andover. >> my god. where did you get that? liz: is that unbelievable. >> mom, i'm sorry. liz: he taught me everything i know. well, almost everything. look at you now. liz: 10 seconds from the closing bell. david and melissa. take it away. melissa: stocks sinking the trek straight day. look what happened in the last hour. the dow dropping when republican congressman spoke out against the new obamacare replacement plan. we're coming back a bit now. this marks the first back-to-back losses for the dow and s&p in more than a month. i'm melissa francis. david: too bad there is nothing happening. >> exactly. david: there is everything happening. i'm david asman. this is "after the bell." we got you covered on the big market movers. here is what else we have for you at this hour. flury of activity inside beltway. three big events we'll try to bring them to you, happening at any moment. update from the house intel

committee from the investigation into russia's meddling in the election. we may hear more about the president's accusations on wiretapping. then house speaker paul ryan, and a couple committee chairman behind the obamacare replacement plan will make their case why their plan is the about per than what we have now. this as fellow republicans as you just been hearing are speaking out against it and offering up other options. president trump is sitting down with the the head of the afl-cio, richard trumka to talk about infrastructure and getting rid of nafta and other trade agreements. weigh on a this and more, our special guest, u.s. commerce secretary wilbur ross. we'll speak with grover norquist. texas attorney general ken paxton and lieutenant colonel oliver north. melissa: wow, that is a lot. we look at the dow dropping, ending the day down about 30 points. adam shapiro down on floor of the new york stock exchange.

comments from the president and division among republicans over this new health care plan moving stocks big today, huh, adam? reporter: there was the tweet from the president talking about redoing the pricing of pharmaceutical companies. a knew system. competition for pricing for american people and prices will come way down. look what happened to the pharmaceutical stocks. look at some of the biggest losers. end dough pharmaceuticals. mylan took a hit as did pfizer. they were all down. then you've got the insurers. some of the insurers like aetna already pulled out of obamacare. others have not. humana was up today, hit a all-time high. aetna was also down. melissa: adam, i'm sorry, we're breaking in. we have the house intelligence chairman, devin nunes is holding a news conference on the committee's russia investigation.

let's listen in. >> this is initial list. we have director comey of the fbi, director rogers of the nsa, former director brennan from cia. former director clapper, miss yates, former acting attorney general, mr. halprovich and mr. hen from from cloud strike services. with that i would be glad to take any questions you have. >> you said you want to avoid a witch-hunt. are you already downplaying the issue and the outcome of this investigation? >> no. we're trying to get as many of the fact as possible. what we're announcing today is the fact that we'll have a open hearing. we're inviting people who obviously would have some information as it relates to this investigation. >> why no invitation for general flynn? will you extend a invitation in the future. >> general flynn is invited to, is invited to attend but he is

not on our official invite list. if there are people who would like to attend we would like to have them. encourage them as long as they have something to do with this investigation. at this point we have invited the people who we fe are directly in line with either having information about this investigation on all sides of it. general flynn is obviously a tangent to some of this because of his name being involved in a lot of the leaks. >> democrat county are part adam schiff called for the let's -- resignation of attorney general sessions. how is this working out with relationships on committee and how -- [inaudible] >> this committee, as you all know is very bipartisan in nature. it long has had a history of that. that will continue. mr. schiff was invited to be here today but he is giving a speech somewhere. i think he will address some of you later in a couple hours.

but the list, initial list, make sure you understand, the initial list of people we're inciting is just an initial list. we will add to that as we see fit. these are names we agreed to on a bipartisan basis that have been invited. >> have you seen any evidence to support the president's claim that he had been wiretapped from the president? >> i have not, i have not seen that evidence. as you know i think a lot of that was maybe a little bit, the multiple tweets were perhaps a little bit strung together but i think the bigger question that needs to be answered is, whether or not mr. trump or any of his associates were in fact targeted by any of the intelligence agencies or law enforcement authorities and that is at the heart of many of questions that many of you have asked on numerous occasions. so we will, at this point, we don't have any evidence of that

but we also don't have any evidence of many people who have been named in multiple news stories that supposedly are under some type of investigation. >> should he have done that? should he have -- comments over e weekend when you're conducting an investigation? >> he is the president of the united states. not me. so he can do what he likes. not me to give advice. >> what you say the tweets were strung together, what does ma mean? >> there were multiple tweets, if i am understanding the point of them is he a asking about whether or not he was being, was he or any of his associates targeted. and i think that you know, if you, i think it's a valid question if indeed it was a question, that if you look at general flynn, why was he being recorded? was it incident to collection like we all assume or was sitting else? was there any other additional incidental recordings of phone calls?

