is a fair discussion. i want to ask your guest to comment on that, please. host: thanks for the question, sue. mr. coy. guest: it sounds like we are on the same wavelength. i'd rather pay $40% on $4 million than 10% on $40,000 or whatever the number is. caller: hi. i'd like to remind mr. coy and the other listeners in 1984 ronald reagan commissioned the grace commission and they investigated the income tax. the conclusion was not one penny that you, i, anybody pays in the federal income tax pays the government. it pays the government's interest that they borrow from the privately -- sarah: good afternoon. missed you guys. under president trump's leadership, the united states economy is growing at record

levels, putting the president in a strong position to fix long standing trade concerns with china. on thursday the president will meet with the chinese vice premiere who is here this week for continued talks. president trump is committed to achieving greater market access for u.s. exports and better treatment for our farmers, ranchers, and businesses. fair and reciprocal trade with china will boost long-term economic growth not only in the united states but globally. as the president said last week, the united states proudly stands with the people of venezuela who have courageously spoken out against the corrupt and illegitimate regime of nicholas maduro. maduro must do what's right and allow for free, fair, and credible elections in accordance with democratic principles. to speak more about u.s. policy towards venezuela and to take your questions, i'd like to welcome to the podium national security advisor john bolton, secretary of the treasury steven mnuchin and director of the national economic council larry kudlow.

with that i'll take questions today. mr. bolton: thank you, sarah. on january 23 president trump officially recognized the president of the venezuelan national assembly, juan, as the interim president of venezuela. venezuela's national assembly invoked article 233 of the country's constitution to declare nikola maduro illegitimate. -- nicholas maduro illegitimate. this is a statement that the people venezuela have had enough of corruption, economic hardship. since then 21 other governments in the region and across the world had joined the united ates in recognizing guado as venezuela's interim president. today -- and i'll turn the podium over to steven mnuchin for this purpose -- we will avasa, sanctions paid

the state-owned oil monopoly. we have continued to expose the corruption of maduro and his cronies and today's action ensures that they can no longer loot the assets of the venezuelan people. we expect and secretary mnuchin will go into this in more detail that today's measure totals $7 billion in assets blocked today plus over $11 billion in lost export proceeds over the next year. we also today call on the venezuelan military and security forces to accept the peaceful, democratic and constitutional transfer of power and to a certain extent this has already begun. we've seen venezuelan official and military personnel heeding this call. the venezuelan defense atasha here in washington recognized guaido.

and the consulate in miami, scarlett salazar, has also called for interim president guaido. i call on all responsible nations to recognize interim president guaido immediately. maduro said he would not recognize guaido or call for new elections. now is time to stand for the prosperity of venezuela. i reiterate the united states will hold venezuelan security forces responsible for the safety of all u.s. diplomatic personnel, the national assembly and president guaido. this would signify a grave assault on the rule of law and will be met with a significant response. now, let me give the floor to steven mnuchin who will describe the sanctions we're imposing. secretary mnuchin: thank you. today treasury took action

against venezuela's state owned oil company to help prevent the further diversion of venezuela's assets by former president maduro. the united states is holding accountable those responsible for venezuela's tragic decline. we will continue to use all of our diplomatic and economic tools to support interim president guaido, the national assembly and the venezuelan people's efforts to restore democracy. it is used for corruption, for venezuelan officials and businessman. will s sanctions of pdvsa preserve these assets for the people of venezuela where they belong. the path to sanctions relife for pdvsa is through the expeditious transfer of control to the interim president, or a

subsequent democraticcally elected government. who is committed to -- democratcally elected government who is committed to taking concrete actions to combat corruption. today's actions against pdvsa follows my determination that persons operating in the venezuelan oil sector may now be subject to sanctions. today ofec had general licenses that offers certain transactions with pdvsa for limited periods of time to eliminate any discorruptions or support of ongoing humanitarian efforts. citgo assets in the united states will be able to continue to operate provided that any funds that would otherwise go to pdvsa will go to blocked accounts in the united states. refineries in the united states have already been taking steps to reduce the reliance on imports from venezuela. those imports have fallen

substantially in recent months. we have also issued general licenses to ensure certain european and caribbean countries can make an orderly ransition. we call on our partners in recognizing interim president guaido and blocking maduro in blocking pdvsa funds. thank you and i had eab happy to answer any questions. reporter: ambassador bolton, you said significant response. how do you define significant response? mr. bolton: we won't define it because we want the security forces to know how strongly we think president guaido, the opposition, most importantly american personnel are not harmed. this is an unequivocal statement on our part. reporter: is there any circumstance underwent american forces would get involved? mr. bolton: the president has made it clear that all options are on the table.

reporter: you say there are actions taken to mitigate the oil market. can you walk us through those and explain how u.s. oil imports will be affected, what will happen with the money and here you think that will impact the economy? secretary mnuchin: sure. effective immediately any purchases of venezuelan oil by u.s. entities, money will have to go into blocked accounts. now, i've been in touch with many of the refineries. there is a significant amount of oil that's at sea that's already been paid for. that oil will continue to come to the united states. the people in venezuela want to continue to sell us oil, as long as that money goes into blocked accounts we'll continue to take it. otherwise we will not be buying it. again, we have issued general licenses so the refineries in the united states can continue

