were just so thrilled hanging out watching the ceremony. i want to thank you for getting this country moving again and also working with you. >> thank you very much. >> mr. president, proud to be here. i'm very proud to represent men and women who celebrate the country in dhs. in the five months that i have been in the job we have gone a long way to facilityate, improved the legal movement of commerce across our borders yet at the same time have a long way to safeguarded our borders, particularly the southern borders and working with all of our partners, 70% drop in illegal immigration. while we still welcome legal immigrants to tune of over 2 million a year, we are no longer a friendly environment for illegal border crossings. >> thank you. >> mr. president, first of all, i apologize for being late for

work. i have been dragged down in the where we met with the oecd and wto both and the message was similar to wilbur's. deficits do matter and are they coming down? >> i know they are. >> mr. president, thank you for the opportunity to serve in sb a. i can tell you i have not been traveling internationally. what i continue to hear optimism for small businesses higher than it has been in 16 years. people returning to the workforce, a lot of them are because small businesses are creating new jobs. portfolios are up. machine toring and our outreach with score and other programs are so successful. we're on a good trajectory, and still a lot of work to do. >> thank you. >> on behalf of the entire senior staff around you, mr. president, we thank you for

the opportunity and blessing you have given us to serve your agenda and the american people. we'll continue to work very hard every day to accomplish those goals. >> honor to serve the cia director. incredible to lead and men and women to lead the national security mission. [inaudible] [laughter] >> here, here. >> mr. president, thank you for your support and commitment to honoring our responsibilities to merge's veterans. i know this is personally very important to you. i have the great honor of being a able to representç the 21 million american veterans that have become work for this country and i work every day to make sure we're honoring that responsibility. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> mr. president it, has been a great honor to work with you. thank you for the strong support

of hud and for all others around the table. we're making tremendous progress and converting to a business model and tremendous savings there. this month is national homeowners month. therefore i will bring the bell on wall street at 4:00, which means itch to leave at 12, thanks. >> good morning, mr. president. while we were talking about international travel, i just bottom back from mississippi. [laughter]. they love you there. and i want to congratulate you on the men and women you placed around this table. the holistic team of working for america is making results in each and every area, working with secretary ross and ambassador light haas send and secretary mnuchin and secretary scott pruitt. this team is working hand-in-glove working for in

america. these are great team members and glad to be on your team. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. president, it was a great honor halving around the country with you and serving in your cabinet. on behalf of everybody in the treasury i can asyou we're focused on economic growth and sweeping tax reform and fighting terrorism within all the programs under our control. >> thank you. thank you all very much. thank you, everybody. >> mr. president, are there tapes of you -- neil: all right. remarkable as it is to believe this is the first time the president had a chance to meet with entire cabinet, including a couple undersecretaries, first time in the cabinet room assembled all together. significant development and significant moment for the president to talk about his agenda and will go undeterred, including news his attorney

general jeff sessions will speak before the senate intelligence committee tomorrow. that will be a public hearing but continues this administration effort to provide everything to everyone but keeping the eye on this economic agenda which will include tomorrow, a trip to wisconsin to look at apprenticeships, alternatives times of works that do not necessarily require a college degree but those that require basic hands-on talent skills that go beyond simply the college-educated. blake burman from the white house on the frontal assault on agenda very much front and center. sir. reporter: neil, last week they tried to get infrastructure out, the trump white house did. of course that was overshadowed by jim comey. several days worth of news as he weren't to capitol hill. fast forward to this week. now they're trying to focus on workforce development a project very near and dear to ivanka trump. so much so they're sending the

president out on the road tomorrow to wisconsin. there will be a roundtable here at the white house on thursday. wednesday he will, the president will visit the labor department as well. so it was supposed to be workforce development the theme, pushing apprenticeships, stem fields and the like but once again like lastç week, with the cloud of jim comey last week, now as they head into this workforce development week comes the move of jeff sessions, the attorney general, testifying before that very same committee, the senate intelligence committee. it is the department of justice who says, that this is exactly what jeff sessions wanted, an open hearing before the american public. doj putting out this statement today, saying quote the attorney general requested this hearing be public. he believes it is important for the american people to hear the truth directly from him. looks forward to answering the committee's questions tomorrow. so once again, neil, you have the white house, the administration trying to focus on economic items. last week infrastructure.

this week workforce development. but at the very same time that the president is going to be on the ground in waukesha, wisconsin, tomorrow at a trade school, the cameras will be trained on jeff sessions here in washington before the senate intelligence committee, an open hearing for all to see once again, neil. neil: buddy, thank you very, very much, blake burman. we'll learn who will join the president. ivanka trump will join her father, we know that and wisconsin governor scott walker. ivanka trump was on "fox & friends" earlier this morning talking up the economy and what her father is trying to do. >> they see the economy booming. small businesses have this sense of just vigor. i was talking with somebody the other day who was referring to it as the animal spirits, small business owners, has been released. so you know there is a tremendous energy but there is also real challenges. neil: all right. let's get the read on all of

this with "washington examiner"'s white house correspondent, sara wilson and pollster chris wilson. part of this tomorrow, this was prearranged before we got wind jeff session was be testifying on capitol hill. might that be eclipsing whatever message the president is sending tomorrow? >> well yeah -- neil: sara, first to sara, then i will get to you, chris. >> sorry. >> blake mentioned this happened with infrastructure week. seems like a pattern the white house wants to pursue where they have policy theme that encompasses a trip somewhere in middle america to promote that policy, alongside local leaders. we're going to see potentially governor scott walker tomorrow. last week president trump is in cincinnati. all the controversy with the russian situation overshadowed that. jobs, job creation, economic issues this is president trump is strongest. where he has the most concrete results he points to in terms of

job numbers. investor confidence in everything that is come along with his pro-growth agenda. it is not surprising when the white house is coming out appeared where they're criticizing for lacking focus, they're starting the area where they have been most successful. neil: chris, i apologize at the confusion of the outset here, one thing i heard, chris this, is a matter of timing. this event in wisconsin is in morning we're told. sessions event will be 2:30 in the afternoon. there is time earlier on to get his message out there is is alternative out there for traditional college-related jobs, that everyone has to go to college to get a good job. apprenticeships they value in germany, italy, is something this administration will be touting. the fact he is doing it with scott walker. the fact he is doing it with his daughter. the fact echoing who's who of labor in the state, will it get

much follow-through, what do you think? >> tough to say on the follow-through right now. the one thing donald trump is better at than anybody else in the american politics maybe in the world is controlling press attention. unfortunate aspect is negative for last few weeks. what this gives opportunity to get back on message. that is positive. i think it is positive on two fronts. what sarah went you through very articularly, the jobs are up. a lot of people voted for donald trump in wisconsin, voted for democrats in the past because of his message on jobs. be able to go back into a state, democrat state, traditionally, he won to talk about positive things. second positive is campaigning with ivanka trump. she is well-liked. she softens his edges, provides discipline to the campaign. him going out on the trail to talk about this will, not take attention completely away from the sessions hearing but certainly will divert it. it is smartest thing i've seen him do in the presidency.

feels more like the campaign up until anything else has. neil: get back to what got you here. >> that's right. neil: sarah, one of the things they want to do tomorrow, look at 30 odd various workforce programs, spread across dozen federal agencies, fine tune them, whittle them down, get them to be more productive. a criticism that comes up, you always hear this, especially from liberals, i talk about angela hanks, who gave the president high marks for even attempting this trip but over at center for america progress she views it with a mixed blessing. great if we all can agree apprenticeships are good. but if you can't access child care to get there you can't develop good programs because the workforce system we have prevents them from doing some pair phrasing that. but what do you get the president is damned for even trying? >> that is the problem the

white house trying to run into, getting rid of duplicative programs, acknowledging same basic program exists across several different federal agencies. neil: right. >> easy way to eliminate spending but run into the criticism they don't care about child care. they might not care about workforce development, meals on wheels, whatever the program they're trying to get rid of. that makes their job harder. they have to explain what exactly they're doing. why they're eliminating programs. it is not a bumper sticker fix. it is something that takes a lot of selling. the president is out there selling this policy and cabinet members are taking more public role explaining what they are trying to do. neil: taking more public role, chris, looking at virtues of skillsets or talents. whether you're a mechanic or plumber, or these kind of skills for some reason grounded upon. i don't know about you guys, my plumber has people.

