politically. >> you're going to lose your satellite window. great to see you both before you go to black. i appreciate it. thanks for your time. thank you for joining us at this hour. "inside politics"ing with john king starts right now. > >> thank you, kate. welcome to "inside politics." >> thanks for sharing your day with us. the president dismisses all haters. no doubt in his mind his first 100 days have been historic. >> some of the things i'm signing i say maybe people won't like it, but i'm doing the right thing. no regular politician is going to do it. i will tell you, literally, some politicians have said you're doing the right thing. i don't know if i would have had the courage to do some of these things. but we're doing them because it's the right thing to do. it's. >> more on that ahead. plus an outline today of president trump's tax cut ideas. he wants to slash rates for

businesses including his own. one giant white house challenge, even the president's own budget director worries the plan explodes the federal deficit. >> we need more upward mobility in the country again. that's what's this tax bill is designed to do. if it does lead to deficits as a conservative, that bothers me a little bit. >> and stunning administration language after another setback in the courts. the white house says leaders of sanctuary cities will have blood on their hands and a federal court is ridiculed as ridiculous and ba ma nas. >> it is as outrageous overreach by an unelected judge that simply doesn't understand the law, which is frankly sad that he's a judge i guess if you don't understand the law, maybe you shouldn't be making judicial decisions. >> with us to share their insights julie hirschfield, jacqui kucinich "the daily

beast" and perry bacon. the president looks to add to his 100-day portfolio including the tax cut outline and congress looks for a deal before a friday deadline to avert a an partial government shutdown. a fresh republican attempt to revive an obamacare repeal effort. the president wants a vote this week. this talk of progress in talks between the key factions in the house, but we'll see. as far as speaker paul ryan even would go when asked if he's ready to call a vote. phil mattingly is live at a very, very bernie sanders capitol. the spending deal, what's the biggest holdup at this hour as they try too avert a shutdown on friday. >> the border wall is officially out. it's a battle between democrats and the trump administration for something called cost sharing reduction subsidies. what does that mean? it's about $7 billion annually given to insurers to help with the subsidies on obamacare. up to this point, that has been an administration bill. essentially. the administration has paid for

that. but president trump made clear in a "wall street journal" interview he saw this as leverage and he didn't want to pay for it, might not and if they wanted the money, congress would have to appropriate that. because of that democrats have set this down and said that money needs to be funded in this government bill or they won't come along. the administration has made very clear not only do they not want this in the spending bill but they will consider not making the payments themselves in may if democrats don't back down at some point soon. this is a real sticking point. paul ryan said clearly this morning, this wasn't going to be in the final spending bill deal. that's why right now we're at an impasse as they work their way through the language. >> at that impasse, slowly working through the language, i guess 2 1/2 days to try and get it done. phil, i was struck by the speaker's tone. the mcarthur amendment was trending on twitter after the speaker talked about it. i know members of the freedom caucus and some of the moderates

think they've made progress on obamacare repeal. the speaker's hands are still singed from the first time around. >> he's taken a step back through the third iteration of trying to get repeal and replace through the house. what i hear now from leadership officials is nobody is convinced. they are cautiously optimistic perhaps this is a path pai forward. the conservatives in the freedom caucus are coming into line. the outside groups are saying we're okay with this. this comes down to the moderates. do you vote for something that could be politically damaging particularly on the headline level given what this amendment would do and risk your political future or do you abstain and rick the wrath of being blamed with sinking repeal and replace. what we know is over the course of the next 48 hours they're whipping the vote, trying to get a sense of where their members are. perhaps a vote next week. worst case, maybe 4.0 or 5.0. who knows at this point.

