deadline. if you're watching here at home and don't understand washington speak, that's a rare bipartisan breakthrough. the senate democrats, senate republicans coming together on a two-year budget deal. it leaves for later the big immigration debate. progress at the moment. no government shutdown it appears. appreciate you joining us on "inside politics." looking at live pictures inside the white house briefing room. wolf blitzer will take you there starting now. hello, i'm wolf blitzer. thanks for joining us. we begin with major breaking news here in washington. the senate majority leader mitchell mcconnell just said that he and the democrats, they've reached a bipartisan budget deal. listen. >> i'm pleased to announce that our bipartisan negotiations on defense spending an other

priorities have yielded a significant agreement. a compromise we've reached will ensure that for the first time in years our arm forces will have more of the resources they need to keep america safe. >> but there's still some potentially bad news. even though the senate looks like they've reached an agreement, it has to go to the house of representatives, and it's by no means a done deal there, at least not yet. take a look at this, speaking for close to three hours on the house floor, the minority leader, the democrat nancy pelosi, she's already throwing cold water on the idea of this budget that's about to be approved by the senate moving forward. >> it does nothing to even advance even with a commitment without having passed the legislation first to advance bipartisan legislation to protect dreamers in this house. without that commitment from

speaker ryan comparable to the commit fr commitment from leader mcconnell, this package does not have my support. >> all right. let's go to sunlen serfaty. where does it look in the house of representatives? let's say the senate overwhelmingly passes this bipartisan budget deal and moves it to the house. how does it look in the house? >> well, certainly as you said, wolf, by far not a done deal. it certainly has essentially two sides of a problem for speaker of the house paul ryan to pass this through. first you have many house conservatives who are frankly not for it, already saying this is hugely problematic. very concerned about the deficit, the fact that spending would not be offset with budget cuts. they're already raising red flags to speaker of the house paul ryan. then you have the other side of the coin. you've heard there house

minority leader nancy pelosi speaking to this, saying we're not going to go for this deal because it doesn't address daca. you have this really divide where speaker of the house paul ryan potentially needs to get this passed through and he's facing problems among house conservatives and house democrats. so certainly he's going to need to corral some support from democrats to get this passed through. at this point, very unclear how he does that. first, a little bit of review. what exactly is in this senate deal that just got announced on the senate floor? a big two-year bipartisan budget deal. it would fund the government until the next month. it would boost military and nondefense spending for the next two years. this is something that makes both republicans and some democrats happy. it raises the debt ceiling. that was a big problem looming that needed to be addressed by next month. it gives more than $80 billion in disaster relief for texas, florida, puerto rico, those places that got hit hard by the hurricanes this year.

it also funds community health centers for two years. that's something that democrats wanted in this. but just to reiterate, wolf, it's a senate deal. it will pass the senate. the huge problem is when this gets sent over to the house, speaker of the house paul ryan, if he'll be able to corral enough support among republicans and democrats. he'll need democratic support to get this through when he faces that potentially later this week. >> well, is the speaker ready to do in the house of representatives what the majority leader has done in the senate and guarantee there will be a full debate, an up-and-down vote on daca, on the dreamers in the house of representatives? >> that is a good question. that is exactly what flan nancy pelosi is asking for this morning. she's still speaking at this moment and essentially demanding that they have some assurances from paul ryan that he will hold debate and open debate and move to a vote on immigration before

house democrats sign off on this big budget deal. speaker paul ryan has been pretty clear that he's not going to move to anything until the president signs off on something. so certainly the house speaker waiting for a signal from the white house here, what exactly to do. certainly a huge dynamic as he faces the goal to corral votes. >> all right. sunlen, keep us posted. we'll get back to you. let's go over to the white house right now. our senior white house correspondent pamela brown is on the scene for us. is there any concern that the president's comments yesterday could undermine these late-breaking talks on immigration reaching a budget deal? we all know what he said yesterday. he's ready for a government shutdown. if there's in commitment on the border security issues he wants. >> yeah, that's right. at this point, officials we've spoken with haven't expressed concern. as we've seen today, lawmakers

are moving full steam ahead with the announcement of this bipartisan two-year deal that would essentially raise money -- increase money for the military, which is something the white house, of course, has been pushing for. and lawmakers seem to view the president's comments yesterday as, you know, the president being the president, trump being trump. he's made similar comments in the past. last year he said he would like to see a government shutdown. you saw sara sanders here yesterday sort of cleaning that up, saying the white house is not advocating for a government shutdown. as you point out, wolf, what this doesn't include is a fix on immigration. the president has clearly been very outspoken that he wants a fix on immigration, daca, the o lottery system, what the white house calls chain migration. that's not included in this deal. that will be treated as a separate issue. there's still several hurdles. it has to pass through the house and come to the president's desk. one of the questions we're going to be asking here today is what the white house thinks about this bipartisan deal that was