to book him is like booking the pope. we've disparaged skillsets and talents they very much value abroad. we should get back to valuing again here. >> anybody who tried to book someone to come in and work on their home or apartment knows exactly what you're talking about. it's a situation where, it used to be very honored and valuedç profession to be going into apprenticeship to do type of labors and it really hasn't been. it disparaged a lot in the 2,000s and '90s. we move to a tech economy, we have, there is something nefarious or less honorable moving into other professions and it is unfortunate. this is the other value of donald trump with the bully pulpit and ability to control message. ivanka trump with the ability to seen as reasonable approach to these situations and someone who made caring about jobs and caring about people and demeanor in the job force a key part of her message. neil: you're right. >> it is a great one-two punch.

it allows donald trump to get back on message, off the talk about russia and off the talk about comey, if they control that before a few hours before general sessions testifies it's a win for both of them. neil: i agree with you. chris, thank you. sarah west word, thank you. for those he should promote college education and rest. think about how difficult it is to book an electrician and get a plumber. how strong their business is as a result. and think about, think about that. and think about professions that you might sniff at but you know those guys are sniffing at you, that is the loser that keeps calling them when you're in trouble, aren't you? admit it. that would be me. we'll have more after this, apple in a bit of a free fall. it had a nice run. a lot of folks thinking increasingly of apple and technology and these guys running and leading this parade. they're giving up ground. so who is replacing them, if anyone? after this. ♪

when you have something you love, you want to protect it. at legalzoom, our network of attorneys can help you every step of the way. with an estate plan including wills or a living trust that grows along with you and your family. legalzoom. legal help is here. i use what's already inside me to reach my goals. so i liked when my doctor told me 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 supposed to do release its own insulin. trulicity responds when my blood sugar rises. 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 symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing; a lump or swelling in your neck; or severe pain in your stomach area. 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. with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar numbers with a non-insulin option, click to activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity.

won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. neil: from being the single focal point of buying to single biggest focal point of selling apple a big, big drag on the dow, disproportionately

accounting for 65-point slide in the dow. in fact the big tech names have been giving up a lot of ground. we were in the mid to high single-digits last couple days. lauren simonetti with all details on the new york stock exchange. what is going on here? reporter: neil, rare we talk about apple in such a ne light. we've seen two intense days of selling from that company shaving 7% on apple. they got a rare downgrade, not just one, two in a week's time, second from mizuho, saying there is too much enthusiasm baked into the iphone 8. that is already baked into the stock. charlie brady, our senior editors, says, 29 points apple is shaving off the dow. volume is three times a one-month average. there is conviction not only hitting apple but amazon and microsoft. it is hitting some of the fang stocks we like to look back, facebook, alphabet and netflix.

these stocks come so far not only this year, nasdaq is up 25% this year but take a look at five-year performance of two stocks specifically. facebook is up 450% in five-year's time and netflix is up more than 1500%. it begs the question, have these stocks come too far too fast and arguably you could say no because, will, stock prices follow earnings. earnings are trq"itionally good. wait until we get to the next earnings season couple weeks time, but people say too rich, market and space is too overcrowded right now, neil. neil: you know, charlie brady, our stocks editor, is on this, and he was on this before anyone else noticing ripples. and i find charlie to be scary smart. scary smart like, do you find a little discomforting or no? just your thoughts on charlie? >> wow, you're really putting me on the spot. neil: yes, i am.

>> charlie brady and i go back a long time. what he says is gospel, that is how i will describe it. neil: fine, whatever. lauren, thank you very much. i misidentified where you are. you are at nasdaq marketsite. >> what did you say, i didn't catch that? neil: i said new york stock exchange because brady told me where you were. >> tell him to go back to making rock videos. neil: the guy is amazing. thank you very, very much. reporter: bye, neil. neil: as our own charlie brady points out, and you do not want to mess with the guy, once something takes hold and next couple days that could be a market point. what can go up and what can do down. we make a big deal of selloffs if you pounced and got rid of the stocks with their prior blips you would be regretting it now. what about you? >> nasdaq gone from the 47 to

6300 in a year. semiconductors went up 50% in a year. this is way overdue. it became a very one-sided trade and everyone is selling off in the market and buying up tech and a few big cap names. which i believe represented 45% of the move this is normal as normal can be. it is painful. we're going lower. friday was definite shot across the bow and corrections do happen. you will have to deal with it right now. neil: erin, what do you think? these are not, if he is right, not just sort of a two trading day phenomenon, that could have staying power. if that is right, where do the new leaders emerge? >> we've been talking about this for a while. i really see this as this is the time for leadership rotation. we have had the huge run-up, particularly in the growth stocks, momentum stocks, this trading at really high valuations and you're really not seeing the growth over the next

12 months to 18 months as people keep saying oh, but there is growth. when you actually look at the growth expectations for the s&p 500 growth index, versus the s&p 500 value index, the growth expectations are almost twice as big for value versus growth. so we're actually seeing higher growth expectations in your value stocks than these growth, these momentum stocks. neil: apple would be -- netflix, some of these are momentum stocks. the argument that some of these firms that downgraded apple is that all of the perfection is sort of built into the stocks now. do you agree with that. >> exactly. they are priced for perfection. they are trading way above their three-year averages and on top of it you're actually really not seeing that much of the kind of growth you would necessarily want on, in general. so we are actually seeing potential for more growth in different areas and also when

between some of the sectors, utilities has been up. the telecom has been up today. we saw big run-up in some lagging sectors like financials, utilities, materials as well. so i really see this more of a rotation of getting out of these overpriced stocks, going back, putting your money into some valuation where you can see some decent growth. i see this more of rotation purely just a market selloff. neil: what do you do, gary, especially for the tech names are falling a little bit other last couple days, how do you play it? >> i take some money off the table. i did it on friday. i did a little bit this morning. look, we have not had a 10% correction in a while. let's be normal about this, it happens. the norm is we do -- neil: we haven't had it throughout this bull market pretty much. >> exactly. but we're going to get one and farther it goes without a correction, usually the corrections are harsher. that is what you're seeing now.

as far as rotation i think you have to be a little bit careful. i have never seen a point in time where they kill the leading areas of the market, all of sudden the rest of the market does well. in the short run they're buying up dead retail stocks and dead oil stocks. i'm not so sure that lasts. i think we're way overdue. there is nothing wrong with having a correction. it wipes the smiles off bulls face, emboldens the bears, sets a stage for another bull run when it is over. we don't know how much time and how much price on the correction. neil: thank you, guys, very, very much. we'll see, what pans out whether start of a trend, constructive or otherwise. you properly heard ge ceo jeff immelt is stepping down after more than 20 years at the helm of a k all of -- helm of a company. all of a sudden people are saying, what took so long? 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. . .

listen up, heart disease.) you too, unnecessary er visits. and hey, unmanaged depression, don't get too comfortable. we're talking to you, cost inefficiencies and data without insights. and fragmented care- stop getting in the way of patient recovery 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.

gave us the power to turn this enemy into an ally? microsoft and its partners are using smart traps to capture mosquitoes and sequence their dna to fight disease. there are over 100 million pieces of dna in every sample. with the microsoft cloud, we can analyze the data faster than ever before. if we can detect new viruses before they spread, we may someday prevent outbreaks before they begin.

