starting today -- this president will take historic steps to keep his promise to rebuild america. [applause] promising to replace our crumbling infrastructure with new roads, bridges and tunnels and airports, the action the president announces today will encourage investment, commerce and, most importantly, president trump's actions today will enhance the safety and precision of our air travel in the united states. and as i can attest from firsthand experience, having more precise landings in america is a good thing. [laughter] [applause] so with gratitude for his leadership and vision and with admiration for his unwavering determination to rebuild america and restore a nation of opportunity and prosperity, it

is now my high honor and distinct privilege to introduce to you the president of the united states of america, president donald trump. [applause] [applause] thank you very much. thank you, mike. i really appreciate everything and i appreciate you being here but i especially want to thank

secretary elaine chao, leader kevin mccarthy, thank you, kevin. chairman bill shuster, thank you very much, bill, and all the members of congress, many of them here today, for joining us as we prepare to enter a great new era in american aviation. [applause] it's about time too, i can tell you. but before discussing our plans to modernize air travel, i want to provide an update on our efforts to fix and modernize vital services for our veterans, our great, great veterans, who we all love. for decades the federal government has struggled to accomplish something that should be very, very simple, seamlessly transferring a veteran's medical records from the defense department to the veterans

groups and to the va. in recent years it has taken not just days or weeks, but many months for the records to follow the veteran. this has caused massive problems for our veterans. i'm very proud to say that we are finally taking steps to solve the situation once and for all. secretary shulkin announced this morning that the va will announce and modernize its medical records to use the same system as the department of defense. no more complications. the records will now be able to follow the veteran when they leave service, meaning, faster, better and far better quality case. [applause]

thank you. this is one of the biggest wins for our veterans in decades and i congratulate secretary shulkin for making this very, very important decision. thank you, secretary, appreciate it. i appreciate it. he has done a great job. stand up secretary. where is secretary shulkin. what a great job, thank you. [applause] of course there is still much work to do but for today's action shows determined leadership and what it can accomplish, great, great reform. so again, to david shulkin, thank you, to all of our veterans who have served this nation, a very, very special thank you. this is truly wonderful, really monumental reform. so important for our veterans, but it is just the beginning.

we're here today to discuss another issue that has gone unsolved for far too loaning. for too many years our country tolerated unacceptable delays at the airport. long wait times on the tarmac and slowing of commerce and travel that costs us billions and billions of dollars in lost hours and lost dollars themselves. today we're proposing to take american air travel into the future finally, finally, right? finally. [applause] it is a long time. we're proposing reduced wait times, increased route efficiency, and far fewer delays. our plan will get you where you need to go more quickly, more reliably, more affordably, and yes for the first time in a long

time, on time. we will launch this air travel revolution by modernizing the outdated system of air traffic control. it is about time! [applause] since the early days of commercial air service, the federal government has owned and operated the united states air traffic control system yet more than half a century later the government is still using much of the exact same outdated technology. at a time when every passenger has gps technology in their pockets, our air traffic control system still runs on radar and ground-based radio systems that they don't even make anymore. they can't even fix anymore, and many controllers must use slips

of paper to track our thousands and thousands of planes that are up in the air. our air traffic control system was designed when roughly 100,000 people flew at our airports each year. we are now approaching nearly one billion passengers annually. the current system can not keep up, hasn't been able to keep up for many years. it causes flight delays and crippling inefficiency, costing our economy as much as $25 billion a year in economic out. we live in a modern age, yet our air traffic control system is stuck, painfully, in the past. the faa has been trying to upgrade our nation's air traffic control system for a long period of years, but after billions and billions of tax dollars spent,

and the many years of delays, we're still stuck with an ancient, broken, antiquated, horrible system that doesn't work. other than it's quite good. the previous administration spent over $7 billion trying to up grade the system and totally failed. honestly, they didn't know what the hell they were doing. a total waste of money. $7 billion plus, plus. it's te to join the future. that is why i'm proposing new principles to congress for air traffic control reform making flights quicker, safer and more reliable. crucially these reforms are supported by air traffic controllers themselves. they're the ones that know the systems that they want. they know it better than

anybody. and we have people that don't even call them, in the past but now we call them. i'm also proud to be joined today by passenger advocates, pilot unions, and leaders of airlines and cargo companies who strongly support our new framework and our bidding process and we're bidding ideally to one great company. there will be many bids. but one great company that can piece it all together, not many companies all over the united states like in the past when it came time to piece it together, it didn't work. they were all different systems. we threw away billions and billions of dollars. i am very grateful that every former faa chief and chief operating officers and three former transportation secretaries, jim burnly, elizabeth dole and mary pierce

stand with us today, thank you. [applause] this is an incredible coalition for change all over the room. it's a coalition for change. leaders of the industry, and at its core our new plan will dramatically improve america's air traffic control system, by turning it over a self-financing non-profit organization. this new entity will not need new taxpayer money which is very shocking when people hear that. they don't hear that too often. under this new plan the federal aviation administration will focus firmly on what it does best, safety. a separate non-profit entity would be charged with ensuring route efficiency, timely service, and a long-awaited reduction in delays. our plan will also maintain

support for rural communities and airports and airfields used by our air national guard units, great people. and very importantly air traffic controllers will highly and this will be highly valued, these are highly-valued people. these are amazing people that know the system so well and under our plan, they will have more financial security, professional opportunity, and far superior equipment, the best equipment anywhere in the world. they will never be anything like what we're doing. and other systems are very good. i won't tell you the names of the country but we have studied numerous countries, one in particular. they have a very, very good system. ours is going to top it by a lot. our incredible air traffic controllers keep us safe every day even though they're forced to use this badly-outdated system.

that is why we want to give them access to capital markets and investors so they can obtain the best, newest, and safest technology available. by the way the new technology, i've seen it, is incredible. if we adopt these changes americans can look forward to cheaper, faster and safer travel, a future where 20% of a i can itket price doesn't go to the government, and where you don't have to sit on a tarmac or circle for hours and hours over an airport which is very dangerous also, before you land. dozens of countries have already made similar changes with terrific results and we're going to top them by a long shot. canada, for example, modernized their air traffic control through a non-government organization about 20 years ago, and they have cut costs significantly, adopted

cutting-edge technology and handled 50% more traffic. actually far more than that on a relative basis compared to us. a modern air traffic control system will make life better for all americans who travel, ship, or fly. it will reduce costs and increase convenience for every american consumer, and these new efficiencies will produce a huge economic boost for the country and for the one in 14 american jobs that aviation supports. today we are taking the first important step to clearing the runaway for more jobs, lower prices, and much, much, much better transportation. america is the nation that pioneered air travel, rand with these reforms we can once again lead the way far into the

future. our nation will move faster, fly higher and soar proudly toward the next great chapter of american aviation. thank you, god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. thank you. thank you very much. [applause] thank you. the [applause] >> -- feeling she will get the first pen what do you think? what you do you think? [inaudible].

okay? is that all right? [laughter]. my question, who is getting the second pen? >> secretary chao. >> i think so, yes. you're giving up your pen? >> [inaudible]. >> [laughter]. >> i said she was politically savvy. where is our leader? give me another pen, please. i got to -- [inaudible]ç [laughter] >> here we go. thank you. [inaudible] [laughter].

