camp and baldwin, so many senators like mccaskill and donald, like senator hassan. have been talking about the opioid crisis for a long time and their hard work has now produced the dollars that will give the treatment that so many who are addicted need and the infra structure to prevent these bad drugs, particularly fentanyl, from coming into this country. mr. president, my guest at the state of the union was a woman named stephanie keenan from putnam county. she was a brave mother of a veteran, the veteran got hooked on opioids in the depths of ptsd. he waited 16 months for his first appointment at the v.a. died of an overdose two weeks before he could get treatment. stephanie keenan has been fighting for this. she's a brave -- mr. shah: good afternoon, everyone. i want to start with a

statement, then we'll take your questions. our normal policy, consistent with the policies of past administrations, is to not comment on background checks and security clearances. given the unusual nature of these circumstances, when a number of false reports floating around, we wanted to try to explain as best we can within our security limitations how the background investigation process works and then talk a little bit about rob porter and how the -- how his situation fits within that process. background investigation process is a process for evaluating allegations about a white house staffer's conduct prior to joining the white house. it's run by the federal law enforcement and intelligence communities. it's used throughout the u.s. government, it's thorough, it's complex, and it takes time. it takes time because we want to get it right. it's also costly but it's absolutely worth it. over the course of any

investigation, some information may arise that seems troubling or complicated and requires additional investigating. it's important to allow that process to continue in order for a fulsome understanding of the information. the whole u.s. government takes this process seriously. it's not politicized or interfered with. but we do not -- but we do push for -- we do push to obtain accurate, fulsome information, as quickly as possible. let me talk about rob porter. the allegations made against rob porter, as we understand them, involve incidents long before he joined the white house. therefore they are best evaluated through the background check process. it's important to remember that rob porter has repeatedly denied these allegations and done so publicly. that doesn't change how serious and disturbing these allegations are. they're upsetting. and the background check investigates both the allegations and the denials.

the investigation does not stop when allegations come to light. it continues to determine the truth. we should not short circuit an investigation just because allegations are made, unless they could compromise national security or interfere with operations at the white house. the truth must be determined. and that was what was going on with rob porter. his background investigation was ongoing. he was operating an -- on an interim security clearance. his clearance was never denied and he resigned. to summarize, the allegations against rob porter are serious and deeply troubling. he did deny them. the incidents took place long before he joined the white house. therefore they were investigated as part of the background check. as this process is meant for such allegations. it was not completed and rob porter has since resigned. during his time at the white house, rob received no waivers

and no special treatment. and this is the tried and true process. it was followed meticulously. we hope to explain how seriously these matters are taken and how the process works to investigate such allegations. with that, i'll take your questions. >> can you tell us when the white house first became aware of the allegations? mr. shah: there's been some reports about the chief of staff. he became fully aware about these allegations yesterday. i'm not going to get into the specifics. they were all part of a background check investigation. reporter: you say fully aware, was he partially aware? mr. shah: i think we were ail aware of the news reports wednesday morning. reporter: did he know any of this back in november? mr. shah: i'm not going to get into specifics. reporter: the statement changed

fromkelly. what changed yesterday after the photograph in terms of new allegations? mr. shah: i think what i referenced, the reports had additional allegations, they had more information. reporter: you're saying the initial information was two former wives accused him of violence, physical and verbal abuse was not sufficient? mr. shah: there were a number of statements from the press secretary, from the chief of staff, and others that reflected the rob porter that we've come to know working here for over a year and the chief of staff for about the last six months. but the reports are troubling and i think the statement from wednesday night reflects the rob porter that we have seen in these news reports and credible allegations. reporter: what was so shocking that it changed? mr. shah: it's the full nature of the allegations, particularly the images. reporter: just answer one more thing. you talked about ethe fact that there weren't any concerns that could compromise national

