; you number of house republicans are opposed to speaker ryan's bill. >> a number of house republicans are opposed to speaker ryan's bill. their chair is mark meadows. he will be our guest on newsmakers this week. we will talk to him about the bill and to reporters will join us the conversation. congressman. thank you, kelsey.

it is good to be with two journalists i respect. kudos to you and bob. he was well, greta. -- you as well, greta. >> thank you again. i wanted to start off with asking about the alternative response plan that the freedom caucus is planning to put out money. can you put us -- can you tell us more about what you plan to do and how you see that turned in being addressed? >> we are trying to work closely with some of our senate colleagues. as we look at that, i think the freedom caucus, even though the headlines may not indicate this, we are trying to find that sweet spot. we understand that a fully conservative bill that may meet with the approval of our -- all our caucus is not something that is going to garner 216 votes in the house or 61 votes in the senate. we are doing the hard work now to look at addressing some us, but ior not only

would say the majority of our conference if they are honest. they have some concerns. certainly in the senate. i can tell you, based on my informal, quite count, there are at least 12 senators that have difficult -- it would be externally difficult for them to vote for it. to answer your question, unless we get at the health benefits and some of the insurance mandates that are the backbone of obamacare in a repeal, or some type of vehicle we have the insurance were we address that, we are not going to bring down premiums in a meaningful way. additionally, i think a fellow senator has expressed concerns on the tax credit portion. we are currently giving a subsidy to people under the gop

plan it takes 50% of poverty. the impact on seniors and working poor, we are not going 8 -- doing a good job there. i have not talked to the senator. i don't want to suggest that. i got his document yesterday heard we are trying to look at how we come up with something that makes people better off and doesn't leave people behind. as you see that, without giving we are debating it between now and next week. those are the areas where looking at. a mandatory work requirement is also one. now,e bill as is it right the budget committee deepest week, they cleared the bill, but there are three republican sections -- as right now, it can

be bill passed? >> no. we have a sophisticated with counts that the freedom caucus uses. we also reach out to some that are not members of the caucus -- if the vote were held today, even with minor, potential small notks, based on that, it is anywhere close to the votes. hip has been working hard on the undecideds. this bill needs to be changed not just to pass the house, but the senate, as well. are they from the votes they need to give people an idea of the necessity to

maintain this? >> they do not give their with -- whip count. based on a number of different scenarios, there has to be more s and 20 to 30 undecideds. undecideds typically, when you put undecided, you have a tendency to go yes. but in some of these undecideds, they are more no's. they are trying to not put a line in the sand and say they are open to look at negotiations and what might change. i would be encouraging the leadership to hopefully communicate, we are a lot closer. vote threshold5 that is different.

but i can to you based on empirical numbers that we have, there is no way it is that close. >> how would you like to see this go forward? is it enough to make these changes in the rules committee next week, or doing need to go back to the drawing board and start over? you going back to the drawing board obviously has its merits. ted cruz and i put out an op-ed to that effect. is, i do not see there being enough of a majority in the house that would suggest that. what we are doing is taking the framework that the leadership has put forth and certainly the hard work, energy and commerce come on the ways and means have done to get the bill to this point. and take that framework and say, how can we amend that? managers amendments and others only get thenot

216 required votes in the house but to go further to make sure it has a much higher likelihood of passage in the senate. -- what iay have would like to see happen, we are trying to look at all case scenarios. in a perfect world what we would like to see is a full repeal, a replacement that gets voted on that actually goes further in a separate vehicle. that, we work through attempt to get those eight democrats to come along on a replacement. realistically, this is not your first rodeo. you see the logistical hurdles of that. we are trying to operate in the framework of where we are today to put reasonable solutions to get everyone to yes. >> a two-part question. one, what is leadership,

ryan, think of your changes? and number two, does the white house support the changes you want to make to the bill? >> i will give you a two-part answer. has been part, there no meaningful discussions with our own leadership. we have had more meaningful discussion with the president and the administration and a number of people working at the white house on this particular bill. most conversations with the last 24 hours. been moreose of generic in their fashion in terms of, we have to do something that does not lose votes on the moderate side. we cannot do this or we cannot do that, for one reason or another. it comes down to the bird role and what it does and does not do. recent as yesterday,

