Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

May Jobs Report Lower Than Expected; White House Daily Briefing. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired June 2, 2017 - 13:30   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:30:00] WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: We're waiting for the White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer and the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, to come out and hold a briefing just one day after the president announced he was withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate agreement, saying he wants to renegotiate it. They should be coming to the lectern any moment now. We'll have live coverage once Sean Spicer and Scott Pruitt are there.

The May unemployment numbers, meanwhile, are in. There were 138,000 new jobs added in the United States last year. That's lower than expected.

But as "CNN Money" chief business correspondent, Christine Romans, explains, the real news is in the unemployment level.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN MONEY CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, here's a headline for you. The lowest unemployment rate in 16 years. Got to back to 2001 to find a jobless rate that low, 14.3 percent. One of the reasons -- we've had strong job gains for months. Some people dropped out of the labor market. That drove the jobless rate down.

Look at job creation. 80 months in a row, a record of private-sector job growth. But you're seeing the pace of the job gains moderate. 138,000 less than they had been forecasting. Job gains compared with last year and the year before you're seeing the pace of job growth slow. Still good but slowing. Here are the sectors. Manufacturing lost 1,000 jobs. Mining and logging gained 7,000. About 4,000 of those, we're told, were coal mining jobs. Part of the political debate, of course. Health care, steady performer. 24,000 net new jobs created in health care.

The president has promised to create 25 million jobs over 10 years. Wolf, if he's going to keep that promise, he's going to have to double job gains of what we got this month -- Wolf?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Christine, thank you.

Let me bring in Stephen Moore, CNN senior economics analyst, a former economic adviser to the Trump campaign.

Stephen, thanks for joining us.

STEPHEN MOORE, CNN SENIOR ECONOICS ANALYST: Hi, Wolf.

BLITZER: Looking at those numbers, dropping unemployment rate, 4.3 percent, which is good but less than expected job growth, what's your major take away?

MOORE: Well, I was a little disappointed with that number. It's not terrible, but we should be doing better. I'd like to see 200,000 plus a month. By the way, if Donald Trump is going to fulfill his promise of 25 million jobs he's going to have to get that number about twice as high. But I think Christine Romans made a very good point. We're very close to full employment in the United States with that low unemployment rate.

By the way, the other statistic called the U6, I don't want to get too technical, but that includes people dropped out of the work force, that's been dropping as well which, is a healthy sign. Right now when I talk to employers around the country, and I ask them what's your biggest problem, more and more I hear them say we can't find the workers we need rather than, you know, the fact that there is unemployment. If you're look for a job, it's a pretty good time to be doing it.

BLITZER: Who gets the credit for that upswing? Would you say the current president or his predecessor, former President Obama? Who deserves the credit for this dramatic turnaround over the past eight years?

MOORE: Well, look, the job growth has been steady but slow. And I do think the economy has underperformed under Obama and I think it's one of the reasons that Trump won. This is still some of the Obama economy and until Trump gets his economic program in place it's going to be hard for him to take huge credit although we did see it bounce up in the stock market after it's elected. There's a lot of confidence in the economy. You see it in the consumer confidence numbers, especially business confidence. They're spending more on heavy equipment and things like that.

And I have to just say, because, yesterday, you know, we talked almost all day about this issue of the climate change treaty, and I have been making the point that the coal industry is on a little bit of rebound and it's interesting that one of the few sectors that did pretty well in that report was the mining sector. We are seeing a little bit of comeback in coal and oil and gas.

BLITZER: There's still a ton of jobs in the solar. They're going up rather dramatically, right.

MOORE: Those numbers have been going up. But the idea that a lot of liberals said there's no way that Donald Trump can bring these coal jobs back, and so far, so good. We'll see. These are just preliminary numbers and it's only been a few months. But so far, the signs are pretty good. Coal demand was up 16 percent, so far, this year which is a pretty good number. A lot more coal is being used for steel because around the world there's a lot more demand for buildings and construction and so on. So I guess the take away is we've got to do better. This is a decent number, but I want to -- by the way, as we see more job growth, Wolf, more demand for jobs, what we're hoping to see I think all Americans are hoping to see is wage gains. We saw a little bit of a wage gain in this report, but it's been 15 years or so since we've had some really pretty robust increases in the wages for the American workers.