security or interfere with operations here at the white house. we speck to one of porter's ex-wives who said she warned the f.b.i. that he could be susceptible to blackmail because of the allegations against him. reporter: i'm not going to get into the specifics of the investigation itself. i think that's a question for the f.b.i. and others. but this is -- this is the process the u.s. government across agencies and has existed over numerous administrations. reporter: i want to clarify what you're saying. are you saying the chief of staff of this white house had no idea rob porter's two ex-wives had domestic violence allegations against him when they made those claims to the f.b.i. that john kelly did not know that? how is that possible he did not know that? mr. shah: this is part of an ongoing investigation. we trust the background process. the chief of staff doesn't get detailed updates about what may or may not have been alleged. this is a process that involves thorough investigation. as i went through the process, it involves looking at in the

just accusations but de-niles. reporter: the white house said yesterday porter's leaving was a personal one, wasn't pressured to do so. would rob porter still be on the job had he not resigned? mr. shah: he was terminated yesterday. his last day was yesterday. i know he came in earlier today to clear out his stauf. reporter: but would he still be on the job? mr. shah: he offered his resignation, it was accepted. reporter: so in terms of the chief of staff's handling of all this. no regrets? mr. shah: i think the second statement that he sent out reflected his thoughts which is that these allegations are deeply troubling. they are shocking. and i think the first statement reflected, you know, the rob porter that we have known. reporter: let me ask you, if i can follow up on that, as you were coming out here yesterday, or sarah was coming out here yesterday, you were releasing a

statement from rob porter saying he took those photographs. that appears to be an acknowledgment that this abuse took place. that he helped document it. how can the white house chief of staff, how can the press secretary, how can this white house still be standing behind him when mr. porter appeared to be acknowledging that he had -- mr. shah: i think it's fair to say that we all could have done better over the last few hours, or last few days, in dealing with the situation. but you know, this is the rob porter that i and many others have dealt with, sarah dealt with, that other officials including the chief of staff had dealt with and the emerging reports were not reflective of the individual we had come to know. reporter: can i just one followup? reporter: did the president know rob was working on a temporary clearance? mr. shah: the president saw the news report on tuesday night and was informed on the resignation on wednesday. he was saddened by it. saddened for all the individuals

involved. reporter: other the last year is that something he was concerned about? mr. shah: he was not informed of the specifics regarding rob porter's security clearance. reporter: do you have any information on how many senior white house staffers are working on a temporary security clearance? mr. shah: i'm not going to g it further. reporter: when omarosa described the situation inside the white house as bad and said it's not going to be ok. mr. shah: not very seriously. she was fired three times on "the apprentice." this is the fourth time we let her go. she had limited contact with the president while here. she has no contact now. peter. reporter: you were told that rob porter was going to stay on a while and oversee a transition period. now you're telling us he was

terminated yesterday. what changed? mr. shah: i think that we have looked at the things that are necessary to ensure a smooth transition, there will be a new acting staff secretary that we can name later on. operations can continue smoothly. eporter: over the last week, they were seeking a limit on green ards. everyone is talk about illegal immigrants. these have been talk about legal immigrants. what are the decisions about this? mr. shah: i think the president wants to see legal immigration reform. wants to see us move from a process that currently exists in law of extended family, chain migration, toward herries-based immigration reforms. we want to ensure people coming into the country are the best and brightest, regardless of nationality, creed, religion, or anything else in between. we want to look at educational

background,able to contribute to the work force in a way that helps american workers. so the president wants to see reforms that improve america's economy. reporter: normally when you hire people you wait for the investigation to come back before hiring them? is the burden of proof not on the people seeking the job to prove they're qualified and don't have any skeletons in their closet? or do they get to come aboard and you wait and see? mr. shah: the process tends to be a little bit different with the white house because there's a lot of officials coming in with the new administration and a lot of individuals coming in have an interim clearance. reporter: also, what about women who don't have photographs? do you trust their stories? because a lot of times you haven't been at the podium but sarah said that allegations weren't credible from other people. do you need a photograph? and how should women feel if they don't have a photograph? mr. shah: we do take allegations