to operate. so i expect in the short term very modest impacts on the u.s. refineries. we've been working with them closely on these issues. reporter: what will happen here in advance? are they hearing this for the first time right now? secretary mnuchin: they are hearing about this now. i generally say we have obviously we made a press release recently. i think we've indicated certain things so we have not disclosed anybody these sanctions in advance. but i think a lot of people have been preparing for this over the last month. reporter: well blocked accounts, what will be the mechanism or timeline if there is this peaceful transfer of government? how will the money go from the blocked accounts back? will juan guaido will be the one to take it back, receive it back if he's put into power? secretary mnuchin: let me just comment in general as we said in the past, the purpose of sanctions is to change behavior. so when there is a recognition

that pdvsa is the property of, the rightful rulers, rightful leaders, the president, then in deed that money will be available to g -- indeed that money will be available to guaido. we will be working with them. reporter: can you explain to the country what the strategic interest the united states are in venezuela now and its immediate future? what's at stake for us and why the significant response? mr. bolton: we think it's in the direct national interest of the united states right now. under the chavez, maduro government, civil society in venezuela is disintegrating. the economy is in the state of collapse. something in the range of three million to four million refugees have already fled the country to neighboring countries and the united states and the authoritarian regime of chavez and maduro has allowed

penetration by adversaries of the united states, not least of which is cuba. some call the country now cuba zuela. we think that's a strategic significant threat to the united states and there are others as well including iran's interest in venezuelan's uranium deposits. secretary mnuchin: let me just comment. this is a country very rich in oil resources. there's no reason why these resources shouldn't be used for the economic benefit of the people there. there's no reason for the poverty and the starvation and the humanitarian crisis. reporter: can i ask both of you -- the united states has talked a lot about a potential embargo on sales of oil and also stopping selling of oil products to venezuela. why haven't those been considered yet? secretary mnuchin: will thereby part of this limitations on

selling oil products as part of the sanctions. with regards to an embargo, we won't make any comment on that today. we don't comment on future actions. reporter: thank you, mr. secretary. mr. maduro seemed to anticipate the action you announced today in the briefing room. he warned citgo is the property of the venezuelan state. and he further said we are the only ones who can decide its fate. what is your response to mr. maduro? secretary mnuchin: the property of the venezuelan people and the proper and rightful leaders of the country. so we agree with that. he's not the proper leader of the country at this time. i said these are valuable assets that we are protecting for the benefit of the venezuelan people. reporter: on the question about the impact of the market. what will american drivers seem to know about the price of the pump if at all? secretary mnuchin: there has been a big reduction in the overall price of oil.

and particularly since we instituted the iran sanctions, i think you know we've been very careful in making sure these costs don't impact the american consumer. gas prices are almost as low as they've been in a very long period of time. these refineries impact a specific part of the country, and i think as you said, we're very comfortable that they have enough supply that we don't expect any big impact in the short term. reporter: does it embolden your position? do you feel the united states is able to take these measures because of the low gas prices? will it increase the united states leverage in the debate? secretary mnuchin: whether it's the case of iran or here, to use sanctions, to use them in the right way. and we're very comfortable that we coordinated with the department of energy and other people on this mechanism. reporter: thank you, mr. secretary. there have been reports that there is an estimated 25,000 cuban troops in venezuela,

troops with the secret police, which is a clear violation of the o.a.s. charter about troops of another country in a sovereign nation. will the united states raise a complaint if nothing else with the havana regime? mr. bolton: as you know secretary of state pompeo discussed the o.a.s. general assembly a few days ago. we expect more in the coming days. because as both secretary mnuchin and i said, we know what the legitimate government of venezuela is. and it's our mission now to make a full reality in venezuela. what the people of venezuela themselves want. reporter: do you have -- indiscernible] reporter: if you don't mind turning your attention to the talks, the talks with china.

in your opinion, where does all that stand right now? are you comfortable with progress that's been made in the last couple weeks, larry kudlow said talks over the next couple days will be -- is that your assessment? secretary mnuchin: i think we had talks between the two presidents which is an important time. e sent a team over to beijing. there were very significant discussions over that period of time. we had conversations since then. ambassador lighthizer and i are looking forward to the two days of talks. the president will meet with the vice premiere. we have another 30 days after this. so my expectation is we'll make significant progress at these meetings but i would just emp size these are -- emphasized these are complicated issues. reporter: how much progress has been made in the last month if you can characterize?

secretary mnuchin: i would comment there's significant movement and we're working through what are still very complicated issues. reporter: mr. secretary, i want to go back to gas prices. can you qualify and quantify -- i understand you say gas prices are low now. in the midst of this, with all that's happening with venezuela, how long do you believe the gas prices will move us to a modest impact on the oil industry? can you quantify by how much? by cents, tens of cents or even by dollars, what's the modest impact? secretary mnuchin: let me comment in general i said this before. markets are not always efficient. they move in different directions. i want to be careful not speculating on markets. oil went up a lot right before the iran sanctions. we were surprised that it went up so much. i think you know president trump had been on the phone with many world leaders in making sure there is ample

supply. prices came down. the u.s. is a big exporter of oil, so there's a balance here. i think where oil prices are now reflect the supply and demand in the market and as i said, we're dealing with venezuelan oil that is a rather modest part of our overall supply. again, we're a net exporter of energy. we are particularly concerned that there were a handful of refineries that had a dependence on venezuelan oil. i think they read the tea leaves. they reduced that dependence significantly along the way. most of them have in the neighborhood of 10% or less of their dependent on venezuelan oil. so i don't expect that people will see an impact on the gas pumps. reporter: you talked about the [indiscernible] secretary mnuchin: i won't get into all the specifics of the different oil markets but let me just say most of the refineries, this is about 10% or less.

