tv At This Hour With Kate Bolduan CNN December 14, 2017 8:00am-9:00am PST
give back. we will continue sharing some of the stories from the sports world. >> good. we need it. we need the good news. coy wire, thank you very much. we appreciate it. >> thank you for being with us today. i'm poppy harlow. >> don't go anywhere, i'm john berman "at this hour with kate bolduan" starts right now. hello, everyone. i am kate bolduan. republicans are inching closer to their first big legislative win in the trump era, but will the overhaul of the nation's tax code put more money in your pocket or take it out? we will crunch the numbers. and also this, minutes from now, house speaker paul ryan will be talking to reporters about this, of course. are house republicans happy since the final deal is looking more like the senate version than the house. and lingering over this whole debate, the timeline or more like the time trial. how fast can republicans get this passed? and on the president's desk is a
major priority. >> we want to give you, the american people, a giant tax cut for christmas. and when i say giant, i mean giant. >> one possible reason for the push, the republicans' big senate defeat in alabama. newly elected democrat doug jones will be seated within weeks making the map that much more difficult for an already number crunched slim republican majority. other numbers they need to worry about, poll numbers. a majority of the public is against the republican plan. only 26% backing it at the moment. and there's more, two republican senators battling health problems and if they can't vote that's a whole other level of trouble. to capitol hill and see where things stand. congressional correspondent phil mattingly is there. phil, you have the details and the important people speaking to you. what are they telling you right now? >> look f you look at politics, the timeline, if you look at the votes there's a lot to unpack.
start with the policy, this is extraordinarily important. virtually every american will be impacted by this bill. that they expect to pass as soon as early next week. what republicans have changed, we want to start with the corporate rate set in the house and senate at 20%, moved up to 21%. why? $100 billion approximately of revenue there. they needed that to pay for a lot of other changes. mortgage interest rate deductions. senate left it untouched, the house took it to 500,000. they will meet in the middle, 750,000. the state and local tax deduction, this has been a huge issue for tie tax states like new york, new jersey, california, illinois, that will be expanded to go beyond just property tax and include sales and income tax as well. that's something they've been looking for and something very expensive. that's why they need that extra money. one other thing that caught the eye of democrats attacking this plan throughout as a sock to the wealthy is they have decided to lower the top rate. the senate did that, took it down from 39.6 to 38.5%. the house left the top rate at
39.6. where they have agreed on at 37%. for the highest individual rate. i asked the house ways and means chairman kevin brady, one of the co-authors of the bill, sherpas of the process, why do that? take a listen. >> those incomes are high in california and new york and new jersey, illinois. they need relief because we are -- we're going to allow state and local deductions, property and income and sales, up to $10,000, and so the -- lowering that rate was important for those high tax states which democrats have complained about as well, and so this really is a solution they've been asking for. i think just because the rate is going down, they're complaining, but in truth, this helps families. remember our principle, help everyone regardless of where they live. this is a big part of that. >> reporter: kate, there's the policy rationale. the politics, democrats have seized on this and will continue to attack on it. you mentioned where the votes are right now, that's an open question. the chairman brady said they felt they were comfortable in
the house, the senate still a lot of open questions. keep your eye on collins, flake, corker. people we paid attention to throughout the senate debate earlier and keep an eye on thad cochran and john mccain who have had health issues. senator cochran's spokesman says he plans to be back for any potential vote. senator mccain still in walter reed medical center recovering from his cancer treatment. a lot of opens questions here but one question that is completely answered, they are moving quickly, expect to have this done by early next week and potentially on the president's desk by as soon as wednesday. >> yeah. one question that is -- seems to be exactly answered are they going to put this to the floor is absolutely yes at this point. there's no question. great to see you. a lot going on there. really appreciate it. as we've talked about, president trump has promised, quote, a giant tax cut for christmas, but for whom? phil started laying it out for us but let's dive deeper into the numbers. business correspondent christine romans digging into this. christine where do you want to begin? what do you see in the plan. >> talk about where the biggest benefits tilt here. the biggest changes help
corporations and the wealthy. let me begin by telling you about the individual rate. this is pretty big here. top individual rate, slashed to 37%. lower as phil said than both of the bills. it is a concession to top earners in high tax states. on mortgage interest the compromise in the middle, filers can deduct the interest on mortgages up to $750,000. keep in mind that's three times the typical home price in america. and the corporate tax rate is cut 21%, so that big tax cut the president is talking about goes to the corporate rate that's a little higher than was promised at 20% but way down from the 35% they are -- the average highest rate. cutting the rate to 21% raises the $100 billion in revenue to pay for the cuts. the gop argues lower corporate rates will help everyday americans. there's no guarantee that will add jobs or raise wages. president trump's closing argument this bill is a giant middle-class tax cut. it is less than advertised though. we'll need to see the final bill to be sure but in past versions
