tv Washington Post State of the Union Preview CSPAN January 30, 2018 5:51pm-8:01pm EST
enabling consumers to retrieve alerts for 24 hours after they are received, clarifying difference between providers participating in wea in part rather than whole, an harr monoizing the deadline for implementing spanish language alerting with a deadline for implementing longer 360-character length messages, all of these things will strengthen the wea system and keep america safer. i would like to thank the staff of the public safety and homeland security bureau for all the hard work and the commitment to serving the public they have shown. rochelle kelvin, greg cook, megan henry, niki mcginnis, emily, an of course james wiley. from the office of general counsel, thanks to david, bill, and angeles. with that, we move to a vote on the item. commissioner -- >> aye. >> aye. ajit: the chair votes aye as
well. thanks for the great work. >> c-span's state of the union coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern. now a preview from "the washington post." >> hi, everybody. thank you for being here. we are eager to talk to kellyanne conway. we're going to talk about starting with the state of the union. a year ago, the president gave first speech to the congress. in the days that followed, or a number of controversies that created a more polarizing .nvironment i'm wondering, what can the president do for the deals.
-- president is working -- the president is working on this speech, it's a reflection on the past year's accomplishments, but also the accomplishments not as just checking a box, a to-do list, but really what is the nexus between what has happened and your own life on to or your own business or your own aspirations and how is that a framework for working together in 2018? i would point out a few things. they're pretty recent. one is about two, three weeks ago now, the president held forth for 55 minutes, uninterrupted, undeterred, unscripted with a bipartisan, bicameral group of legislators in the cabinet room. it was quite unexpected. i think mainly by the media, the
press pool, who were covering it, and by all accounts we're pleased to have that kind of transparency and live, again, unfiltered and unscripted exchange between the president and the legislators. that's good for transparency, accountability, democracy, really. and it's that kind of conversation we need to keep having. that particular issue was about -- that particular meeting was about immigration and you see an openness and a flexibility by this president very recently on the daca recipients, the dreamers, he will address that tomorrow in his speech, immigration will be one of the major five or six points covered. and i would also go back to august 21, when the president came out with his afghani policy speech. his policy speech about afghanistan. a little bit of a diversion from where he was during the campaign, having consulted with those on the ground and his jens and national security team. i know you wrote about it at the
time and were criticized for saying the new president, new president trump on afghanistan, new strategy. but indeed it was. i want to show those examples of openness and flexibility. it will be bipartisan in tone and content because that's the only way to function in this town. as a democracy. we saw during the government shutdown, very unfortunate, that folks wanted a government shutdown, you saw to reopen the government, you literally needed 60 votes. you needed bipartisan cooperation. we were very happy that many democrats came around, bucked their party leadership, and voted to reopen the government a week ago. philip: you talked about immigration which is going to come up in the speech tomorrow. the white house has a framework. that's been previewed in the last couple of days that does
include something for the dreamers. a legal status for the dreamers. is that a red line for the president? is he committed to seeing some sort of legal status for the hundreds of thousands of kids who are here without documentation. kellyanne: the president has said that indiana fact the framework currently includes resolution for 1.8 million. so it would include those who never availed themselves of that after president obama took action in 2012. so it actually anticipates and includes those who never took the action, in addition to the roughly 700,000 who did. there's also $25 billion for enhanced security at the border. we are a nation, the president will talk about how a sovereign nation must have physical borders that we as a nation have spent billions of dollars over many decades helping other countries secure their borders and protect their sovereignty. and he believes and has successfully won on and is governing on enhancing security at the border. that includes the wall and other security measures. but that also -- i would say that is his red line. he's always made that very clear.
but again, i think it's just a great symbol of how cooperation, discussion, can be had on the same issue with two very divergent priorities. i think if you look at the conversation in the past several months, if fat year, when the democrats talk about immigration, they basically have been talking about the dreamers, the daca recipients. this president put out a 70-point plan a few months ago, you can all go and read it. he talks about merit-based immigration, an end to the visa lottery system. obviously border security and now daca recipients. philip: as his political counselor, how do you help him manage and navigate the currents in the republican base right now? breitbart has take to calling him amnesty don because of his immigration framework. how does he manage being compassionate with the dreamers and coming up with some sort of legal status for them? while satisfying his base that is very hard-line on immigration? kellyanne: that's not a conversation we have very frequently for a very simple reason. he's the president of all americans, including the millions who didn't vote for him. that's something he said on november 9 in the wee hours of november 9.
on election day-plus. election night-plus. yes, the speech. he changed that. he added that when we were up in the residence. he added. that he said it at the hilton. he said, i'm the president of all americans, even those two didn't support me. and there are more than a few of you, i believe were his words or something thereabout. and you have to take that very seriously as president. because it's just like with the tax cut and jobs act. so people were lied to. that it couldn't pass and if it did it would only help the wealthy and people now see it's helping folks, upwards of three million people already, 274 companies, employers have taken action as of this morning with the last count i saw. and you're talking about a direct investment in your workplaces, your work forces, raises. obviously bonuses. but also capital investments in skills training, education for your ploles. the broader communitys being -- communities being invested in and things that have been seen as the province of the other party, i think that's ridiculous. everybody thinks about child care and everybody thinks about wellness of their employees. but you've got many companies, many job creators, now, employers, taking action because of this tax cut and they're saying. that they're saying because of the tax cut we are doing x, y
and z. there are plenty of people who are going to benefit who don't support the president and aren't, quote, part of his base. the president's base is the entire country. because he's president of the united states. and i'll gesk you the best example. i have many good examples because in addition to working on the big issues of the day like tax reform, infrastructure, immigration, i tend to have some things in my portfolio that i can legitimately refer to as nonpartisan issues in search of bipartisan solutions. and when i go around the country meeting with grieving families or talking to law enforcement officers or health professionals or faith-based community leaders, i don't ask them how did you vote, are you registered? you just can't care. when you're serving the country and i do think people who feel that way are the ones who should
serve in government. philip: today's a busy news day, as every day is, has been for the last year. the deputy director of the f.b.i. has stepped down. he's going to be formally retiring in a couple of months but he stepped down immediately from his position. i am wondering, is the president celebrating? he had so much to say over mccabe over the last few months, criticizing his leadership at the f.b.i. i'm curious how the white house is responding to that. kellyanne: i've not personally seen the president react one way or the other. i know our press secretary on my way over here was saying during her briefing in the press briefing room that the white house had nothing to do with that decision. and that you have to refer your questions, to i guess, mr. mccabe and the f.b.i. philip: but the president had criticized his leadership personally. kellyanne: i've also read in the paper, maybe even "the washington post," that conscious
your twitter feed, that mr. mccabe had planned on retiring at some point. so i would again -- it's not a surprising move. i guess if you read "the washington post" or phil's twitter feed, as i do. we've seen it before. but in any event, that's what sarah sanders has said and that is what is occurring right now as the news is breaking. philip: another story today is that the house intelligence committee has put together a report, a memo rather, suggesting that the f.b.i. may have relied on political motivated or questionable sources to justify one of those early requests for secret surveillance warrant in the russia investigation. this is obviously something the house committee's going to have to decide in the next couple of hours, but should that memo be publicly released? do you think the public deserves a right to see it? and do you think it should necessitate any further changes in the leadership of the f.b.i. and the d.o.j.? kellyanne: when it comes to the f.b.i., let me make very clear the president want to quantico,
i believe it was in deerks and he has great respect, as he has said, for the rank and file. there are about 25,000 or so employees at the f.b.i. you're talking about a few people who are in charge of an investigation and what we see that's been made public. i don't have any special knowledge obviously. on that. you see it's been made public. some very disturbing statements about the now president. we expect people have political points of view. they support who they support in the ballot box. someone gave money. at least one attended the president's political opponent's victory party on election night. nonvictory party, i suppose. but that aside, we believe in transparency and accountability. so this president would err on the side of transparency. i hope that the legion of people, including in the media, who have been covering russia and the investigation for over a year now, and the president's made very clear that there's no collusion, there's absolutely no collusion. he calls it a hoax. an excuse for losing an election. but more importantly, is the transparency and accountability piece of this that if those two
are in charge of this memo, and i've not seen it obviously, those in charge of that feel that it is ready to be released to the public. i'm not sure what would need to be redacted or not. then they should make that decision. philip: does the president think that that -- the message is that you're talking about -- is that evidence that the law enforcement community was working against his campaign? kellyanne: the law enforcement community is a very large group of people. we should never generalize as such. as i say, it's -- what's been revealed now, after the fact, and ironically, i guess through the course of the investigation that was really targeted at him and his campaign, which i was the manager for the winning part and i can tell you that the idea that i would ever have to go to moscow rather than north carolina or michigan to help guide the campaign is foolish. and i don't you know why anybody would think otherwise. on this particular discrete matter, let's let the committees
decide what they think is best based on what they know. this is a president who has talked about prosperity, security, transparency and accountability being his three top priorities and he will talk about those tomorrow night in his state of the union. in fact, he'll talk about a safe, strong, proud america and i think that the word proud is very important too. because whether it's this president telling the country to dignyify all career types, to have invested millions of dollars through the department of labor into skills training so that we are not as a nation telling everybody, you must go to a four-year college, you must get a degree, a four-year college degree, where we hear from employers and governors from both sides of the aisle,
all the time that there's a labor shortage supply of carpenter, welders, the folks i grew up with in south jersey. i grew up outside of camden in philadelphia. most people i went with went for as certificate and were able to support themselves the next day practically. this is somebody who is trying to say to america, be proud regardless of what your choice of career is. we want to find things that bind us together as a nation. and he will talk about that in tomorrow's state of the union. philip: he probably -- i assume is not going to talk about the russia investigation and the state of the union address. but that's the shadow that sort of hangs over the work he's doing as president and sarah sanders said today at the press briefing, it's about time everybody wash russia fever out of their systems. a real desire to move past. that the president himself last week said he was looking forward to testifying under oath with robert mueller if indeed he's asked. and i'm wondering, as one of his advisors, considering his history and his past during his time as a businessman of
