plan. >> reporter: senate leadership hoping to appeal to both moderate and conservative republicans with a bill that is expected to phase-out medicaid expansion starting in 2021, a year later than the house bill, and defund planned parenthood for one year which could be a deal breaker for two key republican senators. republicans can only afford to lose two votes since no democrat is expected to support the vote. >> they made it clear they're not interested in helping. >> this bill is mean, very mean. >> reporter: the bill is not expected to include the controversial house proposal that would allow states to decide on protections for people with pre-existing conditions. but the senate may allow for a new set of waivers that could eliminate essential health benefits. there are still details we don't know about the bill that could decide its fate, including when obamacare taxes will be repealed, how much money will be allocated for high-risk pools

and how the senate will calculate the distribution of kaks credits which are expected to be more generous than the house plan. already some republicans are expressing frustrations. >> i can't imagine quite honestly i'd have the information to validate and justify a yes vote within a week. >> are you satisfied with the process? >> of course not. >> reporter: whatever the phenyl draft, aides tell cnn leaders want president trump to stay far away from the negotiations, describing the earlier meeting a, quote, kind of a disaster. the senate has nlt yet endorsed the senate bill but sounded hopeful last night. >> i said a plan with heart. obamacare is dead. >> reporter: the congressional budget office is expected to score it as soon as tomorrow. it will follow with debate from the senate next week. majority leader mitch mcconnell

wants this past vote at least by the july 4th recess giving little time for republican lawmakers to read this registration or even amend it. >> suzanne, president trump taking a victory lap at his first campaign rally, touting back-to-back congressional election wins, slamming democrats and the media. cnn's joe johns at the white house with more. >> reporter: chris, it's been seven, almost eight months since donald trump had that big election night victory. there was a lot to celebrate last night after republicans won two congressional seats in special elections just this week. mr. trump back in campaign mode at least for a night, leaving the worries of washington behind him. >> all we do is win, win, win. we won last night. >> reporter: an energized president trump returning to the environment he loves the most, a campaign rally. >> it's always terrific to be

able to leave that washington swamp -- >> reporter: going after his favorite targets, the media and democrats. >> they've been unbelievably nasty. i am making it hard to get their support, but who cares. we're thinking about the building the wall as a solar wall. this way mexico will have to pay much less money, and that's good, right? >> reporter: president trump rallying his loyal supporters with this immigration proposal. >> though seeking ase seeking a our country should not seek welfare for a period of at least five years. >> reporter: a rule that is already the law of the land and reiterating this rather vague concern about china's influence on north korea. >> i like president xi. i wish we would have a little more help with respect to north korea from china, but that

doesn't seem to be working out. >> reporter: the president also touting his wealthy cabinet picks before making this eyebrow raising statements. >> they love people, rich or poor. in thoses positions i don't want a poor person. >> reporter: regarding the russia investigation. >> they have phony witch hunts against me. >> reporter: president trump silent about russia's interference in the 2016 election, an issue the white house continues to dodge when pressed for the president's position. >> i have not sat down and talked to him about that. >> reporter: a former homeland security secretary say iing. >> russia at the direction of vladimir putin himself, orchestrated cyberattacks on our nation for the purpose of influencing our election. that is a fact, plain and simple.

>> reporter: that testimony from jeh johnson coming hours after democrats sent a letter to the white house raising serious concerns ability the security clearances given to jared kushner and fired national security adviser michael flynn. >> to discuss it we have david gregory, jackie kucinich and john avlon. >> david, for our viewers, what little we know about this health care bill that's going to be unveiled to other lawmakers at 9:30 this morning, what changes, what does it mean for regular people? >> well, i think the big guess in the political context are going to be about process and about how this is being written and conceived and sold and scored before it's actually voted on. so how much of the substance we actually get to in a public debate i think is a big question. the fundamental policy pieces have to do with how many people are covered, what kind of

subsidies are actually received for people who need help to afford health care insurance and how the legislation affects the market, how the insurance market will actually operate which will ultimately affect premiums. you have a safety net aspect of it which is going to be changed with regard to medicaid expansion, with regard to who qualifies for getting the insurance. again, this will be the subject of debate. i think the big question will be, when you have an existing entitlement, how many people still get coverage? can people trying to figure out the health care process under obamacare, are they going to see any relief or continued increases in premiums? >> the cbo score will, once again, set the benchmark for this. i can't delay any longer. the sound of what trump said last night to an audience of apparently blue collar people and they applauded this line. >> somebody said why did you

