tv White House Defends Spending Bill Saying It Delivers on Promises CSPAN May 2, 2017 8:14pm-8:56pm EDT
delivered a budget that funds the rebuilding of the united states military, makes historic investments in border security, and provides health care for our miners and the school choice for disadvantaged children. very importantly, there is no long-term bailout for the insurance companies that the democrats desperately wanted to subsidize, the badly failing obamacare. you'll learn about donors when you get a little older. i used to be a donor. i used to get everything i wanted. this is what winning looks like. folksing that's you really know a lot about. >> later in the afternoon, homeland security john kelly and white house budget mick mulvaney made an appearance at the white house briefing.
spicer left his daily briefing without taking questions from reporters. >> today we're going to have john kelly talk about what is in the bill to protect the country and keep our borders say. once the secretaries done he has do get to a meeting with the president to talk about the wall. and taking to drive down illegal immigration and border crossings.
after he's done, the director of management and budget, mick mulvaney will come up and talk about the overall status of the president's priorities in the funding bill and take your questions. so without further >> well, i've talked to many in the media over the last 100-plus days about the things our department does on a daily basis to keep our nations safe. in the past 100 days we've been incredibly successful in enforcing the law and defending the nation. i believe this budget will help us begin to improve the way we do business and how we accomplish our goals to make this country more secure. the department's base discretionary budget authority is $42.4 billion and we can never, in my opinion, invest too much in the security of our citizens or in our communities and we'll be able to sustain the critical security operations,
and make improvements that will make us all safer. that includes hiring i.c.e. agent, improving cybersecurity and funding grants that support state and local communities and funding the coast guard operations at $344 million above the fy-17 budget request and as promised, the budget would secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws. voter security has three factors. you need people. you need technology and you need an infrastructure. this budget begins to provide all three. it will help us replace see-through steel wall along the southwest border and it will help us put more enforcement aircraft in the skies. it will help us to deploy more technology to stop illegal activity crossing our borders. it keeps us moving in the right direction to a more secure united states. we've accomplished so much with the resources we already have. if i may remind you apprehensions and illegal immigrants and criminals at the border are down significantly, but we need more to keep moving
forward. this is our government's largest investment in border security in ten years. we are getting the tools we need or beginning to get the tools we need to make a change, but frankly, i am shocked at the behavior of some individuals in public service or public office that instead of celebrating how they've managed to reduce the amount of money for our border wall, a wall that will make us more secure that will prevent drug smuggling and rejoicing in the fact that that wall will be slower to be built and consequently our southwest border under less control than it could be. these appropriations provide a solid investment to people and technology that helps our department protect the homeland. we face a variety of hazards with man made and natural factors and this budget begins to help us confront them all.
i would like to thank, as i always do, all of the men and women of dhs who take on this often thankless, often dangerous and very, very difficult job and they do it every day superbly. i am proud to lead them. most americans appreciate what they do and thank them every day. most public officials also appreciate and defend them, but there are many who owe them an apology, many in public service who owe them an apology, and frankly, many in the media for how they disrespect them, disrespect them for what they do and how they serve us every day. with that, i would like to introduce the director of omb. mick? >> all right. let's get the important things out of the way first. thank you for being here. shawn said i can't do this and today is my anniversary. hi, pam. i love you very much. it's my 19th anniversary.