just announced on the senate side. >> this has got to be welcome news, this agreement reached by mitchell mcconnell and chuck schumer to go ahead with this bipartisan budget deal. i assume the white house is going to warmly welcome this agreement to move forward, avoid a government shutdown. the government could have shut down thursday night at midnight if they don't have an agreement on spending. i assume when we go to the white house briefing momentarily, sarah sanders will warmly welcome the news from the senate. >> that's right. i don't think anyone has the appetite for another government shutdown. like i said, the white house has been very clear that it wants to increase spending for the military, which is included in this bipartisan senate deal. i think here at the white house, people are cautiously optimistic about this, but again t has the hurdle of passing through the house. nancy pelosi has already come out and sort of expressed her disdain that it doesn't include a fix for the dreamers. we'll have to see what happens there. >> we'll see what the speaker of

the house says about it upcoming. a separate piece of legislation to deal with border security and other issues. they have an early march deadline to get that through as well. that's a separate issue now apparently. all right. the briefing is going to be starting fairly soon. we'll get back to you, pamela. in the meantime, let's get some analysis with our panel. we're joined by retired rear admiral john kirby and cnn analyst molly ball. jackie, what do you make of this compromise? pretty impressive. i was impressed that chuck schumer -- excuse me, that mitch mcconnell kept referring to chuck schumer as my good friend. >> the senate is actually working. now we kick it to the house where there are a lot more

problems. this deal does present a problem for nancy pelosi. a lot of the congressional black caucus wanted these community health centers funded. the disaster funding included in this bill. i think it's going to be hard for some of these democrats to say no to this. >> money for puerto rico, for example, is included. for texas and florida as well. >> yeah, this is how compromises used to work, which is if you're the majority, you sweeten the pot. things like domestic spending, nonmilitary spending. you give some while getting some. the issue is we live in a politics of extreme polarization. the question is, is good good enough f enough. for the liberal wing of the democratic party and, not really the tea party, but the fiscal deficit hawk wing of the republican party, there's some overlap. >> just to be precise, the

republicans will like the $160 billion increase in defense spending. they won't necessarily like the $128 billion increase in what's called nondefense spending. >> that's right. and adding to the deficit. so can you find a coalition in between those two? are the two party leaders, nancy pelosi and paul ryan, willing to allow that sort of compromise to happen? there will be a lot of pressure to do so. i think chuck schumer was very incentivized to find a way this time around because i think while he didn't admit it, they basically caved after the last government shutdown. they didn't get anything. they just reopened the government. the question is how hard does nancy pelosi want to push on a daca promise. my guess is you won't get anything more out of pitmitch mckom mcconnell and paul ryan than what you got out of them today. you have to take it or leave it. >> but i think it's important to point out that pelosi is not

being less reasonable than schumer here. she just wants what schumer got. mcconnell did give this assurance there would be a floor debate on immigration. republicans, including the president, have repeatedly promised that they would act on daca. so i think pelosi is just asking for what schumer has already received from mcconnell, which is an assurance that the debate will actually happen on the floor of the house. we don't know if rune's going to be able to offer that. >> there is a history here. a few years ago, the senate passed in a decisive, overwhelming manner comprehensive immigration reform. it went to the house of representatives because a majority of republicans didn't like it. the speaker at the time didn't even allow it to come up for a debate and a vote. >> it never went to the floor, and most people working on the issue believe had it gone to the floor, had what passed the senate gone to the floor of the house for an up and down vote, it would have passed. it would have passed with the majority of democrats and a minority of republicans. but it was never allowed to go to the floor because it was seen as so politically toxic.

i feel the rule of thumb is republicans can not do it. they cannot do immigration. they want to do it, some of them, but for decades, they just can't bring themselves to get there. >> what will be critical right now for these republicans in the house of representatives, the president of the united states. how far will he be willing to go to speak out, to twist their hands, and say, you know what, you're going to get all this money for defense, you got to do this, the government is not going to shut down. there's going to be an increase in spending. just accept it. we'll see how aggressively, assertively the president reacts to all of this. >> and there was a pointed comment from schumer in his floor speech saying we reached this agreement without very much input from the white house, without very much leadership. he intended to take a shot at the president with that, but it may be that that was better for the process, that the leaders were able to do it between themselves without the president making more chaos in the process. >> i do think that there is a role for trump to play in trying to assuage and convince -- if

ryan goes to him and says, look, there's 15 of these people who i really need you to call. remember, donald trump, for everything he billed himself as, the guy who gets it done and who closes deals, was number one on that list. this is sort of that role. paul ryan will need him, whether it's a strong voice of support from sara sanders or an actual quote from donald trump or an aggressive effort to call, get them on the phone. >> but the issue does matter. when it comes to spending, remember you had members that were patted on the back for pushing back against the president when it comes to health care. so we'll see where the fissures lie. >> there's a lot we need to assess. breaking news we're staying on top of. everybody stick around. we're also waiting for the white house briefing to begin. we'll get the first official reaction from the white house to this bipartisan deal just announced in the u.s. senate. also, just in, as the pentagon is now planning a major military parade at the president's

request for washington, d.c. republican senator lindsey graham with some rather blunt comments about how those parades are, quote, cheesy and show weakness. stand by, lots going on. gas, bloating, constipation and diarrhea can start in the colon and may be signs of an imbalance of good bacteria. only phillips' colon health has this unique combination of probiotics. it provides four-in-one symptom defense. it's your daily probiotic.