>> i'm sure you know the shortest direct line to an espresso machine in the next few days. let's bring it into the room. we're laughing but every one of these pieces of this puzzle are serious business. let's start with the shutdown talk and the administration saying we don't want to make the payments to sustain the existing obamacare law. is it a bluff? they backed off on the wall. are they going to back off or do the democrats have to pass a spending bill that doesn't have the money in there? >> it's hard to imagine it's anything other than a bluff. if they followed through with this, it's not democrats that will be blamed for the consequences here. president trump is the president. he may not like obamacare or health care system the way that it is under the affordable care act, but if these subsidies aren't there, then he's going to face consequences political and otherwise. and while democrats may share in

that, that's not a great place for him to be on the 100-day mark. i think you're right. he's been bluffing on the wall and on the first health care vote go around and i think there's some question now as to whether he's willing to back down on this. if he doesn't, the consequences for him are potentially as dire as they are for democrats. >> if the government shuts down, republicans control every lever of government here. so the idea that democrats would shoulder the blame for protecting obamacare subsidies doesn't really -- i can't really see that hurting them politically to stand up to say they were standing up to the president, which is what their baseballed for and what we're hearing from leadership. >> i'm assuming this president doesn't want to shut down on his 99th day or going into his 100th day. if you go back in time, a lot of people say the republicans will pay the price. they did shut down the government for a brief period of time. everybody thought they would be doomed for it.

the republicans won the presidency and there are some who say if we stant stand on principle we won't get blamed. >> memories can short on the implications of a federal shutdown. the choice for the president is he has caved on a couple of things already. if he continues to make demands and then backs off, he continues to send signals he's not as tough a dealmaker as he claims to be. that's the calculation they have to make. but i agree with jackie that the bigger issue for the republicans is, do they want this to be the story on the 100th day when they have spent the week talking about how discuss successful they've been. >> one of the remarkable things if you look at the abc "washington post" poll the president has backed down. first they said last week we want the -- those are the obama repeal and replace flubs up there. take those down. we'll get to that point in a minute. i want to get to the idea, they had said over the weekend we insist on the border wall down payment and backed off and

realized democrats wouldn't go for it. if you look at the polling, the 94% of trump voters say they would vote for him again. listen to rush limbaugh though. if he continues to do this, is there a price to pay down the line. they're with him now but -- >> i'm not happy to have to pass this on. but it looks like from here right here right now, it looks like president trump is caving on his demand for a measly $1 million in the budget for his wall on the border with mexico. >> is there a risk that if that criticism continues out there in conservative talk radio, that the thing the president has been able to keep, yes, he's at 40% but steadily at 40%. his base has been rock solid. is there a risk here that starts to erode? >> eventually there is.

on the issue of immigration, hard to say this president has not been pretty strong. look at his whole record from sessions and the secretary, they've been pretty strong and their record suggested people are trying to come into the country is down. immigration he's been pretty strong. that said, yes, you've seen a number of flip-flops in the last month moving from the conservative position to more the establishment view. i think over time that could erode his base. >> i think the other aspect on the wall is that while his immigration policies are very important to the base of the trump support, the wall itself may or may not be. it became a nice symbol during the campaign but the polling on the wall does not suggest that this is overwhelmingly important to people kind of across the board. >> right. and even his own homeland security secretary said a little bit of wall, a little bit of drones and surveillance cameras. i think the secretary is try to take the president to where the debate will go. a little more than a month ago,

they were supposed to vote on the obama health care in the house. it just collapsed. they did not do the work to figure out they didn't have the conservatives and moderates together. reince priebus told reporters yesterday, when the votes are there the peeker will bring it to the floor and take the vote. whether that's this week or next week, we don't know. that's a shift. last week, the intelligence they were getting was they are making progress and the president wants a trophy at least the house vote by the 100-day mark. a, do we think they've done enough in the recess to put that together, and b, now we can go back to the glaf if i can, the terrain under the republicans is changing a little bit. 37% of americans say repeal and replace. 67% say keep and improve. as this debate is in the public eye it, appears public opinion has shifted to don't throw it away, just fix it. >> not only that. they haven't been doing the work outside of the congress to build support for this bill. we haven't seen the president go out to various states and really