of misconduct, of domestic violence, other issues like that very seriously. we do -- we are very concerned about them. in this instance, in the case of rob porter, we relied on the background check investigative process. that sprose -- process hadn't been completed. we're relying on the information that we had. reporter: i have a few questions. you used the term fully aware. i don't understand what that means. what does that mean john kelly knew or didn't know? mr. shah: i know he hadn't seen images prior to his statement, the statement on tuesday night. reporter: but the allegations? did he know of some of the allegations? mr. shah: i'm not getting into the spovegs what may have emerged from the investigation. reporter: you used the term fully aware. mr. shah: i'm not going to get into every single specific. we relied on a proprocess. this is a process used throughout the u.s. government. it's a process used by every agency for an individual seeking

a security clearance. rob porter was never denied a security clearance. he was never given special treat. the process was on fwoing and we relied upon it. reporter: i have one on a different topic. on capitol hill, members and their staffs are saying that because the court case involving daca, the administration is accepting daca applications again they feel there's breathing room and that march 5 is no long they are edeadline. reporter: march 5 is the deadline. reporter: what's going to happen if they haven't done anything by then? if congress hasn't acted by march 5, what is going to happen? reporter: we fully expect congress to take action on the president's immigration reform framework. reporter: two questions. you said the president takes the issue of violence against women seriously. why did this administration close the violence against women office when he became president last year? did he -- defunded it and

everything. he shut down the women and girls office as well. mr. shah: i don't know specifically why those specific offices may have been closed. but look, i did talk to the president earlier today. he told me he was saddened by these reports and by the information he saw. by the image he is saw. we do take violence against women and these types of allegations very seriously. reporter: the interim security clearance. does that allow rob porter to be able to touch and see classified materials? reporter: it would, yes. -- mr. shah: it would, yes. reporter: i want to turn back to the spending deal going on. republican for years said there needs to be fiscal restraint. years and years. now we know the deficit for this fiscal year is going to reach $1 trillion. we've got the house freedom caucus saying about this deal, growing the size of government by 13% adds to the swamp instead

of draining it. this is not what the american people sent us to do. they're saying, some within their party are being hypocritical. is the president concerned about all this spending? and what exactly is your plan to pay for it? mr. shah: he is concerned about spending in washington. he's expressed that for years. let me just say off the bat, we do support the two-year spending bill that is being discussed and voted on in the house and senate. it lifts the caps on defense spending, which is something that the secretary of defense, the president's generals, have told him they need to ensure that we rebuild our military and protect our national security. with respect to deficits, we're going to be releasing a budget on monday. the budget does move us toward a path of restoring fiscal responseability. it reduces our deficit by trillions of dollars. i'm not going to get more specific you guys will get more on monday. but it does incorporate budget cap, incorporates the tax bill, incorporates other priorities.

so we do think that budget will outline a path toward fiscal responsibility. >> you're still going to be running deficits at that point. now you've got this $300 billion , so it just economic growth? mr. shah: exick growth is essential to cutting deficits and to restoring fiscal responsibility. again, the budget will outline a lot more destale. reporter: what can you tell us about the involvement of the white house communications director at your office yesterday, among them you asked the statement sarah red read from the podium which rob porter calls the allegations against him vile and outrageous. what can you tell us about the extent to which the communications director was involved in tracking those? mr. shah: i would say all the statements were crafted by a number of senior white house officials. reporter: one more question. you have repeatedly referred to the denials rob porter issued. how much weight were those denials given by the white

