Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Ukraine: Crimea Bridge Struck By "Naval Drone"; Russia Ends Critical Grain Deal With Ukraine; Manchin To Heading "No Labels" Event In New Hampshire; WH Addresses Russia's Grain Deal Withdrawal. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired July 17, 2023 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:01:01]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: A pair of major developments on the war in Ukraine. Ukrainian forces attacking a key bridge vital to Russia's military as Russia terminates a crucial agreement on grain, one that has major implications for the global food supply.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Democrats are worried about Joe. And I'm not talking about that Joe, I'm talking about this one, Sen. Joe Manchin set to speak in an event for the group No Labels, which is pushing for a third party presidential candidate. The group is stoking fears that they could play spoiler in President Biden's reelection bid. We'll be speaking to the group's national director about those concerns.

SANCHEZ: Plus, search and rescue operations underway after flash flooding that's claimed the lives of at least five people in the northeast. Other parts of the country sweltering under dangerous heat and the rest of the world is suffering, too. We have much more on the extreme weather, along with other major developing stories, all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

We are learning new details this hour about the attack on a critical bridge linking Russia to occupied Crimea. Ukraine now says the bridge was blown up by naval drones. You can see the aftermath here, a portion of the 12-mile long bridge appears to be heavily damaged. Vladimir Putin is claiming the two strikes carried out early this morning were "terrorist attacks."

The bridge was built after Moscow illegally annexed Crimea in 2014 and it's a major supply line for Russia, especially in southern Ukraine. And just hours after this bridge was attacked, Russia announced it is pulling out of a deal allowing Ukraine to export grain from its ports. Several Western countries are now condemning Russia's decision, saying it will have a devastating impact on global hunger.

CNN Senior International Security Correspondent, Fred Pleitgen, joins us now.

So, Fred, why is Russia terminating this deal?

FRED PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Boris.

Well, the Russians say it's specifically not because of the attack on the Crimean bridge. In fact, the spokesman for the Kremlin, Dmitry Peskov, he came out earlier today and he specifically negated any notions of that.

He said, look, Vladimir Putin has been talking about this for days, saying that Russia was unhappy with the grain deal and that Russia was probably going to pull out of the grain deal. And if we look at the grain deal in itself, it's been in force for about a year and it's really been hanging on by a thread.

Since then, the Russians threatening to pull out at various times. There are certain concerns that the Russians say that they had, which they felt were not being addressed. They said, on the one hand, the sanctions were making it difficult for them to export their own agricultural goods. They also said that they felt that a lot of the grain that was being - and other agricultural goods that were being exported from Ukraine were not going to developing countries, and they felt that that was against the spirit of the agreement.

Now, the Ukrainians, in the form of the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, they came out and said, look, they really want the deal to be implemented again. They want to try and salvage the deal.

The Russians on the face of it are saying maybe they'll get back into the deal, but there is a U.N. diplomat who told our own Alex Marquardt that it sounds pretty final what the Russians are saying.

And, Boris, on top of that, Vladimir Putin looked really angry. He was in a meeting with some of his top security officials after this attack on the Crimean bridge and said, look, this is already the second time that something like this has happened. He wanted to see some concepts for how to better protect that bridge and he vowed retaliation on the parts of the Russians and said the military was already working up certain scenarios for that.

One of the things that we have to keep in mind with that, Boris, is that the last time the Crimean bridge was hit was when the Russians unleashed and started unleashing that massive aerial campaign against Ukrainian cities and Ukrainian critical infrastructure, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Fred Pleitgen, thank you so much. And even though the attack on this bridge coincides with the Russian ending of that grain deal, the Kremlin says the two are unrelated, Brianna.

[15:05:06]

KEILAR: Very interesting.

Let's talk about this now more with retired U.S. air colonel - Air Force Colonel, Cedric Leighton.

So this bridge, let's talk about the strategic military importance here.

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yes, absolutely.

So when you look at this bridge, of course, this is one of the biggest engineering feats that the Russians ever built. It's the only link, only bridge link between Crimea and Russia. It's also the major supply route for Russian forces, especially on the southern front in Ukraine.