[inaudible]. >> they will be signing autographs now. >> this clan in pennsylvania, clan that hand still running. the mother-in-law -- >> this is his constituents, sir. [laughter] >> thank you all. thank you. [applause] neil: you've been watching the president taking executive initiative, that is what they're calling it here but it is not a done deal. push for privatizing the air traffic control system. some of his predecessors tried to do the same thing. structure the way it works right now inhibits sometimes even prevents modernization techniques to try to deal with

the crowded skies. it is a 30,000 workforce and of course what the president wants to do here is try to make it more flexible and freewheeling without necessarily taxing the american public. this would be privately-fund. it would be a public endeavor though, that it would not necessarily be getting any special funding it. would be funded through user fees through airports and airlines that would provide this service. the question is, how that comes back to americans who would have to then presumably pick up the bill somewhat. elaine chao, the transportation secretary sort of ironing out the details but connell mcshane how delivering on those details could prove easier said than done, what are you hearing connell? reporter: tried a number of times in the past and debated off and on, but anytime president trump you're able to talk about something that will have far fewer delays for americans and save money in the long term but something potentially could be popular but to the point about this being tried in the past, as recently

last year a bill made its way through the house, did not get a vote in the senate, that wanted to move in this direction. it was interesting to hear the president making the case for why things needed to get done this time. it is, one of the reasons that we heard the case being made against it last time. so he talked about, for example, saving money. talks about how much the previous administration had in his view wasted on improvements. that the faa wanted to make, upgrades. said they spent $7 billion and got nowhere. the lasts time this was tried and tried to get it through, delta air lines was opposed to it, all the money being spent you don't want to disrupt air traffic control. give it time to work. we'll see how the debate works through congress this time around. that was the opposition we heard. you're talking about self-financing. you're talking about saving money, something that costs the economy according to the president $25 billion a year.

most importantly for consumers, remember, this is part of a week-long initiative or initiatives that come out on from the white house on infrastructure projects, promise far fewer delays, quoting the president that could certainly have popularity. neil: you mentioned this being part of a infrastructure commitment on the part of the president. also hopes largely privately-funded without raising, you know, the price for taxpayers, that would be over 10 years, i guess this would be rolled into that but the reception for that seems to be pretty dicey. a number of democrats like it but they're not committing their votes for this saying that that would translate into votes for what the president wants to do on either tax reform or for that matter a health care rework, right? reporter: i think back to the time during the transition when we had simi conversations what could get done. that was a time people were actually speaking, nobody speak this is way this time, about some cooperation between the two new yorkers, the senate minority

leader chuck schumer and then president-elect, now president of the united states, donald trump. they would talk about infrastructure and say, hey, there is common ground here that can be reached but the environment has been, as you know, neil, so poisoned by some other things now, it is hard to imagine the two sides working together on anything, even when those things, infrastructure is one of those things that might make sense for them to work together you would think, right? democrats working with the president, that is what we thought coming in. you're right, doesn't seem like people are talking that way, the way they were certainly few months ago, november, december last year after the election. neil: connell, thank you very much. connell mcshane. as connell pointed out this is the first with would be many steps towards infrastructure this would be lumped in with infrastructure here, by executives signing a pen. in this case the president of the united states. it doesn't make it defacto done but the appeal seems to be it has bipartisan abuse. next to the president, ted cruz, long been champion leave this in private hands, not money-making

hands he would say but more efficient hands. non-profit vent it to make our skies not only safer but more efficient. we'll have more after this.

. . y and pay attention. every single one of you is on our list. for those who won't rest until the world is healthier, neither will we. optum. how well gets done.

i needed something more to help control my type 2 diabetes. my a1c wasn't were it needed to be. so i liked when my doctor told me that i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's suppose to do, release its own insulin. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away

if you have a lump or swelling in your neck, severe pain inyour stoch, or symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin, increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse. once-weekly trulicity may help me reach my blood sugar goals. with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar, activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity.

♪ neil: in light after third attack in as many months in united kingdom, theresa may wants to -- islamic extreme everywhere. number of steps, including barring burkas, stripping citizenship for those accused of such crimes. detaining those who are hiding suspicion longer, maybe indefinitely. and, always keeping a constantly-high threat level. right now it is at severe in britain, second highest level. to fox news terrorism analyst

walid fair reese, a former terror analyst, sara mueller. sara, what do you think of the things the prime minister kicking around? a lot of people say it's a little too tentative a little too late, but what do you think? >> one of the areas i strongly agree with some of the statements she made what is going on regarding terrorism online. the uk has been very strong in terms of pressuring technology companies to get extremist content off their platforms. you heard the prime minister say this in her remarks and echoed by senator warner here in the u.s. while we can't stop every terrorism attack, there is no sill have bullet there, is a lot of things we can do to prevent the radicalization process. we can take steps once people on the radar screen to prevent attacks. there are multiple phases. one of the easy things is stopping a lot of propaganda material basically proliferating on a lot of platforms. that is basically how a lot of

individuals come into isis material or terrorist propaganda. it is not through trips through raqqa, syria, or mosul. it is through their you computers and iphones. neil: to that end, walid, facebook is saying, their director of cyber policy, facebook is hostile to terrorists but that it has not been. what do you think? >> british authorities through the third attack in a row are going through old system of dealing with jihadi terror attacks and what prime minister may is projecting as a new way, new strategy. they will explore a little bit. they will do more policing in terms of trying too find active jihadists but the unclear area how do you actually stop or prevent not just radicalization, neil, indoctrination? indoctrination of everything that follows. that is not a simple thing. that is not just the government can do.

they need help of ngos and help of the public. they will talk more about it with the british public. that is what they need to do. that is what we need to do here in america as well. neil: part of that argument has not been -- around when comes to those who behavior and raising chatter and concerns they're up to no good. that could be as innocent as a trip to pakistan to repeated trips to nefarious regions of the earth, to sending threatening signals online. then holding these people for quite a while, the way things stand right now. i don't know how it is in britain. in our country you don't have anything to hold them on you don't let them go. how would that be received in britain, do you think? >> there is delicate balance and between rules on hate speech and here in the u.s. in regards to what you can and can not do online out in the public. having said, that at the end of the day there will be large are

number of cases with potentially threatening language and problematic low level behavior that doesn't turn into terrorism. even if you were to hypothetically hold or do something with all those people, you will not have enough resources and will not help you identify individuals who might be sort of at the tipping point. what really needs to happen, you need law enforcement and the public, vigilant, trained educated about signs or behaviors of people who are planning or look like they're crossing that threshold and it's not an easy threshold to necessarily identify. on the other side of the equation making sure if and when somebody has crossed that threshold there are warnings or education awareness out there if they're trying to obtain supplies that could be -- so that supplys know about this people see unusual behaviors at places like concerts, having stricter security measures in place. that is is the layer, the part we forget about, sort of when the attack happens making sure people both the public and law enforcement can respond promptly

and efficiently know what to do during the situations to minimize any potential something, particularly low level, low sophistication attack occurs. neil: walid, quick, president beefing up support for a travel ban. do you agree? >> i think any travel ban, this one, modified one, should be part of a much wider, much more sophisticated counterjihadi strategy we have not yet developed but we can see the pieces. the travel ban is good if it is part of a much wider strategy that involves vetting, strategic vetting. neil: thank you both very, very much. that is something echoed by senator ted cruz of texas to get tough before the bad guys get even tougher with us. he's next. ♪ [vo] when it comes to investing, looking from a fresh perspective can make all the difference.

it can provide what we call an unlock: a realization that often reveals a better path forward. at wells fargo, it's our expertise in finding this kind of insight that has lead us to become one of the largest investment and wealth management firms in the country. discover how we can help find your unlock.

we cut the price of trades to give investors even more value. and at $4.95, you can trade with a clear advantage. fidelity, where smarter investors will always be.