>> are you saying you think it was a question he was posing, not a statement that he was posing? >> i can't, i haven't talked to the president about it so i can only -- i do know negative asked us to look into this. we were going to look into it anyway because clearly the, when you take in its totality all of the leaks, if you take fisa is involved in this. whether or not fisa was implemented properly. whether it was just regarding general flynn or other people. because you all know, because you all have been asking questions for many weeks now, the names that are circulating in many press stories are those people in fact under investigation or not? we need to know that if those investigations are occurring. yes, sir, in the back. >> congressman, have you been in touch with the white house on either this issue or other elements of the investigation? have you been coordinating in anyway? >> no, have not. >> you asked, to investigate this particular -- >> that was public.

that was a public statement. the public statement that was, i don't know that was sent over the weekend. >> your staff, committee staff, hasn't indicated -- >> not that i'm aware of, no. >> in the back. you haven't asked anything. >> the president tweets out very clearly -- president obama. short of any evidence does he owe president obama an apology? >> look, i don't think, it wouldn't have been, you all know the way it works if someone is put under investigation it is not the way it would go. now is it possible that president obama knew about general flynn, we don't know thence to that question. and you know, is it possible that president obama was directing his people, his department of justice to go into the fisa court to seek a warrant? we, i don't know. i just don't know. we don't have -- >> the president, came up at briefing today.

the president made a declarative statement this thing was done. now your committee is using its time and resources and its press availablility to investigate this. is that a proper thing for the president to do? he wasn't asking open questions. he made a declarative statement that the former president wiretapped him. >> as you all know the president is fee he owe fight to politics. he has been -- neophyte to politics. he has been doing this a little over the years. a lot of things he says you guys sometimes take literally. sometimes he doesn't have 27 lawyers and staff looking at what he does, which is, i think at times refreshing and at times can also lead us to have to be sitting at a press conference like this answering questions you guys are asking, at the end of the day tweets are very transparent way of any politician of any rank to communicate with their constituents. so i don't think we should, i don't think we should attack the

president for tweeting. we could, my only request of the president, i don't want him to have, to be completely lawyered up, but at the same time i don't want, i want him to be clear in what he's, he is asking and assertions that he is making. look, these are all very serious questions. you all know that we have questions about those names that continue to appear in press reports because they do involve supposedly russia hacking, russian involvement in our election process, very serious questions that this investigation will try to get to the bottom of all of them. let me switch over here. yes, sir? >> thank you, mr. chairman. just a question -- [inaudible] >> yeah. yes, yes. so we've had initial inquiries into the ic. look this is early on in the investigation but these appear to be very, very serious but at

this time that's really all the information that i have on it just to say that we are extremely concerned and we're following it closely, and you know, this potentially could be an additional leak that we'll have to get to the bottom of. let the appropriate i.t. agencies get to the bottom of it. at appropriate time we'll brief all of you. >> do you think that americans should be concerned that their mobile devices turned into surveillance? >> well, i long said this. mails, many of our electronic devices are not safe and they're primarily not safe from our adversaries like the russians and the chinese and others who are who actively trying tge into the institutions and private businesses.

we don't know who is responsible for this, for what happened in the latest wikileaks round. let's leave it at that. let them come out to brief you at proper time. i will be ready to brief and take your questions as soon as i have more information. >> mr. chairman, you said we shouldn't take the president literally but apparently his tweet was enough to justify saying you would investigate his claims. so doesn't that imply there is something more to it? >> well, that would be under the assumption we were not already interested in the leaks that were coming out and whether or not there was trump or trump associates who have been put under investigation because those are the assertions that have been made in multiple news stories and so we are already looking into that. but we were already looking into that. what's that? >> not leaks he was talking about. he was talking about the wiretapping? >> yeah, but i think in general it's, he is continually, he is

continually been accused that he has some connection to russian agents or russian affiliates and i believe that is what he was referring to, which we already are investigating anything to do with any political campaigns. remember this. remember this, don't just think that we're not going to find anything on other political campaigns whether it is in in country or other governments that are currently holding their elections or have held elections. yes, sir? >> mr. chairman, this is second press haven't, second time fisa has come up. >> third. >> talking about the wiretapping charges that what do these two events as congress looks to reyou knew the law before it expires the end of the year? >> i think it is very problematic. i expressedded this concern to the ic. we have sent in many follow-up questions as it relates to, as it relates to intelligence and

we expect prompt answers and intelligent answers from them on information we've been asking for. typically we've had great trust with our intelligence agencies and i continue to have that trust but we have to verify in fact that all of the tools that are in place that we oversee are being used, are being usedth i cannily, responsibly and -- ethically and responsibly and by the law. if anyone has abused those, we want to know about that. that is part of the reason why we want to know whether or not as some press reports have indicated whether or not the the department of justice or any agency tried to get a warrant on anybody related to trump campaign or any other campaign for that mat are. >> congressman schiff has been

accused of with holding information from the gang of eight. do you think his concerns have merit and what are the points of contention there? >> just like mr. trump's comments i can take from mr. trump's comments and i can glean from mr. schiff's comments. i think what mr. schiff is referring to, which i have concerned about, the "gang of eight," it exists for a reason and we're supposed to be kept up to speed on any pertinent county are intelligence investigations. if that did not occur last year, if trump or any other political campaign associated with trump was under some type of investigation, that clearly should have arisen to the "gang of eight" level. and so what we'd like to know going forward is what is the structure of the "gang of eight" going to be?