appoint a rich person to be in charge of the economy? it's true. wilbur is a very rich person in charge of commerce. in those particular persons, i just don't want a poor person -- >> not just about wilbur ross and why he became the commerce secretary i.'s about if fact that his cabinet is populated with more rich people since you had to wear a white wig walking around washington, d.c. uniformly wealthy after he said he was going to go after wall street and drain the swamp. they applauded, john. he says i love all people. i really don't want.

>> you can't be smart enough to make a difference if you're poor because that's probably why you're poor. isn't that the point he's making? >> that's the point he's making. >> and they applaud. >> cedar rapids, iowa. i'll hear with you and then i'll argue with me. >> argue with me. >> isn't it rich people have -- >> it is setting a standard of what produces success. i i had a pretty successful pop who never had two nickels together. he could have helped plenty in government. it wasn't just about commerce. who do you want running the economy, somebody who knows how to make money? that's not what it is. he only has wealthy people around him. he made a distinction of competency. >> his conservative populous base applause that not only in

the context of cedar rapids. he's also saying if a wealthy person has been economically successful, they'll have more insight. it doesn't seem to resonate. this isn't something you see on a poster of abraham lincoln. this is not the presidential rhetoric we've grown up with. the fact it's resonating with his base is troubling, not only because it doesn't represent who they are, but because that hot house atmosphere of celebrity is so strong and the tribal conservative populism is so strong that people are not using the normal civic moral filter they would. >> all about draining the swamp. i think it's wrong to ville niez wealth. that's part of the american dream. but he's supposed to drain the swamp, go after wall street. >> jackie, why does rich equal

swamp? when i talk to the trump panels, they like the idea that wildly successful, wealthy people will give them some of their secret sauce. >> his problem of draining the swamp has nothing to do with the checking accounts of his cabinets. it has to do with ethics waivers -- >> and rolling back dodd-frank and the same restrictions that were supposed to protect us. that's the swamp. those are the rules. that's what you said you were going to do. you did the opposite. how can you not do the opposite when you have the people advising you benefiting from a change like that. >> exactly. a lot of the policies he's talking about, look at the health care bill, the bills moving through the senate and the house, these are going to hurt lower income people at the end of the day and probably a lot of trump voters. that is the concern, not his wealthy cabinet. okay, fine, but the realish dwru here are some of the murky

ethics that some people who surround him have. it's the policies that aren't true to the people who voted for him. he's not coming through on his promises and even the playing field like he said he would. it's very early. but the policies he's pushing and endorsing aren't going to help the promises. >> here is something else he promised last night about how he was not going to spend extra money on illegal immigrants and the benefits he get. this got a lot of applause. listen to this and then we'll dissect it. >> others don't treat us fairly. that's why i believe the time has come for new immigration rules which says those seeking admission into our country must be able to support themselves financially and should not use

welfare for a period of at least five years. >> david, when he says the time has come for that, it was actually 1996 he was referring to since that has been in place. >> what's unfortunate about the president's emphasis on aspects of immigration is it undercuts a lot of very serious work being done in the homeland security department around smart immigration fixes, around trying to meet some of the challenges we face from overseas or from mexico because he says things that are not accurate or talks about building a solar wall, priorities that are probably never going to come to pass. yet, as a political matter, whether it was the previous statement we were just talking about or this, he's out there leading a kind of charge that a lot of people, not just his core supporters think, yeah, it's good, he's agitating, fighting for things. we'll see where this all settles out. this goes back to the kind of --

hearing his argument versus taking him literally. there are people who hear what he says literally and say how can a president say something that is untrue that we know is an existing policy, that you can't be on welfare for five years while you're here versus, hey, he's out there saying we've got to change our immigration policy generally which people tend to agree with. >> panel, stick around, please. we'll have more questions for you. thank you very much. here is a story you will only see on cnn. the nation's top intelligence officials testifying behind closed doors. so what did they say about president trump and whether he asked them to do something about possible collusion between his campaign and russia? we have the breaking exclusive we have the breaking exclusive details for you next. for some, it's going the distance. and for so it's going for 8 and a half hours of high-performance sleep.