there's plenty of supply at sea that's already been paid for. so there's inventories. there's been excess oil. i'm sure many of our friends in the middle east will be happy to make up the supply as we push down venezuela's supply. but let me again just emphasize, the right outcome is a transition for pdvsa. the right outcome for the venezuelan people is to have these companies rebuilt and make sure they depet out of poverty. it's a complete tragedy to have the humanitarian crisis in a country that has very rich resources. reporter: mr. secretary -- ambassador -- >> you can go next. reporter: on china, if you would just address the -- what you believe -- we heard the word enforcement quite a bit being a priority for the administration. secretary mnuchin: enforcement will be one of the topics that

ambassador lighthizer and i will have on the agenda. it's obvious but we want to make sure we expect when we get a deal that that deal will be enforced. and i would say in the conversations we had previously with them, there's been an acknowledgment with china that they understand that. now, the details of how we do that are very complicated. that needs to be negotiated. but i.p. protection, no more forced joint ventures. and the enforcement are three of the most important issues on he agenda. >> can you start that over again? reporter: has the president spoken with president guaido? can you summarize that conversation? how safe does the president believes our diplomats are? mr. bolton: there was a conversation the night before we granted recognition.

he'll be meeting with interim president guaido's ambassador here in the near future. in terms of american official personnel, it's been an absolute top priority for the president, vice president, secretary pompeo and myself. we have drawn down significantly personnel at the embassy, all dependent personnel are gone. we believe we are now prepared, as prepared as we can be. we are re-evaluating the safety conditions at all times. it's why we said we presented credentials to interim president guaido. we recognize him as the legitimate president. he asked us to stafmente we made very clear to what's left of the maduro regime that we hold them responsible and we take their commitment to do that very seriously. reporter: what is your assessment of the relationship between maduro and his military?

do you support is fracturing? do you believe the russians are playing any kind of role in trying to support the military? mr. bolton: our assessment based on numerous contacts on the ground is the rank and file of the military is acutely aware of the desperate economic conditions in the country. and we think they look for ways to support the national assembly government. we think the junior officer ranks and the mid-level officer ranks are the same. and we are also aware of significant contacts between general officers of the venezuelan military and supporters of the national assembly. so you may have seen a statement last week by the defense minister vladimir padrino,ing flanked by a number of officers, they didn't know how many were talking to the national assembly. >> we'll take one more here. reporter: do we have a timeline to reassess whether or not the

sanctions are working and what the next step will be? is there a timeline in place? can you speak to the administration's critics who say since the government shutdown and the administration is in disarray? secretary mnuchin: let me first say on sanctions we always evaluate sanctions continuously. both existing sanctions as well as future sanctions. so we will carefully be looking at the effectiveness of these and whether we need additional sanctions. now, i would just tell you speaking for treasury, i want to thank all the large number of government workers who came in. i will tell you as it relates to specifically the sanctions area, people have been working round the clock and we couldn't have gotten this done without the enormous support of all the people who came in. quite the contrary. we weren't in disarray. again, i want to thank all the important people who helped out on this. sarah: very briefly, i am going to have larry kudlow come up, give a quick economic update

and i will be back for the rest of the questions. mr. kudlow: i just say as i have for a while i think the economy is very strong. i know there's disagreements. i think as the numbers shake out, commerce department is reopening, we will get a g.d.p. report probably next week. we'll get a jobs report this friday. so that will work out. based on things we talked about here, unemployment claims are low. industrial production is strong. business investment is strong. holiday sales very strong. i still think we are on a 3% trend line growth rate. i'm proud of that. i think that the program of lower tax rates and regulatory rollback and opening up energy and so forth is working and is continuing to work. and i think, frankly, the optimists, the guys who took it over will be right. yes, major. reporter: do you consider valid the estimates that the shutdown

cost the u.s. government $8 billion to $11 billion? mr. kudlow: i think you're referring to c.b.o. numbers. we disagree with c.b.o. with all respect they are doing the best job they can. i get that. no, i won't acknowledge any of that right now. and, you know, in a $20 trillion economy, it's awfully hard to make even the best guesstimates of those kind of small fraction of numbers. let's see how it rolls out. we'll get a g.d.p. report in about a week for q-4. it will take longer for the first quarter. as i said many times, i think you have just a whole bunch of very temporary factors and now that the government has reopened, the switch goes right back on. there's certainly no permanent damage to the economy. again, with the greatest respect of my friends at c.b.o. who often disagree with us and

don't like the pro-growth tax cuts, no i don't agree. reporter: from your economic perspective, how disruptive was this, not at all? mr. kudlow: look, the hardships for individuals was always the key problem here, in my judgment. and steve mnuchin said and others, i'm glad we're back to work. i'm glad all the federal employees, i'm glad all the people furloughed, t.s.a., go right down the line, i think those individual hardships were the biggest issue and i think everybody's glad we can reopen and put folks back to work. regarding the macroeconomy, major, i don't think it was a factor. i just don't. reporter: larry, if the negotiations do not bear fruit and the government shuts down again, a lengthy shutdown, reopening, another shutdown, could that compound any economic effect or hardship effect on these federal employees? mr. kudlow: i just don't want to speculate what-ifs.