[13:35:14] BLITZER: One final question, Stephen. You think the president now is coming around and accepting these numbers? Because as you know, during the campaign, he always says these numbers were phony, don't believe them. When they say the unemployment number, which is now 4.3 percent, he would say it's closer to 15 percent or 20 percent. They're not including this. You think he's coming around and accepting the bureau of labor statistics numbers?

MOORE: Well, I don't think we were saying it. I was part of that team when he was saying those things. I don't think we were saying that the numbers were false. We were saying they were misleading. I do think that U6 number that does include people who are in part-time jobs who want a full-time and people who dropped out, I think that's the biggest factor we're all kind of scratching our head wondering what's going on. You have job growth and demand for labor and we're still seeing so many millions of Americans on the sidelines, Wolf. That's a bit of a paradox. If we're going to get the economy moving again, we've got to push those people outside of the labor force who are employable, able bodied, we've got to get them in the labor force.

BLITZER: Stephen Moore, thanks as usual for joining us.

MOORE: Take care. Have a great day.

BLITZER: Coming up, we're waiting once again for the White House press briefing to begin. Scheduled to begin any moment. A lot of the issues certainly will be asked by reporters, climate change, fired FBI Director James Comey's upcoming testimony next Thursday morning, executive privilege, among the topics likely to be raised by reporters. We'll see if we get answers when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:41:03] BLITZER: Once again looking at live pictures from inside the White House press briefing room. Press Secretary Sean Spicer is about to do an on-camera briefing. He'll be joined by the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt.

They're walking in right now. Here's Sean Spicer.

SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Good afternoon, everyone.

EPA Administrator Pruitt is here today to deliver a brief statement on the president's announcement yesterday and answer any questions you have regarding the Paris Climate Accords, a decision that the president reached yesterday. As always I ask that you keep your questions for Administrator Pruitt on topic. Once he's fished, I come back here to answer your questions for the day.

I would note that he has a flight to head to, so we're going to try to keep this relatively short on his end.

With that, Secretary Pruitt?

SCOTT PRUITT, EPA SECRETARY: It's good to be with you this afternoon.

I want to first begin by saying that the president made a very courageous decision yesterday on behalf of America. He put America's interest first with respect to environmental agreements and international discussions. I really appreciate his fortitude in this matter.

The discussion over the last several weeks has been one of a thoughtful deliberation. He heard many voices, Voices across a wide spectrum of vantage points. And the president made a very informed and I think thoughtful and important decision for the country's benefit.

When it comes to international agreements with respect to things like the Paris agreement, we have nothing to be apologetic about as a country. We've reduced our CO2 footprint to levels of the early 1990s. From 2000 to 2014, we reduced our carbon footprint by over 18 percent. That's been largely accomplished through innovation and technology, not government mandate. So when we look at issues like this we are leading with action and not words.

I also want to say that exiting Paris does not mean disengagement. In fact, the president said yesterday that Paris represents a bad deal for this country. It doesn't mean we're not going to continue the discussion to export our innovation, to export our technology to the rest of the world. To demonstrate how we do it better here is I very important message to send. He indicated he's going to either reenter Paris or engage in a discussion with a new deal with a commitment to putting America first. The president said routinely he's going to put the interest of American citizens at the head of his administration. That's in trade policy. That's in national security. That's in border security. That's in right-sizing Washington, D.C. He did that with respect to his decision yesterday on Paris.

So with that we'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.

I don't know your names so I'll point to you.

Yes, ma'am. You're name?

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Mary (INAUDIBLE).

PRUITT: Hello, Mary.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Thank you for taking our questions. Hoping you clear this up once and for all. Yes or no, does the president believe climate change is really and a threat to the United States?

