Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

White House Briefing Continues. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired March 13, 2017 - 13:30   ET

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


[13:30:00] SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, let's be clear, the Department of Justice was asked to put -- to send information down to Congress. It wasn't the White House that was asked to do that. Just so we're clear as far as what the request was.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

SPICER: I understand that and with the tweet -- hold on.

QUESTION: Obligation that Senator McCain said to clear this up.

SPICER: Right. And I -- and I think if you look at the president's tweet, he said very clearly quote -- "wiretapping" -- end quote. There's been substantial discussion in several reports that the -- Brett Baier from Fox, from (ph) Jon (ph) on March 3rd talked about evidence of wiretapping. There's been reports in the New York Times, in the BBC and other outlets about other aspects of surveillance that have occurred.

The president was very clear in his tweet that it was you know, wiretapping. That that spans -- that he'll host a surveillance types of options. The House and the Senate intelligence committees will now look into that and provide a report back.

But I think that there has been numerous reports from a variety of outlets over the last couple months that seemed to indicate that there has been different types of surveillance that occurred during the 2016 election.

QUESTION: OK. So what you're saying is the president doesn't have an obligation to provide any ...

SPICER: No, I'm not saying that at all -- not at all. What I'm saying is, the request that was made from the House was to the Department of Justice. I think that that's an appropriate question to ask them. What I'm telling you is from a White House perspective, there is no question that there have been an abundance of reports regarding surveillance and other type of activities that occurred during the 2016 election.

QUESTION: And that leads us to believe that the president's only evidence is the -- are these reports.

SPICER: No, no, no. That -- that -- that leads you to believe that. I'm saying to you -- right. And I'm saying to you is that what we made clear on that Sunday was that the House and Senate intelligence committees have the means, the process, and the access to go in and look at the entirety of the evidence that's being presented to them and make a determination that they can report back to us.

QUESTION: Following up on Major's question. Does the president feel that he has an obligation once the investigation is over to release some sort of statement in response to whatever the findings are? That's my first question. I have a second one for you.

SPICER: Well, let's get there first. I think to start to presume what the outcomes going to be before the House and the Senate look at all of the evidence and information and reports that are presented to them would be a bit presumptuous.

So I think let's -- let's -- let's slow down a little, let them look at everything, and then let them make some determinations.

QUESTION: My second question for you: Has President Trump donated his paycheck from the month of February like he promised to do during the campaign?

SPICER: The president's intention right now is to donate his salary at the end of the year and he has kindly asked that you all help determine where that goes. The way that we can avoid scrutiny is to let the press corps determine where to go. He will -- in all seriousness, I think his view is, he made a pledge to American people, he wants to donate it to charity and he'd love your help to determine where it should go.

QUESTION: May I suggest that a correspondence association ...

(CROSSTALK)

SPICER: That would be -- that'll be a great way ...

(CROSSTALK)

SPICER: That will be a great way to do it.

QUESTION: I wanted to follow up with you on questions regarding Michael Flynn who's no longer in the administration, there's a five- year lobbying ban that's been imposed upon all Trump administration employees.

SPICER: Right.

QUESTION: Does that also apply to Michael Flynn? Would he not be permitted to lobby now for five years because of the agreement that he signed when he became the national security advisor?

SPICER: That would be correct. I've gotta -- I'd have to check and actually figure out when he signed or if he signed the form but yes, all administration officials who come in are required to sign that affix pledge banning them from lobbying for five years and then a lifetime ban on lobbying on behalf of any foreign government.

QUESTION: Related to that, what are the repercussions if an employee of this administration lobby's within five years, where is the teeth (ph), what -- what's the penalty? What's the punishment that would be imposed on that particular Trump administration employee?

SPICER: I'd have to get back to you. I don't know where -- whether that's a Department of Justice aspect or not but I will get back to you. Yes.

QUESTION: I was wondering, did the president (inaudible) to stay on during their conversation during the transition or not?

SPICER: I was not privy (ph) of that conversation. Again, I don't -- I -- I'm not really sure how it's relevant at the end of the day. The Department of Justice has all remaining 46 that at this time that they ask for all of them to submit their letters resignation based on the same kind of precedent that was set during both the Clinton and then the Bush administrations in terms of the timeline and the format.

QUESTION: I just wanted to ask about days (inaudible) visiting Mar-a- Lago April 6th and 7th. Can you confirm that visit and talk about what you want to accomplish with that type of less formal visit? And secondly, with respect to that visit, still don't have a confirmed ambassador, we don't have an Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia affairs. How does that affect your planning and ability to really properly brief the president and make sure he has a strong position?