exaggerating details and saying things that are not true, and there was this one deposition that he gave in 2007 where he had 30 misstatements, do you worry at all that he could be putting himself in a position are we might perjure himself? kellyanne: the question of whether or not the president testifies in mr. mueller's investigation really is a question for his attorneys, of which i'm not one. i'm a fully recovered attorney. i'm not his attorney. i know that mr. dowd, ones his attorney, did say that he has not decided whether the president will testify and he'll let everyone know when that decision is made. i know his other attorney also said publicly that that decision will be made at another time. but we've also said from the beginning and i'll repeat it here today, that the president has said, the white house has said, we've all said that everyone's cooperating, that we've turned over loads of
documents. people have testified for many hours and so everybody is complying and cooperating. but when my colleague says today, time to wash russia fever out of your system, i think we're going back to a lot of the promises that were made that this presidency won't last, you'll find collusion, the election will be nullified. we were promised we would see those 70,000 votes in those three states that donald trump won as president fairly and squarely, that somehow you're going to see there was some nefarious activity in those -- and those vote would be turned around. just go back to what everybody was saying a year ago. a little bit crazed. none of that has come to pass. but we do have an investigation. everybody sees it. everybody knows what's happening. folks sometimes i guess get details that maybe shouldn't be made public from whatever sources. i don't know. we are fully cooperating as a white house and the president's attorneys, his personal attorneys, have said he's fully cooperating. he's also said he looks forward to it coming to an end. but in the meantime, we're cooperating. philip: there's inherent risk for anybody in talking to the f.b.i. and recounting some of
these details. especially if you're the president of the united states. where a lot has happened. and to be able to recall all of that, he doesn't know what other people have been telling mueller in their interviews with him. is there not any concern at all about whether he could be caught up somehow unintentionally saying something that's not true? kellyanne: you're asking me questions that are really for his counsel, not his counselor, his counsel. they're very happy that i wake up every morning and see more americans benefit directly from legislation and to be frank with you, i just think in the span of one short month, i don't understand why, one can ask former speaker pelosi when she's here, but i don't understand why the democrats voted against en masse a tax cut that is literally benefiting their constituents now. and i don't know why then they voted to shut the government down. those are the kinds of things i work on. i don't understand it. maybe someone will ask. i don't know what the strategy is other than just saying we
obstruct, hold the stop sign up, when you have a president who is saying, i want to work across the aisle with you on immigration, infrastructure and another big piece of the president's state of the union tomorrow, where he will talk about -- he's a builder. he wants to rebuild this nation. you do that in a bipartisan fashion. you do that by saying roads and bridges and our infrastructure, our technology, these are -- the fact that we don't make anything anymore, build anything as a country, like that, major big public works projects, that is bipartisan. the air traffic control system was designed for a time when we had roughly 100,000 passengers a year. we now have close to one billion. i don't know what is partisan about that. but the idea that the president permittingthe process down to two years, you see other countries that do this, you get to comment publicly. you can criticize the proposal, but you don't have 10 or 20
years to do it. philip: we'll get to the democrats in just a second. i want to pin up one thing on russia before we change topics. which is that reports over the weekend, first in "the new york times," but confirmed by the post and fox and others, by that president trump ordered the white house counsel to fire mueller as the special counsel back last summer in june. and a number of white house officials said that he had never contemplated that, including you on august 6. i'm wondering how we should make sense of that. when the president talks about firing mueller, is that an order? is that a directive? is that him talking? what do we make of that and how do we square everything there? kellyanne: that's never been discussed with me, is what i try to say on tv and it's never been discussed since i believe mr. cobb has said publicly, the president's personal attorney, that's never been discussed since he's been there. you have to look at his exact quote. he'd just gotten the job. i think he and general kelly arrived around the same day or week. it may have been missed that he
got there too. i'm not aware of those discussions. i would like to point out that when interviews like that, when you show the president many times saying i've not thought of doing, that i'm not doing, that it's never used to refute the allegations in the news. it's always used to show wow, look at that, that must not have been true. and by the way, "the washington post" reporting was a bit different. i read both articles. it was a bit different than "the new york times" reporting. in terms of there were a couple of key strokes different there. so people will have to assess which one think they is more spot-on, if either. but as i've said, the main point is mr. mueller is there. he's investigating, he's been doing that since may. we're now into practically february. the white house is fully cooperating. and we respect the process.
philip: i want to talk about the midterms coming up. one of the roles you play is helping the president sort of think through the political strategy. you were his campaign manager of the winning campaign. and we're going to hear next from nancy pelosi who i think would like to take back the house and feels quite bullish that the democrats are going to be able to do that. and so my question for you is, what are the odds that democrats can take back the house and what do you and what does your party need to do in the next 10 months or so to prevent that from happening? kellyanne: sure. i think that obstruct, resist, hold up a stop sign, donald trump's bad, we're not donald trump is a strategy. it's a campaign strategy that failed in 2016. so it's not necessarily the best strategy for any election. at the same time, we are well aware of the historical trends. we are well aware that the party in power, particularly in the white house power, do suffer grievous losses in off-year elections and first midterm election. president bill clinton did in
1994, i worked on the contract at the time. gingrich came in, historic gains in the house and senate. at that time. and the same thing happened to president obama, of course, in 2010. so both of those gentlemen, president clinton and president obama, suffered losses in the house and senate. but then were successfully re-elected. what i think is different this time, two things i think is different, eyes are wide open about the historical trends. one thing that's different is if you look at 1994 and you really look at 2010, which i think we can all remember, is that at that point people were trying to run, they were trying to justify their vote for the affordable care act. otherwise known as obamacare, a time when people were getting nervous about it. they were worried about keeping their health care. they were worried about being able to keep their doctor. or keep their plan. which they were promised and wasn't true. they were worried about the loss of benefits, loss of jobs, loss of hours. and then of course the reduction in quality, access, they started to hear more about it. took a lot longer to pass the affordable care act. obamacare, than was originally planned. and so you had members, democratic members in the house, who voted for it. then trying to defend that vote.
this is different this year. because the centerpiece of the domestic agenda was this tax cut. so the republicans who voted for out thereme, will be tax cuti voted for a is bringingns apple 20,000 jobs to the u.s. it is repatriating billions of dollars of wealth. look at the 274 companies and counting that have made direct investments because of the tax cut i voted for. and that is benefiting members in my particular state. so i saw recently the generic ballot had been cut in half in a couple of these polls from plus
12 democratic to plus six democratic. that will go back and forth over time. always does. but i think that knowing what the headwinds are for the party in power, when you think about how these members will run on something, defending something, or crowing about something, really bragging about something that they think benefits their constituents, that plus the regulatory framework having been improved. you see everybody from the franchisees to small business formation, to larger employers, to job seekers, feeling very bullish. the confidence numbers are up. the unemployment is down. those metrics end up mattering to folks. manufacturing confidence being up. 200,000 new manufacturing jobs or so created. those are all big numbers. people know their 401-k's are fatter, their retirement security. the 529 education investments expanded through the tax bill.
developing our own energy resources in alaska. so there are different things people will see over time that will be helpful. the other thing that is a wild card, two things i think are a wild card, frankly. one is the continuing retirements. i said this to several weeks ago. philip: continue today. kellyanne: continue today. we had retirement, another house republican chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. frelinghuysen from new jersey, retired. so no one knows where these retirements will end. there seem to be an awful lot of them. that's one thing. the other thing, is everybody knows about the october surprise, which just seems to me in this very fraught environment, where there could be sort of election day surprises for people. folks are being called out right, left and center for their behavior. their terrible behavior and allegations of behavior and worse than behavior. by current and former employees and staffers and what not. so i think -- in both parties. i think that's a wild card that we can't -- nobody can really anticipate and predict this time. philip: that gets to what i wanted to ask you about next which is, what is your assessment of the mt. me too movement?
what about the #metoo movement? and what sort of impact do you think this will have politically? the democrats seem to think it will work in their favor and result in more and more women voters turning against this president and against the republican party to elect democrats to office. but i assume you might have a different view of that. and what do you make of that movement and its political power? kellyanne: any time people who feel like they are powerless or inferior to a superior, who is treating them poorly, particularly i guess certainly in this case in a sexual way, that's a very positive thing. i've been talking about it for years. i've been treated that way myself. i try to talk about it on live tv on october 9, 2016, nobody cared because of who my candidate was. i've been treated that way.
i do want to say anybody can speak up, male or female, about the way they've been treated, i think that's very positive. i believe in due process. i believe in people feeling they have a voice and not being powerless. but let me just correct, because i think you're conflating a few things here. the #metoo movement started after you had this just slough of allegations, revelations about harvey weinstein, for example. i'd have to say that seems to me that was the centerpiece of it at the beginning. so i don't want to conflate five different things into one question and one answer. at the same time, i think we have to have a larger conversation about the workplace environment and it does seem to me that the #metoo movement cannot be based on a woman's political beliefs or where she works or who she is or whether she's in media or hollywood or professional sports or she's a conservative. it simply can't happen. i don't feel comfortable explaining to my three daughters, and my son, frankly, that it all depends on who the victim is and where she works or what she wears or what her politics are. that would really be a terrible, terrible message to send, particularly to our youth.
so i hope we have a larger conversation about respect and the workplace and the work force. so far i don't see that. the house which makes her quite -- every time that happened to -- i i would is the them for who they are. weekend pathetic. don't think no one will listen. they are weak and pathetic to pray on someone who feels they
stand up for themselves. not weaker pathetic, powerful and intimidating. philip: i want to get one thing on their record, the super bowl this sunday. kellyanne: now i love and underdog. a big: donald trump is pages fan. are you going to watch the game? a lot of: he has respect for mr. bob kraft, an american success torry. we are happy to have the patriots at the white house in 2017. there is no reason for them to come back again. [laughter] kellyanne: now i am being partisan. now you have me getting an ethics violation. lifelong eagles fan. very excited. , feel whoever wrote this story
just when you think your careers over your going to try something new and get called back up. great things happen. i think the super bowl is a great night. i have to say it is one that brings americans back together. we eat too much, stay up too late. go big green. philip: kellyanne conway, thank you very much for being here. clinicalr national correspondent is now going to be interviewing nancy pelosi, the leader.ic house kellyanne: thank you very much. thank you.
