Mr Spicer: Wow, that's a crowd.
I hope everyone had a great weekend.
Good afternoon.
Before I begin, I wanted to introduce the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget,
Mick Mulvaney, to talk to you a bit about the
President's budget.
When Director Mulvaney is finished, we will allow
him to take a few questions and then resume
the briefing and all the fun that goes with it.
So without any further ado, Director Mulvaney.
Direcotr Mulvaney: Thanks very much.
I want to talk for a few minutes about the budget
blueprint that most of you know the President
started speaking about this morning with
the governors.
I'll talk a little bit about what it is and what
it isn't, and then talk about where we are in the
budget process and what it looks like from here.
First of all, what this isn't: This is not a
full-blown budget.
That will not come until May.
So you're not going to see anything in here that has
to do with mandatory spending, entitlement
reforms, tax policies, revenue projections, or
the infrastructure plan.
This blueprint was never going to be that, as I
made clear during my Senate confirmation.
It is a topline number only.
As for what it is, these are the President's
policies, as reflected in topline
discretionary spending.
To that end, it is a true America-first budget.
It will show the President is keeping his promises
and doing exactly what he said he was going to do
when he ran for office.
It prioritizes rebuilding the military, including
restoring our nuclear capabilities; protecting
the nation and securing the border; enforcing the
laws currently on the books; taking care of
vets; and increasing school choice.
And it does all of that without adding to the
currently projected FY 2018 deficit.
The top line defense discretionary number is
$603 billion.
That's a $54-billion increase -- it's one of
the largest increases in history.
It's also the number that allows the President to
keep his promise to undo the military sequester.
The topline nondefense number will be
$462 billion.
That's a $54-billion savings.
It's the largest-proposed reduction since the early
years of the Reagan administration.
The reductions in nondefense spending follow
the same model -- it's the President keeping his
promises and doing exactly what he said he
was going to do.
It reduces money that we give to other nations, it
reduces duplicative programs, and it
eliminates programs that simply don't work.
The bottom line is this: The President is going to
protect the country and do so in exactly the same way
that every American family has had to do over the
last couple years, and that's
prioritize spending.
The schedule from here -- these numbers will go out
to the agencies today in a process that we
describe as passback.
Review from agencies are due back to OMB over the
course of the next couple days, and we'll spend the
next week or so working on a final budget blueprint.
We expect to have that number to Congress
by March 16th.
That puts us on schedule for a full budget --
including all the things I mentioned, this one does
not include -- with all the larger policy issues
in the first part of May.
So with that, I'll take a couple questions.
Yes, sir.
The Press: Mr. Director, in order to get to your
topline on the rest of the nondiscretionary -- or
rest of the discretionary budget, if you're not
going to touch veterans benefits, you need to
slice about 12 percent off of the rest of government.
Can't you do that without affecting the services the
government provides for --
DIrector Mulvaney: And that's part of what this
process is this week.
The numbers go out, and the numbers -- each agency
will get its topline number along with
recommendations from OMB as to how we think they
can hit that number.
And they may come back to us and say, yeah, we think
that's a good way to reach that number, or they may
come back to us with other suggestions.
That's what this process is.
I think it's fairly unusual for us to be
coming to you this early in the process, but we
wanted to let everybody know exactly
where we were.
The Press: But we're not talking about 2 or 3
percent -- we're talking about double-digit
reductions, and that's a lot.
Director Mulvaney: There's going to be a lot of
programs that -- again, you can expect to see
exactly what the President said he was going to do.
Foreign aid, for example -- the President said
we're going to spend less money overseas and spend
more of it here.
That's going to be reflected in the number we
send to the State Department.
The Press: Thank you very much.
One quick follow on foreign aid.
That accounts for less than 1 percent of
overall spending.
And I just spoke with an analyst who said even if
you zero that out, it wouldn't pay for one year
of the budget increases that are being
proposed right now.
So how do you square that amount?
So why not tackle entitlements, which are
the biggest driver, especially when a lot of
Republicans over the years have said that they need
to be taxed?
Director Mulvaney: Sure.
On your foreign aid, it's the same answer I just
gave, which is, yes, it's a fairly part of the
discretionary budget, but it's still consistent with
what the President said.
When you see these reductions, you'll be able
to tie it back to a speech the President gave or
something the President has said previously.
He's simply going to -- we are taking his words and
turning them into policies and dollars.
So we will be spending less overseas and spending
more back home.
I forgot your second question.
The Press: O entitlements, why not
address entitlements, which is the biggest
driver of spending?
Director Mulvaney: It's very unusual to -- this is
a budget blueprint -- what some folks used to call a
skinny budget -- and it would not be at all
unusual for larger policy decisions, including tax
reform, revenue projections not to be
included in this budget.
That will come in -- The Press: Down the line?
The Press: Sir -- The Press: Hold on.
So down the line, could we see some type of budget
that deals with entitlements?
Director Mulvaney: The full budget will contain
the entire spectrum of the President's proposed
policy changes.
The Press: Director, on rebuilding the military,
can you talk a little bit about more of the
breakdown of that?
Can you go into a little bit more detail?
Director Mulvaney: No, I can't -- because, again,
where we are in this process is that the
numbers going to the DOD today and over the course
of the next 10 days to two weeks, we'll be coming up
with those types of details.
I've got time for one more.
The Press: Will you be asking the military --
you're going to increase the military budget, but
are you going to at least ask the people in the
Defense Department to take a look at their budget and
say, hey, where can we at least cut or at least look
and make sure that we're spending the right amount
of money?
Is part of that is going to be part of the process?
Director Mulvaney: Well, absolutely.
That's part of what Secretary Mattis and I
have already talked.
He's interested in driving more efficiencies into the
Defense Department.
OMB is also going to be involved with him on the
procurement process.
All of that will be incorporated in our larger
budget in May.
The Press: So it's not just like a blanket --
"Here, we're going to throw money at you, do
what you want"?
Director Mulvaney: No, sir.
No, sir.
Last one.
The Press: Does this account for spending for
the President's wall, either in the $30 billion
we've heard you're going to request for this year
or the $54 billion increase?
Does that include money for the wall, how to pay
for the wall?
Director Mulvaney: I would be more likely --
excuse me, a little bit of both.
We do expect to include some money in a future
supplemental for 2017 for the wall, and a 2018
budget will also contain some longer-term dollars
for that.
The Press: So it will be split up between the two.
Director Mulvaney: I believe that to
be the case.
Thank you all very much.
Mr Spicer: Thank you, Director.
So let me get back to -- I'll be right there in
a second, April.
This morning, the President dropped by the
National Governors Association meeting, where
49 governors from both states and territories
joined Cabinet members and senior White House staff
to discuss where they can work together to rebuild
the country and restart the economy.
While at the meeting, the President delivered a
statement on his forthcoming budget
proposal, which he'll submit March 16th, as you
just heard the Director mention.
The President's budget will, first and foremost,
keep Americans safe.
That means investing in both our nation's physical
and financial security.
We will rebuild the nation's military.
An increase in defense spending, including
increased funding for our veterans and our border,
will be matched by equal reductions in
nondefense programs.
The savings in our budget will come from looking at
outdated and duplicative programs.
The reductions spending will be sensible and
rational, but they will also be tough.