that arehese questions getting used as an excuse, it is not been adjudicated on the senate side. as we see that there has not been as much discussion. as far as the requests that have been made, we had some very good conversations with the white house. i want to stress, there has not been a commitment on their side or our side. specifics, notn in transactional manner about, if you do this we will vote yes, but we have had very good conversations on for five issues that we felt like we were making progress. hearing perhaps the only thing that may survive some of those conversations according to leadership might be an optional work requirement on

medicaid, not a mandatory work requirement. if that is indeed accurate i would say that is a step backward, not forward. >> do you ever worry there is a sense that different groups lobbying the white house, there is a race to be the last one to have the presidents -- president's ear before it is made public? >> that narrative out there, the last person speaks to the president, he goes with that -- i can tell you, based on conversations with the president, a number of conversations with his staff, i would not concur with that hypothesis. and yet, i know it is widely reported. but it is the way the president gets information. he is asking all different people from all different points of view so he can come to an informed decision. used to asks guy, i a janitor what they thought of

policy things as much as i would ceos because that is what makes america great. we have people in different jobs all the way around. to suggest that one person's opinion because he is a ceo is the more important than someone with a different job is just not appropriate. i saws the same thing, him do that on the campaign trail. i am not concerned that i have to be the last one in their making that pitch. i made a very compassionate argument with the president the other day on a number of fronts. we are unified in this. we have got to bring premiums down. this current gop plan does not seem to hit the mark. >> you talked about entitlement reform, donald trump on the campaign trail said he did not want to touch medicare and social security. obviously, you want to reform those programs.

mick mulvaney and the other chair -- what sort of pushed back did you get? . you said it was more than you expected. >> it was more than i expected. i know the president wants to save medicare and social security. having seen the numbers and worked through it, i believe the best way to do that is to start working on some reforms now so we can save it. that being said, i was on the campaign trail where he said i will not affect your benefits if you are retiring or about to retire, we will save it and make sure those benefits are preserved. when i mention that to him in terms of a balanced budget and where we need to go with that. back, believing that might go against the campaign promise. wished het where i

would agree with me on that, i could be disappointed. it is other, i believe going against the campaign promise he has made. until we make a compelling case on our would actually be the only thing we could do to willing it, he is not to go there. i am going to look in other areas, where i will encourage him and influence in. but that is one i do not see being brought up in the near term. the things kicking around in conversation on the hill, several months ago we saw the majority leader in the senate say republicans have a responsibility, having control over all three branches. worry that the message sent to people after the budget we saw yesterday and the conversations, i am seeing ads on the radio that this will be an attack on older people.

take awayry the people will see is, republicans are scary? >> i would hope not. but that is a narrative that has been out there long before the last seven months. we have seen ads run against many of us as not being trying to be or "scary," as you say. as the end of the day, that is why we have to get the policy right. if we truly drive down premiums, regardless of what the ads say or that we are scary, they will make a decision on whether we are successful, sitting at the dining room table, opening up that insurance premium, looking at it, saying, did it go down? mi better off today than it was betteror two ago -- am i off today than i was a year or two ago?

the reality will be measured at the ballot box. even conservative members like myself and many of my caucus advocating probably more on behalf of the working poor along with our democrat colleagues in this debate than ever before. more democrats have come up to not agree with you in terms of your motivation or where you are, but you are right on this aspect or another. again, it is about making sure i represent my district, but also that i know that my district is not like everybody else's. i am optimistic that in the end we will get to a bill that makes people better off and that scary comments will get diffused. >> there has been speculation in media coverage that any republican who votes against the republican replacement bill

primary -- primaried. you spoke to steve bannon and that is not true. the supportcans get of the white house that are running against people that vote no, like you? i am not talking about any specific conversations about that in the white house. but i will comment on that one because that is one i think goes against to the president is and what he said. i can tell you that making a of runningreat somebody against me in a primary is not something he has done, nor is it something that happened in a reported meaning -- meeting. if those reports were true i unnamedcourage those gop sources to actually named

