tv Americas News HQ FOX News March 21, 2017 11:00am-12:01pm PDT
for able body adults. freezing obama care's medicade expansion while allowing for responsible, a responsible unwinding -- >> we are continuing to watch sean spicer's white house briefing as members of the senate judiciary committee grill neil gorsuch. we will continue to watch the neil gorsuch hearing and bring you the highlights, but let's listen in to sean spicer now. >> after a return to the white house, the president received his daily intelligence briefing. then the president signed f442, the nasa administration transition authorization act of 2017. acting on another of the president's most ambitious promises to the american people. many may recall in his joint address, the president said, quote, american footprints on distant worlds are not too big of a dream, end quote. and with this bill, he is taking
the latest step towards making that dream a reality by reiterating nasa's mission to make sure united states maintains a leader in space travel. nasa will have the full support it needs including supporting nasa's plan to explore deep space and sending astronauts to mars, including an endorsement of launching the mars 2020 rover. the rover will explore a site that is likely to have been seeking signs of past life and testing samples for future robotic and eventual human exploration of mars. reaffirming that nasa remains a fully multimission agency with a balanced set of core missions and space science, space technology, human space flight, exploration and education. endorsing nasa's continued progress towards launching the james webb telescope, which will be a giant leap forward in our ever evolving quest to understand the universe, and
establishing an astronaut occupational health care program, something nasa has considered a priority for years. after the bill signing device, president also announced the president will be taking action to relaunch the national space counsel which the vice president will chair. the president was honored to sign this new bill into law so that nasa can continue its work towards making america the world leader in space exploration once again. also this morning the president hosted -- vice president hosted a breakfast meeting with the prime minister of iraq. we provided a readout on the president's meeting yesterday as well and i believe there's been a readout of the vice president's as well. at 3:00 p.m. this afternoon, the president will meet with members of congress who are part of the health tuesday group to discuss the american health care act and this evening the president will speak at the national republican congressional committee march dinner. on the senate side of the hill, the president picks for the supreme court, judge neil gorsuch has been doing a
phenomenal job today during his first day of questioning. the judge's testimony yesterday was widely praised from both sides of the aisle, and it's clear that everyone agrees that judge gorsuch is a very qualified person to serve on the supreme court. as the judge noted today, kwoerbgt a judge is there to make sure that every person poor or rich, mighty or meek, gets equal protection under the law, end quote. his record shows that he's lived up to this commitment throughout his entire career, and he's continuing to prove that he is the type of purist we need on the supreme court throughout the questioning that started today. today is also national agriculture day. the world needs america's farmers and ranchers to lead just like the world needs america to lead. global food demand is expected to increase by 50% by 2050. the world can't afford for america's ranchers to treat, but the agriculture industry has met its share of challenges in raoepb years. while our farmers are the most efficient in the world, margins have been tightening,
regulations have been tightening and export has been declining due to unwise trade policies. the president promised to many people in the agriculture industry and throughout rural america that he would not allow this to continue, and he will continue to pursue policy changes that will reverse this disturbing trend. quickly in terms of follow-up from yesterday, i was asked about north korea. i want to provide a quick update. quote, the united states in coordination with our allies is exploring a new range of diplomatic security and economic measures in response to the grave and escalating threat posed by north korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. and before i open up for questioning, let me just run through a few scheduling updates. tomorrow the president will stop by the women and health care panel hosted by tms administrator. there will all be a series of meetings with members of congress tomorrow. in the morning the president will meet with members to discuss the american health care act.
in the afternoon he will meet with congressional members of the congressional black caucus. on thursday, the president will have lunch with secretary of the treasury mnuchin before hosting truckers from trucking companies on health care that we discussed yesterday. in many states throughout the country, trucking happens to be one of the largest employers, and it's important to understand the impact of health care legislation on this important industry. i'll have updates on the weekend schedule for you tomorrow. finally yesterday pursuant to the executive order on enforcement that he signed january 25th, the u.s. immigration and customs enforcement agency, ice, released its first weekly list of detainees which local law enforcement agencies have failed to comply with. these examples where criminal illegals who have been arrested or convicted of serious and violent crimes threaten public safety. in each instant, local law enforcement is refusing to
cooperate with ice. it is part of the president's continued efforts to keep our communities safe. a copy of this report is available on the ice website that details all of the municipalities where there has been an issue, and the crime that has been committed and the person, not necessary threu person's name, but the offense in which they were convicted for. with that, i'll be glad to take your questions. since we're talking supreme court, john roberts? come on. that was good. >> on health care, president came away from capitol hill sounding pretty positive about where he was going to go on thursday. then it seems he came out and said he was going to encourage members to vote no. club for growth is taking up ads attacking this bill. jim jordan said it's still a bad bill. this is going to go to a vote
day after tomorrow. what gives the president his sense of optimism that he can get this through? and might he request more changes from speaker ryan before it goes to a vote? >> well, i think we've talked about this for days. there's been a lot of input from members of congress. and i think that the meeting this morning really was a huge sign of support. there was a lot of enthusiasm and optimism. not just for the bill itself, but for something that as i noted conservatives and republicans and a lot of democrats have been fighting for for awhile, which is a more patient centric health care system. the president continues to engage with members. he will continue to do that all the way through thursday. but as i also noted, there were a lot of changes that were made by the speaker last night. additional legislation, three-pronged approach that we talked about in the past has been put forward to make sure that members understood the comprehensive nature of this. this is one vehicle.