PRUITT: You know what's interesting about all the discussions we had through the last several weeks have been focused on one singular issue, is Paris good for our country. That's the discussions I've had with the president. That's been my focus. The focus remained on whether Paris put us at a disadvantage. And it did. It put us at an economic disadvantage. You may not know this, but Paris set targets at 28 and 26 percent. With the entire of the previous administration, we fell 40 percent short of those targets. It was a failed deal to begin with. Even if all targets were met by all nations across the globe, it only reduced the temperature by less than two-tenths of one degree. That is what the president focused upon to how it impacted us economically and whether there were there were good environmental objectives achieved as a result of Paris. His decision was no, and that was the extent of our discussion.

Yes, ma'am?

(CROSSTALK)

PRUITT: Yes, ma'am?

[13:45:02] UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: The MIT scientists who helped with that report said, quote, "Trump badly misunderstood the findings of that report and in fact if we take no action temperatures could wise 5 percent." Specifically, what other science?

PRUITT: There were other studies that were published at the time.

(CROSSTALK)

PRUITT: There were other studies published at the time. The MIT Study was something that, as you indicated, showed two-tenths of one degree. There were many reports. We can provide those to you. What's clear about Paris is if you go back and look at the criticism that was being levied against the Paris agreement, it wasn't just from folks in this country who want it to be ratified or were critical of the processes. The environmental left was very critical of Paris. In fact, James Hanson is an individual who said at the time it was a fake and a fraud. And the general counsel of the Sierra Club said the same thing. If you go back and read the media accounts, there was much criticism largely because it did not hold large nations like China and India accountable. As you know, China did not have to take any steps towards compliance until 2030. India had no obligations until $2.5 trillion in aid were provided. Russia, when they set their targets, they set 1990 as their baseline, which allowed them to continue emitting more CO2. In this country, we had a 26 to 28 percent reduction in greenhouse gases, which represented the Clean Power Plan and the entire climate action agenda of the past administration.

Yes, sir?

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: I'd like to go back to the first question that was asked that you didn't answer. Does the president believe today that climate change is a hoax? That something he said in the campaign when the pool was in the Oval Office he refused to answer. I'm wondering if you can speak for him.

PRUITT: I did answer the question. I said the discussions the president and I have had have been focused on one key issue, is Paris good or bad for this country. The president and I focused our attentions there. He determined that it was bad for this country. It hurt us economically. It didn't achieve good environmental out comes and he made the decision to reject the Paris deal.

(CROSSTALK)

PRUITT: Yes, sir?

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Given the fact that you and other administration officials haven't been able to outline the president's use on climate change, why should other countries believe that the president wants to negotiate a deal in good faith?

PRUITT: As I indicated in my comments yesterday, and the president emphasized in his speech, this administration and the country as a whole, we have taken significant steps to reduce our CO2 footprint to levels of the pre-1990s. How did we achieve that? Because of technology, horizontal drilling. You won't hear that from the environmental left. We need to export clean coal technology. We need to export the technology and natural grass to shows around the globe, India and China and help them learn from us on what we've done to achieve good outcomes. We've led with action, not words. Paris, truly, Paris at its core was a bunch of words committed to very, very minimal environmental benefit and costs this country a substantial amount of money and put us at an economic disadvantage.

Yes, sir? Yes, sir?

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Does the president believe that or does the administration believe that any additional deal on carbon emissions, whether Paris or a subsequent deal?

PRUITT: I'm sorry, I missed the first part of the question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Does the administration believe any deal, whether a revised Paris agreement or another carbon emissions deal needs congressional approval?

PRUITT: I think it's clear with respect to the Paris agreement that there are concerns by the administration the president expressed this in his speech yesterday. I have similar concerns that it should have been submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification. I think it depends on the nature of the deal, what you actually negotiate. If we're talking about exporting innovation and technology to the rest of the globe, I will say not. I would say that's not something that needs to be submitted to the U.S. Senate. I would say, however, that if you're setting targets, if you're setting emission targets that are enforceable domestically through regulation or statute, then very much so. The voice of American citizens across the country needs to be heard through the ratification process.

