 
TO TAKE QUESTIONS OF THE DAY. 
>> THANKS, SARAH. 
GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE, HAPPY 
BUDGET DAY. 
>> HAPPY BUDGET DAY. 
>> TODAY WE HAVE RELEASED THE 
PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2020 
BUDGET, A BUDGET FOR A BETTER 
AMERICA, PROMISES KEPT, 
TAXPAYERS FIRST, THIS BUDGET 
REFLECTS THE PRESIDENT'S 
PRIORITIES TO ENSURE THAT ALL 
AMERICANS CAN BENEFIT FROM THE 
NATION'S HISTORIC ECONOMIC BOOM 
AND RECORD LOW UNEMPLOYMENT. 
NO PRESIDENT HAS DONE MORE IN 
TWO YEARS TO STRENGTHEN OUR 
MILITARY, RESTART OUR ECONOMY 
AND REFORM OUR GOVERNMENT THAN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
PROMISES HE MADE WHILE RUNNING 
FOR OFFICE. 
THIS GREAT PROGRESS IS 
THREATENED BY OUR UNSUSTAINABLE 
NATIONAL DEBT, WHICH IS NEARLY 
DOUBLED UNDER THE PREVIOUS 
ADMINISTRATION AND NOW STANDS 
AT MORE THAN $22 TRILLION. 
ANNUAL DEFICITS ARE CONTINUING 
TO RISE AND WILL EXCEED $1 
TRILLION A YEAR AND IT'S 
PROJECTED THAT INTEREST 
PAYMENTS ON THE NATIONAL DEBT 
WILL EXCEED MILITARY SPENDING 
BY 2024. 
WASHINGTON HAS A SPENDING 
PROBLEM AND IT ENDANGERS THE 
FUTURE PROSPERITY OF OUR NATION 
FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. 
THIS BUDGET CONTAINS NEARLY 
$2.7 TRILLION IN SAVINGS, MORE 
SPENDING REDUCTIONS PROPOSED 
THAN ANY ADMINISTRATION IN 
HISTORY. 
THIS BUDGET WILL BALANCE IN 15 
YEARS. 
LAST YEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DIRECTED FEDERAL AGENCIES TO 
MEET A TARGET OF A 5% REDUCTION 
TO NONDEFENSE DISCRETIONARY 
SPENDING. 
I'M PROUD TO REPORT TO YOU 
TODAY THAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED 
THAT TARGET. 
IN TERMS OF THE ECONOMY, OUR 
GDP GREW BY 3.1% OVER THE FOUR 
QUARTERS OF FISCAL YEAR 2018, 
WHILE MANY CLAIMED WE WERE 
GUILTY OF WISHFUL THINKING, WE 
HAVE MET OUR ECONOMIC FORECAST 
TWO YEARS IN A ROW. 
THE FIRST ADMINISTRATION TO 
EVER DO THAT. 
WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT THE 
PRESIDENT'S HISTORIC TAX  
REFORMS, DEREGULATION, TRADE 
POLICY,UNLEASHING AMERICAN 
ENERGY WILL CONTINUE OUR 
ECONOMIC GROWTH. 
ECONOMIC POLICIES IN THIS 
BUDGET WILL GENERATE MORE THAN 
ENOUGH REVENUE TO PAY FOR THE 
COSTS OF THE TAX CUT. 
FISCAL YEAR 2020 PRESIDENT'S 
BUDGET OUTLINES A NUMBER OF KEY 
PRIORITIES FOR THE 
ADMINISTRATION TO CONTINUE TO 
PURSUE. 
THE BUDGET SUPPORTS PUBLIC AND 
PRIVATE SCHOOL CHOICE THROUGH A 
FEDERAL TAX CREDIT OF UP TO $50 
BILLION OVER 10 YEARS. 
WHILE THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS 
MADE MAJOR PROGRESS TOWARDS 
STREAMLINING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE 
PERMITTING, WE CONTINUE TO 
REQUEST AN ADDITIONAL $200 
BILLION TO LEVER UP TO A $1 
TRILLION IN TOTAL SPENDING. 
IT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S 
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE HOMELAND 
AND THE WAY OF LIFE. 
THE BUDGET REQUESTS $750 
BILLION FOR OUR NATIONAL 
DEFENSE AND TO BE CLEAR THIS IS 
NOT FUNDING FOR ENDLESS WARS. 
THIS IS FOR RESEARCH AND 
DEVELOPMENT AND PROCUREMENT TO 
FUND THE MOST AWE-INSPIRING 
MILITARY THE WORLD HAS EVER 
KNOWN. 
IN ADDITION FEDERAL RESOURCES 
AND FRONT LINE DEFENDERS ARE 
OVERWHELMED AT THE SOUTHERN 
BORDER. 
IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2020 BUDGET 
PROVIDE SIZABLE FUNDING OF AN 
$8.6 BILLION FOR FULL 
COMPLETION OF THE WALL AND 
OTHER BORDER SECURITY 
RESOURCES. 
IN TERMS OF OTHER MAJOR 
REFORMS, THE ADMINISTRATION IS 
PROPOSING UNIFORM WORK 
REQUIREMENTS FOR MEDICAID, 
TANF, SNAP OR CERTAIN HOUSING 
PROGRAMS. 
THE ADMINISTRATION ALSO WANTS 
TO LOWER DRUG COSTS. 
THE BUDGET PROPOSES A DRUG 
PRICING STRATEGY THAT PUTS 
AMERICAN PATIENTS FIRST, 
PROMOTES GENERICS AND REDUCES 
OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS. 
THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS ALSO 
IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF 
WASTEFUL, INEFFICIENT PROGRAMS. 
FOR EXAMPLE, WE CAN SAVE 
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS 
BY RIGHT SIZING AND REFORMING 
THE UNDERPERFORMING PROGRAMS 
LIKE JOB CORPS, A RESIDENTIAL 
YOUTH TRAINING PROGRAM THAT HAS 
MADE HEADLINES IN RECENT YEARS 
FOR THE NUMBER OF SECURITY 
INCIDENTS AT THE FACILITIES. 
OR TAKE THE $600 MILLION THAT 
WE SPEND AT 85 DIFFERENT 
CULTURAL AND EXCHANGE PROGRAMS 
AT THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 
DESPITE THE FACT THAT ONLY 1% 
OF THE 1 MILLION STUDENTS THAT 
COME TO THIS COUNTRY TO STUDY 
EVER BENEFIT FROM THAT PROGRAM 
AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S 
PROGRAM DOUBLED IN THE LAST 10 
TO 15 YEARS. 
THIS BUDGET IS YET ANOTHER 
FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE AND 
COMMENTS IN SPENDING PLAN FROM 
PRESIDENT TRUMP THE PRESIDENT 
HAS CONTINUALLY CALLED FOR 
FISCAL RESTRAINT AND WILL 
PERSIST IN HIS EFFORTS TO END 
THE WASTEFUL SPENDING 
THANK YOU, EVERYONE, AND WITH 
THAT, I'M READY TO TAKE SOME 
QUESTIONS. 
JOHN. 
>> THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT 
SOME BUDGET WATCH DOGS THAT 
MONEY THAT'S IN THE OVERSEAS 
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS BUDGET 
WILL END UP BEING A BARRIER ON 
THE SOUTHERN BORDER. 