what will the "gang of eight" be read into? because clearly we have about whether or not last year we were read into everything that we should have been read into. so i'm not trying to translate mr. schiff's comment but i think we share the concern over the timeliness of information given to us on counterintelligence investigations, especially involving americans. >> have you learned things that lead you to believe that you were not told -- do you have reason to believe you weren't told things last year? >> we don't know. that is the question. it is, depends on, you know the accuracy of multiple press reports that are out there that we've discussed many types, at these press availabilities. >> are you saying mr. trump was under investigation last year and they did not brief the "gang of eight"? >> well the assertions have been there were multiple investigations going on trump or trump associates. we have, as you guys know, we have no evidence of that. we haven't seen that. we're not aware of that. if that is the case we'd like to know. if it was the case why didn't we know?

we should have, we should have known that if there was an actual investigation especially through fisa or if somebody tried to go to the fisk to get a warrant. >> the ranking member suggested, used the word subpoena last week s that something you would consider on this particular topic? >> we will, look, at this point, for our hearing on march 20th, we're going to have people come on their own free will and like i said, we have, we have our initial invite list. we are going to probably invite others. if there are people who are out there who have some relevance to this investigation and would like to come and speak before the congress, we would be willing to look at that interest also. but at this time we're not going to subpoena anyone for that march 20th hearing just to be clear, but if we have to, we will subpoena all information that is pertinent his investigation if people either,

number one don't want to apa peer, or if appropriate agencies do not provide the information that we've asked for. >> mr. trump -- >> chairman, there has been a dispute between the fbi and dnc, whether or not the fbi had access to dnc services. will this be settled at some point during the investigation? >> i would assume in the breath, breadth of our support and leadership. you talking about the dnc and fbi? >> whether they had access to their servers. >> from the evidence that i have seen so far been out there addressed several times publicly, the dnc was warned about this and so was the rnc i think that, i'm not disclosing anything that hasn't been out there. that is fact. what happened after that, who talked to who and appropriate people talking to appropriate people, if you ask the

democrats, democratic leadership run dnc, they have one opinion, fbi has another. i don't know how all that sorts itself out but periphery of our investigation. other questions? yes, sir. >> chairman, this list, initial list, refer from that this is very early stage of your investigation -- [inaudible] >> this is our first hearing. we want it to be public. we want all hearings as many as we can to be public. hopefully that will be the case, these will all be public hearings. we may be adding to that list. >> can you say you don't have evidence, you really don't have evidence period in many areas, right? you're just beginning your investigation? >> look, we know where, in terms of the body of evidence that went into the report that director clapper produced in the middle of january before, before the inauguration, we he agreement on that now. so that was, that's, i thi where we're close to an agreement where that information will be housed and who will have access to it.

so i think we're set there. we've sent a series of other questions and letters to dni, fbi, and other agencies to he see, to ask for additional evidence that we are still awaiting. but in terms of this initial list, we will, we will probably build and add to this list as offer the course of the next week. but we'll keep you updated on that. >> [inaudible]. >> not on, not with this list but if anyone on that list wants to have a private essential with us to provide a deposition of some kind, they feel it needs to be classified nature, we would meet the need of the witness if that is what they preferred. >> investigators, senate investigators have been going to langley to look at documents underlying the russian assessment. has your committee been doing that? are you going to do that? >> yes. we've had, we've had some

initial trips out there and we will have more trips out there and that's part of the agreement that we're trying to put together which i think is essentially finished. >> are you going to be able to have access to information here or all be at langley. >> likely be both. i don't want to get specifics of that. melissa: that is chairman nunes of the house intelligence committee there, david, going through a whole list of questions right now about the russia investigation. also a lot of questions about what president trump tweeted, about his own building and phones being tapped by the former president. raising a lot of questions about whether this will be folded into the investigations going forward. david: well the interesting thing is, that the intelligence mmite does not yet know whether the fisa court had a warrant to investigate people at trump tower, people in the trump campaign who were suspected having some kind of a relationship with russians. and there was even a question about whether general michael

flynn who of course had to resign his position, whether there was a actual warrant to tap his phone or he was caught up in a tapping of the russian ambassador's phone. melissa: right. david: there is a lot of questions that these guys -- melissa: very basic question, he said, was somebody listening in? he said we need to know the answer to that. we don't know if there was someone listening in. they haven't seen the evidence there was but haven't seen the evidence they haven't either. we haven't looked into it yet and no one briefed us that there was an investigation to listen n really opening the door to a lot of, a lot of different things going forward that need to be investigated. let's bring in retired lieutenant colonel oliver north, a fox news military analyst for reaction here. you are listening to a lot of that. what jumped out at you most? a lot of topics covered there in the media, among them also, they were talking about whether our