good, we got that out of the way. [laughter] believe me, i wish i were home and not here with you people. those of you that know me know it's a miracle that i've been married to anybody for 19 years. [laughter] we're here to talk about the bipartisan spending bill, okay? and i want to focus that description first before we go into details. a lot of folks have asked us over the course of the last 24/48 hours with republicans in charge of the house and the senate and the white house, why do we need a bipartisan spending bill and one of the things that's not being discussed as openly as it should is this is one of those bills that requires 60 votes in the senate and it's not like the health care bill. >> we have to have at least eight democrats support this in the senate which is why we've been working with democrats in the very beginning and yes, we could have passed out of the house and it never would have passed out of the senate and we would have been accused of not being able to function and run the government. there is a very good reason that
we're working with democrats on a bipartisan bill and that is because we must, and until those rules change, that's the environment that we'll continue to operate in. the dems have been trying to claim victory on this which is a strange way of having a bipartisan discussion and i think it's very unusual for one group to spike the football and say we won and killed the other guys and it doesn't bode well for future discussions and since the democrats have raised the issue, and i think it's important today and only fair to show you what's really in the bill and how the president actually cut a tremendous deal for the american people. at the end of the day that's who we think won in this discussion and this negotiation and not the democrats and not the republican, but the american people. first, the list of things that republicans got in the negotiation. you've heard a bunch of different numbers about the top line defense number that i've heard as low as 10 and 12.5 million.
the number is $21 billion. that's made up of two number, $15 billion in a stand alone oko, overseas contingency account, and another 6 billion in the underlying do dbil. remember, this is an omnibus bill which means it's made up of different appropriations bills and one of those bills which is part of the omni bus is the defense appropriations bill and in that bill is $6 billion. you take the six that's in the underlying bill and the 15 that was added at the supplemental and that's how you arrive at the $21 billion. the $12.5 billion is wrong. the $15 billion number is wrong. you could talk about a number as high as $25 billion if you wanted to compare it to fy-2016, and you could never go below $21 billion which is a full two-thirds of what we would ask for in the beginning and i would
talk about the $1.522 billion of additional spending and that's not all of the spending on total security. the total dhs number by the time we're finished will be north of $42 billion. the largest funding levels for border security in the last ten years is what we'll have at the end of this process. that's where this negotiation has taken us to the largest spending on border security in ten years. we'll go over the details of that in a second. miners' health, and the democrats walked out of the room and said they protected the miners' health. so did the president. the president has been asking me since the day i got here for the way to fix the miners' health issue problems that they have in appalachia, and the every single protection that the democrats wanted to get rid of is still in the bill and every pro-life protection that we wanted in the bill and the democrats wanted
out is gone, okay? and most importantly and those of you in the room and those that take the time to watch this during the day understand this and follow this business fairly closely. we broke parody and for those of you covering this in a long time know what it means and ever since the sequester went in, was there this unwritten deal of capitol hill which is for every dollar of defense spending that the republicans wanted they had to give $1 worth of nondefense spending for the democrats and that was the deal that president trump was able to cut during his last years in office. we got $21 billion in defense spending for less than $8 billion of non-defense spending. we didn't go dollar for dollar. we got a dollar of spending and only gave $.20 of discretionary. that's a tremendous development for the president and a huge win from the negotiating standpoint. think about that for a second, we've gone from dollar for
dollar to $.20 and part of that is stuff that we like. so the miners' health is included in that number. so even some of the stuff we gave away, supposed lead to get the defense spending was stuff we liked in the first place. what didn't the democrats get? the new obamacare bailout money in this package. i've seen it on the news, go find it for me. it is not there. what the democrats are telling you about that is false. there's absolutely no language in this bill that requires us to make any obama bailout payments of any way, shape or form as a result of this deal, okay? why are the democrats saying that? because it's what they told their base they would deliver and they failed to do that for their base. that is not in the bill. there's no new money for puerto rico. the democrats are crying out they got $295 million from puerto rico. not a penny of it is new money. all of that money was actually
already spent and it was part of obamacare under a previous agreement. that money was sitting there unspent and all we agreed to do was agree to let them move it from one place to another. it did not cost the taxpayer a penny. they wanted new money and they wanted a bailout and we wouldn't give it to them and we gave them money that was appropriated and already spent. no renewable energy subsidies. they wanted at the last minute they threw in a demand for wind and solar and those types of things and we kept those out. what they really didn't get is this and this is what they wanted. >> they wanted a shutdown. we know that. they were desperate to make this administration look like we couldn't function, like we couldn't govern and we know that a large part of their base especially their left-wing base wanted a shutdown and they didn't want us to cut a deal with us and that's why they see them crowing about the success and they cut a deal with president trump and president trump did a tremendous job.