SPICER: So planning is ongoing for a visit between President Trump and President Xi at a date to be determined. We're not ready to confirm that. We will have more details. It's the purpose of this meeting -- of that kind of a meeting to help diffuse tensions over North Korea and the recent deployment of the THAAD military battery to South Korea.

Any meeting between the president of the United States and the Peoples Republic of China would necessarily cover a broad range of topics of mutual concern. Secretary Tillerson is traveling to the region now. So I think as we go forward, we'll have additional details on both the timing and the location of that when we go forward.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

SPICER: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: The implication of you talking about Tillersons' visit, that he's going to be...

(CROSSTALK)

SPICER: Well, I just think -- I mean, he's in the region. I'm sure that in his visit to Japan, South Korea and China that preparations will come up, as well as areas of mutual concern.

Yes?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

SPICER: He just jumped in..

(LAUGHTER)

What's that?

QUESTION: Was it me?

SPICER: Sure, let's go one at a time.

QUESTION: There's been a rash of attacks on LGBT community centers throughout the nation. Over the weekend, the community center here in D.C., Casa Ruby, was attacked and a transgender staffer was assaulted. And this follows similar attacks that have taken place in recent days in Orlando, Florida, New Jersey and Oklahoma. This is not unlike the anti-Semitism that the president's already denounced.

Will the president also denounce these attacks?

SPICER: Sure. I mean, I think that -- I think one of the points that we've made in previous statements on this is that this is not the way that we as Americans solve our differences. We don't attack each other, we don't engage in this kind of behavior. I think we have a First Amendment that allows us to express ourselves and that's the appropriate way. But doing it where you're threatening violence or destruction or vandalism is inappropriate in all of its forms.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) withdrawal of the transgender guidance, do you think?

SPICER: Is what?

QUESTION: Is this all connected to...

SPICER: I don't believe that there is any connection between -- I think that that would be a stretch, to say the least.

Yes, ma'am?

QUESTION: Thanks for taking my question. I wanted to ask about North Korea. You mentioned North Korea. Can you tell us a little bit about the (inaudible) of North Korea right now? And what direction do you think the administration is going in terms of (inaudible) you know, trying to manage the threats of North Korea?

SPICER: Well, as I mentioned, Secretary Tillerson's headed to the region. He'll meet with his counterparts in South Korea, Japan and then ultimately in Beijing. That's obviously going to be a major subject, and as I mentioned, when we ultimately meet with President Xi and others, that will be a discussion. It's something that he's talked about prior to the resignation of the last South Korean president, was something that had been part of an ongoing discussion.

So there's an ultimate -- there's an internal review that we continue to have. But then there's obviously a geopolitical conversation that we're having with partners in the region as we look to contain North Korea's military threat. Yes?

QUESTION: Thank you, Sean. Can you confirm that any cooperation with Russia with regard to Syria is off the table? And if not, is it fair to say that the forthcoming anti-ISIS plan does include some sort of cooperation with Russia?

SPICER: Well, I'm not going to get into what the plan -- I mean, the plan's not done yet, as I mentioned a couple of days ago. Secretary Mattis was briefing the principals and that plan is continuing to evolve. So I'm not going to start to rule out one country. But I think the president has been very clear in the past that if country shares our commitment to defeating ISIS and we can work with them in an area of shared mutual concern, then we will do so.

QUESTION: Second question. A Kremlin spokesperson said that Russian President Putin and President Trump will meet at the G20. Can you confirm that? And would the White House (inaudible) the possibility of a meeting before that?

SPICER: I will follow up on that. I don't have a date. I know that the team is working very actively with respect to bilateral meetings at the G20. I don't have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: Director Mulvaney said yesterday that he felt the Obama administration had been manipulating the unemployment rate. I'm wondering if that's a view that the president shares? And what evidence is there of that?

SPICER: Yeah, I think he was clearly referring to Obamacare with the number of people. But I would refer you back to him and his comments with respect to how he characterized that. I think he can -- he can discuss the precise nature of what he meant on that.

QUESTION: Does the president feel that the Obama administration had been manipulating (inaudible)?