thithis is the new new york.e? think again. 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: do you see yourself 20 years from now still in this job? >> i think longevity for ceo is based on performance and the ability to change and i think that's what jack has driven. that is clearly my intent. i look today as beginning, not an end for me. whether it is 10 years or 15 years, however long -- >> i would say 20. >> i would be proud to have the kind of run jack's had. neil: all right. now, a couple of things i noticed there. i had a better toupee back then. and puberty hadn't quite taken hold. >> that kid is 15 years old. neil: that is enough out of you. is that hair a work of art? >> i love it. neil: like i fell out of "the sopranos.." i got it wrong. jeff immelt stepping down after 16 years. i think i said more than 20. you would think i would remember the interview. my bad on that one gerri willis latest on very, very delayed departure, especially if you consider the stock and how it has gone nowhere.

why now? what are you hearing, gerri? >> that is the question, right? they are facing pressure from activist investors. ge ceo jeff immelt announcing his retirement this morning after 16 years at the helm of the industrial giant. immelt guided the company through difficult times, taking over from jack welch, four days before 9/11. he successfully guided the company through the financial crisis but in recent months and years following that meltdown, immelt struggled to win wall street's approval. once tracking broader market averages, ge shares lost momentum. you see in the chart right here. now the company is under pressure from activist investor trion fund management to cut costs. g. shares are down 12% for the year. even as the s&p 500 gained 6%. that a great comparison. ge shares are up a little bit.

two are questioning immelt's move. selling 49% stake in nbc-universal some termed as fire-sale prices. comcast paid half of what it paid for its initial stake. some question the timing of the company's acquisition of oil services firm bake you are hughes last october, anticipating a rebound in the commodities price but, oil prices are still languishing. immelt however defended his tenure this morning while talking to i employees. >> when you sat there in 2001 you could have never predicted the environment of the past 16 years but as leaders, as teams as ge, what we became was more resilient, was incredibly resilient. we live, we sit here today in a sea of uncertainty, but, the foundation we have has never been stronger. reporter: so immelt will step down as ceo august 1st and retire from the end of the board at the end of the year.

john plannerty will take his place as ceo. neil, i have to say he massively transformed fe really in his image. but all of that work not enough to give the payoff investors wanted. neil: they got their dividend, but they didn't get much else. thank you very, very much. >> thank you. neil: charlie gasparino was ahead of all of this recently as early march. take a close look. >> jeff immelt, long-time ceo of ge, sources are telling us, telling the fox business network is that the long-time ceo jeff immelt is on the hot seat with trion investors. neil: what did you know? >> i knew he had benchmarks to make, nelson peltz, let's be clear nelson peltz is one of the best activist investors. not just some cook on the side of the street. he basically works with companies and usually, bob will, bob will i guess --

neil: robert wolf by the way of 32 advisors, ceo, former ubs bigwig. >> what he usually does he makes sort of concerted, intelligent arguments about corporate ceos and how they're acting and how they're not working with shareholders. immelt gave him a lot of rope. more than just long-term problems with ge stock but recent stuff. immelt failed to make cost cut projections. you know -- and these were easy to do. i mean that is what really got peltz annoyed. jeff immelt is great guy. i know him. i used to work for him when he anomaly ran ge was owned by cnbc. neil: you didn't work. you worked for him. >> the people who ran cnbc. neil: they were your boss. >> i being shook his hand a few times. he was a decent, guy. but bottom line if you can't do easy stuff in this environment and your stock has never been, it has been a a laggard as it

has been some investor will take you out in a new york minute. neil: what would you say. >> charlie hit it right. you hit it right 15 to 20 years ago. look at that, sitting with you guys. quickly speaking, us ivy league football players, immelt is dartmouth, i'm penn, we stick together. i'm a huge fan of jeff. for half of his tenure he was ridding ge capital. it was 50% if not more of his balance sheet. it cost billions and billions of dollars. they didn't want to be systematically important financial institution and regulated as a wall street firm. he literally spent six of last eight years on that. neil: what if he had never done that? easy to play monday morning quarterback. >> it was good until it wasn't good, right? neil: really get going when 9/11 happened, the world changed. >> to your point, he definitely taken it to a new vision.

we're industrial company, power company and we're a health care company. i think that is where they should be going. i don't agree they shouldn't have spun out of nbc. it was not the best sale but timing they were focusing what they want to do. that being said, just 10 seconds that being said i don't think this is company necessarily splitting into three overnight. trion didn't get pepsi to split overnight. pepsi at all-time high and not that happy with mondelez which split. split isn't always assured. >> bank of new york may soon split. they're under pressure from trion to split off asset management business. i will say about ge. i don't think you can have a stock stuck in the mud as long as it and have the ceo be there. neil: how did he survive as long as he did? >> here is the thing. this is positive thing about jeff immelt. he is smart guy and house to run things. neil: very politically.

work with republican and democrat. very astute. criticized this president for abandoning the paris accord that stuck in his craw. politically always involved. >> i will say what the final nail in the coffin so to speak, whatever cliche you want to use, that jeff immelt didn't do some easy stuff and he lost the confidence of trion when nelson peltz make as concerted case you should go, that is what they were planning to do, we reported tentionh you have to go. to the stock price, right? >> i would say, you were going to say the same thing. the market rallied in industrials and they have underperformed. but at the end of day they're a pure playing industrials. >> they underperformed, because he couldn't, he was not aggressive in cost cutting he was supposed to. he promised x. he delivered ad lot less. i'm telling you, in this environment, when this type of stock you will not survive. neil: that kind of staying power is almost unheard of.

>> i think for half the time he was actually the fix-it guy, right? one of the most well-respected ceos in the country. he was -- neil: didn't care what the analyst community thought, right? i don't know if that is a good or bad thing, but in this day and age you can massage the numbers your way and sort of beat expectations you create. >> they always liked him. >> truth be told they were really a financial services company for half of his tenure. look at ubs. we were high in the 60s. we're trading at 15 less plus. financial services -- neil: but that was after you left. >> financial services -- i always love being on this show. financials services have not come back. >> you you can't get away with anything here. let's be real clear. there were three potential replacements for jack. jack welch did a bake i don't have. jane mcnerney was one. neil: bob nardelli. >> david cody had some interest. >> ad some interest.

those were the three main once. the question was the best guy of those three. i, i would have liked to see, the guy with the vowel at end of his name. you know. you know,. neil: bossidy. >> bossidy was too old. >> marino couldn't save him. >> jack welch, called him the guy with vowel at end of his name, called him the best operational manager. i am moment had the flair. probably should have picked him. should have picked nardelli. >> cod today shoulda. jeff immelt is like. neil: does he golf. >> he does golf. trump said he hit a hole-in-one with immelt or something when they were in the white house. neil: he did. >> that is code for something. >> i should say president trump. i apologize. >> i call him donald. >> i call him president trump.

neil: he is audited as a result. just kidding. that was a very poor joke. >> i should say last week you spoke on behalf of all republicans, democrats and independents -- neil: what did i do? >> you said, that we should stop tweeting and focus. we all agree get tax reform. neil: you should stop tweeting for different reasons. >> i will never respond to you on twitter. neil: when we come back, uber in hot water with a big, big shake-up. we're learning a lost executives are taking a leave of absence not leaving entirely, save the top guy for the time-being. we have a massive heat wave going on, so really how long does this drag on? because if i'm not careful i could sweat and lose weight and this is not going to be pretty. because i might just start removing articles of clothing. think about that during the break

♪ neil: all right. the first serious heat wave

gripping more than half the country right now sweeping across the midwest to the east coast. we're talking something that will be around potentially for a while. you know the fallout from that besides a lot of people complaining. meteorologist adam klotz from the fox weather center. adam. >> neil, when they say it will cool off so you don't start stripping for everybody unfortunately. neil: i don't know, a lot of people want to see, adam, but i digress. >> if that is the case i find hard to believe they're in luck because it is hot out there. a lot of air piling up, it is hot and humid. pop up a couple showers and folks get break from that heat, you're looking by and large a very warm day for next couple of days. the current temperatures already piling up in the middle of the country. mid 80s in many cases. 86 degrees in chicago. close to the middle 80s in new york pushing up to the 90s before you know it.