we have a process. i don't want to speculate on the what-ifs. again, the state of the economy, to me, my colleagues, kevin, and so forth, looks very strong. i don't think that was disruptive. i don't. i know things have been written and there are individual hardship cases. i repeat that. in the aggregate, the numbers we saw, low unemployment claims, unbelievably strong, retail sales, the industrial production number from the federal reserve where business equipment went up for the seventh straight month, just a scattered look at all those kind of data points suggest to us we're still in a very strong mode right now. i use the 3% as our longer term view. i also think it's going to pan out in the short run. so we will see. yes. reporter: the chinese talks this week, is it possible we will see the framework for a deal emerge? mr. kudlow: i don't want to say

that. secretary mnuchin is correct. i don't want to make any predictions on that. these are very difficult, very, very important. the only comment i'll make -- and i said this before -- the scope of these talks will be the broadest and deepest in u.s.-china history. we never had anything this comprehensive. and i regard that as a big plus. how these things are worked out, we'll have to wait and see. the president has expressed some, i would say, guarded optimism, about the talks. the premiere is coming with his top people and that's important and our top people will be negotiating but it's encouraging to me that everything is on the table. i know that's a cliche in other areas, but in trade talks it is too. having said that, i want to reiterate -- i don't know whose point it was -- enforcement issues are important. i know ambassador lighthizer has said that in the key part

of this discussion. yes. reporter: contractors that were furloughed, are they getting back pay? mr. kudlow: some of them do. i think the defense related ones will. i am not an expert on that. i'd have to go and check that. i'd have to take a i honestly don't know. reporter: i want to get back to the c.b.o. they looked at projections over the next decade and said the diff sit for fiscal year 2019 would be $29 billion, and $22 trillion year after year after year after that. they say it is simply unsustainable, the path we're on. does the white house agree with that? and if it is unsustainable, is the white house planning to do anything to change it? r. kudlow: we have a

fundamental difference about that growth factor is the single biggest factors in these. they have had a low greth estimate on trump taxes and deregulation, we had a much higher one, about a one percentage point differential, we're at three, they're at two, more or less. so the differential over 10 years is significant, could be as much as $3.5 trillion. and deficit reduction if we're right. all i'm saying is that in the first two years of the trump administration is our view has essentially been correct and their pessimistic view has not been correct. again, i'm not here to rail on against c.b.o. they have a point of view. we have a different point of view. they're professionals and i respect that. that's the single biggest difference. i would say one other matter. we anticipate a very strong, tough budget coming out to hold down spending, the president has

talked about this, at least 5% reduction in nondefense accounts across the board. and i think that's going to help. and then finally my own view has always been economic growth is absolutely esen torble reducing the deficit share of g.d.p. which is the burden on the economy. and if you look at our numbers, which are moving somewhat but not enormously, we anticipate a much lower deficit share of g.d.p. and that's probably nother reason we disagree. reporter: in video they said the slowdown in demand in china is negatively impacting their businesses. is the administration worried they're putting too much pressure on the chinese economy and that it could boomerang and impact the u.s. economy that a slowdown there could cause a slowdown here? trade low: the kind of

openings we're talking about are pro growth, every one of them. if the trade negotiations turn lower tively insoferse barriers, let's say and much better treatment of private property rights and as steve me knew chin said before, ending the force transfer of technology, things like that. we will export, i believe this strongly, the united states, give our people the chance to sell to china, we'll export a ton. our export sales will roar. roar. and it will be much greater. they open their markets. that's going to help china's economy and it will help our economy. i've always believed that. the question is fairness and reciprocity spreads and amplifies, i completely agree. it's also a matter of economic growth. lower barriers, nine states, -- the united states, in my

judgment is the most competitive economy in the world today. we are the hottest economy and the most competitive economy, the davos survey pushed us back to the number one spot, i'm proud of that the china talks, what's at stake here, i think is the possibility of spreading prosperity, frankly, in both countries. along with the need to make, you know, legal reforms and reciprocal reforms. we've got time for one more? reporter: you talked a moment ago about hardships. at the end of three weeks, february 14, february 15, will you counsel the president not to shut the government down again? mr. kudlow: wropt to make any comments on that. we will see what happens. as i said before, there is a process. we'll see if it works. not my place. thank you. ppreciate very much.

sarah: tough group to follow, i'll give it my best shot. john, go ahead. reporter: is the president really willing to go through another shutdown if he can't get money from the democratters in border wall? sarah: the president doesn't want to go through another shutdown. that's not the goal. the goal is border security. and protect -- protecting the american people. ideally democrats would take these next three weeks to negotiate in good faith as they've indicated that they would and come up with a deal that makes sense, that actually fixes the problem so we don't have to go through that process. reporter: what about those like republican rob portman and others who say the shutdown should be taken off the table. if they've introduced a law that says shutdowns are off the table. would the president sign that?

sarah: i haven't seen a piece of legislation but the president is committed to fixing the problem and it's pretty simple. we have three weeks to work with democrats as the president has indicated on a number of cases, they could get this done in 15 minutes. we agree on the fundamentals that border security is important. we agree that last problem and we should do something about it. let's spend time over the next three weeks, let's get it done. the president has opened the government on the basis that democrats have signaled to us that they're willing to actually get serious about a real deal and get serious about fixing the problem at the border including funding for a border wall. reporter: what about proposals and concessions he made in his speech, are those on the table? sarah: i'm not going to comment on that, they have to work through that, the president has laid out things in the past that he's willing to do, we'll see what they come back with.