With our nation's debt spiraling out of control,
we simply must take a look at the way we're spending
taxpayers' dollars.
Families across the country are being forced
to make difficult choices, because for too long the
federal government has not treated their money with
the respect they deserve.
The national debt exploded under the last
administration from $10.6 billion [trillion] on
January 20th, 2009 to $19.9 trillion the day
before -- sorry, those are both trillions -- the day
before the President's -- President
Trump's inaugural.
Every child born in America this year will
inherit an average of over $60,000 in debt.
And that, frankly, is too much.
Our budget will restore respect for taxpayers'
dollars while funding all the necessary programs to
keep our country safe and prospering.
This meeting with the governors was a
continuation of a weekend of engagement and
discussion between the governors and
the administration.
The President and the First Lady welcomed the
governors last night to the White House for the
Annual Governors Ball.
And yesterday, the Vice President had a very
productive meeting with several governors.
The administration is proud to be working with
the governors on rebuilding our nation's
infrastructure, reforming our healthcare system, and
putting Americans back to work.
I know that Obamacare, in particular, was put into
place without a lot of input from governors.
We're committed to consulting and including
them on this and so many other subjects as we solve
the nation's biggest issues together.
Later this morning, the President had a listening
session with some of our country's leading
healthcare insurance companies.
Interestingly, on yesterday's ABC "This
Week," Minority Leader Pelosi actually laid out a
great outline of how to judge Obamacare's success
based on what it was supposed to achieve.
She said, "It had three goals: One, to lower the
cost, the other to expand benefits, and the third to
improve and increase access." So let's go
through her criteria.
Lowering costs: While this year all four tiers of
Obamacare insurance plans are facing double-digit
increases in average premiums.
Just to take a look at one set of premiums, for
standard silver plans in the states, 63 percent
increase in Tennessee, 69 percent increase in
Oklahoma, and a staggering 116 percent
increase in Arizona.
On expanding benefits: In reality, the new law's
mandates have led to max cancellations of coverage,
soaring out-of-pocket costs, and declining
enrollment figures.
Millions are choosing to pay a tax over buying the
government-mandate insurance.
Increased access: With insurance fleeing the
marketplace, Americans are facing a dwindling number
of insurance choices with 17 percent of Americans
left with only one insurer option available
in their exchange.
Insurers will be indispensable partners in
the transition period out of Obamacare into the
Patients First plan the President will be working
with Congress to put in its place.
The President's plan will encourage innovation,
modernize our healthcare system, and provide
immediate relief, and ensure access to quality,
truly affordable care.
This afternoon, the President had lunch with
Vice President Pence and Ambassador Haley.
Afterwards, he's having a meeting with Speaker Ryan
and Majority Leader McConnell.
And then following that, he's going to be meeting
with Secretary of State Tillerson.
The Secretary is coming off a very successful trip
to Mexico that -- he was joined by Secretary of
Homeland Security Kelly.
I'm sure the President is looking forward to
discussing that trip with the Secretary.
Also this afternoon, the Vice President will be
speaking to an extraordinary group of 60
presidents of Historically Black Colleges
and Universities.
There will be a pool spray at the top of the event,
and the Vice President's office will release his
remarks and photos following the event.
We can also expect a meeting with the President
with them as well.
This evening, the President will have dinner
with regional press affiliates that are going
to be in town for the joint session of Congress.
While it's tradition for representatives from the
networks to meet with the President before his joint
address, this is the first time, to my knowledge at
least, that the opportunity has been
expanded to include representation from 18
regional outlets from around the country.
Tomorrow, the President will also have the
traditional lunch with the network anchors.
Beyond the so-called "big five" networks, we've also
opened it up and invited outlets including
Telemundo, Univision, CBN, EWTN, OANN, PBS, C-SPAN,
and TV1.
Tonight, the President looks forward to seeing
his nominee for the Secretary of Commerce,
Wilbur Ross, confirmed by the Senate.
Secretary-designate Ross has been an important
champion for U.S.-struggling industries
in the private sectors.
And pending his confirmation this evening,
he'll now do in the same post on behalf of the
American people what he has done in
private sector.
Assuming everything goes according to the plan in
the Senate tonight, we expect to have his
swearing-in tomorrow here at the White House.
Also tomorrow, the President will deliver his
first address to both houses of Congress.
In his speech, the President will lay out an
optimistic vision for the country, crossing
traditional lines of party, race,
socioeconomic status.
As I said before, the theme will be the renewal
of the American spirit.
He will invite Americans of all backgrounds to come
together in the service of a stronger and brighter
future for our nation.
In addition to laying out the concrete steps the
President has already taken to make the American
Dream possible for all of our people, he will talk
about the bold agenda -- he wants to
work with Congress.
This includes tax and regulatory reform to
provide relief to hardworking Americans and
their businesses, making the workplace better for
working parents, ensuring the families who have
suffered under Obamacare's skyrocketing rates see it
replaced with a patient-centered
alternative, making sure every child in America has
access to a good education, a rebuilding of
our military and fulfilling of our
commitments to veterans to whom we obviously owe a
great deal of gratitude.
You can expect to see a speech grounded firmly in
solving real problems for every American -- how can
we make sure that every American who needs a
better job get one, how can we get kids who are
trapped in failing schools into better ones, how we
can keep gangs and drug violence out of our
neighborhoods and communities.
The President will address the Americans who have
been waiting for help from their leaders for too
long, and let them know that help is
finally on the way.
With respect to the speech, we will be having
a background briefing sometime this evening here
in the briefing room.
We will provide additional details later
in the afternoon.
As you might already know, the Department of Defense
presented its preliminary plan to the White House
today to defeat ISIS.
This plan has been delivered by Secretary
Mattis, who is currently briefing the principals on
the option presented today in seeking their
input and feedback.
Finally, I wanted to note the President continues to
be deeply disappointed and concerned by the reports
of further vandalism at Jewish community -- Jewish
cemeteries, rather.
The cowardly destruction in Philadelphia this
weekend comes on top of similar accounts from
Missouri and threats made to Jewish community
centers around the country.
The President continues to condemn these and any
other form of anti-Semitic and hateful acts in the
strongest terms.
From our country's founding, we've been
dedicated to protecting the freedom of our
citizens' rights to worship.
No one in America should feel afraid to follow the
religion of their choosing freely and openly.
The President is dedicated to preserving this
originating principle of our nation.
And while we're at it, I don't want to get ahead of
the law enforcement, but I was asked the other day
about the story in Kansas -- the shooting in Kansas.
And while the story is evolving, early reports
out of Kansas are equally disturbing.
So with that, I'll be glad to take your questions. Jon.
The Press: Sean, there's a report this morning that
you reached out directly to CIA Director Pompeo.
Did you directly contact Director Pompeo and ask
him to knock down the New York Times story on the
Russia connection?
Mr Spicer: Thanks, Jon.
Let me kind of, if I may, walk through the
entire timeline.
I think it's important.
As I mentioned I think a week ago, the New York
Times published a story about what they called
"contacts" between members of the Trump campaign and
Russian officials.
The FBI deputy director was at a meeting here at
the White House that morning.
After the meeting concluded, he asked the
chief of staff to stand back a second, he wanted
to tell him that the report in the New York
Times was "BS."
For viewers at home, I think you can pretty much
figure what that means, but I'll leave it at that.