here is the heat index. you add in the humidity and it starts to really feel hot out there. look at some of these numbers. feeling like close to 90 degrees in memphis. that will pick up next couple of hours when we continue to pump in the moisture. the air is heavy. you feel like you're wearing it when you step outside. here is the forecast heat indices as you run into the afternoon hours. some numbers into the middle 90s. close to 100 degrees in the middle of the country. that could pop up a couple of showers. by and large they're battling extreme heat. average temperatures should be upper 70 to 80 degrees in a lot of these locations. instead it will feel like middle 90s, gets up close to 100 degrees. yes, even in new york city, neil, we'll run into the mid 90s. if folks want to see you strip, they will be payable to do so. neil: don't sound so disappointed, adam. thank you, my friend. >> thank you very much. neil: uber's board weighing potential leave of absence for

the big cheese, the founder of the company, travis kalanick. tracee carrasco with the latest. what can you tell us? reporter: the company's board of directors met yesterday as part of a big overhaul. this just in, according to reuters, chief business officer resigned and kalanick who put the startup into a 70 billion-dollar industry may take a three-month leave. this comes at time of personal and professional turmoil. the 40-year-old's mother died in a boating accident at end of may. his father was also injured in the accident. kalanick has been tending to him. just last week we told you about a leaked racy memo kalanick sent to uber employees in 2013. back in february, kalanick was seen in a video yelling at an uber driver. michael's resignation is related to a an internal resignation into uber's corporate culture by former u.s. attorney general eric hold ir.

holder's investigation comes after 20 managers and other employees were fired last week for claims of harrassment, discrimination and bullying. michael a close ally of kalanick has been under fire for an incident involving another uber executive he managed. that employee obtained medical records of a woman raped by an uber driver in india. now more recommendations for uber's board from holder are expected to be released tomorrow. uber has not yet responded to my requests for comments. neil: tracee, thank you very, very much. it is called shakespeare in the park all this morphed into donald trump getting killed in the park and now two big sponsors are out and it might not end there. it is no longer even funny, after this. ♪

neil: delta, bank of america to pull out after response soreship of a shakespeare theater. i for the life of me don't remember shakespeare have aing trump-like character. i could have glossed over that. i had other things to do, i was busy guy. joe piscopo why he is applauding

delta and bank of america for this move. joe, in this shakespeare sort of veer, the trump-like character is killed and these guys sponsoring said enough is enough. it is going too far. >> it is going way too far with a big shoutout to shakespeare in the park. it is ledge -- legendary and it is -- neil: what about, how do you, i'm told the way it got to their attention, wait a minute -- >> excuse me, excuse me, neil. you know how grateful i am to you, cavuto, most of my guests come from your guest list. mr. wolf is here. charlie. i love them. my boss calls at am 970, the station, the laura schaefer went and saw the play. she is mortified. she went to see shakespeare in the park.

went to see julius caesar. they had a trump character, assassinating in the name of julius caesar in the name of donald trump. joe, put her on the show. i went, okay, boss. i put her on. neil: i didn't know that was -- >> thank you, thank you. neil: you brought it to the public's attention. >> no one called to say thank you. step on me and move on. laura was on "fox & friends" this morning. beautiful gal from ohio, doing a great job at the media in new york. she was mortified. she came on the show, this nice kid went to see with her husband this show and, how do they get away with the assassination, pretending the assassination of donald trump and then with a kathy griffin thing -- neil: did they think it was funny in the show? kathy griffin veered into craziness. >> it seemed to be, theater of the absurd as it were. let's shock the audience. neil: no surprise two chief sponsors would opt out. do you ever wonder, joe, you raise i had before whether we're

going too far the other way? shut things down midstream or cnn host who had to go because he called the president you know what? i don't approve of that language but do you go too far? as you say in politics on your show you're out. >> bill cosby is very touchy. you can't say anything about cosby it is true. it seems to be getting touchy. don't work both ways. progressives vetting very vicious and violent. neil: the progressives turned on the comedian and this production. >> when we did a film piece on "saturday night live" on ronald reagan, i did it it was really a assault on the, more so than reagan than on the presidency and i was like, democrat thinking i will put down ronald reagan.this. i was all full of myself. my producer dick ebersol walked in, look at piece. we cut the piece already. it was very, very, derogatory insulting to the president. ebersol pulled it. he pulled it. neil: why?

>> because it was too assaulting on office of presidency. neil: it would take a lot to do that. >> politics had nothing to do with it. i don't know what affiliation dick was, joe, that is -- what, i worked three days on this thing. boom, out. it was a good lesson for me to learn. unnecessary assault on the office of presidency. has nothing to do with donald trump or barack obama. respect the office. neil: it does have something to do with politics, if you had done that with someone else? >> that's a great point f we had done that with obama, with, shakespeare in the park with obama, they would be all over it, all over it. i always say every time on the show, resonates. stop the hate. stop the violence. respect people, office of presidency. neil: do not forget piscopo in the park. a little different.

neil: all right. we're going to have our first sean spicer briefing since all of this dust-up over the post-comey thing and everything else and now plans tomorrow for jeff sessions to testify before the senate intelligence committee, the same one that was grilling comey. but is all of this stuff, no matter what you think of it, taking away from the economic message including tomorrow the president traveling to wisconsin to talk up non-college-related jobs. in other words, skill sets, apprenticeships, mechanics and electricians and the stuff that is valued abroad, not so much valued here. the president wants to make a big deal of this tomorrow. his wife -- i'm sorry, his daughter, ivanka, is going to be joining him.

melania could as well, i have no idea, but we are going to be seeing the governor of wisconsin out there as well to champion this issue. we have not forgotten about the forgotten men and women in this country for whom college might not be the best thing in the world. but is all of that getting lost in all this other stuff? the hill's editor editor-in-chief bob cusack joining me now. bob, great, sound argument that we ought to value our crafts, value working men and women, those with real talents and skill sets? but is it going to get lost in all this other stuff? >> there's a real potential in that, neil. unemployment is way down, stock market's doing well, gas prices not too bad. this is something that, i think, trump needs to talk about consistently and his agenda of how he's going to make the economy even better. but when you have, rebutting james comey every day, now sessions is going to testify in open setting tomorrow. i think they want to correct the record. if they clearly think that comey

is lying, but i think if you're talking about comey, you're tweeting about comey, you're not talking about the economy and the agenda. neil: you know, that's what i always wonder about it, because every time this issue comes up -- it's one thing when the press will be unrelenting about it, as is the nature of the beast. but you then, as president or the administration, should be focused on this first full cabinet meeting where this is the issue du jour. but does the president hurt himself when he gets sidetracked or tweets either about comey or other developments that have nothing to do with this issue, that i think even his critics would readily agree is a sound one, a good one, a popular one, one that could win over bipartisan support. >> yeah. if you talk to republicans on capitol hill, they really want the president to talk about policy, policy and policy. mitch mcconnell has criticized the president for tweeting too much. the president's going to continue to tweet, and i think it shows you what's on his mind, but too many times he's watching cable news and reacting. and politics, as you know, neil,

you have to have political discipline to move an agenda. you've got to focus on one thing and talk about it a lot, use your political capital. and this white house has a tend i to -- tendency to talk about five, six, seven different things. and that hurts moving the one thing you want to move whether that's health care, tax reform or infrastructure. neil: let me ask you about all of those above, whether they're likely to see any legislative action this year. >> i think on health care, i think they could get a bill out of the senate. i think it's going to be very difficult, but i don't know how you marry the house version and the senate-passed version even if you can get it out of the senate, which is still a big if. neil: and by the way, there's even talk to combine the tax measure with the health care measure. >> yes. neil: and that sounds really big, but what do you think of that? >> yeah. i think that tax reform is something that more republicans can get behind, and that's what republicans like talking about, cutting taxes. i think you're looking at cutting taxes as opposed to