if they don't come back with a deal the democrats get virtually nothing that will make the president and force him to are have to take executive action that doesn't give tchems things they want. s that perfect time and the table has been perfectly set by the president in order for a good deal 20 come together where everybody gets a little bit of something they're looking for. josh. reporter: the president described illegal immigration as the biggest threat to taking american workers' jobs, can you explain why the president hired, employed, undocumented employees for years and didn't do more to prevent that? sarah: i can't get into specifics about the president's organization outside of the white house i'm only allowed to speak on behalf of the president in his official capacity. i do now that the trump organization has put out a statement addressing that issue, i'll refer you to that and to them for further questions. reporter: what does the

president think should happen to a business that employees illegal immigrants and doesn't use systems to make sure they're in the going that? sarah: that's one of the reasons the president wants to fix the problem, he's one of the people that identified that we have a problem and should fix the immigration system. if democrats want to get serious about fixing that, they have a president that's more than happy to sit down with them and do exactly that. reporter: since i know so little bit about this, i'll ask you a couple of questions. sarah: at least we're in agreement on something. reporter: senator joe manchin said yesterday, if the president were to move further on daca and at least offer a path to status if not a path to citizenship, she'd likely get more democrats to come to his need for a border. the president has been resistant to that what's the reason ethink the president doesn't believe taka recipients should get a path to status? sarah: i'm not going to

negotiate up here. that's reason they're going to conference. reporter: but why doesn't he believe that they deserve or should have a path to status? sarah: again, i'm not going to get into negotiating immigration reform up here. that's why we have the conference. that's why the president has asked that it take place over the next three weeks. whether or not that happens in this time or after, the border right now is border security, we'd like to see that happen. the president would love to deal with the overall problem of illegal immigration, fixing a number of loopholes that would prevent some of those things from happening so we can move forward with a system that ctually works and functions. congratulations and welcome back. you look more well rested than you should. reporter: will the white house have a representative in these meetings, the congressional committee? sarah: i know there are white house attendees who will be ep gauged with members across the board, those part of the conference as well as the back

and forth that'll take place before and after. we'll keep you posted when the white house is in attendance. reporter: what's -- what about the idea that the democrats are ready to get serious about immigration reform? what has the president heard from democrats? sarah: we've had a number of democrats that have publicly stated support for border security including a wall, including barriers. we've also had a lot of private conversations in which democrats have signaled their willingness if the government is open to sit down and negotiate. the president is taking them at their word and hopes they'll negotiate in good faith and we hope that we'll see that happen. reporter: steven miller is he ed -- quoted as saying would be happy if no refugee touched american soil.

sarah: aisle not aware of any statement like that and the administration doesn't support that. reporter: will the president have a physical exam soon? sarah: he'll have an annual physical exam, we'll keep you posted. reporter: i'm going to what arlene asked mr. kudlow. can the economy sustain another government shutdown? sarah: as i toldthat, we don't want another shutdown. we want a deal that that addresses border security. it seems like it should be so simple we're all in agreement that we need it, we're all in agreement that there's a problem, let's fix it. reporter: can the economy, larry cud he was hopeful and optimistic even though the numbers show otherwise. sarah: the numbers don't show otherwise. the number shows we have an incredibly strong economy. the numbers show that jobs

continue to grow, wages continue to rise, unemployment continues to drop, the numbers are actually very much in the favor of the things that larry laid out. again, do we want another shutdown? no. but the president and his team have focused on long-term economic stability, long-term economic fundamentals and we think if the had to we could sustain that but we don't want to. that's not the goal. reporter: there's seven people now indicted that have some kind of connection to either the campaign or the president. have these people tried to make contact with the president via their mutual friends? sarah: i'm not aware of any contact from those individuals. reporter: on the state of the union address that was supposed to take place tomorrow night, i know that house speaker pelosi said that she would extend an invitation to the president once the government has reopened. it's reopened. has she extended an invitation to the president?

do you believe that she's acting in good faith in this regard? sarah: i certainly don't think she acted in food gait on the front end given that she cited security concerns that didn't exist but we're hopeful that moving forward she will. the president as he always does looks forward to addressing the american people. and will do that as soon as that invitation is received. reporter: do you expect her to extend an invitation to the president in the course of this three-week window of -- as long as negotiations are ongoing? sarah: that's a better question for speaker pelosi. reporter: you're not exactly ruling out another shutdown and many federal workers who came back today are concerned that there could be another shutdown. what's your advice or message to them in this flee weeks, should they be saving their money? should they be concerned they might not get another paycheck so soon? sarah: my advice would be to call your democrat members of congress and ask them to fix the problem so we don't have to

continue having this process and so that we actually secure the border and protect american citizens. reporter: the president tweeted over the weekend and said he made no concessions whatsoever but influential conservatives are saying he has made concessions buzz he originally said he wouldn't sign any legislation that did not include money for the border wall and then he went ahead and did that and granted it only keeps the government open for the next three week he said he wouldn't do that either. so how can the president say he made absolutely no concessions to democrats on this legislation? sarah: because the negotiations are still ongoing. i would argue that conservatives actually have influenced, have supported the president throughout this process. they believe in border security. they believe in protecting americans, just like the president and they stand with him again. this is a simple fix. it's easy for democrats to sit down and come to an agreement and work with us to get border security. john? reporter: thank you, sarah.

the president has spoken increasingly of declaring a state of emergency after february 15 and using funds already there for the building of the wall under the aegis of national security, homeland security. several conservatives who are normally supporters of the president warn not to go in that direction that it would create too many problems with federal authority interceding with state authority. president bush in 2005 wouldn't declare a state of emergency over katrina because he did not want to get into that argument with governors. has the president considered this and the criticisms and warnings of fellow republicans, notably senator blunt of missouri? sarah: certainly the president listens to members of congress as well as constituents across the country but the president's

number one duty and the number one responsibility he sees as commander in chief is protecting the american people. he sees the crisis at the border to be a real one. i don't think anybody in the country can argue the fact that there is a real problem at our border. it needs to be fixed. and the president will do what it takes to address it. reporter: has the president ruled out a pardon for roger stone? sarah: i'm not aware of that, haven't had any conversations regarding that matter. reporter: will you have conversations with him and let us know? sarah: i'm not going to get into it but if need be i'll let you know. reporter: if the president truely believes that what's happening is an emergency why would he wait three weeks to declare it? sarah: because it's real simple. as the president has said, as most of us in the administration have said on a number of fronts, the best fix is to be able to do it legislatively. but if congress, particularly democrats in congress, would