build up, get the public ready for this and get public opinion behind this. as far as we know, the amendment that they've introduced doesn't change a lot of parts of this bill that other members didn't like and whether the public will bump it above 17%, which is what it has been polling at remains to be seen. right now if you're looking at the landscape, some of the members that say no have every reason to say no because the public doesn't like it. >> the mcmcarthur amendment is essentially if your state has a democratic governor or centrist, you can keep the coverage as it is now. a more conservative state has the ability to opt out that your state doesn't like. you create a state-based approach under a federal guideline. conservatives from south carolina and alabama think our governor will change the policy. new jersey or massachusetts, our governor won't. the question is, can they get to whatever it is with the special leks 215, 216 to pass a bill in

the house and what is that worth if they pass a bill that goes nowhere in the senate. >> i was going to say the failure of this effort the first time around for the white house meant they got all of the downside of having a big debate on a big issue ha a lot of voters care about and none of the upside. people focused on the fact you could lose coverage. there could be benefits you have now that you might not have anymore if there were more flexibility introduced in the way the republicans want. pre-existing conditions might not be covered anymore. republicans say they won't touch that. had you people starting to think about this and what would it mean and actually starting to get nervous about it. instead of having a big vote where it was an endorsement of okay, this is what we're replacing it with and it's great and here's all the things it does for you, it collapsed. you had this big promise. a lot of fears what had that mean and no follow through. that's why it's even more difficult now. they have laid more groundwork but it's more difficult to get

to 216 and the white house to get to the victory it needs. >> a lot of grumbling on the president's style has pushed them to places they're not ready to be yet. next, the president calls a court ruling ridiculous. his spokesman says officials in sanctuary cities will have blood on tear hands if there's violence committed by the undocumented. and the wolf huffed and puffed... like you do sometimes, grandpa? well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe. it can be hard to get air out, which can make it hard to get air in. so i talked to my doctor. she said... symbicort could help you breathe better, starting within 5 minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. symbicort helps provide significant improvement

of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. symbicort contains formoterol. medicines like formoterol increase the risk of death from asthma problems. symbicort may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. you should tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. symbicort could mean a day with better breathing. watch out, piggies! (child giggles) symbicort. breathe better starting within 5 minutes. get symbicort free for up to one year. visit saveonsymbicort.com today to learn more. [vo] quickbooks introduces and her mobile wedding business. she travels far and wide to officiate i do's. and quickbooks automatically tracks those miles. she categorizes with a swipe and is ready for tax time. find more than $4000 in tax savings. visit quickbooks-dot-com. atmore than one flavor, oruch texture, or color.ing. a good clean salad is so much more than green.

and with panera catering, more for your event. panera. food as it should be. on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates. maybe you should've done more research on them.

for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $509 on auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. unlimited data on t-mobile, now that's a treat. why did verizon take so long to offer it? is it because their lte network was built six years ago?

six years ago? that's like a hundred in phone years. t-mobile built newer, faster, more advanced lte to handle unlimited data. switch to t-mobile, now covering 314 million americans and growing. and right now, get 2 lines of unlimited data for a hundred bucks, all in! taxes and fees included. daily life a guessing game. and bloating made will i have pain and bloating today? my doctor recommended ibgard to manage my ibs. take control. ask your doctor about nonprescription ibgard. welcome back. one legacy of the president's first 100 days is a lousy track record in the federal courts. twice his travel ban blocked and yesterday, a federal judge in san francisco put on hold an administration effort to cut federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities. the justice department last night reacted with a lawyerly