what are we talking about? more money for spending -- excuse me, more money for defense. more money for border security, more money for school choice, another thing that we got, okay? those of you who were here in march and saw me introduce our first version of our budget blueprint saw me talk about the president's priorities. what were they? defense, border security, school choice. the president delivered on his promises and got his priorities funded and that's what the democrats don't want you to know. they want you to think they won. what they don't want you to know is the american people won here because the president simply outnegotiated them. i'll take questions and if i can bring the pictures up now that would be great. i want to come back to one thing. you've heard me talk a lot over the last couple of weeks saying there's no bricks and mortar and no bricks and mortar and no bricks and mortar for a wall on this. we can do this. and we're going build this. there are several hundreds of millions of dollars for us to replace cyclone fencing with 20-foot high steel wall.
there are several hundreds of millions of dollars in the bill for us -- can we bring up the other photo, please? do we have the other photo? there are several hundreds of millions of us to build levy walls and some of the most vulnerable areas that we have are along rivers in order to provide the protection of the southern border that we need, okay? >> we are building this now. there is money in this deal to build several hundreds of millions of dollars on this to replace this, and that's what we've got in this deal and that's what the democrats don't want you to know. this stuff is going up now. why? because the president wants to make the country more safe. this doesn't stop drugs and doesn't stop criminals from stopping the border. it doesn't stop anything from crossing the border. this does and that's what we got in this deal and that's why we are so excited about the opportunities that we have to follow through on the president's promises to secure the southern border. so unless we have the other picture i'll take a couple of questions.
>> how do you say that fence will come over the border and they tunnel under the border. >> the general left. this is the wall, by the way, that dhs said they wanted. i've sat in the oval office with the president and we talked about bricks and mortar and concrete walls. this is what dhs wants. why? because it works better. you can tunnel under anything. i'll answer your question. you can see through this one. it is actually safer. where we have this in place now and we do. it's safer for our border patrol agents and you can talk to the dhs about the details and there has been a dramatic reduction in attacks on the border patrol agents where you can see through the wall and no one can throw anything over the top at them and it's half of the cost so we can build twice as much and a huge win for border security. >> the president tweeted out looking ahead to fiscal 2018 a shutdown is just what's needed to clean up the budget mess. do you agree with that?
can you expand on that? >> i've been through a couple of shutdowns. let me answer that question this way. that's a good discussion to have in september. i think the president is frustrated with the fact that he negotiated in good faith and they went out to spike the and they went to spike the football and made him look bad. i think that is a terrible posture for the democrats to take. if we want washington to be different, and they do that to this president, i would have taken offense at that. this does not surprise me that his frustrations or manifested in that way. we have a lot to do between now and september. i don't anticipate a shutdown in september. if democrats won't behave better in the next couple days, it may be inevitable. >> [inaudible] dir. mulvaney: sooner or later we will have to start doing
something different. i can make the argument we have done something different today by getting rid of parity and going to something new. that may help us change town a little bit. if we get to september and it's still business as usual and nothing changes and it takes a shot down to change it, i have no problem with that. >> thank you mr. director, happy anniversary. dir. mulvaney: my wife and i really enjoy spending in this way. the couple weeks ago chairman of the mexican governors association says the effort to get appropriations in the budget meant that the administration was given up on having mexico pay for the wall, as the president promised. other mexican politicians have repeated what the governor has said. what is your response to that?
we have had the opportunity to move quicker than expected. because the president was not able to add a full-term cr, we got a bite at the presidential apple. note of this would have been available. another the additional spending -- none of of the additional spending would be there because president obama would not have signed that. we got a second bite at the 20 17th apple. my job is to spend the money. we are working to get mexico to pay for it. that is not my concern right now. we are trying to get this thing billed. >> it looks like you have a wall they are already. -- there already. dir. mulvaney: this is the picture of the levee wall. this is what it looks like when it is currently built.