rewriting the swire tax code, because -- entire tax code, as you know, neil. that's a very heavy lift. so these things are difficult to do, and that's why they need more political discipline in their message. neil: all right. i don't want to hit you broadside with this, but it's just coming into our newsroom. you're a crackercrack at this point. the u.s. appeals court is upholding that ruling that blocked the president's revised executive order restricting travel from six muslim-related countries. that would be the second try at the apple here. what to you make of that? >> yeah. we were told that the ruling was coming out imminently, and as far as -- i mean, the white house's record in court, especially on this travel ban, has not been stellar. and a lot of people speculating at some point it's going to go to the supreme court, and that's going to be the final say is on it. neil: but i wonder if president hurt his cause when he

criticized his own justice department, remember a couple of weeks ago -- >> yeah. neil: -- by saying you had a watered-down, politically correct version. that was, by the way, the version these guys had, and the president was regretting that was the one submitted. you more or less could have, you know, hurt yourself -- >> yeah. neil: -- in that legal case, right? >> and even friends of the president were saying that. and remember, in the prior court cases they were looking at the president's tweets on the campaign trail to, and that was not helping his legal case. so tweeting that, we should have just stuck with the first one legally, was not a good move. neil: bob, i was hoping to trip you up on this late development, but i failed miserably. [laughter] bob cusack. i want to explore this more with the top democrat on the senate judiciary committee, dianne feinstein, who separately has been calling for an investigation into the loretta lynch investigation, but before i get into that, i want to ask gina loudon what they are to make of this.

and, again, i'm hitting you both with this news that this travel ban, that an appeals court has upheld in large part confirming what other judges have said, that it goes too far. gina, what do you make of that? >> well, i think this temporary travel ban is part of the reason why united states of america voters decided to vote for this president. so i think that the court is not doing the will of the american people. and i think that it's political, and i think that it's activist, and i really do hope that it goes to the supreme court and wins there. but at this point, of course, it'll be less effective than it would have been if he could have done it right off the top. neil: don, there's going to be a lot of second guessing over whether doing this for a second time and trying to take it to a court was the way to go, especially when the president himself had criticized his own justice department for watering down the original version, i guess that he liked, with one that was more politically correct. i'm paraphrasing here, but does it even make it possible that it would go to the supreme court?

what do you think? >> it certainly does make it possible. i'm sure that the office of the solicitor general will file a writ of certiorari, and the supreme court because of the hot political nature of the issue is very likely to give it a very strong chance of being heard. but i think that the lower federal courts are right here. it's important to remember that the federal courts in this country are apolitical, and they're not swayed by the president's tweets or the politics of the day. neil: well, i hope to think -- [inaudible conversations] >> they're appointed by politicians, but their job is to look at the constitution, and this travel ban is, on its face, unconstitutional and has been from the beginning. and that's why it's been struck down by multiple courts of multiple political stripes, by bush appointees as well as obama appointees, and i think it will face the same fate at the supreme court level. it was just poorly drafted, and if you want to ban all travel, you have to do so across the board without respect to national origin or religion. neil: all right. we should just --

>> but this was obama's -- neil: gina, i will go to you, but a u.s. appeals court essentially blocked the president's second travel ban. this is one that really affected travel between six largely-muslim nations. we didn't get the particulars on why they ruled as they did. this could set up a battle, finally, in the supreme court of the united states. but, gina, it comes at a time when, of course, travel is going to be utmost on people's minds this summer. and a lot of them -- >> that's right.. neil: -- and a lot of them looking at where they're traveling to or from. >> that's exactly right, neil. this affects a lot of things that people haven't thought about, and all due respect to my friend from my hometown state of missouri, this was something that was obama's list. this is a temporary travel ban. the left would love to paint this as some sort of xenophobic or somehow bigoted idea. this is what the american people voted for. this is not a bigoted idea.

this was based upon obama's own most dangerous list, and, you know, just pray to god another terror attack doesn't happen in the united states anytime soon, because these people -- we're going to be looking at them. >> neil, we do pray that another terror attack doesn't happen, and dr. loudon is correct that it is based on a list that president obama put together. however, it's a poorly drafted executive order that does not reflect across-the-board constitutional way to protect our safety while restricting terror. actually, i don't have much of a problem with it other than the idea that it was poorly drafted and on its face pretty unconstitutional from a variety of perspectives given that it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th and 5th amendments. neil: by the way, as you surmised, don and gina, it is, indeed, going to to go to the united states supreme court. whether it was a presidential overreach here, anybody's guess. gina, one of the things that's

come up to restrict travel with some groups is what he said on the campaign trail got sort of, you know, mopped into this. do you think that his strong comments that got in the way of what many interpreted to be a solid legal argument, but that justices don't forget campaign comments and blurred that here? >> those were comments as a private citizen, neil. certainly, there were a lot of things that people like obama and hillary and even bill clinton said before they were elected as private citizens that were never considered in their official position as chief, you know, as the president of the united states. and so i don't think that that should be considered, and i don't think that the politics should enter into this. this was about using the states -- or the countries, i'm sorry, that obama said were the most dangerous. this was a good starting point to protect our country from more bloodshed.

i don't see how anyone could be a opposed to that. neil: the judges concluded that the president intended to discriminate against muslims from the six countries he targeted in his executive order and that this didn't change from their first view of the first ban up to the second ban. now, obviously, don, this goes to the supreme court. but it also comes at a time where we have an executive order that has been, essentially, shot down twice. two different executive orders on the same subject shot down twice. and, obviously, that means that the existing rules where we go through those from countries we deem dangerous, in other words, a holdover from the obama administration, that doesn't change. now, some had argued that was restrictive enough. do you? >> you know, i think that the obama rule was pretty restrictive, but i think it's also important to to imagine how we get there and what informs the judges' rulings.

i disagree with dr. loudon, it is important to examine the president's campaign statements because when looking at statutes determining whether they're constitutional or not, the supreme courts as well as the federal courts consider legislative history. and a normal statute has a series of hearings, and you have a bunch of notes and discussions that go into those hearings' testimony, and you don't have that here in the case of an executive order. so part of the legislative history and part of the executive intent is the series of statements that he makes going back to his time as a candidate and even the early time -- neil: well, that really shouldn't apply here -- >> it has to apply, because we don't have enough time to the judge his intent based upon the normal way that we would -- neil: well, the reason why i mention it is part of this ruling includes the appeals court saying the president can go ahead and move forward with an internal study of vetting procedures. >> right. >> that's it, neil. that's what was so important. neil: go ahead. >> the fact that he made it temporary, if this were a, quote-unquote, muslim ban like

the left would love for the american public to believe but they don't, then it wouldn't have been temporary. this was so that we could get vetting procedures many place that were effective. i don't see how anyone could be opposed to that. neil: all right. we shall see, because it's a mixed read especially when you read this part where they're essentially saying, this appeals court, continue with your vetting procedures. it's about how you implement that, that we are drawing the line and leaving it to the supreme court of the united states to, ultimately, render judgment here. but, again, another legal blow for the president of the united states. the second time now shot down. we're going to hear the white house read on all of this less than 15, maybe 20 minutes from now when sean spicer takes to that podium. obviously, this development has changed everything. we'll have more after this. 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. i know this is sudden, but they say...if you love something set it free. see you around, giulia

won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

neil: all right. want to bring you up-to-date on a development that was expected today, although the final details of this decision are not as black and white as you would think. a federal appeals court has upheld a decision that blocks the president's revised travel ban. this was the second attempt to get it right. the president, remember, had criticized his justice department for reworking another ban that he said was more politically correct and didn't have as much strength or teeth as the prior one.