with beautyrest's innovations and technology, sleep performance is the new performance. with all the things you'll never learn from a book. expedia. everything in one place, so you can travel the world better. ...to a new world.s... deeper than the ocean. as unfathomable as the universe. a world that doesn't exist outside you... ...but within you. where breakthrough science is replacing chemotherapy with immunotherapy. where we can now attack the causes of disease, not just the symptoms.

where medicines once produced for all, are now designed to fit you. today 140,000 biopharmaceutical researchers go bodly to discover treatments and cures unimaginable ten years ago... ...and are on the verge of more tomorrow. we send our kids out into the world, full of hope. and we don't want something like meningitis b getting in their way.

meningococcal group b disease, or meningitis b, is real. bexsero is a vaccine to help prevent meningitis b in 10 to 25 year olds. even if meningitis b is uncommon, that's not a chance we're willing to take. meningitis b is different from the meningitis most teens were probably vaccinated against when younger. we're getting the word out against meningitis b. our teens are getting bexsero. bexsero should not be given if you had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose. most common side effects are pain, redness or hardness at the injection site; muscle pain; fatigue; headache; nausea; and joint pain. bexsero may not protect all individuals. tell your healthcare professional if you're pregnant or if you have received any other meningitis b vaccines. ask your healthcare professional about the risks and benefits of bexsero and if vaccination with bexsero is right for your teen. moms, we can't wait.

now to exclusive cnn reporting. we're learning what two top intelligence officials told special counsel robert mueller's team and senate investigators about their interactions with president trump on russia. cnn chief political correspondent dana bash has all the exclusive details. >> reporter: what we've gathered from our sources is really what two intelligence chiefs said to

robert mueller's team and members of the senate intelligence committee in separate meetings last week. multiple sources are telling me and colleagues evan perez and manu raju that the director of national intelligence, dan coats, and national security agency director, admiral mike rogers, said that president trump suggested they say publicly there was no collusion between his campaign and the russians in these closed meetings with special prosecutors, that team and the senate intelligence committee. both intelligence chiefs we're told described these interactions with the president about the russia investigation as odd and uncomfortable, but they said they don't believe the president gave them orders to intervene in the investigation. you may remember that in their public testimony earlier this month both coats and rogers said they never felt pressured, but they were reluctant at that point to offer specifics about their interactions with the president until they were in a classified setting. so the details of what the president said to coats and

rogers were first reported by "the washington post" last month, and this is more information about what they're actually telling investigators. ultimately, alisyn, it will be up to mueller and his team to decide whether these revelations are relevant to their investigation. i should say we talked to multiple democratic and republican sources for this story, and one of them told us that both rogers and coats told members of the intelligence committee that trump wanted them to say publicly what then fbi director james comey had told the president privately, that he was not under investigation for collusion, but again, neither thought the president was asking them to do something they didn't want to do and also they didn't act on the president's suggestion. i should also say cnn reemed out to the white house and dni and nsa, mueller's office and nobody wanted to comment. >> dana, important point. neither felt that the president was asking them to do anything they didn't want to do. what does that mean?

>> well, that they didn't feel pressured, they didn't feel the president was intervening from their perspective in an untoward or improper way. they thought it was, again, odd. they thought it was certainly not the typical protocol of washington to have the president of the united states call these two high-level people and ask them to go public with what he thought was going on privately, which is that he wasn't under investigation for collusion. again, that's how they felt. it is important to note that the special prosecutor and to a lesser extent the senate, they are going to determine whether or not what they felt was actually in comportment with the law. >> they got testimony from these two saying they didn't feel they were ordered to do anything -- >> precisely. >> stay with us, dana, if you would. we want to bring back our panel.

