tv At This Hour With Kate Bolduan CNN January 11, 2018 8:00am-9:00am PST
my son played for the bulls. >> yeah. look, it's a good thing they won or they would be disappointing mom. no one wants to do that. >> right. >> great to have you with us. thank you all for joining us today. a lot of news. i'm john berman. "at this hour" starts right now. hi there, i'm brianna keilar in for kate bolduan. new this morning, president trump unleashes an angry new stream of attacks on federal investigators, the obama administration, and his favorite target of all, hillary clinton. today's twitter siege remarkable for potential self-sabotage. the president seemingly lashing out at the fisa act, a government surveillance program his own white house has fought for and as it faces a house vote at any moment now, we have cnn's kaitlan collins at the white house on this, so kaitlan, the president added to some of the confusion by trying to walk back his earlier attack. explain this to us? >> that's right, brianna.
a contradiction and cleanup at the white house this morning and it's only 11:00 and it got started when the president tweeted, seeming to go against a bill that his administration had endorsed just hours earlier. the president tweeted, house votes on controversial fisa act today. this is the act that may have been used with the help of the discredited and phony dossier to badly surveil and abuse the trump campaign by the previous administration and others. now, that tweet came, it caused a stir because it came less than 12 hours after the white house issued a statement strongly endorsing the reauthorization of this law and strongly opposing an amendment that would limit its scope, the white house press secretary sarah sanders saying in a statement urging the house to, quote, preserve useful role of fisa's 702 authority plays in protecting american lives. in this time period with between this -- that first tweet and the next tweet i'm about to read was
about 90 minutes or so. clearly someone to spoke to the president about what the administration's position on this is, because his earlier tweet contradicted it and then the president followed up his first tweet saying with that being said, i have personally directed the fix to the unmasking process since taking office and today's vote is about foreign surveillance of foreign bad guys on foreign land. we need it. get smart. but brianna, this is really just another example of the president undercutting something his administration has said is the white house's stance and then the president goes on twitter or on an interview and says something completely different. >> yeah. it is a good example. kaitlan collins at the white house. thank you. has the president thrown a wrench into republican efforts to extend a bill that white house as kaitlan reported has said is vital to keeping the nation safe. manu raju is on capitol hill with this. the president's tweets this morning really couldn't have come at a worse time, manu? >> forced republican leaders to scramble to make sure that they had the votes in order to get
this through. i just actually had a chance to talk to the house majority leader kevin mccarthy about whether or not this tweet effectively -- essentially stopped this bill from going forward, and what mccarthy told me it won't. they're in good shape to pass this bill. they're starting to vote on one of the amendments right now, an amendment that republican and democratic leaders were supporting the bill do not want to see passed, an amendment supported by civil libertarians on the right and left that would propose new safeguards and much more oversight and stringent requirements on the warrantless surveillance program but paul ryan on the floor moments ago argued this amendment would essentially scuttle this bill so they're trying, working very hard to make sure that this amendment that the president seemed to endorse in that early morning tweet does not get on the bill. when i asked kevin mccarthy whether or not these tweets had complicated things, mccarthy said remember, there were two
tweets, seeming to suggest the second tweet probably helped on the republican side. the question, though, is on the democratic side, there is significant democratic opposition to the bill as well and earlier, brianna, house minority leader nancy pelosi and adam schiff the top democrat on the house intelligence committee, said this bill should be pulled from the floor, sent back to the committee, dealing with some of the privacy concerns even though they both support the bill schiff saying he supports the bill but the tweets this morning put a cloud over this bill and they say it makes sense to wait a little longer but, of course, the expiration date is coming up soon. they need to move expeditiously and hoping the republican leaders are they can get the vote off the house floor to the senate but the president making things a little more tricky here in the final hours. brianna in. >> and should be starting soon, right? >> should be starting soon. first the amendment that the leaders are trying to kill, the