statement promising to make its case on the merits. a short while ago, president trump seemed none plussed. >> are you surprised by the ruling? >> i'm never surprised by the 9th circuit. as i said, we'll see them in the supreme court. >> but before that more muted and optimistic reaction about the supreme court, the white house, you might say, went a little bananas. president trump lashed out on twitter with frustration. in a series of tweets he called the ruling ridiculous and saying it was made by the same appeals court that blocked the travel ban. the white house chief of staff needs a civic lesson. it's the ninth circuit going bananas reince priebus told reporters. a district court issued the ruling. the appeal would go to the ninth circuit. yes, it's within the area of jurisdiction but it was not the ninth circuit that issued an

appeal. a bit wrong on the facts but more troubling to many is the tone the executive branch yet again using highly personal languaging to attack the judicial branch. dan, we're the gray haired guys at the table. i've been around in this town for a long time. white house often get frustrated by the courts and say they don't like this case. personal language about ridiculous, bananas, attacking judges, have we heard anything like this before? >> i can't recall we have so consistently and also because he's been so criticized over a period of time, judge curiel last year and now these kinds of complaints. he's been so criticized for it. it hasn't gotten him anywhere or improved his chances in the court. there is a legal process under way. the courts are moving. when we did a poll on this, our respondents overwhelmingly said these are the courts doing what the courts do. it is not unfair or not an

overreach. the public recognizes that. i don't know what the mileage is other than it's a frustration that boils out of the white house when when these things happen particularly as they want to have all kinds of successes and know there's going to be focus on this as a setback. >> conservative tend to think of activists on the court. president obama a lot of his executive orders were blocked in the courts. he didn't get to do a lot of things he tried to do because they were stopped in the courts. >> you didn't hear his ag criticizing the courts. it was last week, you heard jeff sessions who said of the judiciary going after the judiciary. but there administration has a tendency to do an us versus them with whoever decides to challenge them. if it's the judicial branch, it's the judicial branch. >> is it because this is a trademark issue for president trump? >> yes. >> a lot of people look an the

40% an probable rating and say it's historically low. it is. this is his core base staying with him. sean spicer, the press secretary, this is the statement issued last night. the president criticized the judge. the press secretary criticized sanctuary cities. san francisco and cities like it are putting the safety of crill a yins before the safety of our citizens. it empowers the worst kind of human and sex trafficking and putting thousands of innocent lives as the rick. sean spicer goes after the mayors and police chiefs in these cities saying they have blood of dead americans on their hands. >> this statement was i've not been around as long as you and dan. this was unusual. the press secretary uses the phrase blood on their hands, that was the most aggressive statement i saw yesterday. it surprised me. i think it goes to the notion these issues, whether the muslim

ban or something sanctuary cities are core issues trump talked about from the first few months of his campaign, his core promise i'm going to stop people who shouldn't be in the country. i'm going to stop crime and target certain populations in certain ways. i think that's in part why they're so responding so strongly. sean mentioned a judge from san francisco. these are not conservative places. >> if they cut funding to these cities, it's going to hurt police forces. so if they think there's a crime problem there, which in a lot of places there are higher murder rates in nonsanctuary cities than those that are considered sanctuary cities. it's cutting off your nose to spite your face if they end up try -- if this, would its way through the courts. >> there's a strong emotional message i mean, sean spicer's language may be over the top in terms of blood on your hands. there is a strong emotional resonance to the idea that people who have been -- who are

here illegally and commit crimes are being in one way or another protected. the trump base in particular, but i think somewhat broader than that, onwant some broader solution to this. when they will go after this issue, put an besides the judges, it does resonate with people. >> i couldn't agree more. they've tapped into something. people here illegally committing illegal acts and the trump administration would make the case they're being somewhat protected. if anybody at this table did the same thing, we would in jail. no doubt about it. just to make the point, a lot of people say they're playing politics playing to their base. maybe that's true. you make that call at home. so are the other people involved. this is the san francisco attorney who won the case. the attorney makes the reaction about a little bit more. >> the court found today that the trump administration's arguments were not only not legally plausible, the court