CAN YOU ALEVE CONCERNS ON SOME 
OF THE FOLKS THAT NONE OF THAT 
MONEY WOULD BE USED TO BUILD A 
BARRIER? 
>> WE DO NOT REQUEST ANY OKO 
MONEY, OVERSEES COUNTER 
INSURGENCY MONEY FOR THE 
COMPLETION OF THE WALL. 
WE DO HAVE EMERGENCY SPENDING 
THAT WE DEVOTE TO IT AND WE 
CONTINUE TO -- CONTINUE THE 
MILITARY REBUILD BY ASKING FOR 
WHAT'S NECESSARY TO COMPLETE 
THE WALL, THAT DOES INCLUDE 
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FUNDING. 
SO WHAT WE DO IS WE BOTH 
BACKFILL IN FISCAL YEAR 2019 
ANY FUNDING USED IN MILITARY 
CONSTRUCTION AND WE IN FISCAL 
YEAR 2020, WE ASK FOR CONGRESS 
TO APPROPRITE THESE DOLLARS. 
>> THE BUDGET ALSO CALLS FOR 
PURCHASE OF EIGHT F15 AND THERE 
ARE CONCERNS THAT YOU'RE GOING 
TO LOWER THE NUMBER OF F35s. 
WHAT'S THE REASON FOR BUYING 
THE F15s? 
>> GO ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT 
THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT HAS 
REQUESTED WITH THEIR FIVE-YEAR
DEFENSE PROGRAM. 
IT'S AN ALLOCATION OF DIFFERENT 
PLANS INCLUDING THE F35 AND THE 
F18, THE SUPERHORNETS SO THIS 
IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN 
REQUESTED BY THE MILITARY AND 
WE THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT 
WILL MAKE SENSE WHEN CONGRESS 
CONSIDERS IT. 
JOHN. 
>> YEAH. 
JUST TWO QUESTIONS. 
YOU MENTIONED WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT PROMISED DURING THE 
CAMPAIGN. 
HE ALSO PROMISED HE WOULD 
ELIMINATE THE NATIONAL DEBT 
WITHIN EIGHT YEARS AND AS YOU 
KNOW, THE DEBT AT THE END OF 
HIS FIRST YEAR WAS A 20 
TRILLION, LAST YEAR IT WENT TO 
21 TRILLION, LAST MONTH 22 
TRILLION. 
WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT PROMISE? 
THE PRESIDENT HAS ADDED 
HISTORICALLY LARGE NUMBERS TO 
THE NATIONAL DEBT INSTEAD OF 
KEEPING A PROMISE TO ACTUALLY ú 
>> LOOK, AGAIN, THE LAST 
ADMINISTRATION NEARLY DOUBLED 
THE NATIONAL DEBT AND WHEN THIS 
PRESIDENT RAN FOR OFFICE, HE 
MADE A COMMITMENT TO THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT HE WOULD 
ATTEMPT TO TACKLE A DEBT WITHIN 
EIGHT YEARS. 
THIS PRESIDENT DID THAT THE 
VERY FIRST YEAR THAT HE CAME TO 
OFFICE BY SENDING FORTH A 
BUDGET THAT BALANCED WITHIN 10 
YEARS AND HAD MORE SPENDING 
REDUCTIONS THAN ANY IN HISTORY. 
>> HE'S ADDED 2 TRILLION, MORE 
THAN 2 TRILLION TO THE NATIONAL 
DEBT. 
>> HE ALSO CAME INTO OFFICE AND 
HAD AN ECONOMIC RECOVERY THAT 
WAS NEEDED TO PUT PEOPLE BACK 
TO WORK, GET THE ECONOMY GOING 
AND TO REBUILD THE MILITARY AND 
HAD HISTORIC LEVELS OF MILITARY 
AT 700 AND $716 BILLION IN 
NATIONAL DEFENSE DOLLARS. 
AT THE SAME TIME CONGRESS HAS 
BEEN IGNORING THE PRESIDENT'S 
SPENDING REDUCTIONS FOR THE 
LAST TWO YEARS. 
IT'S ONLY NOW IN OUR THIRD 
BUDGET THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO 
HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE 
NATIONAL DEBT. 
WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO HAVE IT 
SINCE WE GOT TO OFFICE. 
THE PRESIDENT IS PUTTING FORTH 
THESE REDUCTIONS, PUTTING 
FORWARD A 5% CUT TO  
NONDISCRETIONARY DEFENSE 
SPENDING, PUTTING FORWARD 
REFORMS TO MANDATORY PROGRAMS 
THAT ARE AUTOPILOT WHILE 
KEEPING HIS COMMITMENT TO 
AMERICAN SENIORS BY NOT MAKING 
CHANGES TO MEDICARE AND SOCIAL 
SECURITY. 
>> TWO QUICK QUESTIONS. 
ONE, TO GO BACK TO DRILL DOWN A 
LITTLE BIT ON WHAT JOHN CARL 
ASKED, IF THE DEFICIT IS SUCH A 
PROBLEM, WHY NOT AT LEAST CUT 
THE RATE OF INCREASE TO THE 
DEFENSE BUDGET AND SECONDLY, HE 
HAS SAID PROMISES KEPT BUT WE 
ARE CUTTING MEDICARE. 
HOW DOES THAT KEEP HIS PROMISE 
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? 
>> HE'S NOT CUTTING MEDICARE IN 
THIS BUDGET. 
WHAT WE ARE DOING IS PUTTING 
FORWARD REFORMS THAT LOWER DRUG 
PRICES THAT BECAUSE MEDICARE 
PAYS A VERY LARGE SHARE OF DRUG 
PRICES IN THIS COUNTRY, HAS THE 
IMPACT OF FINDING SAVINGS. 
WE ARE ALSO FINDING WAYS FOR 
ABUSE. 
BUT MEDICARE SPENDING WILL GO 
UP EVERY SINGLE YEAR BY HEALTHY 
MARGINS AND NO STRUCTURAL 
CHANGES FOR MEDICARE 
BENEFICIARIES. 
>> DEFENSE BUDGET. 
WHY NOT AT LEAST CUT THE RATE 
OF INCREASE IF THE DEFICIT IS 
SUCH A CONCERN, IF IT'S IN THE 
TRILLIONS, WHY NOT CUT AT LEAST 
THE INCREASE? 
>> HE'S THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF 
AND HE THINKS IT'S IMPORTANT TO 
SECURE THE COUNTRY. 
IT'S ONE OF HIS MOST BASIC 
CONSTITUTIONAL 
RESPONSIBILITIES. 
THE MILITARY PUT FORWARD A FIVE-
YEAR DEFENSE PLAN. 
IT WAS DONE OVER A SERIES OF 
YEARS ABOUT THE NEED WHICH GETS 
BACK TO JOHN'S QUESTION, WE ARE 
GOING ALONG WITH THAT FIVE-YEAR 
DEFENSE PLAN. 
IN ADDITION, WE ARE PUTTING 
ADDITIONAL DOLLARS TOWARDS THE 
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FUNDS 
THAT WE HAVE TAPPED. 
FRED. 
>> A COUPLE. 
COULD YOU JUST TWO MAJOR 
DRIVERS AND LONG TERM SPENDING 
WHICH WOULD BE BASE LINE 
BUDGETING AND ENTITLEMENT 
SPENDING IN GENERAL, AND 
SECONDLY, THIS SEEMS MAYBE A 
LITTLE BIT MORE AMBITIOUS IN 
TERMS OF SAVINGS THAN PREVIOUS 
BUDGETS YOU HAVE PROPOSED. 