house? mr. shah: i think you have to take allegations seriously, you have to take denials seriously. the statements reflected our experience with rob porter and other officials' experience with rob porter. looking at more of the reporting and more facts emerge you saw the chief of staff's statement and the white house kid accept his resignation. reporter: a couple more questions about the issue. can you -- it sounds like you say the investigation is ongoing? mr. shah: i don't think, now that he's been terminated i don't think it continues. i can get back to you on the specifics. reporter: what i was going to ask you, could you elaborate more specifically on the first time anyone mentioned this to the president, when, you know -- mr. shah: i know that any issues regarding his security clearance weren't made available to the president prior to tuesday. reporter: hang on a second, please. so i guess -- does the president retain full confidence in the

chief of staff and the white house counsel and his communications director? mr. shah: yes, absolutely. the president has confidence. reporter: if i may, quickly. as i understand it, and notwithstanding whatever the budget is going to say, the u.s. is going to have to borrow more than $1 trillion this year, that could affect markets globely. does the president feel confident that that's still the right thing to do? is it mitigated in the budget plans? mr. shah: some of those numbers have more to do with the previous administration's accounting than it has to do with this administration's policies but i would say we are committed to fiscal discipline and the budget next week will show that in greater detail. >> back to mr. porter. if i understood your description of the background check process correctly, the fact -- the two

ex-wives had made statements to the f.b.i. about alleged abuse during that investigation was not a disqualifying factor in his initial hiring. does the white house regret that? and going forward do you plan to change the way you consider allegations of domestic abuse? mr. shah: again, understand that the background investigation was not completed. there was no determination made about rob porter's security compleerns. there was not a thumbs up or thumbs down. there was no denial of security clearance. he was operating off an interim clearance. that's the clearance that many individual who was never had a security clearance would get when they first come to the white house. with respect to allegations made, again, every allegation has to be investigated, any denial has to be thoroughly and fully investigated. we allow that process to play out. reporter: first you said the

president wasn't aware of mr. porter's security clearance status but when was the president aware of the allegations of abuse? mr. shah: on tuesday night when there was a report issued. reporter: and secondly you had said that rob porter was terminated twice in this briefing. is the white house saying that mr. porter was fired? mr. shah: i just mean the process by which your employment status ends is termination. reporter: and the last thing on that is, you said that there are things this white house could have done better with respect to this. could you please detail that? what could the white house have done better? mr. shah: i'm not going to get into a ticktock and all the detailed specifics. i think a lot of individuals were involved with bewhite house response to this. a lot of us could have done etter. reporter: rob porter was not fired by the trump administration? mr. shah: rere-- he resigned and we send his resignation.

reporter: you say the president was saddened. can you give us a better idea of concerns the president had. this is a gentleman who was in the oval office, close to the president, numerous times throughout the first year of the administration. what did the president specifically have to say? mr. shah: he was surprised he, like many of us, did not see that in rob porter. did not see what these allegations have brought forward. so he was surprised by it. he was disheart vend by it, he s saddened by it. reporter: is there a timeline, has the president made a decision and where does the review process stand? mr. shah: the review process is ongoing. we are using the same standards and process by which the republican drafted memo that was voted out of the house intelligence committee. it's going through both a legal and national security review. the president -- i think we previously mentioned the president was briefed by the

deputy attorney general the other day. when we have more information we will make that available. reporter: thank you, raj. two brief questions. first, can you roughly say, are there a lot of other people, highest levels in the white house, operating under a temporary security badge? mr. shah: i can't get into that. reporter: very question simply, will there be further resignations by friday or over the weekend? mr. shah: i have no personal knowledge. reporter: the dow is off about 1,000 points or more. can you give us the president's reaction to the stock market volatility and will the white house view the stock market as a barometer? mr. shah: well, the president is concerned about the long-term indicators and factors. and numbers long term are strong. again, unemployment and the labor market is strong. unemployment is 4.1%. we saw wages rise on friday for

