advanced out of committee. although he's disappointed to see democratic senators who previously expressed their support for alex acosta for labor secretary, nonetheless, while they previously supported him, seem to have stuck to a party line vote. the president looks forward to having them officially on the team as soon as possible. also this morning the department of commerce and first responder network authority first net announced that at&t will build the first nationwide broadband, a network dedicated to america's first responders. this step was part of the 9/11 commission recommendation on improving the ability of our police, fire and emergency medical personnel to communicate seamlessly across jurisdictions which is critical to their missions. it's also a sign of the incredible ability of public/private partnerships to drive innovation and solve some of our biggest problems while also creating jobs and growing the economy. back to the schedule. this afternoon the president hosted a legislative affairs lunch on opiod and drug abuse. it was an opportunity to discuss

the goals and agenda of the president's commission on combatting drug addiction and opiod crisis which he established yesterday. the commission, which is going to be chaired by new jersey governor chris christie is the next step in the president's promise to the american people that he would take real action to keep drugs from pouring into our country and corrupting our communities. under governor christie's leadership and working closely with the white house office of american innovation, the commission will bring together leaders on both sides of the aisle to find the best way to treat and protect the american people from this epidemic. many members in attendance at the lunch played a key role in passing the bipartisan comprehensive addiction and recovery act, also known as cara. first major federal addiction legislation in over 40 years which authorized over $181 million to fight the opiod epidemic. part of the mission of the president's commission will be to ensure that those funds are spent efficiently and effectively. too many lives are at stake to risk wasting any money on this

effort. moving on, later this afternoon the president will welcome prime minister rasmussen of denmark for a working visit. we'll have a readout on their bilateral meeting after its conclusion. i know hunter asked about the house and senate passage disapproving of the federal communications regulation on privacy rules from last year. so let me just expand on that and get to your question. the white house supports congress using its authority under the congressional review act to roll back last year's fcc rules on broad band regulation. the previous administration in an attempt to treat internet service providers differently such as google and facebook reclassified them as common carriers, much like a hotel or another retail out let. and open their door to an unfair regulatory framework. this will allow service providers to be treated fairly and consumer protection and privacy concernses to be viewed on an equal playing field. the president pledged to reverse the type of federal overreach in

which bureaucrats in washington take the interest of one group of companies over the interest of others picking winners and losers. the president signed more legislation under the congressional review act ending job killing rules and regulations than all previous presidents combined already, and he will continue to fight washington red tape that stifles american innovation, job creation and economic growth. jeff was here yesterday. roberta is here now. following up on jeff's question, he asked about the administration position on the paris climate treaty tpp we are currently reviewing issues related to the agreement and expect to have a decision by the time of the g-7 summit late may-ish if not sooner. i want to speak quickly about judge gorsuch and the process behind his nomination and confirmation. from the beginning the president's been clear and 100% transportation parent about his choices. if he had been elected who he would choose from. as a matter of fact, i say the level of transparency is probably unprecedented in modern times, at least.

he, during the campaign, he gave the american people 21 judges which he would pick his choice for the supreme court from. the american people sent him to the white house to nominate one of those judges and he did it. prior to the president making his final decision trb white house spoke with 29 senators more than half were from the democratic side of the aisle including every democrat member of the senate judiciary committee to seek their advice and consent on the nomination. the consensus was that the pick a main stream judge. as i laid out before to the extraordinary low rate of majority opinions accompanied by this end, judge gorsuch is a definition of a mainstream respected judge. he has offered the senate plenty of material to vouch for that. since his nomination, judge gorsuch met with nearly 80 senators. in response to requests from the senate judiciary committee, gorsuch provided the following. over 70 pages of written answers about his personal records in response to 299 questions for

the record by democrats on the committee, the most in raoepb history, which he submitted within six days of receiving the questions. over 75,000 pages of documents, including speeches, case briefs, opinions and written work going back as far as college. and over 180,000 pages of e-mail and paper record related to the judge's time at the department of justice. in fact, the department of justice provided access to many documents that would normally be guarded by various privileges in a historically unprecedented move in the spirit of cooperation with senate democrats. and the judge sat for three rounds and nearly 20 hours of questioning by the senate judiciary committee during which he was asked nearly 1200 questions, almost twice as many as justices cagen or ginsberg. the white house and the judge did all of this in the hope senate democrats, many of whom already announced their intent to filibuster judge gorsuch nomination would look beyond their political gains and see for themselves how qualified he

is to sit on the supreme court. unfortunately, it looks more and more like senate democrats would rather do all they did in reading and questioning for nothing more than political theater. finally before i take your questions, a letter was transmitted just recently to a ranking member and chairman of the house and senate intelligence committees that said, in the ordinary course of business, national security staff discovered documents that we believe are in response to your march 15th, 2017 letter to 2 intelligence community seeking, quote, documents necessary to determine whether information collected on u.s. persons was mishandled and leaked, end quote. we have will invite the senate and house ranking members and chairman up to the white house to view that material in accordance with their schedule. with that, glad to take a few of your questions. cheryl? >> thanks, sean. i'm trying to date the probability of a government

shutdown at the end of april. are your directions to the capitol hill to hold firm on the spending cuts that the president wants or to try to wheel and deal and get a bill that can keep the government open? >> i don't know that they are mutually exclusive. i think we want -- >> capitol hill -- >> there generally is. but i think that we want both. i think we want to maintain some of the spending priorities, as well as some of the reductions in the 2017 budget. we want to do so responsibly and do so within the priorities that the president's laid out. i think his funding requests and priorities are laid out in the budget that director mulvaney detailed and sent up for the remainder of 2017. there's some key things in that. it is going to begin a conversation that we will continue to have with the house and senate. but i don't think both of those goals are mutually exclusive. we don't want the government to shut down, but we want to make sure we're funding the priorities of the government. john decker?