♪ neil: all right.

facebook is renewing its vow here to remove any terrorist content on its site here, as the prime minister of britain hasn't indicated, you know, it is sites like these that foster islamic extremeism right there on their site for the world to see. quite a few billions users as a result. tracee carrasco with latest how facebook hopes to respond and is responding to that. tracee? reporter: neil, prime minister theresa may calling out social media platforms over the way extremist content is monitored and taken down. terror groups like isis use social media sites to spread propaganda, attract and train new recruits and celebrate attacks. worldwide for cyberspace would deprive the extremists of their safe spaces online. may is calling for internet regulation and putting pressure on social media websites. >> we need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent

the extremist and terrorism planning. we need to do everything we can at home to reduce the risks of extremism online. reporter: facebook is saying it already does what the prime minister is asking. it does not allow groups or people that engage in terrorist attack its. in a statement, quote, we want facebook to be a hostile environment for terrorists using a combination of technology and human review, we will work aggressively to remove terrorist content from our platform as soon as we become aware of it. the key words there, become aware of it. one of the biggest problems these platforms only intervene when inappropriate content is flaked by users. there is hundred ever thousands of files related to promotion of terrorism also condemning content. in a statement, they say we continue to expand the use of technology as part of a system approach to removing this type of content. we will never stop working to stay one step ahead. neil, according to a report from

the telegraph, counterterrorism officers allegedly recorded one suspect from the extremist cell responsible for saturday's attack discussing how to use youtube videos to a van and knife attack in london. neil: wow, incredible. just to show you, tracee, how what tracee was reporting, how herculean task it could be, think of numbers. youtube, 400 hours of video are uploaded every minute. their argument it would be a massive undertaking to screen that stuff. uber is unsome fire for price-fixing minutes after the london attack. the company acted but did it act quickly enough? connell mcshane on the fast-changing developments. reporter: that is interesting, neil. uber is taking a lot of criticism for this. to your point they acted and surge pricing went into effect after the london attack was called in, if you look at the

timeline, the 10:08 the attack on london bridge was called in. uber disabled surge pricing for all of cenal london by 11:40. the way it disableas immediate area. uber uses algorithm. they start raising prices when they have high demand. here, for example, in new york city, get a rainy day or something like that, people don't want to walk, people more likely to use uber, prices go up. higher demand and higher prices as a result. usually if emergency or some sort of a disaster, they disable that surge pricing. we have received a statement from uber. it reads in part, as soon as we heard about the incident we immediately suspended dynamic pricing around the area of the attacks, shortly afterwards across the whole of central london. we're ensuring all rides around the effective area were free of charge. they made it right with the customers, reimbursing people who paid too much. that is what happened with uber. neil: that algorithm automatically kicks in.

reporter: exactly right. happens all the time. in this case as they did in the westminster and manchester attacks they found out about it, got rid of it. for people who paid too much they give them their money back. neil: connell mcshane, thank you very much. donald trump not only chastised congress but for courts moving too slowly on his muslim crackdown. he targeted his justice department that they should have stopped and brought back the original travel ban with more teeth in it. does the guy who backed that ban agree, ted cruz. he is here.

so new touch screens... and biometrics. in 574 branches. all done by... yesterday. ♪ ♪ banks aren't just undergoing a face lift. they're undergoing a transformation. a data fueled, security driven shift in applications and customer experience. which is why comcast business delivers consistent network performance and speed across all your locations. hello, mr. deets. every branch running like headquarters. that's how you outmaneuver. tthat's why at comcast,t to be connected 24/7. we're always working to make our services more reliable. with technology that can update itself. and advanced fiber network infrastructure. new, more reliable equipment for your home. and a new culture built around customer service.

it all adds up to our most reliable network ever. one that keeps you connected to what matters most.

neil: all right, republican senator ted cruz by the way was just at that event with president trump. in fact the two have been joining on a number of big initiatives, not only this effort to privatize our air traffic system but, more to the point, to go after terrorists, to deal with an alternative to the climate accord we all signed on to under president obama. the senator joins me right now. senator, very good to have you. >> neil, great to be back with you. neil: this initiative the president led to try to privatize the air traffic control system, it has been attempted before. he is i guess lumping this in

with infrastructure. how likely is its approval now, do you think? >> well look, i think it's a big deal that the president came o today and is leading othis issue. this issue osubstance should be a no-brainer. number one, it is about jobs. my number one priority is jobs, jobs, jobs, and when it comes to aerospace and airlines in texas, there are over 130,000 jobs in texas that dependon the airline industry and aerospace and by modernizing air traffic control, there are about 60 countries across the globe have done this, what you see is costs going down. you see waiting times going down. you see increased safety. right now air traffic control is using 1950s technology, radar, and little slips of paper, instead of using gps. on your phone you have better technology than air traffic control. we could increase safety, decrease waiting times, decrease costs, and improve the environment by having far less

emissions through air traffic modernization. it should be a no-brainer. my hope we will see republicans and democrats coming together behind a pro-jobs initiative. i commend the president for leading on it. neil: are you worried some smaller airports and those in communities not frequented by major airlines worry that they will be put out to pasture, no pun intended, they will be at disadvantage, what are you saying? >> i'm not worried about that. part of the bill mandates you still have full access, open access in rural areas and less serviced areas. the nice thing we don't have to experiment here. there are 60 nations across the world has done this. canada has done this. the unitedingdom has done this. germany has ne this. we've seen when you modernize air traffic control, take it out of the government bureaucracy, the costs are lower, safety is greater. neil: how -- >> you end up with a better experience. neil: how do you know about the costs? i know tax thing is taken out

but presumably there are user fees. airports and airlines will pay them and pass them along, right? >> we've seen practice costs gone down in other countries when they implemented. about 20% of what you pay in an airline ticket is government fees. we could end up reducing those costs, making air travel more affordable taking it out of government bureaucracy. we've tested this and seen it work. neil, not only does, do those of us who value job and lowering costs increasing wages, not only is this idea supported by pro-premarket people, but those who are unhappy about president pulling out of the paris climate deal, they should be thrilled on the president's leadership on air traffic modernization. right now, planes take long circuitous routes in part because of air traffic control.

with modernization, they fly directly, consume a lot less fuel and do less damage to the environment. it's a win-win for everyone, for right, left and center of for all america. neil: i do want to get into the environmental thing, but first in light of the terror attacks in britain over the weekend, sir, the president scolded his own justice department saying they should have stopped, they should have stayed, i should say with the original travel ban i had, not watered down politically-correct version they submitted to the supreme court. what do you think? >> well, listen there is no doubt these terror attacks at the united kingdom they're horrific. let me say first of all our prayers are with the british people. we're standing side by side with them. they are an incredible ally and special relationship and we're standing in complete solidarity with the british people. i do think these terror attacks highlight the need to do everything we can to he defeat radical islamic terrorism and to keep our country safe.

all of us hope and pray we don't see similar terror attacks here at home. that threat is out there. isis and radical islamic terrorists want to murder americans here at home. and i commend the trump administration for taking seriously we shouldn't be letting in refugees in this country we can't vet to make sure they're not terrorists. that we need to use all law enforcement tools we can consistent with the constitution to keep our country safe. that is just a matter of common sense. neil: there were a number of critics of the president who said he was seizing on a horrific tragedy to sell a plan that has lot of legal holes in it, his muslim travel ban what do you think of that criticism? >> there are a lot of folks on the far left who are just angry and furious about the election. they're not even mad at president trump or republicans. they're mad at the american people. they're mad at voters for electing a republican president, giving republican majorities in both houses of congress.