middle class tax cutses are modest and short shelf life. for americans, 81% get a tax cut immediately. that goes down to 14% that have a tax cut by the year 2027. and a fourth will pay more. the largest share helping out the top 1% along with a few other provisions like, like look at this, doubling the estate tax exemption, raising the threshold for the individual alternative minimum tax, reducing pass-through businesses lowering their tax rate, all these help very rich people and businesses. now, a bright spot here, deductions. the final bill does retain some of the really important deductions for regular americans. medical expenses. this is something that families have to plan for. deductions for education, student loans, grad students and teacher spending. where you might recall you saw grad students walking out of their labs and classrooms last week, they were so worried about this and the signal that it says. you saw teachers worried about
how much money they spend in a classroom, the simplification of the tax code would mean they wouldn't be able to write that off. >> let's see where it ends up. thank you very much. christine laid out where the numbers stand and what it could mean for you. let's talk about the politics of it all right now. joining me chief political correspondent dana bash is here and political director david chalian here as well. great to see you. >> you too. >> give me your gut right now. how close is this looking to be? >> extremely close. look, it already was close the first time that the senate passed their original bill right, and part of that reason is because, obviously, to state the obvious, the senate has a pretty thin majority, 52 seats. they lost bob corker who is still very much on the fence with this compromise, not looking like he's moved very much, if at all, and then you have two senators who are not well, senator thad cochran of mississippi and john mccain of
arizona. he is currently at walter reed hospital because of the effects of his cancer treatment. so, you know, the big question is, when they get to that point, what happens? now i can tell you that my impression just with senator mccain, for example, is that he's local, he's at walter reed and if they get to a point where they are one vote shy and if, for whatever reason, the senator is still in the hospital, it would be hard to imagine him not finding a way to come back unless, you know, god forbid, things are dire. it doesn't look like that's the case right now. >> yeah. when it comes down to it, again, let's stay in obvious land because that's where we need to be, david, if cochran and mccain don't vote -- i live in pretend land but stay in obvious land -- if they can't vote and corker he said he doesn't see anything that's alleviated his concerns about deficit and debt, what do
they do? they can't pass it then? >> right. that would be too many. you heard dana describe that it sounds like at all costs they will do their best to be there and senator cochran's office is indicating that he is planning to be at a monday vote if that's when it takes place. we won't know about the health concerns, that's the thing, until the time of the voting. but what we do know is that the senate republicans clearly want mike pence, the vice president, to be on hand and around just in case that he has to cast a tie-breaking vote if let's say one of them is not able to come and it would be such a hardship on the other one and they're down to 50 they have to make sure the vice president is right there ready to cast the tie-breaking vote. >> and then there's the question of vote now or wait for doug jones. we know where republicans in control are going. but it's come with a lot of a really -- fun looking at old tape. democrats calling for dallas,
republicans say no, the tape comes when republican, of course, scott brown, won a special election ahead of the health care vote and then all of this happened. watch this. >> what i think is clear there will be no further action in the senate thanks to senator webb until scott brown is sworn in. >> the senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until scott brown is seated. people of massachusetts spoke. he's going to be part of that process. >> he said now we have to give massachusetts their vote, which was a very smart thing for him to say, but that may kill his health care. >> trump saying obama did the right thing. now what, dana? >> you know, it's funny, because with the president, there's a tweet for everything and with congress there is tape for everything. because -- >> exactly. >> it hasn't been that long that republicans, you know, in the congress had a very different view of legislation when it was a democrat in the white house that was either going to sign or not sign. and look, i mean you can add
this to the list of things that republicans are doing that they promised they wouldn't do. for example, just the notion of reading the bill. i mean, the house and the senate, the senate in particular, you remember, the chicken scratch on the side of the actual formal legislation that they voted to approve, this is not long after many of them made campaign promises that they would not vote on anything before having three days to read it. i mean, this is actually a promise. so yes, this is the very clear example of why there is hypocrisy in politics and that when the shoe is on the other foot, whether it's legislation or nominations, that very different tunes are sung by each side. >> kate, i have to correct you -- >> i forget about that. go ahead. >> after that january one, it took a couple months. a lot that senate -- the health
care time in 2010 still needed to work through as they were trying to reconcile the two bills and deal with those famous reconciliation rules we talk about. it was not like that created a little more heart ache inside the obama white house before they could get the bill across the finish line. >> remember, obviously, it was because they were trying to work out how to get the democratic votes. it wasn't because oh, we're going to wait to see if a republican is seated for massachusetts. it was because of the practical reasons which is the same thing we're seeing now. >> exactly. >> a couple more days to relive all of the fun from the health care debate because it seems like a reduction of today. thanks so much. >> take care. as republican leaders are striking a deal house speaker paul ryan set to face reporters minutes from now. we will bring you his comments live. plus, are personal insecurities affecting national security? seriously a report by "the washington post" with new detail and a deep dive on just how many hoops trump's security staff
seem to jump through to avoid quote/unquote upsetting him with the "r" word, russia. that's next. ( ♪ ) when watching what you eat is causing a whole lot of food envy... ( ♪ ) try something delightfully doable with new marie callender's delights. introducing a new take on comfort food, like our baked turkey meatloaf in a roasted red pepper sauce, that's only 300 calories. because eating well calls for marie callender's delights.