so we sent that sample i doff to ancestry. i was from ethnically.

my ancestry dna results are that i am 26% nigerian. i am just trying to learn as much as i can about my culture. i put the gele on my head and i looked into the mirror and i was trying not to cry. because it's a hat, but it's like the most important hat i've ever owned. discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com. touch is how we communicate with those we love, but when your psoriasis is bad, does it ever get in the way? embrace the chance of 100% clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to help people with moderate to severe psoriasis achieve completely clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. don't use if you're allergic to taltz. before starting, you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase risk of infections

and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or have symptoms, or if you've received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz, including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. ready for a chance at 100% clear skin? ask your doctor about taltz today. and go to taltz.com to learn how to pay as little as $5 a month. 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 $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

you're looking at live pictures coming from the white house briefing room. we've just been told that james mattis, the defense secretary, will be introduced by sara sanders at the top of this briefing. he will make a statement, answer reporters' questions, presumably on two subjects, the senate decision to go ahead and work out this bipartisan budget agreement, which will increase defense spending by about $160 billion. it will also eliminate the sequester, something the pentagon and military has always hated, to keep a tab on defense spending. he'll also speak about the president now giving orders for the defense department to plan a military parade through the streets of washington, d.c. the president says he was very

impressed by what he saw in france on bastille day. he wants one like that here in the united states, but there's not necessarily enthusiastic support for that, including from republican senator lindsey graham. listen. >> the president wants to have this military parade. what do you think about that? >> i don't mind having a parade honoring the service and sacrifice of our military members. i'm not looking for a soviet style hardware display. that's not who we are. it's kind of cheesy. i think it shows weakness, quite frankly. but have a parade where you can display our finest and we can all say thank you and honor them would be fine. i'd like to see kids marching. i'd like to honor military families. the idea of saying thank you through a parade makes sense. the idea of showing muscle through a parade, i think, is counter to what we're about and would actually be a sign of weakness, not strength. honoring the military through an annual parade, count me in. i just don't want it to become a want hardware. i want it about people.

>> all right. let's discuss this and more with our panel. john kirby, you're a retired u.s. admiral. what do you think? what are we going to hear from the defense secretary? he's going to be speaking first at this upcoming briefing in the next few minutes. >> i can't remember the last time a secretary of defense went to a white house briefing, a daily briefing, to open it up. that's incredible to me. mr. mattis is not really doing a lot of press briefings in his own pentagon. this is remarkable. i suspect the purpose is to talk about this budget deal and to laud it and try to encourage quick passage of it. he was on capitol hill yesterday testifying about the nuclear review and was very eloquent about the damage these continuing resolutions and sequester has been doing to military readiness training and maintenance. i think that's his main purpose. i don't think he's going to talk about the parade, but i have no doubt that he'll get asked about it. >> when asked about it, i suspect he'll say that he understands the task he's been given by the commander in chief. they're going to work up some options and get it to the president. i don't think he's going to show

any leg in terms of where this is going, when it's going to be, how big, how ostentatious it's going to be. i think he's just going to talk about the fact they're going to plan for it. >> the assumption that be the president would like this parade as early as november on veterans day. he thinks it would be a good day to have this kind of parade, although it's by no means a done deal. >> as admiral kirby said, the details are still shaping, but it's the ploliticization of the military. everyone supports the troops. you're never going to hear anyone say, i don't support the troops. it's a question of whether you support them through this parade or if democrats might be smart to say, you know, why don't we support them a different way. why don't we support them through funding veterans programs rather than just saying this parade is terrible and making it look like they're against trump, not the troops. >> the defense secretary,

though, is obviously very pleased by this agreement that's been worked up by mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer. presumably it will sail through the senate. it'll go to the house. we'll see what happens in the house. i suspect eventually there will be enough republicans and enough democrats to pass it in the house and go to the president for his signature. it's not a done deal yet. certainly the fact that we're going to hear from the defense secretary, as john kirby points out, from the briefing room at the white house, that will send a very strong message. >> yeah, i think with the possible exception of donald trump, i don't think there are a lot of people -- and i'll include nancy pelosi in this -- who want another government shutdown so quickly after the last. a shutdown is a shutdown is a shutdown. i think you always have to think of that, wolf, as sort of the background here. that's the end. we haven't focused on it all that much, but we're talking about 36 hours from now if this deal isn't done, the government shuts down again and there's