SPICER: I think you know what the presidents' view is. He's made it very clear in the past what his comments were on how those numbers were articulated in the past. And I think there's a question between the total number of people that are employed -- and the president's comments in the past have reflected that his big concern was getting to the bottom of how many people are working in this country, and that the denominator, meaning the percentage rate of the total number of people, is not the most accurate reflection of how many people are employed in this country.

How many jobs we're creating, how many people are getting back to work, how many companies are committing to hiring more people is a much more accurate assessment of where we're headed as a country, where our employment is, where our economy is headed.

But to look at a number and say we have 4.7 or, you know, 4.8 or 5.9 percent unemployment is not necessarily an accurate reflection of how many people are actually working, seeking work or want to work, and if you know how they conduct those surveys, there's a lot of times when people whether they're older or younger or because of how long they've been searching for work are not considered statistically viable anymore and they're quashed away.

So I think how you look at the percentage of people working can sometimes be a manipulated number. The number of people that are added to the world every year -- every month, rather -- is a much more accurate understanding of what's happening in the economy.

Cecilia.

QUESTION: I just want to clarify your answer to Major's question. So will the DOJ and/or the administration comply with the deadlines to supply information to (inaudible)?

SPICER: Well, remember, it's the -- I mean, it's not -- the request was made of the DOJ, and so it's the proper venue to ask that question of is the Department of Justice.

QUESTION: But surely, the White House knows whether...

(CROSSTALK)

SPICER: We can't -- no, don't. You can't -- because it's interesting. In the past whenever we've had these conversations with another agency, the accusation from the press corps is that we're interfering in something. So you can't have it both ways. You can't say that we're interfering with someone when we talk to them and when we don't talk to them, it's surely you must know.

(CROSSTALK)

SPICER: So in this -- Major, hold on. Hey Major, Major. Cecilia's asking a question. So please -- I understand that. I saw the tick- tock. I understand it. That doesn't mean you get to jump in. Cecilia.

QUESTION: To follow up on Major's point (inaudible) this is a tweet from the president. Doesn't the president have an obligation...

(CROSSTALK)

SPICER: He does. And I think that we've made it very -- right. And we've made it very clear that we expect the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to do their job. I think there's a preponderance of reports that continues to come out about surveillance and actions that occurred during the 2016 election. Once they come up with their report -- and it was asked earlier today -- I think we can talk about the conclusions of that report.

But at this time, you can't say that we're going to (inaudible) to the House and the Senate and then comment every day. That was the entire goal of asking them to look into this further.

QUESTION: But will the DOJ comply with the deadlines...

(CROSSTALK) SPICER: I assume -- I understand -- my understanding is that they will. But again, I would ask them what their intention is and I believe there are certain things that they can and can't do in terms of classification and stuff, but I would leave it up to the Department of Justice to answer for the Department of Justice.

Kaitlyn (ph).

QUESTION: How is the press making Obamacare look good?

SPICER: Well, I think when you see some of these comparisons that occur in the -- they talk about who's going to win and who's going to lose, it misses a lot of the competition that's going to take place. It doesn't talk about the increased choice. I mean, right now, as the president has noted and Secretary of Price noted, in a third of all counties in five states, you have one choice.

Those analyses that are very trying to look at how much you'll pay and how much you won't A, don't take into consideration the competition that's going to occur, the choice that's going to occur. I mean, right now, you have one choice in a lot of places. You have no decision about how much you're going to pay and what you're going to get. Choice allows you to determine what scale of health care you need, what kind of package is good for you, your family or for your business.

And when you look at a lot of these analyses when you open up various major papers, they make it seem so simple. It's what are you going to get -- how much are you going to get paid for in this plan, how much are you going to get paid for under the current plan. It misses an entirety of the whole process which is that you don't have competition, number one.

Number two, and the bigger point that I think the president and a lot of others are getting to, is that the system is failing on its own. It makes it seem like it's all rainbows and puppies. At the end of the day, if you have a card and you're getting a subsidy but you're not getting care, you have nothing. And so walking into a doctor's office where you can hand them a card and say hey, I've got a $5,000 tax subsidy, if that doctor doesn't take the care or the deductible so high, then you really don't have anything.

And so to do an apples and apples comparison is hardly an accurate analysis of what the current situation is.

Zeke (ph).

QUESTION: Thanks, Sean. Just go back to the counter-ISIS plan. You mentioned earlier the plan isn't done yet. The president -- or the campaign said multiple times that within 30 days, he wanted that plan presented to him. Obviously (inaudible) National Security Council (inaudible).

SPICER: Right.