because eating well he's a nascar champion who's she's a world-class swimmer who's stared down the best in her sport. but for both of them, the most challenging opponent was... pe blood clots in my lung. it was really scary. a dvt in my leg. i had to learn all i could to help protect myself. my doctor and i choose xarelto® xarelto®... to help keep me protected.
xarelto® is a latest-generation blood thinner... ...that's proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt and pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical studies, almost 98% of patients on xarelto® did not experience another dvt or pe. here's how xarelto works. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least six blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective... ...targeting just one critical factor, interacting with less of your body's natural blood-clotting function. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor as this may increase risk of blood clots. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. get help right away for unexpected bleeding, unusual bruising, or tingling. if you've had spinal anesthesia, watch for back pain or any nerve or muscle-related signs or symptoms. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. tell your doctor before all planned medical or dental procedures and before starting xarelto® about any conditions, such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems.
breaking news. we have two defense officials telling cnn that u.s. f-22 fighter jets intercepted russian aircraft over syria. america war planes firing warning flares in the incident. ryan brown joining me with the deals. >> defense officials telling me yesterday the two russian attack jets crossed the deconflickion line that's set up in syria to prevent any accidental encounters between u.s. forces
and russian forces. both have aircraft operating there. both conducting air strikes. they want to prevent any accidental clashes. the russians are increasingly crossing that line without warning, flying over the euphrates river which separates the two forces multiple times, sometimes as many as eight times a day we're being told. in this instance the flights were so concerning that u.s. scrambled f-22 stealth jets to intercept the russian fighters and fired warning flaring, something unusual in the intercepts to get their attention and out of that area. very high tensions here in the skies over syria, both the russia and u.s.-led coalition militaries are operating in close proximity where the risks and chances of miscalculation are very high and a top concern amongst u.s. military officials. >> absolutely. all right. ryan, thanks so much. we'll be getting more information. please bring it to us. we're following president trump's daily intelligence
briefings rearranged to avoid upsetting him. presentations adjusted to soften the impact all because of one word, russia. that's according to a new report in "the washington post" which also lays out that the president has not held a single cabinet-level meeting on the issue of russian meddling. the piece is a deep dive into president trump's angry reaction to any talk of russia's role in the 2016 election. here's bit more. trump was told members of his cabinet backed the intelligence report on russia and trump back so what admitting the kremlin hacked democratic party e-mails was a trap. so the question now, does the president's sensitivity here impact national security here and abroad? here's one of the reporters behind the story. >> it radiates across the government and affects every agency that interacts with russia or has to do with national security. it affects the cia, the state department, fbi, and all of the others as well. in two ways really.
one, as you said, they have to tip toe around this. they can't talk to the president about it. so they have to find work-arounds to make things happen. also the administration largely because of trump's impulses, have tried to undue some of the punishments the obama administration put in place. >> there's that. and also this involving russia this morning. russian president vladimir putin has had a lot to say about the u.s. from trump's performance as a president to intelligence assessments russia med lds in the election and the current tensions between the u.s. and north korea. to moscow, phil black, he is live from moscow. phil this all comes in this epic putin, end of-year press conference he holds. what's the big take? >> yes. three hours and 40 minutes this year, and that's not a record. he did 4:41 once. that's a lot of time and covered a lot of ground. he took a couple questions on trump an the united states and he described their relationship as good. he was asked to give a one-year
report card on trump's performance in the job, and he said that's not my job, that's a job for the american people. he talked about donald trump securing major achievements and pointed to the performance of america's markets saying that's a vote of confidence in the u.s. economy and it shows that people have confidence in the way it's managed by donald trump as well. he was also asked about contacts, seemingly many contacts, between russian officials and trump's people, particularly during the campaign. those contacts, as we know, now the subject of many investigations in the u.s. and this is what he had to say about that. >> translator: this is all dreamed up by people who are in opposition to trump, so as to make sure everybody thinks what he's doing and working at is illegitimate. this is strange because it's being done by people working against the interests of their own country and against the newly elected president of the country.