sided with us on every substantive issue. i hope this president learns from his litany of mistakes. his first 100 days have been a disaster. >> well, yeah. >> that's blue america. that's blue america. you know, throwing blowback at the president of the united states, not arguing the legal merits of the case but decided to make it about trump at large. >> you're running for office and you're a democrat, attacking trump, suing trump, criticizing trump is exactly what you probably should be doing politically. >> if you look at the executive order itself that's at issue here, it didn't do anything. it called for the finding ways of defunding sanctuary cities. they haven't found good ways yet to do that. this fight is unfolding in the courts and the court of public opinion and with the political backdrop. saving them the actual substantive task of finding a way to do this which is as dan

said a politically popular thing to talk about because it only stands to reason that people would want as much to be done as possible in every city in the country to crack down on criminal conduct. but it's not as easy as it sounds. the way that president trump talked about it on the campaign trail and talked about it since he took office makes it seem like a really simple question of absoluting off a spigot. it's not and they know that. us versus them is not a bad place for them to be while they figure out weather this is actually possible. >> politically smart and strong for them and hair base. sit tight. up next, yet another executive action mrs. a call for a giant tax cut. it's day 97 and the president who called the 100-day test ridiculous is going all out to get a paing grade.

he's a nascar champion who's she's a world-class swimmer who's stared down the best in her sport. but for both of them, the most challenging opponent was... pe blood clots in my lung. it was really scary.

a dvt in my leg. i had to learn all i could to help protect myself. my doctor and i choose xarelto® xarelto®... to help keep me protected. xarelto® is a latest-generation blood thinner... ...that's proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt and pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical studies, almost 98% of patients on xarelto® did not experience another dvt or pe. here's how xarelto works. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least six blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective... ...targeting just one critical factor, interacting with less of your body's natural blood-clotting function. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor as this may increase risk of blood clots. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. get help right away for unexpected bleeding, unusual bruising, or tingling. if you've had spinal anesthesia, watch for back pain or any nerve or muscle-related signs or symptoms. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding.

tell your doctor before all planned medical or dental procedures and before starting xarelto® about any conditions, such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. you've got to learn all you can... ...to help protect yourself from dvt and pe blood clots. talk to your doctor about xarelto®. there's more to know.

welcome back. president trump wants you to pay no attention to this man. >> the country wasn't based on executive orders. right now, obama goes around signing executive orders. he can't even get along with the democrats and he goes around signing all these executive orders.

you can't do it. >> so what he once labeled obama white house disaster is now trump white house s.o.p. that's standard operating procedure. cnn was told there's an action notice, would to study whether the federal government has overstepped bounds in education policy. moments ago, pen it paper. number 27, a review of presidential authority to designate giants swathes of federal land as monuments and as a result to protect them from development. >> we're returning power back to the people. we've eliminated job-destroying regulations on farmers, ranchers and coal miners, on autoworkers and so many other american workers and businesses. today i'm signing a new executive order to end another egregious abuse of federal power and to give that power back to the states and to the people where it belongs. >> the trump white house including the president himself right there now paying no

attention to candidate trump's scorn. they now brag his record includes more executive actions than any of his recent predecessors. one of the lessons i guess that running for president is different than president. when you are president, you use the powers at your disposal especially if you can't get your own party to pass something. >> his own party isn't calling him on this. they're saying it would be nice if he went through congress. i'm old enough to remember the imperial obama presidency because he signed so many executive orders which weren't as many. >> in trump's defense, they are saying we want had not to be a federal power. obama's were often to expand federal power. this is a conservative idea toe pull the government back. trump shouldn't have phrased it the way he did. the idea he wants to pull back federal power is what he's doing. >> can the executive agencies of government do that without big signing ceremonies? can't the cabinet secretary just