QUESTION: But is the president upset that he hasn't received it yet? And does that point to a difference between campaigning and governing that things take longer than he thought?

SPICER: No, I think there's a difference. The plan has been received, right? The issue, as you correctly point out in your question, is that now there becomes an aspect of the principals all discussing different priorities, different staffing levels, different funding levels. But the plan is here, as we noted a few weeks ago. It's being reviewed and there's providing input from different members of the principals and different members of the national security apparatus to make sure that the plan continues to evolve and is able to attack ISIS in a way that...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

SPICER: When?

QUESTION: Yes, when is it actually going to take steps?

SPICER: Well, I mean some pieces of it are, in the sense that he has talked to commanders on the ground. We've noted before some of the military action that's taken some of the authority that's been given to some of the commanders on the ground. That is actually taking the fight to ISIS on a daily basis.

I think the more holistic approach that he asked for will continue to evolve through the National Security process. But make no mistake, we're on it right now.

Sharon (ph)?

QUESTION: Thanks, Sean. On the executive order this afternoon, do you have a merit goal for either reducing the size of government or saving a certain amount of money, a review of the agencies?

SPICER: I don't know that Director Mulvaney has a target per say. I think that's part of the issue is that you go through each one of these and you evaluate them on the merit of what they do or don't do, or whether or not they've become bloated or depletive, or frankly just outdated or in need of technological advances. But there is a lot of -- there's no set number that we're driving down to as we review government.

Sometimes you just walk into an agency and you realize that agencies mission is no longer relevant or that it's duplicative in three other agencies. Or that there are too many people performing a function that no longer exists for a variety of reasons, but that's why the mission is critical that Director Mulvaney was given the mandate to go out and get all of these different agencies and departments to review themselves and to provide feedback for him as to where we could go.

Gabby (ph)?

QUESTION: Thanks, Sean. You had said previously that the republican health care plan won't be a one size fits all approach, but the current plan preserves Obamacare health benefits requirement, which literally combined insurance at the Federal levels, so how do you reconcile those two things? SPICER: What's missing right now is choice. That's the number one issue. We tried to solve a problem and when I say we, the government, with respect to Obamacare back in 2008, 2009. The issue was that in order to solve a problem for several million people being without health care insurance, we up-ended the system for everybody. So, we had employer-based health care, if you Tricare, Medicare, Medicaid -- and it was exactly the opposite approach.

We went in to solve a problem that a small fraction of Americans had and we up-ended the entire system forcing premiums to go up and choice to go down for everybody. I think that when you can institute choice and competition back into the system, that's something that's going to benefit everybody. That's exactly the opposite of what's happening.

QUESTION: Does phase two or phase three of this eliminate those requirements?

SPICER: I think phase two, the administrative phase, will look at a lot of those requirements. Phase three -- again, they're not necessarily -- they can run concurrently and I think the House is looking at starting a lot of that legislation. And so -- and Dr. Price has already starting to look through a lot of that administration -- administrative aspects of it as well at HHS to figure out how do we start to achieve some of this to unravel some of these pieces that are there.

But instilling choice and competition, allowing people to buy their insurance over state lines, allowing small businesses to pool, allowing the expansion of health savings accounts, all of those kind of factors are going to drive down costs. But also, having the insurance companies be able to frankly, be able to offer additional choices and options for people is in itself going to be a huge bonus.

Charlie (ph)?

QUESTION: A lot of conservatives are complaining or suggesting that the President doesn't fully back the Paul Ryan health care plan. Has the President spoken with Paul Ryan about the plan and have they had any conversations about the future in Congress?

SPICER: They have spoken, yes. The -- I don't know when the last time they had. The President is fully committed to this plan. I think you saw Secretary Price and Director Mulvaney out discussing it this weekend. Their committed to the plan. And look, Director Mulvaney made it very clear this weekend as well that if through the process, we can find some ideas that make agencies stronger, more patient-centered piece of legislation that will ultimately will benefit Americans, then we're going to do it.

That is not -- we're not saying this is the only way forward. As it works its way through the House and then also move it through the Senate, if there are ways that we can enhance the bill through the legislative process, we're willing to do that.

Peter (ph)?

QUESTION:

(OFF-MIKE)

SPICER: Would you like to know?

(LAUGHTER)

Okay, thank you. The President spoke to the Chancellor of Germany. They agreed that due to the current weather that the meeting should be postponed. The meeting has been rescheduled to March 17th, this Friday. Same schedule of events on March 17th.