more why is washington broken talk. i actually jgenuinely think on matters where they can give some and find some common ground, most of the members of congress are willing to do so. the issue is what can you do on issues where there is not any common ground. i continue to wonder about daca versus border security and protecting the dreamers. i just don't know how you get there. molly brought this up in the last segment. john mechanic cain basically came very close to losing the republican nomination in 2008 because of his immigration stance. it almost happened again. mitt romney has struggled with it. the republican party is -- the elites of the republican party are in favor of it because they see political gain. the rank and file of the democratic party, which donald trump very much channelled and represents, just does not

support it. they do not support a pathway to citizenship. i don't know they support what donald trump proposed, candidly. >> he proposed a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million dreamers. there's only 700,000 who have officially registered as daca recipients. and that is seen by some of the hard liners as amnesty. >> absolutely. anything that gives people who are here illegally a pathway to not be here illegally, to not go back to where they came from, is viewed as amnesty by a decent chunk of the republican base. i think this happens because i think i think the alternative is worse. i'm still -- i think that daca -- >> it's not the funding. it's more the legal immigration limiting that's the sticking point. >> part of the compromise will be increased spending for the border, for border defense, including what the president really wants, a wall. >> well, poll after poll for

many years have shown that even republican voters believe there should be a pathway to citizenship for all illegal immigrants, not just the dreamers. when you narrow it down to dreamers, it's even more popular, including with trump voters. they support the idea of giving some kind of citizenship or stability to the dreamers. this is a very, very, very popular thing. republicans have always hit this stumbling block with the hard liners who are very vocal and very active. but it isn't the case the voters are majority against this. who else wants it is the business community. the chamber of commerce, lots of people, particularly now that this new element of legal immigration has been brought into the debate, which was not part of the discussions about immigration reform in 2013 or the traditional debate about border security plus legalization. when you bring legal immigration into the mix, that really scares

the business community because they need workers. >> they've got a lot of work to do to work out a compromise on immigration, a comprehensive immigration reform. they've got an early march deadline, i think march 6th, when the current arrangement for the daca resip gencipients. everybody stand by. we're waiting for the white house briefing to begin. the defense secretary, james mattis, will open the briefing with a statement. he'll answer reporters' questions and sara sanders, the white house press secretary, will take over. that's scheduled to begin within the next few minutes. stand by for that. we're also following more news involving the russia investigation. cnn now reporting that president trump still wants to talk to the special counsel, robert mueller, despite his attorneys telling him it's not necessarily a good idea. you're going to hear the president's reasoning. that and more when we come back. risk of stroke due to afib, a type of irregular heartbeat not caused by a heart valve problem. but no matter where i ride, i go for my best. so if there's something better than warfarin, i'll go for that too.

eliquis. eliquis reduced the risk of stroke better than warfarin, plus had less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis had both. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily... and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. i'm still going for my best. and for eliquis. ask your doctor about eliquis. i tabut with my back paines, i couldn't sleep and get up in time. then i found aleve pm. aleve pm is the only one to combine a safe sleep aid plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back. aleve pm for a better am.

oh, that's lovely...so graceful. the corkscrew spin, flawless... ...his signature move, the flying dutchman. poetry in motion. and there it is, the "baby bird". breathtaking. a sumo wrestler figure skating? surprising. what's not surprising? how much money heather saved by switching to geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.

when you can squeeze one in wbetween friday and monday at hilton?n there's a vacation at the end of every week. whatever type of weekender you are, don't let another weekend pass you by. get the lowest price when you book at hilton.com

my healthy routine helps me feel my best. so i add activia yogurt to my day. with its billions of live and active probiotics, activia may help support my digestive health, so i can take on my day. activia. now in probiotic dailies.

once again, we're following the breaking news. the leadership in the senate, the democratic leader, the republican leader, they've worked out a bipartisan budget agreement. $300 billion or so, $160 billion in additional defense spending. $128 billion in nondefense spending. $80 billion for disaster relief for texas, florida, and puerto rico. a lot of specifics in this tentative deal. it's going to pass the senate. question is how will it do in the house of representatives. it does not deal with immigration reform, the dreamers, the daca recipients, border security. but the senate majority leader, mitch mcconnell, has promised chuck schumer that will come up soon. they'll have a full debate, a fair debate on the floor. that will then go to the house. we'll see what happens there.