[applause] >> good afternoon. thank you for joining us today. we are so thrilled to have as our guest house democratic leader nancy pelosi, who is also the one and only woman ever to have served as speaker of the house which makes her quite literally the most powerful woman in american history. applause] karin: we get started, i want to remind the audience and those watching that if you have a #i --ons or comments the
#postlive. and i will try to get a few into the interview. but first of all, i would like to talk to you about our topic today which is the state of the union address. we know the president is going to be talking a lot about immigration. he put out a framework of the deal that he'd like to see last friday. it involves expanding the number of dreamers who would get protection. it also includes some money for his wall and some pretty -- pretty radical restrictions on legal immigration. so he's got sweeteners in there for the left. he's got sweeteners for the right. is there a deal to be had, and especially a deal to be had in time to protect these 700,000 to 800,000 young immigrants who are looking at essentially, you know, a pretty steep deadline in february?
ms. pelosi: well, of course there has to be a deal to be had, an agreement to be reached. one of the republican members who has a bill, mr. hurd, described it this morning. let's discreetly deal with the dreamers and some security and then if we want to go to the other subject of fuller comprehensive immigration reform and all that entails, that's a bigger subject that takes more time. but for right now, if you really do care about the dreamers, there is an agreement to be reached. it has been presented and seems like the president is right there and then he's not. it's really discouraging because what he's put forth in this framework is really not in keeping with what immigration has meant to america. we are a country of immigrants unless we were blessed to be born as native americans. god bless us, our country for their contribution to our success. but immigration has been the constant reinvigoration of america.
every immigrant who comes here with hopes and aspirations to make a future better for their children and their families ascribe to what our founders had in mind, that every generation would take advantage, would take the opportunity to make the future better for their families and therefore for our country. so when they come with that hope, determination, courage, and optimism to make the future better, this immigration makes america more american. and that's not what happens in the president's bill. karen: but you mentioned there will be -- democrats are open to resources for border security. ms. pelosi: yes. karen: does that mean democrats have come around to the idea that the president can get some money for his wall? ms. pelosi: we are talking about border security and what is that? we all have a responsibility.
we recognize it to protect our borders. every country must do that. that means north and south in our case and others coming in other ways but especially the two borders. and so we had been receptive to saying what it is -- what is it the border patrol has -- i won't say wish list but what they're suggesting to meet their needs and that actually is what we have in some of our legislation. and that is commensurate -- god bless you -- and appropriate to what the number of people we are trying to protect. another bill -- when there was a bipartisan bill in the senate that was agreed to and it had more money for border but it also gave a path to citizenship for 11 million people in our country. this is a much smaller number. the commensurate border protection in keeping what the border patrol has said they need. karen: so wall money is not a deal-breaker for you?
ms. pelosi: what do you mean, mowing the lawn, the grass where a lot of people have kind of come through unsuspected? there are many things about border protection. and if there's some physical structure so be it. a 2,000-mile wall that costs $25 billion which by the way the mexicans aren't paying for -- please. [laughter] ms. pelosi: and by the way, if you know anything about the region, it's a community with a border going through it. families go back and forth. children go to school. people buy their groceries. they visit family and friends. it is -- to put a wall there is to -- in my view, ineffective, too expensive, almost immoral. karen: and -- ms. pelosi: immoral. karen: one area that a lot of people think there is potential for bipartisan agreement is on infrastructure. ms. pelosi: yeah. karen: the president has talked about sums of money. he really hasn't put a lot of details into what he would like to see. what are you going to be listening for tomorrow night on that? ms. pelosi: well, the president has always talked about infrastructure, but it's also just as with immigration been a
moving kind of target. we had thought when he talked about infrastructure, and the first meeting we had in a bipartisan way with the president of the united states a few days after his inauguration last year was that $1 trillion to be invested into infrastructure. what they have come up with now is this mini plan which is like $200 billion. that's over 10 years. $20 billion a year. it doesn't even come close to
what we need. we have trillions of dollars, according to the society of civil engineers, trillions of dollars of deficit. just think what it could mean for america if we made a real commitment, that $1 trillion put forth building roads, bridges, mass transit, high-speed rail, broadband, water systems. some of our water systems are made of 100 years old made of brick and wood. they really need to be replaced. it's a health issue almost. with all of that, school construction, it could help grow the economy all over the country, create good-paying jobs and, again, the care and feeding goes with the jobs that are out there so it would also stimulate the economy in many other ways. create jobs in the building, sustaining commerce in the process, improve the quality of life in terms of the investments in infrastructure which takes cars off the road. done in an environmentally sound way. the president's proposal meets none of those standards. in fact, it puts some of the burdens on states and cities, municipalities, state and local governments which he has just slapped in the face with the state and local tax reduction in that tax deduction. he's saying to them, you will get less resources and, by the way, you have to raise taxes if you think you're going to get some -- we are going to have some collaboration. and by the way, some of the money that you already put up for infrastructure, that's not
any longer going to be counted in all of this. so it's a really bad deal for state and local government instead of build america bonds where the states and local governments take over and -- now, one other part of it is a problem, and i pointed this out to the president a year ago, is you cannot expect to put forth some mini program, that subsidizes the private sector to build the infrastructure -- now we've guaranteed their loan and now they're going to build it, own it, and charge tolls. so the taxpayer is paying twice. getting back to your question. yeah, there is a way to do this. infrastructure really has never been a source of partisan disagreement. always found our way because everybody knows that this is important to our country. again, it's to create jobs immediately and really to promote commerce, improve the quality of life, to move product to and from market. especially where time is important in terms of perishability.
we really need to do this and we've always understood it and now they're coming up with -- this is another example, immigration bill and this bill, as a tax bill. let us give you this little thing while we do this other problematic stuff but you'll be attracted to the fact we have this little goody in there for you, a little goody in the tax bill while it gives a bang wet -- banquet to 83% of it going to the top 1%.
president eisenhower recognized this as a national security issue, the interstate highway issue as a national security issue connecting us and, again, on immigration. we will give them citizenship in 10 years, 12 years, but at the same time we will upset the rest of our immigration so the little teaser and a big problem in all case. the three i's. immigration, infrastructure, intelligence will be the third one. in california on st. patrick's day we always have the three i's, the italians, the irish, and the israelis -- just for sake of literation. and right now with infrastructure, the problem with intelligence -- i don't know if you'll get to that. seriously undermining our country. karen: well, i would like to ask you about that because you between your time on the intelligence committee and your years as leader where you have been read into every crucial intelligence question, i don't think there's anybody in congress who has had as many years of dealing with highly sensitive intelligence issues as you have. what are the implications and the ramifications going forward of this fraying we have seen between the executive -- you know, between the executive and
the intelligence community? ms. pelosi: well, it's not between the intelligence community. what is happening now is massive politicization of intelligence, and we have to protect the intelligence community from that. what is happening right now is that the chairman -- let me put this in context. i have served longer than anybody in the history and i don't know if anybody will ever catch up to me because i started in the early 1990's as a member. then, i had the ranking position. i am so proud of adam schiff. and isn't he doing a beautiful job in his role? [applause] ms. pelosi: eric swalwell, another member of our committee. and i'm very proud of all of the members. the speaker and the leader have the privilege and the responsibility to dep ties, to
-- to deputize, to name who's on the intelligence committee. it's not people run. it's a personal appointment. the chairman, the ranking member, speaker, leader. as well as the members of the committee. and i think we have tried over the years to honor the fact that this is about our security. in the old days when i was there first it was about force protection. it still is, how to protect our forces to avoid conflict but when we go in to make sure -- then, all kinds of multinational issues. of course, terrorism. but this is really seriously -- a serious responsibility. the speaker has appointed somebody who's totally irresponsible, politicizing the process and really it should not be happening.