I WONDERED WHY THAT WOULD BE 
SINCE YOU'RE NOW DEALING WITH A 
DEMOCRATIC HOUSE, WHEREAS IN 
THE PAST YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN 
MORE -- 
>> IT'S VERY IN LINE WITH 
PREVIOUS BUDGETS. 
WE HAVE BALANCED IN 15 YEARS. 
OUR FIRST BALANCE IN 10. 
ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE 
WEREN'T ABLE TO BALANCE QUICKER 
IS BECAUSE IT GETS HARDER EACH 
AND EVERY YEAR THAT CONGRESS 
DOESN'T GO ALONG WITH OUR 
SPENDING REDUCTIONS. 
YOU MENTIONED MANDATORY  
SPENDING. 
IT IS A DRIVER. 
WE HAVE MORE REFORMS THAN ANY 
PRESIDENT'S BUDGET IN HISTORY. 
WHAT HAS HAPPENED FOR FAR TOO 
LONG IS THAT CONGRESS HAS 
BLAMED MANDATORY SPENDING AND 
THEN INCREASED DISCRETIONARY 
SPENDING WHICH THEY HAVE A VOTE 
ON EVERY SINGLE YEAR BY LARGE 
DEGREES. 
THEY CONTINUE TO LET A PARADIGM 
EXIST IN THIS COUNTRY THAT SAYS 
FOR EVERY DOLLAR IN DEFENSE 
SPENDING WE ARE GOING TO 
INCREASE NONDEFENSE SPENDING BY 
$1. 
WE THINK WE NEED TO BREAK THAT 
PARADIGM. 
WE DON'T THINK THAT PARADIGM 
ALLOWS US TO BE ABLE TO GET OUR 
FISCAL HOUSE IN ORDER. 
>> THANKS, RUSS. 
>> THE REALISTICALLY THE 
ADMINISTRATION IS NOT GOING TO 
GET $8.6 BILLION FOR WALL 
FUNDING THROUGH THIS BUDGET. 
ARE THERE OTHER EXECUTIVE 
ACTIONS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN 
LOOKING AT IN ORDER TO PURSUE 
IS THAT DESPITE THE NATIONAL 
EMERGENCY BEING DECLARED AND 
THE TREASURY ASSET FORFEITURE 
AND THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT 
DOLLARS THAT YOU COULD CONTINUE 
-- 
>> RIGHT NOW WE ARE FOCUSED ON 
SPENDING THE MONEY THAT 
CONGRESS GAVE US IN THE LAST 
APPROPRIATIONS BILL AND THE 
MONEY THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED 
AS PART OF DECLARING A NATIONAL 
EMERGENCY AND SPENDING THAT 
WELL AND THIS $8.6 BILLION IS 
GEARED TOWARDS WHAT WE WOULD 
NEED IN ADDITION TO COMPLETE 
THAT WALL. 
>> RUSS, I KNOW THIS 
ADMINISTRATION HAS TALKED ABOUT 
THE IMPORTANCE OF 
INFRASTRUCTURE AND YOU PROPOSED 
A $200 BILLION INFRASTRUCTURE 
THIS YEAR. 
BUT LAST YEAR THERE WERE CUTS 
TO OTHER PROGRAMS THAT CAUSED 
-- WOULD HAVE CAUSED A NET 
DECREASE TO INFRASTRUCTURE 
SPENDING. 
WOULD THERE BE A NET INCREASE 
IN INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING 
UNDER THIS BUDGET? 
>> WHAT MOST PEOPLE REFER TO 
WHEN THEY LOOK AND MAKE THAT 
ASSERTION IS THEY ARE LOOKING 
AT THE FACT THAT THE TRUST FUND 
HAS -- DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH 
REVENUES COMING INTO IT. 
THIS BUDGET LOOKS AT THE BASE 
LINE AND ASSUMES THAT THAT'S TO 
BE THE CASE BUT WE ARE TOTALLY 
READY AND WILLING TO TALK WITH 
CONGRESS ABOUT HOW TO ENSURE 
THAT THERE'S ADDITIONAL DOLLARS 
IN THE FEDERAL TRUST FUND AND 
TO PUT FORWARD ADDITIONAL $200 
BILLION IN NEW INVESTMENT TO 
MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT JUST A 
SERVICE TRANSPORTATION BILL, 
THAT WHEN WE NEED MONEY FOR 
BROADBAND OR OTHER 
INFRASTRUCTURE, THAT IS ALSO 
SOMETHING WE CAN PURSUE. 
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING 
THAT THE ADMINISTRATION NEEDED 
TO TAKE ON DEFICIT SPENDING THE 
FIRST COUPLE OF YEARS BECAUSE 
THE ECONOMY NEEDED THE KICK BUT 
WE ALSO HEAR FROM THE 
ADMINISTRATION THAT THIS IS AN 
ECONOMY THAT IS ROARING RIGHT 
NOW. 
SO WITH THAT BEING THE PREMISE, 
HOW DO YOU SQUARE HAVING 
DEFICITS IN 2019, 2020, 2021 
AND 2022, FOUR YEARS GOING 
FORWARD OF TRILLION PLUS DOLLAR 
DEFICITS? 
HOW IS THAT FISCAL CONSERVISM  
CONSERVATISM? 
>> WITH WE DO HAVE LARGE 
DEFICITS. 
THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE 
TRANSPARENTLY SAYING WE HAVE A 
PROBLEM AS A COUNTRY. 
IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO GET OUT 
OF THAT MESS. 
WE CAME INTO OFFICE AND FACED 
10 1/2 TRILLION DOLLARS OFF THE 
BAT. 
AND INSTEAD OF BEING WITH US 
AND CONSIDERING OUR PROPOSALS 
AND ALLOWING US TO MAKE THE 
FACTUAL CASE FOR WHY, THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD BE BETTER 
OFF UNDER THESE FORMS, CONGRESS 
JUST HASN'T BEEN WILLING TO 
PLAY BALL EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE 
THE POWER OF THE PURSE. 
>> SEEMS LIKE, RUSS, ONE OF THE 
WAYS YOU'RE TRYING TO GO AT IT 
IS BY REDUCING NONDEFENSE 
ISCRETIONARY SPENDING, DEFENSE 
SPENDING OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS 
7.7 TRILLION, BUT NONDEFENSE 
DISCRETIONARY 5 TRILLION. 
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT 
CONGRESS IS GOING TO YANK 
SPENDING DOWN THAT 
SIGNIFICANTLY OVER THE NEXT 
DECADE? 
>> WE BELIEVE THAT EVERY BUDGET 
IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT 
FORWARD OUR VISION OF THE NEXT 
10 YEARS. 
WE ARE DOING THAT IN THIS 
BUDGET AND WE ARE SAYING TO THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE, WE CAN NO 
LONGER AFFORD THE PARADIGM THAT 
CONGRESS KEEPS GIVING US, WHICH 
IS THAT WE ARE NEVER GOING TO 
MAKE ANY TRADE-OFFS, THAT WE 
ARE NEVER GOING TO ALIGN WHAT 
WE SPEND WITH WHAT WE TAKE IN. 
THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO 
WHAT EVERY FAMILY DOES ACROSS 
THE COUNTRY AND TRYING TO 
FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY CAN AFFORD 
BEFORE THEY GO OUT AND SPEND. 
SO, YES, WE ARE TRYING TO SAY 
THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO 
SECURE THE COUNTRY. 
WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO SECURE 
THE BORDER. 
WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE BASHFUL 
ABOUT THAT. 
BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE ARE 
ALSO GOING TO SAY THAT WE HAVE 
MANY, MANY PROGRAMS THAT ARE 
WASTEFUL AND INEFFICIENT THAT 
WE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD. 
>> WELFARE REFORM AND SNAP, HOW 
MUCH MONEY IS PROPOSED FOR 
WELFARE, FOR THE -- WITH JOB 
TRAINING AND ALSO WITH SNAP, 
WHAT ARE THE LESSONS LEARNED 
THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO, I GUESS, 
RESHAPE THIS HARVEST BOX 
PROPOSAL? 
BECAUSE IT CAME UNDER GREAT 
CRITICISM BEFORE AND NOW YOU'RE 
PROPOSING IT AGAIN. 
COULD YOU TALK ABOUT THOSE TWO 
ISSUES? 
>> IT DID RECEIVE CRITICISM BUT 
WE THOUGHT THE CRITICISMS WERE 
UNMERITED AND WE ARE NOT GOING 
TO WALK AWAY FROM THE PROPOSAL 
AS IT PERTAINS TO THE HARVEST 
BOX. 
WE THINK THERE'S NOTHING WRONG 
WITH PUTTING FORWARD A REFORM 
THAT SAYS IN ADDITION TO YOUR 
NORMAL FOOD STAMP SPENDING, 
BENEFITS YOU WOULD GET AT THE 
RETAIL, THAT YOU WOULD GET A 
HARVEST BOX THAT ALLOWS YOU TO 
GET A MORE BALANCED MEAL AND TO 
SAVE MONEY TO THE TAXPAYERS AT 
THE SAME TIME. 
IN TERMS OF WORK REQUIREMENTS, 
IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS LONG 
BEEN VIEWED AS A SUCCESS SINCE 
THE 1990s. 
WE EXPAND ON IT. 
IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE 
LONG VIEWED AS IMPORTANT TO BE 
ABLE TO SAY -- TAKE THE SAME 
PRINCIPLES OF REDUCING 
DEPENDENCY THAT WE SAW IN TANF 
AND APPLY THEM TO HOUSING AND 
TO FOOD STAMPS AND TO MEDICAID. 
>> I'M SORRY. 
THERE'S SOME PEOPLE THAT 
SLIPPED THROUGH THE CRACKS AND 
THEY MAY NEED JOB TRAINING. 
ARE THERE FUNDS PROPOSED FOR 
JOB TRAINING IF YOU'RE GOING TO 
DO THIS WELFARE TO WORK 
INITIATIVE? 
>> ABSOLUTELY. 
THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR IS -- 
RECEIVES AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF 
FUNDING IN AN ERA WHERE WE HAVE 
$1 TRILLION DEFICITS, MANY, 
MANY WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 
PROGRAMS THAT ARE FUNDED AS 
PART OF THIS BUDGET. 
>> A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION HAS 
BEEN IN TERMS OF THE FEDERAL 
DEBT BUT CAN YOU ADDRESS THE 
FEDERAL UNFUNDED LIABILITIES? 
WHERE DOES THAT NUMBER STAND 
RIGHT NOW AND WHAT DOES THIS 
BUDGET DO TO ADDRESS THAT MUCH 
LARGER NUMBER? 
>> WE HAVE A LOT OF DEBTS AS A 
COUNTRY. 
WE ARE TRYING TO TAKE IT ON 
HEAD ON. 
WE ARE TRYING TO SAY THAT $22 
TRILLION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND 
WE CAN'T GO FORWARD WITH 
TRILLION DOLLARS EVERY SINGLE 
YEAR AND THAT THE WAY TO START 
DOING THAT IS TO PURSUE THE 
TYPES OF REFORMS WHERE WE THINK 
THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL 
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE HOW 
THEIR LIVES WOULD BE BETTER OFF 
UNDER OUR PROPOSALS. 
WE DO THAT IN FEDERAL 
RETIREMENT BENEFITS, WE DO THAT 
IN STUDENT LOANS, WE DO THAT IN 
WELFARE REFORMS. 
WE THINK THAT IN EACH ONE OF 
úTHESE SCENARIOS WE ARE GOING T 
BE ABLE TO ENCOURAGE THE KIND 
OF CONVERSATION THAT ALLOWS US 
TO GET OUR HOUSE IN ORDER. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, RUSS. 
LASTLY, QUICK COMMENT, WE 
EXTEND OUR PRAYERS TO THE LOVED 
ONES AND FRIENDS AND FAMILY OF 
THOSE KILLED IN THE TRAGIC 
CRASH OF ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES 
FLIGHT ET302, AT LEAST EIGHT 
U.S. CITIZENS WERE AMONG THE 
VICTIMS. 
WE ARE WORKING WITH THE 
GOVERNMENT OF ETHIOPIA AND 
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES TO OFFER ALL 
POSSIBLE ASSISTANCE. 
WITH THAT, I WILL TAKE THE 
QUESTIONS. 
JOHN. 
>> SARAH, THE PRESIDENT SAID 
THAT DEMOCRATS HATE JEWISH 
PEOPLE, ACCORDING TO A RECENT 
REPORT. 
WE HAVE ALSO SEEN HIM TWEET IN 
THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS THAT 
DEMOCRATS ARE THE, QUOTE, 
ANTIJEWISH PARTY. 
DOES THE PRESIDENT REALLY 
BELIEVE DEMOCRATS HATE JEWS? 
>> THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN  
UNWAVERING AND COMMITTED ALLY 
TO ISRAEL AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE 
AND FRANKLY, THE REMARKS THAT 
HAVE BEEN MADE BY A NUMBER OF 
DEMOCRATS AND FAILED TO BE 
CALLED OUT BY DEMOCRAT 
LEADERSHIP IS FRANKLY ABHORRENT 
AND SAD AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT 
SHOULD BE CALLED BY NAME. 
IT SHOULDN'T BE PUT IN A 
WATERED-DOWN RESOLUTION. 
IT SHOULD BE DONE THE WAY THE 
REPUBLICANS DID IT WHEN STEVE 
KING MADE TERRIBLE COMMENTS. 
WE CALLED IT OUT BY NAME, 
STRIPPED HIM OF HIS COMMITTEE 
MEMBERSHIPS AND WE WOULD LIKE 
TO SEE DEMOCRATS FOLLOW SUIT. 
>> YOU MENTIONED STEVE KING. 
THE PRESIDENT, CORRECT ME IF 
I'M WRONG, HAS NOT CONDEMNED 
STEVE KING. 
>> I -- 
>> PRAISING WHITE SUPREMACY. 
HAS THE PRESIDENT PUBLICLY COME 
OUT AND SAID SOMETHING TO 
CRITICIZE -- 
>> I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE 
PRESIDENT ON A NUMBER OF TOPICS 
AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT A 
NUMBER OF TIMES AND YOU WOULD 
REFER YOU BACK TO THOSE 
COMMENTS WHERE YOU USED WORDS 
LIKE ABHORRENT AND 
UNACCEPTABLE. 
JOHN. 