>> reporter: vladimir putin said he hopes donald trump will still make good on one of his election campaign promises and that is improving relations with russia because he still thinks that's good for russia, good for america and the world. this marathon press conference was largely domestic in focus, as you would expect, because it's a presidential election in this country in just three months, and when vladimir putin wins, as he's expected to do, that will see him potentially in power until 2024. kate? >> there you go. more putin for everyone to deal with. thank you so much, phil. appreciate it. joining me to discuss all of this and a lot of elements with regard to russia today, jamie is here, senior fellow at the atlantic council, former national security council staff for the clinton administration, and also joining us cnn military analyst lieutenant colonel rick francona. really appreciate it. jamie, i want to start with this deep dive in "the washington post" about just -- and i keep describe it the hoops the nsc
staff and his presidential daily briefing folks jump through to try to get him the information but not upset him. here's how it's described. let me read you part. russia related intelligence that might draw trump's ire is in some cases included only in the written assessment, not raised orally, said a form intelligence official familiar with the matter. in other cases trump's main briefer a veteran cia analysts adjusts the order of his presentation and texts, aiming to soften the impact. if you talk about russia meddling interference that takes the presidential daily briefing off the rails, says the second former u.s. intelligence official. what does this mean to you? >> it means that we are really in trouble. >> why? >> because the entire intelligence apparatus is based on getting the president of the united states the information that he or she some day needs to make important decisions, protecting our national security. if with all of that effort that we have, we're not able to
communicate the information about one of our greatest adversaries in a time of unbelievable crisis such as this, it makes the entire government unable to function and if there are questions which are swirling around everywhere about the propriety of the relationship between donald trump and his close associates and the russians, that makes this even worse and more concerning. >> colonel, i want to get your take. i mean, from the military perspective, if you can't give -- if you can't give the commander in chief the straight and skinny, what they need, is that troubling? >> absolutely. and, you know, you have to wonder, the senior intelligence officials, this is a dereliction of duty if they're not telling the president what he needs to know, not what he wants to know. i served in the intelligence community for many, many years and you always have the unenviable job of telling the commander the bad news and if the commander is not willing to listen to the bad news and only the good news, you're going to get a skewed decision.
this is the garbage in/garbage out. tell the president only what he wants to hear he will make decisions based on that. this is troubling if it's, in fact, true. i'm hoping the director of the cia mike pompeo is telling the president what's going on in these off-the-record, not written assessments, because someone has to tell the president what's going on. >> i guess in one regard, the reporting is that they have to try to figure out a different way to tell him, maybe just making the jobs harder now that they're not necessarily giving him all the information, but you just don't know. part of it also, though, jamie is that -- that came out of "the washington post" is that the president has not held a cabinet-level meeting on russian meddling in the election. is that surprising to you? there have been meetings on a lower level, but a cabinet-level meeting do you think that should be expected? >> this is really surprising because what the -- the reason why the cabinet meets and the national security council meets is to set an agenda for the government, to set priorities.
if we aren't meeting -- if our top leaders aren't meeting to respond to and understandard a fundamental threat against american democracy, our elections are the core foundation of our democracy. if we believe as all of our intelligence services believe, ises that our democracy and our elections have been attacked this is something serious. russia has invaded ukraine. there are all kinds of challenges related to russia. if we can't talk about that and can't face that adversary it's shocking. our parents and grandparents' generations spent their lives holding this wall protecting europe, protecting the world against the aggression that was coming out of the soviet union. now, with the cold war over, we are doing to ourselves what our adversaries for so many years wanted to do to us. >> one of the questions that lingers in "the washington post" lets it lingering out there, it remains unanswered, why is trump never explained why he so frequently seems to side with putin when a question is raised?
with regard to the real here and now, not just the national security question, but the immediate potential of conflict or misunderstanding over syria, colonel francona, your reaction to what ryan brown was reporting? i hope you lad a chance to hear it. f-22s intercepted russian jets over syria and had to fire warning flares. >> this is not the first time this has happened. ever since the russian aircraft showed up in syria in 2015. this has been a problem. we knew this was going to happen and set up the deconflickion line to prevents these from happening. the line is too slow, it's too cumbersome. there's no way for the pilots to communicate with each other. we don't speak each other's language and it's difficult to communicate once in the air. the incidents are going to continue to happen and it's going to get worse unless there's some resolutions to what's going on in syria. now if we can work with the russians to make that happen, that's a good thing. and i think that one of the
administration's goals is to somehow get closer with the russians on items like syria. we also have to talk to them about north korea. we find out that they're behind a lot of this. also their support for iran. if you look at what putin is doing in the middle east i think he's playing this administration even just as well as he played the previous administration. the russians are on the ascent in the middle east like the iranians. it's important to engage with the russians but turning a blind eye to what happened during the election is probably not a good idea either. i want to say i don't think we should overplay what happened because meddling in an election goes back a long time and i would not say we're exactly blameless in this. >> and -- when it comes down to it, what colonel francona is saying your can walk and chew gum, hold them accountable and not turn a blind eye in the election and work together with regard to things with north korea or over syria or, you know, russia's involvement with iran. great to see you -- >> it's not a --
>> colonel, great to see you as well. i really appreciate it. thank you. we are standing by right now for house speaker paul ryan. we will take you to the hill very shortly. he's set to speak moments from now as republican leaders say they have a deal on tax reform and moving full steam ahead. we'll be right back. i don't want to sound paranoid, but d'ya think our recent online sales success seems a little... strange? na. ever since we switched to fedex ground business has been great. they're affordable and fast... maybe "too affordable and fast." what if... "people" aren't buying these books online, but "they" are buying them to protect their secrets?!?! hi bill. if that is your real name. it's william actually. hmph! affordable, fast fedex ground. you or joints. something for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is the number one selling brain-health supplement in drug stores nationwide.