for example, right now he's talking about releasing a document, releasing a document that is predicated on another document that was put together on the basis of total misrepresentation. it's like the wrap-up smear. let me do a terrible document. now, let me write a report on it and release it feathers to the wind as people see it. now, as you said, i have seen most of the underlying documents -- i can tell you that the memo that they reference is a misrepresentation. karen: this is the steel document. ms. pelosi: well it's not the steel -- if i would say what's in it -- i can't talk about what's in it. underlying documents i have seen, this document that their staff, the republican staff alone -- we usually do things in a bipartisan way. what they put together is false, misleading, misrepresenting. and now they're doing a memo on top of it. it's a wrap-up smear. this is bad. now we're going to tell you about it, and now we're going to release it which is highly unusual. i hope tonight they don't vote to release it, but if they do,
then we will have a -- the ranking member has said -- adam schiff, that there will be an attempt to mitigate for the damage they are doing putting out there. we'd rather not any of it go out. but that the president has said, do you think he's read the underlying documents or even the memo or the memo on the memo that they're going to put that out? [laughter] rep. pelosi: i mean, really, this is about our national security. this is about protecting sources and methods. this is about the integrity of our intelligence. it should never be politicized. and that's what they're doing. and nunes is really a stooge for the white house to do all of this since we're spending time together, i thought we wouldn't waste any of it with any
niceties. [laughter] [applause] karen: you mentioned the vote coming out in the house today. there is also a vote coming up in the senate on an abortion bill, one specifically that would outlaw abortion after 20 weeks. what is mitch mcconnell trying to do? it's a procedural vote. it's not a vote on the underlying bill. what do you think mitch mcconnell is up to here? ms. pelosi: i think he's up to practicing medicine which as far as i know he has no credentials for. however, this is -- this is saying to doctors what they can or cannot do and what is legal if they do. this is about the health and well-being of the mother. we shouldn't be going down this path. but it's a bone that they throw to their base and it's sad. i grant people their position on where they are on these issues. i come from an italian catholic family. little more conservative in their views than i am on some of this. i think they're coming around but nonetheless, the -- but to go into something like this, again, if somebody is doing something wrong right now, a doctor, they go to jail. so this bill in effect really has no effect except it's a showboat.
karen: well, i'd like to turn to my favorite sbtsubt and i suspect one of your favorite subjects which is the mid terms which are looking pretty good for democrats. you have -- it's always difficult for the white house the first go round in the mid temperatures. you have a historically unpopular president and right now -- ms. pelosi: yeah. [laughter] karen: right now the generic ballot of would you rather see a democrat or republican in your seat, the real clear politics average on that polling has the democrats up by eight in the house. so that looks like you guys are in pretty good shape. so my question is, what keeps nancy pelosi up at night? ms. pelosi: oh, eating too much chocolate during the day. actually, the tax bill is really the dark cloud that hangs over the capitol.
the fact that the republicans rushed through this tax bill, transportation of dollars of impact on our economy with no hearings, no expert advice as to what the impact will be on our future. a bill that is 83% of it goes to the top 1%. they sell it middle class tax cuts. 86 million families will be paying nor in taxes as a result of this bill. nearly trillion and a half dollar tax break for corporate america unpaid for and permanent. adding nearly $2 trillion to the national debt, as you -- when you put in interest on the debt, the debt service there. again, robbing from our children's future, and then is why it keeps me awake, using it as an excuse to say we really can't spend too much money on the domestic budget because we have this deficit, a deficit they created. and by the way, which they said, oh, it's going to pay for itself
with all this growth. if we do then we have money for the domestic budget. if it doesn't then you shouldn't have done it in the first place. that's coloring our negotiations on the caps. karen: well -- ms. pelosi: but for that -- i thought we were close to a solution, the tax bill, it has put a little fear of the lord into some people because if we have a cap agreement it will increase the national debt. karen: it's gotten predictable these mid term election seasons you will see a lot of yourself on television in the republican campaign ads. we've already seen one in pennsylvania quite recently. and one of the arguments that they are making in the ad is taking issue with your use of "crumbs" to describe
the, say, average $1,000 people will -- the average household gets in their pocket from this bill. i notice that you just used the than"goodies" rather "crumbs." ms. pelosi: either way. because it's not a question of $1,000. it's a question of the billions of dollars the bank -- that they have put for the top 1%. i don't begrudge anybody their success, their wealth, their achievement. god bless you for that. but to -- i saw a cartoon. the cartoonists always have, it's middle class, like a little mouse, piece of cheese on the mousetrap and then the fat cat is just waiting for that middle class person to take that. this is unconscionable they would have 83% of the benefits going to the top 1%. so that's my point is it's not what it is. it's what it isn't. and what it is for the banquet of money at the top, the extraction of money but trying to sell it as something you just be so glad to get, no.
our people deserve better. and if we could have had a bipartisan discussion on tax. yes, you want to lower the corporate rate, what makes sense? karen: so -- ms. pelosi: but they didn't want to engage in that because they were afraid of it because it would give more benefits to many more people and that was not their goal. their goal was trickle-down economics. if it trickles down, that would be good. if it creates jobs, that would be good. if it doesn't, so be it. that's the free market. that's what they tell us. karen: well, so what's going to be critical for you guys in this election? having the right kind of candidates in the right kind of districts. and you have 23 districts out there where you have a republican incumbent member of congress in a district that hillary clinton won in the presidential.
ms. pelosi: you want to talk politics? ok. well, first, let me get to your first point. yes, they always like to -- i'm so proud to come from san francisco. i'm so proud of our san francisco values. but that seems to be what they like to do a cable car, lgbt, all of that. that's how they put this all forth. i saw come from away, the play, and they sing make me a channel of thy peace. where there is hatred, let me bring love. despair, hope. that's the anthem of our city of san francisco. it's the song of st. francis, our patron saint. and yet they want to characterize my city in a certain way and identify a candidate with me and that and we're really proud of who we are. now, some of these candidates i've never met. it's really important for these candidates to come from their communities as this candidate did in pennsylvania that you referenced. but it is important because your title and your job description are the same, representative. you're not representing my district and i'm not representing yours. job description.
representative. title, representative. so your point, karen, was exactly right. there has to be a connection between the candidate and the district and the districts make those decisions. the history is on our side in terms if the president's number go below 50 it's a bad year. the next year will be bad. i always say, tell me where the president is the november before the election and i'll tell you if the door is open for us. if the president is under 50 of the -- well, let's say the republicans -- when clinton was president, his numbers went down, they won. bush, his numbers went down, we won. obama, his numbers went down, they won. it's not depositive of the election. there are many things going on and you have to be strategic cold-blooded in terms of your decisions as to where you allocate your resources. but you never underestimate your opponent. never. you don't overestimate them
either. right now i have never seen in all my years in politics more enthusiasm at the grassroots level, wanting to take responsibility to run for office, to support friends. that taking responsibility gives us opportunity. so, again, 9 1/2 months until the election. 10 1/2 months until the election, whatever it is, it is -- it's not today. if it were today i think overwhelmingly we would win. it's not today, but we do have to make sure we have truth. we say to each other, this is about authenticity to the candidates go out -- they're not running against donald trump. they're running -- they're presenting themselves what their hopes, dreams, what their purpose is for being a candidate. why they would want to go to congress and what they know about the subject and judgment they have and how they think strategically to get the job done and how that attracts people to them. so this is personal between the members and their districts -- the candidates and their districts.
it has nothing to do with somebody who's not from their area. karen: and you're not a big fan --, as much as you have the reputation as ardent liberal, you are not a big fun for litmus test, whether it's on issues of abortion, whether it's for getting people to declare whether they would vote for impeachment of president trump. are you concerned, though? you have all these potential 2020 presidential candidates out there and they do seem to be sort of speaking up on the single payer is another issue that looks like it could be becoming a litmus test. is that a problem? is 2020 and where the party is on some of those issues a problem for some of your 2018 candidates?
ms. pelosi: no. i appreciate -- it's certainly something that should be reviewed. but here's the thing. our party is a democratic party. it has a lot of vitality, diversity and the rest. as i said earlier, it's not for us to say, you should be the candidate and this is how you -- it's about what they can attract to what they're talking about. so my -- i get credit for oh, you kept the party so unified. i don't. i shouldn't deserve that credit. what unifies the house, senate democrats, better jobs, better pay, better future, is our unity about the economic security of america's working families. whatever differences we may have on omst some of the issues, tactics, we are unified about that is our value system. about respecting our responsibility to meet the needs of the american people. america's working families. and to do so in a way that makes sure people all participate in the prosperity and growth of our country. and also, i think my
responsibility as leader is to be unifying but not just in my caucus but in the country and to be unified -- transparent, have transparency and openness. how -- let's do a tax bill. let's do an immigration bill. let's do an infrastructure bill. let's do it openly so people can see what the choices are. and then, also, again, you know, issues like impeachment and the rest. that will take its course. but it's not a unifying thing for the country to go down a path at this point, in my view. but overwhelmingly i think the american -- a lot of people in the public have a different view on that and if i were out there i might, too, but i have a different responsibility here.
transparency. unity. bipartisanship. that's why we come here. we don't come here to be doing party work. we come here to do -- honor the values of our country. and, again, that is to try to -- in the solutions you choose when you have some options to bring people together. karen: so jack on twitter asks -- if you get that gavel back next january, what's your top priority? ms. pelosi: well, first of all, it's not about me getting the gavel back. i just want the democrats to have the gavel back.
and really the american people to have the gavel back instead of the -- what motivates people to do a tax cut. who motivated that? they shouldn't have this gavel. so it's not about me. but our -- i think right away we would do something to, again, lift up the american people in terms of their financial stability and financial security. and part of that financial security is access to quality health care as a right and not a privilege. some is to have a fair tax agenda so that they can, again, participate in creating growth. you're not going to have growth in the economy unless you have consumer confidence across the board in the great middle class and those who aspire to it. so it would be an agenda that we are putting together in our better deal, better jobs. it's about a job initiative that creates growth, that generates good-paying jobs, that increases the paycheck, that lowers the cost, lowers the cost of prescription drugs, lowers the cost of your communications each month and the rest. so it would be about jobs and it would be about growth. karen: and we have time for one last question. i want to ask you, one thing we are seeing this year is just extraordinary numbers of women stepping up to run for office. ms. pelosi: isn't that exciting. karen: at every level. there was something like 75 women whose names are in the mix running for governor.