there's a huge administrative piece that secretary price will administer through administrative action that was given to him when they passed this bill and gave that authority to the then secretary of health and human service, to implement pieces that they couldn't get done legislatively. we can unwind a lot of that and add a lot of consumer based and competition measures through the administration. the third prong, all the other stuff we talked ab for years as republicans, buying across state lines, expanding health savings accounts, etc, all of that has been introduced as well. and i think that he continues to meet with members and walk away with a very very optimistic view of where the bill is headed. i think a lot of the measures that have been changed and tweaked and updated have assuaged members who had concerns. but keep in mind, if you are a conservative who has been fighting for repeal an replace,
this is your chance. if you are a conservative who has been looking to address out of control entitlement spending, this is the first attempt, this is the first reform of an entitlement program in 30 years. these are a truly conservative set of principles that we are fighting for. the competition that's in the bill. the ability to allow prices to come down and choice to go up. there's nothing more conservative that is in this bill. as members continue to talk ab ideas that have been included in the bill and the principles of it, we feel very good going into the final stretch. >> may he seek more changes in order to further assuage people? >> i think it's possible. i don't want to rule anything out. but i will say that i feel very good about this, where it stands now. i think the more and more members meet with the president, the more they understand how important this is to the overall agenda that we're seeking to
pass. i think, as the president noted this morning to member, if you can repeal obamacare, replace it with a health care system that does what conservatives and independents and frankly some democrats have talked about for years that does exactly that kind of thing, still choice, drive down cost, allow people to actually get care they've been promised, and then get on to things like treform, we will have an amazing first year in office. i think the president reminded them tphrbg is the first step in an amazing agenda that we can work together on. >> thanks, sean. talk about the stock market as a real time barometer for how the administration is performing. this afternoon though the stock market has been off 200 points on the dow. some commentators on wall street are suggesting that's because traders are starting to sense a lack of progress in the trump legislative agenda, worrying he may not be able to accomplish everything he set out to do. does the president believe today's dip in the dow is a result of his performance as
president of the united states? >> well, i think to look at any one day is nothing that we have -- we've always cautioned. i think overall it continues to be up tremendously. i think when you look at not just that one indicator, you probably know better than anybody in terms of what you guys cover. that you can't look at one index and say that that is the bench mark of an entire economy. you see confidence levels in small business and other surveys that show there is continued confidence in the market and optimism in the market. you see manufacturers coming back to america, talking about investment. major ceo's and small businesses trying to grow the economy an talk about job creation. those are the real indicators. i think the numbers that we saw last month, again, one month doesn't make a record. but i think it was very promising, not just but an of what the number was, but what it had been forecast to be. it was expected to be 200,000. came in at 235. so again, when you're
overperforming, i think that shows a sign of optimism and confidence in the market. i think, again, i just want to make sure we're clear before we go into, as we continue through the month. one report does not make something to base an entire record off of. but i think that we feel very good about where things are headed and the direction things are going, not just in terms of the indexes and the ups and downs of the markets but also because of the number of manufacturers who are restating their commitment to grow jobs, expand, etc, in the market. >> confidence that president trump will be able to get a tax cut done this year that will be in place for next year? >> i think we're well on our way to seeing this agenda done. the president will roll out the budget which i think reaffirmed his commitment to fiscal prosperity. making the increases in national defense and homeland security that he promised. prioritizing other things in the budget. we've got obamacare done,
immigration, executive order wise. i think that when you're doing big thing, obamacare, tax reform, the health care system is affecting the economy. it's no small feat. in terms of what you've seen so far, going through three committees, moving along, senate ready to take it up, his pick of neil gorsuch. the agenda is moving along in terms of what his priorities were and where we're headed. >> sean, you talked about the consideration for a carbon tax which i guess got a meeting at the white house. we're hearing some reports that there's a pretty lively internal debate. gary cohen might be somebody who is more prone to that. can you just discuss, is the president considering a carpwopb tax? what are sort of the various things going on in the white house? >> i think there's a robust debate going on with respect to comprehensive tax reform. as we mentioned, our goal right now is to get through thursday.