>> thanks a lot, sean. i wanted to ask about some news the president made with a tweet he put out on twitter. he seemed to be picking a fight with the freedom caucus. the freedom caucus has 30 members. does the president realize how important the freedom caucus is, this coalition is, in terms of passing a replacement bill for the affordable care act and passing the rest of his legislative agenda? >> of course he understands the goal of all legislation is get to majority in the house. majority in the senate. and so at tend of the day he recognizes that he has a bold and robust agenda that he is trying to enact. that he ran on and told the american people that he would do when he was president. he's gonna get the votes from wherever he can. >> can he pass that agenda without the help of the freedom caucus? >> there's two questions. mathematically, yes. there are a few members of the caucus who have expressed a willingness to want to work with

him rather than necessarily as a block. and i think there continues to be some promising signs in that, with that. so again, part of it is if people are more concerned with voting as a block in what's the best interest of the american people, he's hoping that people will see the bigger picture, the goals that we outlined and sometimes not like the good of the enemy but the perfect. >> the tweet said that he would be in favor of primarying some individuals in the freedom caucus who oppose his agenda. is that correct? did i read that correct? >> i'm going to let the tweet speak for itself for those who think, or just for your understanding, it would be improper of me to discuss the election or defeat of any candidate from this podium. matt? >> sean, two questions if you don't mind. >> i want phenomenal questions from you. >> that's what i'll give you. >> you get it. >> i know, i got it.

white house officials provided representative nunes with the information that he spoke about last week. according to "the times" the senior director for intelligence who was hired by michael flynn started going through the documents after the president's tweet, the wire tapping tweet. i'm wondering if the white house thinks it's appropriate for national security officials to be conducting what basically is a political task which is trying to find information but then validate something the president said. >> yeah. so i have read the report and respectfully i think your question assumes that the reporting is correct. and so i would just suggest to you that the letter that was submitted earlier to the chairman of the ranking members of the two committees, two intelligence committees on the hill, the reason that the white house has asked them to come up is to view that information. and again, i don't want to get in front of that. as i have said before, we are

not as obsessed with the process as much as the substance. our goal is to make sure the ranking members of both committees, as well as the chairman, see the information that the materials that are important and then worry about the outcome at the end. >> and then on a different topic, with miss walsh's depa departure today, are you expecting any more shake-ups in the west wing? >> no. katherine. >> are you say -- >> i'm saying that in order to comment on that story would be to validate certain things that i am not at liberty to do. >> will you be able to tell us who he met with? >> there's an assumption as i have said before, we cannot condone -- in the same way that you protect sources when i call you and say you've got 18 anonymous sources and you go, i can't reveal my sources. chairman nunes has the

opportunity to have his sources. our view was that the smart move was to make all the materials available to the chairman and the ranking member of the relevant committees. and i understand the obsession with the process piece. but we are focused on the substance of it. i think the goal is to make sure people have the substance that are looking into this. that we have asked to look into this. >> did he not make himself available? >> we have sent a letter within the past few hours to both of those committees informing them that we wanted to>> what kind o think it sends to people watching? >> i think it sends a message that we want them to look into this. as we have maintained all along, that i think there's a belief that the president has maintained, that there was surveillance that occurred during the 2016 election that was improper, and that we want people to look into this and take the appropriate legal

responsible steps to understand it and then address it. major? >> i want to read something to you that you said here march 23rd when you asked the white house might have had any role in providing information to chairman nunes. you first said it didn't make sense. you went on to say, i don't know why he, chairman nunes, would brief the speaker then brief us on something that we would have briefed him on. i'm not aware of it. doesn't really pass the smell test. there's now reporteding, which i can't tell if you're disputing or not, that identifies two people within this white house as the sources of this information. i'm just trying to put these things together. you said doesn't pass the smell test on march 23rd. now there's reporting within the white house that they were the sources of this. i'm trying to put those two things togethered together. >> the first quote, if you go back, i was responding -- i was very clear that i said based on what chairman nunes has said, i believe the following doesn't

make sense. >> i get that. i'm guessing there's been something new since then. >> no, no. again, major, i have commented on this yesterday and today. your obsession with who talked to whom and when is not the answer here. it should be the substance. the same way when you print a story with 18 anonymous sources, your obsession is the substance. you seem to look at it from a backwards prism. what happened? who drove in what gate? what were they wearing that day? as opposed to what's the underlying substance of this? did something happen in the 2016 election? did leaks occur? we are not going to engage actively in that kind of leaking that has been a problem. in fact, if you look at the obama deputy assistant secretary of defense that is out there, evelyn farkus, she made it clear that it was their goal to spread this information around. that they went around and did this. she said, quote, that's why there's so many leaks.