>> WE ARE GETTING WORD THAT THE 
PRESIDENT PLANS TO NOMINATE 
PATRICK SHANAHAN LATER THIS 
WEEK TO BE THE SECRETARY OF 
DEFENSE, ELEVATING HIM FROM THE 
ACTING POSITION. 
CAN YOU TELL US WHETHER OR NOT 
THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN? 
>> I AM NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY 
PERSONNEL ANNOUNCEMENTS AT THIS 
TIME. 
I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAS A GREAT DEAL OF 
RESPECT FOR ACTING DEFENSE 
SECRETARY SHANAHAN. 
HE LIKES HIM AND WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT IS READY TO MAKE AN 
ANNOUNCEMENT ON THAT FRONT, HE 
CERTAINLY WILL. 
>> THERE ARE A LOT OF ACTINGS 
IN THE ADMINISTRATION THESE 
DAYS. 
ANY POSSIBILITY OF REMOVING 
ACTING FROM McMULVANY'S TITLE? 
>> CERTAINLY A LOT OF 
POSSIBILITY THERE. 
SOME OF THE REASON THAT WE HAVE 
ACTING IS BECAUSE WE ARE 
WAITING ON THE CONFIRMATION 
PROCESS, AT LEAST FOR A COUPLE 
OF THOSE FOLKS AND WE HOPE THAT 
MOVES FORWARD QUICKLY. 
>> I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT 
THE LATEST WITH CHINA IS. 
HAS THE PRESIDENT MADE AN OFFER 
FOR MAR-A-LAGO DATES? 
AND THERE'S ALSO REPORTS THAT 
THE CHINESE FEEL THE  PRESIDENT 
-- AFTER WALKING OUT OF THE 
NORTH KOREA TALKS? 
>> IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT 
WE HAVE A DATE SET, NOT YET. 
WE ARE CONTINUING IN 
NEGOTIATIONS WITH CHINA. 
WHEN WE HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT 
FOR THE TWO LEADERS TO SIT 
DOWN, WE WILL CERTAINLY LET YOU 
KNOW. 
>> WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO THE 
CONCERNS BY THE CHINESE THAT 
THE PRESIDENT IS AN UNRELIABLE 
NEGOTIATING PARTNERS AFTER THE 
TALKS WITH NORTH KOREA BROKE 
DOWN? 
>> I WOULD SAY THAT'S ABSURD. 
HE'S GOING TO MAKE A GOOD, IT'S 
A GOOD DEAL. 
IF HE DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT'S A 
GOOD DEAL IT'S NOT WORTH 
SIGNING A PIECE OF PAPER AND 
THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T FEEL LIKE 
WHAT WAS ON THE TABLE WAS 
ENOUGH. 
THE PRESIDENT IS 100% COMMITTED 
TO DENUCLEARIZATION OF THE 
PENINSULA AND HE'S GOING TO 
MAKE SURE WHATEVER WE DO 
FURTHERS THAT PROCESS. 
WE WILL SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH 
NORTH KOREA THE SAME WAY WE ARE 
GOING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN 
THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CHINA. 
THEY ARE ONGOING AND THE 
PRESIDENT IS GOING TO MAKE SURE 
WHATEVER DEAL WE GET IS IN OUR 
BEST INTEREST, THAT IT'S FAIR 
AND RECIPROCAL TRADE, THAT IT 
PROTECTS OUR INTELLECTUAL 
PROPERTY AND THAT IT ACTUALLY 
HAS SAFEGUARDS TO MAKE SURE 
THAT THE CHINESE FOLLOW THROUGH 
WITH WHATEVER COMMITMENTS THAT 
THEY MAKE. 
BLAKE. 
>> PICKING UP ON THAT, DOES THE 
PRESIDENT HAVE ANY PLANS TO 
SPEAK WITH PRESIDENT XI OVER 
THE PHONE? 
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY 
SCHEDULED CALLS BUT IF WE HAVE 
ANY, WE WILL KEEP YOU POSTED. 
>> IS THAT THE MOST LIKELY STEP 
HERE, THAT THEY SPEAK ON THE 
PHONE BEFOREHAND OR IS IT 
POSSIBLE THAT THESE TWO STILL 
MEET AT THE END OF THE MONTH OR 
THE BEGINNING -- 
>> WE ARE GOING TO KEEP 
EVERYTHING ON THE TABLE. 
AGAIN, NEGOTIATIONS ARE 
ONGOING. 
THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM AS WELL AS 
THE CHINESE DELEGATION CONTINUE 
CONVERSATIONS AND WHEN THEY 
FEEL LIKE IT'S TIME FOR THE TWO 
LEADERS TO SIT DOWN, WE WILL 
MAKE THAT HAPPEN. 
>> THANKS, SARAH. 
I HAVE A NEWS OF THE DAY 
QUESTION BUT I DIDN'T GET TO 
ASK MY BUDGET QUESTION BEFORE 
SO  I -- 
>> YOU MISSED A BIG MOMENT. 
>> SO IN THE BUDGET THE WAY 
THAT I SEE IT, AND THERE'S A 
LOT OF PAGES TO GO THROUGH, IT 
KEEPS REFERRING TO WESTERN 
HEMISPHERE WITH REGARD TO 
FOREIGN AID SPENDING BUT 
NOTHING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT 
CENTRAL AMERICA. 
THE PRESIDENT SAID THAT HE 
WANTS TO CUT MONEY TO CENTRAL 
AMERICA. 
IN FACT, HE COULD CUT IT ALL. 
IS THAT IN THE BUDGET? 
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC 
UPDATE ON THAT FRONT. 
I DON'T THINK THERE'S A 
DIFFERENT POLICY. 
>> ON THE NEWS OF THE DAY, THE 
BIG VOTE IS COMING UP THIS WEEK 
IN THE SENATE ON THE RESOLUTION 
WITH REGARDS TO THE NATIONAL 
EMERGENCY. 
WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT DOING TO 
STOP A REBELLION AMONG 
REPUBLICAN SENATORS? 
WE KNOW THAT A RISING NUMBER, 
IT'S BEEN REPORTED AS MANY AS 
10 OR 15 COULD VOTE AGAINST 
THAT. 
WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT DOING 
ABOUT THAT? 
>> HE'S DOING HIS JOB. 
HE TOOK AN OATH OF OFFICE AND 
HE HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO 
PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF THIS 
COUNTRY. 
WE HAVE A HUMANITARIAN AND 
NATIONAL SECURITY CRISIS AT OUR 
BORDER AND THE PRESIDENT IS 
DOING HIS JOB IN ADDRESSING IT. 
HE GAVE CONGRESS A NUMBER OF 
OPPORTUNITIES TO ACTUALLY 
ADDRESS IT AND THEY FAILED TO 
DO SO. 
SO THE PRESIDENT IS TAKING HIS 
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, THAT 
CONGRESS GRANTED HIM -- LET'S 
NOT FORGET, THE ONLY REASON HE 
HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CALL A 
NATIONAL EMERGENCY IS BECAUSE 
CONGRESS GAVE HIM THE RIGHT TO 
DO SO. 
THEY FAILED TO DO THEIR JOB. 
THE PRESIDENT IS FULFILLING HIS 
DUTY AND GOING TO MAKE SURE HE 
DOES WHAT IS NECESSARY TO 
PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF THIS 
COUNTRY, SECURE OUR BORDERS. 