and that's what the president has talked ab very publicly. we need to get obamacare repealed and replaced an move on to tax reform and some of the other trade reviews that we talked about. immigration. there's a lot of things on the agenda. i will just tell you that obviously there's a lot of people who recognize that we haven't had comprehensive reform since 1986. there's a lot of pieces in this that we need to examine and get to. there's a lot of voices and opinions that get shared with him. so i'm not in a position where i'm going to get into commenting on piece meal on where it is. that's even more reason to get past thursday. when you look at the week ahead real quick, glenn, in terms of this, the repeal and replace aspect and gorsuch i think from a legislative impact, i think is a pretty big week for the white house to seeing all this done. hunter? >> thank you, sean. president trump has previously indicated that he wanted to appoint pro life judges who would be willing to overturn roe
v. wade, yet in his testimony today, judge gorsuch said he would have walked out the door if president trump asked if he had this position. is president trump still confident that judge gorsuch would be willing to overturn roe versus wade and is this position still important to him? >> i think the president's comments speak for themselves. the president's list he put out on 20 are jurors that both federal society deems to be people who interpret the constitution as originalists, as people who aren't looking to legislate from the bench and i'm not gonna take the bait during a live hearing to comment on that but i appreciate the effort. >> i have two questions on the same story. recently a 14-year-old girl was raped in the boys bathroom of her high school, a 17 and 18-year-old boys have been charged. one of the boys we know unlawfully entered the country. both have outstanding orders with ice. here's my first question about it. currently schools are prohibited
from denying access to public education based on immigration status. does the president hear a story like that and think that it should change or be addressed in a future executive order? >> i think first let me just say that this is a tragic event and it's horrendous and horrible and disgusting what this young woman in rockville went through. i can't possibly imagine. so first of all, let's remember the human side of this. this is a tragic event that no child, no person, no parent, should ever have to deal with. schools should be a place where a parent puts their child on a bus or drops them off or sees them off an knows that they're safe. and the idea that this occurred is shocking, disturbing, horrific and whatever other words that come to mind, that someone could think of. because this is not -- schools should be a safe place where
children are there to learn and to feel safe. and that kind of environment. to know this happened and the circumstances, this young woman in particular fought to come to this country legally because of the freedoms and treasures of this nation. to think this kind of tragedy would occur to someone who personally endured that kind of struggle to come to this nation, and then face this is rep prehenable. it is not who we are as a country. i think it is troubling. i think further to your question, the president recognizes that education is a state run and local run issue, but i think it is pause for concern, what happened there. i think the city should look at its policies and i think that this is something that authorities are going to have to look at. from an immigration standpoint, clearly to see somebody -- there's so many facets of this case that deserve question.
i think 17 or 18 years old, 18, thank you. how does that person get put into the ninth grade? i mean, there are so many issues that come up in this case. i will leave it to the authorities. there's a lot that needs to get addressed with respect to this case in particular. >> i hear you about it being a state issue. let's talk about something though that the president has implemented and introduced. victims of crime enforcement. is that enough? >> no, no, no. it's one piece. the president understands that victims need a voice, which is why he brought it in. to help them when they're specifically targeted or victims of a crime by people here illegally. i think part of the reason the president has made illegal immigration and crackdown such a big deal is because of tragedies like this. we act so many times when we talk about this, is the president -- why is the president dealing with this because of this priority? well, part of the reason is
because of the tragedy that this young girl dealt with, had inflicted upon her, whatever the word is. this is why he's passionate about this. because people are victims of these crimes, in terms of them. they're victims of the economic piece. there's a national security piece. but immigration pays its toll on our people. if it's not done legally. this is another example. it's why the president is so passionate ab this. but he recognizes that it's multifacetted. why we have to be tough at the border. why this executive order is dealing with people who have committed crimes, who local enforcement agencies or municipalities or the state level are not dealing with it. if you go to the ice website and download this, you will see it's over 30 something pages of cases where there's a person that is convicted of a crime that local people, local municipal and law enforcement for whatever reason. in some cases they're prohibited. but for one reason or another are not enforcing the law, not turning that individual over to federal authorities to be
deported. . this is another example of why this issue needs to be addressed. john? >> will the president hold republicans, are they going to pay a price if they vote against this bill? >> you can't go promise over an over again, since 2010 in the case of the members who have been there that long. for those who have been there that long. even the new ones. this is a major component of the last election. i think there is probably not a single republican member in itself who went out and talked about this. i think when you realize the components of this bill and that the president worked with the house and the senate to put something together to achieve a promise that was made to voters, yeah, i think there's going to be a price to be paid. it will be with their own voters. they'll have to go back and explain why they made a commitment to them and then didn't follow through. one of the things that's interesting, that people who