Yes, sir? Yes, sir?

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Obviously, a lot of people from the White House are not willing to answer the president's view on climate change. So let's talk about your personal views. In march, you said there is tremendous disagreement about the human impact and you would not agree that it is a contributor of global warming. Would you agree that human activity contributes at all to global warming?

[13:49:57] PRUITT: I don't know if you guys caught my confirmation process or not, but it's a very intense process, by the way. But I indicated that, in fact, global warming is occurring, human activity contributes to it, in some matter. Measuring from precision, the degree of human contribution is difficult. But does it pose an existential threat? You know, some people have called me a climate denier. In fact, many of you, I don't know if you saw this article or not, but the climate of complete certainty by Brett Stephens talked about -- it's a very important quote from this article. Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the IPCC, knows that while modest 0.8 degrees Celsius warming of the earth has occurred since 1880. Much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. That's true of a sophisticated but fallible models and simulations of which scientists peer into the future.

(CROSSTALK)

PRUITT: The debate -- what the American people deserve is a debate, objective transparent discussion about this issue. And what Paris represents, what Paris represents is an international agreement that put this country at a disadvantage with very little benefit environmentally across the globe.

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: May I ask a follow-up question on that, sir?

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: Why, then, is the Arctic ice shell melting? Why are the sea levels rising? Why are the hottest temperatures in the last decade, essentially, the hottest temperatures that we've seen on record?

(CROSSTALK)

PRUITT: This has been since the 1990s, as you know.

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: Sir, when NASA says that 95 percent of the experts in this area around the world believe that the earth is warming and you are up there throwing out information that says, well, maybe this is being exaggerated, you talk about climate action exaggerators, it seems that you are denying it and it's a significant threat to the planet.

PRUITT: I said this in the confirmation process and I'll say it today. There is --

(CROSSTALK)

PRUITT: We have done a tremendous amount as a country to achieve reductions in CO2 and we have done that through technology and innovation. We will continue to do that and to stay engaged. We are part, as you know, the U.N. CCC and that encourages voices by subnational groups and countries across the globe and we're going to stay engaged and try to work through agreements to put America's interests first. This is not -- this is not a message to anyone in the world that America is somewhat -- should be apologetic of its CO2 position. We're making tremendous advantages. We're not going to agree to frameworks and agreements that put us at an economic disadvantage that hurt citizens across this country.

Yes, sir?

ACOSTA: You're putting your head in the sand.

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: You're putting your head in the sand.

PRUITT: There's no evidence of that.

Yes, sir?

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Thank you, Mr. Administrator. Your fellow Senator said that while he has confidence in the president in this, he is very nervous about lower level career government employees in the EPA and State Department in actually executing what's deemed exit the Paris Climate Accord. As the administrator of EPA, what do you say to your own Senator?

PRUITT: What's important to know is that the president said unequivocally yesterday that the targets set in Paris, the 26 to 28 percent targets are not enforcement and not complied with. The green climate fund, where the United States provided $3 billion in initial funding, that is not going to continue. That is going to be immediate. Now, there are discussions that are ongoing with the Justice Department on the steps that we'll be taking to execute the withdrawal and the exit. That's something that is going to happen over the next several weeks. But as far as the targets that are concerned, the green climate fund, it's immediate and it's something that is clear.

Yes, ma'am?

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: European leaders have made it very clear

PRUITT: I'm sorry?

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: European leaders have made it very clear that the deal can't be renegotiated. So how does the president renegotiate a deal when the other parties aren't willing to come to the table?

PRUITT: Well, as he indicated, whether it's part of the Paris framework or a new deal, it's either approach.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: But they won't sit down at the table with him.