the briefing that's about to begin, sara sanders will introduce the defense secretary, general james mattis. he'll hoopen the briefing. i'm sure he'll be asked about what the president wants, a military parade maybe as early an veterans day. john kirby, you're our military analyst, a former spokesman for the pentagon, former spokesman at the state department. you pointed out it was sort of unusual -- well, let's go to sara sanders. >> congress has been able to meet our defense spending requirement and come together on a two-year spending deal. this deal achieves our top priority, a much-needed increase in funding for our national defense. this deal also increases budget caps, ends sequester, and provides certainty for the next two years. defense spending will match the request made by the pentagon and will reflect what the president signed into law with the national defense authorization act. thanks to president trump, we can now have the strongest

military we have ever had. additionally, this deal increases the debt ceiling to march of 2019, which moves us away from crisis to crisis budgeting. it also ensures funding for our other critical priorities, including rebuilding america's crumbling infrastructure, tackling the opioid epidemic, and taking care of our great veterans. to discuss this agreement in more depth, we have secretary mattis with us. he will come up to make a brief statement and take a few questions on the importance of funding our armed forces, then i will be back up after him to answer questions on news of the day. thank you. >> good fternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for taking time out of your schedules to be here. i spent the last day and a half on capitol hill briefing the members of congress on our 2018 national defense strategy. i'm heartened that congress recognizes the sobering effect

of budgetary uncertainty on america's military, and on the men and women who provide for our nation's defense. two days from now, i will visit our nation's first security force assistance brigade as they prepare to deploy to afghanistan. to advance the security of our nation, these troops are putting themselves in harm's way, in effect signing a blank check payable to the american people with their lives. our military has been operating under debilitating continuing resolutions for more than 1,000 days during the last decade. during last week's state of the union address, president trump said weakness is the surest path to conflict. in a world awash in change with increasing threats, there is no room for complacency. failure to implement or fund the 2018 national defense strategy will leave us with a force that could dominate the last war yet be irrelevant to tomorrow's security.

we need congress to lift the defense spending caps and support a two-year budget agreement for our military. america can afford survival. for too long, we have asked our military to carry on stoically with a success at any cost attitude. the fact that our volunteer military has performed so well is a credit to their dedication and professionalism. we expect the men and women of our military to be faithful in their service, even when going in harm's way. we have a duty to remain faithful to them. absent a budget this year, america's military will not be able to provide pay for our troops by the end of the year. we will not be able to recruit the 15,000 army soldiers and 4,000 air force airmen required to fill critical manning shortfalls. we would not be able to maintain our ships at sea with the proper balance between operations and time for training and maintenance. we would have to ground aircraft

due to a lack of maintenance and spare parts, degrading our pilots' proficiency. we would deplete the ammunition, training, and manpower required to deter war. and we would delay contracts for vital acquisition programs necessary to modernize our force. i cannot overstate the negative impact to our troops and families' morale from all this budget uncertainty. today's congressional action will ensure our military can defe defend our way of life, preserve the promise of prosperity, and pass on the freedoms you and i enjoy to the next generation. thank you. i can take a couple questions here. >> general, how damaged would a shutdown be, would a government shutdown be given you have this deal? if there was a decision to shut the government down because, for example, the wall wasn't funded in this deal. how bad would that be to the military? >> shutting down the government would be very damaging to the

military for all the reasons i just cited about a continuing resolution, but then aggravated by the shutdown itself where we actually send home all nonuniformed personnel, except those in a few critical areas. it just paralyzes everything that we do if we go into that, other than the ongoing active operations at sea. and there the troops will continue to fight. the ships will stay at sea. the bottom line is training is delayed. the impact just ripples through the force, and it doesn't just happen today, it ripples on as people who are not flying are no longer gaining the level of skill that you and i would associate with them even a year from now when they're promoted. >> secretary, you mentioned you've been spending the last day and a half on capitol hill. this is a senate arrangement. do you have any sense if the house leadership on the republican side is equally receptive and is enthusiastic as you are? also, service secretaries, particularly the navy service

secretary, has said the funding problems are not maybe a direct cause but contributed to the death of seamen in the south china sea, the two most recent accidents. can you tell the country if this money is, in fact, provided all of the problems associated with training, maintenance that have been plaguing the military will be eliminated? >> i am optimistic that what the house did earlier this week and what the senate did today can come together this week and give us the budget that then enables us to carry out our responsibilities. by ours, i mean all the leaders in the department of defense who will address the issues you just brought up. obviously a lot of work goes into the execution then, the quality of the training. but you can count on us. we'll earn your trust on this. we will spend the money wisely. >> mr. secretary, if i could ask you about the recently released nuclear posture review. it calls for smaller yield