say we're not going to gets involved in that? >> of course. the fact is a large number of these executive orders have basically been glorified press releases. they lay out priorities and say we should look at "x" "y" and z". even the wall in the executive order that the president signed in january was a call for the building of direct agencies to explore how to design and construct the wall. it didn't actual build the wall. a lot of these things, it is a lot more sort of movement and motion than actual progress. but because they don't have any legislative major legislative victories they can point to, this is the only standard where they can sort of put a number on the board and say we did better than fill in the blank. to be fair to him, presidents -- before they become president, they always criticize the use of executive power. i remember hearing george w. bush was you know, he overreached and cheney and bush were expanding presidential

powers beyond all reasonable level. and you know, then you become president and you realize, there's some things you can't do by yourself -- or with congress. you have to do them by yourself. >> i think they're symbolically valuable for him. certainly in the absence of legislative victories. they send a signal to people of the direction he wants to go even if there are blockages that are preventing him from doing it. but as julie said, a lot of it is is kind of restating a campaign promise you know with a signing ceremony. and one of the kind of signature visuals of the first 100 days is donald trump at a table surrounded by people clapping as he holds up something he's just signed. some of those will have some immediate action but many of them will take weeks, months, years before anybody sees any real impact of them. >> next hour, they're going to outline at the white house the president's priorities for tax cuts. an it's not all the details but an outline. we know the republicans in

congress have been working on had for years and want to get going in the weeks ahead. it will have a 15% corporate rate that would take $2.5 trillion out of washington in the first decade. and then a 15% pass through rates for businesses. including businesses that pay the personal, the individual income tax rate. their rates would drop to 15%. statements are that would cost $4 trillion in the first decade. a big republican tax cut plan and the president's argument is cut taxes, stimulate economic growth. that growth will bring more tax revenue into washington. fiscal conservatives say i hope that happens. maybe that will happen. you can't prove it's going to happen. how do you blow the deficit up like that? can he get the plan through congress. >> republicans in congress had a plan paid for or at least partially paid for. that was a big priority for them. whether this president can actually get them to come off of that position and accept this plan or embrace something like it is a big question.

i think he will have to do a lot of selling and going around the country and talking about it and trying to pressure members of his own party as well as democrats potentially to come on board with it which seems very unlikely at this point. i am hearing in talking to republicans and conservatives about this plan the last couple of days an open door to consider tax relief that would not be paid for. and that would essentially either be temporary or part of it would just be you know paid for through growth that they hope, as you said, materializes and that they might be willing to come off of what has been an aorthodox y for them for a long time. if you cut on one end, you have to offset it with something else. >> some people people believe the growth argument, if you have 3.5, 4% growth that money will come into washington. others believe it will force us to cut spending. that's the argument rand paul makes. he said real men cut taxes. he said revenue neutral tax cuts

are like tax shift package some will pay more and some will pay less. government will collect the same amount of taxes. no one made phone calls for revenue neutral tax reform. send the money back to the people. that's a powerful argument. a lot of people don't like that and say the government needs the money to pay for everything. but that is a conservative arguments if you want to shrink washington, shrink the federal role, give it less money. >> tax reform is hard. it will be easier than health care. health care they were taking things away from people, certain benefits. this tax cut could reduce -- there's no one whosetachs are going to go up. if you talk about raising taxes, it gets controversial. taking away deductionductions. as long as you're talking about a tax cut for individuals and corporation, george bush did something similar and it passed through democratic congress. >> while it is republican

offdoxy, it's not trump's. he comes from the business community. they have a different view of debt. the president used to call himself, what was it, the king of debt. this is something, it's a very different culture. he's surrounded by a lot of business people. and this is also an issue he's going to be very -- every indication he's going to be very hands on. it's not like health care. yeah, they're taking care of it. this is something he will be engaged in for sure. up next, the administration invites all 535 members of congress to classified briefings on north korea. as we go to break, is ivanka trump trying to get her father to change his mind about syrian refugees? >> i think there is a global humanitarian crisis that's happening. and we have to come together. and we have to solve it. and you know, refugees. >> opening the borders to syrian refugees? >> that has to be part of the discussion. that's not enough in and of itself.