And then, of course, prestige project. It is the longest bridge in Europe, 11 miles. Road is a little bit shorter than the rail link, but it's about 11 miles when you average them out, so it's a big, big bridge.

KEILAR: So how were they able to pull this off? How was Ukraine able to strike this bridge?

LEIGHTON: So one of the things that they did was they used - we've heard about UAVs, that's unmanned aerial vehicles. Well, there's also unmanned surface vehicles. And this is what they used. They basically used water drones, waterborne drones to attack the bridge.

And when you look at how they did it and where they did it, they basically took this area right here. This is where the bridge goes right through here. They used this area to attack the pylons on the bridge and destroy a major portion of it.

So when you see basically what this did, you can see that it really buckled the roadway. And that, of course, is a key element right here when you look at how much damage it could actually do.

KEILAR: Yes, you see that pylon right there.

Okay, so you mentioned that this is a prestige project, right? Okay. So this is a sort of a pet project of President Putin or Vladimir Putin's. He is there. He's up on the truck. He's reveling in this moment here back in 2018. He has also visited it when it was struck before back in back in October, right? So ...

LEIGHTON: Right.

KEILAR: ... he then was there for that moment. We see the bombing here. This one took a couple of months to repair and you see how significant this bombing was here. What does this tell you about the message that Ukraine is trying to send? Is it just a matter of, hey, this isn't safe or we can do this elsewhere, what is it?

LEIGHTON: It's basically we can do this elsewhere and it's not safe. This blast really affected the rail link more than it did the road link, although it obviously affected part of the road link as well.

The one that we had today or earlier today actually affected the road link and did not affect the rail link as much. So it's kind of a reverse saying that we can affect both of the transportation links that you have on this bridge. And that is, I think, the message that the Ukrainians are sending.

KEILAR: Okay. So separately, can you talk to us now about these F-16 fighter jets? Because a top Biden administration official is telling CNN finally they are going to allow European countries to train Ukrainian soldiers on these fighter jets. But now the question is, realistically, when does that capability start having an effect on the war?

LEIGHTON: So Brianna, when it comes to training pilots for the F-16, it takes at least eight months to do so. And this is based on an assessment from the Arizona National Guard, which conveniently provided these pictures right here of F-16s doing touch and goes and other maneuvers in Arizona.

And what is important about this is that's the kind of training that the Arizona National Guard assessed the two Ukrainian pilots that came to the United States earlier in the year. Now, when it comes to what the Europeans are going to do, we don't know exactly how long that's going to take.

But the key thing to think about here is not only are there language issues, but there also are specific requirements such as close air support, basic fighter maneuvers, suppression of enemy air defenses. Those are things that they'll need to train for to be effective on the battlefield.

So if that's going to happen, it will take at least a year for them to be really good at this.

KEILAR: They're taking fighter pilots who are proficient on other planes, right?

LEIGHTON: That is correct.

KEILAR: Are they taking them out of the mix then, so to speak, in order to train them?

LEIGHTON: They'd have to, yes, because they can't fly, let's say, the Su-35 or any other aircraft that they have in their inventory. What they can do - or the MiG-29 in Ukraine's case. What they can do, though, is they can take their most experienced pilots on a rotational basis and have them trained on the F-16, get used to the basic instruments that are on this aircraft and then transfer their knowledge into this.

And it also means that they can employ the weapons that are used on the F-16, because a lot of those capabilities are actually quite profound and could make a difference on the battlefield right now.

KEILAR: All right. Colonel, thank you so much for taking us through that. We do appreciate it. Boris?

SANCHEZ: Today, Democratic senator, Joe Manchin, will head to New Hampshire to headline an event for No Labels, a group pushing for a third-party presidential candidate.

[15:10:00]

The West Virginia senator told CNN this morning this trip is nothing about a third party, but he also did not rule out a run. Joining us now is the national director of No Labels, Joe Cunningham. He's also a former congressman, we should note, from North Carolina.

Joe, thank you so much for being with us. I'm wondering, what is the goal of having Joe Manchin headline this event? He's not exactly beloved nationally, but is he someone that you would put forward as a candidate for president?