they appear out of nowhere. my secret visitors. appearing next to me in plain sight. hallucinations and delusions. these are the unknown parts of living with parkinson's disease. what stories they tell. but for my ears only. what plots they unfold. but only in my mind. over 50% of people with parkinson's will experience hallucinations or delusions during the course of their disease. and these can worsen over time, making things even more challenging. but there are advances that have led to treatment options that can help. if someone you love has parkinson's and is experiencing hallucinations or delusions, talk to your parkinson's specialist. because there's more to parkinson's. my visitors should be the ones i want to see.
learn more at moretoparkinsons.com [and her new business: i do, to jeanetgo. jeanette was excellent at marrying people. but had trouble getting paid. not a good time, jeanette. even worse. now i'm uncomfortable. but here's the good news, jeanette got quickbooks. send that invoice, jeanette. looks like they viewed it. and, ta-da! paid twice as fast. oh, she's an efficient officiant. way to grow, jeanette. new. get paid twice as fast for free. visit quickbooks-dot-com. that was just a'ight for me. yo, checi mean,t dawg. you got the walk. you got the stance.. but i wasn't really feeling it. you know what, i'm not buying this. you gotta come a little harder dawg. you gotta figure it out. eh, i don't know. shaky on the walk, carriage was off. randy jackson judging a dog show. i don't know dawg. surprising. what's not surprising? how much money lisa saved by switching to geico. wow! performance of the night.
fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. any moment now house speaker paul ryan -- actually starting to speak right now. we should probably jump -- are we going to it? let's go in, house speaker paul ryan. let's go it. >> if congress acts by christmas, people are going to see gains very soon. as the president announced
yesterday, if tax reform passes, taxpayers will see more money in their paychecks beginning in february. withholding tables will reflect that. the irs is taking steps to prepare new withholding tables for 2018 based upon this legislation. this tax cut will mean less of a paycheck going to washington, and more to the hard-working person who earned it. again, that's the purpose of this bill. bigger paychecks for the people working hard to provide for their families. in addition to the course that this relief gives people a simpler system and a fairer tax code. that is what this accomplishes. second, the appropriations committee has introduced a resolution that addresses critical national priorities. the people's house here passed all 12 appropriation bills on time, and ahead of the fiscal year deadline. it remains our goal to see all 12 become law. for now, at a time when we face threats around the globe, it's
vitally important that we fund our national defense. we want to make sure that the resources are in place to continue the important work to rebuild our military. as you all know this is one of our high priorities of this term, is to rebuild our military. this bill helps do that. we're also acting to extend the children's health insurance program. you may recall last month, november 3rd the house passed a fully funded extension to protect the 9 million children covered under c.h.i.p. that bill is hr-3922. the championing healthy kids act. unfortunately, an overwhelming majority of house democrats voted against the extension of c.h.i.p. funding. care for children in need should go beyond party lines. i certainly hope both parties will come together to make sure that we extend c.h.i.p. funding now. questions? casey. >> mr. speaker, congressman blake farenthold won't run for re-election next year, do you think he should step down? >> i had a couple conversations
with blake farenthold, he's making the right decision to retire. there are new stories very disconcerting, unacceptable behavior alleged in the stories and made the right decision he will be leaving congress. that reflects on the conversations we had. rachel? >> just to follow-up on mr. farenthold. after he settled his lawsuit he brought in after there were continued complaints, this has been reported, an outside investigator to see if there was sexual harassment going on in the office. the office of compliance actually recommended and helped find him that outside investigator. i'm wondering do you know how much taxpayer money was used for that? >> this is the first i've heard that. i don't -- >> do you think it thshould be made public? >> i haven't heard of this before. he was under an ethics investigation right now. i would refer you to susan brooks about the nature. what they do is they don't report on where they are but he
is under an ethics committee investigation as he should be. >> thank you. for a long time, gone on for decades, members of congress have slept in their offices. you have slept in your office for years, members, you know, show this as a sign of fiscal frugality. >> more of a convenience thing, but yeah. >> in this climate of sexual harassment and people prowling around from their offices to the house gym and so on, should members of congress be allowed to sleep in their offices considering this climate, is this a time and place and would you set the example, mr. speaker? >> i don't see the point. we sleep in our offices because we work until about midnight and we get up early in the morning. it actually is a convenience factor. we don't see our staffs. i never see my staff when i return back to my office. i go from the capitol to the office. it's not that we're seeing our staff in the evening when we're sleeping in our offices. it's a factor of convenience and that, to me, makes a lot of sense because i live in
wisconsin. i don't live here in washington, d.c. if i'm not here voting and working, i'm at home with my family and constituents. so this is simply a convenience factor. i don't see how it's connected to anything else. let me go to kristen. >> do you anticipate a budget deal before you leave this month? >> i would like to see that happen. i don't know the answer to that question. when the democrats pulled out of these talks, that cost us weeks. so we'll see where we can land. it would be my preference to get an agreement sooner rather than later. >> the appropriators seem to be very close to coming together on a supplemental. >> yeah. >> to provide aid to puerto rico and texas. >> and florida and louisiana. say that again? >> do we anticipate a vote on that? >> i do. our members very much want to see an agreement on a disaster supplemental before we leave, so that is something we're working toward. >> thank you, mr. speaker.