joining us former fbi director james wool si. mr. ambassador, i'll start with you. what do you think about dana's reporting, they felt it was odd and uncomfortable but didn't feel pressure. >> we don't hire heads of intelligence communities in order for them to avoid feeling uncomfortable. i mean so what. it seems to me this is kind of a normal dialogue back and forth between a president and his senior intelligence people. >> is it? >> hey, can we go public with this? the president has already been told three times by comey that he's not under investigation and probably they were asking people who knew the president questions having to do with the counterintelligence investigation that was going on which is not something that is targeted on an individual. so i think this is a nothing burger, frankly. >> i like the phrase nothing

burger. but you did have these two intel chiefs say that they thought it was odd, ambassador, that they thought this was out of the norm. however, that's about politics and that's about style and appropriateness. but when you're pursuing something about legalities, it matters whether or not they felt pressured. it just does. i'm not saying it wasn't potentially wrong on some political level. but if they say they didn't feel pressured, what does that mean to an obstruction investigation? >> i think not much. >> why not much? you have to be pressured, it has to be with corrupt intent. >> for there to be an investigation of obstruction of justice, there has to be a crime. vaguely obstructing something without talking about what crime is being -- having the justice of dealing with it obstructed, is silly. it's sort of like a bunch of

kids on the playground and one throws a ball in the air, another one tries to catch it and drops it. the first one says, hey, look, infield fly rule, you're out. the other kid says we're playing soccer. >> you're saying you have to do something more. i'm making the same point, the two intel chiefs saying i didn't feel pressured, it was inappropriate, weird, but i wasn't going to do it and he wasn't going to make me do it. i think that matters in terms of an obstruction analysis. >> i think it's subjective. david gregory, your analysis on this? >> i don't think it's nothing. i think it's at the very least highly unusual and inappropriate, that you have a president of the united states attempting to interfere with an ongoing investigation by trying to remove this cloud that he says is hanging over him and his administration. so thinking it's appropriate, as the president, to interfere with with the fbi and justice

department and even put his intelligence chiefs to clearing his name prematurely, is it naive, is it abusive, is it inappropriate, is it unusual? probably all those things. i don't have a determination as to whether it's against the law. >> david, when you say interf e interfere. to james woolsey's point, if he's expressing his opinion, sure wish you could say this publicly, sure wish you could clear my name, is that interference? >> i could express all that as an analyst on cnn, and that would be interesting maybe, but i'm not the president of the united states. this is someone who is saying -- now, i think what the president's defenders would argue and what the ambassador is saying, he's saying, look, we know this to be true, you're telling me i'm not being investigated, telling me there's no evidence. i'm expressing to you as a practical matter this is really making it difficult to govern. will you please go out and say what you know and what i have

been told, perhaps not thinking that's inappropriate or abusive. and again, that will be viewed differently by different people. again, a separate matter from whether he is obstructing justice. >> that's the point i'm looking at here. you've got to separate the political implications from potential legal implications. that's why i'm asking you about how significant it is that these two intel chiefs were saying they didn't feel pressured. you can't look at anything in just one isolated scenario here. the president, for better or worse, depending on your political perspective created a record of -- a pattern of actions here, ambassador. there was what he said about flynn on february 14th to comey. it was what he said to these two gentlemen and then it was firing comey with a little bit of an orchestrated effort involving the deputy ag and then trump revealing it was a little orchestrated effort and it was really about russia taken in its entirety what do

you make of it? >> taken in its entirety, three times comey has told the president he is not under investigation. >> but the president was asking him about flynn, not himself. >> they talked -- they asked a question, also -- this is a complicated dialogue that goes back and forth a lot of ways. but what the president spoke about was he wanted them to make it clear, somebody to make it clear, that he had already been told by the head of the fbi that he was not under investigation. i think there's nothing wrong with the president saying, hey, can we say that publicly? if his people don't want to say it publicly for some reason, it might reveal something that might lead to some secret, they cannot do it. these two did not do it. we don't hire people who are heads of intelligence communities so they will never feel any degree of uncomfortableness. they're not university students or something. >> that's funny.