agree or don't agree with the president in terms of his legislative agenda, at least give them high marks whether or not they subscribe to his agenda for keeping his word and his promises. that's one of the things he's made very clear this morning. we pledged to the american people at the congressional level, at the senate level, at the presidential level, to go do something. and this bill, while they got everything they wanted does exactly what they said. it's repealing it and replacing with all of the principles that we discussed. lot of these cases back to 2010. margret. let's get through the vote. one of the things that we made clear this morning was that he was going to make sure the people who did support this, he would be out there supporting them and so i'm not gonna focus on the negative as much as the positive today. he made it clear to members that for those of you ho go out there and keep your word and support it, we're going to make sure we remember those who stood by us and stood by the word that they
gave to their voters. margret? >> okay. that's okay. i have got another one. so my other one that i'm going to go back is on the last restriction by the u.s. and now the uk, it certainly sounds like that may have been in response to some kind of specific security threat. what can you talk about from the podium in as much specificity that you can and if you can't be specific, at least help us to understand, are there multiple threats? is there multiple conflicts? what is going on? >> yesterday the tsa announced measured on flights inbound to the united states from ten of more than the 250 countries that have flights coming into the united states that serve as the last.of departure. even ranking member of the house intelligence committee adam schiff, who we have not always shared the same point of view with said, quote, these are
pro-portionate to the threat. elevated intelligence that we are aware of indicates terrorist groups continue to target commercial aviation and are aggressive in pursuing innovative methods to undertake their attacks to include smuggling explosive device in various consumer objects. the secretary of homeland security and the tsa administrator determined that it is necessary to enhance security procedures for passengers that serve at last point of departure airports. that being said, i'm not going to tkpw any further than that. i would refer any further comment to the tsa. >> mark meadows, seems like a nice guy. president seemed like he was kind of joking. but has the president decided in his own mind whether he thinks it will be appropriate, potentially, to bounce primary opposition campaign for primary opposition republicans have? >> mark meadows is a long time
early supporter of the president. he had some fun at his expense this morning during the conference meeting. i think he continued to express hope that congressman meadows, head of the freedom caucus, would continue to see the effort that have been made to make this better, address a lot of concerns out there. he has made it very clear that he was having fun with him. president's committed to making sure that this gets passed. we'll go from there. vivian? >> first of all, on margret's question, why wait for the new aviation regulations 96 hours to implement it. isn't the president's mantra on terrorism that we have to kind of sneak up on our enemies, not let them know our tactics? >> so, i'm gonna ultimately throw you back to the tsa but i will tell you, remember, these are ten airports of last point of departure to the u.s. out of
250 that come here. part of it is to allow, you have to provide appropriate notification to the host country, to the host airline, an give them opportunity to get those procedures in place. i'm not going to comment any further about the skur security measures that have been taking place or are taking place, just to continue to refer you back to tsa. i will tell you that i think implementing something of this nature in that time frame is pretty darn quick. >> something totally unrelated. has the white house counsel approved ivanka trump getting a west wing office and clearance? what is the administration thinking behind this? >> i don't think counsel approves office space. ivanka has taken on several measures to promote high standards of ethical conduct even though she is not a federal employ employee, she will follow the rules as if she were. >> on health care, to follow-up
on the follow-up, you made it very clear that the president will be supporting those who supported the bill. i don't want to talk about the flip side. when he talked about people paying a price, losing fees, not getting majorities. is that an implied threat to the members who don't pass this bill? >> it's a political reality. if you promise the american people something and your voters something, especially on a scale like this. there's obviously members who have been there one term, two terms, three terms. this is something that as a party we've made very clear. if you give us this american people, we will get this done. to make a promise and a pledge of this magnitude and not to follow it through, i'm sure that voters will be upset. we've seen this in the past. it is something that i think the president, as i mentioned earlier, has earned high marks for is keeping his word. the president was stating a political reality. if we make these pledges to the american people and don't do what we said we've done on these
big things, then i don't think they'll want to see a majority and will look for alternative. >> will he remember the names of those who don't back it. >> i know you're counting. it's like the cbo. sorry. >> do you want to elaborate on that? >> no, i don't. go ahead. >> i want to ask about the russian topic. i know you addressed it. there was an interesting moment that happened after the briefing where director comey was asked about live tweets coming from the president at the same time as the hearing was happening. director comey was fact checking the president in real time. essentially saying he was in correct in what he was tweeting. is there concern on the part of the white house about the president's credibility in that situation? his own director is correcting his tweets and what he's saying in real time? >> let's just be clear. he was answering questions. it's not like he was out there.