whether that hurt him in getting this one ruled in his favor, we'll never know. we do know that the justices say the president violated u.s. immigration law by discriminating against people based on their nationality, where they're flying to and/or from. and they shot this down. this will, ultimately, go to supreme court. now, they did say -- throwing a bone to the president -- you're free to continue looking at our vetting standards, travel vetting standards here. but to do something this sweeping or this conclusive now, at best, premature. again, the supreme court will take this up. this will, no doubt, be coming up in the sean spicer press briefing about ten minutes away. we're keeping an eye on that, keeping an eye on market reaction to all of the above. no market reaction to this. again, it's not a market-moving event as a technology selloff. and some of the apples and alphabets and some of the names that brought us to this party. nicole petallides on top of all of this at the new york stock exchange. hey, nicole. >> reporter: hey, neil.

technology, obviously, has been such a hot topic of 2017, actually moved us to the great gains that we have seen. but we've seen this group sell off in a big way on friday and again today. and thanks to our senior editor, charlie brady, with the selloff today and friday's, we were saying it was down 5% or less from the highs, 52-week highs. now they've moved into pullback territory which means 5-10%. sometimes people step in and buy in these areas. and not to be confused with correction territory. that would be between 10-20%, and we're not there except for maybe just one of the names which would be netflix. looking at this group, they are selling offment goldman sachs has put off concerns about valuation, pacific crest showed concerns about apple on friday. amazon, watching amazon in particular today which is selling off, don't forget jeff bezos, right, he's worth, he was worth $83.9 billion.

he was in the top billionaires' club there. he actually lost $3.4 billion. he was knocked off and moved down to the number three spot. so as amazon sells off, bezos loses as well, but so do those shareholders. the question is, when do you step in? i was reading one article that said this was a great buying point for amazon. but there are some names that are trying to fight the fight, neil. we're looking at names such as micron, twitter, also we can see some of the other names that are giving it a go including tesla and invidia which has been hovering over that unchanged line. but it has really seen this big selloff. we hadn't seen the selloff in apple like that in 14 months, and it really went around the globe, neil. we saw it in europe, the technology index there came under pressure. the question is now going forward i spoke to one money manager who said, listen, don't be the hero. he said, whoa, whoa, don't be the hero, just wait it out.

so, you know, that was one person. another tech analyst says he still loves them, and everybody's counting on apple in the fall for the new iphone. of. neil: yeah. still up appreciably. thank you very much, nicole. all right, to a market watcher joining us now, joe, what do you make of this sudden turn-around in tech? as smart guys like you no doubt remind clients, these have had enormous run-ups even with the selloff in the last couple of days. what do you tell 'em now? >> it's interesting, you know, in 2016 these stocks underperformed, the nasdaq stocks underperformed, and they're having a decent year this year, up 22-25% across the board, and the market's up 10%. so i don't view that as being sort of excessively ebb lent. what i'd also say is these companies are growing at two to three times the rate of the s&p 500 average set of companies, and they're trading at a very modest premium to the rest of the market. so technology, i think, will continue to do well. this is a very natural rotation

that we're seeing, and it may continue, and we may get down to a 10% correction point. but these companies are going to continue to do well and continue to lead the market over the next couple of years. neil: you know, when i look at these two firms that downgraded apple's stock including pacific coast last week and securities now, their basic thinking was perfection's already priced in. i'm oversimplifying here, but that -- yeah, a lot of good things in store for apple, but it's been priced in already. what do you think of that? >> well, it's tough, it's tough to make that a argument because apple currently trades at 15 times earnings, the market trades at roughly 18 times earnings, and apple is on the crest of releasing a great new product which is likely to spur growth over the next couple of years. so arguing that apple is overvalued given that it trades at a multiple that's cheaper than the market when it has a great new product coming out, that doesn't strike me as being

a compelling argument. neil: what about technology in general? when you think of the alphabets and the facebook, even by extension netflix, amazon, apple, they've been leading this. if there's a breakdown among them, do they all go down together and then rise together, or do we start picking and choosing here? >> it's a good question. you know, you've got a set of companies, and i put facebook and google in one category. these companies have phenomenal business molds, and -- models, and you have another set of companies that are incredibly richly valued that are still in the early stages of maturing and generating real economic value for shareholders, and there may be a decoupling over the next couple of years. i would say in my fund at new america, we don't own any of the fang stocks, but we are overweight technology. neil: what does that mean then if you don't own any of them? you just have technology in the aggregate or what? >> no. our strategy is focused on

investing in high-cash value businesses, and we believe that cash flow is only the -- the only element that moves the stock prices. the fangs are very susceptible to people's mood swings as what has happened over, you know, the last few days. we're focused on companies that generate cash like marveling which is on the edge of all of the benefits of the cloud, we're focused on transunion which is a credit card bureau that collects 25 cents on every credit card pull that takes place in the united states. neil: i see. >> we're focused on companies that are generating tremendous free cash flow, stable and going to grow in all environments. neil: do you pay attention to any of the noise in washington, whether the president's tax cut stuff is delayed or health care is delayed or this fbi thing with the russians? that heats up, does that enter into your thinking at all? >> not a lot. i would say that, you know, we're bullish on the stimulus, the prospects for stimulus that

are likely to occur over the next few years. we think part of that is built into equity prices. we're very much focused on looking at individual companies and making sure that those investment theses stand on their own. we spend all day long turning over rocks, meeting with thousands of companies to find the best ideas that are going to perform in all market environment ares, we hope. neil: all right. joseph, very interesting. enjoyed having you on, tcw, new america financial manager, not giving up on tech. interesting read on things. all right, we have an update that the president's second travel order is shut down. a lot of you are confused, what about the first one? effectively, everything has been punted to the supreme court. i could go into a lot of legal details, but it's beyond my comprehension, save this: it's all in the hands of nine justices on the supreme court. of when and where and how that goes is anyone's guess. for now, a defeat for the president, his crackdown on

travel here and who gets in here just as the busy summer travel season takes off. it's on. more after this. [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.

neil: you know who's 93 years old today? george h.w. bush celebrating that big moment on the maine coast with his family. in years past he would sky dive for his birthday, but this one not so much. last time he did that was when he turned 90. can you believe that? >> he's an amazing guy. neil: that is amazing. meanwhile, sources are telling fox business that republican senators plan to meet with president trump as early as tomorrow. they want to address some sort of a health care bill of their own. remember, they're going from scratch on their own on this. charlie gasparino is following this. we are also keeping our eyes on washington and sean spicer might hold a press briefing, namely on this development, the shootdown -- second time in as

many months -- of a travel ban. charlie on this. >> we've asked sean spicer for a comment, maybe he'll address it. here's what we know, members of the senate health care meeting group are planning to meet with president trump as early as tuesday to present a draft plan. from what we understand, i believe senator mike lee's part of this, a few others with majority leader mitch mcconnell. they're planning on going to the white house, again, as early as tomorrow, to present thing. and what is interesting about this is we've been talking about how they might combine health care and taxes into one bill? that's something that came out of mcconnell's -- neil: huge, that would be -- >> well, they're thinking about it. here's the first step, possibly n that direction to jump-start trump's legislative agenda which includes tax cuts which is why the market's up and maybe down today and health care reform. now, here's an interesting thing, we asked the white house, asked spicer to comment on this. he didn't get back to us. again, he might comment here. we asked mcconnell's spokesperson, and he didn't deny it. he said, if there's a meeting,

it'll be the white house's news to make. cleary, i think good shot tomorrow you'll see a meeting between trump, mcconnell -- neil: trump's supposed to go to wisconsin tomorrow, so i assume before he leaves -- >> okay. or maybe it's the next day. neil: in other words, they want to prove that they can walk, talk and chew gum at the same time, they can get all of this stuff done. but up til now, it's been a devil of a time showing that. >> listen, when wall street guys meet with administration officials, the first thing they say is the controversy surrounding the russian stuff, the comey matter -- neil: right, right. >> -- mueller, special prosecutor, is that distracting the president. they're saying, no, we figure out all day trying to figure out the legislative agenda. of course there's some distraction here. the question is, can they rise above it? they have a republican house. they know that the clock ticking on them controlling both the house and the senate, you know, because 2018 they could lose the house. i mean, there's a good shot at that. neil: i know the white house has a sense of urgency about this, and it would make sense.