dana, your thoughts. >> i was going to say in the context of the timeline you're talking about, our understanding that these conversations that the president had were shortly after james comey, the fbi director, testified publicly for the first time that the fbi is indeed and has been since july, investigating whether or not there was collusion between the trump campaign and russia -- >> that's a counterintelligence investigation. it does not have a target or subject -- >> but, if you could let me finish, sir, what i was going to say, the context was of the president's demeanor. he was not happy that that came out publicly and it was the conversations he had with these two individuals were shortly after that saying, wait a second, he told me in private i'm not subject, can't you just say this publicly. so that is sort of the context of it. the other thing i want to add is, it was earlier this month that these two individuals went before the senate intelligence

committee in public and they were pressed by democrats, by republicans, why can't you tell us what happened in these conversations, and they weren't prepared because they asked the white house whether or not the president was going to invoke executive privilege, and they didn't hear back from the white house. so they were left in a very automatic ward, very uncomfortable position that cleared up in these classified settings -- >> quick final word from the ambassador and then from david. >> this all gets very confused because people are bouncing back and forth between counterintelligence investigations which don't have a subject or target and investigations of criminal behavior, which do. if you tell the president that he's not under investigation, you may mean all we have going is this counterintelligence investigation, we're talking to a lot of people about a lot of things on that. that does not have a target or subject. that's not the way it's run. but over here there is some --

there are some people maybe that are being investigated for a criminal violation. i don't know who they were, but there may have been one or two people who were being investigated for that. what also would be the case would be that they could -- the questioner could be saying to the president -- the fbi could be saying to the president, we didn't find anything that suggests, mr. president, that you are being investigated for a criminal violation as part of our fbi criminal investigation package. by hopping back and forth between the two, it gets very confused. the president may have heard that they were not investigating him and thought they were talking about one type of investigation. in fact, they were talking about another. >> let me make a quick final point. i think the ambassador is parsing this in a way that actually is off point. it doesn't matter at that point if he was the subject of a criminal investigation. that could change tomorrow. and jim comey told him that.

the bigger issue here is you have three professionals in the fbi and our intelligence services who were protecting the independence of their work, all of whom felt highly uncomfortable what he was doing. separate question as whether it was illegal. they felt it was inappropriate. it's not okay that these people with their experience feel uncomfortable in this position. that's something that should be looked at and not be dismiss zbld if their feelings are so sensitive, they should perhaps find other work. >> it's more than that, ambassador. it's more than their feelings. it's the appropriateness of how you conduct yourself. i think you know that. >> you cannot have obstruction of justice -- >> listen to what i'm saying. this is not a question of a crime. it's a question of appropriateness. we can separate the two. >> you may not think it's appropriate, it doesn't matter. >> it's what they thought was inappropriate. you don't know that he wouldn't become the subject of the investigation later.

>> that wasn't the subject of their back and forth. the subject of the back and forth was -- he asked three times am i being investigated. three times the head of the fbi told him no, you are not under investigation. >> at that point. at that point. how is that not clear, that that could change, number one. even if it's an intelligence investigation, they felt uncomfortable the president of the united states was asking them to do something that they didn't seem right. >> you guys have made two good and competing points. one point of legal clarification. obstruction of justice can be interfering with a legal proceeding. it doesn't mean there's necessarily an underlying felony or misdemeanor. a lot of this will have to be sussed out. that was a good discussion. dana, you're the best. david and ambassaor, thank you very much. we also have new details about the terror suspect who stabbed a police officer at the airport in flint, michigan. we have a live report next.

fothere's a seriousy boomers virus out there that's been almost forgotten. it's hepatitis c. one in 30 boomers has hep c, yet most don't even know it. because it can hide in your body for years without symptoms, and it's not tested for in routine blood work. the cdc recommends all baby boomers get tested. if you have hep c, it can be cured. for us it's time to get tested.

ask your healthcare provider for the simple blood test. it's the only way to know for sure. i feel it every day. but at night, it's the last thing on my mind. for 10 years my tempur-pedic has adapted to my weight and shape, relieving pressure points from head to toe. so i sleep deeply but feel light. and wake up ready to perform. even with the weight of history on my shoulders. find your exclusive retailr at tempur-pedic.com

yogig-speed internet.me? you know what's not awesome? when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids. and these guys. him. ah. oh hello- that lady. these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh. sure. still yes! you can get it too. welcome to the party. introducing gig-speed internet from xfinity. finally, gig for your neighborhood too.