At that time, the chief of staff said, thank you for
sharing that with me, can we let other people know
that the story is not accurate.
Throughout the day, they went back and forth to see
what they thought was appropriate.
Finally, came to the conclusion that they did
not want to get in the process of knocking down
every story that they had issues with.
They then -- we then were informed that other people
had come to the same conclusions, including --
at that time, Chairman Devin Nunes had told us,
hey, I've been knocking this down,
telling reporters.
We shared a number with him of a reporter that had
contacted us.
And again, when the reporters contact us and
we said, no, that's not -- to the best of our
knowledge that's not true, they were asking us, can
you point to -anybody else that can
substantiate this?
And I think we did a good job of saying, sure, we
will share with reporters other people who have come
to the same conclusion.
So I won't go into the specifics.
I will say that I think we did our job very
effectively by making sure that reporters who had had
questions about the accuracy and the claims
made in The New York Times, that we were
pointing them to subject-matter experts who
understood whether or not that story was
accurate or not.
And I think just to continue to be very, very
clear on this -- it was about the accuracy of the
reporting and the claims that were made in there,
plain and simple -- about whether or not a story
that appeared in The New York Times was accurate.
And individual after individual continued to
say that, as far as they knew, they weren't.
I think most of you probably saw Chairman
Nunes's comments this morning.
He was very clear, number one, that he reached out
to us to say, I've been telling people, reporters,
that these allegations and descriptions in The New
York Times are not accurate.
And then we shared that information with him.
But he came to us to share that he equally had that
issue brought up to him, he was briefed and saw "no
evidence" that the story was accurate.
So the answer is, we have continued to give
reporters information and sources that went to the
accuracy, or lack thereof, of a report that
was in a newspaper.
And I think Chairman Nunes also equally said it's
interesting how we literally were engaging
with the press, saying, if you have a question about
the sourcing on this -- obviously, when brought to
our attention, we said, it's not accurate as we
know, but then most of you and your colleagues who
had inquired would say, well, that's great, I'm
sure you're saying this, but who else can
corroborate this?
So our job was to continue to -- when informed --
share sources who had equally come to the same
conclusion that the Times story was not accurate.
The Press: You don't think there's something strange
about -- something odd about the White House
Press Secretary getting the CIA director on the
phone to knock down a story about an
investigation?
Mr Spicer: No, no, but see, respectfully, you're
using words like "knock down." There was a story
in a newspaper -- The Press: Was it disputed?
Mr Spicer: Hold on.
No, no -- there was reporters coming to us
saying, there is a story out there, what's your
take on it?
And our answer was, we don't believe it's
accurate, we don't* [do] believe it's false.
But obviously that's our take on it.
And reporters were saying to us, well, is there
anybody that you can point to to substantiate
this claim?
Now, remember, this all started with the FBI
coming to us, bringing to our attention, saying that
the story in the Times was not accurate -- in fact,
it was BS -- and all we did was simply say, that's
great, could you tell other reporters the same
thing you're telling us?
And I would think that other reporters, yourself
included, would think that that would be a helpful
thing to get the story straight.
All we sought to do was to actually get an
accurate report out.
And again, I think Chairman Nunes this
morning, over and over and over and over again, made
it very clear that no evidence that has been
brought to his attention suggests that that
reporting was accurate.
So, respectfully, I think it's interesting that I'm
being asked what's appropriate when what
we're doing is actually urging reporters to engage
with subject-matter experts who can
corroborate whether or not
something is accurate or not.
The Press: Should there be a special prosecutor?
Darrell Issa has called for a special prosecutor
to look into this.
Mr Spicer: And I guess my question would be, a
special prosecutor for what?
The Press: To look into the whole Russia
connection, the whole Russia influencing -- Mr
Spicer: And here's my -- right.
And I guess my -- The Press: I mean, he was part
of the campaign, so -- I mean, Sessions was part of
the campaign, the Attorney General.
Mr Spicer: I understand.
But here's my question, Jonathan: We have now for
six months heard story after story come out about
unnamed sources say the same thing over and over
again, and nothing has come of it, right?
We've heard the same people, the same
anecdotes, and we've heard
reports over and over again.
And as Chairman Nunes made very clear today, he has
seen nothing that corroborates that.
So at what point -- you got to ask yourself, what
are you investigating?
The Press: Well, Russian interference -- I mean,
beyond the context.
Mr Spicer: No, and I think that both the House and
the Senate have looked at it.
You know as well as I do that the intelligence
community has looked at it as well.
There's a big difference.
I think that Russia's involvement in activity
has been investigated up and down.
So the question becomes at some point, if there's
nothing to further investigate, what are you
asking people to investigate?
I mean, Chairman Nunes spoke very clearly today
when asked over and over and over again about all
of this, and said that he has seen nothing that
leads him to believe that there's there.
The President has spoken forcefully time and time
again that he has no interests in Russia, he
hasn't talked to people in Russia in years, and yet
you keep asking -- and when I say "you,"
collectively -- to try to find something that
seemingly, at least the reporting that I'm seeing
in different organizations, suggests
that there's nothing new that's being reported.
It's the same stuff over and over again that we've
heard for literally six months.
And so the question becomes at some point,
what do you need to further investigate if
there is nothing that has come out?
The Press: Can you not categorically deny there
were no contacts between the Russians and anybody
on the campaign?
Mr Spicer: I can't deny -- I can't -- I guess my
question is -- The Press: That's what the
investigation would look at.
Mr Spicer: Right.
And I guess my point is, is that you've had the
intelligence community look at Russia's
involvement in the election.
You had the House and Senate both do the same.
And so what I'm trying to ascertain is that at what
point -- how many people have to say that there's
nothing there before you
realize there's nothing there?
I can't say unequivocally -- all I'm saying is, the
people who have done the investigating about Russia
overall and its activities in the United States,
specifically now with respect to our election,
haven't provided anything that leads me to believe
or should lead you to believe -- and I continue
to see reports coming from -- there were media
sources saying when they checked in with law
enforcement, or intelligence community
sources, there's nothing more than has been
previously reported over and over again.
So, at some point, you do have to ask yourself, what
are you actually looking for?
How many times do you have to come to the same
conclusion before you take the answer?
And that's where I -- Mara.
The Press: Just to be clear, did you -- just to
follow up on that, did you personally reach
out to Pompeo?
Mr Spicer: I'm not going to discuss what
we did internally.
I'm just going to say that when we shared -- we did
our job about making sure that when people had --
reporters had questions, we let them know what
subject-matter experts were available to discuss
the accuracy of the newspaper story. Mara.
The Press: Yeah, I'm sure people will come back to
this, but I actually have a budget question, which
is: During the campaign, the President said he was
not going to touch Medicare or Social Security.
His Treasury Secretary repeated that.
It sounded like the OMB Director was leaving that
as an open question, TBD.
I'm just wondering, what's the state of the promise?
That we won't touch it for current retirees -- Mr
Spicer: What the OMB Director made clear
is how it works.
The budget is dealing with the topline
discretionary numbers.
Policy decisions are not part of the budget.
That was what he was being asked and what he -- so I
just want to be clear in terms of what it was.
And again, I think --
The Press: -- the state of the promise.
In other words what is the promise.
Mr Spicer: Right.