when they run for office would they have a different set of challenges than men do so what would your advice to be for women candidates as they step into this arena? ms. pelosi: well, what my advice would be is what it has always been because when i came to congress there were 23 women. 435 members in the house. 23 women. i was determined right from that day that we would have it as a priority to elect more on. on the democratic side 65. the republican side are up to 20. but we made a decision to do that. a third of our caucus is women. half of our caucus are women, minority, lgbt. i am very proud of that.
but here's the thing and the best advice i got when i ran for office and i say this to women all the time. be yourself. know your power. be who you are. you may see other people that you think, i'd like to be that. forget that. authenticity is what matters. who you are, your sincerity as to why. share your purpose. what is your vision? why are you running? what do you know? know something about your subject, whether if it's about climate, education, women's right to choose, health issues, whatever it is, the economy, know your subject. show your vision. know your subject so your judgment is respected. think strategically. this is how i think i can get something done. if you show your vision, your knowledge and your plan, you will attract. you have to connect. that's why i say, show them what is in your heart. and it's hard. this is not for the faint of heart. but rim are so needed. so needed.n are saying when you are making the decision, weighing the equities, weigh how
important it is that you make this decision to run because nothing is more wholesome for our political process, for our government or any aspect of our economic and social life than the increased participation and leadership of women. \[applause] karen: unfortunately that's all the time we have today but that's a great note on which to end. leader pelosi, thank you so much for being with us today. ms. pelosi: thank you. [applause] karen: and i'm going to hand things off to my colleague, libby, who is going to lead the next discussion. ms. pelosi: thank you. bye-bye. did i say kennedy is doing our response to the president? [applause] [laughter]
to be really fun. >> good afternoon. thank you so much to all of you being here. oh, man, fireworks are starting already. i'm libby case, our on air politics reporter here at "the washington post." talking about communications in the trumpa a congressman eric swalwell, representing 15th district in california. ari fleischer under president bush. now he runs his own strategic communications firm. hi, ari. donna brazile, chairwoman of the democratic national committee. [laughter] >> i'm a local girl. libby: she also of course managed al gore's presidential campaign. >> how did that turn out for you? >> swinging chairs. libby: hey, it ain't over until it's over. next.see what happens and david urban, former senior advisor to the trump presidential campaign and serves as president of the continental group here in washington.
thanks for being here. let me remind the audience both here in the room and watching online you can send that questions, use #postlive and we'll get to some of those later on. we have some talkers here so we will try to keep this answer a little bit brief. what do you want to hear tonight from the president versus what you expect to hear tomorrow night, congressman? mr. swalwell: i hope he speaks to the millions of americans who are not feeling the thrust of this economy. there's no denying the stock market is up, unemployment is at near full employment and the g.d.p. hovers around 3%. but there are so many people i talk to, who i grew up with, live in my district who couldn't weather a $500 emergency. car tire going flat, washing machine going out, kid going to the emergency room, people are not saving more. they're going deeper and deeper into debt. how does this tax bill reach them and help lift their hopes and dreams? libby: do you hear that message? mr. swalwell: i hope so. that's who he needs to talk to. we know who is benefiting from his tax plan. i think a lot of americans still
want to know how is this going to help them. libby: ari. ari: i want to hear normal. i want to hear -- [laughter] [no audio] [applause] libby: what does that mean to you? ari: i want to hear what a president does? unites the country. the trump presidency has been a fascinating one to watch. he's got so many accomplishments and good things he has done and has the potential to do but every time he moves the ball down the field he gets a penalty flag for unnecessary roughness. it's a spontaneous moments that gets him. in a moment like this when you are talking to 30 million, 40 million, 50 million americans, unify. i am convinced the american people when they elected donald trump knew they would vote warts and all, mexicans are rapists. it does not surprise anybody there is a settlement with important star.
[laughter] ari: the reason is the american people hate washington so much, thinks this place is so broken, they didn't care. they wanted to send somebody who would get things done so they sent a disruptor. now he's entering the phase of his presidency where he needs less disruption and more getting things done. they didn't elect disruption for disruption's sake. they elected the disruption to get things done sake. that's what he has to deliver on. >> the president promised to come to washington, drain the swamp and end politics as usual. he's been an unusual president. i totally agree with my colleague here. i think tomorrow night the president gets an opportunity to tell the american people what he's accomplished over the last year. of course he will tout his tax plan which is not very, very popular. i also believe the president will try to recast himself as a different reality tv star. someone who has knowledge about the world. he's going to brag about his
trip to davos. he's going to give us a lot of dazzling numbers to show he has made a lot of progress and jobs, stock market. he's going to take credit for a lot of things. the question tomorrow night when he finishes his speech and gets back to the white house and start tweeting, what is the president -- what is the lasting impression we will have of this president, is he still going to be the dividing chief or come across to most americans as the commander in chief? i don't have a lot of expectations for this president because every time i think the president has hit a new milestone to reset -- try to reset his presidency, he's gone back into form and the question is, will he return to the donald trump, the populous firebrand on -- the populist firebrand on the campaign trail in 2016, or the new president that wishes to unite the country? libby: david. david: i get the easy part, right? i get to clean up after ari,
donna and the congressman. i think you'll see an aspirational donald trump. i think it will be a shining city on the hill kind of speech. the president will do real well. as you recall last year when he came, went up to the hill and spoke to the congress, he had that kind of speech. it wasn't a state of the union. it was an aspirational speech. after the speech was done, everybody -- most pundits said, wow, what a great speech. and people wanted to see him govern like that. as ari said and has been said, the president was elected to come to d.c. to break some china and shake things up because i can tell you the folks on the campaign trail are none too happy with the current state of play. it's tough to be a disruptor and then a uniter at the same time. it's a very difficult fine line to walk. the president's entering a phase i think in the presidency now, as most people will acknowledge, if you will get things done on daca, this incredible offer, path of citizenship for two -- close to two million folks, something i will put out neither president bush, president obama, president clinton, even offered to do because they couldn't get it done in their own caucuses. i know in the republican
congress is not popular, not popular amongst a great deal of democrats. i think it must be a pretty good bill if both parties don't like it. we'll see where it ends up. at the end of the day an aspirational speech. something people will say, that was a great job. now let's see what happens wednesday. mr. swalwell: i thought three weeks ago was the best day. he let the cameras in. i thought that's who he elected, let's come up something on immigration, i'll sign it. but as ari said, you can't put two good days together. two days later we saw what he said and felt about these african countries and the deal blew up. i still think congress can collaborate but we need somebody at the white house who's going to take the deals that we come up with. david: would you vote for the
play as it stands now? mr. swalwell: the aguilar-hurd plan. david: would you support path to citizenship for close to two million folks, solving the daca problem for a wall? mr. swalwell: i would vote for increased border security which would include a wall but not to cut legal immigration. that was never on the table and now the president wants to -- libby: you want a more narrow -- more -- david: two million folks that stand to become citizens, what would you say to those folks? mr. swalwell: that we're not going to bring you in and kick out your family members who have already -- david: when they show up -- libby: does the president address this head on? does he pitch his immigration proposal and then -- [inaudible] donna: the government shutdown is likely to occur again. libby: and then a deadline in march for the dreamers. two big deadlines coming up. ari: your colleagues on the right are upset about this proposal as well. mr. swalwell: graham and durbin
took him a deal and he said you make the deal, i'll sign it and we saw -- libby: i want to swing it back to the communications here to a second. as you mentioned the president during his joint address had a lot of successes by the metrics of a presidential speech staying on message, staying on the teleprompter and within that same week big news broke about his attorney general during the campaign meeting with the russian ambassador to the u.s. the attorney general recusing himself from the russia investigation. so how long lasting is this state of the union bump and can it all be destroyed wednesday morning with the wrong tweets? [laughter] donna: tuesday night. ari: it won't be that fast. [laughter] libby: he seems to be a morning tweeter. ari: they corral their message with the various inputs. international, something goes wrong, something happens at a domestic agency, it's uncontrollable. the problem with president trump is -- of his own making.
he too often creates his own problem going forward. he doesn't stay on that role. this is where i agree -- and i say this as somebody out of frustration because i want him to be successful. on policy there's a lot of donald trump i like. in terms of the nature and the way he's conducted his presidency there's a lot i do not like. and this is a big part of it. presidents have to have that discipline to stay on message. if he had more of it he'd have a much more successful presidency. if he did, last point, the 10 democrats in the 10 trump states up for re-election will be under withve pressure to vote trump. the reason they won't vote is because he's not popular. if he can get up to 50% nationally it will be a sea change in washington because those 10 democrats have to vote for him. libby: we do anticipate infrastructure coming up as an issue those red state democrats would love to get behind. donna: there are also 23 members of congress that won in districts where hillary carried.