he was responding to a question. i think it's important to note with respect to this that, you know, and i saw a couple comments yesterday. senator kuhn took issue with a couple comments we made. let me just read to you. i know you love when i do this. senator kuhn. this is his direct quote. quote, i have no hard evidence of collusion end quote. director clapper, quote, not to my knowledge. end quote. senator tom cotton, quote, not that i have seen and not that i'm aware of. this is regard to any type of collusion with russia. obam cia director, quote, there's smoke but no fire. senator grassley, i can say potus and at clapper are both right, no evidence of trump collusion. we've now gone over this on multiple occasions. but at some point there's a distinction between an investigation that goes into russia's involvement in 2016 and this continued narrative that falsely tries to link the trump,
the president or the white house into any of it. they continue to see that there is nothing there. every sinle person who has been briefed who has come out and talked about it, republican, democrat, former dni, former cia director, obama appointees have said no evidence. and so i get that we keep getting asked -- >> that's not my question. >> my point being that was one of the tweets. former dni continues to note. that was true. these are their quotes. this is what they've said. so it's not a question, i think sometimes you come back to us. at some point the question has to be to the individual who said this. whether it's chris kuhn from delaware or former director clapper or former acting cia corrector. they're the ones who have said this on the record. they have been briefed by the intelligence committee and come out and said there is no collusion. and so at some point, to backcheck the president for merely quoting them is not --
the question should be directed at them, not us. but over and over again it's come to the same conclusion. all right, john. then caitlin. very nice of you. it's national ag day, afterwards. >> thank you, sean. thank you, caitlin. i have two questions. first, the author david horowitz in his book "the big agenda" writes of what he calls, quote, a deep state, in which he said these are obama holdovers in government who are trying to undercut the president's agenda. this has been widely repeated on social media. does the president himself believe in this deep state? >> well, i have been asked this question before. i'll give you the same answer as i gave before. there are people that burrow into the government after an administration. this is going back since the
beginning of time. suddenly no longer permitted. in terms of that same way. this has been going on since the country came to be. where people burrow in after an administration into a civil servant job. but, sure, there's people out there after eight years of obama that found their way into government, so it should be no huge secret. okay? >> my other question -- >> ram sacking. google it. >> i remember that. >> have you ever seen my spelling. ram specking. it was named -- we are going to go through a history lesson, guys. thank you. >> my other question was, over the weekend, governor rocco ramirez, head of the mexican governors association, was again in washington and in a much publicized statement, said that mexico had scored its first
victory over the proposed wall. he said that in the president's budget there's a line item for $2.6 billion. >> fy 18. >> in tax dollars. and no mention of mexico paying for the wall in any way. he's claiming victory in that. your response? >> it's a little early to be claiming victory. the president's made it clear that he was going to use the current process to start the construction of the wall. and that he would -- that there would be ways in which that fulfillment of that pledge would come through. caitlin. >> thank you. administration and the president have repeatedly said over the next few weeks they will present evidence that he was wire tapped. last week he said it would be coming this week and he may speak on it this week. can we expect the president to this week present evidence that he was wiretapped by barack obama? or will he speak about it? he didn't mention it last night in his rally. >> right. let's see how the week goes.
margret? >> sean, president talked about the need for this health care plan to pass. you talked about the importance of tax reform and the rest. at what point do you think that this agenda could be in peril as you look at the vote? you are also going to have to fight to get any of this through the senate. >> at what point will the vote count? >> it just seems to be such a center piece for the rest of the president's agenda. given that it's still not -- there is no certainly in terms of passage, how concerned are you that thursday could impaeri the president's agenda? >> i think we continued on the path to get the votes. we have to get to the senate next. i think members understand that this is something that has been at the heart of what republicans have campaigned on. i feel very good headed into this. the president continues to talk
to members. we're going to make sure we grow the vote as much as we can. as far as the agenda, the issues the president campaigned on are things the house and senate look forward to taking up. whether it's trade or immigration or comprehensive tax reform, all of these issues are stuff that many republicans have campaigned on for a long time an are eager to get going. president's made it very clear, look, we've got to keep moving along if we want to get big things done. there's a lot that can get done during this administration, during the first term. he wants to get as much done as possible. the quicker we get -- >> dana: we are continuing to watch sean spicer. we are also monitoring the confirmation hearing neil gorsuch. mitch mcconnell saying he's confident the house will pass healthcare reform. let's bring in louisiana congressman steve scalise. i guess i'll start from the
beginning. mitch mcconnell just said he's confident. are you confident? do you have the votes for thursday's vote? >> i am confidence we're moving more senators to question. president asking our conference, this is the bill he wants on his desk. time for great ideas has come and gone. now it's time to vote on a bill. this is the bill. and so there are members that still aren't there. but at the end of the day, there will be one vote people have. it will be to send the bill to president trump's desk to gut obamacare and replace it and put people back in charge. a yes vote sends that to the president's desk. nancy pelosi is voting no. a no vote is to keep obama care. we are all defunding planned parenthood, blocking medicade. a lot of reforms for conservatives. time to give the president the green button or the red button. that's the plea the president made today. i know there are people who want their members of congress to send this bill to president
trump's desk. starts this thursday. i would encourage people to call their member of congress and say i want you to vote for the bill president trump asked you to vote for so we can get rid of obama care. >> dana: this is the big legislative push under the new president. it's i think the first time many of the members that were there this morning had a republican president come up to capitol hill and ask them for their vote. that's different than fighting against president obama. i think the legislative affairs team at this white house is very good. do you think that changed any minds this morning? >> i saw it directly. clearly not everybody is there yet, but a lot of members are starting to get there. the fact that president trump came personally asking people to send this bill to his desk, vote yes to move this bill forward in the process was important for a lot of members to hear. this is a president who said i campaigned on repeal an replace. this bill guts obama care. this bill puts patients back in charge. does a lot of other good things. doesn't do any of those things if members vote no.