And I think the state of the promise is clear.
And I think, as you point out, he had made the
promise, he stands by the promise.
The Treasury Secretary -- The Press: But what
is the promise?
Current retirees?
People near retirement? Anybody paying into --
Mr Spicer: I will follow up
specifically on that.
But I think the President has made very clear that
it's not his intent to do -- he wants to focus on
the discretionary side; that entitlement reform is
not -- that, with respect to those programs that he
mentioned, he stands by his word. Fred.
The Press: I wanted to ask a couple issues.
An executive order on religious freedom had
previously been in the works.
Will that still come?
And if it does, will it extend beyond
religious freedom?
Mr Spicer: I'm sorry, Fred, what?
The Press: Will it extend beyond the
Johnson Amendment?
Mr Spicer: I think we've discussed executive orders
in the past, and for the most part we're not going
to get into discussing what may or may not come
until we're ready to announce it.
So I'm sure as we move forward
we'll have something.
Olivier.
The Press: Thanks, Sean.
The Press: I'm sorry, just one more.
The issue of types of reforms.
Will there be -- how committed is the
administration to a border adjustment tax?
And is there any concern that there won't be enough
conservative support for that; that it could block
any meaningful tax reform long-term?
Mr Spicer: Well, I'm not going to get into the
specifics of tax reform today.
The President has made clear that we'll have an
outline of the plan very soon.
But what I will say is that I think he has talked
about the concerns that he has with current
regulatory and tax policy that benefit people from
moving out of the country and shipping jobs -- or
products back in while shedding American workers.
He will continue to fight for policies that promote
manufacturing and job creation in the United
States, and supports American workers.
So I don't want to get ahead of the exact
nature of the policy.
He has been seeking a lot of input.
As I mentioned earlier, he's going to talk today
with Speaker Ryan and Senator McConnell.
I know that both the joint session, the status of
repeal and replace, and I'm sure some discussion
of tax reform will probably come up.
But there's a lot -- we're continuing to move forward
and work with them.
Olivier.
The Press: Thanks.
A couple on the ISIS strategy.
Can you just get to the timetable from now, now
that you received it -- what happens?
And there's a report that you're asking for $30
billion in emergency defense spending on top of
the $54 [billion] in the budget.
Is that true?
Does that cover the new ISIS strategy?
Can you explain what's different between the two?
Mr Spicer: Thank you.
Right now, literally, that principals meeting -- or
principals meeting that I mentioned at the beginning
is happening as we speak.
So Secretary Mattis was coming over to brief the
principals as far as the ISIS plan.
And again, part of it was to make sure that he fully
discusses the recommendations that he's
making and seek the input and feedback of the other
principals downstairs.
That can help guide where we go from here,
how we go.
With respect to the funding, I think Director
Mulvaney noted that there will be a supplemental
at some point.
Right now the focus is on the budget, and then
we'll go from there.
John Gizzi.
The Press: Thank you, Sean.
Two brief questions.
First, I read your statement at the Thursday
briefing to Governor Malloy of Connecticut
during the NGA meeting.
And he responded -- and I quote -- "Sean didn't read
a thing that I said." He said that he -- in
Connecticut, they are already working to get
criminals who are in the country illegally out.
His objection was to going into warming centers or
schools where officials might frighten children.
Your response to the Governor on that?
Mr Spicer: Well, again, I was asked specifically
what his stance -- what the comments were with
respect to sanctuary cities.
And again, I would reiterate, with all due
respect to the Governor, I'm not here to pick a
fight with the Governor.
I enjoyed my time going to school in the
state of Connecticut.
I have a kind affection of the Nutmeg State.
But the reality is, I think that there's
a difference.
Whether or not what he wants to do is state
funds, maybe -- without knowing the exact nature
of how he's funding, what he's funding,
it's difficult.
The question I was asked at the time was on how we
would be handling it.
And I think the answer, whether it's Connecticut
or California, is that the President's executive
order and the President's commitment is to make sure
that tax dollars are not used to support programs
that are helping people who are not in the country
legally and who are not citizens entitled to them.
The Press: One more question, Sean.
Mr Spicer: Okay.
Starting early.
(Laughter.)
The Press: For 58 years, when
Presidents have gone to Rome, they've always met
the Pope, going back to when President Eisenhower
met Pope John XXIII.
Now, one year ago this week, candidate Trump had
a disagreement with this Pope and an
exchange of words.
When he goes to Rome in May for his first European
trip, will he meet with this Pope?
Mr Spicer: That's a great question.
Obviously, I would be a huge fan of that.
But I'm not going to -- I don't think we're at that
place in the planning process to make an
announcement on any visits with the Pope. Blake.
The Press: Sean, thank you.
Two budget questions, if you don't mind.
Mr. Mulvaney, I believe, just said that what the
administration plans on putting forward doesn't
add to the current deficit projection, which the CBO
says is about $560 billion.
But he didn't say that it would significantly draw
from that either.
So my first question is, is the administration
comfortable putting something forward that
might rack up deficits of potentially hundreds of
billions of dollars?
Mr Spicer: Well, I think -- I'm trying to
understand the question a little, if you can help me
with this. Because he --
The Press: He said it wasn't going
to add to it.
Mr Spicer: Right.
The Press: So my question is, he didn't necessarily
say it was going to cut from it, either.
If it doesn't cut from it, potentially it could be
hundreds of billions in deficit.
And I'm curious -- Mr Spicer: Right, no, but I
think -- correct me if I'm wrong -- I mean, he
basically made it very clear it doesn't add to
the projected baseline deficit.
So that continues to be the goal.
And I think as we continue to work through this
process, the passback, you know, it can
work both ways.
We could identify further savings and reductions
through working with the agencies and departments,
but we're going to make sure that the topline
number we maintain is as close to that as possible.
And as we go through this -- I mean, this is the
beginning of the process as the director noted.
We send the number to the department or the agency,
give them some ideas, how we came up with this, and
then they come back to us and either justify why a
particular program or office, or what have you,
needs to stay in existence or why maybe not the
reduction that is offered.
But it's a back-and-forth process that will occur
over the next few weeks.
So to get ahead of it is the problem.
The Press: Let me ask you what Nancy Pelosi -- to
just get a quick reaction to Nancy Pelosi.
She put out a statement and said the following:
"Five weeks into his administration, President
Trump has not introduced a single jobs bill." Your
reaction to that would be what?
Mr Spicer: He's created a lot of jobs.
I think that's -- he's continuing to work with
Congress on both repealing and replacing Obamacare,
tax reform.
And, fundamentally, both of those two items alone I
think can help spur a lot of economic growth.
The meetings that we've had with the CEOs, the
health insurers -- there are so many things that
are both job-killing and that can be done to help
promote a better regulatory and tax climate
that lead to job creation.
I think that's one of the biggest problems right now
is that people in Washington aren't
necessarily talking to job creators and saying, what
is the impediment that you have to hiring more
American workers?
What are the impediments that you have to
manufacturing more, to building here?
The meetings and the actions that the President
has taken on both regulatory and other
matters have helped spur job creation.
You've heard these companies come in over and
over again -- the automakers, airlines,
Sprint -- I mean, the list goes on and on and on of
people saying to the President, because of your
agenda, because of your vision, we're willing to
commit to hiring additional people to
manufacturing more.