>> MEETINGS HE MIGHT BE TAKING 
WITH SENATORS WHO HE BELIEVES 
COULD BE VOTING FOR THAT 
RESOLUTION. 
>> CERTAINLY WE TALKED TO A 
NUMBER OF MEMBERS EVERY SINGLE 
DAY, CERTAINLY AT THE 
PESIDENTIAL AND THE STAFF 
LEVEL AND WE ARE GOING TO 
CONTINUE TO ENGAGE WITH THEM IN 
THIS  PROCESS. 
>> WHAT IS THE ADMINISTRATION 
SPECIFICALLY DOING TO LOOK  
INTO -- DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE 
MISGIVINGS ABOUT THE ROLE THIS 
TOP OFFICIAL PLAYED IN THIS  
DEAL? 
>> THAT'S CURRENTLY UNDER 
REVIEW BECAUSE OF THAT, I CAN'T 
GET INTO A LOT OF SPECIFICS BUT 
WE ARE CERTAINLY LOOKING AT IT. 
[ INAUDIBLE QUESTION] 
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU 
BUT A FOLLOW-UP TO A COLLEAGUE 
BECAUSE I DIDN'T HEAR YOU 
ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION. 
YES OR NO, DOES THE PRESIDENT 
TRULY BELIEVE THAT DEMOCRATS 
HATE JEWS? 
>> I AM NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON 
POTENTIALLY LEAKED DOCUMENT. 
I CAN TELL YOU -- 
>> DOES HE THINK DEMOCRATS HATE 
JEWISH PEOPLE OVER -- 
>> I THINK HE HAD THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO CONDEMN 
ABHORRENT COMMENTS. 
I'M TRYING TO FINISH. 
THE PRESIDENT HAS HAD AND LAID 
OUT CLEARLY HIS POSITION ON 
THIS MATTER. 
DEMOCRATS HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF 
OPPORTUNITIES TO CONDEMN 
SPECIFIC COMMENTS AND REFUSED 
TO DO THAT. 
THAT'S A QUESTION YOU SHOULD 
ASK DEMOCRATS WHAT THEIR 
POSITION IS SINCE THEY ARE 
UNWILLING TO CALL THIS WHAT IT 
IS AND CALL IT OUT BY NAME AND 
TAKE ACTUAL ACTION AGAINST 
MEMBERS WHO HAVE DONE THINGS 
LIKE THIS, LIKE THE REPUBLICANS 
HAVE DONE WHEN THEY HAD THE 
SAME OPPORTUNITY. 
>> I WANT TO BE CLEAR, YOU'RE 
NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION. 
IS THERE A REASON? 
>> I BELIEVE I ANSWERED IT  
TWICE. 
>> IT'S A YES OR NO. 
>> I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION 
YOU OUGHT TO ASK THE DEMOCRATS. 
>> ASK YOU ABOUT PAUL MANAFORT. 
GOES FOR THE SECOND HALF OF THE 
SENTENCING THIS WEEK. 
WHY HASN'T THE PRESIDENT RULED 
OUT A PARDON FOR PAUL MANAFORT? 
>> THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE HIS 
POSITION ON THAT CLEAR AND MAKE 
A DECISION WHEN HE'S READY. 
>> LAST WEEK THE PRESIDENT 
TWEETED THAT MICHAEL COHEN, 
QUOTE, DIRECTLY ASKED ME FOR A 
PARDON. 
WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN? 
WAS THAT WHEN -- WAS COHEN HERE 
AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND CAME 
INTO THE OVAL OFFICE AND ASKED 
THE PRESIDENT FOR A PARDON? 
DID IT HAPPEN ON THE PHONE? 
DO YOU HAVE A DATE? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO 
SPECIFICS OF THINGS THAT ARE 
CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW BY THE 
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AND OTHER 
COMMITTEES. 
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT 
COHEN'S OWN ATTORNEY STATED AND 
CONTRADICTED HIS CLIENT WHEN HE 
SAID THAT HE WAS AWARE THAT 
THOSE CONVERSATIONS HAD TAKEN 
PLACE. 
WE KNOW THAT MICHAEL COHEN LIED 
TO CONGRESS PRIOR TO HIS 
TESTIMONY MOST RECENTLY AND WE 
KNOW HE'S LIED AT LEAST TWICE 
IN THAT HEARING. 
I THINK IT'S TIME TO STOP 
GIVING HIM A PLATFORM, LET HIM 
GO ON TO SERVE HIS TIME AND 
LET'S MOVE FORWARD WITH MATTERS 
OF THE COUNTRY. 
>> QUESTION TO PUT IT ON THE 
RECORD BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE 
IN THE COUNTRY WANT TO KNOW, IS 
THERE ANYTHING IN THE 
PRESIDENT'S 2020 BUDGET REQUEST 
THAT HAS MEXICO PAYING FOR THE 
WALL? 
>> AS THE PRESIDENT HAS STATED 
A NUMBER OF TIMES THROUGH THE 
USMCA TRADE DEAL THAT WE LOOK 
FORWARD TO GETTING PASSED SOON, 
THAT WILL BE PART OF HOW THAT 
TAKES PLACE. 
>> THANK YOU, SARAH. 
TWO BRIEF QUESTIONS. 
FOLLOWING UP ON JOHN'S 
PERSONNEL QUESTION, DOES THE 
PRESIDENT HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE 
IN SECRETARY ACOSTA OR IS THE 
LABOR SECRETARY POSSIBLY 
LEAVING? 
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY 
PERSONNEL CHANGES BUT AGAIN, 
THOSE THINGS ARE CURRENTLY 
UNDER REVIEW. 
WHEN WE HAVE AN UPDATE I'LL LET 
YOU KNOW. 
>> THE OTHER QUESTION IS, IS 
THE PRESIDENT IN DISCUSSION 
ABOUT SIGNING AN EXECUTIVE 
ORDER TO  UNDO EXECUTIVE ORDER 
13166, PRESIDENT CLINTON'S 
EXECUTIVE ORDER REQUIRING -- 
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, I HOPE 
YOU TELL ME WHAT THAT ONE IS. 
>> PRESIDENT CLINTON'S 
EXECUTIVE ORDER 19 YEARS AGO 
REQUIRING MULTIPLE LANGUAGES, A 
NEW EXECUTIVE ORDER, I AM TOLD, 
WOULD MAKE ENGLISH THE OFFICIAL 
LANGUAGE IN GOVERNMENT. 
IS HE CONSIDERING THAT? 
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF A SPECIFIC 
EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT'S BEEN 
DRAFTED BUT THAT IS THE 
POSITION OF THE WHITE HOUSE. 
JIM. 
>> YES. 
DID THE PRESIDENT ASK GARY COHN 
TO INTERVENE OR BLOCK AT&T'S 
MERGER WITH TIME WARNER? 
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY 
CONVERSATIONS AROUND THAT  
MATTER. 
>> AND JUST TO GET BACK TO JOHN 
AND HOW HIS QUESTION ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S COMMENTS ABOUT 
DEMOCRATS AND JEWISH PEOPLE, 
ISN'T THAT RHETORIC JUST SORT 
OF BENEATH EVERYBODY AND DO YOU 
THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS 
THOUGHT AT ALL GOING INTO THIS 
2020 CAMPAIGN THAT THE RHETORIC 
JUST NEEDS TO BE LOWERED, 
WHETHER HE'S TALKING ABOUT 
DEMOCRATS, THE MEDIA,  
IMMIGRANTS, OR SHOULD WE JUST 
PLAN ON HEARING THE PRESIDENT 
USE THE SAME KIND OF LANGUAGE 
THAT WE HEARD IN 2016 AND ALL 
THROUGH THE FIRST COUPLE OF 
YEARS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION? 