they have admitted on the record that this was their goal. to leak stuff. literally she said on the record trump's team. there are serious questions throughout ab what happened and why. and who did it. i think that's really where our focus is in making sure that information gets out. >> can't the process from your vantage point validate the importance of the substance? >> well, i think there's a review that we've asked for. >> you told us that you're willing to look into it. i asked questions about the process. and provide us answers. >> hold on. please don't put words in my mouth. i never said we would provide you answers. we would look into it. the responsible thing for us to do is provide the individuals and the committees who are doing the review the materials they are looking for. or some of them. we don't know exactly what they're looking for. what they've seen or haven't. our goal is to be as forth right as possible. they asked the intelligence communities in a march letter for information. we have our willing to provide

them with the information that we have the materials that we have come across. i think that is important. again, it is not -- our obligation is to make sure a review is done in the house and senate. not to make sure that we illegally leak out information to you. >> when you say we have information, are you disputing the reports from "the new york times?" >> i am not commenting on the reports, major. >> you're saying we. >> the white house is not going to start confirming -- i get it. we are not going to start commenting on one off anonymous sources that publications publish. >> if it were wrong, would you tell us? >> i'm not going to get into it. i get it. how many times you can ask the same question. hunter? >> i have two questions. president trump is pushing for a major tax cut, increases in defense and infrastructure spending and the border wall. does he think this agenda has to be deficit neutral or is he open

to plans that might initially add to the debt? >> when it comes to tax reform, he's got three under lying goals. one is lower the rates. three is to grow jobs and the economy. part of it is if you look at it dynamically, as the plan develops. as i mentioned earlier, we're not there yet. we are in the process of engaging stake holders. there's a cost put on it. that's going to be a decision that gets looked at, as well as what are the job creation aspects of it. without knowing what the full scope of it, looking at it and answering it in a vacuum. >> if i can clarify one thing with "the new york times" story. i know you won't identify congressman nunes' sources, but isn't it clear some white house officials had to be involved in him getting information here because they would need to help him access the complex? >> i cannot get into who those individuals were. >> right. it was someone at the white

house. >> again, if i start going down the path of confirming and denying one thing, we're going down a very slippery slope. jessica? >> thank you for announcing the chinese president's visit. i have a few questions about that visit. can you talk about the location and how it was chosen for this visit? >> there is, as you can imagine, on any trip, no matter who the foreign leader is, there's a lot of discussion that goes back and forth between the white house, state department and the equivalent of the other head of governments, their appropriate counter part. those are the kind of things that go back and forth. in terms of how long, the activities, what will be discussed. every single thing is discussed on both sides. and so that was a long and on going negotiation with the government of china and with their representative lasting several weeks now. >> when did you arrive at mar

lago? >> i would suggest both sides discussed various locations and topics and agendas and aspects of the trip. this is what we arrived at. >> what's the goal for the white house to accomplish during the visit? >> i think there's a few things. one, this is an tune for president trump to develop a relationship in person with president xi. he's spoken to him on the phone a few times. but we have big problems. everything from the south china sea to trade, to north korea. there are big issues of national and economic security that need to get addressed. i think there's going to be a lot on the table over the two days that they will talk. >> the chinese are expecting the white house to provide some sort of frame work for the relationship to be viewed before. are you prepared for that? can you talk about what that framework might be? >> can you expand on that a little? >> kind of sort of a floor under the relationship, looking for how to review the relationship. obviously had the rebalance, the

pivot in the previous administration. is there a tag line or vision for u.s./china relations that you will roll out during this visit? >> we'll see. if you have any hash tags, let me know. i think right now we're not worried so much about slogans so much as progress. there are a lot of big things that we need to accomplish with china. we will work on them. kristen. >> the president direct anyone in this white house or in this national security team to try to find information or intelligence to back up claims of wiretapping? >> i don't -- i'm not aware of anything directly. i'd have to look into that. there's two sides to this. one is the information side, and two is the policy and the activities and the legal piece of what happened. and i don't -- those are big buckets, if you will. >> it's possible? >> i'm not going to comment. >> one more. don't sort of the daily questions about this make it necessary to have some type of

outside independent investigation to lift any lingering cloud that there may? >> no. i think you have two committees looking to it. the fbi has been looking into it as they mentioned at the hearing. how many do you want? i understand that you may not have -- >> house intelligence investigation is still valid? >> how sit not valid? >> all these questions about where devin nunes got his information from. >> that's why we invited -- >> if you lifted that cloud, would it not be smart? >> right now i think you've got the fbi, other intelligence committees that look -- 17 of them issued a report earlier in terms of involvement in the 2016 election. you've got two congressional committees looking into it. i'm not really sure the exact need i think that people are doing -- i understand sometimes there's a need for you to have more information, more sources. i think this is being done in a responsible way where people are