That's how jobs are created -- it's not
through the government.
And too often, it's the government regulations
that stifle and prevent job creation.
And I think the President, as a businessman, fully
appreciates and understands how this works
and what some of those impediments do to creating
jobs and to growing the economy.
And so I would just say that you haven't seen
anything yet.
It's going to continue to be the case. Trey.
The Press: Thanks, Sean.
Is there concern in the administration that a
large-scale military buildup will appear
threatening to other countries around the world
and lead to some sort of arms race with other
countries?
Mr Spicer: No, I think when you look at the state
of some of the infrastructure in our
military, whether it's the age of our ships or our
planes or some of the other hardware that
exists, you recognize that we need to rebuild a lot
of these things.
The size of our Navy has gone down significantly.
And there are new needs and new -- and when you
look at the commitment that you have to make not
just in one year but in several years, for a lot
of these programs -- ships and tanks, even weapons
systems -- they don't get built in a month or a day.
You have to make a commitment early on to
make the investment because of the time that
it takes to procure them, to build them, the
research and development that goes into it.
And so I would just suggest to you that this
is the first step in making sure we make the
commitment to a military that through, especially
through the sequester the last few years, has not
gotten the funding it needs to get
off life support.
There are a lot of things that are being taken care
of for the military where they're just continuing to
-- they're not putting the systems and the projects
in place to allow the military to keep up with
the times, and that's a problem. Major.
The Press: Sean, one investigation question and
one budget question.
As you may be aware, Bill Owens, the father of
William "Ryan" Owens, gave an interview with the
Miami Herald over the weekend and he said, "The
government owes my son an investigation." On behalf
of the President of the United States, is the
President open to an investigation to the
raid in Yemen?
And the father of Ryan Owens called that a
"stupid" mission.
Is there something that you'd like to communicate
to him about that mission that might
persuade him otherwise?
Mr Spicer: Yeah, thank you.
That's multi-part, so let me kind of walk
through it slowly.
First of all, I can't possibly imagine what he's
going through in terms of the loss of his son.
I can tell him that on behalf of the President,
his son died a hero and the information that he
was able to help obtain through that raid, as I've
said before, is going to safe American lives.
It's going to protect our country more.
So he made a sacrifice to this country.
He was on his 12th deployment.
And I know that his wife, when she spoke to the
President, knows that he did this because he loved
it, he cared about our nation.
And the mission was successful in helping
prevent a future attack or attacks on this nation.
It obtained a lot of information that will
help us keep safe.
With respect to his request, it is standard
operating procedure for the Department of Defense
to undergo what they call a 15-6 review.
That review, in this case, is three-pronged.
Because there was a fatality and a loss of
life, there's that.
Because there were civilians involved,
that's another.
And then third is because there was hardware -- a
helicopter that was damaged.
That is a separate.
So, in fact, there will be three reviews done by the
Department of Defense because of the
nature of this.
But, again, I can't stress enough that on behalf of
the President, on behalf of this nation, we express
our condolences, extend our prayers to him
during this time.
The Press: As you said, that is
standard procedure.
Is there anything the President is particularly
curious about with this mission, in that it was
brought to him, he authorized it quickly?
Does he believe in the main it was carried out
well and there's nothing that he's particularly
curious about in the way either the helicopter was
damaged, fatality, the civilian casualties --
anything of the like?
Mr Spicer: Well, number one, I've walked through
the timetable previously in terms of how long this
had been planned for, dating well back into the
previous administration.
And as you know, their recommendation at the time
was to wait for a moonless night.
That night wasn't going to occur during President
Obama's administration.
And so when General Mattis got into the Department of
Defense, he was briefed up on the status of the
thing, made aware of when the next time was go.
We went through the process to ensure that we
continued to believe that the mission -- the way it
was going to be conducted and the results of the
mission would be worthy of action.
The conclusion continued to be, as it was prior,
that we should move forward.
As I mentioned before, I think you can't ever say
that, when there's most importantly loss of life
and people injured, that it's
100 percent successful.
But I think when you look at what the stated goal of
that mission was -- it was an information- and
intelligence-gathering mission.
And it achieved its objectives.
So, again, I would express our thoughts and our
prayers and our condolences to all of the
people in Chief Owens's family and his friends,
his shipmates.
But it's something that, as a SEAL and as somebody
who deployed 12 times, he knew that this was part of
the job and he knew what he was doing.
And so we're very comfortable with how the
mission was executed, and we'll let the Department
of Defense go through that review process and then
see where that leads us.
But I think to get ahead of the three separate
reviews that are being done by the Department of
Defense would be probably a little
irresponsible at this time.
The Press: Sean --
Mr Spicer: Major gets two, too.
The Press: Just real quick on the budget.
As you're aware, to undo the defense sequester, you
have to get 60 votes in the Senate because you
have a separate domestic sequester number
and defense.
Are you confident with these numbers and with
this kind of heavy discretionary spending cut
proposed, you can get the 60 votes to
change the law?
Because without that change in law, the
proposal is just that -- it doesn't
become operational.
Mr Spicer: I think that when it comes to our
nation's security, specifically our nation's
military, I don't think that it's a
partisan issue.
I think that senators from across the country --
whether you're talking about Florida or whether
you've got an Army installation or a Navy
base, you understand the state of repair that many
of our planes, ships and other hardware is in.
And I think that there is a bipartisan commitment to
give the military and its members the equipment and
the tools it needs to succeed and
protect this country.
So I do feel confident.
April.
The Press: Sean, I have a couple of budgetary
questions for you.
One, at the press conference, President
Trump talked about the fix for inner cities.
What is the investment in this budget when it comes
to a fix for inner cities?
Mr Spicer: It's a good try.
I think the Director was very clear -- The Press:
That's one -- Mr Spicer: mean, part of the process
today was to start that passback process that he
talked about, where we're going to the various
departments, whether it's HUD or DOT, and giving
them that topline number and then hearing back.
So I don't want to get into a specific number
with you before we get too far down the process.
I think that's a conversation that we're
going to have with the agencies and then we will
have subsequently with Congress when they start
drafting their resolutions.
The Press: Okay, a follow-up on this, but I
do have a question on HBCUs.
See, he talked about healthcare.
He talked about education and he talked about crime.
He needs to talk about Chicago and
law enforcement.
So you don't have any kind of budgetary numbers when
it comes to it?
And healthcare is a piece that is one of the line
items for this budget.
Mr Spicer: That's right.
And I'm not saying that we don't have numbers.
I'm saying that we're not giving them out.
That's a big difference.
The Press: (Inaudible.)
Mr Spicer: I know.
(Laughter.)
You're going to do a good job trying.
(Laughter.)
But as the Director noted on this,
that they have come up with topline numbers based
on their going through each of these agencies'
budget, and saying, hey, there's a duplicative
program here.
In some cases, maybe they give them more, maybe they
give them less.
Part of it is to begin that conversation, that
process, with the departments and agencies
to figure out what those investments are.
Maybe it's repurposing existing funds in a
different way.
So it's not necessarily a zero-sum game.
There is a way that a department can reallocate
money to a program that might end up benefitting
because there is a duplicative or out-of-date
program or office that that savings could be
applied to something.
But I don't want to get ahead of the process right
now, only to say that we are at the very
beginning of it.