republican leaders and democratic leaders don't want to get on and then final passage of this bill, we should expect it momentarily to see whether or not they get this through the us. >> manu raju on the hill, thank you for that. let's evaluate some of this, shall we. bring in legal and national security analyst asha rangappa, a former fbi special agent joined by political reporter rebecca berg and national security analyst shawn turner. i'm picturing what we just heard kaitlan describe from the white house where the president tweets and knocks fisa in general and links it to the investigation of his campaign and the dossier and you almost wonder if in that point in time there were advisors who, you know, face palming as they saw the tweet go out. >> no doubt about it. the president directly contradicted a statement that had been put out by the white house, their official position on this fisa reauthorization with that tweet and it happened
because he was watching fox news this morning, doing a report on the fisa reauthorization, framing it as a controversy, and, of course, going back to some of these issues with the dossier, the president's fears about unmasking. he watched this report and then tweeted things directly contradicting his administration's policy on this reau forization and the republican leaders' policy on this reauthorization. the president has done this before, put votes in jeopardy republicans needed on capitol hill but doesn't make it any less extraordinary that the president is off on his own without his staff intervene. >> feels different, shawn, it does happen all the time, rebecca is right, something about it being this issue, it's so controversial, proponents say this is so essential. this comes down to keeping americans safe. >> this is such an important issue. we have to remember that section 702 is not just about terrorism or espionage. section 702 is one of the
intelligence community's most important tools in order for us to be able to collect foreign intelligence on the threats that face this country. it's one of the tools that we use for making sure that iran complies with the 2015 deal, with making sure that north korea is not trying to acquire the materials to move forward with their nuclear program. when i saw the president's tweet this morning it was really startling for the entire intelligence community and as you indicated i talked to people who said that the president's national security team, leaders in the intelligence community, went into overdrive trying to get to the president to make sure he understood that this was not what he thought it was and we support this bill. >> i want to get a fact-check from you of what the president tweeted. he said in his accusation that fisa may have been used, with the help of the discredited and phony dossier, so badly surveil and abuse the trump campaign by the previous administration and others. >> okay. let's break this down a little bit. >> yeah. >> break it down. so what the house is voting on today is a section of fisa.
fisa is a statute that's been around since 1978. it covers how electronic surveillance can happen in the united states on u.s. citizens. so any fisa surveillance that would have happened on someone in his campaign, say paul manafort would have required a court order, for everybody in the states. 702 is about targeting non-u.s. persons outside of the united states. nothing to do that would have potentially happened at least with the people that he's referring to there and as far as the steele dossier i did fisa warrants when i was in the fbi and you have to go into court and corroborate every fact that's in there. so i think he needs to be careful because if it were true that any facts in the dossier were used in the fisa application it means they were corroborated and i don't think that's something he wants to
really, you know, state out there. >> you're nodding. >> absolutely. i mean the president has to separate the two of these things out. first of all, the dossier had nothing to do with fisa. okay. absolutely nothing to do. and as asia pointed out -- >> what did have to do with fisa, there were members of his campaign who previously and while on the campaign been under surveillance, with the fisa warrant, paul manafort, carter page, that's what fisa has to do with this russia thing. >> two different statutes. the administration supports the idea that the intelligence community should be able to collect foreign intelligence on foreign individuals, reasonably bleefbds to be operating outside of the united states. that's section 702. now, obviously fisa has a statute that extends to the fbi and other authorities but the president absolutely must make sure that he does not conflate those two. >> that is correct. >> that's what i think the initial tweet was about. >> rebecca, where does this leave -- is it manu saying he
talked to republican leaders and they seem to say it's going to be okay, but where does things leave everything with this vote? >> it threw it into chaos this morning, brianna, and the president tried to clean up his mess with his subsequent tweet and it appears that that was effective if republicans are, indeed, planning to bring this vote to the floor. they would only do that in the event they really believe they have the votes to pass this legislation, to pass this reauthorization. the president did create a mess with his initial tweet and open the door for critics or people who were on the fence on capitol hill about supporting things measure to potentially say, well, maybe if the president has doubts i should have my own doubts about this. there was that 90-minute period between the two tweets where i imagine there was a great deal of -- >> lot of lost hair, people ripping it out. i want to ask you, rebecca, about the president meeting with robert mueller and this was something the president himself had initially been open to. >> right. >> then he kind of changed his tune. i want you to check out his evolution on this.