nuclear weapons to be added to our arsenal. you're on record saying there's no such thing as a tactical nuke. any time a nuclear weapon is used, it's a strategic game changer. so how does this new posture review add to global stability? because there are many people who believe if you have a smaller yield nuclear weapon, you might be more inclined to use it. >> right. remember that what we're talking about here is the nuclear deterrent. in that nuclear deterrent, we believe that some nations could miscalculate, one in particular, and that nation could assume that if they used in a conventional fight a small yield bomb, we would not respond with a very large yield bomb. our response to this is to make a small-yield bomb and say don't miscalculate. it's a deterrent. remember, deterrence is dynamic. it changes from year to year, from decade to decade. we have to address deterrence in

its current construct. so we do this, the idea is to raise the threshold. don't even think about lowering the threshold to a conventional fight and escalating it to one small-yield nuclear weapon strategically changing the game and then think our choice is either surrender or suicide, as dr. kissinger put it. yes, ma'am? >> can you talk about where things are in the planning stages for the military parade the president is seeking and what any cost estimates you have at this point are? >> i think we're all aware in this country of the president's affection and respect for the military. we've been putting together some options. we'll send them up to the white house for a decision. >> i have a question about north korea, a follow-up there. you laid out the argument for fully funding the military, why you think every dollar counts. so why divert time, energy, financial resources to the planning of a parade, as the president has asked? >> again, i think that what my

responsibility is, to make certain i lay out the strategy and make the argument for the oversight of congress to make a determination of fully funding us. as far as the parade goes, again, the president's respect, his fondness for the military, i think, is reflected in him asking for these options. >> can i ask you whether you think war is nearer or closer with north korea than it was at the time the administration took office? and do you support any kind of meeting or communication between vice president pence and north korean officials at the olympics? >> on the second, vice president pence is quite capable of making the call on that there while he's in korea. as far as the situation with korea, it is firmly in the diplomatic lane. we have seen much stronger

diplomatic action. for example, the last three united states security counsel resolutions, unanimous. and how often do you see france and russia, prc, china, and the united states, great britain all voting unanimously? i think that makes it very clear this is firmly in the diplomatic lane. we of course back up secretary of state tillerson's efforts as guided by the president with viable military options. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. >> thank you, mr. secretary. due to timing and tight timeline, we'll jump right into questions for today with no further statements. >> flnancy pelosi is wanting to add immigration to this deal. is that something the president would like to see? >> i think we've made clear the budget deal should be a budget deal and that members of

congress, like nancy pelosi, should not hold our military hostage over a separate issue. we've laid out what we would like to see in immigration legislation, and i think it's something that nancy pelosi should support and hopefully she'll come on board. we can get this budget deal done and then we can focus on getting immigration done. >> is the president committed to this march 5th deadline for daca? >> look, we are hopeful that we will make a deal with congress, and we'll see what happens after that. but our goal is to try to get something done. we don't want to keep kicking the can down the road, and we'd like to see a solution, which is why we've laid out a plan that we think addresses everybody's concerns and meets those needs. >> to put another point on it, will the president sign the budget agreement that was laid out by the senate this morning? >> look, we applaud the steps forward that they've made, but we're going to need to see what is in the final bill. we're certainly happy with the

direction that it's moving, particularly that we're moving away from the crisis budgeting that we've been on in the past. >> would you like the house to pass the senate deal? >> we would like to move forward on this, but we want to see the final components. but yes, we're supportive primarily because it meets several of the things that we laid out, including ending the crisis budgeting and also helps meet the needs of the military and defense spending as were laid out by general mattis. >> could you clarify the security clearance of rob porter and if the president has confidence? >> as has always been our policy when it comes to security clearances, we don't comment on them. i'm not going to change that today. i can tell you that rob has been effective in his role as staff secretary, and the president and chief of staff have had full confidence and trust in his abilities and his performance.

more of an update on that front, rob has put out a statement, which i can read to you now. i think it will address some of those other questions. these outrageous allegations are simply false. i took the photos given to the media nearly 15 years ago, and the reality behind them is nowhere close to what is being described. i've been transparent and truthful about these vile claims, but i will not further engage publicly with a coordinated smear campaign. my commitment to public service speaks for itself. i've always put duty to country first and treated others with respect. i'm deeply grateful for the opportunity to have served in the trump administration and will seek to ensure a smooth transition when i leave the white house. >> is he going to be leaving the white house any time soon? there was some conversation a couple months ago that he was at least contemplating that. >> he is going to be leaving the white house. it won't be immediate. but he is resigning from the white house but is going to stay on to ensure there's a smooth transition moving forward. >> less than 18 hours ago, the white house released several

statements praising rob porter, his service, obviously he's somebody who's very close with the president. so why would the president accept his resignation if the president thinks he did nothing wrong? >> look, i think that was a personal decision that rob made and one that he was not pressured to do but one that he made on his own. >> can we clear up the matter of the security clearance? did he have one or not? >> as i just said, i'm not sure why this is complicated, we've addressed it quite a few times in many circumstances. as has always been the policy at the white house, we don't discuss security clearances one way or the other. >> could i ask you about the democratic memo. we understand chief of staff kelly said yesterday this memo is different in term of its content than the republican memo was. general kelly said it's not as clean as the gop memo was. republicans who have read the memo are saying that it con stains a substantial number of references to sources and