rather play political games than actually do their job and fix the problem, then the president will be forced to take a different path. again, ideally that doesn't happen but we'll see what happens. reporter: it's either an emergency or it's not. you can't have a half emergency. sarah: you're missing the point. it is not just an emergency, it's a crisis at the border, both to national security and a humanitarian crisis. but there's a process in which the president wants to exhaust all options primarily doing what we feel is the best one a legislative fix. but if congress doesn't do their job, then the president will be forced to make up for their shortcomings. reporter: you talked about, you're not going to negotiate. i'd like to ask you $5.7 billion for the -- from the president nonnegotiable. sarah: i'm not going to negotiate from here. that's the whole point of the conference. to iron out those details and come back to the president with a deal. at the end of the day, the biggest thing that has to happen is there has to be real and

adequate funding for border security including funding for a wall and we'll see what the conference comes back with. reporter: could it be a number less than $5.7 billion? sarah: i'm not going to negotiate with you my job is to communicate where we are in the process and right now we're in the prosofse letting the conference do its job negotiate a deal, and come back to the president. reporter: two questions if i may. first on the government shutdown. the president made several promises to family, particularly those affected by crimes committed by illegal immigrants that they would have a wall at the end of this government shutdown, can he maintain that promise that there will be -- to the families that there will be a wall then southern border by the end of his first term? sarah: as you know, the president and his administration have engaged and built roughly 100 or contracted to build roughly 115 miles at the border. this three-week package that the

democrats voted for included over $200 million in funding for the wall and the president won't stop until the border is secure and that includes having a border wall. reporter: another question on afghanistan. there's talk on the -- in afghanistan of a deal that would pull u.s. forces out of the country in exchange for a guarantee from the taliban that there would be no terrorists remaining in the country. is this a plan that has the white house's support? and would that be a victory for the united states after almost 17 years? sarah: our priority is to end the war in afghanistan and ensure there is never a base for terrorism in afghanistan again. negotiations are going to continue, for anything specific i can't get into right now. i refer you to the state epartment. reporter: you said you're not aware of that when asked if president trump ruled out a pardon for roger stone? so he hasn't ruled out a pardon?

sarah: i haven't -- i am not aware of a conversation. reporter: can you guarantee that the president won't harr don roger stone. sarah: i'm not going to talk out hypotheticals that are impossible. never thought i'd be shut do you think one reporter to go to jim acosta. reporter: marco rubio said over the weekend that working with wiki leaks should be considered a crime. does the president agree? sarah: look, i think every single outlet that you all represent looked for and searched for information that wiki leaks was providing including reporting on it. i think there's a responsibility by members of the media. i'm not aware of anybody here ever working with wiki leaks in any capacity but i do know that every individual that represents a media organization here looks for that information, most of you reported on that

information, so i think you're just as accountable as anybody lse in that process. reporter: roger stone last week, paul manafort, michael cohen, michael flynn, are you consider concerned is the president concerned, that as more and more of his associates, former aides, are brought into this investigation, are indicted, plead guilty in the investigation, that this presidency is in danger? sarah: not at all. in fact i think nothing cub fourth from the truth. the more that this goes on, the more and more we see that none of these things have anything to do with the president. in roger stone's case the charges of that indictment have literally nothing to do with the president and have to do with his communications with congress. so in fact, i think the further we get into the process, the more and more we see that this has nothing to do with president trump. reporter: can you assure the

american people that in these conversations roger stone had with wikileaks and the individuals tied to dumping of that material, that at no time the president had any interactions with roger stone, that nobody doze close to the president had interactions with roger stone who may have told the president what was going on in those conversations? all of this when it comes to roger stone is a complete surprise to the president, he didn't know about any of this? is that what you're saying? sarah: what i can tell you is the president did nothing wrong throughout this process and the charges of the indictment against mr. stone have absolutely nothing to do with the president. reporter: we're expecting in a few moments that the u.s. government will announce sanctions against the chinese communication company and -- are these linked, are you taking a carrot and stick approach with china? what's the strategy in sarah: those two things are not

linked. they're a totally separate process. the gos on the trade front will continue to be on gink and i believe on that other question you mentioned, i believe they're waiting on me to finish so they can do that. with that, i will say good afternoon, we'll see you next time. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> that last question referring to a news conference coming up with the acting attorney general, matthew whitaker, on what they're calling a china related law enforcement issue, we'll have that on c-span3, online at c-span.org, or listen

to the c-span radio app at 4:30 eastern. the house is returning at 4:45. three financial services bill on the calendar this afternoon, including a measure to prevent insider trading and another on ill list uses of virtual currencies. votes at 6:30. this as house and senate conferees premaring to meet to discuss funding for the southern border. they'll hold an open meeting this week, we'll keep you posted on our coverage plan. we can tell you about later today, bipartisan group of governor, larry hoe begun of maryland, chris sue neu neu of new hampshire, tom wolfe of new hampshire will be talking about reaching across the political aisle to achieve consensus. judy woodruff of "pbs newshour" moderates. tomorrow, geena has pell, national intelligence direct yordan coats, and christopher