there seems to be some discussion under way as to which chamber would go first on tax reform. can you clarify what you believe will happen? >> i don't know the answer to that question. there is discussion about this. it's all about timing and managing absences in the senate. so, we're basically being flexible for the majority leader. i've talked to mitch a couple times about this. we're being flexible to honor their concerns about managing their schedule and some possible absences. >> how concerned are you about senator mccain and the health and of cochran? >> i'll refer you to senator mcconnell. >> i don't know if you have your postcard with you? >> yeah. you got one? >> is this -- >> i have a memo on appropriations in my pocket. >> is this the postcard that taxpayers will use to file their taxes assuming the tax bill passes come april 15th? and then also, considering -- >> april 15th is last year. >> for the next year. >> right. >> and then, considering the
sweeping nature of the changes in the bill do you envision any portions of it delaying taking effect and any of them not taking effect in 2018? >> you will see -- oh, sure. i mean, people who covered tax bills, andy knows this stuff, you -- you'll see lots of dates in this tax bill. for instance, depreciation schedules will be effective september 27th -- sorry. get a kick out of that. you'll see depreciation schedules go into effect september 27th, 2017, that's when the framework came out and we announced that the depreciation full expensing schedule. what we did not want to do is stop investments from occurring. there will be 2017 date, 2018 dates, later dates. that's how all tax laws work. >> last question. >> mr. speaker, were you aware of the so-called congressional hush funds used to settle these
sexual harassments. >> no. it's not a fund. i didn't know about it. but we've all learned more since then and there's not like a fund of money set aside. it's when claims are made, claims get paid. some of it is for anthrax. i remember i was out of my office for i don't know, something like a month, when we had the anthrax letters ta came to congress. we were down at the gao. we were out of longworth. there were anthrax claims. there were asbestos claims, slip and fall claims. lots of different kinds of claims that occur and payments get made. we did not know the nature of this beforehand. one more. yeah. >> thanks, mr. speaker. two questions if you don't mind. on -- on taxes -- >> the dynamic questioning. >> yeah. on tax, we know the polling has shown that it's not particularly popular and even among republican voters there is skepticism, what do you think is the reason for that and do you think it will change and
secondly, i was wondering if you could look ahead briefly to next year, you've talked about entitlement reform. conservatives feel they have an agreement from you that there will be some discussion of entitlement reform. >> part of our agenda. >> what are we going to see? >> first off, if you look at the polling that was done in ronald reagan's signature 1986 tax reform, something like a month before it passed, 18% of the people polled thought they were going to benefit from it. so this is the nature of the debate on things this big like tax reform. you've got pundits and spinteres and spinmeisters confusing the public and that's what i think is happening here with tax reform. like you see with any large piece of legislation. what comforts me greatly is the fact that the results are going to produce fantastic results that will improve the lives of hard-working taxpayers in things country. i'm convinced this is going to help repatriate capital, this is
going to launch more investment and workers, convinced this will give bigger paychecks and doubling the standard deduction means nine out of ten -- i wish i had it with me -- can fill the taxes out on a form like the postcard. the results will be what sells this bill. not the confusion before it passes. on entitlement reform, i've long said there are two things you got to do to get this debt under control. reform the entitlement programs, which are on autopilot, and grow the economy. we had three reconciliation packages prepared for this congress. the first, which the house passed op health care, didn't pass the senate. the second one, which we're in right now, was about getting the economy growing and doing tax reform. we're on the cusp of delivering that. the third one, the one next year, back to very important entitlement reforms and one of the important entitlement reforms we see that is necessary
is get us out of this poverty trap where we're trapping people in poverty, disincentivizing work. you know, we've been talking about tax rate always over the place. the corporations pay this, the small businesses -- you know who pays the highest tax rate in america? single mom with two kids getting 24 grand in benefits that will lose 80 cents on the dollar if she gets a job. we are trapping people in lives of dependency and poverty. they're making rational decisions. let's change our laws so we push and pull people out of poverty into the workforce. the great thing about tax reform coming right now is we're going to be able to create the kind of economy that produces good family supporting jobs, higher wages, that will be there for people who are stuck in poverty and welfare to go to. and so next year, is going to be the year where we work on people. next year is the year where we work on get people where they need to get in life, a better