>> would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of the events. >> 100%. >> if robert mueller asks you to come and speak with his committee personally are you committed still to doing that? do you believe -- >> just so you understand, there's been no collusion. there's been no crime. and in theory, everybody tells me, i'm not under investigation. maybe hillary is, i don't know, but i'm not. >> would you be open -- >> we'll see what happens. certainly i'll see what happens. but when they have no collusion and nobody has found any collusion at any level, it seems unlikely that you would even have an interview. >> i mean, that's different, rebecca. what do you make of the change? >> it's difficult to understand if mueller would want to speak to him or if the president would agree to such an interview it's possible he has had some conversations with his counsel who may have explained to the
president some of the paths this could take. it's possible mueller could agree to written questions and answers from the president. if he did want to compel the president to a sit down interview, it's possible if the president didn't want to do it, that he would need to subpoena him and that could unleash a whole other sort of legal process. so the president might now be aware he does have options and so we don't -- we will have to see what mueller wants from the president. >> keeping his options open. shawn, rebecca, asha, thank you so much to all of you. and you've probably picked this up, it's a pretty hectic day in washington and on capitol hill. the nailbiting vote on a controversial surveillance bill is set to go down any moment as we watch the live pictures of the house floor, an amendment being voted on. we will bring the vote on the bill to you as soon as it happens. plus, house speaker paul ryan is going to speak soon to reporters. you can see they're getting ready on capitol hill. lawmakers right now fighting key
battles over immigration and a spending bill. all of this is happening as we race toward the deadline for a government shutdown next week. stay with us. if yor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough, it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract
and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. this condition has not been reported with entyvio. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach.
hormone receptor positive her2- metastatic breast cancer as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole was significantly more effective at delaying disease progression versus letrozole. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. julie calls it her "new" normal. because a lot has changed, but a lot hasn't. ibrance, the #1 prescribed fda-approved oral combination treatment for hr+/her2- mbc.
minutes from now, we're going to hear from house speaker paul ryan. he and mitch mcconnell face a monumental challenge, finding common ground on the polarizing issue of immigration and delivering a deal to a trump white house that itself hasn't always seemed to know what it wants. hanging in the balance is the fate of some several hundred thousand undocumented immigrants, the so-called d.r.e.a.m.ers, who came here as children. one gop group has unveiled its bill, another group is close, like those -- and just like those folks, don't expect that these competing factions are going to neatly fall into line. looming over all of this is the very real threat of a government shutdown. cnn congressional correspondent sunlen serfaty is following all
of this, joining us now from capitol hill. what are we expecting to hear from the speaker later this hour, sunlen? >> i expect that he will be asked and will provide some sort of update on the status of negotiations. we know there are several working groups up here on capitol hill going through, trying to put pen to paper on certain proposals that they want to put forward. the senate side, there is a working group of members that met late last night and came out and said that they believe that they're making progress, they're inching towards an actual proposal they can put forward but they're not there yet. of course that proposal as we've been talking about in recent days addresses daca, it addresses family migration, the diversity lottery, and border security, what that means in terms of president trump's desire for a wall, how much money would be sent through that. of course in the background as these negotiations tick along up here on capitol hill, the clock tix forward towards that deadline they have to get a spending bill, january 19th when
they need to get the spending bill by, and democrats, of course, have entangled the two issues daca and the spending bill, but the talk on capitol hill is they may be moving towards decoupling those two. what would democrats do to pushes this? would they push this to a government shutdown over their demands on daca? >> sunlen serfaty, thank you so much for that report. joining me is democratic congresswoman jiapal to talk about this, a member of the house judiciary committee. thank you so much for making the time as you talk to us from off the house floor. we appreciate it. >> great to be with you. >> on the table now in the immigration discussions, you have daca, you have border security, but there's also as part of some of the pillars of discussion, chain migration or family reunification, depends on who you're talking to there, the idea of ending the diversity
visa lottery. you said putting the other issues on the table is absurd, tell us why you think that? >> these issues are part of the larger conversation on comprehensive immigration reform. they were on the table when we were talking about legalization and a path to citizenship and the backlog and family immigration system which has been a central tenant of immigration policy in this country for families everywhere. now to add those two things to this discussion, is disingenuous and would lead to -- if you really were taking those issues up seriously, i think that would lead to this deal falling apart. now, i think that there are some -- some pieces of the daca proposal that include what happens to the parents of d.r.e.a.m.ers, a number of other things, that do need to be on the table. this idea that chain migration is real, is really only something that people who know nothing about immigration will say because chain migration doesn't for the most part exist.