[laughter] so we also know that there's a lot of politics in 2018. i want to talk about the weather. the forecast tomorrow is light winds with the possibility of snow. i'm a weather woman so i should talk about weather. there is another cloud that continues to hover around this presidency and that the trump-russia investigation and the question is, will he talk about that tomorrow? david: of course not. why should he? this is about government. donna: this is not nonsense. david: yes, it is. [inaudible] libby: let's let donna go. donna: once upon a time, if a foreign government interfered we he would both agree. ari: agree. donna: with an election coming up in less than 200 some odd days, we understand what issues we need to resolve. if you look what's happened in europe, they have built a firewall against foreign aggression, interference.
what have we done? what have we done on capitol hill? yes, this is something the president should be concerned about because he should be concerned about the health of our democracy. libby: i would like to hear from the congressman. do you want to hear democrats talk about russia tomorrow? you have been on the intel committee. you have been behind the scenes. what does joe kennedy talk about tomorrow? mr. swalwell: what the president could say is we are going to put together an independent commission just as we did after pearl harbor, after weapons of mass destruction, just as we did after september 11 and i wrote the bill with the republican support that would do that looks at issues not bob mueller is looking at but secure the ballot box in 2018 and 2020. most believe russia interfered and we need to do something to not let it happen again.
that would have bipartisan support that he has not acknowledged that. ari: it's not waiting for the congress to tell him what to do. hope the f.b.i. folks are out on their toes. david: i'm sure they have done this and the n.s.a. has been leaning forward and the c.i.a. has been leaning forward. if america is sitting home waiting for congress to act on this, then we have a long time. i would not -- donna: but we need presidential leadership. mr. swalwell: i thought the -- libby: the news of the day. we saw the f.b.i. deputy director andrew mccabe is stepping down. news out today. phil rucker said that earlier. what do you do from a communications standpoint?
will that overshadow tomorrow night, ari? ari: no. the number of people in america who knows who the f.b.i. director is nobody. the deputy director, this is washington news. what is important is we have an f.b.i. we can have faith in, trust in. i do think the investigation of hillary has raised a whole lot of issues that have not been adequately addressed including the fact now we learn hillary was sending emails to barack obama as president. when the comey investigation came out they took obama -- they cleaned it up, took obama out and made it a government official. libby: this seems like your communications strategy of pivoting the -- ari: i am allowed to have my opinion. libby: in terms of communication strategy, is that something democrats need to do? do you move to hillary -- ari: that's why i objected what donna is saying. i am all for fortifying america, you're 100% right. it should already be underway. outside russian election interference. an attack on one party is an attack on all parties. but face it. the whole issue of a
russia-trump collusion is about donald trump cooperated with russia to hack the d.n.c. that's what conclusion is about and there's no evidence. libby: congressman, do you bring this up if you are joe kennedy or steer clear? mr. swalwell: i wouldn't look backward. i would look forward and say we have a responsibility to protect our democracy and that's something both parties should be interested in. libby: how important is the state of the union? we can certainly bring your next point up. i want to know, is that going to make news this week? are americans going to tune in and focus on that or are they >> they're thinking about their recipes for the super bowl. americans want to know how the roads will get fixed. schools that are failing will be repaired. that's what people want to hear about. secure borders. path to citizenship for these daca kids. i believe that congress can get this done. the room and in negotiate it with outside
politics. unfortunately, everyone here knows, you heard minority leader pelosi up here talking about it. up to impeachck the president. is.'s the buzz >> i said be normal. there are certain normal things do.le in this town it's effect effective way to connect with constituent. president style only goes skin deep and hurt himself.
love to see him meet with the people who are getting the paynuses, getting raises. getting $15 minimum wage now. instead of a government dictated mandate. these are the way the president can connect with people and broaden his base. tour? not do this road >> because it's called message discipline. time when you laid out the three or four pillars of your state of the union, what was, you go out there and start selling your he likes red meat. that's not a unifying president. that's a president who's going to constantly campaign. when he campaigns, he divides. >> it's also not enough. onpresident with run just their base alone. >> that's why you'll see a pivot.
you'll see a pivot here with immigration, trying to strike a deal. the president does want to sign a deal. he wants to protect the daca kid. you'll see a coming together on that. >> does his team want to' that? >> i think they do. >> there seem to be different house.s in white perception.hat's i think they'll see everybody wants a deal to get done. same thing on infrastructure. these are great issues not just for american but they're great issue.al they require ten senate democrats talked about. on sundaynchin was talking about sounded pretty republican to me. >> le -- he sounded like that last year too. innovationrt this economy, we have to move people around and have a 21st century bridge, tunnels. when the president came to congress last year and said i will invest trillion dollar in infrastructure. you know who stood up,
democrats. stayed seated, the republicans. that.on't support second problem is that, don't your first with paycheck. the republican have spent thatillion on this tax cut we are now almost unable to fund any infrastructure spending. that's a real problem. to hear you all about accountability. when the president goes out and talk about accomplishment and looks forward hearing my goals, important is it there's follow through? talkedar we heard him about building a wall. obamacare, that did not happen. tax cuts, that did happen. is american populace watching the president does. or they listening to news reports places like fox news who are giving him arc pluses when some of the follow through isn't there? >> this is a check and balance election. simple.ems quite
what americans will be looking for, whether they have a congress that can collaborate where helpssident them and lifts them. immigration and infrastructure areas. whether they willing to stand up and be a check on the president tries to fall through on wall and the muslim ban or some of the other policies. check and balance election. i don't mind he hasn't followed through on the wall. mind he hasn't followed hurtfulon some policies. numbers came as a result meeting with leader leader schumer. everybody -- the american people, his numbers finally came little bit.eeds you saw the american people, wow democrats. with the he can work with other people. the president need to spend of his speech not talking his base but talking to that mom about who's concern still
that job security. who want to know if this tax trickle down to them. will it help improve their job status, their wages etcetera. the president can reach that milestone, maybe perhaps, we'll see an improvement his numbers. >> how important was follow bush.h for president has it changed? >> it's always important. important for president obama too. support for american people for driven by two factors. i like and i believe in the president. there's a personal element. and connection element. if they have no accomplishments. that's important. accomplishments. it resonates as economic growth pick up and wages likely to rise. in position to get substantial credit for it. secondly, though, comes with
get, if he can infrastructure and immigration three,hat's a powerful tax reform and infrastructure and immigration. for lot ofential accomplishments. we'll see what happens. >> looms large to the cloud is that the government we still are to keep the government open in a week. have to raise the debt ceiling. sum limittal -- supplementals for emergency spending. fatiguegreat deal of about spending money, about cooperating. lot of fighting going back and to get those things they need to do done. worki worked -- i used to on the hill many years ago. passed 13 spending bills. filibusters.no
remember those days of cooperation. >> i believe this government can work again like that. crisis to crisis here. it's become normal. >> what give you faith that can that? to >> i'm not certain. i would hope it can. that's part of the congress go throughity to normal order. take bills up and have hearing. it's pretty running mill boring life. >> can the president have a voice? >> that's why the presidents sent here. things up.shake the congress needs to get moving. been veryness, i've critical of president trump when he said things like the s-hole he made. it works in both directions. initially refuse to show up at his inaugural and tomorrow we're hearing about democrats will boycott his state of the union.
the atmosphere of washington that everybody needs to stop. from the congres congressman on that. was at the inauguration. it was tough day. you took the first flight home. manyter the treatment by republicans, after what i called presidentent of barack obama at the state of the union, i don't have a lot of faith in confidence in my member of congress with regard to the state of the union. i'm just going to let that go by me. >> boycott has to stop. >> i'm a former hill staffer. respect the office of the presidency. i also believe it goes two ways comes to respect. democrats topect hold moral standard and then to expressing one
views. there are lot of member who are quite offended. are americans quite offended by the president's remarks regarding those countries. the continent of africa, haiti salvador. some of the members i know. you talked to few of them they up.ded not to show there are some who will show up tomorrow. up with other symbols to show these countries, of africa,continent we respect the continent. we love the people of africa. of haiti.e people they will show that as well tomorrow. >> what does this do for town. how do you think the democrats need to comport themselves tomorrow and this week? >> i'm showing up. a personals decision. i'm showing up i want to be a check on the president. the role of's congress. i want to see that i and
there.ues are areject you can make statement. women will be wearing black in me too of the times up movement. i think those statements are important. tolso don't think we want make news. we want to let his policy be should respond as vigorousal we can afterward. >> the president stick to the stript. benefit him with his base or otherwise to go rogue? in off the cuff remarks. conversation. what does it say about the presidency and what does it do his political capital >> not tomorrow night >> i agree. going forward. the trump success if it will be successful down the road meaning the congress in 2018. based on him be
getting things done. not just disruption. the american people took that elected him, because they thought he could. they thought a businessman going to washington in place of politicians, the businessman can get things done. he's got to fulfill that end of be a successful president. less of that unnecessary and more rhetoric normalcy is the future for trump. >> my teleprompter went out one year. >> i was there. the white house. big print on the paper bring it in. >> hydrate. those diet coke. hydrate so he look the part. president ist the bringing in several americans heroes. we all applaud. like he did last year. we owe it to them. people that he will honor tomorrow night and pay
people thatre admire that have inspired us with their bravery. this is ape that, to tuner marin -- americans in. give him opportunity to make his case to the american people. next day, we'll di dissect the speech. say one thing. the resistance is growing. of donald because trump. tomorrow night for those who are still appalled at the election of president trump, they get an opportunity to also go out there speak out. i want to make sure that people understand, there are millions of our fellow citizens who did the president who been waiting for the president to pivot. they have grown frustrated with this president and his policies. i expect that they will also a say when feature is over. >> with the democratic a benefit, is there to the president tweeting nexthing controversial
day? >> i look forward to it. [laughter] i know you said that he's not midnight tweet. of the morning i wake up. it looks as though he puts his the night before. i'm looking forward to those tweets. >> congressman, do you look forward to them? is there a difference between strategy versus what it means to be a functioning congress and government. >> they bring anxiety for people.y working i represent district on the west coast. funny tothink it's poke somebody who has nuclear weapons in the eye unless you have a strategy. a strategy to dealing with north korea -- this that, i maybe go along with it. part ofelieves this is overall strategy.