JOE CUNNINGHAM, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, NO LABELS: Well, it's glad to be here with you. And I'm from South Carolina, just to correct the record.

SANCHEZ: Oh, you're right. My mistake.

CUNNINGHAM: But, look, we - it's all right - we have Sen. Manchin and Gov. Huntsman up here. And they're up here because they are original co-chairs for No Labels and we're kicking off this Common Sense policy tour and we're going to be going to different cities, talking about these ideas and policies. And what is a book of 30 different policy ideas, ranging from covering topics like immigration or education, women's reproductive rights, all those things.

And it tells elected officials, politicians and the world, quite frankly, where the majority of Americans are. And that's near the middle. Most of us in America are somewhere near the middle, a little to the left, a little to the right. The fact is, in Washington, D.C., all you see are the extremes being put on display.

SANCHEZ: So, would you put forward Joe Manchin as the kind of candidate that No Labels might promote as a presidential candidate?

CUNNINGHAM: Well, any idea as far as names of a potential unity ticket are just speculation. Because the truth be told, we haven't even decided whether or not to put forward a ticket.

What we're doing right now, what we're focusing on, is securing ballot access across the country in all 50 states, plus Washington, D.C. And we're going to run a ticket, a Democrat and Republican, or a Republican and Democrat, only if two things are met.

Number one, the major party nominees have to be viewed as so unfavorable by the American public. And number two, there must be a clear pathway to victory for this type of ticket, BECAUSE we don't intend to be a spoiler. If we got in it, we would be in it to win it, plain and simple.

SANCHEZ: Sir, do you think there's enough appetite for a centrist agenda to get support, enough support to be competitive?

CUNNINGHAM: I believe so. I mean, take a look at the numbers right now. And folks are looking at the rematch of Trump versus Biden. And it's a rematch that no one really wants. Two-thirds of Americans don't want to see it. And so the question becomes, well, who's speaking to them?

And we have so many Americans who feel disaffected, feel either pushed out or pushed aside by their own parties and nobody's speaking to them. And that's one of the purposes of this Common Sense policy tour is to kick start that conversation and to show Washington, D.C. that, hey, look, you can bring Democrats and Republicans together, put them around a table, and we can make some progress on some of these big issues, whether it be immigration or gun safety.

SANCHEZ: And yet, sir, the experts of CNN, when they crunch the math and the numbers, it looks like No Labels could potentially split voters in a way that would give an advantage to a person you voted to impeach. Are you concerned at all that you might wind up empowering Donald Trump?

CUNNINGHAM: We're not going to be a spoiler and we've been on the record saying that. I'm not sure what kind of data your experts are looking at, but there's an old adage that numbers will tell you anything if you torture them enough.

What I can tell you is that No Labels have spent the last year and a half speaking to tens of thousands of Americans and what they're telling us is very clear. They don't want to see a rematch, but they're also open to a bipartisan ticket. And there's a pathway to victory for such a ticket.

If this thing, if a ticket is nominated and it's launched and it doesn't gain traction and it looks like it would be a spoiler and help Trump out, then we'd simply pull it. It's that simple. But the fact is, where we are right now in America with these two nominees that no one seems to get excited about, Americans deserve another option. And we're working on giving America a voice and a choice for this upcoming election.

SANCHEZ: There are some outstanding questions, though, about where the money supporting No Labels is coming from. In fact, Sen. Mark Kelly describes your organization as receiving dark money. Let's listen to this sound bite.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): I don't think No Labels is a political party. I mean, this is a few individuals putting dark money behind an organization and that's not what our democracy should be about. I'm obviously concerned about what's going on here in Arizona and across the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Sir, should that change? Wouldn't you want No Labels to be more transparent with voters?

CUNNINGHAM: Well, Sen. Kelly is correct in - that No Labels is not a political party. In fact, we're just gaining ballot access. We're not running a ticket or a candidate. And if a ticket is nominated, though, and it's passed off to another group or entity, yes, those donors should be disclosed.