it took me 18 years to get my citizenship. if i tried to get my parents to come here as a u.s. citizen, it would have taken many more years. so finally they were too old to come over. so that's the reality for a lot of people. so this is about family-based immigration staying strong, dealing with the backlogs. that needs to be part of comprehensive immigration reform and even the president agreed with that and said look, let's stick to daca as the first step. obviously he's going to be pushing for border security as part of it. but putting these other issues on the table complicates things and really that's a discussion for the next day. >> there is some frustration by rank and file democrats that this has been allowed to be part of the discussion. do you think the democratic leaders have let you down by allowing it to be part of the discussion? >> this is a difficult conversation, but i absolutely think we need to hold strong to the idea that this is about
daca, it's about d.r.e.a.m.ers, something that 80% of the population, including in trump districts believe should get done and should not be tied to other things. so, you know, i know negotiations get tough, i know people want things to get done, but we are pushing back and saying look, this needs to be about d.r.e.a.m.ers. if we're going to have another conversation about family based immigration, that should go into the comprehensive immigration reform bucket and by the way, we have a plan, a bipartisan plan, that passed the u.s. senate with 67 bipartisan votes back in 2013 around comprehensive immigration reform, we know how to reform the system and so it's i think, you know, we just need to stick to what's on the table and not put other things on the list because we have a big list of things that include 11 million undocumented immigrants that we need to figure out how to allow them to stay and allow them to continue. >> i want to talk to you about what we're seeing on the house floor right now.
this you the prelude to the big vote on the fisa authorization or section of fisa and this has to do with an amendment i believe you're part of this amendment, right? >> i am. >> this amendment by congressman justin amash, and this has to do with the unmasking, the revealing of the identity of americans, that is right, who might be sort of caught up in surveillance. tell us about this amendment and also with the knowledge you may not have heard of, but the speaker was on the floor arguing how if this amendment passes it would kill the entire program. >> well, i don't think he's right and i think you have an interesting combination of, you know, freedom caucus members and folks who on the democratic side who care deeply about civil liberties coming together to say look this amendment is very simple, it just says that you need to get a warrant if an american is caught up in this
collection of data. there's a lot of sftuff that ges collected. if there is a criminal investigation that is going to move forward based on the collection of the data for an american citizen you need a warrant to move forward with that. i don't think that's going to kill anything. i think that's going to protect civil liberties and it will be interesting to see what happens here. but we all believe that fisa has an important role to play that we do need to reauthorize fisa, but this has been a problem, it's called the about collection without appropriate measures to protect u.s. citizens and the privacy of u.s. citizens i think is extremely important. that's i think, you know -- we will see what happens, but i think the speaker is wrong when he says this will kill the bill. there's a lot of votes. whether or not there's enough votes we'll have to just wait and see. >> yeah. it seems like it is going to be tough, but it is worth noting there is bipartisan support there for that amendment that
you are a part of. congresswoman, thank you so much. we do appreciate you being with us. congresswoman jayapal. >> any moment now, house speaker paul ryan will take questions on immigration, a potential government shutdown and so much more. this is a live picture there on capitol hill as we await him. we will bring this to you once it gets going. and no job, no medicaid. that could soon be the case in several states as the trump administration takes a major step to impose work requirements for medicaid recipients. details ahead. your insurance company
won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.
we know life can be hectic. that's why, at xfinity, we've been working hard to simplify your experiences with us. now, with instant text and email updates, you'll always be up to date. you can easily add premium channels, so you don't miss your favorite show. and with just a single word, find all the answers you're looking for - because getting what you need should be simple, fast, and easy. download the xfinity my account app or go online today. new rules for medicaid recipients. the trump administration will allow states to enforce work requirements on millions of low-income people who receive medicaid. this is a first and cnn's money -- cnn money tammy lubi is joining me with details.