The Press: And one on HBCUs.
Mr Spicer: Yes.
The Press: The President is going to see the
80-plus presence of HBCUs with the
Vice President today.
Some of them are very concerned as to what this
executive order looks like, and they are waiting
to hear the commitment before they say, "I'm all
in." What is the commitment that this
President is trying to make when it comes to
HBCUs to ensure, I guess, their future, or deal with
funding for research projects, what have you,
or moving it out of the Department of Education to
the purview of the White House?
What is the commitment that he's going to
give to them?
Mr Spicer: So, look, I don't generally speak
about executive orders until they're finalized.
I will just say that one of the things that I think
there's commitment from this White House to do is
to look at the various resources throughout the
federal government that support HBCUs.
So, for example, the Department of Defense has
ROTC and NROTC programs.
Are they being properly -- is that funding being
properly executed and spent.
There's programs within each of the departments --
the Department of Education, the Department
of Housing and Urban Development -- that affect
grants or programs or direct funding that go to
HBCUs for various different things, whether
it's construction projects, or teaching
programs, or mentorship programs.
Whatever it is, they span throughout the
entire government.
And I think that what we are committed to doing is
ensuring that there is a high level of
understanding and commitment, that goes
straight to the President, of how we harness those
resource within the government, and make sure
that they're doing what they're supposed
to be doing.
So it's one thing to have them, right, spread
throughout the different departments.
It's another thing to make sure that there's a direct
pipeline to the President of the United States that
those programs are being executed in a way that's
benefitting the future of HBCUs and the various
projects and teaching that goes on there.
The Press: And so what are you saying -- there's
going to be a piece that is going to basically go
throughout all the agencies to make sure that
there is some kind of commitment to HBCUs and
contract of like, let's say engineering for some
schools, or in research for other schools?
Mr Spicer: Yeah, I would say -- I think I'm going
to stick to waiting until we announce it to get
out a lot more.
The Press: Is that today or tomorrow?
Mr Spicer: I anticipate it very soon.
How is that?
I want to give myself a little wiggle room.
Phil Rucker.
The Press: Yeah, Sean, thanks.
A budget-related question, but on infrastructure.
The President has repeatedly, including
today, again, called for a major infrastructure plan
to the tune a trillion dollars -- roads, bridges,
tunnels, you name it.
Can you explain where that money is going to come
from, how it fits into the budget that's under review
right now, and what the timeline for that
project would be?
Mr Spicer: So I think that would be part of a
longer-term discussion that we're
having with Congress.
As you know, the President got in
office 30-some-odd days ago.
The idea of getting a budget is -- you know,
it's commonly referred to as a skinny budget -- is
to get the government to continue to be funding and
it will be something that we'll work with Congress.
I understand your point.
The President continues to talk about the status --
The Press: -- a priority for him.
Mr Spicer: It is.
Absolutely.
But I think that we've got to make sure that it's
done right and that we work with Congress.
I think, as you correctly mention, there's obviously
a funding mechanism to this.
And we've already talked about things like
comprehensive tax reform that could add to that
discussion.
And so I just -- I understand what you're
asking in terms of how this would be funded and
when it will be coming, and the pay-fors, but
we're working with Congress to have
that discussion.
I think that comes probably outside of the
budget discussion.
The Press: And so how does he square that with the
need to tighten the belt, which he also talked about
today -- we've been spending too much as a
government and we need to cut our spending?
Mr Spicer: Right, but I think -- but in the same
manner that we're presenting the budget.
So we're talking about adding $54 million -- $54
trillion, rather -- a billion dollars to --
thank you.
Appreciate the help here.
(Laughter.)
But we're looking to add
that to defense.
And so what it means is that we have to look
through other programs to find reductions
in savings.
I think that same kind of discussion would happen
with respect to infrastructure, not
necessarily the savings piece, but the funding
piece; that there's several ways -- and I know
that there's a lot of discussion, private-public
partnerships that he is started to have a
discussion with in terms of the funding mechanism.
And so all I'm trying to get at is that there are
various ways to do this funding without just
relying on the American taxpayer in terms of
additional taxes.
There are spending reductions, there are
other funding mechanisms, and I think, in due
course, we will get around to that discussion.
The Press: And just related to that, he
mentioned in his remarks about infrastructure today
that as he drives through the Queens-Midtown tunnel
and the Lincoln tunnel, he worries about
ceiling tiles falling.
Is there a specific incident he was talking
about where people have been injured, or is that
just a fear of his?
Mr Spicer: I don't know.
I'll ask.
(Laughter.)
But I'm sure Secret Service will take
care of the -- alleviating the medium concerns.
Hold on.
Alexis.
The Press: Sean, I have two questions.
First, one on healthcare.
Because the OMB director was signaling that the
complete budget would be made ready early May, and
the President today described how complicated
he had discovered that the healthcare repeal and
replace has become, can you describe when it is
that the President would present his framework for
an overhaul of healthcare?
Is it going to be included in the budget so we would
see it before May?
Mr Spicer: I don't think you're going to see it in
the budget, no.
That's not the appropriate vehicle for it.
I think I've mentioned it before.
I think you would drive -- or at least the leading
option, before I get locked into something, is
to add Obamacare to the FY17 budget process and
put it through reconciliation.
So that would happen outside of the current
budget structure.
But I think he has also been very clear that he
wants this outline within a matter of weeks, and
that we continue to have these discussions with
House and Senate leadership, with Ways and
Means, and Energy and Commerce, and then similar
on Senate finance on the Senate side.
So when he talks to Speaker Ryan and Leader
McConnell today, I'm sure that conversation
will continue.
The Press: Just to follow up on healthcare, because
not every ingredient in the Affordable Care Act
can be handled in reconciliation.
That's why I was asking about the elements of it
that we see in the budget.
Mr Spicer: That's right.
The Press: So we will see some of those?
Mr Spicer: Well, there's several pieces
of Obamacare.
Some can be done by executive order, some get
done with 50 votes, some have to be done
specifically in reconciliation.
I think counter to Major's point on a previous
question, that there are certain things that have
to be done in certain ways legislatively, and to
create a comprehensive and holistic approach to both
repealing it and replacing it.
And we're aware of that.
We're working with the House and the Senate to
make that happen.
The Press: And my second topic.
Mr Spicer: Of course.
The Press: All right.
The immigration executive order, the travel ban --
is the President going to address the American
people and Congress in his speech tomorrow night and
specifically describe and defend the
immigration ban?
And when will we see the revised executive order?
Mr Spicer: So we're not going to -- I would not
anticipate the speech being a defense of
legislation and executive orders.
I don't think many previous Presidents have
gotten through and used that as a
legislative walkthrough.
But you will hear about his commitment to
immigration and his desire for border security, and
what it means not just about keeping the nation
safe, but what impact it's having on the economy.
So you will hear a lot about immigration tomorrow
night, and he will talk about why it matters and
the goal that we have and why we should come
together on areas like this.
The Press: Can I follow up on that, Sean?
Mr Spicer: Hold on.
Katelyn.
The Press: Where's the next order?
Mr Spicer: Oh, I'm sorry.
The next order I think we should have it out
probably middle of this week.
Looking towards the middle of the week.
And we'll have further updates as we get through
the schedule.