everybody can have their idea of what the perfect bill is, but attend you to have 216 people come together to send a bill forward that can actually get to the president's desk to do what we've been talking about doing for seven years. it's been seven years to the day thursday that obama care was signed into law. we've got one opportunity. our members can't blow this opportunity. let's back our president, give him the bill he's been asking for. a yes vote is the only answer at this point. >> did it concern any of the members when president trump said if he doesn't vote for it, that he's going to go after them? >> the people saw the president is passionate about this. this is a promise that not only we in congress made, it's a promise that president trump made to the american people. in fact, he talked about it in kentucky yesterday. biggest aphrau came when he said we are going to repeal and replace obama care. people get how bad this law is failing for american families. we're tired of these massive premium increases and all the other problems that come with it. but we get one shot. nobody gets to write their own
bill. this is the collection of every member. the president reached out and said, bring me your good ideas. members brought their good ideas. >> dana: governor mcsally put out a statement saying she was concerned initially, but that she has put forth some detailed changes and now she feels comfortable to vote. can i ask you, how concerned that you that two of the big conservative organizations, heritage action, have told members that they do not want them to vote for it. how many of these guys can you afford to lose if they think they have air cover from groups like that? >> dana, most people recognize the gold standard for conservative groups is national right to life. national right to life supports very few bills a year. this is one of the bills they said they are going to score a yes vote. if you vote no, you have to go back home and explain why you voted with nancy pelosi to keep obama care. and why you have an f rating with right to life that has the
most pro life provisions. that's going to be a hard thing to explain. these are real votes that we're casting. everything is on the line. members have to know what the consequences are because everybody will be held accountable. >> dana: you have more members of congress going back up to the white house to hear more from president trump? >> that's right. i'm heading over there in a few minutes to go back to the white house where the president is meeting with some members working to get to yes. he's rolled up his sleeves. he said i will be asking members directly, will you vote for this bill? it only happens if members vote yes. >> dana: last question about your message. house of cards you saw the main character in the first season, he had the names of the members up there. you can put them in different categories. what's your method of counting? >> i have got that same list. we don't push anybody in the subways at this point. >> dana: no. never. >> couldn't be more high stakes. this is something we've been talking about for seven years. we have got a golden
opportunity. american people gave us this opportunity. was the president willing to sign a bill? we put a bill on president obama's desk and he vetoed it. now is not the time for people to blink or think about their perfect idea. you are serious about getting rid of obama care, starting that process of getting a bill to the president's desk that he can sign. you can either vote yes, with president trump or vote no with nancy pelosi. $900 million of tax cuts are in this bill. there are a lot of things the american people are koupbing on us for. this is critical important that we get this passed. >> dana: i don't want to make you late for the president, so i'll let you get on your way. thank you very much. >> thanks a lot. appreciate it. >> dana: we're continuing to monitor the confirmation hearing of neil gorsuch. but let's go back to sean spicer at the white house. >> let me get back to you. i don't want to get ahead of
myself on that. we may have something for you later. i have got to check on that. but thank you guys very much. let's get back to watching neil gorsuch. i will see you tomorrow. we'll have a week full of briefings. by the way, i am very happy that the individual in the press corp who took tom brady's jersey, that that has been returned properly. we have righted that wrong. thank you. >> dana: so we got back in time just to see sean spicer wrap things up. one of the big topics being discussed is health care reform, as president trump looks to push forward with repealing and replacing obamacare. let's bring in the chairman of the american conservative union and democratic strategist and former congressional candidate. matt, let me start with you. i hope that you were able to hear the majority whip saying they think they have the votes, that they are pushing forward. interesting to me how heritage action for growth are on one side but some right to life
points persuasive for members? >> yeah, definitely. this bill ends the federal funding of planned parenthood and it also prevents anything with a refundable tax credit from being used to fund abortion and anything like it. so this is really for pro life members, those are really important achievements. i think steve scalise is smart to highlight it. if you don't support this pweurbl it might be your last best chance to defund planned parenthood. >> dana: there's no doubt, jessica, that there's in fighting within the republican party. nothing democrats like more than watching republican on republican violence. as you sit and watch what's happening, what's nancy pelosi calculation at this point? >> well, it will be interesting to see right now because, you know, even after the meeting they had this morning with the president on the hill, representative mark meadows came out and said that this bill is still dead on arrival.