devices are spying on us, about this malware got out of control, that cia was keeping an eye on. what jumped out at you? >> here is it is. i've got mine. you've got yours. we've all got ours. it is not really news. anybody familiar with all the way these kinds ever devices to interfere with our private lives, intercept conversations, control data, take data, use them for other purposes. you didn't need wikileaks to explain that to anybody. that is number one. number two, i think it is entirely appropriate house permanent select committee on intelligence which congressman nunes is co-chairman a sene select committee on intelligence looking tho questions, answering those questions. i think quite frankly everybody has gotten very hyper haven't -- hyperventilated about this, not just our colleagues in the media but all over the place. the right questions and place to have those answered is before

the committee. i know from experience you don't need a special prosecutor for this. every time i hear that mention i think, have they forgotten what that is like? melissa: yeah. it was interesting, he said, if they were investigating this, if they were investigating someone on the trump team, if they were listening in, the "gang of eight," we weren't told about it. so if this was going on, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. it moons if it was happening they weren't told. there is a big difference there, right? >> look, i'm still bound by non-disclosure agreements i signed a quarter of a century or more ago. let me put it into generic terms. there is an ongoing collection effort against certain other powers and adversaries. we all agree on that. melissa: right. >> number two, if it just happened those adversaries were calling into somewhere like trump tower for whatever purposes undoubtedly that would have been collected and wouldn't have necessarily been a separate fisa finding.

fiz sachs foreign intelligence surveillance act requires that it not be approved by just not a judge, director of the central intelligence, nsa, or the fbi if it's a criminal issue. that goes to a judge who renders a decision. if it is a part of collection ongoing entirely possible it didn't. but been they wouldn't have that necessarily separately briefed to the committees as the committees inevitably will ultimately be briefed on any new fisa finding. >> but colonel, then that raises the question if these things were gathered under legit reasons like you explain, who is leaking them and why? >> now see, i think that ought to be part of this investigation too and it wasn't really directed. i've got, melissa, i printed out just before i walked in here, day time group of 57 minutes before the hour, reuters news, talking about the new wikileaks

exposure of a collection program based on these things, on televisions, electronic devices. i regard that to be a much more serious issue. melissa: i agree with you. i thought that was a huge story today as well. >> sure. melissa: we've got to go, colonel. we have to talk about this more later. david: we heard earlier from congressman and senators who were against the gop plan from health care. now there is some congressman and senators who are in favor of the new gop plan. this is one of the authors of that plan, kevin brady. let's listen in. >> he is putting his presidential weight behind this legislation. he knows republicans are unified behind repealing this health care, terrible health care law but more importantly, beginning important steps of restoring state control. so health care can be designed for local community and families not from washington and restoring the free market. so patients and small businesses and families have greater

choices for plans that they need, not that washington needs. we're moving forward very aggressively in this process. know this well. the president said this this is a huge step but only the first step. repealing, unwinding, that awful obamacare law can happen with just one bill. we'll continue to take steps in the future weeks and months to unwind this and give people more choice in affordable health re. >> i would like to introduce the chairman of the health subcommittee of the ways and means committee, again another great member of the deputy whip team from the state of ohio, mr. pat tiberi. >> nothing much to add but encouraging to hear president trump and vice president pence give their commitment to getting this across the finish line. this bill was voted on ways and means committee and commerce

committee tomorrow, it is patient-centered. takes power out of this city sends it back to patients. we've been campaigning on patient-centered focused health he had care bill that puts patients in charge of their health care. they can choose their doctor they want to see, which was promise made in my district and other districts behind me throughout the congressional districts throughout america can't see the doctor they have been seeing for decker cade. this is the just the beginning. encouraging that the president is 110% committed to helping this get into law. >> before we head back to the capitol, we have time for a few questions. >> mr. chairman, can you describe -- >> which chairman? there is two behind me. >> chairman brady. how many lawmakers are going to hesitate before seeing a cbo score to vote on this bill? >> i don't think any. traditionally when you move the bills through committee they

don't often have a complete cbo score. we expect one soon but know this as well, that cbo score will only capture a piece of the puzzle. this is the first step. there will be many more steps going forward before we complete our replacement of the affordable care act. we'll take the score as we get it. know this, before it comes to the oor and comes to the senate to pass the president's desk, it will balance not just in the first ten years but second 10 years as well. we'll be fiscally responsible moving forward. >> time frame still easter? >> excuse me? >> for a vote? >> we're moving forward this month in the march in the house. >> mr. scalise, what about the criticism of the bill we heard from the freedom caucus, says some members are saying the bill is dead on arrival? >> we've been working very closely with the freedom caucus, with all of the caucuses in our conference. in fact they had a lot of input to get the bill to this point.