the first time -- not for the first time but at a measurable level for the first time in eight years, nine years. and corporate earnings are high. and we believe these long-term fundamentals demonstrate a healthy economy. reporter: thank you. there have been reports president trump is asking for preemptive military options for north korea amid some concerns from some pentagon officials. secretary mattis said they are in the diplomatic lane. has president trump asked for preempted military options and what about the expressions by victor cha and by others this will lead to catastrophic casualties? mr. shah: first, we don't telegraph and the president doesn't telegraph his potential actions but our strategy with respect to north korea, denuclearization. it's to provide as much economic and political pressure on that regime so it would end

its nuclear program and we had a considerable amount of success over the last year pursuing that strategy. we had dozens of countries reduce economic or -- economic or diplomatic ties to north korea. trade with north korea, with countries in the region have been reduced. we continue to apply as much pressure, maximum pressure on the regime and as the secretary of defense said, we keep all options on the table but the ath is diplomatic. [inaudible] mr. shah: i'll get to you in a second, kelly. reporter: [inaudible] i wonder if you could give us an idea of the president's involvement in this and whether you have any indication there were any russian personnel involved in the strike against -- the attack? mr. shah: well, the president was involved and briefed. i don't know the answer on russian engagement but i'll get

back to you on that. kelly. reporter: when you consider the porter matter now, do you think there were personal feelings, relationships in the white house, collegial and friendship relationships that caused judgment on how this would handle? mr. shah: i point you to a number of statements that indicate white house was prepared to defend rob porter based on initial accusations that we heard and his denial and that was based on our experiences with rob porter. so to answer your question, i think the initial response is based upon that. reporter: did any recuse themselves from participating? mr. shah: the communications director did recuse herself from some matters. reporter: i want to take you mails.o the reports of e at the podium sarah said those

texts are political bias. now, everyone has opinions. so the -- view the administration that persons who are not fans of the president should not be allowed to investigate him? and also, can you point to any evidence other than the text messages that the investigation was conducted by people who were biased other than these texts? was there anything -- [inaudible] mr. shah: look, you bring up political bias at the f.b.i. and department of justice. and this predates this investigation. there are a number of issues regarding how the hillary clinton email investigation was handled by the former f.b.i. director. now the f.b.i. raised questions. when it comes to the text messages that you reference, that's not the considered judgment of the president or others, but it is the judgment

of the special counsel who had them removed from the case because specifically citing political bias. there are a number of issues. there's a department of justice inspector general report that we heard about that will look into this issue further. i any last question. go ahead. reporter: thank you, raj. two questions. first, president trump and a meeting. president trump said they will discuss china and other areas. can you tell us more about our meeting? mr. shah: i think we will have more information later on. last question. reporter: is -- will the vice president or ivanka trump meet with kim jong un's sister? mr. shah: there are no meetings scheduled. reporter: what about the chemical attack in syria? mr. shah: i will have to get back to you on this one.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org] >> and the deputy press secretary saying the president supporting the budget deal announced yesterday by senator schumer and mcconnell. broadening the budget, expanding those budget caps by $300 billion. that measure will be included as an amendment to the senate consideration of the continuing resolution. the short-term measure that would fund the federal government through march 23 with the current measure set to expire tonight at midnight. now, the house is gaveling back in at 4:15 eastern. they will vote on a couple of bills debated earlier. then we expect them to gavel out until the senate finishes their work. waiting for the senate to act. while we wait for the house to come in we'll show you part of this morning's briefing with house democrats.

>> good afternoon, everyone. mr. cicilline: i'm congressman david cicilline from rhode island and proud to be with cheri bustos and hakeem jeffries. last july democrats launched a bold economic agenda focused on better jobs, better wages for a better future. central to that plan will create good paying jobs by rebuilding our country. we're here today to announce a better deal to rebuild america. the democratic plan to directly invest $1 trillion to rebuild our nation's crumbling infrastructure and create more than 10 million good-paying jobs. in the 20th century america's ingenuity and serious commitment had the best infrastructure imaginable helped propel our economy, created good jobs and made our

