because we felt that it was important for the global community to understand that they have the capacity and the capabilities and they have use them in the past. at the same time, they were accusing and accurately, spreading false information about the u.s. and the ukrainian intention. that was the origin of iris so outspoken last week. this is more about us making clear to the world what we have seen as a pattern in the past and what they are having is capabilities. >> president biden has repeatedly said no american troops in ukraine had other u.s. troops are still training outside of ukraine. is that not something as a move

forward and ms. psaki: you mean in neighboring countries echo? >> is that not something the united states? ms. psaki: let me check with the department of defense. we pulled them back, but we have a significant military presence in a range of countries in the region, but i can see if there is anything that we are looking at. >> ukrainian soldiers are going into poland, but our u.s. troops are going out and fighting russians. ms. psaki: continuing to expedite the military assistance to them. the good news is we still have coronation and we are able to get them that assistance on the ground. they are actively fighting now and that is where our really is right now. >> the federal reserve, with the administration support the four

nominees who have the votes confirmed to go forward? ms. psaki: there is enough to vote the five nominees through their committee? we think the republic and should show up so they can move into the committee. >> the fact that china is in the conversation about helping russia, should u.s. companies look at decoupling from china with their investments there? can you trust the chinese? ms. psaki: i don't think it is about trust. we have not made them ask or request for that just yet. >> the democrats were -- philadelphia last week. some of my colleagues were hearing a lot from the magnetic lawmakers who want the president to do more by executive action on whether it is a bite immigration or it is on some of the other priorities of the administration. does he have any conversations

with the members there about a possible further executive action and is there anything else that you are hearing from the members and the meetings with the blackhawk and other members of congress and other members of congress in the last week or two that may be coming forward? ms. psaki: i would say all of these numbers can speak for themselves on what they are interested in and what they are requesting from the president and from this administration. we have a range of executive authorities the president does, he has a range of executive authorities that have some reports that are under consideration, including one on policing that we have talked about a bit on the past we still continue to consider steps we can take their executive action even as we work with congress to see what we can move through there as well. >> there is no update beyond the legal review continuing on the student loan? ms. psaki: i have no update at this point in time. >> thank you.

north korea had a nice p.m. -- icbm launch. we have anything on that one? ms. psaki: have nothing on that report. i have not seen a report. what i can tell you is that as you know, last week we proactively decided to reveal this information publicly about recent tests and share it with allies and partners as well as congress. we have seen north korea escalate its testing in different periods over the last presidents and this time they hid these tests unlike the fanfare of their past tests. >> japan and some of the other countries are increasingly alarmed after afghanistan and recent situation. can you let them know that the scaredy treaty will be honored?

-- security treaty will be honored? and you update us on when those will be able to come back? ms. psaki: on the second part, that is one of the reasons we work so closely with them to maintain a diplomatic presence there so that we can continue to engage with neighboring countries to bring people home and to help some of our partners and allies who stood by our sides and fought by our sides over the course of the 20 year war. that is ongoing in terms of the numbers. i would point to the state department who would have the most up-to-date numbers. i am not try understand your first question. >> just a reassurance to japan and the countries that have treaties with us that are worried that with a situation like this, those treaties will be honored. ms. psaki: how would it relate to japan? >> afghanistan, partners of ours, the whole situation that is happening right now. taiwan is in great concern that

if you have treaties, and it will situation, ms. psaki: we have never stepped back with the -- >> to questions on russia and ukraine. prior to february 24, the president and our nato allies and the eu were embarked on a determined project. that is exactly the word that you and other senior u.s. officials used. quite clearly, the invasion was long -- launched almost force -- 24th of february. we can say is a factual matter that the deterrence project failed. is it the view of the white house that mr. putin could not be deterred by any set of steps are you willing to concede that perhaps some other set of steps by the president and our allies could have deterred the invasion? ms. psaki: i would say that when we put in the place the threat of sanctions or consequences, we

never thought that that would be filled proof. or that it would be 100% effective. we do that because he wanted to lay out the clear consequences should president boudin proceed and invading ukraine. even as we predicted, quite consistently, but that was very much his intention. what we have done since that time is implement the sanctions. and implement this consequent his bid far beyond what the expectations were to look like. i do not think i can look in a rear view mirror or that any of us can and look at what would have been different. we did was rally the world to stand up to the aggressions of president boudin and implement them and follow up on what we committed to since that point in time. >> one key decision made by the president early on was to remove strategic ambiguity from the subject -- decision. never really was mr. pruden forced to wonder what consequent