>> right. neil: i don't get that same sense of urgency in the congress. >> well, they say yes -- neil: really? certainly kevin brady does in house ways and mean ands the tax cut thing, but they're not exactly rocketing along with this. >> i can only go by my sources, and i'm here in new york, you know, so i'm not done there. my sources, i have some congressional sources who say there's a lot of talk going on -- neil: talk that they will get this done? >> >> they're trying. the question is, do you have a white house? you have to have some interaction with the white house. i will say this, that the white house team that wants to push this forward, they're trying to do it. every day they get up trying to get these two things passed. now, whether they can do it with all the noise remains to be seen, and they say, yes, okay? i mean, you know, we haven't had the puke in the market that everybody's predicting -- neil: right, right. >> and the reason why? neil: always the backstop here. >> yeah. neil: let me ask you, the president's second travel ban was shot down by a court today. bottom line, it's all going to

the supreme court. but i'm wondering -- no one's saying this, so it's just me -- if the president hurt himself by criticizing his own justice department about a watered-down, politically correct travel ban, and that that sent a signal to judges weighing in on this, why the heck are we even giving in the light of day? >> you know, it's -- he's his own worst enemy. if you talk to any -- listen, there isn't an institutional investor i know who dollars to doughnuts thinks that his legislative agenda's going to actually get through this year. they're not selling the market just now because they don't know when to do it. but they -- neil: but they're still sticking by him finish. >> largely. neil: -- convinced he will get it. >> maybe. and, by the way, he's better than the alternative, the alternative being hillary clinton -- neil: but do they, do you think the market can hold onto to this if it's, at best, a next year development? >> well, there has to be some pullback.

but again, that only adds to the markets and to investors' skittishness about trump. the fact of the matter is hi, during the campaign, he kept calling it a muslim barnes remember? he actually -- ban, remember? he actually labeled it a muslim ban. then he tried to put the genie back in the bottle, then he took it back out, and you've got liberal courts who are willing to say, hey, in his own words, they called it -- he called it what is unconstitutional. it's obvious that the executive should make the call on something like immigration. i mean, he can ban -- except for religion -- he can ban certain countries, that's totally legal. neil: in this latest one, i think, i didn't read every legalese line, but such that it would not be interpreted as a de facto ban on muslims. >> yeah. neil: might have better muster with them, but could you imagine if it doesn't? >> well, i think if the supreme court rejects it, that's a big problem for the president.

and part of his agenda going forward. you know, one of the big things, he was for -- one of the reasons why people voted for trump was national security. neil: yeah. >> that he was going to cut back. there was some issue involving immigration that hurt our national security. that was part of his platform. whether you agree with it or not or, i'm not debating that. if the supreme court doesn't agree with that, he gets shot down, that's a big -- neil: god forbid there should be another terror incident or something like this, and he could go back and say, well, don't say i didn't warn you. >> yeah. neil: what is your sense, by the way, meanwhile with, you know, the attorney general sessions speaking tomorrow, another public hearing before the senate intelligence committee and how all of this is going down? >> you know, neil, here's the thing, i don't think what trump did was smart or good behavior by -- and i believe comey's, i believe comey's verbatim over his. i think what comey said about the loyalty stuff, i can hear that coming out of donald's mouth, the whole thing. here's the problem: where is the evidence that any russian

collusion was illegal? i mean, you would think that something would have leaked out about flynn doing something really, really bad or sessions doing something really, really bad. is it possible that this is a cover-up in search of a crime? that trump didn't like the politics, didn't like -- neil: so you think even taken to its extreme, even though there's no "there" this? >> well, you know, comey put martha stewart in jail not for insider trading, but for lying about -- lying to investigators who were looking at insider trading. that is true. is it possible that trump could have violated the law not because -- because he was covering something up, not because of the underlying crime because it might not be a crime? it's really unbelievable. and the reason why that -- i think there's that potential, because no -- knowing what i know about donald trump, he really does care about the optics. he's sick of seeing the word russian investigation.

so he puts the screws to the fbi chief in the most blundering way, you know? neil: but do you think that even some republicans who have spoken on his behalf and said, all right, he's outside the political system, that's how a business guy would talk, you know? he denies that, by the way. but even chris christie said that's sort of new york-ese, just to get it off your chest. now, lawyers would advise you not a good idea, but he's new to this, and americans hearing this would say, well, what's the big deal? >> well, listen, i would just say this, you don't want to be telling the fbi chexactly -- to cover up a crime. you dot want, you don't ever want that out there. you also don't want to be intimating be you're the president that you might have tapes of it, because it sounds like richard nixon. this whole thing is one big cluster. you know what the second word -- neil: were you surprised that comey stayed in that dinner when he realized it was just he and the president? >> here's why there's no good guys or bad guys, comey just lusted for that job.

he would have done anything to stay in that job, you know, barring trump telling him to, like, you know, assassinate somebody. that's what you get the impression, he would have put up from almost are anything -- with almost anything from donald trump. he's not a saint here either. neil: don't you find it odd that he has been lion eyes now by the left? we'll see. all right, it'll likely come up right now with sean spicer, the white house briefing begins. [laughter] >> whoever did that's getting a raise. [laughter] good afternoon. as you've all by now probably heard, the president is placing a big emphasis on work force development. secretary of labor acosta and secretary of education devos along with the president's daughter, ivanka, and reid cornish from the office of american innovation have been deeply involved in this effort, and secretary acosta had the opportunity to address this issue just a few moments ago at the president's first meeting with his fully-confirmed cabinet. so i'd like to ask secretary acosta tom up, talk to you about

this initiative and take a few questions. with that, secretary acosta. >> thank you, and good afternoon. i especially want to thank the work that's been done by ivanka trump and the office of american innovation to develop the proposals that we'll be talking about this week. i'll be traveling with her tomorrow to wisconsin where we'll be looking at some excellent programs. her leadership on this issue has been invaluable. as you know by now, the president will be making an important announcement regarding apprenticeships this week. he'll be visiting the department of labor on wednesday. there are currently six million job openings in the united states, vacant jobs that can be filled. this is the highest number of job vacancies ever. a business round table survey released just last week found that 95% of executives reported problems finding qualified workers. americans want to the work. american companies want to hire.

the issue is a mismatch between available jobs and prospective employees' job skills. this skills gap is a particular challenge in some of the fastest growing sectors of the economy, health care and information technology. and it also persists in some of the more traditional sectors of the economy. there are currently 360,000 job vacancies in manufacturing. there are 200,000 job vacancies in construction. and with the upcoming plans for infrastructure, those job vie can says in construction -- vacancies in construction are only going to increase. apprenticeships teach skills needed to bring this skills gap, and it combines a paid work component with an educational component. apprentices earn while they learn, and in the process they largely avoid the substantial student debt that you see with higher education today. the most obvious benefit of apprenticeships is a good job. individuals who complete apprenticeship programs have an

average starting salary of about $60,000 a year. nine out of ten are employed upon completion of the programs. both this starting salary and the employment rate are higher than that of traditional college graduates. apprenticeships are also going to increase labor productivity. apprentices hit the ground running. when they start a job, they're more able, more productive and tend to be more loyal to the employer. despite these benefits, apprenticeships make only about 3% of the american work force. this administration will expand apprentices across most, if not all industries. higher education, too, should assume responsibility for promoting apprenticeships. community colleges and four-year colleges have an obligation to work with students to educate them in skills they need to succeed. demand-driven, experience-based education is not new. it's used to some extent in the health care sector. demand-driven, experience-based

education can be improved, and it can be used in a wide variety of sectors to further expand the work force. incorporating apprenticeships into two and four-year degree programs would offer students both traditional learning and skills-based learning. and this is particularly important for those students who learn better by doing. president trump has seen firsthand the success of apprenticeship programs in the building trades. he's very familiar. the building trades invest nearly a billion a year of private money into the apprenticeship program. president trump has made clear his commitment to expand job opportunities here in america. apprenticeships is one very important way that president trump will fulfill that promise. and, again, i'm very excited to work with ivanka trump and reid cornish in the office of american innovation as this program goes forward. questions. yes. i'm sorry. i'm sorry, yes. in the front.