methods. my question is do you believe the white house is being put in a difficult position by the democratic minority, forcing you to make redactions? >> i'm not going to make speculations a the this point. we're still going through the process that we went through with the republican memo. we're going to continue to do that. once that's completed, we'll have something further to add. as of this point, we don't. >> can you clarify, the president yesterday said that he would like to shut the government down if he doesn't get funding for the wall, border security. is what he said yesterday now no longer operative? he's going to support a two-year spending bill without funding for the wall? >> look, as i said yesterday, the focus for us is always been to get a two-year budget deal. we've also laid out the priorities we want to see in any immigration legislation.

and we expect to see that. we've made no secret the president wants funding for the wall and border security. we expect to see that reflected in the budget. >> he said he wanted to shut the government down if he didn't get it. is that no longer the position? >> the position hasn't changed. i addressed this yesterday. the president is making the point -- the only people that have shut the government down are the democrats. we haven't shut the government down. we've laid out exactly what we want to happen, and we're working towards achieving those goals. >> he was the one who said he wanted to shut the government down. i'm not understanding. he said i want a government shutdown. >> the point he's making when you put it in the context is that if we are going to of that fight, it's a fight that the democrats started last time and lost and we think we would win again. we want a two-year budget deal. we want an immigration plan that fixes the problem and doesn't further kick the can down the road. those are the two focuses. we're hopeful we'll get those done. >> how can the president still have confidence in his deputy

attorney general when he says he feels vindicated in the russia probe by the nunes memo that mentioned rosenstein and the fact that rosenstein oversees the russia probe? >> look, as i said yesterday, the president feels vindicated because he feels like the russia investigation had been politically motivated witch hunt for the last year, and the memo clearly vindicates the president's position that there was political bias. >> has he actually read the democrats' memo? >> he has, and i told you also he had met with the deputy attorney general to discuss the differences yesterday. >> and just quickly, general mattis was saying the president has great affection for the military, but he has yet to visit iraq and afghanistan. wouldn't that be the ultimate way to honor the troops, by going there rather than a parade? >> look, i think there are a lot of different ways. nothing has been decided or locked in stone. this is in the early discussion phases. it's something the president is looking at, not just a way that he can, but that the entire country can come together and show support and honor our

military. >> does the president have any concerns about these domestic violence allegations raised against rob porter? >> i haven't spoken to him about specific concerns. >> you haven't talked to the president -- >> about whether or not he has specific concerns, i haven't asked him that question. >> has he seen the photos >> the president weighed in on twitter on the stock market first time this week he has done so and he has done so quite a bit over the course of his first year in office. will we expect the president to weigh in on the daily fluctuations of the stock market or let the market take its course? >> i don't think i'm going to speculate on what we may weigh in on every single day moving forward through the administration. the economy is obviously been a big focus for the administration. it's something we'll continue to talk about. we have a very strong economy and feel very confident in the direction we're moving and certainly the focus on the

long-term economic fundamentals that this administration has been advocating for. >> on the immigration deal, would the president be open to two pillars, funding for mexico and increased border security and legislative fix for the daca recipients? >> we laid out the four pillars we want to see on immigration. shannon? >> text messages from the fbi, the president called, bombshells. does he believe there was a conspiracy in the fbi to try to undermine his candidacy and help hillary clinton? can you explain a little more his thinking about what he is seeing in these text messages? >> i think if further shows that there is reason for all of to us have great cause for concern in this process and hope that it is more thoroughly and fully looked at as we move forward. >> is there more specific personnel changes he would like to see at the fbi? >> not that i'm aware of at this

time. steven? >> i want to gev you a chance to respond to the concern about the proprietary of this parade down pennsylvania avenue. a lot of people think that's not how the u.s. military should be seen rolling down the street. what do you think? >> we haven't made a final decision. the president is exploring different ways that he could highlight and show the pride we have in the military, people that have served and sacrificed to allow us all the freedoms we have. the president is very proud of the united states military and all that they do on behalf of all of us. we're simply exploring options. it's way too far speculation to start weighing in on whether or not things are appropriate. it's literally in a brainstorming session. >> did the president give a

directive that this is something that must happen? >> no. the president asked them to look at different ways to explore and see what could happen, as the secretary said. >> we'll take one more. >> in this text messages, does the president believe that former president obama was involved in the russian investigation against him, which is what alleged between those texts between peter strzok and lisa page? >> i'm not aware of that specific concern. i think there is a lot within those text messages that gives us great cause for concern. again, we hope they look at them thoroughly and investigate this process fully. >> sarah sanders, white house press secretary, welcoming this bipartisan agreement in the u.s. senate to work on a new budget deal that will increase defense spending by about $160 billion, nondefense spending by $128 billion. $80 billion for disaster relief, including for puerto rico,