job, an actual career, closing the skills gap. you know, if you take a look at the economy -- i'm riffing here but this is something i feel strongly about, there's three things we're trying to do right now to get this economy humming to reach its potential. fix the regulatory problem. we have been just slamming businesses over the last eight years with the obama regulatory state that is a massive hidden cost of doing business. a huge hidden tax. we're making great progress on that. reform the tax code so we can get faster economic growth, more jobs, higher wages, bigger paychecks. we're in the middle of doing that. people. this is going to be the new economic challenge for america. people. baby boomers are retiring. i did my part, but, you know, we need to have higher birth rates in this country, meaning baby boomers are retiring and fewer people following them in the work force. we have something like a 90% increase in the retirement population in america, but only a 19% increase in the working population in america. so what do we have to do? be smarter, more efficient, more
technology. still going to need more people. and when we have tens of millions of people right here in this country falling short of their potential, not working, not looking for a job, or not in school getting a skill to get a job, that's a problem. so that's why we need to tackle these things. next year we want to take on criminal justice reform. we want to take on skills, you know, getting people the skills they need to get the jobs they want, career and technical career education and welfare reform. those are the entitlement reforms we're talking about. the last point i'll say is, obamacare is collapsing and failing, so we won't be able to ignore that problem. we're going to have to revisit the problem of a health care marketplace that is collapsing and that is something we're going to have to get on to. thank you very much. appreciate it. >> house speaker paul ryan speaking about a lot, taxes, timing and sexual harassment allegations on the hill. let's get to all of it. start here joining me right now, democratic congresswoman lois
frankel of florida chairs the democratic women's working group. thanks so much for joining me. you've been -- you've taken a leading role amongst democrats in trying to tackle and push for reforms with regard to this wave of sexual harassment allegations and that conversation on capitol hill and beyond. let's start there. i don't know if you had a chance to hear house speaker paul ryan but he was asked to react and give his take on the fact that republican congressman blake farenthold has announced amid a slew of allegations against him he will not be seeking re-election and house speaker paul ryan's response he's making the right decision to retire. your take? >> first, kate, thanks for having me. you know, i -- i've been focused on a process that will be fair, that will allow victims of sexual harassment and abuse to come forward, to have a fair process, where they can be heard, where members will be accountable. as to mr. farenthold, from what
i have read all i can say is i think it's gross, it's embarrassing, it's beneath the dignity of a member if what he said, he did say, and i'll add, someone should wash his mouth out with detergent. that might be part of the punishment. >> congresswoman, the question to paul ryan today was, farenthold says he's not going to seek re-election. should he resign? should he leave before then? and the house speaker did not answer that question. does that distinction make a difference to you? >> i think this is the perfect case that should be immediately sent to the ethics committee and i think mr. farenthold will get a lot of pressure back at home. there's really no way i can force him or any member to resign, but we have to have a fair process here so that victims can come forward and we -- and they can -- members can be accountable if the allegations are true. >> yeah. his case has been taken back up
in front of the ethics committee. he's just announced this morning he will not be seeking re-election and that is the reaction from house speaker paul ryan. but you are also calling, congresswoman, on congress to investigate the allegations into president trump, the sexual misconduct allegations in president trump. republican senator ron johnson, he dismissed that idea this morning in an interview with cnn. also saying this. listen please. >> so no, you do not endorse any investigation of the allegations against president trump, even though more women have come forward? >> something during his presidency absolutely we have to provide oversight. prior to that, the voters spoke. >> something happened during the presidency, yes, prior to that, no. you say? >> i totally disagree. first of all, this is a #metoo moment where victims from all walks of life and industries are coming forward and to me human decency starts at the top.
we have asked the oversight committee which has a wide jurisdiction to take a look and allow these women to be heard and, of course, allow the it's inconsistent with the history of the oversight committee to say no, it's something in the past. how about whitewater. that was an investigation against president clinton when he was president. i think it's a politically expedient dismissal, but we are going to move forward. 70% of the public according to a new poll wants this investigation to occur. i think we would be sending a wrong message to say just because you are president, you are off the hook. >> despite what any poll says, there is a republican majority in the house and senate and no indication they will be moving towards that any time soon. i want to ask you about snag happened within the democratic party. in closed door meeting, it was about sexual harassment reforms.