a lot of their good input what resulted in a very strong bill that will not only gut the bulk of obamacare but also really give people choices, freedom, that families don't have right now in health care. so we appreciated their input along the way. obviously in the committee process you will see more changes proposed but at the end of the day all of our members are committed to repealing obamacare around replacing it with reforms at lower costs. and president trump is fully committed to that as well. i'm confident we'll pass this through very quickly in the next few weeks so that the senate can take it up. so it can get to senate trump's desk to sign it into law. >> has question. >> so you guys are the deputy whip in the house but seems like he is the votes in the senate. what is your sense whether or not this has a vote to pass in the senate? a lot of senators come out on the republican side critical of this proposal. can you count votes in that chamber? do you have a sense whether -- >> first of all we don't take for granted that this bill has to pass the house. everybody understands the legislative process knowing that

the bill first has to pass the house to get to the senate and in getting a major bill passed through the house is never easy but it is important that we get it done and we're going to get it done. president trump is committed to getting this done. once it gets through the house i rk clo with senator cornyn. he will work closely with his meers. we went through the process to put a bill on president obama's desk to gut obamacare. you heard similar concerns. people said wouldn't vote the bill that ultimately did vote in the house and senate. this is fluid process of the at same time this is pros necessary now moving. the committees take up their work tomorrow and get this done. president trump is fully engaged in working with us to get that bill on his desk where he will ultimately sign it into law and rescue families from the devastation that is obamacare. thank you all very much. >> thank you. melissa: let's go out to the panel for reaction. we have fox business's gerri willis with us. we have betsy mccaughey,

former new york lieutenant governor and beating obamacare author. betsy, go to you first what is your reaction to what you just heard? >> everything changed today when president trump threw his weight behind the bill. the house republicans are quite divide. he is driven by the white house. he wants this done and campaigned on repealing this. don't forget the major reason this bill repeals the individual mandate and penalties andrepeald penalties that means relief for 200 million americans. melissa: okay. get gerri in. does it do those things? >> well, it does, here is what he see going on right now. these republicans in the house trying to put a brave face what is going on. they want to take the house with this law. they want it to go you there the senate but the fact is we have major numbers of republicans now who are balking, who don't want to get in line and do this. melissa: right.

>> that is the freedom caucus. that is the house republican study committee, all saying we don't like it. once more in the senate you have four major senators saying hey, parts of this we just don't go alongwith. melissa: yeah. >> what is interesting betsy is saying here, i think this is critical, i've been watching for it all day, when is the president going to come out and say you get in line, we've got to get this through? i think it will have to be his bully pulpit that really moves this along. melissa: did he say that or he said this is open for discussion? betsy the freedom caucus disagrees with you on those points. they think it simply switches the tax over to something else. >> that is simply not true. i read every page of this. it repeals every single tax except the cadillac tax which is delayed until 2025, for all intents and purposes canceled as well. the point is the employer mandate must be repealed to get this economy moving. it is quickly. melissa: go ahead, gerri.

>> there are more similarities between these two plans you might think. gets down to the tax credit versus subsidy. how different are they? that is the conversation that will go on right now. melissa: do you want to respond to that, betsy, because that is the conversation. if you don't get the freedom caucus on board it will not happen. >> i am happy to address it. melissa: they feel like the individual mandate is worded. >> there is not a mandate. melissa: cadillac tax, until 2025. i wonder if opening offer from the president. >> the people that currently high in the individual market. repeal of the employee mandate affects 200 million people. take a look what really matters about this bill. melissa: well the discussion has begun for sure. thanks to both of you, david. david: a lot of folks agreeing with senator rand paul's description of the new bill as obamacare light but his hhs secretary price earlier saying this is just a start. and that the objective is to get market forces back health care

business so who is right? telling us what he thinks about the new plan is grove per norquist. join the fire. come on and jump in is it reform or obamacare light what do you think. >> starts by eliminating a trillion dollars of taxes. there are 20 million americans whose health savings accounts are taxed by obamacare. that goes away. 30 to 35 million americans whose flexible savings accounts were attacked by obamacare. that goes away. 10 million americans with high health care costs who were penalized for having high health care costs. that goes away. there are tremendous number of taxes that disappear, that are polished here. -- abolished hire and block grants medicaid out to the state that has been a conservative ronald reagan idea since 1971. this is not, this is the first step in fixing the mess that is our health care system.

david: also, it's a first step also perhaps political process. obviously the as you well know, nobody knows how this process works as well as you do, there are three senators now in the gop who are against it. of course rand paul, we had on last friday. ted cruz is against it, so is mike lee. that is all they need to stop this from passing. they will need those three senators or at least two on board in order to pass it. how in this bargaining stage what we have now, this bill now and what the senate wants, what these three senators want who will get what? >> look, something very similar, this is going to pass. it was designed with senate input as well as house input. many of the people complaining now had input over the last seven, eight years. this did not happen in the last 24 hours. this legislation has been coming together for a number of years now. the president and his team have had input into it.