wray testify before the senate intelligence committee on threats to the u.s. that's live tomorrow beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern also on c-span3. >> florida has six new members in its congressional delegation for the 116th congress. voters elected republican rick scott to the u.s. senate. coming off two terms as the state's governor. earlier in his career, senator scott was a health care industry executive. running a company that operated hospitals around the country. and later he was a venture capitalist. as former health and human chalet secretary donna lay -- shalala was elected to the howes. she's been president of the university of miami and president of the clinton foundation. democrat debbie mue car sell powell was born in ecuador and immigrated. while attending graduate school, he father was shot and killed in

ecuador. after graduate school she worked at a number of nonprofits before joining florida international university. two republicans also joined the house. greg ano was a lawyer and steube served two years in iraq, then was elected to the florida state hate and state senate. new congress, new leaders, watch it all on c-span. >> this week on "the communicators" gary shah peerry on the major issues facing the industry in the u.s. >> i see where the future is going with technology. we know robotics, artificial intelligence, self-drev driving cars, drones, individual medical treatments, certainly biotech in a way we've never experienced before.

all these are coming. how do you succeed as a ninja, as someone who is flexible, knowing that part of the future is not clear and how -- and par of it is totally clear. how do you benefit that to whether you're an individual, a government or a company? >> join us on c-span2. >> three days post shutdown, 18 days until the government could run out of money again, we take a look at the week ahead in washington. washington. we do that with jason dick of rollcall and congressional reporter sarah ferris. the clock is ticking on the sea are keeping the government open for three week spirit what is scheduled to happen in washington to move the negotiations along? guest: i bet there was a lot of scrambling on the weekend on behalf of democratic leaders because they had already teed up a series of votes on spending bills that they do not need to

vote on any more. the conference committee working on the new deal trying to get something and get -- together, that will kick off very soon. they will work on that behind the scenes. housekeepinglot of for democratic leaders, as far as setting them -- getting them together for the next three weeks at home. they're united after a pretty big win for them on friday. host: i want to come back to the conference committee but the spending bill teed up front -- by democrats, one got lost in the struggle by negotiations of the shutdown kicked into high gear on friday. democrats were moving toward an offer for the president. what was that? rolledgoing to see that into what will happen in the next couple of weeks question ?ark -- weeks

sayingtheir members were we need to show we are for border security so they started thatng together a proposal had over $5 billion of border security and it. it is clear there was new technology and some additional staffing at points of entry where illegal drugs are coming in. democrats were excited to have the proposal out there. you could see a bad their own ideas mmx is the party of the wall. the white house started to have some conversations with senate. we will not that the details on if we don't have to yet. it is pretty much in -- shelved until the conference gets going. 18 days until government runs out of money like you said. after the 11 hour, do you think it goes right until the 15th? >> i would be surprised if it does not.

it seems the president is staking out his position. chief of staff mick mulvaney went on the sunday shows yesterday and said of course he could still declare an emergency to get this done. then the president himself talked to the wall street journal and said he did not think highly of the odds. that does not seem to jive with what we are hearing in congress which would really love to talk, the next fiscal year. we're almost in february and still talking about the fiscal year that started in october, it is a little wearying i think for members of congress. back in the old days, february 1 is when the budget, the new budget was submitted. we will still be in the middle of this debate. surprised if it makes any headway early on. acting chief of staff mick mulvaney, here he is sunday.

classy go to the democrats and say look, are you telling people the truth? when you look at constituents back home and say you agree with the president that we have to do something about security in southern border, are you telling a truth or doing some politically expedient? this is a chance for them to let actions speak louder than words. the last time democrats followed nancy pelosi blindly on a path for policy would and that up with obamacare and bailouts and cap a trait and they lost control of the house. is nancy really leaving the democratic party or issue being led by the hard left wing and will the democrats follow her. this is the next step of the negotiation. judged by, he'll be what happens at the end of the process and not what happens next week. back to the conference committee and the

structure being set up for the negotiations over border much input andw how much the leadership gets. guest: this is the process appropriators wanted from the very beginning. when they were working on their bills,meland security this is going to be now the same members that essentially would have negotiated on that months ago, they're putting it together in a series of closed-door meetings. these are those who like to make deals. they have been able to keep the government-funded time and again until leadership gets him away or president trump gets in the way with his demands. specific deadline, the leadership will be hoping that topline they will be the ones to determine at the end of the day whether they can get

their party to support additional fencing. -- speaker pelosi on friday night set as the government was being reopened, reporters asked her do you see yourself putting any more money toward the wall. she said have a not been clear about that, we are not going to do the wall. that said, talking to democrats away from nancy pelosi, they will say we're willing to negotiate on basically anything out of the government is open. they have said for weeks or they do not want to seem like they are not willing to negotiate. the topline of our discussion in the weeks ahead in washington, if you want to join the discussion, demo rats -- republicans -- democrats -- republicans -- reporters that of the like the back of their hands are with us until 9:00 this morning.