so they're going to attack whatever the president does. i will say when it comes to keeping this country safe i think people are frustrated by a government that is handcuffed or at least in the prior administration by political correctness. they want to see leaders that stop radical islamic terrorists, stop them before they carry out their attacks. i will note, in the prior congress i introduced legislation that would put in place a common sense, three-year moratorium on refugees coming from nations where al qaeda or isis, other radical islamic terrorists control large portions of territory. the reason is simple. our fbi has told us they can't vet those refugees to make sure they're not terrorists. this shouldn't be a partisan idea. it shouldn't be republican or democrat. everyone should come together and say listen, we have the first responsibility of the federal government is to protect this nation, keep this nation safe and we need to be serious

and use every tool we can to protect against acts of terror. ideally to prevent them before they occur, rather than just dealing with the grief and suffering in the aftermath. neil: part of targeting has been on these social websites, facebook, google and twitter, senator. theresa may, the prime minister in britain says they have to do more, have to police this kind of stuff. facebook is on the wires, saying hospital to terrorists. critics argue it has been anything but. what do you think? >> i believe in free speech here in america. but free speech doesn't mean that we have to put our heads in the sand and ignore threats. example from my home state of texas where the horrific attack at fort hood where nidal hasan murdered 14 souls.

they knew nadal hasan was in communication with anwar awlaki, a radical islamic cleric. they knew he asked anwar awlaki about permissibility waging jihad against his fellow soldiers. yet the obama administration did nothing. i can only surmise, i asked he repeatedly, never gotten a straight answer, i can only surmise because of political correctness they wouldn't act. in my view if we know a service member talking to a radical islamic cleric asking about can he kill his fellow servicemembers, we should stop the terrorist attack, or the next nadal hasan kills more souls. that is clear eyed, clear headed thinking american people expect from their leaders. neil: when you see privacy experts saying you're going after the bad guy, you're going after a lot of good guys they're talking to, you say what? >> privacy matters a great deal,

first amendment, privacy protections protect americans in the united states of america. they don't protect foreign terrorists overseas. foreign terrorists overseas we can use every tool we can to intercept their communications. you know, the neil, the thing maddening after terror attack, nidal hasan at fort hood, the tsarnaev brothers, or the orlando nightclub terrorist, the government had communications, it intercepted communications and knew about the threat before it occurred but the administration was unwilling to act because of fears of political correctness. you know, i chaired a hearing in the senate on the willful blindness of the obama administration where department of homeland security had undergone purge, white house used that term purge, to alter or he delete 800 records to remove references to radical islam or ever muslim brotherhood.

listen that doesn't make any sense to ignoring red flags we see. we can protect privacy of american citizens here at home. we do a good job of that. but at the same time we have to be clear-eyed about the threat we face abroad, to prevent attacks like the ones we've seen in the uk. neil: it's a busy week, senator, you know james comey, the former fbi director expected to address congress. many say president should claim executive privilege not allow mr. comey to speak, would concern a conversation he and he alone with the fbi director. how do you feel about that? >> that is a decision for the white house to make. my understanng mr.ey will testify, i certainly listen to that testimony along with i suspect a great many people. this entire issue there are investigations that are ongoing. there are investigations on going in the house and with a special counsel. i trust the investigations will get to the bottom of the facts

of whatever occurred. i tell you at the same time what i'm hearing from the people back home in texas, they want our government to deliver. they want congress to deliver. they want the president and administration to deliver and deliver on jobs. my number one priority is jobs. we have the opportunity, i believe we'll get it done to repeal obamacare, to see fundamental tax reform and to see real regulatory reform like the president's proposal to modernize air traffic control for everyone of those. liz: you don't think it is large distracting issue? reason cutting to the chase, getting ahead, and if it does fester, you hear the president might have colluded with the russians, is that in and of itself pretty good constitutional scholar in your own right, an impeachable offense. >> let me say number one, every person who has looked at the classified material has said that they see no evidence of collusion. dianne feinstein a democrat, who has seen the classified information -- neil: i understand that.

i'm taking it to its extreme, if it is proven there was collusion many argue that is not an impeachable offense. do you think it is? >> neil, i'm not going down rabbit holes of all sorts of hypotheticals one after the other one after the other. if everyone looked at evidence there is no evidence of collusion, at some point washington starts to get silly where there is an investigation, about an investigation, about an investigation. neil: we don't have all the evidence, right? >> those investigating are lookings at the evidence. what can tell you, will it be a distraction? it will be i'm sure in the media world. i try to do ignore the media circus. what i hear from texans, i don't hear texans asking me this constant media circus of all these investigations. what texans are interested in more jobs. texans are celebrating that the president last week pulled out of the paris climate deal because that climate deal would have killed 6 1/2 million jobs. neil: i understand, just to be clear though, when you hear that

the president united states, might, might, might have toiled the former fbi director to lighten up or go slow on general flynn, would that raise eyebrows to you, if it was indeed the case. >> neil, i'm going to wait to learn what the facts are. i will keep an open mind. neil: okay. >> we have serious investigations ongoing. i will not prejudge issues until we know the facts and based on something more than anonymous sources in media outlets. neil: all right. >> we should instead focus on facts and my focus is on substance. let's deliver what we promised. let's bring back jobs. let's raise wages, if we do that, everything else takes care of itself. neil: senator ted cruz, a pleasure. thank you for taking the time. >> thank you, neil. neil: we'll have a lot more after this including that economic agenda. they're now saying labor day, after this.

think again. this is the new new york. we are building new airports all across the state. new roads and bridges. new mass transit.

new business friendly environment. new lower taxes. and new university partnerships to grow the businesses of tomorrow today. learn more at esd.ny.gov

neil: all right. we're not too far away from the first briefing since the london terror attacks. to ashley webster in london with how their proceeding with this investigation. the third one in as many months, sadly. they're getting used to this. ashley? >> reporter: yeah, sadly, you say, neil, getting used to this. i'm on borough high street, and over my shoulder is borough market where part of the attack saturday night took place. it began on london bridge. three attackers running into this fashionable area of restaurants and bars, one with a machete, others with long knives. now it is still one giant crime scene, but as you mentioned,

neil, becoming all too familiar. 34 people killed, 216 people injured in the course of the last ten weeks. the question is, the government. what is the government doing? the pressure is growing,mideast saw may on -- theresa may on the defensive. she is being criticized for reducing the police force by 20,000 officers since her time as a home secretary here, neil, so she has been on the hot seat a little bit. of course, all of this serves as a backdrop to the general election on thursday, and the polls suggests at one point it was going to be a walkaway win for theresa may and the conservatives, maybe not. one poll has them just one point apart. we'll have to see how this all plays out on thursday, but certainly the issue of terrorism, islamic extremism which theresa may calls a grave threat to the united kingdom, certainly on the forefront of everybody's mind. how does that impact the election? we'll have to wait and see. that happens on thursday, but

once again we have a vigil just on the other side of where i am, neil, for the victims of this latest attack. and as you say, it's become all too familiar. the question is, how do they prevent it? theresa may says she's looking at stronger measures, maybe longer prison sentences. others say that's going to do nothing to deter people who want to carry out these dreadful attacks. that's the way you have it. thursday, i think, neil, will be very interesting to see whether theresa may continues to lead a majority in parliament. if she doesn't, don't forget the brexit negotiations begin very shortly thereafter, and if we have a hung parliament here in the u.k., that will make it that much harder. neil: ashley, are you surprised that her popularity or at least rally around the leader, the flag, whatever you want to call it has not happenedwith her with these attacks? in fact, just the opposite. >> reporter: well, you're right. but the problem is she was home secretary from 2010-2016, and we do know -- which is, basically, the u.k. version of homeland

security -- and we do know that at least two of the attacks, one in man chester and one from saturday night, that those involved had been reported to anonymous tipline for anti-terrorism purposes. at least two people were apparently reported one of the attackers from saturday night saying they were concerned this person had become radicalized and about what he may do. same story in manchester. the problem is authorities did nothing about it. and they admit there's too many people that are of worry and too many people that just can't be covered because they don't have the resources. but, as always, the puck drops with the person in charge, and that's theresa may as prime minister. neil: thank you, my friend. ashley webster in britain. mean whiecialtion authorities knew and, in fact, had been tracking at least one of the attackers. reaction from retiredcia operations sam bettis and cybersecurity9 expert, paul -- [inaudible] paul, to you on that aspect. that once again we were tracking

the guy who would be behind the attacks. it's happenedden again and again and again in that country, in our country. why does this keep happening? >> and, quite frankly, neil, we're going to continue to see this happening. i'm sure sam will agree with that as well. we have far more people to track than we have bodies to track them, and there's nothing more important to us on the preemptive side of gathering intelligence. we're going to have to turn more towards technology and artificial intelligence in order for us to really get where we have to be to get ahead of the curve and start playing offense on this instead of defense. neil: you know, sam, when you hear this sort of thing and the intelligence that we get, now we, obviously, there's chatter of their trips and where they go, and there are limits in a free society how long you can hold somebody or even question somebody. but that is the bane of a free society, isn't it? >> there's no question that collecting intelligence in a free society is difficult. it's also not impossible. it is doable.