I think obviously our priority right now today
was the really get the budget process kicked off,
and then continue to prepare for the
joint session.
Katelyn.
The Press: Thank you.
The Press: Sean, can I follow on that?
Mr Spicer: You will in a second.
The Press: An internal report in 2015 identified
$125 billion in wasteful Pentagon spending.
So how can you justify adding $54 billion to the
defense budget?
Is that going to go to hiring soldiers or
bureaucrats or contractors?
And is the President concerned with wasteful
spending at the DOD?
Mr Spicer: Of course he's concerned.
He's concerned with wasteful spending
throughout the government.
But I think there's also a big difference between
rooting out waste and fraud in various programs
and offices, and understanding that when
you're talking about adding to the fleet or
increasing airplane costs, that that can't be driven
just through those.
And the commitment that you have to make to
purchase some of those very-needed upgrades to
our infrastructure and to our arsenal and to planes
and ships doesn't just come through that.
Because even if you could start to really identify,
you really wouldn't be able to make the financial
commitment that needs to be done to rebuild some of
the ships and planes in particular that need a
substantial investment on the front end.
John.
The Press: If I could just follow on
Alexis's question.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just denied
your request to suspend proceedings in regard to
the initial executive order.
That order came out just within the last
few minutes.
So do you plan to continue defending your first
executive order in court?
And what's the purpose of doing that as opposed to
simply rescinding it and then rendering
that case moot?
Mr Spicer: Well, I haven't been able to read my phone
while this has happened.
So I -- The Press: That's why I read -- Mr Spicer:
(Laughter.)
Thank you, I appreciate it.
So with all due respect, I would ask that I be able
to get back to you tomorrow on that after we
consult with the Counsel's Office and go through the
briefing and the -- excuse me, the reading of what
the court has said.
But give me a little time, let me get off the podium
-- The Press: I mean, the rescinding it question
still stands, regardless of the -- Mr Spicer: I
understand that, and I think that the President
has made a commitment right now to continue to
defend what we did.
The Press: For what reason?
Mr Spicer: Hold on.
Because this is the strategy that -- he
believes that we have the authority vested
in U.S. code.
I've talked about this extensively in the past.
And I think that if you'll allow me, once we get done
with the briefing, I will follow up with the
Counsel's Office.
The Press: But the point that some of us are trying
to understand is, if you have a new executive order
that you believe addresses the concerns of the many
courts who have weighed in on this, why continue to
defend an executive order that -- Mr Spicer:
Because he's -- I mean, because we were right
the first time.
And I think that -- The Press: Are you trying
to prove a point?
Mr Spicer: Hold on -- no, but I think that it's not
a question of proving a point.
It's that the manner in which it was done in the
first place was what we believe and continue to
believe was the right way to address this problem.
And while the second executive order attempts
to address the court's concerns that they made,
the goal is obviously to maintain the way that we
did it the first time because we believe that
the law is very clear about giving the President
the authority that he needs to
protect the country.
So just dropping that is not necessarily the
most prudent thing.
And I think part of it is for us to recoup right
now, figure out what the court has said, and then
reassess the strategy.
But I don't want to get ahead, as you point out,
you're reading it to me now -- I would like the
opportunity to maybe go read it and actually have
a lawyer read it -- since that won't do very much.
Go ahead.
The Press: Sean, thank you.
On anti-Semitism, that was a good, strong statement.
Is there anything that the federal government can do
to protect Jewish institutions?
Are there any leads who is doing this?
And also on sequester, when can
sequester be lifted?
Mr Spicer: When can it be lifted?
The Press: Yes.
Mr Spicer: I think we've got to go through the
process to lift the sequester, and so we'll
deal with that.
With respect to some of the activity that we've
seen at Jewish cemeteries in particular -- look, I
think we have to work with law enforcement at a local
and state level.
I'll leave it to the Department of Justice to
comment further on what additional steps
can be made.
But I think -- as has been pointed out multiple
times, I think one of the things that we can do is
speak from this podium, in particular, and other
places to make sure that every American understands
what our values are, and that that kind of behavior
and activity is wrong and won't be tolerated, and
the highest levels of government denounce it.
So I think it starts at that.
And then I think there's a law enforcement component
that I would ask you to touch base with.
The Press: Sean, two on the budget.
Mr Spicer: Yes.
The Press: I understand this is a blueprint.
I understand the President has previously said he
doesn't want to touch entitlements.
But why does he think it's the right move to break
with years of Republican orthodoxy, House Speaker
Paul Ryan, who have said that any sensible
long-term budget needs to include
entitlement reform?
Mr Spicer: Look, I'm just going to -- I think the
President understands the commitment that was made
to seniors in particular and that it's a
sacred bond and a trust.
And I think -- look, Mara asked this earlier -- I
think let me get back to you on the specifics.
But I think he made a commitment to
the American people.
And one of the things that I think the President
continues to get high marks on is that
regardless of whether you voted for him or not, or
you agree with his policies, he's a
man of his word.
And he has followed up on the promises that he made
to the American people.
And I think that's important.
Now, again, I think that we will continue to work
with Congress.
But the President understands that we have
commitments that we've made on the entitlement
side, in particular, and especially on the senior
side with respect to Social Security that
need to be maintained.
And so he's going to keep this word to the
American people.
The Press: But if you talk to some economic analysts,
they say Social Security, Medicare won't be there in
a number of years if we don't address the
fundamental problems.
Mr Spicer: And I think that -- right.
And so for right now, I think the budget that
we're laying out deals on the discretionary side.
You've heard the President's priorities and
commitment, especially when it comes to
protecting this country.
And if we have anything further,
I'll let you know.
The Press: And one more -- Sean, one more.
Is there an internal leak inquiry right now?
Mr Spicer: Not that I'm aware of.
The Press: Thank you very much, Sean.
I have two questions on U.S.-China relationship,
if I may.
Mr Spicer: You may.
The Press: Thank you.
Mr Spicer: Everyone else gets two.
The Press: First of all, since President Trump took
office, China sends it very first senior
official, State Counselor Yang Jiechi, to visit
Washington, D.C. today.
Will there will be a meeting with in the White
House, and what's the White House's
expectation of his visit?
Mr Spicer: So the State Counselor, and for those
of you not schooled in the Chinese government, is
basically the equivalent of our NSA Director -- NSC
Director, correct?
The Press: Yes.
Mr Spicer: So the Ambassador and the State
Counselor came today.
They had a meeting with H.R.
McMaster, Jared Kushner, and I think some others
sat in on the meeting.
They had a delegation of six people here.
After the meeting ended, I believe the State
Counselor was taken and had an opportunity to say
hi to the President before he left.
This is an opportunity to begin that conversation
and talk to them on shared interests of
national security.
The Press: Sean -- Mr Spicer: Sorry, hold on.
He gets one more.
Everybody else did.
The Press: Can I have a follow up?
Mr Spicer: Hold on, hold on, hold on.
Let me just -- everybody else got two.
The Press: Yes, just this morning, President Trump
mentioned about his pick for ambassador to China,
Governor -- Mr Spicer: Branstad.
The Press: Branstad.
Governor Branstad apparently has a really
positive view on China.
Mr Spicer: Yeah.
The Press: So how confident the President is
on the Governor's confirmation to get all
the support in the Senate?