this will be replacing cyclone fencing. spendthat a good way to the government's money? dir. mulvaney: i think securing the border is a good way to do it. there are places where we can start land acquisition for next year. we can do that in this bill. we can ramp up higher border agents. we have detention centers that so we can end catch and release. full, and we have added those beds. an entire wall across the entire u.s. mexico border? is amulvaney: no, this several your process. you could not build all of that in one year. >> yesterday you said "i think it's great that the democrats
like the bill. we think it is a great deal for the administration as well." so what changed? yesterday it was great that they were pleased with it, and today it is an outrage, it is spiking football? what changed? dir. mulvaney: what i said yesterday is what you would ordinarily say walking out of a negotiation. want, something that we -- i will not stand for it because it is not true. i would rather they be truthful. >> you were saying that the obamacare subsidies are not targeted still. does that mean this demonstration is going to soften its decision? dir. mulvaney: the payments are due the 21st of every month. we have not made any decisions at all.
what do you say to the members of your own party that say this negotiation do not have what you wanted? dir. mulvaney: mike huckabee tweeted something earlier, they are not happy with it. them say, no bricks and mortar, it is all about technology. i would be happy to have this discussion with everybody and convince them that this is a good deal. my guess is that they have been reading the washington post sec. kelly: and have heard the democrat side of the story. [inaudible] why doesn't he just do that? dir. mulvaney: we are giving it a chance to work. we are showing that we can govern and we can. we can also fund our priorities. whenould you shut it down
you have cut a fairly good deal for the american people? what you heard this morning was his sense of frustration how he is being mistreated by the democrats on a bipartisan piece of legislation. >> you say democrats wanted to do what they did to force a shutdown. we have heard the term shutdown a lot. folks at home may be saying, my gosh, we are barely 100 days into this -- what does that mean for infrastructure, government spending in september? this is just year one. is thatvaney: the tone they have a president that can run the place. that is not a narrative you hear coming out of sources. you have a president willing to work with democrats and republicans. disappointed how the democrats have acted after the deal. you have a president that knows how to run the country.
you have people that were convinced we were going to have a government shutdown. the message we are sending is that we are competent, we know what we are doing, and the countries safe in our hands. this goes to prove that. >> i want to follow up on that. i am a little confused. you said the democrats wanted a shutdown. dir. mulvaney: i really believe that. "ther president tweeted country needs a good shutdown in september>" wouldn't it clearly be the president's fault? he is the one calling for it. dir. mulvaney: between now and then you have infrastructure, the debt ceiling, tax reform to deal with. what you heard the president expressed this morning was frustration over being treated in the negotiation. maybe it gets to that point.
i think a lot of things will happen between now and then. to your first point about the democrats, i think it was reported that there was a great deal of disagreement within the house democrats over this deal. convinced when we wanted money for the wall, that we would shut the government down. when we took those requests off the table, they were flabbergasted. itme of them wanted to shut down. their base may not be happy to know that we are building this, we are taking their taxpayer money to build this. my guess is that won't feel very well with folks on the left, but they will have to deal with it. doing away with the legislative filibuster -- is that a good idea? is that what you need? dir. mulvaney: clearly we didn't
need it. with the results be better? would there be less animosity? maybe. there has been discussion on the hill for the last couple years about limiting the filibuster with appropriations bills. heref the reasons we are is the appropriations process is broken. the way it is supposed to work is that the house passes and appropriations bill on a topic, say military construction and va, the senate passing a bill on the same thing, going to conference committee and putting it on the president's desk. i don't think that has functioned since the last decade. the reason we can't get back to that process is because the senate is requiring 60 votes on every appropriations bill. that is forcing this discussion about continuing resolutions, and shutdowns, which are simply not productive. >> what does the president --