QUESTION: I'll ask my question if I can very quickly --

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

SPICER: Assistance with the...

QUESTION: ...so that's news. You spoke on behalf of the President, quoting him on the jobs report on Friday.

SPICER: Yes.

QUESTION: You said, they may have been phony in the past but it's very real now. I guess the question --

SPICER: They are very real now.

QUESTION: They are very real now. Why should Americans trust the President? Should they trust the President? Is it phony or real when he says that President Obama was wiretapping him?

SPICER: Well again, let's get back. I think there's two things that are important about what he said. I think recognizing that it's -- he doesn't really think that President Obama went up and tapped his phone personally, I think. But I think there is no question that the Obama administration, that there were actions about surveillance and other activities that occurred in the 2016 election. That is a widely reported activity that occurred back then.

The President used the word wiretap in quotes to mean broadly surveillance and other activities during that. And that is, again, something -- it is interesting how many news outlets reported that this activity was taking place during the 2016 election cycle and now are wondering where the proof is. It is many of the same outlets in this room that talked about the activities that were going on back then.

QUESTION: So on the same topic, on the CBO report, did the President think it was real then and is phony now?

SPICER: What CBO report?

QUESTION: On the expectation the CBO report is coming out, about which you said, if you look at the CBO for accuracy, you're looking in the wrong place. Three years ago you said of the CBO report that it confirms Obamacare is bad for the economy.

SPICER: Well it was bad for the economy.

QUESTION: So the bottom line is, the question is, was it real then and is now phony? As you said, it's not place to find (ph) accuracy.

SPICER: OK. So let's look at the CBO's projection. It said -- their projection on Obamacare was that in 2016, it would have 24 million people on it. The actual figure is 10.4 million people. Less than half the number of people that it predicted would be insured were on it, and it's declining.

So the only point, Peter, is to make sure that people understand, if you're looking to get a bulls eye accurate prediction to where it's going, the CBO was off by more than half last time.

So -- this is not about what my understanding or my belief of the CBO is. The last time they did this, they were wildly off and the number keeps declining. And so the question that needs to be asked right now, or frankly the awareness that needs to be brought up right now, is that if you're going to look at a number tonight, I think you have to look at the scope of whether that number is -- now, it was bad for the economy. That was right. You can glean that from the direction, what the impact that it had. But as far as their numbers on the number of people that they predicted back then would be covered now, they were off by more than half.

QUESTION: The question is, when can we trust the President when he says like --

SPICER: Hold on. You asked a question about the CBO. And now you're conflating it with a question about the President. The question is --

QUESTION: No. I have a question about wiretapping first, then we went on to CBO. So the question in simple terms is, when he says something is -- when he says something, can we trust that it's real?

SPICER: Yes.

QUESTION: Or should we assume that it's phony? Well no, no, how can it be believed that it's real when you just told us it was phony --

SPICER: I did not tell you that, Peter, and you're trying to --

QUESTION: It was on Friday that the President said -- (inaudible) you didn't -- the President said the numbers were phony then but they're very real now. So how can we --

SPICER: Also, I think there's a big -- hold on. I think the difference is, the President was talking then and now about job creation. The number of jobs. The issue that he brought up in the quote that you're talking about was the percentage of people who are unemployed. And there is no question that no matter how you look at this, whether you talk about 4.7 or 4.8 or whatever the number is, that number is -- fluctuates by how people calculate who's is in the workforce. OK, Peter, let me answer the questions. You're not. Let me answer.

The bottom line is, the percentage of people who are unemployed varies widely by who you're asking and the way you do the analysis of who is actually in the workforce. The number of people who are working and receiving a paycheck is a number that we can look at.

Secondly, when you're asking about the validity of the CBO report, again, I refer you to the CBO itself. The number that they issued that would be insured in 2016 was 26 million people. The actual number is 10 -- excuse me, 24 million. The actual number is 10.4. That's not a question of our credibility. It's a question of theirs. Do you have anything more?

QUESTION: The bottom line is, the question you still have not answered is, can you say affirmatively that whenever the President says something, we can trust it to be real?

SPICER: If he's not joking, of course. But in that case -- hold on. No, no, you're --

(CROSSTALK)

SPICER: No, no. But your point is, if he's -- every time that he speaks authoritatively that he's speaking as president of the United States.

QUESTION: More than 3 million Americans voted illegally? Was that (inaudible) was he joking or does he believe that?