you know, it's a matter of having the political will and requiring that collection to take place. i'm kind of an old shoe leather guy, so i'm not opposed to technology, but bottom line is we need human sources, ultimately, to tell us what's going to happen. neil: sam, what do you think of these ideas that have been bandied about in britain where they might ban burkas, strip people of citizenship on multiple questioning -- if in doubt, they throw you out, detain you longer for questioning, maybe not put a time limit on it, six months to a year. this type of tough that's come up including banning extremist talk, language, you know, provocative, you know, back and forths on social web sites, facebook,-you. what do you make of all that? >> you know, i think we have to become more prmptiveand i'm certainly for having a much better idea of who we're allowing into the country. i think there's also a point here where we need to be really careful and avoid taking actions

which impact the broader community when, in fact, the broader muslim community is not involved in these, these events. and i think intelligence is the key to that. knowing who is out there, who is getting ready to act in advance is the key. not trying to take action against an entire community. neil: nevertheless, paul, it comes at a time where we're learning that community wasn't necessarily sheltering one of the attackers, but wasn't passing along information that could have been helpful. others could argue that community didn't know what was going on. neighbors were not quite familiar with what was going on. but piecing together what little we do know, some were, and some didn't relay that. what do you make of that, how should we address that, let alone the brits ourselves as well? >> i think the key part here, neil, is for us to remember that we absolutely have to cut off the supply chain of knowledge that isis and other islamic radicallists are using to perpetrate acts of violence against the global community,

and that specifically is the internet and social media. we are not doing a good job in policing the internet. in fact, we're failing there. and we're allowing them to communicate to recruit, train and deploy tactical measures against us, and we're going to have to raise our sleeves up here and really start to do the right thing to protect the american people as well as the global community. kudos to prime minister may for saying that she needs tougher cyber controls. we need to start hearing that here, and we need to also understand, neil, and we've talked about this before, we don't have this great constitutional right to privacy. we know that they're using the internet to perpetrate acts of violence against us, we need to go against that. we need to be much stronger with that if we're going to protect people here at home. end of story. neil: sam, osama bin laden's son who seems to have claimed his father's leadership role in al-qaeda, has said revolution revolutionaries, he likes to tell them get your hands on

anything, i'm paraphrasing here, to do what you can do, knives, weapons of any sort. this latest attack was crude but very effective in britain, as was the one prior. what are we to learn from that? the cia, what are you doing to address that? >> we've learned these guys are constantly evolving. this is not a static contest. i would agree with everything that was just said, you know? we're getting our clocks cleaned when it comes to the internet and the use of social media to recruit. and we have to adapt to that, and we have to be much more forward-leaning and much more aggressive in identifying folks that are out there on the internet and in the virtual world, if you will, and acting against them before they kill people. neil: guys, i want to thank you both very, very much. >> thank you, neil. neil: president trump, as we've been telling you, is getting a lot of heat for saying this would have been a very good reason to keep the travel ban, his original one, which is tougher than the one going to the supreme court. zuti, what do you think of that,

the president going after his own justice department saying you should have stuck with the original one, it was tougher and had more teeth in it, but it is what it is. but that that would have been the kind of thing and would be the kind of thing to, presumably, stop or slow the type of stuff that's been going on in britain. what do you think? >> well, i think, neil, the point for the american public and for the world is that this guy was trained in libya. so these havens which are anarchical governments which we don't trust, while on the one hand people may want to parse and say, well, he was a u.k. citizen, he wouldn't have been covered on the travel ban, listen, there are many different layers to our security and safety. we need to allow the executive branch to keep us safe and not continue to call this a muslim ban. it's about six countries that happen to be muslim majorities, but i think as a muslim there's nothing more pro-islam than making sure that jihadists, isis sympathizers, islamists are not allowed in. if anyone thinks that's how

we've been vetting people up until the trump administration, they are poorly informed. we have not been vetting ideology, and so it's important for us to start doing it. the president is using the moment in which the world is paying attention to this heinous attack in manchester and then in london to say, listen, we need to look at people coming from these countries where these people are being trained. neil: we're just getting information now via reuters that british police, who we know had identified these attackers, are sharing that information with us. the london bridge attacker was a gentleman by the name of curram boot, probably mispronouncing that. police also named the second london bridge attacker, no age given there. but they were familiar with these guys, familiar as well where they lived. presumably searched their apartments and locales which is why they held off releasing the names. but if the community was familiar with what they were up

to -- and some were, not all, i stress -- do they have an obligation to share information that worried them? like we have in the united states or in new york, if you see, and say something? what do you think? >> absolutely. and, neil, the layers of exposure that we have here are just so profound. the question is, which community. muslims that we know would obviously turn in these individuals and would report, you know, suspicious behavior. but the communities are so often segregated. i mean, look at the paris attack in november 2015. that same cell committed an act of terror in brussels in march, 2016. was not found by any e.u. security services for four months and then committed the act in brussels. so we're seeing the same thing where these known wolves where you have thousands that are being monitored, too big of a pool to monitor. why is it too big? because we're not focusing in on ideology, we're not focusing on the way these family networks,

community networks protect one another. they may not all be advocating for the suicide bombing or the violence, but they certainly are part of the sense of, well, they're living in the land of war, not the land of islam, this is the enemy, they hate us, it's a conspiracy theory. all of these ideas make a tribal community lock down and not help security -- neil: but how does that keep happening? i'm not blaming muslims for that, but, for example, in the sake of shahzad, the police knew a little bit about what he was up to. the british intelligence knew what he was up to. there was no evidence to strongly suggest an attack was imminent, but they knew enough to know he was up to something. now, it's easy to play, as i often say, monday morning quarterback here. but where threes noise, there's -- there's noise there's often times something bigger. and again is and again we either ignore it or it slips through the crack. what happened? >> what happened, neil, is our

homeland security -- and in many ways i'm thankful they're limited by the laws. the imam that radicalized this guy is in dearborn. his name is imam jabrill. she is found to be associated with a number of isis recruits while he sits in michigan preaching this sort of anti-americanism, etc. so we muslims have to start to make these guys radioactive so that the antiseptic of sunlight is apparent, and they become pariahs in the community. but until that, this can't be fixed by homeland security -- neil: do you think they're just afraid for their own lives? >> no, that's a copout. listen, people should be afraid for their lives, neil, are my family in aleppo dodging bombs, and isis has really set up shop down the street. neil: that's going to explain their reluctance to help authorities if time and again -- i'm not saying all, but a good

money, obviously, pass up the opportunity to share, you know, curious things they notice. >> yeah. the problem is denial, a sense of lack of urgency, it's not my problem. the lack of a linkage between nonviolent islamism and jihaddism with the violet islamism. that lack of linkage which was the media, universities, others contribute saying, oh, no, no, it's just the terrorism. it's just the extremism. it's not the underbelly of ideology which is the problem. and that lack of connection between all of the precursors with the final step of radicalization is the problem that we don't say, oh, it's our problem because they were going to report just when they want to put on a belt. no. long before he puts on the belt, he starts to hate america, hate our military, hate what we do. that is what our community's in denial about dealing with. neil: all right, thank you very much, american islamic forum, the founder and the president. all right, there's a big apple event going on right now,

some are saying tim cook is telegraphing some goodies to come including an alexa-type device. maybe a preview of coming attractions with the new iphone, this as the company suffers a rare downgrade by pacific crest. it's slightly weighing on the stock, of course, which has been soaring this year. down about $1.54, a little bit more than 1%. we'll have more after this. ♪ ♪

will you be ready when the moment turns romantic? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, 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.