discussing what they know at an appropriate classification level and information is being shared. >> can you quickly talk about the timing of inviting the people in the investigation now? why not do that initially? >> a couple things. one is they asked, they tasked the various committees in mid march to -- or agencies, rather, to provide information. we felt we had information that was relevant. and i think there were some -- there's a desire to make sure that both sides of the aisle who are looking into this as well as both chambers had that information. anita? >> eric trump gave an interview a few days ago to "forbes" magazine which he said he would update his father regularly, perhaps quarterly on the business, including giving possibility reports. two questions about that. one, have they spoken about the business since january? and, two, how does this not

violate what the president set out as the protocols for how he would deal with the business? >> well, i don't know if they've spoken. it's not -- may be a question better directed toward the trump organization. secondly, everything that he's done is in accordance with what the ethics folks -- >> i believe he said that he wasn't going to talk to his children, his sons, about the business. >> again, everything that is being done in terms of reports or updates is being done in consultation with the counsel's office. justi justin? >> just following major and asking about the substance. it's sort of unclear what you are telling the chairman and the ranching members. you have information that would validate the president's claims about surveillance during the 2016 campaign or is it information about the broader

russian investigation? >> i'm not here to share that. that's why we have invited them up to view it in a classified setting and an appropriate setting. not to be shared with people that don't have the ability clearances. >> you're not intending to imply that this is the information that the chairman nunes has been talking about? >> what i'm suggesting is that there's been information that has been material that has been made come to light and that we want to make sure the people who are conducting the review have that information, have access to it. >> westinghouse energy filed for bankruptcy yesterday. i'm wondering if that's prompted national security concerns in the administration and if there is any effort within the administration to sort of help them navigate out of bankruptcy? >> i think there'sobviously a c that would be interested in that. >> want to ask you to elaborate

more on what you have so far told us. you said in the ordinary course of business, the national security staff discovered documents. can you explain how these documents were uncovered? what does it mean? >> no. that's why we've invited them up for a classified setting. is for them to see these materials. this is not the setting that's appropriate to discuss that. >> who would be there? >> good question. again, as i have mentioned multiple times, we're not here to go through the process. our job is to make sure the people who had appropriate access and authority to look into this matter and take appropriate steps have that. >> are you in a position to deny or rule out the possibility that -- [ talking at the same time ]. >> i'm not going to get into any further details on this. again, if i can go back to something that the obama administration's deputy and secretary of defense noted very

clearly on the record, that they were engaged in an effort to spread information about trump officials that had come up in intelligence. that's not -- that is several networks, evelyn forecast made that proclamation about what was going on during the obama administration regarding the trump team. so that is something that they made very clear on the record. john? >> couple things, sean. first of aurbl on the freedom caucus. in response to the president's tweet, a congressman from michigan responded on camera saying, most people don't like to be bullied in response to the president. also saying that, sending out such tweets is constructive in the fifth grade. may allow a child to get his way, but that's not how government works. could you take a moment to respond? was the president trying to bully the freedom caucus? >> no. i think this is consistent with everything he has said. friday of last week. and i think that he is looking

for members on both sides of the aisle who want to achieve the goals. that's it, plain and simple. i think that his comments and tweets speak for themselves with respect to how he feels and why. >> following on that, is this a divide and conquer strategy? >> it's a math strategy, which is to get to 216 and continue to move the agenda forward. >> if i could follow-up on what major said. you've accused people in this room several times if we were more interested in the process than actually in substance and things. but when information is discovered by the intelligence committee chairman in the house at the white house that is potentially exculpatory to what the president has tweeted out and it's reported that one of the people who was involved in uncovering that information is a white house staff member who was kept in his position over the request of the national security adviser by the political leadership here at the white house. does the process not then take on some relevance?

>> well, the process in the sense that we are, as i have noted, we've invited the chairman and the ranking members who are looking into this and reviewing the matter up here. that doesn't mean we allow uncleared members from the immediate yao to come look at it. >> i'm not asking that question. >> i think it is. >> that's not what i asked. what i asked, when you have that connection of dots all the way along, does the process, does the providence of this information not become rel srapbtd to the overall investigation? >> it's up to the people who are conducting the review to decide that, not for the people in this room to decide it. it is up to the people who are cleared to look at that information and that material to look at it and make their evaluations. and i think they are conducting the review. you've seen very clearly from the house side and on the senate side, them looking into this matter. that is the appropriate venue forum and personnel to be reviewing it. plain and simple. >> a quick follow-up on that. you mentioned a couple of times when -- has the president been briefed on this information?