the fbi is investigating the airport stabbing of a police officer in flint, michigan, as a terrorist act. the knife-wielding suspect is a canadian and now in custody. cnn's ryan young live at bishop international airport in flint with the latest. what do we know, my friend? >> reporter: good morning, chris. we're in the area where that attack happened. this is outside the security checkpoint, but this is it, right here where that man was attacked, that officer. i want to show you this. this is the area where the fbi with surveillance video believes the man walked in with two bags, walked into the bathroom over here, came out with the knife, saw the officer and stabbed him in this area. that was a 12-inch knife with an

eight-inch blade. he then screamed allah akbar. all this playing out outside security. when you see this area, it's covered now, because this is where all the blood was. they were able to arrest the man. at this point we know the officer will survive and we know president trump has been notified about exactly what happened here. but he hasn't made a statement just yet. alisyn? >> thank you very much for walking us through what happened there. meanwhile, what's in this new senate republican health care bill? today it is being unveiled. what are the issues that could sink the bill? we discuss it all. we have new reporting next.

i hope we're going to surprise you with a really good plan. i said i've been talking to a plan with heart. i said add some money to it, a plan with heart. obamacare is dead. >> that's president trump saying he hopes the senate's secret health care plan has heart. we are just hours away from learning what is in that plan, set to be unveiled by senate republicans today. let's discuss what we know with two reporters who have been covering this for a long time. senior policy correspondent for voks media, sarah cliff and senior editor of "reason" magazine, peter souter man. great to have you both. sarah, you've been covering this since 2009. what is the headline as you see it today?

>> i do see this bill as obamacare light essentially. one of the things we know about this bill is it's rolling back a lot of plans from obamacare, not entirely, but making them less generous. we're expecting less individual tax credits who buy in the individual market, medicaid expansion being phased out in 2021. we'll see if this bill can thread the need to a peas people like mike lee from utah, ted cruz from texas and more moderate senators, people like lisa murkowski from alaska, susan collins from may. they're trying to hold together this big coalition. >> doesn't sound like it's going to apiece murkowski and collins if there's no funding for planned parenthood or will take away the funding for a year or so. >> that's something that can be a key issue. this is something the nat tors feel passionately about. another big issue is medicaid. one of the things they're going to do in this bill, as we

understand it, is change the rate at which medicaid spending grows. it sounds like a won i can thing but it can be a big deal because it determines how much money the medicaid program gets. both of those senators have been pretty vocal on medicaid along with other senators in other states who expanded the program. they're talking about big changes to the health care system that will be unveiled in this bill today. >> peter, tell us about your reporting, what you've determined about why senator mitch mcconnell is pushing for this bill to be voted on next week when senator rand paul for one says, i don't know what's in it, i need to read it first. why the rush? >> that's something that rand paul has been arguing here for a long time, not just with this bill but with the house bill. i think what mcconnell's calculus is here is, if they debate the bill -- the longer they debate the bill, the less popular it is going to be. if you look back at house versions of this bill, they polled at less than 20% in march.

you've seen some polling indicating that the basic framework for this bill has been getting less popular over time. so i think mcconnell looks at this and thinks we want to get on to other agenda items, any talking about this, any explaining of it. there's not really a case we can make. let's just move forward on a vote. it's really been kind of remarkable how little time republicans have devoted to explaining what is in their bill and how it would benefit people. i'm not even sure that they're planning to be doing that today after the bill is released. >> this flies in the face of we have to pass the bill to see what's in it. republicans made hay out of it for years from the famous quote from nancy pelosi. let's see what we can glean is different in this from the house bill. there's a lot of word salled on your screen. i'll go to the experts. sarah, what do you think the big difference is between the house and the senate bill? >> i think one of the big

differences is the thing you see about income tethered subsidies. that sounds like word salad, but it actually matters a lot. this means there will be more generous subsidies than people who are lower income. this is a big change from the house bill which tether your subsidies to your age. what we don't know right now, though, is how generous those subsidies are going to be. will they be at the point where health insurance would be affordable for someone who owns $20,000. that's a big change. the medicaid expansion is another significant change. they want to push the rollback back a few years. however, at the end of the day, you're looking at ending this program, whether you do it in three years, six years. you are talking about ending a program that currently covers about 14 million americans or so. that is a few more years for that program, but ultimately ending at the same result.