infrastructure the envy of the world. today, that's no longer the case. our infrastructure ranks behind countries like singapore and the united arab emirates, according to the world economic forum, and according to a report by the american civil engineers, an estimated 56,000 of america's bridges are structurely deficient. but the american people don't need these reports to tell them what they already know about the conditions of our roads, bridges, rail systems, schools and airports. they experience it every day stuck in traffic, airports, disrupted in their rail travel, paying high energy costs, worrying about unsafe water and their kids being forced to be in schools that are old, crumbling and even unsafe. that's why today democrats are announcing a bold, compressive plan to address this issue and make it a national priority. the infrastructure is impeding our opportunities for economic

growth, raising costs on families and creating unsafe conditions for some americans. the federal government is a necessary partner in this effort to rebuild our country. it's not enough to punt this to the private sector as the president wants. rebuilding our country will require a serious smart investment of real federal resources to get this done. and this means specifically repairing roads and bridges to reduce bottle neck traffic and problems that not only make people late for work but slow commerce. building a mornede and efficient aviation so americans arrive at their final destination safely and on time. ensuring our passenger railroads and high speed rail systems are safer and convenient for passengers and have less disruptions. and reducing the number of power failures by improving and modernizing our aging energy structure so it's secure, sufficient and resilient. protecting public health by ensuring every community has access to safe, clean water.

rebuilding and modernizing our public schools so every child in this country has the opportunity to be in a safe, healthy and modern learning environment. and bridging the rural-urban divide when it comes to high speed broadband so we can unlock every potential of every community and all rural areas can attract new employers, improve health care outcomes and help students achieve. it's achieving all of these objectives while maintaining critical worker protections, safeguarding our air and water and investing in stronger, more resilient infrastructure to withstand rising sea levels and a changing climate. i want to reiterate. this is a serious, realistic plan that reflects years of work by six congressional committees and key stakeholders. all of the key ranking members have been part of this process. i'll end by reminding people, a better deal to rebuild america is five times the size of the commitment that president trump will propose next week. the american people deserve a real plan to rebuild our

country and that's what we're committed to delivering and i'm delighted now to ask the ranking member of the transportation and infrastructure committee, congressman peter defazio of oregon, to come forward. mr. defazio: thanks, david. well, the republicans lack a sense of history in terms of dealing with our infrastructure. what they want to do is deinvolve the obligation to -- devolve the obligation to build a coordinated transportation system to the states and the cities. now, they forget history. this is a photograph from "life" magazine. this is 1956. this is the brand new kansas turnpike. now you see this odd black area here. that's a farm field. this happens to be the oklahoma border. when kansas started their project, oklahoma said, oh, yeah, we'll build it too. they said, god, sorry, we have some economic problems here.

we can't build it. so for several years they build a big wooden barrier. amos had to toe people out of his field. this went on for three years until dwight d. eisenhower said we will have funded -- by user fee -- a funded national transportation network. and that is what we've been doing for, you know, for some 70 years. now, they're breaking face with that. congress has broken faith when they took over congress. we have not increased the user fees since 1993 when bill clinton was president of the united states and democrats controlled the congress. we were about $80 billion short when we passed the last transportation bill which was status quo funding. they borrowed $80 billion -- or made up -- pretended they had pay-fors and now out of this white house they're saying, well, we're going to come up with $200 million by --

probably by cutting amtrak and transit spending. i said you're forgetting history. john micah said we'll defund amtrak and kill off these transit programs. he got his head handed to him. this administration too. this is a fake -- >> house democratic leaders earlier. votes on a couple bills debated earlier. we don't expect them to be in very long. live coverage on c-span. to the peissn and in clause -f rof rulesoff the u.s. representaves, the cle receivedowing messag e secretary of the senate febary 8, 20 at 2:4 p.m. appointment toational cocil on disility,igned sincerel kar las e spketempor the unfinished bs ie vot on pas of h.