as he would face. he was told at the outset of that he would never face military intervention by the united states and nato and the full range would be amounted to economic and diplomatic sanctions. i think a lot of people wonder why a greater effort was not made to leave mr. putin and doubt about the concert once as you might face. ms. psaki: the president is the president of the united states of america and he felt it was important to be clear with the american people about what his intentions were and what they were not. his intentions were not to send men and women and their sons and daughters to fight a war in ukrainians russia. >> go ahead, ladies first. >> i the iran talks dead and if not what is going on? ms. psaki: we will see what

happens in the days ahead with up diplomacy around the deal. we continue to believe that diplomatic forward is the best path forward bid this is a natural part of the process as is also standard for the most difficult parts of the negotiations to be happening at the end. >> there has been asked to mediate. will the white house support that, endorse that in any way? with the african model tending to restorative justice,? ms. psaki: i am happy to check of our national security team in his role? but what i can assure you is that global leaders have been meeting with the global -- ukrainians and russians and engaging directly through diplomatic channels and trying to come to a diplomatic conclusion here. we have been engaged directly with them directly on the front in and back end of this negotiations and encouraging

them to make sure they are engaging with ukrainians and not just the russians. i will make sure that there -- i will check specifically, but there is a range of countries that are already playing this role, but go ahead. >> with covid falling off the omnibus, has anything changed at all? have they come back to lawmakers and said hey, it's taking a while, we need more? ms. psaki: in terms of asking for less money or anything like that? >> >> have things changed in the needs? ms. psaki: we are asking for money to meet exactly the needs that are going to start to come up soon in the coming weeks. in supporting the number of programs that have been pivotal to people across the country. especially people who are uninsured and relying on the

free treatments and testing and vaccines. these are programs that are not only in the u.s. government's interest to continue, but in the interest of the american people. especially the people who do not have the resources to cover and pay for a lot of these different treatments. we had originally requested $22.5 billion for immediate and urgent covid response needs because that is the funding we felt we needed. that does not mean it would cover the needs forever. that would just be the need that we have at this moment in time. these conversations are ongoing with leaders in congress and we want to be very clear about the fact that some of these programs could a buckley end and be pared back without additional funding. >> you mentioned the program, you said it would end this month. that program still there?

ms. psaki: a lot of these programs good and quite abruptly. it could -- it could, but i am not sure about that specific one did. >> they said that this policy was inhumane, but keeping it even of the is open again. but a few days back, the cdc decided that they could let minors in, but the theory is that this would make a lot of parents, vito and other american tragedy. ms. psaki: i would say as you noted, the cdc makes determinations about title 42, i think as it relates to this recent decision, i would have to talk to the per apartment of homeland security about that and how they are applying it and implementing it. as you know, our intention is certainly not to put march's children in danger, or to put them

sending children on a journey that is treacherous and dangerous to cross the border, but the president is implement thing this they as we are still in the middle of a public health crisis. that continues to be the case. >> should we reopen the border and yeah ms. psaki: that is what he proposed in his first an office. just because it has not been done yet does not mean we are not going to stay and fight to get exact about the compost and him him . >> used and that ukrainians are being bombed by russia, but the financial assistance to poland and ukraine, but africans there are being kept from entering poland. why have you not officially been

condemning? ms. psaki: we have spoken out against that and expressed concern about any reports of discrimination at the border. >> i am trying to understand. you are not going there, you're not sending troops there, no fly, you're pushing these guys to come in knowing that russia has a superpower and trying to capture the main city and all of the cities around it, what is the endgame? ms. psaki: the endgame is really a question for pruden. we have completely crushed his economy, we have divided military assistance, humanitarian assistance, enable them to fight back or far longer than the russian leadership anticipated. again, he has to determine what

the path forward looks forward to him. thank you everyone. i do not have any details on that for you. >> these bands washington journal, everyday we take your calls live on the air on the news of the day. we discussed policy issues that impact you. coming up on tuesday morning, research professor amy myers at the university will discuss the bidens universities -- biden and minnis rations energy policies with russia's oil. the accountability office will talk about a new report talking about improving u.s. capitol

security after the january 6 attack. in previewing the meeting of the federal reserve policy committee. watch washington journal live on tuesday morning on c-span or on c-span now, our free mobile app. join the discussion with your foes calls, facebook comments, at -- and we spent >> coming up tuesday on c-span, state officials testify on u.s. efforts to combat authoritarianism in front of the senate at 10 a.m. eastern. when the natural resources committee including ones that honor the history of japanese americans during world war ii, another preserves japanese-american confinement camps that were used during the war. on c-span two, the senate is back at 10 a.m. to consider the nomination of shalonda young to be director of the office and budget.