>> peter, i know there's sort of a contrarian theory that part of why mitch mcconnell wants to do this quickly is because he doesn't want it to pass. tell me the logic. >> i don't know if i think he doesn't want it to pass. i think it is possible that he doesn't have a strong preference one way or the other. the republican agenda also includes things like raising the debt ceiling, getting to tax reform. this bill would help them get to revenue neutral tax reform. but i think mcconnell may look at this and think the politics of this are not great. look at the way it's polling. look at republicans' total unwillingness and inability to explain and defend this bill. again, i think it's remarkable we have not seen any republican come out and give an extended defense and explanation of how this bill will work and what is going to be in it. in fact, just as early as this week, just a couple days ago, republican lawmakers in the senate said they didn't even

know what was in it, didn't even know who was writing it. mcconnell isn't even defending this to his own people. this is the first time they'll get to see the full text of the legislation today. >> thank you both for sharing your reporting with us and walking us through it. it will be very interesting to see what happens in a few hours. sarah and peter, thank you. >> 15 inches of rain in some places. that the downfall of tropical storm cindy making landfall in louisiana. a lot of communities are under water already. chad myers has the latest forecast. where is more coming next.

i joined the army in july of '98. our 18 year old was in an accident. when i call usaa it was that voice asking me, "is your daughter ok?" that's where i felt relief. we're the rivera family, and we will be with usaa for life. pain's kind of self-defining. not when it hurts, it hurts. when i can't do something, it makes me feel isolated. with aleve, you can stay strong longer because only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. tylenol can't do that. i get to be present and enjoy what i love. this is my pain. but i am stronger. aleve. all day strong. all day long.

we believe in food that's anaturally beautiful,, fresh and nutritious. so there are no artificial colors, no artificial flavors, no artificial preservatives in any of the food we sell. we believe in real food. whole foods market.

tropical storm cindy making landfall in southwest louisiana. at least 17 million people in this storm's path. this is a live look at the town of cameron. it's dark, just early morning there, but the rivers are already spilling over their banks, in part helped out by that stiff wind, and the flooding is only expected to get worse. cnn meteorologist chad myers has the forecast. people, if they don't hear the word hurricane, they're like, how bad can it be? it can be really bad. >> it sure can. even with the storm surge of three feet and two or three more feet coming down a river, that's where it's bad. this weather report is brought

to you by xyzal for continuous 24-hour allergy relief. there's heavy rainfall expected today, flash flood warnings just about everywhere across the eastern part of this storm. it does move eventually toward the northeast and even toward new york. we will see some rain from this in new york on saturday afternoon. so it kind of spreads itself around a front. here is what you can expect for the next couple days. here is what we've had over the last couple days, hef vin rainfall across the coast of new orleans towards pensacola and towards san destin. a couple tornadoes yesterday, water spouts coming onshore. there's still more rain coming, four to six inches coming on top of the four to six. alisyn, that's where it gets tricky. that's where we see the flooding day after day. 48 hours' worth of rainfall, that's significant. we'll see the rivers over their

banks. >> thank you, chad. house democrats calling for jared kushner's security clearance to be revoked because of the russia investigation. democratic member of the house intel committee joins us on that next. garden weeds are scoundrels. with roundup precision gel®, you can banish them without harming plants nearby. so draw the line. give the stick one click, touch the leaves and the gel stays put killing garden weeds to the root. draw the line with roundup precision gel®.

"america" by simon and garfun [ snoring ]ental) [ deep sleep snoring ] the all-new volkswagen atlas. seats seven, sleeps six. life's as big as you make it. i just saved a bunch of money on my car insurhuh. with geico. i should take a closer look at geico... geico can help with way more than car insurance. boats, homes, motorcycles... even umbrella coverage.

this guy's gonna wish he brought his umbrella. fire at will! how'd you know the guy's name is will? yeah? it's an expression, ya know? fire at will? you never heard of that? oh, there goes will! bye, will! that's not his name! take a closer look at geico. great savings. and a whole lot more.