[15:15:07] But No Labels is a C4, it's a nonprofit. And in line with other nonprofits, it doesn't disclose their donors. But the truth is that No Labels has been around for over 12 years. It formed the Problem Solvers Caucus, which I was a member of, got a lot of great work done. And no one seemed to ever bring up funding or resources at that particular time until we started to get ballot access.

And while we're on the topic of democracy, I don't think there's anything more democratic than giving Americans choices and that's all we're trying to do. And there are a number of groups and people who have another opinion about that. But the fact is, there's nothing about political parties in our Constitution.

And if the vast majority of Americans don't want to see this rematch, shouldn't - should a group not stand up and speak for them?

SANCHEZ: Former congressman from South Carolina, Joe Cunningham, now with No Labels. Thank you so much for the time.

We want to take our viewers straight to the White House where John Kirby, a National Security spokesperson is speaking to the press. Let's listen.

JOHN KIRBY, PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: ... irresponsible and dangerous decision to suspend its participation in the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which will exacerbate food scarcity and harm millions of vulnerable people around the world.

The Black Sea Grain Initiative has been critical to bringing down food prices, which have spiked as a result of Russia's brutal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

More than half of the 33 million metric tons of grain and foodstuffs that have been shipped through the initiative have gone to developing countries, including some of the most food-insecure regions of the globe. These shipments have helped drive down and stabilize global prices. And every shipment under the initiative has contributed to reducing hardship in the world's poorest countries, since bringing grain to world markets lowers food prices for everybody.

Russia's decision to resume its effective blockade of Ukrainian ports and prevent this grain from getting to markets will harm people all over the world. Russia will be fully and solely responsible for the consequences of this military act of aggression.

Indeed, we are already seeing a spike in global wheat, corn, and soybean prices just today as a result of Russia's suspension.

We urge the government of Russia to immediately reverse its decision.

Meanwhile, the United States has and we will continue to work with other countries to enable both Russian and Ukrainian grain to reach the rest of the world, including by ensuring that our sanctions do not target - contrary to Russian propaganda, they do not target Russian food or fertilizer. And we will continue to support Ukraine's efforts to get that grain to markets that desperately need it even if that's through other routes.

A lot of work to be done here. This is a deeply regrettable and, as I said, a dangerous decision that we urge Mr. Putin to reverse.

Now, just quickly a readout on the President's discussion today with Prime Minister Netanyahu. They obviously talked about a broad range of global and regional issues of mutual concern. The President underscored his ironclad, unwavering commitment to Israel's security, and he condemned recent acts of terror against Israeli citizens.

The two consulted on our close coordination to counter Iran, including through regular and ongoing joint military exercises. They noted that U.S. - that the U.S.-Israel partnership remains a cornerstone in preventing Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon.

The President stressed the need to take measures to maintain the viability of a two-state solution and to improve the security situation in the West Bank. To that end, he welcomed Israel's willingness to consider new steps to support Palestinian livelihoods and recognized promising steps by the Palestinian Authority for their part to reassert security control in Jenin and other areas of the West Bank.

He expressed concern about continued settlement growth and called on all parties to refrain from further unilateral measures.

The two leaders agreed to consult with regional partners with the aim of convening a meeting soon in the Aqaba/Sharm format as soon as possible.

They also consulted on progress towards establishing a more integrated, prosperous, and peaceful Middle East, including through efforts to deepen and expand normalization with countries in the region and beyond.

Finally, President Biden reiterated, in the context of the current debate in Israel about judicial reform, the need for the broadest possible consensus and that shared democratic values have always been and must remain a hallmark of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

With that, I'll take questions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay. Thanks, John. First on the call with Netanyahu, was the - you said there was a - the Israelis said there was an invitation to meet in the United States. Is that meeting at the White House, as Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly asked for?

KIRBY: They have agreed that they're - that they will meet probably before the end of this year. And all the details of the "wheres" and the "whens" are still being worked out.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And then, secondly, on the Black Sea grain deal: Assuming Russia doesn't lift this effective blockade, what other options are there that the U.S. can facilitate to get that Ukrainian grain out there?