florida, and texas. warmly enthusiastically welcomed by the white house. senate likely to approve this legislation very soon. it will go to the house. there is some question about what will happen in the house of representatives, very strong statement of support by the defense secretary, james mattis, who opened the briefing. extraordinary he came over from the pentagon, did this briefing in the white house. he wanted to make it clear as far as the u.s. military and defense department are concerned, they welcome this bipartisan agreement. pretty extraordinary stuff going on right now. will it get through the house of representatives? >> chris was saying earlier in the hour, that the far left and the far right will be hard to corra lch cor corral on this. we'll see if they'll be able to do it especially when pelosi

seems to be siding with the left of her caucus. >> making the case she does not support the senate agreement unless they get a hard, firm commitment from the speaker, paul ryan, that there will be an up and down vote, full debate on the floor of the house of representatives for the dreamers. >> that's right. i think what we need fleshed out more is what does she mean by a hard and fast commitment? we're slicing the onion pretty thin but -- >> she says she wants a commitment from paul ryan that schumer got from mitch mcconnell. >> so my guess is he will be willing to give her something like that. my guess is pure politicizing. some republicans simply will not vote for a bill that adds to the debt in this way. >> they like the extra defense

spending but nondeference spending they're not enthusiastic? >> no. and some people, that is their issue and they will draw that line. which means if he does lose two dozen, let's say, he needs democrats. and my guess is that he will feel significant pressure from the white house, the senate and mitch mcconnell to do this. again, the alternative is the government shuts down again. sarah huckabee sanders said the democrats will get blamed for it. maybe. you know how these things play out. i don't know that paul ryan wants to risk it. >> another doozy item that came up, resignation of rob porter, white house staff secretary, largely someone not well known out there. but very influential in the white house. plays a key role. all of a sudden he has announced he is resigning in the face of accusations from his two ex-wives of abuse.

>> yeah. both of rob porter's ex-wives have accused him of abuse in a story published in the daily mail. behind the scenes this created a lot of chaos. he may not be a household name but is crucial to the functioning of the white house. he really is the man, besides john kelly, who makes the trains run in the white house. he denies the allegations quite strongly but says he can ensure there will be a smooth transition. we don't yet have a date as to when he will leave the white house but is saying he will not say in his position. >> clearly the white house has accepted his resignation. there will be an interim period. he's basically gone. let's get john kirby in on the defense secretary, showing up at the top of the briefing. you were making the point that's pretty unusual for him to do a briefing. and the white house briefing room as opposed to the briefing room over at the department of defense. >> i can't remember a time in any recent years when the

defense secretary briefed from the white house. just doesn't happen. i've seen presidents, obama and bush, go and brief at the pentagon, but i've never seen it the other way around. it speaks to the degree to which -- and my colleagues will probably be smart er on this thn me, but the degree to which they want to make this budget deal about military spending and it make it that much harder for people to vote against it, jim mattis going to the white house briefing room with a full-throated endorsement. maybe they'll have their causes but that makes it tough. >> and one thing that unified both parties, at least most of both parties was the sequestration deal in the first place. >> that's going to go away? >> this gets rid of that. focusing on that piece of it is probably your smartest -- >> remember sarah sanders, speaking for the president of the united states said, jackie. we applaud what the senate has worked up. we're happy about it.

we would like to move forward. they want to look at the language. of course, they always say that. clearly sending a message to those republicans in the house of representatives vote for this. >> mattis made it hard for the president to root for a shutdown. >> yesterday he flipped on that. >> she wouldn't say that, though. >> she's tried to clean up what the president said yesterday. >> your defense secretary is going out with that fu full-throated defense, i think we know where the president stands at that point. >> it leaves us sort of dead in the water. >> right. >> it's a huge problem, 24 hours after the president said i would love a shutdown. >> mattis said flatly, a government shutdown would be very damaging to the military, paralyze everything. there would be a ripple effect throughout the military force. he basically said don't shut down. >> he doesn't want a shutdown. he tried to find a little sliver in there to maybe not throw the president under the bus by talking about how the real damage come frts continuing resolution. >> clearly a lot going on.

the news will continue here. that's it for me. i'll be back 5:00 p.m. eastern in the situation room for our international viewers, amanpour is next. for our viewers in the u.s., "newsroom" with brooke baldwin starts right now. >> wolf, thank you. hi, everyone. i'm brooke baldwin. to capitol hill, back away from the brink. more than two weeks since the last government shutdown and some 30 hours before it could happen again. republicans and democrats in the senate have reached a deal. not just any deal. this could avoid future shutdown fears and absolutions. >> this bill is a product of