it's nice to remove artificial ingredients. kind never had to. we've used real ingredients, whole nuts, and natural flavors from the very beginning. give kind a try.

welcome back. earlier today on the senate floor, listen here. dire talk from the senate majority leader. >> the president has made clear that a north korea oorped with a nuclear armed missile, a capability they have yet to test, is unacceptable to us and threatens our vital national security interests. >> senator mitch mcconnell underlining the urgency for an all hands briefing. . the white house complex, four chiefs of the national security team will brief lawmakers on the threat. senators expect a lot of answers. it's still unclear how far is president trump willing to go to check north korea's nuclear program. it's a question wearing on americans. a new poll finds only 35% are confident in the president's able to deal with kim jong-un. 62% say they are uneasy. it raises the question this

could be a routine briefing. the administration has been a stare down. north korea's having active military exercises today. it had a failed missile launch a week or so ago. they're preparing possibly for a nuclear test. the administration could be let's tell them what we know. some people have questioned if china doesn't help me deal with the situation, we will. what is the administration preparing to tell 100 members of the senate invited to the white house, 435 members of the house that will get briefed later on capitol hill, the fact they're scheduling these, raises your alarm a little bit. >> it does raise alarms. you would think this might be are we going to war? we don't know if this is -- we're also in 100 days of trump and he's trying to show how leaderly he is, too. i'll be curious see what's going on here, what the details are. also, you know, in syria, you could argue the congress authorized in some ways fighting isis fighting in the middle

east. it's nauthorized fighting north korea. some members are leery of more intervention without congressional authority. what are you guys doing and will we have a chance to weighinging in in this meeting or later on. >> it would be unusual to bring 100 senators down to say we are going to war. we know the details of this or information will leak out afterwards. it may well be they are trying to put up a united front to show the north koreans this is a country united. whatever dwrigss may exist politically at home, the country is united behind the president in dealing with north korea. >> or to put pressure on china because that's where a lot of it seems like the pressure from the trump administration is going to get china to do something because china doesn't want the united states to act in north korea. that could create a humanitarian issue. they want north korea to remain as stable as possible. >> i think the fact is, they're

getting a lot of questions from members of congress, what's the plan here, what's the strategy. as much as he talks about putting pressure on china to actually play a more significant role than they have in trying to defuse the tensions, there's no actual evidence they're willing to do that. so the question becomes, what is president trump willing to do that other administrations have not been able to do who have been grappling with this problem for a long time to make some progress on this issue. and i think definitely the united front is part of that. but he also wants to be seen by members of congress as having a handle on the situation. >> and that's one of the potential risks of this, which is if there are a lot of questions that they can't get answers to, then you will hear a chorus coming out of this meeting of, well, we still don't understand if they have a strategy. so there's a. >> you heard that even after generally bipartisan praise for the strikes on the air base in syria. but them saying that's great.

it's about sometime somebody punched assad. here's how reince priebus put it. really establishing i think a trump doctrine and setting certain lines where we're not going to allow people like an assad go. that's his take on what happened in sir wra about the question is about north korea given the stakes, millions of people who live just south of the demilitarized zone. the thousands of u.s. troops and south korean troops and the millions of people who live in seoul and in the suburbs. north korea saying it has conducted what it says is its largest military drills of all time and they put out a statement saying, this is kind of typical for north korea but it's getting even more muscular. this is short of lighting the fuse of a total war under the present touch and gun situation as the u.s. unsheathed the dagger to stifle the dprk at any cost. it goes on and on. we laugh sometimes about this because this is sometimes a very