>> LOOK, I THINK THAT THE REAL 
SHAME IN ALL OF THIS IS 
DEMOCRATS ARE PERFECTLY CAPABLE 
OF COMING TOGETHER AND AGREEING 
ON THE FACT THAT THEY ARE 
COMFORTABLE RIPPING BABIES 
STRAIGHT FROM A MOTHER'S WOMB 
OR KILLING A BABY AFTER BIRTH 
BUT THEY HAVE A HARD TIME 
CONDEMNING THE TYPE OF COMMENTS 
FROM CONGRESSWOMAN OMAR. 
I THINK THAT IS A GREAT SHAPE. 
THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN CLEARED 
ON WHAT HIS POSITION IS. 
CERTAINLY WHAT HIS SUPPORT IS 
FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY 
OF ISRAEL AND BEYOND THAT, I 
DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER FOR 
YOU, JIM. 
>> DRAGS DOWN THE RHETORIC AND 
THE DEBATE WHEN YOU'RE SAYING 
SOMETHING THAT'S PATENTLY  
UNTRUE. 
>> STATING THEIR POLICY 
POSITIONS IS NOT PATENTLY  
UNTRUE. 
>> DEMOCRATS DON'T HATE JEWISH 
PEOPLE. 
IT'S SILLY. 
IT'S NOT TRUE. 
>> I THINK THEY SHOULD CALL OUT 
THEIR MEMBERS BY NAME AND WE 
HAVE MADE THAT CLEAR. 
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER. 
APRIL. 
>> SORRY, JOE. 
-- 
>> VERY FINE PEOPLE ON BOTH 
SIDES IN CHARLOTTESVILLE 
ESSENTIALLY SUGGESTING THAT 
THERE ARE VERY FINE PEOPLE IN 
THE NAZIS. 
>> THAT'S NOT AT ALL WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS STATING. 
NOT THEN, NOT AT ANY POINT. 
THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN 
INCREDIBLY CLEAR AND 
CONSISTENTLY AND REPEATEDLY 
CONDEMNED HATRED, BIGOTRY, 
RACISM IN ALL OF ITS FORMS, 
WHETHER IT'S AMERICA AND  
ANYWHERE ELSE AND TO SAY 
OTHERWISE IS SIMPLY UNTRUE. 
>> ALONG WHAT I WAS ASKING, TWO 
QUESTIONS, BUT THAT'S KIND OF 
ALONG WHAT I WAS ASKING. 
SINCE THE PRESIDENT DID SAY 
THAT IN CHARLOTTESVILLE, SOME 
VERY FINE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES, 
HAS HE IN YOUR OPINION OR HAS 
HE OR US, BECAUSE I DON'T 
REMEMBER IT, CONDEMNED THE NEO 
NAZIS IN CHARLOTTESVILLE FOR 
THEIR ACTIONS AGAINST THE 
JEWISH -- 
>> CALLED THEM BY NAME WHICH IS 
WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR 
DEMOCRATS TO DO WHEN THEY SEE 
THE SAME TYPE OF HATRED. 
>> CAN WE EXPECT TO HAVE 
BRIEFINGS MORE OFTEN NOW SINCE 
THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGING 
ATMOSPHERE HERE? 
>> I HAVEN'T NOTICED A CHANGE 
IN THE ATMOSPHERE. 
I KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT IS 
THE MOST ACCESSIBLE PRESIDENT 
IN MODERN HISTORY. 
I KNOW THAT HE TAKES QUESTIONS 
FROM YOU GUYS NEARLY EVERY 
SINGLE DAY AND ON DAYS HE 
DOESN'T, SOMETIMES I DO IT FROM 
HERE. 
WE ANSWER HUNDREDS OF QUESTIONS 
FROM REPORTERS ALL OVER THE 
WORLD EVERY DAY. 
WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO 
THAT. 
SOMETIMES WE WILL DO IT FROM 
THIS ROOM. 
SOMETIMES WE WILL DO IT IN 
OTHER VENUES AND OTHER 
PLATFORMS. 
>> IN THE NEW SPENDING  
BLUEPRINT, WHY DID THE OMB 
INCLUDE MONEY FOR THE -- 
>> CAN YOU SAY THAT LOUDER? 
>> YES, I CAN. 
WHY DID THE OMD INCLUDE MONEY 
FOR THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN NUCLEAR 
WASTE REPOSITORY AND IT'S IN 
YOUR SPENDING BLUEPRINT AND 
WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT 
CONGRESS WILL ENACT THAT? 
>> I THINK THAT THE CHANCES 
THAT CONGRESS WILL DO ITS JOB 
BASED ON HISTORICAL PRECEDENT 
OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS 
ARE PROBABLY UNLIKELY BUT THAT 
DOESN'T MEAN WE ARE NOT HOPEFUL 
THAT THEY WILL WORK WITH US, 
LOOK FOR WAYS THAT WE CAN 
REDUCE SPENDING AND GROW -- 
PROTECT OUR MILITARY, DO THINGS 
LIKE THAT WHICH YOU SEE IN THE 
PRESIDENT'S BUDGET. 
WE WOULD LOVE FOR THEM TO WORK 
WITH US ON THAT. 
>> CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE 
THINKING WAS TO PUT THAT IN? 
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY 
SPECIFIC POLICY CHANGES ON THAT 
FRONT OR ANYTHING ON THERE. 
I'LL LET YOU KNOW IF WE HAVE 
SOMETHING. 
ONE LAST QUESTION. 
>> WHY DID THE PRESIDENT WRITE 
A CHECK TO MICHAEL COHEN FOR 
$35,000 IN AUGUST OF 2017 WHILE 
HE WAS HERE IN THE WHITE HOUSE? 
WHAT WAS THAT MONEY FOR? 
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF THOSE 
SPECIFIC -- 
>> HE TESTIFIED ABOUT THIS. 
HE SPECIFICALLY ACCUSED THE 
PRESIDENT OF ENGAGING 
CONSPIRACY -- HE PRESENTED THE 
CHECK. 
>> THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN CLEAR 
THERE WASN'T A CAMPAIGN 
VIOLATION. 
BEYOND THAT, I CAN'T GET -- 
>> DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THESE HUSH 
MONEY PAYMENTS. 
THIS STORY HAS CHANGED. 
>> I WOULD REFER YOU BACK TO 
THE PRESIDENT'S COMMENTS. 
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I'M A PART 
OF IT AND I WOULD REFER YOU TO 
THE PRESIDENT'S OUTSIDE COUNSEL 
BEYOND HIS COMMENTS. 
>> IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 
NEW YORK -- 
>> AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING TO 
COMMENT ON AN ONGOING CASE 
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I WOULD BE 
A PART OF HERE AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE. 
AND I WOULD REFER YOU TO 
OUTSIDE COUNSEL. 
THE PRESIDENT HAS STATED HIS 
POSITION AND MADE IT CLEAR. 
THANKS SO MUCH, GUYS. 