♪ ♪ neil: in light of the terror attacks in britain over the weekend, sir, the president scolded his own justice department saying they should have stopped -- they should have stayed, i should say, with the original travel ban i had, not the watered-down, politically correct version they submitted to the supreme court. what do you think? >> i commend the trump administration for taking seriously that we shouldn't be letting in refugees to this country, that we can't vet to make sure they're not terrorists, that we need to be using all the law enforcement tools we can consistent with the constitution to keep our country safe. neil: all right. that was senator ted cruz commending the president on this refugee stance and saying, again, it does bolster his argument for very, very tough travel ban, a muslim ban as some

have called it. we're awaiting a white house press briefing where that will, no doubt, come up. in the meantime, you have the major news media going apoplectic, and this might come up as well although i doubt it, harpooning the president not on what's going on abroad, but how he is reacting to what's going on. one msnbc anchor, for example, suggesting the president is trying to provoke a terror attack. look at this. >> the president doesn't want us to be politically correct, right? so let's not be p.c. about this. is the president trying to proseek a domestic -- provoke a domestic terror attack with this twitter rant? only to prove himself right. neil: all right. if that didn't get you, at least he kept the language clean, because a counterpart at cnn called the president a pretty foul name on twitter. it rhymes with pit. former bush 43 spokesperson, mercedes schlapp, and the hill editor-in-chief, bob cusack. i don't know, mercedes, i think

we've waded into crazy town. what do you think? >> i feel it's kathy griffin part two coming out of the cnn host where they just, they have this sense -- especially in this particular case -- the sense that on social media they're just as honest as president trump is. i mean, they're coming out and basically calling him names, saying what they feel about the president and making it very clear where they stand. you know, i think, neil, it's -- i have to say i'm not surprised. we know that there has been hostility against this president from members of the mainstream press. they don't like the fact that the president is just a plain spoken, transparent individual who just says things like it is. and it's something that, for them, they have not recovered from the loss of, the hillary clinton loss in 2016. and the fact that they have to deal with president trump day in and day out, i mean, i think it makes them almost stir crazy.

neil: but, you know, bob, it is quite another -- foul language notwithstanding and hating his frankness but perfectly fine with your own -- to intimate he is orchestrating a sort of wag the tail moment to try to get an incident here to get a muslim ban going here. that, that really is a pretty dangerous charge that, if anyone were to have said that about barack obama or any president, would have raised eyebrows. at the least. >> that's right, neil. i mean, these are examples of why the media has very low approval ratings, is that, you know, the media's supposed to te a nonpartisan referee. and whether it's through social media or other means and you show bias, you can't be antagonistic towards the president. you can criticize if you want if you're a pundit, but suggesting -- name-calling and suggesting that the president wants a terror attack here is just out of bounds. and it's unfortunately because, you know, after 9/11 everybody came together, and there was

this unity, you had lawmakers on both sides of the aisle singing on capitol hill. but now it's a different time. neil: yeah. you know, mercedes, we always hear when the president makes a military strike or goes to a foreign capital dating back to richard nixon before he resigned going to egypt, such were the charges. you even heard it with, you know, barack obama in his early strong language and attacks on syria, then with donald trump with his tom tomahawk missile ak to take attention off. i understand how that goes, but this is crossing into a whole other area, sight unseen, language, you know, not coded. it's really dangerousically crazy, is it not? >> you know, as an opinion writer, and i've written, obviously, critical of president barack obama, critical of hillary clinton -- neil: i never heard you curse once. [laughter] >> i was going to say -- neil: constitutional motives to anything. [laughter]

>> well, i'm critical, but i don't -- i don't want it to be a personal attack on them because at the end, what we need to be looking at is, fine, decision making process, policy making decisions, looking into what these individuals may think or how they're going to act. but i think the personal name-calling, there's such an emotional fight going on between the mainstream media and president trump. and it's happened since the election time. and i only think that it's gotten worse. i mean, when you're looking at the fact of the coverage of the first 100 days, 98% of the stories in five major outlets were negative. the guy can't do one thing right? neil: if you can't hide your bias, fine. but, bob, with i draw the line is with this type of stuff that just shows it getting dangerously vitriolic, to the point that, you know, they talk about trying to boy cat advertisers on -- boycott advertisers on this network if

something offends them, but i haven't seen anything approaching that on this because of the idiocy of it. >> yeah. no, i agree. i think some people have literally just lost their minds, and the vitriolic nature of politics is not getting any better. now, you can argue that trump's had a role in that, but that's more politics, not personal. it's all in how you do it. first amendment is a beautiful thing -- neil: absolutely. >> but you can't cross these lines. it's just really unfortunate. and i don't think it's going to stop anytime soon, neil. neil: that's why i didn't mind anyone calling me a loser, it's when they said fat loser, it's a low blow. >> oh, you're adorable. neil: thank you! all right, guys, appreciate it. in the meantime, we are awaiting the white house press conference. we are monitoring what's going on in britain right now where they're having their own vigil. sadly, they're getting very used to this, third time in as many months. think of it, over the course of

that time 33 people killed, we heard of the dozens who have been injured, and a couple of them in this latest attack on life support. we'll have more after this. this is the new new york. we are building new airports all across the state. new roads and bridges. new mass transit. new business friendly environment. new lower taxes. and new university partnerships to grow the businesses of tomorrow today. learn more at esd.ny.gov

♪ neil: all right. this is a proof how old i'm getting here. normally any terror attack, even a hint of a terror attack was enough to clobber markets here, there, everywhere. not so this third incident in many months in britain, normally met with some angst in britain, at least in the european markets, certainly by extension our own. big board barely budging. oil, barely moving at all. gold up initially, barely moving at all. what are we to take of all this, what it says maybe about us our times or whether we get used to this, or a case, it is what it is? we have peter shankman, we also

have russ a tech analyst as well. we'll monitor apple developments shanna. shane, begin with you, we were chatting about the fact we don't react the way we used to react. is it because we're rused to it, or you know, because it is not happening here, which is it? >> probably a combination of both, not to give you a complicated answer but these are incidents, incidents are happening more and more rapidly and it is conditioning us to be more used to these occurrences. it is all around. it is online. it is on our social media feeds all the time. so we're constantly being bombarded with sentiments. i think we're getting more used to it. neil: peter, one person i talked to, we're getting used to lone wolves and craziness taking out people crudely though effectively, but, but, we would react very, very differently if

something of a scale of 9/11 which was the obvious. what do you make of that? >> i mean it is very true. when 9/11 happened there were calls to monitor the internet and monitor every single piece of gmail. what happened, terrorists wound up creating draft documents with other people access that never got out there. every time we used to see that. neil: now they do. >> that isn't working going to that level of extreme it's a new normal. we're being desensitized. it is new normal, when it keeps happening the world dishave to keep turning. not to sound cold, it's a horrible thing but markets have to keep open. neil: what do they think on britain with the crackdown on facebooks and googles and others? >> google passed very strict laws sourcing information from the internet, recovering, saving last 12 months of our history. neil: holding the social media company accountable.