PRUITT: But that's up to them, right? The United States has a seat at the table. After all, we are the United States and leading with respect to CO2 production. We've made tremendous progress. If nations around the world want to seek to learn from us on what we're doing to reduce our CO2 footprint, we'll share that with them and that's something that will occur in the future and we'll reach out and reciprocate with nations that seek to achieve that.

[13:55:22] UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Shouldn't you tell the American people whether or not the president believes that climate change is a hoax? Where does he stand?

PRUITT: As I indicated, there's enough to do with the Paris Climate Accord and that's what our focus has been over the last several weeks. I've answered the question a couple times.

Yes, sir. This gentleman right here. This gentleman right here. Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Thank you. Isn't it of concern that the United States has broken a promise to 190 countries and the president did not address that particular point? And, second, you've several times raised that the lowering of CO2 levels, isn't the reason for that because of blocking the smoke stack spews that are not allowed the kind of regulations that the administration is now opposing?

PRUITT: As I indicated, largely, we have reduced our CO2 footprint through innovation and technology and not the least of which is the hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling. The first part of your question, I forget.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Concern that we broke a promise to 190 countries and how does that help our credibility?

PRUITT: Truly, if it's a promise enforceable and going to obligate this country, then it should have been ratified as a treaty. Right? The exposure here to us domestically was 26 to 28 percent targets that were part of an international agreement, and there are provisions in the Clean Air Act that actually allow for lawsuits to be filed domestically to compel regulation to meet those kinds of percentages. This was as much about a constitutional and legal concerns as anything else and the president dealt decisively with that. But let's, again, the important thing here is it put us at an economic disadvantage. The world applauded when we joined Paris. And you know why? I think they applauded because they knew it would put this country at a disadvantage. The European leaders, why they want us to stay in, they know it will continue to shackle our economy, though we are leading the world with respect to our CO2 production.

That's all I've got. I've got to head to the airport. Thank you.

(CROSSTALK)

SPICER: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Why did you celebrate at a French restaurant last night? Was that a symbolic gesture?

SPICER: Thank you, Mr. Pruitt.

Earlier this morning, the May jobs report was released showing that Americans seeking jobs are having more success finding them than at any point in the last 16 years. There's a lot of positive signs coming out of the job market. Over 600,000 private-sector jobs have been added since the president took office. The key U6 unemployment rate which gives a broader look at unemployment and underemployment fell a full percentage point since the president took office in January. Long-term unemployment is down by 187,000 since the president took office. And America's miners and drillers are getting back to work with the seventh straight month.

The president's not going to stop until every American who wants to work can find meaningful employment. That's why we're working tirelessly on policies that will keep the economy growing with a tax plan that will leave more money in the pockets of hard-working Americans and making it easier for businesses to thrive and infrastructure initiative that will generate $1 trillion of investment and put Americans back to work rebuilding our nation's crumbling roads and bridges, repealing and replacing the job-killing Obamacare with a system that encourages competition and drives prices down and a systematic regulatory reform to reduce unnecessary burdens on manufacturing and other key industries aiming for the roll backs since the Reagan years. The president will focus more on jobs this month and holding events in Washington and outside pushing his pro-growth, pro-jobs agenda.

Later this afternoon, the president will sign two bills that both were passed with bipartisan support that help protect those who protect us, our nations veterans and public safety officers. First, the public Safety Officer's Benefit Improvement Act of 2017, which was co- sponsored by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Senator Kristin Gillibrand of New York, unanimously passed by the Senate last month. It will reduce the unacceptable backlog of families awaiting approval of survivor benefits and public safety officers that were killed in the line of duty. The second is the American Law Enforcement Hero's Act, co-sponsored by Senator John Cornyn and Senator Amy Klobuchar, which also unanimously passed the Senate, and it assists state and local law enforcement in adding veterans to their forces by prioritizing the Department of Justice funding to law enforcement agencies that can use to hire veterans. It's critical that we support our veterans and the loved ones of those who have paid the ultimate price while protecting our communities. The president is glad --