will say for the first time north koreans and south koreans table goingat the to the olympics. this president has luxury road.g the can down the >> we should welcome that. >> give him pass on north korea >> good thing. you one area we'll all be manyng about, that is how people view the state of the union. i'm sure the president will tout numbers. i'm looking -- george h. w. bush record, 60 million. followed by barack obama, 60 million following the tragedy and president obama his first year in office. we'll see where the president will line up with the numbers game. since we're going to super bowl week, we just have to bring out -- this be reflection of -- sarah sanders? >> remember last time there was press briefing about numbers >> yes, okay. >> crowd sizes. >> is that a reflection of the
current presidency or is that a reflection of state of the union and the media environment now? are low, inrs americans don't tune in. has state of the union diminished its importance with era constitution. >> it remains central feature of our democracy. tune inme for people to and see it with their own eyes what president does and say. scripted and it's on a teleprompter. invented.er were the stage craft of government remains important. few thingse of the that unite us. we should watch. obama.ed barack i hope people watch donald trump. instagram story and young people receive their news. in 1981, irget back will never forget when i was college intern --
>> we're actually friends. .> i like both these guys happy.o during ronald reagan's there, duringas george w. bush, it is so american. forward to seeing the president. i continue to pray for this everyent as i pray for president. my grandmother taught us that as we were kids. praying for john k. kennedy. i look forward to commenting. to leave it there. thank you so much to the panel. really appreciate your time. thank you. [applause] to hand things off to my colleague who will be doing our day.panel of the thanks so much everybody.
you said bipartisan energy and concentration as i've seen in years, why is that and why is it happening now? because then part daca issue has important aspects for beth sides. a genuine energy toward getting something done. during the brief shutdown with this common sense collins office. which started back in 2013. us.e was a dozen of or 20.me there were 151 15 last time there was 35 senators. everybody wants to be a moderate sudden. which is kind of cool. >> of course it's an election
year. >> i want to ask you about those a little bit. i'm curious if you agree. a moment seems to be of cooperation that perhaps we haven't seen in the last few years. so. think in addition to wanting to get things done, i think there's a quickly overather the last week or so that a is a miseryhutdown journey on any side. it doesn't serve the public. serve us as policymakers. i think that there was a realization that on both sides that this is a miserable let's trye're in and to figure out how to get out of it. partisan.been rather over the past year and years past. leader, your leader mcconnell and others said there's going to be attempts this year trying to bridge the and find ways to work
together. beyond immigration, which is concern, what do you think you two think are potential foror cooperation across the aisle? >> i think infrastructure has promise. we don't know to pay for and the of it.d structures all of our states have a huge modernizing our transportation system. we have thousands of bridges that we need repairs. on rule and i worked broad band issue together. there's a huge one for lot of us. states like new york, gillibrand on a rural broad band issue. with that as a sort of rallying cry, i think we can possibly do that. infrastructure traditionally
been bipartisan. i think we can carry that off. >> i think opioids is another one. it's greatest public health state in the history that i heard of. your state one of the toughest country. this can yous across parties. this isn't really a partisan issue. states seem to be affected more by it. that's an area where -- it doesn't seem to be want the major points of the president's speech. on it.he touches this is a place where we need+leadership >> what else what you guys like to hear from him tomorrow night? >> personally i like to hear obviously, a strong speech that uniting speech that with the realizations. will talk about the accomplishment, principlely on the economy. think we'll hear about the tax bill? think we might.
we were talking about deciding stand and don't stand and clap. you look around and you realize one standing.y >> that has happened to you right? >> one of my favorite pictures is i sat with a whole group of republicans one year. i stood up and applaud. only person. it's one of my favorite pictures. are hardthe unions because of all of this when to stand and not to stand. sitting to a conservative republican. this.ent obama was like obama said we need to cut corporate tax rate. i said stand up man. then i realized, this is a 32nd ad waiting to be made. for conservative to be standing out in the state of the union. stood for obama.
it's going to be the reverse night.w >> they did joe lieberman other when he gave george bush a hug. the textdon't see until everybody else does. whisperer.ve a mcconnell andr john cordyn. -- just go for your gut. >> is there anything else he spend his huge prime final money -- uniting.r thing that's not uniting parts in it. energy.
it does go into the economic issues as well. for certain parts of the country mine and this is a big thing for us. have talk about energy, we questions about energy shortages and all these things. a uniting.t's there's parts that aren't so much. i think energy dominance is something that he can talk about. of it's going to be tone for his first year he played base. much to his this is an opportunity to turn the corner. debate.is immigration he can be nikes nixon to china. has on the to do something that others failed to do. on thatized opportunity, it will sail through him. hoping that he widens the
rapture in terms of who he's talking to. it will bethat, effective. people go into these things wanting to feel uplifted and peel positive. he can do and resist the underring to japan people, i think it will be successful. >> you been in those meetings regarding immigration. later today again, given what's the conversations who are inple month the room is there something he say or should say? think the challenge is to focus narrow. not comprehensive .mmigration
getou if the republicans greedy on and tie to do all inir agenda on immigration this bill it's going to make it very difficult and it could be very harmful to the country and to a lot of people. if they keep it narrow, we can get a bill. today was pulled out not narrow. it's a question of whether he youis willing to give or guys -- >> he likes to negotiate. involved in these bipartisan conversations? on this'm involved issue.
>> problem we got, we want a around canada. coming acrossns being nice to us and offering free healthcare. it's go the let's be real here, if he does wall, i let us build a will tell my grandchildren, -- i do not know how he will resist the temptation. i would hope that he does it in a way that riles up the base enough, but does not so disenchanted everyone else. >> is in it is settled issue at this point? >> i prefer the term, wall
system. everybody, very few people want a 2000 mile long and 30 foot long wall. i have spent time in a big and national park, down in other texas near the rio grande. that wall there, you are denying access to people of a beautiful river and if you put in the middle of the river, it is an environmental disaster if . if you put it on the other side of the river, that's an invasion. [laughter] there's some real practical problems. and i hope we can do something that makes sense, economic sense and i think it's, i think you agree. sen. capito: i do. sen. king: the idea of a wall from sea to shining sea doesn't make sense. ed: you, senator are involved in another sort of lower-level but important
, bipartisan conversation right now regarding the rules of the senate. and whether or not or how to revamp exactly how senators and how their staffs deal with the issue of sexual harassment. sen. capito: right. ed: this was sort of unanimously approved, that all of you would have to undergo mandatory training and then you guys are considering exactly how to proceed, otherwise. rules. you're working with democrats and republicans on it. what's going on with that? sen. capito: we are working with senator blunt, senator feinstein and others, we're trying to figure out what we have to put in law, with the rules committee members. what we found when this broke out, is that the system that is not, that was put into place in the 1970's to file a complaint , to have to go to counseling for six to 30 days before you could move to step two and all of these kind of antiquated, and really negative two were there for person who feels like they
have been violated and have a cause, it was really not -- it was something that we needed to change. we did change the mandatory training in december, and everyone has taken it by now. if you are a supervisor, you take it at a higher level. then we get into the process. whether you are paying for it with your congressional account -- it is transparent. who pays for these things, what you have to report -- we need to settle this. when the report came back, we realized that many of us are unaware that we had us system that does not work, and that needs to be modernized. >> have you both taking your training? sen. king: yes, you definitely all have to do it. host: online? sen. king: online. sen. capito: many of our offices
already has them to like that. host: is a resolution likely soon? king: i would say, soon. king:the house has a pretty aggressive agenda on it, in terms of reporting and transparency. the president won west virginia by 32 points, the most of any state in the country. is he still very popular there? yes, he is. part of it is because we are a states.ig coal we really took it on the chin for the last couple of years. for a lot of people in west virginia, it was like, nobody cares about me to riyadh my family had worked for decades to
power this nation -- >> didn't hillary's a something --e >> i am not surprised that he won best touch huge numbers. it was just announced before we came out today that the president is going to come to west virginia for the, we're doing the republican retreat in west virginia. and the president is coming, i believe on thursday, to address the lunch. that's no surprise, most, whatever party you're in, the president would come. i immediately got a text from one of my mayors of us all town, can i be your waiter at the luncheon, so that i can see the president? there's still a lot of enthusiasm for him. our economy has picked up. optimism has picked up. for people who struggle to find a job every day and feed their families, this is really, the popularity of the president's economic policies are going to carry the day.
host: hillary clinfon won your state by three points. sen. king: she won by three, barack obama won by 12. he has a lot of, maybe the. maybe the truest thing he said was he cowl wouldn't affect my poll numbers and i think there's a lot too that. he's still very popular. host: what is it specifically that maintains that popularity in your state? at least in the parts where he's popular? sen. king: i think it's a perception that he speaks for the average american. which is sort of odd that a billionaire from new york speaks for the average wouldn't affect my poll numbers and i think there's a lot too american, but he has managed to capture and we could get into a long deep conversation about this phenomenon, but a lot of it is that ruled people have been in many ways, left behind. in a whole host of ways. our rural areas are aging. the economies have been really hard hit by globalization.
i think he has really touched on that. that's one of the reasons shelley and i, we started the rural broadband caucus in the senate. it's very bipartisan, john boozman of arkansas, heidi hite -- heidi heitkamp from north dakota, a lot of people are participating. broadband is one of the ways the rural areas have been left behind. can you imagine you're looking at a house and the realtor says it's a nice house but you'll never have broadband. you cannot have a business in maine, without broadband. an urgents infrastructure, which is why i hope that the infrastructure plan, what ever it is, has a carveout that identifies broadband just like airports and railroads. host: does that literally mean, that you have to dig for wires? or do you just, areas in the country with a lot of wi-fi? what has been done to get it?
there is no one answer, it depends on topography. in some places out west, you could have a tall wi-fi tower and cover a large territory. in maine, because of our, and west virginia, you need sometimes a wire solution or fiber solution. in maine we have a terrific broadband network, but it's the middle and the last mile that are the problems. it's like having an interstate highway with no exit ramples. -- no exit ramps. you can look at it, but you cannot get on and off it. that is where we need some support. capito: capito: satellite too,s another technology that is coming on. it holds good promise for rural america. host: i want to ask you a few things related to the news. you guys, we've hit that point in the election year, where we will start to see issues designed to your colleagues on the spot.