>> i think a lot of these tech companies are doing a lot to aid these efforts but i also think a matter of degrees where at a certain point is the normal opinionlous being sort of -- poplous, are they losing privacy. neil: shanna, i wonder if they canada it. i'm not an apologist for these companies, in youtube i was reading 400 hours of video uploaded every minute. every minute. that is a lost video. there are algorithms, all of you far smarter than i to screen that but that is a lot to screen. by the time you do, is it too late? >> there is so much content constantly being uploaded. it is interesting google taken steps around youtube and videos to try to use algorithms to identify child pornography and other instances. interesting to see how the companies use those technology

tools to improve upon human reporting and algorithms they have in place. but there is so much content every day there are a few things that slip through the cracks unfortunately. neil: to the apple event, guys, one sort of giving a preview of coming attractions, is that the deal? >> apple, we still for whatever reason we still get very, very hyped and pump a lot of buzz in every apple event when i don't think that buzz is necessarily warranted the last three or four years. neil: seems evolutionary, watch with more popular characters. >> the watch stuff i think they have had a tgh time just he filing like huge news over it. as they delve into new iphone stuff, this is first year where they revamp the iphone last three years. neil: what do they do at developers conference? they can't give it away. what will they show. >> new software updates, new hardware plans, new laptops,

stuff like that. they will tease whether wireless charging or syncing to your blof information. this is a press conference. neil: do you stop buying apple products until -- >> there will not be evolution until this one. this is pretty much to the next one. take it a step further, wwdc 10 years ago was literally hottest ticket in the world, you have companies like samsung, huawei, companies coming out with devices if not mimic and if not better t doesn't have the same cachet five or six or seven years. iphone was revolutionary. ipad was revolutionary. those evolutions are being improved upon. neil: i'm an apple shareholder, i have been a while, i should disclose that. i'm reminded of the days of steve jobs t would be a big deal, he was a marketer extraordinaire, take nothing away, sometimes marketing stuff in retrospect was big, it wasn't

that big, but he had the ability or knack for heralding an event for being so different, even moves to the ipod itself at the time, that apple seems to be stretching for something even akin to that. am i reading reading that corre? >> the pction element usedan? to be such a huge de. i was watching a few minutes before we went on air of the live conference right now and the applause -- neil: wait a minute. you were watching that instead of this show? touche. touche. continue. >> wa-wa. >> great multitasker. neil: very good. very good. all right, guys. >> it was interesting because the applause is very muted like. neil: is that right. >> used to be like everything was a huge deal. but right now, people are trying to come up with a reason to clap. so, you know, it was, slow start to this conference, at least

this specific presentation i must say. neil: yeah. bob schiller, the man who foresaw the housing crisis, is a big believer in this market oddly enough. he thinks it will appreciate another 50% in the next few years. much of it driven by technology. he didn't get into specific names but we are embarking on this big market run. how do you -- >> that is the question, we're looking at a world in three years, four years, 5-g. neil: when is that happening? >> 2021. going with 2021. fast of speed of 5-g is better than we've ever known. simply being on the subway when my watch detects my heart is having issues, subway able to read that, bypass two stations to get me to a hospital. we're looking amazing stuff coming down the pike. question who will deliver it? i said embrace the concept, not necessarily the brand. neil: does any of what is going on in washington, if we don't

get tax cuts or regulatory relief, things addressed like the president is trying to do, working with democrats about easing up a lot of the rules and regulations that get in the way of efficient air travel? if none of that comes to pass, is the pad that might have been built into this market run-up since his election going to be unpadded out? >> i don't think it will make a difference honestly. i think this will happen no matter what. neil: really? >> yeah. a lot of this stuff is driven by these companies individually making these investments. it is not driven by federal funds necessarily. i would say anyone trying to like slow it down, it is a speeding train at this point. there is nothing you can do. >> to quote "jurassic park," technology find as way. >> slight modification. neil: then it eats you alive. >> exactly. neil: guys, thank you all very much. shana even though you watch other things before you prepare for the show we'll have you back. >> thank you.

neil: meantime we're monitoring events in washington. we'll get a white house briefing from sarah huckabee sanders. no doubt responding to questions about the president's calls to get his muslim travel ban, whatever you want to call it through. a lot of critics say he used that opportunity in britain to seize on that. the brits are not happy about it. but he is still expected to still champion that cause. he says unless we move quickly, people in this country are going to die. all right, we'll have a lot more after this. ♪

♪ neil: all right, you are looking at the white house briefing room. i see a little bit of action here. sarah huckabee sanders is going to do the honors with questioning today. let's bo to the white house and sarah. >> good afternoon. hope you guys had a chance to get a little rest this weekend because as i'm sure you can tell the president as well as rest of

the administration have a very busy week and agenda moving forward at meetings, events both inside and outside of washington. with that i would like to bring up secretary shulkin to talk with you all about the big announcement he made this morning about historic modernization of va records system. as reminder, as always, encourage you to be respectful and keep your questions on the topic at hand. i will be happy to answer questions on other topics after. secretary shulkin. >> thank you, sarah. i'm glad to be here today. as sarah said earlier today, he made the announcement about the department of veterans affairs decision on electronic health records and normally that is not too exciting decision about a product but i have to tell you i'm very excited about this because i think this is going to make a big difference for veterans everywhere. it will make a big difference for the department of the veterans affairs. i want to say from the outset

when the president selected me to be secretary he made clear to me expected us to act with faster decisions, to act like a business and to really make sure that we were doing the right thing to change veterans health care and that is exactly what we're trying to do today. i told you when i was here last week i was going to make a decision by july 1st. i'm coming back early and honoring that commitment. so having electronic health record that can follow a veteran during the course of his heah and treatment is one of the most important things i believe you can do to insure the safety and the health and well being of a veteran. so that is why this is so important. i told congress recently that i was committed that va would get out of the software development business. i did not see a compelling reason why being in the software development business was good for veterans. because of that i made the decision to move away from our internal product to

off-the-shelf commercial product. as you may know, almost all of our veterans get to us from one place, and that is the department of defense. when i went back and looked at this issue very carefully since becoming secretary, i was able to trace back at least 17 years of congressional calls and commission report requesting that the va not only modernize its system but work closer with the department of defense. so that went all the way back to 2000 but actually to this date the department of defense and the department of veterans affairs have gone separate ways. we each have separate systems and each are supporting separate electronic systems. while we have been able to advance inneroperability at cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayers, today we still have separate systems that do not allow for the seamless transfer of information. i want to expand on that a little bit being a doctor. what we are able to do with the

department of defense over years and years and as i said, hundreds of millions of dollars, we're able to read each other's records right now. that is called interoperability. that is our certification. but what you're not able to do is actually work together to plan a treatment. to be able to go back and forth between the department of defense and va. so we have not been able to obtain that to this point. so for those reasons i decided that va will adopt the same trone i can health record as the department of defense. so we will now have a single system. that system is known as the mhs again necessary system, which at its core is cerner millennium. the adoption of the same system between va and dod will allow patient data to reside in a common system. so you will have this seamless link between the departments without the manuel or electronic exchange of information. so as secretary i think i'm not willing to put this decision off any longer.