>> sorry, i couldn't hear you. >> has the president been briefed on this that you can inviting the chairman committees to review? >> i will look into that. i'm not sure when or what the status of that is but i can follow up on that. >> why would the white house brief -- >> i understand the question. i will look into whether or not, where that stands. >> the timeline here has been health care first, tax reform second. there was a fox poll that released that said 73% of americans want tax reform to happen this year. with health care now at least being on hold, is health care the number one priority for this administration? is tax reform the number one priority for this administration at this point, or is healthcare still taking up some of the oxygen? >> well, i don't know that it's taking up oxygen. i think there's plenty of oxygen for both to go on. the president would still like to see it done. but i think there's no reason that we can't -- and if you look at the timeline for tax reform,

you're talking several months. and so i think the process is beginning on that. i think you can have a dual track strategy. it's not an either/or proposition. >> you described what was going on at the meeting today as a first phase. can you lay out what is somewhat entailed in that first phase? what is involved in this first phase? >> little of both. they're talking about the process that they intend to partake. how this is going to lay out, who they're engaging with, how they're going to begin that process. some of the guiding principles of making sure that any updates that he has or principles that he wants to suggest are incorporated into that plan as they begin to meet with stake holders. part of it is to level set with him as to what they tend to do and how they intend to do it. >> you said a dual track with healthcare and taxes. >> lots of tracks.

again, remember, they're not all the same people. some of them overlap. some don't. i think part of this is you have to remember that some things can happen sooner than others because of the legislative calendar. some things are going to take longer because of both the legislative calendar and because of the number of individuals involved and the complexity of the situation. but there's a lot of things that can be moving at once because of how the play out is. >> thank you, sean. turning to the foreign front. yesterday the twice poisoned russian dissident and vice chairman of the open russia movement testified before a senate appropriations subcommittee backing continued sanctions against russia. he also called on secretary of state tillerson to meet with russian civil society members. in other words, anti-putin

dissidents like himself when he makes his trip to moscow next month. he also said he was meeting with many members of congress, both parties, but he would be very happy to meet with any administration officials. are there any plans for president or anyone in the white house to meet with mr. karamitza and will mr. tillerson meet with the russian civil society? >> i am not aware of the national security council are probably more appropriate to address that to. alexis? >> just trying to get clarificati clarification. i thought testify just yesterday that you said that when you were asked who cleared in chairman nunes, that you would ask the preliminary question, had not gotten answers and that you would continue to ask. >> yep. >> my question today is, you know the answers and you are saying you will not answer that question today? or you don't know. >> what i'm saying is the

decision that has been made as to bring in all the relevant individuals that are reviewing the situation and make them available. that getting into sources and process is not the proper way to conduct this review. we want the people who are conducting it to understand more fully the materials, not necessarily who came in what time and whatever. >> just to clarify again, you asked the question, you were not given the answer. let me finish. you said yesterday that you asked. you didn't get answers. so what you're telling us today is you are never gonna get the answers. you, yourself, are never gonna get the answer to who cleared in chairman nunes? >> the decision was made to focus on the process, the substance, and that the decision was made -- >> you're not answering my question. >> i let you ask the question. let me answer it, please. the answer that i'm giving you is that the decision was made to

focus on the individuals doing the review, republicans and democrats, house and senate, and have them come in and look at the material. that's what the focus should be on. >> wait wait. here's my bigger question. the president expressed his support for the findings that russia interfered with the 2016 election. that is the center piece of the investigation and the fbi and senate intelligence committee. can you update us, what is the president doing now in the administration to respond to director comey's testimony. that interference is not just election year based, but continual. >> you're talking about the executive order? >> can you update, what is the administration doing to prevent that. to respond to that preliminary

finding already that we already know, that is continuing. >> the executive orders that the president signed that continues the national emergency deals with looking into malicious attempts and cyber attempts to come into the united states. that's the executive order that he signed. >> sum total of the response so far. >> i'm not going to get into what's being done behind the scenes in terms of the intelligence and law enforcement community. but the bottom line is there was an emergency declared with respect to challenges that the u.s. faces from variety of actors outside the united states to come in and use cyber techniques to hack the united states. national emergency will continue under the president to address the threats that we face from abroad and from a variety of faces.

sean, what is the ultimate goal of the leaders coming in to get this information, and will it be information that nunes received or will it just be basically a synopsis of a synopsis of what nunes received? >> it will be the materials that are relevant to the discussion and the area that they're reviewing. that's up to them to decide relevancy. i think we have, or the national security committee, has gone into come upon some materials that they want to share with them. it's up to them to make a decision about the relevance of the documents. there's two issues. one is what do they see? what do they want to see in addition to that or as a result of those materials? in other words, they may see

things and say, hey, this is interesting, i wonder if there's a pattern. i want to see more. or they may come to a different conclusion right away. that's part of the idea of your first question of sharing information with them, is to allow the members of both committees to come in and review materials that we think are relevant to the issues that the president talked about with respect to surveillance, the masking, unmarvinging of individuals, the handling of it, etc. it's up to those members to decide what to do with that information, how to explore that more in depth. >> so ultimately in their questioning, they can actually wind up asking different questions just sitting in the intelligence meetings like the president does? if he decides to dig more, he'll dig more. >> i think that's possible. i don't want to prejudge what they ask and what comes in

response to it. also has to do with what documents we have. they may go down a particular trail and not to follow with an agency and say we saw this, can we see a follow-up on that? as you saw from media reports, the nsa has been asked to provide documentation to the house. my understanding from the reports is that that was on going. maybe some of the materials that they see prompt them to ask additional questions. that's part of providing it to them. it's an on going review. and what we want is for them to see these materials and come to conclusions, or need more information and come to a conclusion. but this is part of that review process. >> are they allow in any type of briefing, with their ranking and who they are, will we know better pending the head of the intel against committee. are some of the other members allowed to see even though they are not the head of the committee? >> my understanding would be that they would. >> lastly, sean, do you know who