so, you know, i think for everyone, it's sort of a seat of their pants. certainly democrats are united. i don't think that -- it's great for representative scalise to tie this to a pelosi issue, but certainly every democrat is against it. but there's a huge number of republicans who still are as well for totally different reasons. this bill is really not what the point being, this is not what should be coming out after seven years. there should be something that's been negotiated, that is much more cohesive for everyone. i don't think this is the last chance. it's the first chance, but it's not the last. the white house is just looking to put up a score here on the scorecard. >> dana: if he gets that skoerb it's an important one. matt, jessica, thank you very much. judge gorsuch remaining very even handed in his presentation today saying no man is above the law when requested ab president trump. joining me now, served as deputy
assistant to the president and head of personnel for george w. bush. he is a partner at the ash croft sutton rays law firm. also, you have to distinction of knowing judge gorsuch personally. i'm sure you're not surprised that he is coming off so well, but what are your thoughts this morning -- afternoon. >> thanks for having me, dana. he is doing exceptionally well. he's as well prepared as any supreme court nominee that i have seen. and he is really, what you're seeing about neil is what he's like in real life. he's impeckably qualified as a jurorist, of course, but he's also guided by some very straightforward and i think aspiring principles, which is really fairness and justice and independence. so i think all that is coming through. he also has a great demeanor that in many instances is disarming even to his most
critical advocates against him. >> dana: he did have a little bit of -- terse being in a gorsuch term exchange with senator whitehouse where i think the democrats did not lay a glove on him. >> right. the great -- one of the aspects of his philosophy is that he can go to it because it's true, is that he will remain independent. he has a gavel, not a rubber stamp. the interesting thing about that, dana, it's not just talk. he's walked the walk. he has a ten year record of being a judge and doing exactly what he says he would do. and that is be guided by the law itself, the text of the law, and following it. >> dana: must be amazing to have your former colleague and your current and always probably good friend neil gorsuch at that
hearing. now let's go back to that hearing and listen in a little bit. >> -- it's a 2007 case called kopark versus administrative review board. and that case a trucker had been fired for refusing to drive a truck that he considered unsafe. you wrote an opinion ruling in favor of the trucker and awarded him attorneys fees. is that right? >> senator your recollection is better than mine on the attorneys fees issue. >> courts don't always award attorneys fees but as i recall the court did in that case. so i don't really understand the argument that some are making or the implications some are trying to raise you were somehow unfair in the transam case because, after all, in the transam case, you applied the law.
it didn't apply into the way the terminated employee wanted it to imply but you applied it very fairly in the other case. also wanted to bring your attention to another case that's been mentioned by some of my colleagues. that's the huang case. the case where a professor with cancer wanted to extend her leave university said no and the professor sued. the panel ultimately concluded that the law required her to show that she could continue to perform if the university provided an accommodation. all the parties in that case agreed that she could not, that she couldn't continue to perform it. that, as i recall, was a unanimous opinion. is that correct? >> that was another very hard case to go home after. the individual there had -- was
sick, very sick, and had been given six months off already, if i remember correctly. i can't remember whether it was university of kansas or kansas state. and then she was asking for another six months off. and university said no. and she sued under the rehabilitation act, which prescribes that reasonable accommodations must be provided to workers to perform their essential job functions. but to prevail, they have to show they can perform their essential job functions. it was indisputed in that case. she just couldn't. to no fault of her own. and the district court said that's just not a claim under the rehabilitation act. maybe for future contract, maybe something else, but not under federal statutory law. that's my recollection sitting here. and my panel, three judges, unanimously agreed that that was the correct application of the
law and those facts. no one is here to say that they love the law in every case and the results it yields. i'm here to say that i promise to apply the law faithfully and i can guarantee no more and promise you no less than that, in every case. >> if i'm remembering that case correctly, judge lucero was on that panel with you. is that right? >> i don't recall. >> i will check to make sure. i think he was. lucero was not nominated by a republican president. >> judge lucero is one of my dear friends and colleagues. he was appointed by president clinton. that's true. excellent judge. >> so if you were wrong in this case, then so was he.
you did right in that case also. something that i thought showed a fair amount of reflection on the plight of the plaintiff in that case writing by all accounts, the plaintiff was a good teacher, sufficient firing a wretched year, close quote. you were aware of her plight. this is hardly the kind of statement made by a judge who is unsympathetic. this is in context with the kind of statement made by a judge who understands the deeply human context of every case and also understands the deeply sacred nature of the oath you took to uphold and protect and defend the constitution of the united states and operate within the constraints of the constitution. for that, i thank you and i respect you. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, senator lee. i want to make an announcement
that we would take a ten minute break. judge, so you know the plan, we're going to take that ten minute break. i hope it won't be 11 or 12 minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, justice. i said yesterday your nomination comes before us during an unprecedented time in our nation's history. in recent months foundational elments of our democracy have been challenged and questioned an even undermined. for that reason i hope you get a nomination in the comfort of a legal cocoon and i believe we should evaluate your record and philosophy against the back drop of the real world today. so starting with something easy with the real world, senator grassley and i are leading a bill on cameras in the court room. i'm not gonna ask you specifically about that bill for federal courts, but a number of your fellow people who are sitting at that table years
past, including justice sodamyore said they were positive about bringing cameras into the supreme court. just to give you a sense of why this is interesting, only a few people can get in there, yet the decisions affect everyone in america. even just last month, 1.5 million americans tuned in to cnn's broadcast when the 9th circuit heard arguments challenging the president's refugee and travel ban. so what is your opinion on having cameras in the supreme cour court? >> senator, that's a very important question. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss it with you. i come to it with an open mind. it's not a question that i confess i have given a great deal of thought to. i have experienced more cameras in the last few weeks than i have in my whole lifetime, by a