tomorrow originally was supposed to be to scheduled state of the , delayed until after the shut them's overpeer the shutdowns overpeer do we know when it will be? guest: the state of the union is in flux. we still do not know when the orte of the union will be what form it will bp or from the president will deliver a details of the state of the union. whether nancy pelosi, she cannot cancel the state of union, she ,an refuse to pass a resolution but we don't know what point we might see a state of the union. certainly the president is sort of poking democrats and

democrats opposing the president on this, it makes it more get around and say oh yes, let's have everyone over for a nice chat. another scheduling item this week was supposed to be the republican retreat to strategize about legislative agendas. what is the state of that? guest: as of last week, that was postponed. the big deal is the trump administration will come to this retreat with house republicans and minority, they will look very hard on what to focus on in the next two years. hearing from president trump himself at the retreat would be a very important thing for house republicans to do. does look like that will be postponed a little bit pear we will see if president trump must to meet with them separately or his -- or if you want the menstruation officials as the has tumbled four, the department of homeland security, to help

republicans refine their own message. they have been worried about the shutdown. several have broken rice with republicans so they have to get everyone on the same page. we will see some sort of -- from the white house down toward capitol hill, but the retreat right now is not on. democrats also do these and for both sides it is a fancy resort and conference center. when is it scheduled for? right around the time of the next deadline in leesburg, virginia. that will be an important time for democrats in early weeks. really be a time they get to decide on agenda items. -- committee is almost of almost set. do about want to impeachment enterprising and immigration bills, there will be a lot of strategizing. let us know you want to

talk about. phone minds as usual. bill is an independent in florida, good morning. guests i would like your to a dress the difference that areg the children in these detention camps and manufactured trauma that they are going through and what the country intends to do about these children, the predicament they are in, and that they will continue to suffer from due to our depraved in difference. i would suggest that america has a retreat for these children to have a break from the from a that they are going through. host: got your point.

let me start on the issue border detention. guest: certainly house democrats have expressed they will have in no shortage oversight hearings and holding the administration's feet to the fire on the spirit i would expect that the homeland security secretary, she is our fairly hostile questioning from democrats when they were the minority. i would expect particularly the house committee would have her in front of them fairly soon. speaking of border oversight as well, a big one hearing that will set the tone a little bit for the coming week is definitely going to be in the house armed services committee on tuesday, that they will look at the reasons for the military being deployed to the border right now. newsmakerswas on with your all's program earlier this weekend. he is a democrat from washington

and the chairman of the committee and was the ranking member of an top democrat and he said that is the very first hearing they will have on they will be talking about justifications administration used for deploying active military for border security down there. a lot of this oversight is kicking in right away. hearing about families coming over the border with children, the numbers are staggering come the increases over the years. this is a message house republicans have picked up the cousin of the children coming over, that is the way a lot of moderates are talking about this issue now. are trying to use that as a way to avoid discussing the wall and have a humanitarian decide -- side of it appeared as the president declares a state of emergency, something he has really put on the table on the last couple of days, congress

will discuss the humanitarian crisis they say that the border. -- 70 --co rubio's marco rubio was on the floor yesterday talking about the clearing a national emergency, this is what he said in response. said youio: you have are opposed to the emergency option but i know in three weeks i know you do not want another shutdown. if that is in the way to keep the government-funded, national emergency, how defiant are you on this option? will you fight the president or not? >> i do not think it is a good idea, i think it is a terrible idea and i hope he doesn't do it. i am not sure they will end up doing that it i know it is an option they looked at but now you're at the mercy of a district court somewhere and ultimately an appellate court. it may not even withstand if you look at the others we have seen. thatther is the precedent

is set. it is not a good precedent to set. does not mean i don't border security. i do. it is the wrong way to achieve it. you could very well wind up on one end and not get anything done. a law passed to fund border security so we know it will happen. this national security option and how much president trump is really considering it. guest: he keeps saying he is serious about it. when people theorize about what is trump's endgame and his negotiation style, it is exhausting to try and figure out. i just take him at his word that he is serious and is seriously considering it. reports that the white house legal counsel has drafted some of these emergency declaration drafts, i mean the shutdown was not even over until there was another shutdown threat from the president in which he said he

could declare a national emergency. think it is very much serious or at least it is a part of the equation they have to consider. host: you mentioned the wall street journal interview of president trump took place yesterday. the lead story in the wall street journal. some quotes from the president, assessing the chances of whether the new conference committee could create a deal before the next government funding lapse. he set personally think is less than 50-50, a lot of good people on the board is what the ofsident said from the page the story today in the wall street journal. less than $5.7 billion in the next round of negotiations, mr. trump said i doubt it, adding that he has to do it right. one more, present chumming it clear he was skeptical of any deal for a wider immigration overhaul. he doubts it, he said, when he was asked of the citizenship for daca recipients, jim mattis, in exchange for border funding.

the story getting a lot of attention this morning. from just across the river, alexandria, virginia, democrat, go ahead. is, well, letment me go with my question. does president trump have a plan written down for the border wall , somewhere that someone can see? when he does get money for the border wall? does he get to raise the money anytime he wants or what? covering the appropriations process for congress, i will let you. guest: what is interesting is the $5 billion request was not outlined in the white house former -- formal budget proposal last year. that is reason senate appropriations did not put out

all of that money. they agreed to fund much less than that because they did not know $5 billion is what the president wanted. in recent weeks, the white house wrote a justification for the budget. i do not believe it is public. lawmakers got to look at the language and see exactly where -- it wanted to go. if congress decides to allocate money for the border wall, it has to be spent. it becomes an obligation of the u.s. government to spend how congress decides. president trump cannot go in and change his mind." up the homeland security secretary and say, i actually want you to spend it this way and that of this way. once it is into a funding bill, it is the letter of the law for the next year. that is why appropriate is will spend time figuring out how they will spend it. i think we will definitely >> "washington journal" live every day at 7:00 a.m. ian. watch this segment and more at c-span.org.

the house gaveling in momentarily. but news ahead of that. the deputy chief of staff for nancy pelosi has released a letter from the speaker to the president to give the state of the union address on february 5 in the house chamber. the u.s. house coming in momentarily to start their legislative week, they'll begin with three financial services bills, votes at 6:30 this evening. think should be gaveling in momentarily. over in the senate, meanwhile, the senate continuing work on a middle east policy bill. follow the senate on c span 2.