democratic congresswoman said the following. too many members are dressed inappropriately. it's an invitation to be harassed. were you in that meeting? >> i must have missed that meeting, but that's an inappropriate comment. she ought to rethink that statement. >> she put out a statement saying she didn't mean to suggest that victims were ever sudden responsible. >> she made a mistake, but i know her and she is a good and straight forward lady. that's something that i don't agree with. >> you are taking a leading edge on this. we will see how your work goes. let's discuss this and broaden it out to the other news before i went to the congresswoman. our commentator and director for ted cruz's presidential
campaign. contributing editor from bussle.com. a national political reporter with real clear politics. let's jump, if we can. i want to talk about the other news. this perked up when paul ryan was asked about the timing on the tax bill. everyone knows it's moving forward. it sounds inside baseball. his answer seemed to indicate something strange. i believe i'm correct when i say i think the senate was supposed to go first. paul ryan said he is in talks with mitch mcconnell because they need to honor concerns about managing their schedule and possible absences of senators. one of the senators is senator john mccain. >> senator john mccain we know has been in walter reed this week undergoing treatment that is the result of side effects we are told from chemotherapy and
radiation. while his office said he wants to be back at work as soon as possible, i don't think we know yet how he is doing and whether he is going to be back for the vote. this sounded to me as if speaker ryan was saying we are going to be flexible about this. i think they wanted to have the vote on monday, but maybe they are going to push it to tuesday because john mccain wants to be there. >> do you get an indication that they say it's the side effects of his treatment. do you get an indication that -- it's a horrible diagnosis, but that things are getting worse? >> dr. sanjay gupta who knows much more than i do talked about this morning that the side effects of this can be terrible. on the other hand, in the last couple of weeks, sources of mine told me that senate colleagues feel he has been declining.
he has been frail. one story they said that was interesting is they have their republican lunch. he always debates and speaks something. in recent memory he has been speaking at the lunches. that may be energy. i'm not jumping to any conclusion, but they said they feel he is very frail. >> put that silliness aside, let's hope he gets better and can return to work. he wants to be first and foremost as quickly as possible. give me your take. timing, they are moving ahead regardless. let's assume that john mccain is of good health and good enough to come vote. they need to face off with the numbers they are facing. 26% approve of the bill. why is that? >> the challenge has been
multidimensional. first they mead to pass a tax bill, they say, to be able to show voters ahead of the mid-terms that we are doing something with the congressional majorities and this has been an important policy point for them. that aside, the selling of the bill if and when it does pass will be monumental in and of itself. they wanted the president to be a spokesperson for the bill. he has done that more so than for the health care legislation. speaker ryan was saying that this may be a matter of people seeing the actual effects that it takes next year. they will have to do a lot of pr work on this bill. it could be that people perceive it the same way they did obamacare. it was very unpopular and that foreshadows the similarities that we see between now and 2010 and especially when it becomes to the congressional elections. >> you point to it and it seems that that is the strategy when you look at the poll numbers.
they are kind of like poll numbers be damned. republicans think that americans are going to like it once the bill is in place. it is very ala obamacare strategy 2010. do you think this is smart or is this a gamble? >> if what they are saying is true, it's a wise move. i think the speaker made it quite clear and the president did yesterday. the results of this tax plan will sell it much more than the confusion surrounding it on the frontent. he made it clear and the president said the irs is working to implement it right away. if people across this country do see more money in their paycheck by the next few months, the approval will be 100%. the good they think speaker ryan was saying is there is republican compromise between the house and senate. >> not bipartisan. >> with regard to reducing the individual tax rate down to 37
and corporate tax to 21. trump fought really hard for 20%. they compromised on 21%. the mortgage interest tax rate at 750,000 was a great compromise between both sides. what we are seeing is they are working together and hoping that they are able to implement this quickly to alleviate the fears by people that are skeptical right now. >> and this is very similar playbook to how obamacare played out. what is going to happen? >> i mean we like to hear that because the difference is this is clear that's why the polling is so low on this. what people are understanding is this is taking away from the poor and the middle class and giving it to the large corporations. to the 1%. that's very, very clear. you have groups even, medical groups and also the national association of realtor who is
have opposed every iteration of this piece of legislation. if you look at the quinnipiac poll that showed 26% of people disapprove of this, you also have 43% of voters saying that they are not going to vote for elected officials who vote for this. politically this is bad. the policy is bad. >> forget the policy. we only care about politics. i like the poll that is good for us and don't like those that are not good. we have to leave it there. thank you very much for joining us. coming up, we will have much more on the tax issue and the new report in the "washington post" outlining how many hoops the security staff seem to jump through to avoid upsetting him. with the r word.