gog back before the election was over. so this is a well-thought out proposal. yes it is the first step but it's a huge first step. a trillion dollar tax cut is good thing. david: grover, very quickly, the tax credits what will change? the freedom caucus says there are subsidies. tax credits go to people who don't pay taxes. that would be the definition of a subsidy. do they remain. >> those will stay through rand paul's plan has similar tax credits. so you're going to see that almost any plan. david: grover, thank you very much. appreciate it. grover norquist. melissa. melissa: we breaking news right now. a train reportedly colliding with a charter bus in biloxi, mississippi. this is according to officials. witnesses saying the bus appeared stuck on the tracks. and the oncoming train hit the bus on the roadside. officials are confirming fatalities. emergency crews are in the midst of removing passengers through emergency windows.

wow. a witness speaking with local media saying the bus was filled with senior citizens. david: oh. melissa: we'll bring you pictures and latest as we learn more going forward here. meantime president trump is sitting down with the head of the afl-cio, richard trumka to talk infrastructure and getting rid of nafta at the white house. we'll bring you headlines and video of that as well as soon as it comes in. david: in the meantime, speaking to this point, wilbur ross, u.s. commerce secretary under president trump, joining us live. secretary ross, great to call you that. thanks for coming in. >> thanks for having me. david: first of all this meeting of trumka and president trump is kind of an odd couple, isn't it? you have just recently when president trump was running, trumka was saying all kinds of horrible things about him. what do they have have in common? what common goals they share? >> they share a very common goal

helping the american worker. there may be nuances, some differences how to do it but that is the overarching objective of the president and of mr. trumka. david: let's just take one of the ways in which you can have different opinions on helping the american worker. mr. trumka is very much against right to work laws. president trump says he is 100% in favor of those laws. president trump is also against this enforced raising of the minimum wage to $15 an hour that mr. trumka is for. and of course scott walker, president trump is a big defender of scott walker who mr. trumka thinks is an enemy of public sector unions. on those points, i don't think there is any room for agreement, do you? >> well maybe not, but those aren't the only points and they aren't the main points. the main points that in my view is how do you get more americans back into the workforce and employed? that is the real objective for

the country and i'm sure that is an important objective to mr. trumka as well. david: talk about objectives for the country, one of those objectives, getting better trade deals and particular issues that our trade partners violated certain rules, stuff that they were getting away with in the past. you had a terrific penalty accepted by a chinese company, one of the largest penalties on record, of $661 million. a telecommunications firm in china selling stuff to iran and north korea it shouldn't have been. would you explain how thing in shun on that developed and who was responsible. >> first of all it is not 660 million. it is 1,000,001,190,000,000, a portion of which is being he would back being paid for their continued compliance over the next seven years.

it is very rigorous auditing and other measures that the government will be taking to make sure that they fly straight, and no longer make illegal shipments to north korea or to iran. david: but was this all your doing or was this something that was started in the previous administration? >> certainly was not all my doing. it was basically the doing of the bureau of industrial security which is part of the department of commerce. it then brought in the department of justice, brought in the treasury department as well, so it was a collaboration of among all of those departments. obviously the department of justice is the one who filed the actual papers. david: congratulations on that. also, of trade conce, particularly to folks out there, business people, they are worried that the trump administration may get too concerned with things like a trade deficit, in particular

they're looking at peter navarro, something that he he said about our current trade deficit endangering national security. back in the 1980s there was concern about trade deficits as well. in fact we pulled up a 1985 copy of "the new york times" talking about the record trade deficit in 1984. it was a huge trade deficit in 1984. the problem with that is, that was the same year, 1984, when we had a 7.3% growth rate. so sometimes you can have record trade deficits and very strong growth simultaneously, right? >> yes, but the fact that the two things are concurrent doesn't remotely suggest that there is a causal connection between the two. david: no, but it doesn't mean that trade deficits necessarily cause small growth because in that year we had record growth. >> we'll never know how much more growth there would have been without the trade deficit but there surely would have been

more. david: more than 7.3%? >> sure. david: wow. all right. is this concern about trade deficits going to lead to any problems, do you think in terms of something that might escalate into a trade war? >> we have been in a trade war for quite a long time. only difference our troops are coming to the ramparts. that as the difference. david: donald trump loves to use twitter accounts. i don't know if you knew that but there was one twitter that he sent out recently about fake news. i want to get you to react to it. he said, don't let the fake news tell you there is big infighting in the trump administration. we're getting along great and getting major things done. now, i talked to people in the administration. they say that is absolutely true. peoplere getting along, but i'm justurious wt do you think when you read stories are so contrary to what you see with your own eyes and hear with your own ears? how do you respond to that

personally? >> well there is a lot of fake news. i don't think there is any question about that. in fact in my own case during the campaign and then pre-confirmation, several people fraudulently opened up facebook accounts or twitter accounts in my name. so that is how far some of these people have gone. david: do you know whether any of those false tweets or facebook messages were picked up by the media as the real thing? >> i don't know. i don't worry about things like that. i'm trying to deal with the 47,000 people who work in commerce with the various trade agreements that we have. and will have, with the various sanctions that we have to implement. we're quite busy doing real work, not worrying about this or that stray news item. david: well it is a month 1/2, and you already got a billion dollars from a chinese company. i would say that is a pretty good record.