SPICER: He does believe it. Thank you. Julie --

QUESTION: I have a health care question, but first, can we just get an answer one way or the other about whether the President directed the Department of Justice to respond to this?

SPICER: No, he did not.

QUESTION: Does he plan to?

SPICER: I answered the question.

QUESTION: So on health care, Secretary Price said on Sunday that nobody will be worse off financially and more people will be covered than are currently with the plan that you guys are pushing. Paul Ryan acknowledged that people are going to lose coverage. So what is the goal here? You just said you're open to modifications to the plan if you find that there's a better way to do it.

Is the goal that people not lose coverage? Or is the goal that ...

SPICER: Well again there's a false argument there, which is that they have coverage. People have cards, they've been told they have things, but they can't -- they keep walking in -- the President met with nine individuals this morning that you're told they're going to get coverage for something -- there are told that they're going to have all of these subsidies. They walk in and they don't get covered. They don't have the care that they need.

There is a difference between walking around with someone and saying hey I've got a card and I have care. And that's a big big difference. Right now when you have a third of the counties in the country that have one choice and going down a number of insurers leaving markets, then it's -- the system is collapsing. So the question has to be to everybody who is not with us on this is what is your alternative? Because right now the current system of Obama care is failing every American who has Obama care and frankly for those who don't have Obama care, for those who have employer based insurance, for those who have Tri care or Medicare, they're going into doctor's offices, more and more we're telling them we don't accept that.

QUESTION: You're talking about quality and about cost, I'm talking about coverage.

SPICER: Yes but, that's the point, is that you're missing the point. If you keep taking about coverage -- care is what matters. If you can't walk in and get seen, if you can't get a doctor to see you, then you don't have coverage. I mean that's -- that's what this is all about. Being told you have coverage, but you can't go see a doctor, or you can't afford to see a doctor is not coverage.

QUESTION: Thank you Sean. I have two questions. First, Democratic leader Pelosi said on Friday that every single Democrat would vote against the American health air plan (ph), the plan backed by members -- Republican members of Congress and the Administration. The Freedom caucus in the house has come out for Senator Paul's plan. When one simply does the arithmetic of Democratic members and freedom caucus members, that's a majority against the plan.

How does the administration plan to overcome the arithmetic?

SPICER: Well we're going to continue to work with members of the House and then eventually the Senate. I feel very good, and since the President continues to engage with members, that we will have the votes necessary. I think speaker Ryan agrees with that as well. We're going to have the votes to single (ph) pass and we'll move on to the Senate.

QUESTION: The other question is this. In recent weeks there's been considerable attention on the upcoming elections in the Netherlands on Wednesday and in France in a few weeks. Candidates Geert Wilders of the Netherlands was here for the CPAC conference and representatives of Marine Le Pen of France were here. Many analogies were made between these candidates and President Trump and they offer words of praise for him or did so, through their representatives. Is he aware of these candidates in Europe who invoke his name and image and if so what does he think of these would be Trumps and Trumpettes?

SPICER: I don't know the answer to that. I think most of these are -- we'll allow sovereign nations to have their own elections without interference from us.

QUESTION: Sean, can I follow up on Peter and James (ph) question?

SPICER: Sure.

QUESTION: Two issues again. Whether the President and director Mulvaney to a lot of (inaudible) in the Congressional budget office, members of the Senate will -- when they get -- if they get legislation from the House -- so my question is what does the President and the administration intend to do to establish to Senator's satisfaction that the numbers coming out of the congressional budget office, of which the President will question, are not substantial and can be countered by other information. In other words is OMB doing it from a score, is the President relying on a think tank to counter the messaging? Because Senators are already indicating that they will put weight in (inaudible) score?

SPICER: Yes. And again I think this is part of an ongoing discussion with members as far as philosophical -- what do they believe. In a lot of these aspects is this plan, in keeping with what they have supported in the past. Obviously they're going to look at the score, I get it. That's part of it and there are pieces of it that they may historically have more weight in than others. But I think this is going to be -- as I mentioned to John (ph), I mean it's an ongoing conversation with members of the House and ultimately the Senate with respect to whatever comes out. But in the same way that members relied on the score last time, they were way off. And I think that we have to remind them that, you know if this is what you're basing your vote on, you know you have to look at you know the historical context in which that information was provided.

I think that's an important, you know aspect to how they do it. But I think there's going to be a ton of factors that people rely on.

Yes of course.

[14:00:00]