all right. should jared kushner have his security clearance pulled? what are the democrats going to do to try to keep the kind of health care they think this country should have, and what does it mean that our intel chiefs relayed information about what the president told them to do in terms of expressing to the public what he felt privately about the russia investigation? let's bring in democratic congressman jim himes of connecticut, a member of the house intel committee, to take on these issues. let's start with health care. we hear we're going to get a reckoning of the senate bill. what do you know about it, what are you expecting? >> good morning, chris. the word around here is that republican senators will meet in a couple of hours this morning to get a look for the first time at a bill that is supposedly a little bit like the house bill, but in some ways -- in some materials ways different.

i think we democrats will probably see it afterwards, the world will see it afterwards which points the one of our main concerns which is you can't do anything quite as big as health care in terms of effecting individuals all over this country and almost 20% of our economy. i remember in '09 we got accused of rushing the process. our process took months, it was open, there was debate and hearings. this bill has not seen by anybody. health care is complicated, chris, but from what we hear, this is a bill that takes a lot of money from the medicaid program for people in nursing homes, people who aren't wealthy and gives it to households making more than $250,000. boy, i tell you, if that's the fact, are we ever in for a roll licking couple of weeks. >> is there some fair criticism going on here that the democrats have been standing on the sidelines too much. you know the aca has problems.

especially in the individual market it has not worked the way you need it to as lawmakers and you've been too passive. fair criticism? >> as you know, chris, there's a process in the capitol known as reconciliation. it's pretty technical, but a way to get something through the senate without effectively any democratic votes. from moment one on the house side, they said we're doing this alone, and in the senate side they said we're using reconciliation. >> you could have had a public campaign of competing ideas and said, hey, look, if you want to fix what's there right now, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. do this, this and this. you could have done a lot of things, but you haven't. >> people like me -- i was a supporter of the affordable care act back in 2001. people have been saying for years this was a good step forward for the american people, covers millions of people. but yes, it has problems and yes we have some ideas. fast forward to january or february here in the capitol, the republicans say we are doing

this alone. as we got wind of what was being done to the american people for a bill you know, because you've seen the polling, about as unpopular as anything that's gone through here in a generation. instead of saying, hey, we've got a better idea -- mind you, this is for the last couple months, we have been sounding the alarm ability what this health care bill would mean to vulnerable americans. that doesn't mean we don't have an idea. it means it's an all hands on deck moment. >> ultimately you have competing ideas and you need to get those out there. next topic, jared kushner's security clearance. on what basis can you pull his security clearance? >> let me quickly address what you just said, absolutely. and we do this on a regular basis. i've been sounding the alarm and other democrats have as well. if we don't come up with affirmative ideas, this party is in a lot of trouble, no doubt. there's a lot of questions about jared kushner as well as paul

manafort, carter page and, of course, michael flynn. he needs to come before the congress and explain if the press report is true, that he was in a meeting asking for a secret back channel perhaps in a russian diplomatic facility, he needs to explain that because that raises some real questions. he's in the middle east right now trying to negotiate some kind of peace agreement. you cannot do that without access to classified information. in this country you're nnlt until proven guilty. he's got some questions to answer about exactly what was driving that statement -- >> you really believe you know anything right now that would warrant pulling his security clearance, or is this more about politics? >> i want to answer that question the way i'm answering a lot of questions about an ongoing investigation. i'm not going to sit here just as nobody should say i know the answer, here is what's true. that's because there are three investigations under way. what i can tell you without question is there are some very serious questions that jared kushner and many other people need to answer before we're comfortable with the notion that

they are acting impartially, objectively and with the good of the country in mind. >> why pull his clearance before you know the answers to the questions? >> as a practical matter, that's not going to happen. i know there are some people calling for that, and i they they're calling for it because there are some big, important questions. remember, chris, as has become evident, with michael flynn, here is a guy who the deputy attorney general told the white house could be compromised by the russians, could be subject to blackmail, and for almost three weeks he was in every closed room looking at all sorts of classified information. so people who are raising the alarm about this question, again, i don't think we'll pull his security clearance any time soon, but it's not unfair to raise that question. >> last question. you hear the intel chief say what the president asked us was odd, but we didn't feel pressured, we didn't feel he was telling us we had to tell the public about what was going on in the investigation. what did you make of their testimony? >> that's a great question. of course, we have