explain this and lay out the changes here. >> this is a significant change to medicaid. for the first time in its 50-year history, states are going to be allowed to require people to work to get medicaid. now the administration is saying that work promotes independence and that it's very much in keeping with medicaid's philosophy and mission, but, you know, others say that it could end up leaving a lot of people off the rolls. so what's going to happen now, is states can apply for waivers to require able-bodied, nondisabled, naonpregnant adult, these folks will have to start going to work or doing community service, volunteer activities or other types of activities, even caregiving if they want to retain their benefits. >> critics -- you mentioned what some are saying, this is going leave some folks off the rolls
and if they're not off -- not on the rolls this could hinder the ability of poorer americans affording medical care. tell us more about those concerns? >> well, medicaid right now is a huge program. i don't think people realize how big it is. it actually covers more than 75 million americans. many of them are children, the elderly, people not subject to this. but there are also millions of adults now on medicaid. and they need it to get health care, particularly substance abuse treatment, mental health care, things that are important in order for them to actually get independent and, you know, get jobs. critics are afraid that this new requirement is going to be too onerous on people who have conditions that may not be classified as disabled but may have asthma or arthritis or other issues that prevent them from working and so they're going to be dropped off the rolls, but right now, there are millions of medicaid recipients who do work, but consumer
advocates are concerned that even these folks may have trouble meeting the requirements because there could be very strict documentation and verification standards that they have to meet and it may be difficult for them to meet that so, therefore, they may end up getting kicked off the rolls even if they are working. >> you always make so much sense of things and we appreciate your expertise on this. thank you. thank you. >> i just mention we're awaiting house speaker paul ryan , he is expected to hold a news conference. reporters filing into the room there on capitol hill, and we're going to bring this to you as soon as it gets under way. his role as house speaker could be in jeopardy this fall as a growing number of republicans are saying they're going to get out of congress. that could mean that the gop is going to have a hard time keeping control of the house. joining me now is ileana johnson, national political reporter for politico and cnn's senior political analyst mark preston.
first off as we wait for the speaker here, what is happening with -- i do want to talk about the political future, but let's talk about the fisa bill that is currently on the floor, a busy day on capitol hill. what is happening there as the president undercut his party, and then back pedalled because we understand now, we just got in that apparently president trump and house speaker paul ryan spoke after the first tweet where the president knocked fisa this morning. >> i think you saw in the president's first tweet and then his followup tweet, this idea since the campaign really that the president is this communications genius, some ways he is, but there's a sort of grand strategy behind his tweets to circumvent the media. his first tweet this morning slamming the fisa bill and fisa in general, really gave the light to that and showed how seemingly random and actually random these can be, and it was clear that he spoke with paul ryan, presumably paul ryan was trying frantically to reach the
president and tell him he was undercutting republican legislation on the hill that they needed the president's support to pass. you saw the president backtrack after that and it actually demonstrates how sometimes random and off the cuff these tweets are. >> and that they can be damaging -- >> have truly damaging implications to our legislation on capitol hill. we've talked about the potential implications for foreign policy but you saw the implication for republican domestic policy. >> to elian na's point, maybe a little walk through the president's news consumption in the morning. see a story on fi sashgs draws an ill informed connection with the dossier. >> speaks with his heart and doesn't speak with his head. we think of president trump as this ball of energy, right, right when we talk about, you know, is he a master at communicating and messaging and what have you? some ways he is, right, because
he's able to hit the masses, and many ways he's not, though, because he's not very strategic about it. if you were to look back at the obstacles and problems the president has had over the past year, now his first year in office they've been all self-inflicted. >> it's a god point. as we await the speaker on capitol hill, it seems like each day brings new names of republicans who have decided i'm not going to give this another go. even republicans who have been in congress for so many terms. this is the political reality he'll be likely confronted with today at the press conference and he will be confronted with all year. >> no question. there's an incredible amount of pressure put on paul ryan right now because of historical trends right now where it looks like republicans are going to lose a large number of house seats. and also because they're running up against president trump in the sense he's not always there for them. he isn't always standing by them. i think historically i do think we should point this out right
now, if you look in the past six midterm elections if the president's approval rating is above 60% they will gain seats. if the president's approval rating is below 50% the president's party loses seats. at this point right now president trump's approval rating is high 30s right now. that is very problematic. >> what do you think considering even paul ryan is rumored to be considering a departure from congress? >> my view has always been that paul ryan is far more likely to leave congress and retire if republicans lose the house. so i don't think paul ryan really has much interest in being minority leader. he took the job because he felt the real responsibility to lead his party in the absence really of any other leader. but this space of retirements i think is said to be the biggest factor in the midterm elections in terms of whether democrats are able to row capture the house -- recapture the house than any other factor aside from the president's popularity rating. incumbents enjoy advantages in