themselves. i would be glad to go with them to the white house and try to work it out. if we are said, worried about a primary, if my job is so precious to me that i worry about a primary for doing what is right for my district and the american people, i am in the wrong job. this is a temporary job, of which i am doing the very best i can to represent the people of western north carolina. themieve that representing transforms from coast to coast. it hopefully represents a wider swath of people. if it sends me home, so be it. i cannot be concerned about the political conversation -- problems. reports thatlitico

you and the freedom caucus are lined with steve bannon, the white house chief strategist. can you describe your relationship with him, how often are you talking? there was a lot the -- rep. meadows: there was a lot the gets reported. i met with steve. steve, i consider a friend. yet at the same time, the assoation of theedom caucus with steve bannon is herened to create conflict on the hill or in the white house. we have relationships with a number of people in the white house. here is ton's desire serve one group and it is not the freedom caucus, it is to serve the president of the united states. and i can tell you, that is his loyalty. he is not the most interactive, talkative guy. at that is what you do not see him out there. the only time he gets involved

is when it is at a critical stage. he is trying to make sure that not only he understands my decision, but the group. we have a good relationship but at the same time, i would not say it is our secret path into the white house because his loyalty is undeniably with the president. he was on the campaign trail and i think that is not a question. ms. snell: you mentioned you are close work with senator cruz on health care. in your conversations in the past you talk to senator leahy and senator rubio. the -- you working in working within the senate? rep. meadows: i would rather not give the name of moderates because then they would be considered conservative. i don't know that i want to go there. i can say i have talked to other who may not be

seen or viewed in the same way as senator lee or senator cruz from the grassroots standpoint. they may have the same conservative record. i had another -- a number of conversations with steve baines. he put forth very good ideas that are different than what we are even considering today. i had some of his thoughts at the white house myself. to two orbly spoken three other senators that i think are in the middle of this particular debate and bringing a consensus. we had senator bill cassidy talk to the freedom caucus early on. even though we are not supporting the college bill, i applaud them to get out early to have something we can debate and

discuss. i told both of them that. cassidy oris senator senator mike lee ted cruz or anyone in between we are having some very good discussions. yousnell: it sounds like and the freedom caucus are backing off of initial demands that you repeal and replace, that there are knocks -- not tax credits included in the medicaid stops in 2018. rep. meadows: that woule e ckg . sllantoepl d ple th sare hie. wendstd ats t er thpridt rhtow arwe wli tlo a se ncsis se tse eadendgneapocy ans oerre, d e sw iye wh wlo a tt,e y cooreumti- mef nda's ias

buango-fthegiaon eseqre bki o. iou pfenotoacof onatnav,he tn e tls,ou fed ccu tsquhyr meinli th. [lghr] t hdle cld beha asomne w notte a m li, io a s tse e e ma, iss att isits t nctew're t inanhils tn ats t goatg gd it he ooathe vendakinomofho ars u e lkgbo. igere pichaes so oerre, ats at ialabt. u. e eem uc pled b re phi spke bhn o t dr.

ulyahabe t sak fole tn o arno howod u gdeaury a spke y ado: sce ttg e mmt thhe hei nto keuri clr. isssnsze diusonabt ttg ne spke a t tesouanakth ju fm e t oer i nto y ts aoly dierceorsohaanhi se erhabe rl ncn thwa ts llasold t. e diti tt iss gur dewh mt u fod eiln lico thasheweir s a te wh e igalilan th iasold t a nd nhtheno ous reer erarcoerbo t presanopne oth. ha t sak ceaiy s ennginnd

ki f iutrovebo inheaus. ha bn ryutok i exesngy priaon er th bng sd, ts a llgimwi aarcur llhaisroblthmo imrtt llhaweilvo on ith cgrs. pha ne a netiin a minchge th aecthpelee rv i ulgi h aoo gde wl y trereom leni men wcafi fr ts ptila bl d e cthawh iwaroed w,t sd,t ts ainy oi, isayr e ghy. buatea warop t mofitis n. itee tbeodiemo th jt fe tak t rch e 6 ve reol

