Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and OMB Acting Director Russell Vought | Eastern North Carolina Now

    ACTING DIRECTOR VOUGHT: 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.

    Q Russ, I mean, I know this administration has talked about the importance of infrastructure, and you propose a $200 billion infrastructure this year. But last year, there were cuts to other programs that caused - would've caused a net decrease to infrastructure spending. So would there be a net increase in infrastructure spending under this budget?

    ACTING DIRECTOR VOUGHT: What most people refer to when they look and make that assertion is they're looking at the fact that the trust fund doesn't have enough revenues coming into it. This budget looks at the baseline and assumes that 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 surface transportation bill; that when we need money for broadband or other infrastructure, that is also something that we can pursue.


    Q Russ, thanks. So it sounds like you're saying that the administration needed to take on deficit spending the first couple 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, '21, and 2022, four years going forward, of trillion-plus-dollar deficits? How is that fiscal conservatism?

    ACTING DIRECTOR VOUGHT: I wouldn't say that we needed deficits to get the economy started. I would say that we put forward spending reductions that were aimed at a balanced budget, and we have each and every year.

    We do have large deficits. That's why we're here transparently saying that we have a problem as a country. It takes a long time to get out of that mess. We came into office and faced $10.5 trillion right 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 reforms, Congress just hasn't been willing to play ball, even though they have the power of the purse.

    Q It seems like - Russ, just to pick up on that real quick. It seems like one of the ways you're trying to go at it is by reducing non-defense discretionary spending. Defense spending over the next years is $7 trillion, but non-defense discretionary, $5 trillion. Do you really believe that Congress is going to yank spending down that significantly over the next decade?

    ACTING DIRECTOR VOUGHT: 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're never going to make any tradeoffs; that we're never going to align what we spend with what we take in; that we're 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're not going to be bashful about that. But at the same time, we're also going to say that we have many, many programs that are wasteful and inefficient that we can longer afford.

    Phil.

    Q Russ, you called on me next. I'm sorry, Russ, you came to me.

    ACTING DIRECTOR VOUGHT: Sure.

    Q (Inaudible) the next question. I want to go the least of these: welfare reform and SNAP. How much money is proposed for this Welfare to Work Initiative 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?

    ACTING DIRECTOR VOUGHT: It did receive criticism, but we thought those criticisms were unmerited, and we're not going to walk away from the proposal as it pertains to the harvest box.

    Look, we think there's nothing wrong with putting forward a reform that says, "In addition to your normal food stamps spending benefits that 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 then apply them to housing and to food stamps, and to Medicaid.

    Q But there are some people that slip 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?

    ACTING DIRECTOR VOUGHT: Absolutely. The Department of Labor receives an adequate amount of funding in an era where we have $1 trillion deficits. There will be many, many workforce development programs that are funded as part of this budget.


    Phil.

    Q A lot of the discussion has been in terms of federal debt, but can you address that the federal unfunded liabilities, where does that number stand right now? And what does this budget do to address that much larger number?

    ACTING DIRECTOR VOUGHT: Look, we have a lot of debts as a country. We're trying to take it on head on. We're 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 these scenarios, we're going to be able to encourage the kind of conversation that allows us to get our house in order.

    MS. SANDERS: Thank you, Russ.

    Lastly, quick comment: We extend our prayers to the loved ones, 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 your questions. John.

    Q Sarah, the President said that Democrats hate Jewish people, according to a recent report. We've also seen him tweet in the last couple of days that Democrats are the, quote, "anti-Jewish party." Does the President really believe Democrats hate Jews?

    MS. SANDERS: Look, the President has been an 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 it's 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. We stripped him of his committee memberships. And we'd like to see Democrats follow suit.

    Q But I ask - first of all, you mentioned Steve King. The President - correct me if I'm wrong - has not condemned Steve King for what he said praising white supremacy. Has the President publicly come out and said anything to criticize or condemn?

    MS. SANDERS: I speak on behalf of the President on a number of topics, and I have talked about that a number of times. And I'd refer you back to those comments where I used words like "abhorrent" and "unacceptable."

    John.

    Q We're getting some 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?

    MS. SANDERS: 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 announcement on that front, he certainly will.

    Q Just one more. There are a lot of "actings" in the administration these days. Any possibility of removing "acting" from Mick Mulvaney's title?

    MS. SANDERS: Certainly a lot of possibility there. Some of the reason that we have "actings" is because we're waiting on the confirmation process, at least for a couple of those folks. And we hope that that moves forward quickly.

    Q Sarah, I wanted to follow up on what the latest with China is. Has the President made an offer for a Mar-a-Lago date? And there's also some reports that the Chinese feel the President is an unreliable negotiating partner after walking out on the North Korea talks.

    MS. SANDERS: Well, let me start with the first one. In terms of whether or not we have a date set, not yet. We're continuing the negotiations with China. When we have an announcement for the two leaders to sit down, we'll certainly let you know.

    The second part?

    Q And what would you say to the concerns by the Chinese that the President is an unreliable negotiating partner after the talks with North Korea broke down and he walked away from that?

    MS. SANDERS: I would say that's absurd. The President is going to make a deal if it's a good deal. He's going to make a deal if it's in the best interest of America. And if he doesn't feel like it's a good deal, it's not worth just signing a piece of paper.

    And the President didn't feel like what was on the table was enough. The President is 100 percent committed to denuclearization of the Peninsula, and he's going to make sure that whatever we do furthers that process. We'll see what happens with North Korea, the same way we're going to see what happens in the negotiations with China. They're 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.

    Q Sarah, picking up on that, does the President have any plans to speak with President Xi over the phone?

    MS. SANDERS: I'm not aware of any scheduled calls. But if we have any, we'll certainly keep you posted.

    Q 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 at the beginning?


    MS. SANDERS: We're 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'll make that happen.

    Francesca.

    Q Thanks, Sarah. I have a news-of-the-day question but I didn't get to ask my budget question before. So, can I try -

    MS. SANDERS: You missed a big moment.

    Q I did.

    MS. SANDERS: The guy with all the details.

    Q All right. 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 regards to foreign aid spending but nothing specifically about Central America. The President has said that he wants to cut money to Central America. In fact, he could cut it all. Is that in the budget? Is that (inaudible)?