elections. look in 2016 in terms of money raised and name recognition, incumbents in 2016, house candidates, raised about $1.6 million to what challengers raised, $231,000. that's just a huge advantage, that's tremendously difficult to overcome. >> why are they deciding they're going to get out if they have this advantage? >> a couple things. one, let's look at darrell issa the most recent member of congress who decided to get out. he barely won re-election the last time around. won by 1600 votes. it was going to be difficult. it's a district that hillary clinton won in 2016 even as president trump went on to win the presidency. there's a big "x" factor now, and it's been in play i think if you two back about six, seven, eight years right now, but it's certainly in play in a big way now. that's outside groups. there is an incredible amount of energy right now on the left to raise money to try to back up
challengers and help democrats who are in office now. republicans have the same thing. >> is he essentially saying i can't win? is that what you take that to mean? or -- >> i take that -- >> i don't want to go through what's going to be grueling? i'm not really a fan of what's going on in washington? how do we read this? >> i think it's a little of both. in darrell issa's case, although he would disagree, he realized he had an uphill battle and was going to lose? >> called himself landslide in the last one as a joke. it was pretty narrow. >> it's a mix of both. rinse w republicans who don't want to work in washington in a party increasingly defined by president trump and republicans who would have a hard time winning primaries in a party defined by president trump. if you look at the senate, jeff flake, who conceded he wouldn't have won a tough primary challenge but also bob corker who could have pretty easily won his primary but seemed pretty exhausted by the prospect of continuing to work in a party
whose, you know, essentially leader is donald trump. >> because if you're saying that the incumbent has all of these advantages which you so lovely were able to spell out for us, they're walking away leaving a republican who will not have those advantages coming in. that's part of the calculus. there has to be a driving factor for them to go ahead and say i'm not doing this? >> i think there are a fair number of them, bob corker is a good example, who simply are walking away, enjoying the advantages of incumbency, because they don't want to participate or be a part of the party of trump. and i think that's tragic in certain ways because it means that the republican party in terms of its lawmakers, is losing important voices. these people, if there's going to be, you know, an anti-trump or an alternate perspective, needs those people speaking up and to the extent those people retire and they've been speaking out against the president, the republican party will lose that. >> i think it's worth saying too that the pitchfork factor, the
idea that money is extremely important and believe me, i will push the "x" factor being the outside groups trying to fund -- trying to persuade voters to go a certain way, but in the same respect we're seeing this groundswell of grassroots support on both sides right now that is overcoming money and i think a lot of incumbents are looking at themselves and saying, people don't like washington, donald trump continues to reel against washington. when he reels against washington he's reeling against me. >> i need it to be repeated again. here we go. this is what's happened. the bill passed. they passed a controversial surveillance bill that reauthorized fisa section 702. you saw the vote gavelled to a close and being announced there in the house. let's listen. >> the question is will the house sus spend the rules and pass the bill? members record their vote by electronic device. this is a five minute vote.
>> and the business continues there on the house floor. i'm going to bring in manu raju for the latest on this. manu, tell us about how this all shook out? >> well, this is a mad scramble today after the president tweeted this morning, raising concerns about a bill that his administration supports. republican leaders behind the scenes started to make sure they had enough votes their caucus would not rebel in any way after that vote. the speaker himself spoke to president trump after that first tweet in which he criticized the bill and ryan who supports the underlying bill that just passed the house, seems to have convinced the president to send out an additional tweet saying that they should vote for this bill. as a result, one reason why the bill passed comfortably, was because of the second tweet. i caught up with the house majority leader kevin mccarthy right before the vote and he said -- i asked if he's
concerned about the first tweet, did it create any problems, he said there were two tweets and that was helpful to resolve some of the concerns from the right. this came after an effort of pretty significant lobbying effort by the administration officials to make sure that there were -- that there was a separate amendment by civil libertarians did not get added on, an amendment that would provide additional safeguards on this warrantless surveillance program. they believe it would essentially end the effort to surveil as part of this fisa legislation and they successfully killed that amendment and they passed this bill rather comfortably through the house. john kelly the chief of staff, brianna, was here in the house, on the floor, talking to members, making sure it got through and our colleague, kristen wilson, caught up with the chief of staff, asked him if this was -- created any problems for the -- if the tweets created any problems. he said it's not a problem but a juggling act.