-- >> no. >> you don't know. >> no. >> caitlin. >> one is has anyone in the white house ever raised the possibility of a cabinet position or top intelligence post later on in the administration for devin nunes? >> not that i'm aware of. >> will the predent hold a press conference so he can answer questns on the surveillance claims? >> i'm not good enough? >> not tt you're notood enough. he's the one making the claims. you didn't make the claims. he made the claims. >> i will convey your request to him. i will see. i'm sure that at some.he enjoyed the last one s much. is that what you would like tomorrow? does that work for you stphoebg. let me see what i can come up with. cecelia? >> from what you know about these materials, do they validate the president's wiretap claim? i don't know. i have not seen the materials. members of the national security committee who have come across these documents that want to make them available to the

members leading the review. >> why not just be more forth coming about this entire process of who let nunes in? if the president of the united states could tweet this claim ab wiretapping, doesn't the american public have a rht to know more? >> yes, they do. that's why we're going through a process. i say this respectfully. i understand that you want all of the answers. what day, what were they wearing, what door they came in. the relevant questions are about the substance of this. it's interesting. i don't get the same thing when i see unpublished sources. you never tell me who your sources were. glenn, i'm asking cecelia a question. if you could be polite as to not interrupt her. do you accept his apology? thank you. that's not how it works though. i would argue that you guys --

when you write a story and call and say i have four anonymous sources. i say who are the sources? you go, sorry, i'm not revealing anything to you but the substance. when the shoe is on the other foot, you're all about the process. the bottom line is there are two congressional committees that are conducting reviews of this situation. those committees are looking at the relevant information and talking to relevant people. to your point about the process. we have made individuals available and encouraged individuals to testify or to meet with or to discuss when they've been approached. what we are doing frankly and you probably disagree, but we are doing the responsible thing by making sure documents and materials are shown to people with the appropriate classification and the appropriate settings, and that the appropriate people that the different committees would like to discuss these matters with are made available to them. that's the responsible way of handling this. >> thank you very much.

i have two questions. today the supreme court in venezuela said they decide to take over the congress powers. and opposition said there's a coup under way. would you say there is a coup under way in venezuela and what can we expect the united states to do? the other question is climate change. because president obama sign also the bilateral climate deal with review china and india and what do you have for those? >> well, on the first one, respectfully, i would refer you to the state department. the only skoeurt aoepl really focused on is ours and getting judge neil gorsuch confirmed by the senate. so i think the state department is more of an appropriate venue to discuss the activities over there. second, i think when it comes to things like the paris treat kwrrbg as i mentioned at the

outset, that is being -- i understand. i think there are things that we will have updates for on all of these things as we forward. right now i have got nothing on that subject. >> wall street journal reported this morning that the trump administration is proposing more modest changes to nasa. leading the arbitration, etc, etc. is the white house backing away from some of the more sweeping changes to nasa that the president proposed during the campaign? >> i would just argue that robert lighthouser isn't even nominated yet. that is not a statement of administration policy at this point. there is nothing in those documents that we are confirming or in that report rather that we are confirming. that is not a statement of administration policy. that is not an accurate assessment of where we are at this time. i think our goal is to get robert lighthouser appointed as next ambassador and u.s. trade representative and then when we have that, we will have plenty

of updates on where we go with respect to nafta. with that, i am going to say good-bye. i will see you tomorrow. i'm sorry, i promise two days in a row. >> one on foreign policy. one on domestic policy. many republicans were very critical of how president obama handled the iranian revolution six years ago. my question is, mass protests across russia develop into a movement, is this something, wasn't the administration feel its role should be regarding that? >> i'm not going -- that's a hypothetical question to talk about what would happen. i know. when it comes to protests, we obviously encourage, as we did last sunday, peaceful -- the government of russia to allow peaceful protest of individuals throughout their country. we obviously support the people to have a voice in every government throughout the world. >> on the subject of partisanship and obstructionism. whose responsibility does the president feel it is to put an

end to sparpbtship and who needs to be reaching out to whom? >> i think it's a two-way street. i think part of it is we, the president and first lady extended an invitation for everyone to come. we are excited to see a third of senate democrats come. i wish we had seen more. there's an opportunity i think to engage in a discussion about some of the issues and come together. i would argue that when you look at this fight on gorsuch, there are -- i don't disagree with the fact that if you're a democrat, you probably don't necessarily agree with some of the rulings and some of the philosophies of judge gorsuch. i get that. at at the end of the day, the filibuster has never been the norm. it hasn't. it is odd to see that these individuals who have -- one thing to vote no. one thing to say that we don't agree. but to now turn to filibustering or threatening to filibuster senate unbelievably qualified people.

there's nobody that i'm aware of, even on the left that is suggesting that judge gorsuch isn't qualified to serve as a supreme court justice. republicans in the past have allowed democrat presidents to have their nominees voted o up or down, and for the most part, when you go back to president oba obama, president clinton, republicans have joined with democrats to allow people who are qualified to go onto the court. to see this new precedent led by senator schumer is disappointing. there was a column in one of the papers today. you are really fundamentally changing how the senate is gonna operate by doing this. i think that's an important -- they can disagree with him. i get that. but when you have an election, you assume a republican president is going to choose republicans for appointments and for federal judgeships. then democrats will do the same with their time in office.