Mr Spicer: Oh, I think he'll receive tremendous
support -- bipartisan support.
Governor Branstad has been -- is a true -- he has
huge ties on both sides.
I think he's one of the longest serving governors
ever, definitely in Iowa.
And I think that he has tremendous respect from
both sides of the aisle not just for how he's
handled himself as a governor in Iowa, but his
deep understanding and ties to China and to
China's economy and to Chinese officials.
And I think he's going to do a phenomenal job
representing our nation.
He starts with a deep understanding of the
Chinese economy, the Chinese government, and
that is going to really serve our nation well. Mara.
The Press: Can I just have a follow-up on China?
Thank you.
Because I know I got one before.
Mr Spicer: You did.
The Press: I appreciate that.
A lot of people voted for Donald Trump because they
felt -- they agreed with him that the U.S.
was getting ripped off by China.
And after the election, he made the call to Taiwan,
which he was praised for.
Then he told Fox News -- he said, "I don't know why
we have to be bound by a one-China policy unless we
make a deal with China having to do with other
things, including trade." Then he reaffirmed
the one-China policy.
So what did he get in return from China
for doing that?
Mr Spicer: Well, he had a conversation
with President Xi.
I'm not going to get into the details of it.
But at the President's -- President Xi's request and
after a discussion, the President reaffirmed the
one-China policy.
The President is not one to discuss his
negotiating tactics. So I --
The Press: But did he get something?
Can he assure the American people he got something?
Mr Spicer: The President always gets something. Ryan.
The Press: Well, what was it?
What was it?
The Press: Sean, two quick follow-ups.
First of all, I noticed earlier today there were a
lot of Republican governors out here but not
very many Democratic governors.
Is this administration actively attempting to
reach out to the other side of the aisle
for compromise?
Mr Spicer: Yeah.
I think if you saw the remarks during this pool
opportunity, the President talked about some of the
conversations he had with Governor McAuliffe in
Virginia in particular.
But they were here last night, they had dinner
with their wives and husbands.
It was an opportunity to really talk to the Cabinet
and get to know each other and talk about priorities.
I will say that -- it's interesting,
I mentioned Obamacare.
When one of the things that was brought up by the
governors -- and I've got to be honest, I wasn't
picking which governors and thinking of party --
but it came up over and over again that they
actually -- several of them commented on how
appreciative they have been in terms of seeking
their input on not just healthcare but
infrastructure and Medicaid, in particular,
and other areas that fall into their thing -- to
their wheelhouse.
So I think -- just so we're clear, the dialogue
that exists between this administration and this
President and governors I think is a very
refreshing move forward.
The Press: And then my point -- a follow-up, a
quick follow-up.
I want to clarify a little bit of something that
happened Thursday and Friday about the "public
enemy" statement.
Are you saying that all of the press is
the public enemy?
People who didn't vote for the President?
Just the people in this room, or -- is it just
Bill Maher and maybe Warren Beatty?
Can you clarify what we're talking about?
Mr Spicer: I think the President made clear in
his tweet that he was referring to the fake news
and people who ascribe to pushing fake stories is
where his target was.
The Press: Thanks a lot, Sean.
As you know, more than 60 Democrats either boycotted
or skipped the President's inauguration.
What kind of reception do you think the President
will get tomorrow evening from Democrats in the
House and Senate when he gives his joint address?
Mr Spicer: Well, I hope a very robust and
applause-filled reception.
The speech, as I mentioned, breaks down a
lot of barriers that have traditionally been
political barriers in terms of areas where I
think we should find agreement that reaffirm
the President's desire to unite the country and
unite our parties in areas of shared common ground.
And I think the things that he's talking about --
increasing the support to our military, our
veterans; helping children get an education -- those
are things that hopefully we can all come together
and think are shared American values,
regardless of party.
I hope that we see a tremendous amount of
support for the President and his policies and his
vision tomorrow night.
He recognizes the problems that our nation faces, but
he also charts a vision forward.
And I think it's one that if people are honest, that
they will agree that it really isn't a political
agenda as much as an agenda for this country
and one to move us forward.
So I think that we'll have to wait and see, but I can
tell you that I think it will be a
positive move forward.
Zeke.
The Press: Thanks, Sean.
Couple follow-ups to Olivier's question earlier
about the ISIS review.
It's day 30.
The memorandum the President signed 30 days
ago said that he was supposed to be briefed.
Can you give us a more -- a timeline on when
specifically President Trump will be involved --
I know you mentioned there's a principals
meeting earlier today -- what the timeline of the
review is?
And then separately, you mentioned that Secretary
Mattis was the one who's presenting it to the
principals committee.
The memorandum included things other than just the
military; it included public diplomacy efforts
to cut off financial ties to ISIS.
What were the other
Cabinet secretaries involved?
What is sort of -- what got us here and where do
we go from here?
Mr Spicer: Thank you.
Let me, if I may, get briefed on who and what
occurred in the principals meeting to the extent that
it's available, and I'd be glad to get back to you
tomorrow on that.
I just don't have that information available.
Gabi.
The Press: Thanks, Sean.
Palm Beach County has said that it's costing $60,000
a day in overtime pay every time the President
comes to visit West Palm Beach.
He's slated to go there again this weekend
according to some reports.
Is the President taking any steps to ensure that
taxpayers aren't saddled with tremendous costs in
his travel habits, considering he was so
critical of his predecessor on
that matter?
Mr Spicer: Well, Gabi, the security for the President
and the First Family is set by the Secret Service.
As you know, they determine the security
measures that need to be taken to protect the
President -- frankly, any President.
So I'm going to leave it up to the Secret Service
to decide what security measures and steps are
taken to protect the President.
And, as you know, I mean, this -- depending on -- it
transcends administrations.
Wherever the President goes, they need to make
sure that the President and the First
Family is safe.
That's something that I think -- we rely on the
Secret Service to make those determinations.
They continue to do a phenomenal job making sure
that the First Family and the President and the Vice
President are protected, and we have full
confidence in the decisions that they make.
So thank you guys very much.
We'll have a briefing tomorrow -- later today
on the state.
The Press: Approximate time?
Mr Spicer: What's that?
The Press: Approximate time?
Mr Spicer: I would look in the 6 o'clock hour.
The Press: Here?
Mr Spicer: Yes, here.
The Press: After 6:00?
Mr Spicer: I get to see you here again.
I would plan on around 6:00.
We'll have further guidance.
And I don't anticipate it being long.
I think we're just going to walk through the -- off
camera.
We'll walk through the themes of the speech, take
any questions, and then try to get some additional
information, depending on where the President is in
his read-through.
The Press: No briefing tomorrow, right?
Mr Spicer: No briefing tomorrow.
If you don't want one, you don't have to have one.
The Press: You said you'd get back to us on a couple
of issues tomorrow.
Mr Spicer: Well, I'm -- it's April that brought
up no briefing.
If you guys want to vote
-- The Press: No, no, no,
but tradition is there's no briefing on -- that's
why I'm asking.
Mr Spicer: I know.
We will do something for you, I promise. We ill make sure we --
The Press: Is it going to be a gaggle like last Friday, or is it
going to be --
Mr Spicer: No, no, we will
get back to you.
I'm sure you'll see my face here tomorrow.
Thank you very much.
I'll see you guys tomorrow.