his words, a, quote, juggling act, in dealing with these tweets, but it's not a problem. clearly a lot to juggle for the republican leaders after that first tweet they got this bill through but not after some drama this morning, brianna. >> it will look like at first glance, manu, you were broadcasting from a calculus class. i should tell our viewers those are reporters waiting for house speaker paul ryan. this is the room where you go every week in the capitol visitor center to await his press conference. tell us about what we may expect to hear from the house speaker today? >> undoubtedly he will be asked how he was able to convince the president to send out the second tweet and his reaction to the first tweet this morning, any problems that it created with this vote. in addition the questions about government funding, january 19 deadline coming around the corner, and immigration too. how are they going to deal with the issue of those people who came into the legal country illegally at a young age, the
daca program that -- and whether or not they will include any immigration proposals in that bill to keep the government open. they, of course, reached -- has been a rather difficult negotiation process to get agreement on both sides. where does ryan stand on that right now. as well as a number of tweets sent out by the president this week questioning the russia investigation, of course we know there's a russia investigation in the house that has had its own issues as well. undoubtedly he will be fielding questions on a range of issues today and see what he has to say. >> he is normally pretty punctual. must have been elect the vote finish on the house floor. we're going to check back in with you in a little bit as we await house speaker paul ryan there for his weekly press conference. live pictures coming to you, this should get started any moment and we will bring it to you on cnn. and the wolf huffed and puffed...
like you do sometimes, grandpa? well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe. it can be hard to get air out, which can make it hard to get air in. so i talked to my doctor. she said... symbicort could help you breathe better, starting within 5 minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. symbicort helps provide significant improvement of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. symbicort contains formoterol. medicines like formoterol increase the risk of death from asthma problems. symbicort may increase your risk of lung infections,
osteoporosis, and some eye problems. you should tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. symbicort could mean a day with better breathing. watch out, piggies! get symbicort free for up to one year. visit saveonsymbicort.com today to learn more. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.
paul ryan he is going to be giving his weekly news conference in just a moment. we will bring it to you as soon as it gets started. in the meantime another issue that is occupying the minds of a lot of people on capitol hill, coastal states and members who represent them, they are pushing back hard against the trump administration after its decision to exempt florida and only florida from expanded offshore oil and gas drilling. governors from both parties are demanding that they, too, be exempt. interior secretary ryan skzinke gets a pass because its republican governor is straight forward and its coastlines are unique. joining me is congressman brian mass of florida. thank you for joining us. >> happy to join you. >> you are clear in your condemnation of this blanket decision to allow offshore drilling along the coast including florida. that decision was reversed but just for your state as we noted. do you think the federal government should do the same
for other coastal states like you, and floridians, want to make sure that there is no drilling? >> i think if those other states want to see that sort of moratorium off their coasts like we in florida will see they need to make sure they have that same bipartisan, unanimous voice effort we had in i have been working across the aisle with people extendinglying this moratorium. this didn't just come up. >> a lot of them have been at it for a long time, too. they have been to go it as well. to that point, one governor, the governor of oregon who is a democrat said this is really just about a political move to satisfy governor scott. let's listen to what kate brown said. >> what are can i think otherwise? is it about the governor wanting to run for the u.s. senate? or is it about president trump
wanting to protect mar a lago? i don't know the answer to that because secretary zinke hasn't returned our calls. >> she is making calls and other states are making calls. they put in the effort you say was so key. how is she wrong if sms not a political move. >> it's political to make the decision that it is political. they are playing politics and having the conversation. the one thing you can see very, very clearly is he is taking a stand on what he believes for offshore drilling off the coast of florida. you would be right to ask him where he would extend that same courtesy to other states. that's a fair question. he has been clear in that he will stand for the borders or the state of florida and not having drilling off our coast. that should not be taken lightly. it should be applauded. >> you think she is making a political fight out of this and it shouldn't be considered political even though you can
look at rick scott say this is someone who has been friendly to president trump where republican governors haven't been as friendly and are not getting the same treatment. you don't think she is being fair. >> it's absolutely political to have the debate when they say it's political. he made a strong stand that he is going to carry with him for the rest of his time and he gets to be a part of doing legislation or being the governor or anything else he is doing that is affecting the state of florida. i believe he is going to stand by it. that's a positive thing. it's political for some someone to argue he only did it for one reason or another. let's be honest. anything we say within these wallings or within the statehouses of florida or anywhere else, everybody lookses at it as political. that's the reality of the world we live in. >> what makes florida unique to