it was obama's nominees that got through all with republican support. it's difficult to understand why, when you've got someone as qualified as gorsuch, that this is the stake they want to drive. it further sets a partisan divide in our country when we can allow people who are qualified and universally so to get on the bench. >> asking from the president's side? >> sure. but i think it's a two way street. i would ask you, what is -- i remember a few years ago there was all this talk about obama, democrats made hay about how they wanted to see him as a one-term president. i have seen a similar tactic from democrats now about how they wan to defeat him, stop his agenda. there's no sense of them wanting to work with this president. at some point i think we have shown a willingness to bring them together. it's amazing how many senators, when you talk to them over the course of the last, you know, almost 70 days have said, i have been to the white house more in

the last 70 days in the trump administration during the years of the obama administration. that speaks to the president's desire to bring people together and to find common ground on areas of mutual agreement where we can move the country forward. thank you. i'll see you tomorrow. >> sandra: there you have it. nearly 50 minute press briefing at the white house. sean spicer getting a lot of questions on that "new york times" report that came out just before the briefing started on those two white house officials that reportedly helped give house intelligence committee chairman devin nunes intelligence reports. hello, everyone. i'm sandra smith. all of this happening as hearings into russian intelligence activities on capitol hill. let's first head to john roberts joining us from washington with the very latest. john, there was clearly a lot of questioning on this "new york times" report on the two white house officials. but basically a no comment

coming from the white house? >> reporter: to tell you the truth, we've been hearing these names off and on all week. that of michael ellis, deals with national security matters. then there's edward cohen watnick who works in the security council, senior intelligence person there, just 30 years old. he was brought in by lieutenant michael flynn. mcmaster. actually wanted to remove him from his position but the senior political leadership of the white house intervened to keep him in that position. sean spicer would not acknowledge either one of those names. would not confirm that they might have been involved here. sean spicer also saying that just before this briefing and the coincidence can't help but be noted here, sent a letter up to the ranking member and the chairman of both intelligence committees in the senate and house saying that they have found information in the course of their investigation that's relevant to the russia investigation and leaks and that twhaeupbted both the chairman and the ranking intelligence, ranching member of the

intelligence committees to come down to the white house to view that information. sean spicer also scolded the press again for wanting to know what the source of the tpoers was as opposed to what the substance was. listen here. >> we are not as obsessed with the process as much as the substance. our goal is to make sure the ranking members of both committees, as well as the chairman, see the information that the materials that are important to us and then worry about the outcome at the end. the responsible thing for us to do is provide the individuals and the committees who are doing the review the materials that they're looking for, or some of them. we don't know exactly what they're looking for and what they've seen or haven't. our goal is to be as forth right as possible. >> reporter: couple days ago sean spicer was asked if he would look into who the sources were who helped chairman nunes while he was here at the white house. he said he would look into it. today he says he's not looking into it -- well, he's still

looking into it, but not going to divulge the information. when you connect the dots, particularly with this person watnick, there's a fair case to be made the process becomes important. i reached out to devin nunes office to find out if they can confirm what "the new york times" has been reporting, in terms of the names of cohen watnick and michael ellis. i was told, quote, we will not confirm or deny speculation about a source's identity and he will not respond to speculation from anonymous sources. clearly, though, sandra, the final chapter in this yet to be written, yet to be told, and we'll keep working on it. >> sandra: john roberts, thank you. sean spicer also taking questions on trump tweets to the freedom caucus, asking if he was bullying them with his threat about 2018. >> i think if people are more concerned with voting as a block than what's the best interest of the american people, he's hoping that people will see the bigger

picture, the goals that we outlined and sometimes the enemy of the perfect. i'm going to let the tweet speak for itself. >> sandra: alabama congressman mo brooks is a member of the freedom caucus. congressman, thank for sticking around for us. what did you make about what you just heard out of the white house? >> well, in a way, i was tickled pink by the president having focused on us, because that indicates to a very large degree that we are a player in the game. we're trying to get this healthcare bill to be what's in the best interest of the american people. and to the extent we can fight hard in that regard. the fact that we are a fighter is why the president tweeted about us. he's tweeted about a lot of people. the tuesday group, the democrats and indirectly with paul ryan. so this is just part of the new washington, the twitter verse. >> sandra: and the president stands by his tweets. you heard sean spicer say, i'll let his tweets speak for themselves. let me reiterate what he said. the freedom caucus will hurt the entire republican agenda if they

don't get on the team. and fast. we must fight them and democrats in 2018. does he think he can go at this without the freedom caucus? >> well, i'm not -- i can't read the president's mind. all i can do is try to fight for the best legislation i can get that serves the best interest of the american people. quite frankly, right now, this legislation has 17% approval by the american people. that means there's a big room for improvement as people find out more and more of the bad things in this healthcare bill, they're becoming more and more opposed to it by way of example. we were sent to washington, d.c. to lower health care premiums, yet according to the joint committee on taxation, this particular healthcare bill increases health insurance premiums over the next two years 15% to 20% over and above what they would have been under obamacare. that's not what the american people want. then you've got the welfare aspects of it, where it's going to cost 35, $36 billion a year