commerce secretary ross. thank you very much. >> okay. don't annualize that rate. david: thank you very much. secretary wilbur ross. melissa: stunning new release from wikileaks. thousands of pages of documents it says comes from the cia center for cyber intelligence. what is inside, how it will affect our national security. and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis. usaa gives me the and the security just like the marines did. the process through usaa is so effortless, that you feel like you're a part of the family. i love that i can pass the membership to my children. we're the williams family, and we're usaa members for life.

dearthere's no other way to say this. it's over. i've found a permanent escape from monotony. together, we are perfectly balanced. our senses awake. our hearts racing as one. david: speaker of the house paul ryan and other gop leaders talking about new health care plan. >> so you can buy the plan you need and can afford. this is the culmination of years long process we've been doing here for years. last june as part of our better

way agenda, we put forward our vision for health care. after the election we began to work with our counterparts in the senate and with the trump administration on this plan. i want to thank president trump. i want to thank vice president pence and i want to thank secretary price for their support and their hard work getting us to this repeal and replace point. i also want to thank chairman brady who will join us in a min and chairman walden for their leadership. now this bill will go through the regular order process in the house. as it does, i encourage all americans to read this bill on line at read the bill.gop. go on online and read the bill at readthebill.gop. we made a promise to repeel and replace obama care with conservative solutions and reforms. that is exactly what this bill does. that is exactly why we're hear. thank you. >> i want to echo a couple

things that the speak are said. i do to thank the president. i want to thank the vice president. i want to thank our new secretary tom price as well. i listened to the president meeting with the deputy whip team. he said he was proud to support this new bill. why? because of the years of work that has gone into it. we know why we are here today. because obamacare did he three essential points. one it created exchange. we know the history what happened to that. the failures. the companies pulling out. now you have 1/3 of the entire country, 1022 counties with only one health care provider. it created 23 co-ops, provided more than $2 billion. 18 of the co-ops have collapsed. it expanded medicaid, where we know is can't sustain itself. so we have to put medicaid on being able to sustain itself. why i want to thank chairman greg walden for the work they're going through as well. third it made government control

health care, regulations that it imposed upon everyone else. today is a new day. we stand proud with our president that he support this is bill to move forward to keep the promise that we made that we would repeal obamacare and replace it, put the power back with the individuals. >> well, good afternoon. i want to thank my colleagues for their work on this, especially the president, the vice president, secretary price, secretary brady, members of the energy and commerce committee, especially our subcommittee chairman, dr. burgess, who put in incredible amounts of time and work. this bill went public last night about this time. available online for everyone to he see. this is the conservative alternative to palm cair. this is how we reform health care in america. give choice to people, rescue the failing individual market. we're proud of this piece of legislation. we look forward to marking it up tomorrow. we made a promise to the american people.

we'll keep it right here, right now, by repealing obamacare around replacing it with somebody that will work for them. this is just the first step. this is just the first step. this legislation begins the process of transforming the health insurance market. it also amounts to the biggest entitlement reform since bill clinton signed welfare reform into law because we're going to restore to the states authority that has been taken ay from em, make them have to not come here to washington to ask some bureaucrat for permission to do everything. allow them to inknow straight, be creative, get their hands around patients that need their help the most and best use those dollars. with medicaid amounts to per capita allot man. they know what they can expect. it works for them and we worked closely with the governors. tomorrow at at left or 10:30 we'll bin the markup in open and transparent way. we'll make sure that those that have preexisting conditions

continue to get health care and health insurance. we'll make sure there are no lifetime caps or not kick your kids off your plans until they're 26. we may help kick them out of the basement but not their health care insurance. we look forward to moving on it. and provide rescue for individual market and relief for the states and help to the people who sent us here to get this job done. >> i think mr. brady is still at the white house. we were going have him to next but we'll take questions. casey. >> [inaudible]. >> i'm prepared to lead our conference doing what we said we would do in the election. we ran on repeal and replace plan. that is what this is the repeal and replace plan we ran on. i'm intent on making sure we

fulfill our promises. i believe in regular order. i believe in going through the process the way it was meant to go through. we didn't write the bill in my office on christmas eve like in harry reid's office and jam it through to an unsuspecting country. these committees are writing legislation of the these committees write up legislation tomorrow and goes to the re committee next week which is regular order. i'm excited we're doing this the right way. we're doing this out in plain sight. go to readthebill.gop. what i want to tell me my fellow citizens, the nightmare ever obamacare is about to end. we said what we would do during the campaign repeal and replace this law is collapsing. let's not forget, obamacare is collapsing. obamacare isn't staying. if we did nothing the law would collapse and leave everybody without affordable health care. we are doing a act of mercy that repealing this law and replacing