georgia or south carolina or massachusetts or oregon? >> the way that we go out there and fight and had that fight and when the battle was laid before us, the way we stepped up is the difference. when other states had that battle laid before them, they should try to replicate this and hopefully they will be successful in their fight as well. >> you are saying they are not fighting the way florida as and that's why they are not successful. >> i can't point to every individual state and say i pay attention to the state of florida, but the way everyone stepped up in florida and not just when this came up. i had conversations with secretary zirchgy for months and i talked about it in person after we had our hurricanes at a place called flamingo. senator rubio spoke to him about the issue. we have been beating the drum
for a long, long time. i don't know how the other governors have done it, but i can tell you how we have done it and it's endoless. >> i want to talk about immigration and the effort to deal with border security and to deal with dreamers, young people. hundreds of thousands of them brought to the u.s. who know no home other than the u.s. i'm sorry, congressman. we are going to listen to the house speaker. >> 2o days since the tax cut and jobs act became the law of the land. already this new law is helping to improve the lives of many across the country. you saw more than a million americans are due to receive bonuses because of tax reform. workers are seeing real increases in base wages. increases in 401(k) contribut n contributio contributions. they are planning to lower
electricity bills. think about what a relief that will be with the cold winters will be. your power bill will be high. the plans to hire more workers and all of this happened in just 20 days. think about this. this is all before families have even started to see the benefits of lower tax rates, better withholding and a highard standard deduction. the typical family of four making $73,000 will get a $2,059 tax cut this year. we look forward to more good news for the economy. i like to turn to a serious issue. as you know, we are working to secure the funding that is needed to rebuild our military. what does that mean? why do we spend so much time on rebuilding the military and so much time talking about this? there are countless facts and figures i can quote about the
weakening of the military capabilities. less than half of the navy's planes can fly. less than 10% of the combat brigade teams are rate to fight. the air force is the smallest it has ever been. the chairman puts it best. we have too few planes that can fly, too few ships that can sail and too few soldier who is can deploy. this is not just costing us military might or hampering our mission, this is actually costing us american lives. we lost 17 sailors on the uss john mccain and uss fitzgerald. these were serious fatal accidents that happened on aging ships with expired training certifications. every day that goes by without funding is another day we are pushing our military past the breaking point. it is a shameful situation.
we have a duty to address it. and do right by the men and women who try to protect us and that is exactly what we are going to do. questions? happy new year. i guess this is my first. [inaudible] >> in the military, it's a two-part question. does it look like we will have a spending bill? >> we are making good progress on caps negotiations and working on getting a cap agreement, but they will need time to build the right on the appropriations when a cap agreement is met. you need to get an agreement to get them time to write their bill or making good progress on negotiation when is we have more
report, i will let you know. go ahead. i usually don't do that, but go ahead. he just used it up. >> you talk about the need to fund the military. if you are going do another cr next week, isn't that having it both ways? >> i would be right about that, but we had to have a cap agreement in order to give the a appropriators what they needed to write the bill. >> part one. >> if the special counsel requests an interview with the president, you always said that part two, you have always said that administration officials should cooperate with the special counsel. do you believe -- >> i'm going to let the white house answer those questions. that doesn't pertain this this branch. >> you spoke to the president after his morning tweet.
does the president not understand what the fisa bill is and the fact that his own administration was reporting it? >> we speak on an almost daily basis. it is well-known he has concerns about the domestic fisa law. today was 702 which is a different part that was law. that's title seven, not title one. this is foreign terrorists on foreign soil. he knows that and put out something that clarifies that. his position has been clear from day one. >> he didn't understand what parts you were voting on? >> he has concerns about other parts of fisa. >> can you respond to the letter saying if you guys don't come up with a daca deal by january 19th there will be a crisis in the workforce and any immigration bill needs support? >> say that again?
>> immigration bill that needs support from the majority of republicans. >> we will have that. we will have a daca compromise that has the majority support from our party. i know i sound like a broken record. we want to fix daca. we do want to fix daca. we want to address the root cause so that we don't have a daca problem again. that's common sense. that means the security measures that need to accompany a solution are necessary so that we have a final fix and not a temporary fix. that's common sense and rational and will be bipartisan, i believe. haven't seen you in a while. >> getting to this question about the tweets today and also the book. the wolff book. >> i don't read it. i saw the two tweets on fisa. is that what you are talking about? >> t