long long way. i got to admit, the lights of my eyes are a bit blinding sometimes, so i'd have to get used to that. >> would you favor it or not? >> senator, i would treat it like i would any other case or controversy. that's what i can commit to you. that i would want to hear the arguments. i know there are justices on both sides of this issue, right? >> i think justice suitor said over his dead body would they have cameras. i was hoping that things have changed. i was hoping that things have changed since then. and that we see just more and more interest in these decisions. i hope that you will remain open to it and will favor it. my second question which also pertains to transparency is a discussion you had with senator whitehouse about the federal rules for federal judges in terms of disclosing trips and things like that. you had said that you hadn't taken those trips, but if you
had, you would have disclosed them. i appreciate that. do you think there should be that same federal ethics standards for supreme court justices? >> well, senator, i said i disclosed every trip that's reportable. >> but the specific question is on supreme court justices. >> yeah. i know that the rules are different. i don't know how different they are. i haven't studied that. >> would you favor them having the same set of rules that apply to you right now? >> senator, i'll say two things. first, i have no problem living under the rules i have lived under. i'm quite comfortable with them. and i had no problem reporting every year to the best of my abilities everything i can. so i can tell you that. it doesn't bother me what i have had to do. i consider it part of the price of service, and it's a reasonable and fair one. i'd also say, i don't know what the arguments are. i haven't studied them. and i want to commit to you that i give it very fair
consideration. and i'd want to hear what my colleagues have to say. you know? >> yeah. it's pretty straight forward to me because it applies to the other federal judges. i don't think this is a matter of precedent or what's happened. you are going to be, in the words of hamilton, if you get confirmed, in the room where it happens. and so all we're trying to do is to make this as transparent as possible, what people's interests are. i just hope you'll consider that. >> of course i will. >> i think i'll move on to some of the harder stuff here. >> i promise i will consider both of those carefully. >> thank you. on the issue of precedent, i think this idea of an independent judiciary is important now more than ever. so i want to start with that. when you accepted the president's nomination, you said a judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge. and in your book, you said again that good judges often decide cases in ways empathetical to their own policy preferences
when the law so requires. so i want to ask, can you give me an example of a supreme court case that you believe was wrongly decided under the law, but that you will continue to follow if you are confirmed because the precedent is so strong? >> senator, i think that's just another way, honestly, of trying to get at which supreme court precedents i agree with and i disagree with. >> i don't think it is. it's about -- it's something that you actually said when the president nominated you. you said it in public. you said this is the definition of a judge, that they are someone who, you know, respects precedents so much that they're still going to enforce the law. i thought there could be one example, even if it's a really old one. >> i think senator lee and i were just talking about a couple cases where the results were not attractive to me as a person but i followed the law to the best of my abilities, and did so with my colleagues. >> one of the reasons i'm asking
this is that several past nominees have made this promise about respecting precedent before this committee and these are people you respect, justices and admire. at the same time, they said they'd respect precedent and then later became justices with a lifetime appointment and they overturned precedent. one of those examples is citizens united. two past nominees who later became justices stated they'd honor precedent during their hearings and then they joined an opinion that not only broke from precedent, but gutted a law passed by congress, releasing this unprecedented wave of money. so do you view citizens united as a departure from prior precedent? >> senator, citizens united did overrule often, so in that respect, it is an example of a court that, in part, overruled a precedent. and that's part of the law precedent, too, as we've talked about. that you start with this strong presumption and favor of
precedent. that's the anchor of the law. it's a starting point. but there are instances when the court may appropriately overrule precedent after considering a lot of factors. and we talked about them. i'm happy to discuss them with you again if you like. but i don't want to waste your time either, so you tell me. >> so you see this as something where there was precedent -- you go back to parts of that as you discussed earlier with my colleague stays in place but overturned parts of that. austin, mcconnell. there were just a number of cases that it overturned. to us up here, it was a major overturning of precedent. so that's why we're so concerned when people say, oh, we're going to respect precedent and then they come in and do that. actually, you suggested you would go further than citizens united and that was in a 2014 case. while it was a narrow case about campaign finance caps on
individual contributions to major political candidates, the outcome of the case isn't really one i want to talk about. that was all the judges, i think there was an agreement on the case. but you alone wrote a concurring opinion. that's what i wanted to focus on. suggesting that making a political contribution was a fundamental right that should be afforded the highest level of constitutional protection, which is strict scrutiny. if the supreme court adopts the standard that you suggested, the few remaining finance limitations we have in place and left on the books could fall. so do you believe that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard for reviewing campaign finance regulations? >> senator, i welcome the opportunity to clarify riddle versus hickenlooper. in that case, the law in colorado allowed individuals to contribute more money to major party candidates
>> and i read the case. with my limits of time, i want to focus on the concurring opinion. that's what the actual opinion said. you took it a step further to talk about the possibility. you cited an opinion by justice thomas joined by justice scalia saying all limits should be set to strict scrutiny. could you clarify for us, do you think there's any basis for applying strict scrutiny to contributions set across the board? why would you have cited that opinion? >> i'm happy to explain again. so the facts of the case -- that's what i was deciding -- were uneven contribution limits. it was permissible to give more to major party candidates than minor candidates. the law, as you're well aware, senator, under buckley, says the contribution to candidates is a