it with patient-centered health care reforms we conservatives have been fighting or and arguing for for years. chad? >> [inaudible]. are those criticisms repudiation of what -- >> i don't think so. let me give you a list what is in here conservatives should be excited about. number one, the bill repeals obamacare. number two, it repeals the obamacare taxes which is massive tax relief for families on the cost of health care. repeals obamacare spending, subsidies. repeals mandates on individuals and businesses. it has a medicaid per capita block grant. that is the biggest entitlement reform anybody has seen here for decades. it nearly doubles the amount of money people contribute to health savings accounts. that is a fundamental part and a crucial part of convservative

health care policy. it equalizes the tax treatment of health care. i've been doing conservative health care reform for 20 years. for 20 years we as conservatives have been arguing for equalizing the tax trtment r health care of all americans so we have vibrant individual market. so we have choice and competition. here's, there are two ways of fixings headlight care. have the government run it and ration it and put price controls. that is what obamacare does. that is what the left wants or do what conservatives have been arguing for years. have a vibrant he free market where people do what they want. they buy what they want. equalize the tax treatment. stop discrimination in the tax code against people who want to go out on free marketplace to pie the health care they're choosing. this does that. lowers costs, frees competition. allows choices of the most important thing this thing does it takes power out of washington. takes power out of bureaucracy and puts it back to doctors and patients where it belongs. yeah? >> [inaudible]

by some estimates 10 mill people could lose their coverage, does that -- [inaudible] >> what matters we're lowing cost of health care and give being access to people who -- government wins the war if we mandate what everybody has to buy the government will always estimate they will buy it. i think that is bogus. that entire premise of that comparison doesn't work. the fact is we'll not have the government tell you what you must do. tell you what you must buy. we're going to allow the market to do that we'll let people decide what they want to do with their lives. we want to lower costs by having more competition and equalizing the tax treatment of health care, having health savings accounts. that gives people freedom the opportunity to buy the plan they want and afford. >> [inaudible] >> we will. 218 votes. this is beginning of legislative process. we have a few weeks. we'll have 218 comes to the floor. i guarranty you that. yeah. >> [inaudible].

>> read the bill. go to readthebill.gop. >> last question. >> [inaudible]. >> well, it is not, this is open for gotiions. what mike is trying to describe, with envision three phases occurring here. let me describe what the three phases are. this is reconciliation. you can't filibuster a reconciliation bill. this repeal and replaced bill what we pass in reconciliation. phase two, all the regulatory flexibility that secretary of hhs has to deregulate the marketplace, lower costs and stablize the market. that is what tom price will do. there are 1400 instances in this law that gives the secretary discretion. secretary tom price, unlike the obama administration will use that discretion to bring more market freedom and market stabilization. that is phase two. phase three is to pass the bills that we want to pass that we can not put in reconciliation

because of those budget rules. what is an example of that? interstate shopping across state lines. we love the policy. we think it is critical. but as you well know you can not put that in budget reconciliation bill. it can be filibustered. we believe in association health plans, let people through the trade associations, farmers american farm bureau plan, restaurateurs of the restaurant plan and small businesses nfib plan, buy the health insurance in nationwide buying pools. we very much believe in the policy. rules don't allow to us put that into reconciliation. medical liability reform. practice of defensive medicine cranking up health care costs. that ultimately makes health care more expensive for everybody. we know that can not be put in reconciliation. those three bails we do at at the same time. those will ultimately take 60 votes in the senate. phase one is the repeal and replace bill. phase two, tom price deregulates market and brings certainty and

more choices an more plans to get states back in the game of beinable to regulate heah care. phase ree, pasthose reforms we believe it, we think will make it even better we know we can't put in reconciliation because of 60 vote threshold. appreciate it. melissa: that is clearest heard it we explained. answered all questions everyone has, where is this, where is this? where is the buying across state lines. he rolled it out. david: that is perfect example. a lot of people complained today here on fox business about the fact this plan doesn't have any ability for insurers to sell across state lines which would add competition, would bring down costs, et cetera. he said, we thought about that. that could not be passed with reconciliation which they will do in the first phase. that would be done in the they are phase. the second phase after they pass this if they're able to, giver discretion to the head of hhs to make regulatory changes.

the third phase would include bills like for example allowing insurers selling across state lines through regular vote. that would take a lot of doing. they have to get 60 votes in the senate. the problem they have to get a lot of conservative republican senators to agree with them. dave rsh senators rand paul, mike lee and ted cruz are against that plan. they will need every one of those three senators on board. when the house and senate come together to work together too get a bill, they will have to appease the rebel senators. melissa: that was an unbeliable summation of what's happening. he did that off the cuff.

david: he's putting together the details of a plan that would effectively change obamacare into something that is much more free market oriented than what we have now. melissa: in the last few minutes he explained how it all comes together. he laid it out. the question is can they do it? david: can we top tomorrow what we did today? liz: at least two are dead after a train collided with a bus in biloxi, mississippi. the bus appeared stuck on the tracks before the train hit the bus broadside. they are still removing people through the emergency windows. we'll continue to bring you the latest on this terrible accident. paul ryan says they do want to