[15:20:01]

Was there additional resources that the U.S. can send to Ukraine? Just ship it out via rail?

KIRBY: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Or is it really just at the mercy of Russia here?

KIRBY: Well, look, to some degree, Russia does have a huge amount of responsibility here. By allowing our - in the previous months, allowing ships to leave through the Black Sea along an approved route.

But absent that, we're going to have to, kind of, go back to where we were before the grain deal was put in place last July. And that's been a year where, obviously, the bulk of grain wasn't getting out, because the only other option you have for that is overland - by rail, by truck - overland.

And, of course, overland transport of anything in Ukraine right now is a pretty hazardous undertaking. And, of course, you'd have to go through EU countries; they all would have to be okay with that. They have farmers and farms that they have to be concerned about for their own economies.

So, it's more cumbersome, less efficient, certainly not as effective - an effective way to getting all that grain out of Ukraine. And that's why before the grain deal was put in place, food prices were going up; the developing world, the so-called Global South was suffering under food scarcity.

So, I mean, I don't want to stand here and promise you that we'll be able to fix everything as a result of this decision by Russia. We'll do the best we can. We'll continue to work with allies and partners to find new ways to get grain out.

But there's no possible way, just mathematically, we're going to get as much grain out now as we were going to be able to get out through the grain deal if it had been extended.

KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Go ahead, Sebastian.

SEBASTIAN: Thank you. Hello, Admiral.

Also, on the grain - I'm just following up on Zeke's question - specifically, is there any thought being given to a plan of just taking the grain out by sea with some kind of escort and more or less daring the Russians to stop it?

And then, on the bridge, which ...

KIRBY: Basically, you're arguing that - well, you're - not arguing, but you're suggesting that we should just try to run a blockade - an effective military blockade in the Black Sea because that's what's happening here.

SEBASTIAN: Right. KIRBY: No, that's not an option that's being actively pursued.

SEBASTIAN: (Inaudible) Turkey had sort of played around with this idea quite a long time ago.

KIRBY: That's not an option we're actively pursuing.

SEBASTIAN: Okay. Okay, thank you. On the bridge itself, the Russians keep making like - this sound like this is a sort of casus belli. "You can't touch the bridge; we'll stop the grain" and so on. That's how they present it. Does the United States think the bridge is a totally legitimate military target?

KIRBY: So, two - let me just take that in two bites. Number one, I've seen nothing that proves causation here that the strike on the bridge led to Putin's decision not to extend. He had already been leaning that way publicly.

Now, I'll - won't speak for him. If he has his own justification, he can do that. But I've seen nothing that points to causation.

And then, to your second question, we don't take it upon ourselves to determine legitimacy or illegitimacy of targets that the Ukrainians hit. They're fighting for their own country. Crimea is Ukraine.

And we don't tell them what is or what isn't legally a legitimate target. They determine their targets for themselves.

SEBASTIAN: Or this not at all in the same category as strikes inside Russia, which is something that ...

KIRBY: Strikes inside Russia, we made it clear to the Ukrainians that we won't encourage and we won't enable strikes inside Russia. What we are trying to do and have been for 16 months is making sure that they can defend their own territory and to push back the Russian aggression on Ukrainian soil. Crimea is Ukrainian soil.

JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just to clarify something, Russia is calling the bridge attack a terrorist attack. They're blaming Ukraine. The Ukrainians have not, though, claimed responsibility. Have you determined who's responsible? Or are you commenting on who's responsible?

KIRBY: We are not in a position to attribute the attack to any particular party at this point.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And you've made clear - obviously, publicly, you're urging Russia to reverse this decision on the grain deal. Privately, are U.S. officials reaching out, discussing this matter with your counterparts in Moscow?

KIRBY: We are discussing it with our counterparts at the U.N. and with our allies and partners. I know of no specific discussions with Russian officials directly about it. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And can you just discuss again how immediately we may see the impact of this deal being terminated? When will vulnerable countries ...

KIRBY: I mean, prices went up today. Corn, soybean and wheat all shot up today as a result of this decision. So, we're seeing the impact right now.

JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thanks, Admiral. I - just one more follow on the bridge. Have you assessed whether the attack had any effects on Russia's strategic ability to move military equipment in and out of Crimea?

KIRBY: In and out of Crimea?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

KIRBY: The short answer is I don't know. I mean, I can't - we haven't - let me put it another way: We haven't seen any impact of the strike on the bridge to Russia's defensive posture and their military capabilities in Crimea or in Southern Ukraine.

[15:25:000]

KIRBY: I mean, they are still arrayed in defense in depth, they are still fighting Ukrainian forces, still trying to push back elements of the Ukrainian counteroffensive.

I think it's just too soon to know whether that attack on that bridge is going to have any significant military impact on their ability to continue to fight this war.

And, yes, it provided land access, terrestrial access to Crimea. But the Russians have many, many, many other ways of providing logistics and sustainment to their troops in Ukraine. So, my hunch would be that this won't have a dramatic effect on them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And then, just another on Israel. Like, Congresswoman Jayapal said that "Israel is a racist state." She later walked that back, but there's been one in a number of comments from some Democratic lawmakers about Israel. I'm just wondering if the White House had any response to those comments.

KIRBY: We saw that she apologized, and we're glad she did. We think an apology was the right thing to do for those comments.

I think, as you saw from my readout of the call with Prime Minister Netanyahu and you'll see this tomorrow when the President gets a chance to meet with President Herzog, our commitment to Israel is ironclad. And we're going to make that clear and consistent every chance we get.

JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, Karine. Thanks, Kirby.

KIRBY: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want to ask you about the Chinese hacking campaign that affected ...

KIRBY: Sure.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ... Secretary Raimondo, among others. Do you have an update on how much damage may have been caused by this hack, what information was taken? And also, what does this episode tell you about the Chinese's ambitions and capabilities with regard to spying?

KIRBY: Okay, there's a lot there. So, just let me set it up here.

It's important to remember what this was. It was an intrusion into Microsoft cloud services on an unclassified level. And this intrusion allowed the hackers to get access to some email traffic, particularly, that were - that is the main concern here - of various government officials and agencies.

The reason Microsoft knew about it was because we told them about it. We found it and alerted them to that. And in so doing, we also took steps immediately to minimize any further impact by this intrusion and to close down any additional vulnerabilities.

We're going to continue to evaluate the cyberspace environment in the wake of this to make sure that those fixes are, in fact, doing the job that we expected them to do and that we're still protecting our vulnerabilities through cloud services and through unclassified email. So, we're mindful of this.

I think it's important to remember that our systems get attacked and we're fending off intrusions every day, I mean, from a variety of state and non-state actors.

Cyber resilience and cybersecurity is a paramount concern for the President. We've just recently released a brand-new cybersecurity strategy for the country and certainly for the government that we think will have a positive impact on our ability to operate much more effectively and much more safely in that space.

Now, as for the attribution, we're not in a position right now - and I don't have an update for you on the investigation to give. We're not in a position to independently verify attribution, but we have seen nothing that would cause us to dispute Microsoft's finding that it was a hacking group out of the PRC.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, you just said that you fend off these attacks every day. But, in this case, you didn't fend it off, and all the things you talked about were reactive, not proactive. So, are you doing enough to proactively prevent the Chinese or another government from gaining access into our government emails?

KIRBY: We work at it every single day. Does that mean that you can prevent every single attack of every single nature? No. I mean, it - some - unfortunately, sometimes they get through. But it's not for lack of trying.

And this isn't the kind of thing that you fix and walk away from. It's the - cybersecurity is something you got to stay on top of every single day because the environment literally changes sometimes by the hour. So, I mean - I think everybody understands that. It's something we're working on very, very hard.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.

JEAN-PIERRE: Courtney, in the back.

COURTNEY: Thank you. A bipartisan group of senators and members of the House introduced a new Afghan adjustment bill. I know that you supported that concept in the past. Can you talk about whether you support the newly introduced bill and what you're doing, if so, to get it passed?

KIRBY: Well, we certainly support the legislative efforts here on the Afghan adjustment bill.

[15:30:02]