>> WHY YOU PRESIDENT DENY WHAT 
WAS CAUGHT ON TAPE ON CAMERA -- 
>> AND WE HAVE BEEN LISTENING 
TO THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS 
CONFERENCE THIS MORNING. 
THE PRESS CONFERENCE BEGAN WITH 
THE ACTING WHITE HOUSE BUDGET 
DIRECTORRUSSELL VOUGTH. 
HE WAS ASKED WHAT HAPPENED TO 
THE PRESIDENT'S PROMISE TO 
ELIMINATE THE NATIONAL DEBT AND 
INSTEAD OF ELIMINATING IT, HE 
HAS ADDED TO IT SIGNIFICANTLY. 
HE MENTIONED A PARADIGM THAT 
THE ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO 
BREAK THAT HE SAYS HAS BEEN 
PARTICULARLY HARD TO WEAN 
CONGRESS OF IT. 
HE SAYS CONGRESS WANTS TO MATCH 
MILITARY SPENDING WITH SPENDING 
FOR SOCIAL PROGRAMS DOLLAR FOR 
DOLLAR. 
HE TALKED ABOUT THE WORK 
REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE BEING 
ADDED TO HOUSING AND FOOD STAMP 
PROGRAMS. 
AND AFTER HIS -- AFTER HIS 
PORTION OF THE PRESS CONFERENCE 
WE DID HEAR FROM SARAH HUCKABEE 
SANDERS. 
THERE HAS NOT BEEN A PRESS -- 
WHITE HOUSE PRESS CONFERENCE IN 
OVER 40 DAYS SO THERE WERE LOTS 
OF QUESTIONS, INCLUDING FROM 
OUR VERY OWN CBS NEWS 
WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT PAULA 
REID, WHO JOINS US NOW. 
HI, PAULA. 
>> HI, TANYA. 
>> WE SAW YOU THERE ASKING 
SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS ABOUT 
THE CHECK THAT MICHAEL COHEN 
PRESENTED TO CONGRESS WHICH HE 
CLAIMS SHOWS THE PRESIDENT PAID 
HIM BACK FOR THOSE HUSH MONEY 
PAYMENTS. 
WHAT WAS HER RESPONSE TO YOUR 
QUESTION? 
>> WELL, AT FIRST SHE SUGGESTED 
SHE WAS NOT AWARE OF WHAT I WAS 
TALKING ABOUT. 
BUT SPECIFICALLY THIS IS 
CORROBORATING EVIDENCE THAT 
MICHAEL COHEN PRESENTED DURING 
HIS CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY. 
THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT MICHAEL 
COHEN HAS TROUBLE WITH THE  
TRUTH. 
HE HAS ADMITTED TO PURGING 
HIMSELF BEFORE CONGRESS. 
BUT HERE HE PRESENTED EVIDENCE 
TO BACK UP HIS CLAIM THAT THE 
PRESIDENT CONTINUED TO PAY HIM 
BACK FOR HUSH MONEY THAT HE HAD 
PAID TO STORMY DANIELS. 
IN AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION IN 
NEW YORK FEDERAL PROSECUTORS 
BELIEVE THESE HUSH MONEY 
PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN VIOLATION 
OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS. 
THE REASON THE CHECKS ARE 
SIGNIFICANT IS BECAUSE THEY 
SUGGEST THAT THE PRESIDENT 
ENGAGED IN A CONSPIRACY TO 
CONCEAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE 
VIOLATIONS THROUGH THE TIME HE 
WAS HERE IN THE WHITE HOUSE. 
ONE OF THE CHECKS IS DATED 
AUGUST 2017. 
SO MY QUESTION TO HER IS WHAT 
WAS THE MONEY FOR? 
AND SHE COULD NOT GIVE ME AN 
ANSWER. 
>> THAT WAS NOT A QUESTION THAT 
SHE WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO 
TALKING WITH YOU ABOUT, PAULA. 
CLEARLY. 
ANOTHER QUESTION FROM ANOTHER 
REPORTER THAT SHE DIDN'T HAVE 
MUCH OF AN ANSWER ABOUT WAS 
WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENT 
WAS WILLING TO SAY IF HE 
PLANNED TO PARDON PAUL MANAFORT 
OR NOT. 
WHAT DID SHE RESPOND THERE? 
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
BECAUSE HISTORICALLY THE 
PRESIDENT HAS BEEN ASKED ABOUT 
THIS A FEW TIMES AND ONE TIME 
HE SAID IT'S SOMETHING HE HAS 
NOT TAKEN OFF THE TABLE. 
THE CONCERN ABOUT THAT IS SOME 
PEOPLE RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT 
POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE, BY DANGLING THE 
POSSIBILITY OF PARDONS IN FRONT 
OF PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO 
BE COOPERATING WITNESSES IN THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION. 
BUT HERE SHE DECLINED TO  
COMMENT. 
SHE WOULD NOT SAY WHY HE WON'T 
TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE. 
AND WE KNOW THAT MANAFORT WILL 
FACE A SECOND SENTENCING LATER 
THIS WEEK. 
HE FACES UP TO A DECADE IN 
PRISON ON TOP OF THE 
APPROXIMATELY FOUR YEARS HE WAS 
SENTENCED TO LAST WEEK. 
>> NOW, I WANT TO ALSO GO BACK 
TO A QUESTION THAT SHE WAS 
ASKED SEVERAL TIMES AND SHE 
WOULD NOT PROVIDE A "YES" OR 
"NO" ANSWER TO AND THAT WAS 
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT TRULY 
BELIEVES THAT DEMOCRATS HATE 
JEWS. 
WHY WAS THAT QUESTION SO 
DIFFICULT TO ANSWER? 
>> IT'S UNCLEAR WHY SHE COULD 
NOT GUFF A YES OR NO ANSWER TO 
THAT. 
SHE SOMEHOW TRIED TO PUNT BACK 
THE PRESIDENT'S COMMENTS TO 
DEMOCRATS, DEMANDING THAT THEY 
EXPLAIN THEMSELVES AND THEIR 
POSITIONS AND IT SORT OF  
BROADENED OUT INTO THIS LARGER 
CONVERSATION ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S REACTIONS TO EVENTS 
INCLUDING CHARLOTTESVILLE AND 
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN 
PARTY MAKING COMMENTS THAT 
SUGGESTED THEY IN SOME WAY 
SUPPORTED WHITE SUPREMACY. 
IT SEEMED LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY 
FOR HER TO TAMP DOWN THE 
RHETORIC. 
OF COURSE THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T 
BELIEVE THAT BUT HAS QUESTIONS 
ABOUT THEIR POLICIES BUT SHE 
DID NOT DO THAT. 
SHE WAS ASKED THREE, MAYBE FOUR 
TIMES ABOUT THIS, GIVEN 
OPPORTUNITIES TO CLARIFY. 
SHE WOULD NOT SAY WHETHER OR 
NOT THAT IS THE PRESIDENT'S 
STANCE. 
>> AND THERE WAS ALSO NOT MUCH 
INFORMATION ABOUT WHERE THINGS 
STAND WITH TRADE TALKS WITH 
CHINA, PAULA. 
THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT 
WHETHER A DATE HAD BEEN SET TO 
MEET WITH PRESIDENT XI. 
THERE IS NO DATE SO FAR THAT 
HAS BEEN SET; IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> 