i think 17 yrs has bn do long. when dod went through its decision on electronic medical records and its acquisition process in 2014, it took them approximately 26 months to do this i will tell you in government terms that is actually a pretty efficient process. i don't think we can wait that long when it comes to the health of our veterans. so under my authority as the secretary of va, i am acting to essentially do a direct acquisition of the vhr currently being employed by the department of defense, that will be across the entire va enterprise that will allow seam lis health care for benefits and qualified beneficiaries. once again because of the health of our veterans i decided that we're going to go directly into the dod process for the next generation electronic health record. let me just tell you this. this is the start of the process. va has unique needs that are

different than the department of defense's. for that reason va while it is adopting identical vhr to dod, needs capabilities to maximize inneroperability with our community providers. 1/3 of our health care goes outside of the va into the community this is critical we can have the same inneroperability with our community providers. we'll have our va clinicians involved how we develop the system and implement it. in many ways the department of veteran affairs is actually well ahead of the department of defense in clinical i tee innovation. we'll not discard all the things we have done in the past. that is you how we will help dod get better this system will strengthen care for veterans and our active servicemembers. we'll be embarking upon something that has never been done before. that is an integrated product, using the dod platform but it will require this integration with other vendors to create a

system for veterans so they can get care both in the community as well as the department of defense. that's going to take the active cooperation of many companies and thought leaders and it will serve as a model not only for the federal government, a federal agencies working together but for all of health care trying to seek this type of inneroperability. once again i want to thank the president for his incredible commitment helping our veterans and supporting the va. i also want to thank the department of defense who have been incredibly helpful in this process. and the american office of innovation who has been incredibly helpful thinking differently how to solve problems. this mission is too important for us not to get right and i assure you we will. i would be glad to take any questions. >> mr. secretary, two questions. one, how long will this take? you said a beginning process? then two, how will a veteran know and feel and experience a difference because of this decision? >> yeah. great, great questions.

so this is the beginning of the process. we're going to start essentially entering into the details of how we would implement a contract. we expect that process, again, trying to do this as quickly as possible, will be about three to six months at latest. and during that time we're going to be developing both the implementation plans and cost for this system to go out to make sure we're doing this right and we have the resources available to do it. secondly to a veteran they're now going to be able to have a single system from the time they enlist in the military until potentially they die, one single lifetime record. there will never be a need to go back and forth, to say, records are not there for me, or my doctor is not able to have input what the department of defense is doing and our community partners need that same type of inneroperability. >> how will that change things for the people in the system now? >> as you know my top clinical priority is to reduce veteran

suicide. one of the areas we identified is a gap in the transition, when you leave the military, all of a sudden you don't no longer have the structure you're used to, what happens before you get enrolled into va health care or community health care. that no longer going to happen. we'll have a seamless ability to make sure that information's there. so, to a veteran who is experiencing emotional disorders, when they reach out for help, it will be easier to get them help, for other people with physical problems, that same information will be there to develop a coordinated care plan. yes, sir? >> mr. secretary you're waving competitive bidding for this. do you have a ballpark estimate how much it will cost? is that factored into your current budget? >> we have not begun the cost negotiations. we know the department of defense had a $4.3 billion contract. va is a bigger organization. but we have not begun those negotiations. part of the reason why i have

waived the process because i absolutely believe, i spent a lot of time reviewing the materials. it is in the public interest to move quickly. i also believe we can do this cheaper for the taxpayers by sentencely moving forward quickly without a lengthy process. yes, sir? >> thank you, mr. secretary. you are part of the lasted a administration. in fact you were deputy va secretary. is there a particular reason why this process you're announcing today did not take place during the obama administration? did you drop the ball in the obama administration? if you could, explain a little bit about that. >> yeah. this is, this is one of those problems that i talked about last week with all of you, that i think spans administrations and has been going on for decades. i can count no fewer than seven blue ribbon commissions that have recommended that we move in a direction like this. the commission on care which was a 68 million-dollar study, came out with this recommendation. and so, i think people have felt that this was a direction that they should be moving in.

i will tell you it is hard to make decisions. there is a lot of built-in movement to keep things the way that they are. so while in the lasted a administration we considered this, and we looked at a number of things, i think that it really was this administration and the president's mandate to do business differently that allowed us to move forward with this type of speed. yes, sir? >> [inaudible]. when, at what point in the future, how many months or years can veterans will be transitioned? how will they seamlessly transfer from the va? same question, who at the white house was involved in this process, priority of -- >> so two questions. one is about the timing, when does a veteran actually begin to experience this? that is what we're going to be determining, timeline during the three to six-month period when we roll out. i do believe, everything i'm doing is trying to act with speed, working with the department of defense and

already using their planning materials and their change management tools, we will be able to do this much faster than we begun alone. department of defense has taken a period of time before they have implemented their first system in fairchild air force base which has been successful. but, i think we will be able to do ours even faster than they did. thanks to secretary mattis and the department of defense. they have actually detailed over to us some of their key executives who worked on their project they now are at va. they're helping us begin this. we have institutional knowledge from them is considerable. your question who at the white house has been working with us. i will tell you who in this decision i reviewed large numbers reports, independent management reports that we had, consultants come in to help us but i have consulted with all of the stakeholders that i could. hospital cios, hospital ceo's,

members of cons guess and people at the white house to be able to talk to all the stake holders to make the decision at white house. of course we've talked with the president's office but also working closely with the american office of innovation and all those are stakeholders that contributed to my thinking. yes, please? >> during the bush years there was problem of computers when it came to medicare, medicaid. during obama care, aca. what happens when you try to bring all the, integrate information from all the services into this one system? what are the guaranties? >> yeah, no guaranties. high-risk process, when you're doing this in the largest integrated health system in the country this is high-risk. one of the reasons i made this decision. i think by going with the department of defense system, we are lowering our risk because we have a federal partner who is already gone through this process. that is why we're taking their expertise and putting it into va. again with secretary mattis's

commitment to work with us closely i think we're lowering the risk. as private sector ceo i've done this several times successfully. i've never done it on this scale. so risks are there. we'll make sure we this the right way. >> what happens to those older veterans who have problems? you're doing this now trying to integrate now but what happens to those who have been in the system for a long time? where do they come in and how long will this take to help them get into the system? >> this is a problem that many health care organizations that transitioned to other electronic health records have found. you do do not discard your old information. that would be clinically irresponsible. you have to have a may making sure old information is there, transitions into a new system or remains available for clinicians to have. that is a problem i think we'll be pretty good at handling. yes, sir. >> cost benefit analysis, can you share that with us? >> yes, some of our management

consultants looked at this issue of off-the-shelf versus staying with maintenance have helped us look at the cost benefit decision. that was part of my thinking. this is a essentially the most cost effective way to go to a commercial off-the-shelf system. the problem with what va has been doing, we have $4.1 billion budget in i.t. 70% is maintaining our current systems. our systems are getting older. the bandaids are getting older, harder to hold the system together. each year i believe we'll get more and more expensive to modernize our own system. we aren't able to keep the type of people that we want. so i think the best cost benefit decision for taxpayers and for veterans is to move to an off-the-shelf system. >> quick follow-up, you're talking about off-the-shelf system? you're not developing new software. what will be there? >> what is that? >> biggest problem with off-the-shelf is security. >> one of the reasons again, why

i chose to bo this route is because of cybersecurity. the department of defense has already invested in such high cybersecurity standards, those are the standards we need to be able to assure privacy and security for our veterans. that is part of the reason why we're doing this. just to be clear, we are adopting an off-the-shelf system but, as i mentioned before, we are also embarking upon something that nobody's done before because of this problem of these commercial systems don't talk together. we need them to talk together because many of our patients are out in the community and our academic partners, many of them use other systems besides cerner. we're creating something that is taking best of what is off-the-shelf but also creating something that doesn't exist today. yes? >> [inaudible]

if you want a three to six month time frame to be able to initiate what you're doing? >> we've already begun to engage starting today with the appropriations leadership in both the senate and the house. and i will tell you that this is something that congress has been asking for. i believe that they will support this. of course, this has to be a dialogue between us. they have to make sure that we're making the decision at the benefit of the taxpayers as well as veterans and active service members. but i do believe we will have the leadership and the partnership to get us there. >> and just to clarify one last thing, if this is an off the