one of them is the nice, where you will be voting on a bill that essentially bans abortion after 20 weeks. it passed the house overwhelmingly in october. leader mcconnell vowed he'll bring it up as long as he has control of the senate. but it's unlikely oto proceed to final passage. sen. king: it needs 60 votes. ed: right, and it doesn't look like it will get that. here under the auspices of bipartisanship, you discussed these incredibly pressing, important issues. i'm curious, whatever shoe, whichever foot the shoe is on, is that a good use of the senate's time to be holding these kinds of votes when you know that 60 votes aren't there for something and yet you're trying to put colleagues on the spot? sen. capito: well, i will defend the leader on this, i think every leader, no matter if you are a republican or democrat, is going to have these kind of votes. we know this, i mean, we have been there long enough to know and we expect it. so i don't think, i may be going out on a limb here.
i don't think there's any surprise here from chuck schumer that this is what mitch mcconnell, he's only bringing it up one night, we're not having a big debate on it. we will, it will not pass. i will vote for it but it will not pass. but it has a lot of, we have some great members of my republican caucus, james lankford in particular who is well-liked across the board, and works across the board very well, and this is a big issue for him not just legislatively , but personally as well. these things are going to happen. sen. king: one of the things that has surprised me as i've been there is there's a lack of appreciation or whatever it is that what you do to them, they're going to do to you. i caucused with the democrats when they were in the majority and they took some steps and the republicans have done it. that's one of the problems with the senate is the downward spiral where you know, they did it five years ago, therefore we
can do it. then you dream up something new and ugly and that's going to happen. for example, we're about to lose the blue slip process in judges. host: i was going to get to that, next. sen. king: that's a process that requires some level of bipartisanship. you've got home state senators who have to go along and tended to moderate. whichever direction. if that goes away, i guarantee you, in four, five, six year the republicans are going to be really upset they don't have it anymore. and that's what i don't understand. when they make these changes that ultimately will be used against you. sen. capito: well i mean, neil gorsuch is a good example. when the democrats were in charge, they moved the threshold down. sen. king: not for supreme court judges. sen. capito: oh. some circuitor
court judges. sen. king: you did it for gorsuch. that's my point. sen. capito: but we haven't, but oh, yeah, we did do it for district judges. sen. king: i say we i'm a member , of the democratic caucus but i didn't sign any oaths. [laughter] host: yes or no tonight on that bill? sen. king: on the abortion bill? well, i am in no, because i have done some homework. i've learned that 99% of abortions take place before 20 weeks. so this is a solution in search of a problem. and that the abortions that do take place at 20 weeks or later usually involved some real serious complications and medical issues. i've always thought that the place that the government ought to be is between a doctor and a woman. [applause] host: and her are exceptions -- >> there are exceptions, and we are all -- we are one of only four countries in the world that allow this. host: one thing that caught my attention, senator cap the you gave an interview to a radio
station in west virginia, and you were asked if the democrats , try to play hardball again on keeping the government open, leader,enate majority mitch mcconnell, change the rules to reduce the procedural hurdle on legislation, from steve votes down to 50? i thought your answer was interesting. that talk is getting more frequent and louder, you said. to be honest with you, i think the leader is considering what his options are here. because the frustration is we , we cannot get the president's appointments through. meaning it takes a little while for it to happen. i think we're going to look into it and see what the possibilities are. mcconnell is an institutionalist and doesn't want to go in this direction but he's getting pushed pretty hard. are you saying he is more than ever seriously considering making this change in the rules regarding legislation? sen. capito: now. i don't want to speak for senator mcconnell, he can speak a lot better for himself than i could. not the legislation. appropriations were stuck. on appropriations we can'
on appropriations we can't get anything done. sen. king: i've got an answer for that. bill comes out of the appropriations committee with a supermajority, it goes straight to the floor. sen. capito: we had some bipartisan. sen. king: and they ought to go to the floor. sen. capito: i think, the main talk now is compressing the amount of time you have to consider certain district judges and circuit judges, instead of it having to be 30 hours, which doesn't sound like a long time, but if you waited into a weeks, it can be three days. i think there is a lot of rusher on senator mcconnell to be more welcoming to this, as you can see, and he has resisted. i think he'll continue to do that for the exact same reason angus said. when the shoe ghones other foot who knows what will happen, with the majority, 51-49? you don't. but i know the pressure is building because i'm in the room when we're talking about it. host: and it still comes up
quite frequently, in your lunches. sen. king: it would be a grave mistake. for one thing it would turn , around and work the other way in some measurable number of years. number two, i came to the senate, we had to get rid of the filibuster, it is undemocratic, all of that -- but i have learned and observed a couple of things. one, it really does require some level of bipartisanship. it requires some negotiation. the majority just can't run over the minority. and in the long run, legislation is better if it's formed that way. rather than, you know, the affordable care act was never fully accepted because it got no republican votes. i think the tax bill, we got no democratic votes. it's much better, you get better results and it forces and it -- it forces and cool the discussion down somewhat. one of the people that influenced me on this was karl levin, the great senator from michigan.
i remember him standing up, and there was a moment in the democratic caucus in 2013, when they were really fired up to get obama's agenda through, we can only do it if we make this change. you know how in a meeting, the momentum sort of builds. karl levin stood up and said, this is not something we want to do, because five years from now somebody could want to privatize , social security or privatetize medicare, you're not going to like it and you won't have any weapons left. it's, sir thomas moore, when a devil turns upon you and you don't have the laws available to protect you, what do you have left? that's what we're talking about. host: so, a lot of pressure, but it is also a reminder that everything is cyclical and congress, and it could go the riyadh real quick, as we wrap up here. you're from a state that voted overwhelmingly from the president. you're from a state that didn't.
but let's flip it around. what is the thing that you most stongly disagree with the president on, senator capito? [laughter]: riyadh real quick, as we wrap up here. you're from a state that voted overwhelmingly from the president. you're from a state that didn'tg that you strongly agree with the resident on, senator king? sen. king: i will go i most first. strongly agree with him on trade. i think we've not really advocated for adequately, in favor of our country. i've seen the effects of some of the trade bills in my state. and we're asking, it's hard for know go to a small company and say, you have to compete head-to-head with a company in vietnam that doesn't have osha, fair labor standards act, e.p.a., any of those protections, labor protections, but you've got to compete with them. i just don't think, that that makes sense. and i think that the president is right on wrangling those what he calls, one-sided trade agreements to riyadh a think that is one place that i agree with him. sen. capito: i think the thing i disagree with the president the most on is his tone. is his, i don't mind the use of twitter, i guess we've all kind of gotten used to that.
but seriously, when i read some of them, i go, are you kidding me? are you really saying that? and it's discouraging as a policymaker who is serious about wanting to get these things done, working with angus, it's such a distraction. because we're not talking about how we're going to build bridges and get wi-fi and all these great things we've talked about. we're talking about, you know, rocket boy and all these sort of terminologies that just distract from the real seriousness of what we're doing. i love to laugh. we both love to laugh. i like a good sense of humor every now and then. but sometimes it edges beyond a sense of humor in my book and i don't think that serbs him well. i don't think it serves us well. and i don't think it serves you all well. host: do you know of any republicans, a lot of your colleagues say this to him. -- [applause] they have raised the issue with
him face-to-face, and not a television interview? sen. capito: i tried to convince him before the election, the first time i met him. i'm going to say one thing about the president that a lot of people probably don't realize , he's one of the best listeners i have ever been to in a meeting. yes. he really listens to what you say. what he does with it is another story maybe, but he does listen in meetings, very, very the president that a lot of intently. and he gives everybody a chance to talk. so he was talking about somebody, this is during the campaign. somebody that he was in a twitter battle with. i tried to tell him, this is what they tell us, a campaign consultant will tell you, if somebody is nipping at you, unless it's something you really have to beat down, just ignore it. sen. king: don't make it into a two-day story. sen. capito: ignore intently. it them a been i said all you're doing is , upping his twitter feed. you're making him more important
than, than he might be or get ting more of an audience. so, yes. i tried there, but it did not work. i'm certain that his staff, it would be interesting to see a book of all the tweets never sent. [laughter] >> they are all saved in draft. sen. king: i've only met him once but it was a fun story. they took all the senators to the white house for a briefing on north korea. i guess i can say this in public. i had used the restroom. i said to the secret service guy, where is the restroom? he said over there in the little room. i went in, came back, and there was the president of the united states. mike pence was there, i shook hands with mike pence and with the president. his one comment was, central casting, you look just like a senator. [laughter] king:?
>>? >> i went back to my office feeling pretty cool until my communications director gave me a column, the title of which ki? >> was, "central casting." apparently he says that to everybody. everybody. host: it's interesting to see what we see tomorrow night. we appreciate you both spending time. sen. king: watch us, whether we stand or not to riyadh host: i am going to, now. that is all the time that we have, thank you both for coming in. thank you senators. [applause] host: if you'd like to view the clips of today's discussion or find out about upcoming programming, visit washingtonpostlive.com. a reminder to make the post your destination for all your news coverage on tomorrow's each. we will have it live streaming on youtube, and of course, we will be live blogging and fact checking it live and in print. thank you, everybody, see you soon.
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> c-span's state of the union coverage begins next. we will get reaction from lawmakers. all live here on c-span. >> lawmakers. president donald trump's first state of the union address will begin in about one hour. the democratic response by representative joe kennedy follow. presidentw minutes, and mrs. trump will depart.