how does the president to find a good shutdown? -- define a good shutdown? dir. mulvaney: if there is such a thing -- i said this during my confirmation -- shutdown is not a goal. it is not a negotiating tool. if you could imagine it, it is one that fixes this town, one that drives the message to people that it is as broken as they thought it was when the voted for donald trump. to fix washington dc, that would be a good shutdown. >> in the last shutdown 800,000 employees work indefinitely furloughed, others were required to work without getting paid. is that a good shutdown? dir. mulvaney: you and i have been through a shutdown before. every single one of those folks has gotten paid. during those temporary lapses-- that is why i say it is not
desirable. you asked what a good one would look like. one that fixes washington dc permanently. you mentioned defunding sanctuary cities. what about that meeting? dir. mulvaney: that meeting took place in early march. i came late to the game. i was put in this office february 17. the first week in march we were meeting with appropriators on the hill. the four that we laid out -- defense increases, border security, targeted reductions in spending, and sanctuaries and he's. -- sanctuary cities. we had to give up on those last two. it wasn't on our first list, but important to the president, which is school choice. that is the back-and-forth of negotiation. i think we got a tremendous
deal. >> you said in your statement before taking questions that the president delivered on his promises and got his priorities funded. that is not true. no funding for the border wall. no funding for a new wall along the u.s. southern border. planned parenthood -- dir. mulvaney: let me ask you a question. when you heard about the deal yesterday -- i will be happy to let you go if you answer my question. i don't jump to another person. take it as a whole, right? as far as the priorities you say are funded, no new border wall along the u.s. border -- planned parenthood was not defunded. you said another priority of the president would not carry through, and that is sanctuary cities.
said what youu said before and square that with the budget as realities concerned. dir. mulvaney: when you heard in the last 48 hours about the deal, did you think we could build it? i bet you didn't. is it a replacement for an existing wall? yes. it a new wall? no. it is better border security. you can call it a replacement. the president's priority is to secure the southern border, and that is what this does. we have a few more questions. let me finish your thing, planned parenthood. it is a fair question. we had a good discussion about that. after talking to some of our most pro-life supporters on the hill, this president has already
made his case fairly strongly for his pro-life position. pencew vice president break the tie on the states with medicaid funding. you have seen the executive orders. this bill includes all of the traditional productions for the pro-life movement, including the hind amendment. if you want to take a vote on the hill to stake out your position on planned parenthood, do it on the health care bill. if you want to prove to the folks back home that you are pro-life, then vote for the planned parenthood bill. i already talked about sanctuary cities. that is something that we gave up in the negotiation. military, for the more money for southern border security and more money for school choice. those are the same priorities i talked about in march when we
laid out the budget. that is how i can look you in the eye and say we funded our priorities. >> will the new border wall look like that one? will the new one built along the u.s. southern border look like there?rder wall right dir. mulvaney: tina certain places yes. -- in certain places yes. this ather words, is short-term fix? >> it is a 100 foot high steel wall. that is not a short-term fix. i will go to the lady in pink. >> i will follow-up on that. where is that the inbuilt and how many miles are you going to get out of it? dir. mulvaney: i think the total spending is $347 million. we haven't done the math yet. >> why are we talking about it? dir. mulvaney: it is more
expensive to build a wall in certain places. it is cheaper than building a new wall because we already have land acquisition. there are roads to service it. when you are building new walls, you have to start from scratch. you need the info structure just to get the construction teams to build. we have not done the left on where it will be. -- the math on where it will be. >> when can we see construction? when do you think you're going to go up and put up a wall? is. mulvaney: this wall being installed in the southern border today. >> when it comes to the wall and this budget, it is very expensive. that is one piece of the immigration issue. what about the larger piece of the immigration issue?
where is the funding when it comes to fixing the issue, when you have people overstaying visas? the immigration issue in the past and now, versus just dealing with the southern border. you have immigrants of all countries coming here versus just the southern border. dir. mulvaney: that is a fair question. it may not be satisfactory. firstly this is a pure funding bill. there are certain policies wrapped up into it. both parties would push back if you try to type funding immigration to a funding bill. this is a one year funding bill. it is not supposed to be a carrier for a long-term policy change. obviously from time to time they make exceptions. they don't like to do it on the hill. that is a technical answer to your question. to the larger discussion, why do this and ignore other topics?