in additional welfare payments or lost revenues, that's going to put another -- well, some tens of millions of american voters on welfare. that's certainly not in the best interest of the long-term interest of the united states of america to have even more and more people on welfare who, again, get co-opted into this socialist mindset and start to abandon the self-sufficient tpeu principles that help make america a great nation. i'm more than happy for us to keep our promise. that's all i ask, keep our promise to the american people. repeal obamacare. then we can work on improvement after we have first taken that first step. i'm going to stand my ground. >> sandra: i also want to get to this tweet that has made news today from congressman amash. he said, quote, didn't take long for the swamps to drain, real donald trump, no shame, mr. president. almost everyone succumbs to d.c. establishment. lot of people are talking about that one today, congressman.

>> well, i'm not gonna get involved in the personality, public policy is public policy. if you start making it personal, then i it this becomes something that becomes destructive. to me, let's focus on the public policy issues. the aspects of this legislation and what we can do to make it better. if you start having personality conflicts that can start to subvert the delivery process that is necessary for us to have a good piece of legislation that will increase an approval rating below the 17% that it's burdened with right now. >> sandra: congressman the white house response from sean spicer that we just heard to that tweet about the freedom caucus from the president. sean spicer, as you said, the president has a bold and robust agenda. he's going to get votes from wherever he can. he said, i'll let his tweets speak for himself. up next on his agenda is tax reform. what does that look like, congressman? >> well, i don't know at this point in time. everything is in the details.

it's consistent with with the old phrase the devil is in the details. with tax reform that is definitely the case. i know with the border adjustment tax, by way of example, i have had toyota come and ask me to vote against it. the agriculture interest in my district have asked me to vote against it. we've had other manufacturers that have foreign home headquarters in particular that asked me to vote against it. i have had general electric, on the other hand, more of an american company, ask me to vote for it. i'm sure there will be a lot of competing interest. but ultimately, what we'll have to do as congress men, cast aside all the special interest groups and try to do what, on balance, we believe is in the best interest of our country, particularly with respect to this trade deficit that we're burdened with. personally, i'd like to see a more targeted approach es hreurbl with regard to china. we're asking american companies to compete against the chinese government. to me, that's where we ought to

focus our revenue measures. perhaps a tax of some sort dealing with environmental cost issues, where we give foreign companies a competitive advantage because they don't have to play for clean air, clean water. >> sandra: congressman, i want to thank you very much for standing by. congressman mo brooks, thank you. as the senate intelligence hearing on russia is under way, a lot going on this afternoon, leaders of the house intelligence committee meeting to put asigh partisan bickering and move their investigation forward. a former chairman of the house intelligence committee is here. good of you to join us this afternoon, sir. what do you make of where we are at now with these investigations? >> well, obviously, the senate intelligence committee is off to a better start than what the house intelligence committee is. ultimately the house intelligence committee, they're going to get their act together. the chairman and the ranking member. they're not gonna let this ship sail without the house intelligence committee having

its say on the russian things, the allegations from president trump and those kind of things. they will get moving. they got to start taking a look at content. >> sandra: how does the house committee get going especially after the news that we just heard leading into that white house briefing that this is "new york times" report that two white house officials helped give the chairman of the house intel committee, devin nunes, these intelligence reports? how do they start to recover at this point? >> well, they're going to have to build that personal relationship that enables them, at least on a professional basis, to move forward. and the way that that happens is all the information that chairman nunes has had the opportunity to look at is made available to adam schiff and made available to every member of the committee. my belief is from all the press reports and that is once they start taking a look at the content that will pretty much overwhelm everything else that has happened to date. >> sandra: do you maintain, based on everything that you

have seen and heard from the white house and seen reported today, sir, that devin nunes did nothing wrong? >> i don't think he did anything ethically wrong. i think people will make their own judgments as to whether, from a leadership standpoint, he made the right call as the chairman of that committee. others might have done it differently. he did it the way that he saw, he thought was most appropriate. he served on that committee as the designated chairman representing the speaker of the house, going to paul ryan first was the right thing to do. there will be separate and different calls about whether he should have gone to the president then or whether he should have gone to adam schiff. and without having seen the content, that's a difficult call to make. >> sandra: all right. so good of you to stay with us, pete hoekstra. lot happening this afternoon. thanks for standing by. a lot going on this afternoon. that white house press briefing just wrapping up. "the new york times" report

about these two white house officials giving chairman nunes those intelligence reports at the white house. the breaking news continues on the fox news channel. thanks for staying with us. i'm sandra smith. here's shepard smith. >> shepard: it's noon on the west coast. 3:00 in d.c. where a mystery may now be solved. remember the republican intelligence chair devin nunes said that he met with a secret source at the white house to learn about possible surveillance? well, the new york times is now roarking it knows who helped him hook that up. and it turns out those two men work for the white house. plus, on capitol hill, lawmakers demanding answers about moscow's meddling in our election. >> the public deserves to hear the truth. >> russia sought to hijack or democratic process.