childish reem regime. it's an isolated regime but it's a regime that has tons of conventional artillery and some nuclear weapons. >> absolutely. i think the concern here is we also have now a very tough talking president. who is willing to say things that other presidents have not been willing to say when he did that interview talking about this and he said i'm not going to tell you. we'll have to see what happens. he very pointedly said we know this is incorrect, we have an ar mad da headed there and submarines. he was alluding to nuclear tipped submarines the united states has. he is much more willing to throw threats around. when you have a president like that in the u.s. and you have kim jong-un making incendiary statements and crazy statements in north korea, you could see it escalating beyond what we've seen in the recent past. >> every president is grateful for military commanders who take one for the team. the pack commander harry harris telling lawmakers on hill a little bit ago he's taking

responsibility for the confusion which direction the carl vinson carrier group were going. next, senator ted cruz thinks outside the box for funding that border wall. >> those assets from el chapo will go directly to building the wall and securing the border.

welcome back. let's end with a little fun. cute or ridiculous? you make the call. remember, your tax dollars pay the people who sit around to do this. come up with clever acronyms who help sell legislation that way more often than not is more press release than serious policy approval. the reins act. regulations from the executive in need of scrutiny act. or ugh, the pheasant act. that's short for protecting it honest every day americans from senseless and needlesstachs act.

you wonder why a pheasant hasn't sued the bureaucrat who came up with that one. now enter the el chapo act or the wait, ensuring lawful collection of hidden assets to provide act. senator ted cruz's brainchild. use as sets seized from el chapo to pay for the border wall. >> yesterday i filed the act that provides if he's convicted the famed mexican drug lord, the estimates are his criminal fortune is roughly worth about $14 billion. now, coincidentally, the estimates for the cost to build a wall range from $14 billion to $20 billion. my legislation provides if those assets are forfeited, those assets from el chapo will go directly to building a wall and to securing the border. >> voila. your government at work. and -- >> you have a harvard law degree

for that for sure. >> it's clever because he also put out a petition that would be clicked if you want to support it. it goes straight to his fund-raising page. >> ted cruz. >> you would not for a moment think that somebody in this town was seeking publicity to get clicks on i an website to raise money. >> never. >> next there's gambling in the casino. >> ted cruz likes donald trump's idea since cruz ran for re-election in 2018. he seems to be courting donald trump more. you can see politics playing a role for ted cruz. >> we need to find the staffer 0 came up with it and give him a round of applause. >> here's another one. >> i'm not sure what that would do. a democratic idea or republican idea. >> the fair credit act, the fair allocation of internal revenue credit for renewable electricity

by indian tribal acts. >> remember the highway act, the safe loo? the lew was the wife of the member who wrote the bill. >> mar-a-lago act which i'm not going to try to remember what it stands for. it's about disclosure for who comes and goes from mar-a-lago. >> making available records. it goes on and on and on. >> there you go. >> a small industry, isn't it. >> it's funny but it is also an acknowledgement by ted cruz that this border wall is not going to get paid for by mexico. trump benjamin netanyahu has been talking about this for months and months. el chapo is as likely to pay for it the way things are looking. >> he might it be more likely to pay for it. >> maybe the least farfetched. >> a way to get attention for bills that will likely go nowhere. >> this may be the high water mark for this bill. this moment. >> we'll see. >> the we care act to end this

discussion, the working toe encourage community education and responsibility act. how can you be against we care. >> just trying to end on a little bit of fun. we'll see you back here this time tomorrow. minutes away from the press briefing. treasury secretary steve mnuchin will outline president trump's tax proposals. we'll bring it to you right after a quick break

hello. i'm wolf blitzer. it's 1:00 p.m. here in washington. wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us. up first, the biggest tax cut and largest tax reform in the history of our country. that's a quote. that's how president trump's treasury secretary describes the proposals he'll unveil later this hour. steve mnuchin and the national economic director gary cohen will be in the white house briefing room shortly to outline the president's tax cut goals. we'll bring that to you live. the proposals call for cutting the business tax rate to 15%. it would provide relief for middle income taxpayers. it would