this is not just rhetoric, i really believe this as a member of congress -- it is difficult to have a conversation about immigration until the southern border is secured. all of us in the room know the example of ronald reagan from the 1980's when he did amnesty in exchange for the southern wall and never got the wall. until we secure the southern border, we don't think it is productive to have a larger conversation about immigration. they were the ones trying to interrupt you. >> but they are not. the other piece is not there in the conversation from the white house. the majordealing with peace versus this expensive wall. why is there not talk about that? i think they:
administration needs to have credibility on this before we start talking about immigration with anybody. no one will take us seriously with immigration reform unless we have secured the southern border. folks in my party say, i want to talk about immigration reform, but you have to secure the southern border first. >> [inaudible] i am sorry, i have to get it when i can get it. sir, on aca, is it more about the numbers, or the issue when it comes to these possible waivers for states, when it comes to taking the substance abuse component out of the aca? this current president ran on the issue of fixing the opioid addiction, heroin addiction.
you have this piece where states can take substance abuse prevention programs out of aca. what are the numbers on that? how do you justify that when republican and democrat candidates ran on this? dir. mulvaney: i will speak to the philosophy. we really do believe that the states will do it better than we will. you have seen this commitment the president has two opioid abuse. i think there is money for it in this funding bill. we are committed to that. we also recognize the reality that states are more nimble and well attuned to their own populations. i was in the state legislature in south carolina. i would have loved on different levels to have the federal government write us a check and say, go help. while i don't have the numbers, that is the philosophy behind these waivers. the federal one size fits all
may not solve the problem. thatu mentioned earlier president trump was upset by how residents -- upset by how democrats portrayed the deal. dir. mulvaney: if that was the case, we would be vetoing this bill now. what he is foreshadowing is that this place has to change. the way we run the town has to be fixed. alongnot simply muddle using the same models of the previous administration. this is a change agent president. he is going to change washington dc. if it takes a shot down, that is what it takes. -- shutdown, that is what it takes. >> following up on this notion of a good shutdown, wouldn't most americans agree that a shutdown is bad? it seems as if you have answered your own question on a
government shutdown -- you have a compromised. republicans and democrats are passing something. both sides are not getting everything that they want. isn't that what the american people want? they want their government that o pass things that both sides can agree on? why would a shutdown be good? dir. mulvaney: that is what we have given them in this agreement. the president wants to see washington better, get better, get fixed, change the way it does business. >> and this is better? dir. mulvaney: it is, which is why it is frustrating to have the democrats say we won and they lost. that is not a bipartisan approach. that is what both sides always do. >> [inaudible] >> i wanted to ask you about republicans.
on the house side, there have been budget bills that simply can't get enough republican support to pass on their own. do you think it is possible to do a republican budget bill with republican votes alone? dir. mulvaney: i have voted for it myself. >> an actual appropriations bill? dir. mulvaney: many appropriations bills that have passed with republican support many realize. isy die because the senate incapable of passing a bill that has any chance in the house because they have to use the 60 vote threshold. i think you are selling the republicans short. you have let them speak their mind, let their voices be heard in the next appropriations process, which starts today. 2017 to an end. the discussion about 2018 funding starts now. we want to see the ordinary
appropriations process function. anything we can do at the white house to encourage that to happen, we will do it. we don't want to be having a discussion about a shutdown again. why would we have a shutdown in september? if the appropriations process is still not working by september, that is a bad thing for the country. one of the things that we like as members of the government is that the proper functioning of the appropriations process is critical to the constitutional function of the government. the house and senate are supposed to use the power of the purse. when they don't do appropriations bills, our constituent's voices are not heard. we hope that comes back as part of the process. we are pleased with the deal today. thank you very much. thank you for letting me have a shout out to my wife.