mssnl: dyoage we ear athibi ndso de t e othon me reheesofhe00 y en y he t i acevle ia li i quti. w dnogeth de thenofheon, oe ldp x fo, icis ital iornt itol uotr eainhe prriiorosshawe edoe alg thecse wldolupurudt,t ulho ubuet coiltiecseouav toethiondo iorr getoho. itoeneo t ne icy,utt eseetoet neig me anuily herede tt cas utotaineson r e nt 1 ds heth regisolayndayyo ju g he,ett nedo t he tith ion anth wgeitll tir wldispty rsal

li aa d feorngn e stct b ts n ti f utoakoffoa ekr o up iss tio t de belff e eraneoe. . elonesanbeus fowh y wh r. anyofobeg isee ne mer re mdo:t re tbe thoullthk u. . eleteur b, atidoueahe? mrcuck i hrdomneho nttoe armo fm adsh. atheisssnsreoter fld ghno hes sillsangthe no cncth ts llan pa t hses i irit. cnopa t w iis ghno t y me e llo e ghyocod tulyav rssce,he 2miio peleilbeniur.ha yopontlllo t moras t hsehols ha sd eyavcoer.

hi tres ino ve ba t dcuioov theendeay toex we tayhiishawere intoo ts h t gethvos. t eyre lg y om ttg 6 te mssnl: im scat his lkg mh outh sete thre othfrdocaus s ia,or authe us n, d alitth seteat. e eae yse wki wi pplwhar n ceary th tt nsvaveloinhe sat th ia w veorhe hdo n s hwas ba o b ilos kee llomome wt emto be le t sd r t frdocaus meca eanonee tst eaiethxpte a t crit ty d t kehe toeg wh. ifhecorosen thos d th le e eem uc meer howi ts rk mssnl: ty veee sialgo icoertis

athearwoinonhe ocsrobeg oosio bl ta veinbl. ndo e pa oth reiziohaovni reir cpris inheasth he t d coroseecseheison s sp esenoba om ttg in de. eyidotantofft li, icis vy ffenbet. . sa:armeowis roh -reecd. hsis f t dl,e s t ide air abluo,vethghe ulvo nunsst ans. ifainintordhe d,e rsi tt, ngss sul sy ssi beusthhoe oy heletoe esonig leslivdanpr,hi eyakhe fm. ou s tmpoi sothg keha >> te m ohiofr er mrcuck ts' ba ry

toh fta amicot th a gngo me cng, dnokn wt eyre thwhe usisotul emacth bl. trp s t lk autn eees heoenowa tbe cle trp ce. rn'ba.bi, hr op cli iya ca a t te. ooe puics snd kehela ocrito tt wt pps re wk r ews roh at pps isee mssnl:e pe mdaor esy erwi baeang t hse cmieewh pele wl ve lt d fil pouny me y ans t listi. treilnod bepeamdmtsn e oo --ry single of the member

number of the house will take a long time. situation they saw to have control over what would happen. we do not know what will be in the manager's amendment. we heard congressman meadows say he would like to see changes. essential health benefits are the minimum standards the affordable care act requires an insurance company to have to call something health insurance. things like prenatal care, making sure emergency room along withcovered, of things that are basic requirements. conservatives say is easier to offer a lower-priced health canada does not offer something some but he does not need. but then you are offering people coverage that does not cover anything. >> they say we can cover premiums if we get rid of essential benefits. if it passes the house, then what? mr. cusack: then it is in the

senator's hands. they said it would be better for this never to be signed into law because you are taking a current -- taking away current benefits from people. they say the medicare beneficiaries now do not have to worry about it, it is for future ones. these are for future benefits, it is a problem. the senate would have to come up with a different type of bill. can they merge them and get them to trump's desk in april? i do not think so. it is an uphill battle. a can be done but the odds are against it. >> bob >> we talked more about the republican health plan on washington journal this morning. stages out by the airport. stages film industry here in 1980s. host: joining us from kansas