>> so how exactly do you plan to expand these apprenticeships? like, what is the government going to do? i guess is there -- [inaudible] not necessarily, you're not going to put more money towards these programs, so how are these apprenticeships going to expand? >> so if you look in the building trades, there'ses almost a billion that's spent every year. and that's all private sector money. the building trades have put together labor management organizations that jointly invest in these aparen disship programs -- apprenticeship programs because they know both on the labor side and the management side that a skilled work force is critical to the building trades. and that's how it's worked for a number of years. i've talked to several ceos. ivanka trump has spoken to several ceos. and there's excitement in the business sector. private partnership where businesses come together with educational institutions to actually focus on demand-driven

education, to focus education on the skills that businesses demand has worked in other sectors and work throughout the economy. yes. >> so the question is, where exactly do you see these aparen disships? -- apprenticeships? most of the complaints is it's low paying jobs and not the higher education jobs that you need and it amounts to nothing more than indentured servitude. >> so that's just factually wrong. if you look at department of labor data, the averaging starting salary for an apprentice is $60,000 a year, and that's higher than a college graduate. you know, i was out in michigan at the ford facility, and i met with some of the apprentices at the ford facility. and they love it. they -- >> [inaudible] >> they love, they love it. let me finish. they love it, they are excited about it. and they're being paid a very, very good wage. i should add though that you see apprenticeships in white collar positions as well. there are a number of firms that we're talking to that are

looking at it for areas like bookkeeping, accounting. if you look at law schools, for example, there's been conversations even in law schools about the need for more experienced-based education. carnegie commission came out with a report about the importance of experience-based education in law. so the point i'm making is we need to start thinking this is limited throughout the job sector. it works throughout all sectors of the -- >> wait a minute -- >> in the middle. >> just a quick follow-up, if i may. >> one follow-up. >> is your program geared towards the white collar jobs -- >> our program will be geared to all industries and all jobs. the point here is to foster private-private partnerships between industry and educational institutions so that when students go to a community college or when students are

oking at apprenticeship programs in the buil tras or in four-year institutions, when they leave, they have the skills necessary to enter the work force. in the middle. yes, sir. >> yeah. in the president's budget, it talked about work requirements. also congress is talking about some new welfare reform for able-bodied people. could this sort of integrate into that at all? >> well, certainly the -- one of the important aspects of this is the portability of credentials. when someone earns a skill, when someone learns a skill, it's important to signal to other employers that this person nose a certain set of skills -- knows a certain set of skills. and so i should say the emphasis is on, you know, high quality apprenticeships, because it's important to not water things down. it's important to have skills that are portable and that are indicative of quality. yes, ma'am.

>> the overall -- focus on work force development, the president's budget contains about 40% cut in all work force skills programs from the last budget. if work force development is a priority, why is the president calling for that? and then secondly, my understanding is the budget has about $90 million for apprenticeship programs which is also what president obama had requested. how is it expanding what the last administration -- >> right. so let me circle back to the point i made about private-private partnerships and what the building trades do. the building trades invest a billion dollars a year of private money to develop a skilled work force. and so i want to challenge the assumption that the only way to move policy is to increase government spending. what we're trying to measure here is outcomes, right? and, you know, and so private-to-private partnerships, if industry is in the building trades willing to work with

labor to foster these programs, that's exactly -- isn't that exactly what we want to see? and so we should measure success based on outcomes and not based simply on spending. >> secretary? >> yes, ma'am. >> i'm sorry -- [inaudible] >> i was right in front of you and then i'll follow up with you, how's that? >> how do you foster the private-private relationships? is there some executive action that will be taken? is there a tax policy proposal? how exactly are you proposing that this would happen? >> right. so -- >> because it hasn't, i guess, organically happened beyond what already -- >> i will, i will answer in two parts. first, you've already, you have already seen that to a large extent as we've had round tables with business leaders, as ivanka trump has conducted several meet ings with ceos around the country here at the white house. and the second part to your answer is stay tuned and listen to the wednesday announcement. yes, ma'am. >> is there a certain region or

group of people you're trying to focus in on with these apprenticeships? especially since even as the president's saying that unemployment rate is doing well under this administration, there's still groups of people, be it region or be it by race or gender, that still have issues when it comes to employment. is there focus on certain groups, certain regions? >> so, ma'am, you are correct.ti believe, is 4.3%. the broader unemployment rate -- that is the u3 -- u6 rate d i believer it's at 8.4%. and we've had discussions with ceos looking at these programs. one of the items of discussion way to work with community that is you typically don't see going into the s.t.e.m. fields and other fields. and part of that discussion has been how do you target those groups, how do you reach out.

and it's interesting because apprenticeships help here because apprenticeships bring students together in a co-court model with individuals who are currently working in their field. and so it allows the possibility of role modeling. an apprentice can have a role model that can provide support and introduce them to the field. and so i actually think this is going to be great thing for expanding opportunities, for example, to women in s.t.e.m. >> one follow-up on that. >> yes. >> so with that you're saying women in s.t.e.m., but there's still, you know -- [inaudible] the african-american and hispanic unemployment numbers, particularly hispanic. is this administration looking to push also apprenticeships for those communities as well for the private-private partnerships? >> we're looking -- and, again, we're looking to push apprenticeships across the board, all people, all industries.

this is an opportunity for everyone. [inaudible conversations] >> sir, sir. red tie. >> thank you, sir. you mentioned that you're targeting this towards all sorts of professions, not just blue collar professions. how do you get around in many states there are laws that would prevent this sort of thing such as in the legal profession where most states, i believe, don't allow people to do things like read for the bar anymore. how do you get around regulations and state laws? >> so let me circle back and clarify. the question was, is this just targeted, earlier, to blue collar. and i said, no. in fact, it's a across the board. and i gave an example where experience-based education has been advocated. and i want to be clear, the vast majority of apprenticeships are not for law, okay? let's start there. so so the question, so the question about, you know, state barriers, i really think, is a non-issue because the vast majority of apprenticeships are

going to be in the types of professions where students are starting out, entry professions, professions that you typically see coming out of community college, professions that you typically see at most large estate four-year institutions. and for those professions, you don't have those types of barriers. right behind you. sir. >> yes, thank you, mr. speaker. given the advantages of apprentice programs, what are the ceos telling you about why they aren't used much more often? >> so, you know, i don't want to speak for the ceos because they haven't told me why they're not used more often. what i can tell you is that every ceo that i have spoken with has made a personal commitment to pursuing these. the ceos are excited. i attended a business round table event around this, and to a person the ceos are looking forward to it because if ceos need the skilled work force -- and, you know, they recognize

americans want to work. we just need to marry up the desire to work with the work force skills. in the back. yes, sir. >> you're one of the newcomers at the administration here. i believe maybe this is the first time we've heard from you on camera, so i'm wondering if you could give us more of a broad reading of how you see the labor market, currently you mentioned the employment unemployment is 4.3%, but could you give us your read on what some of the bright spots and some of the challenges are as you see it. >> so the bright spots are obvious. we've had almost 600,000 new jobs so far this calendar year. the 4.3% unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in 16 years, since 2001. the number of job vacancies in a sense points to the skills gap, but it's really a phenomenal, a phenomenal number that, quite positive. six million job vacancies means that if we can fix this skills gap, this is six million jobs that we can fill right now.

and you compare that to 6.9 million individuals that are unemployed and, wow. you know, i think one of the -- to fully answer your questions, i think one of the challenges that we need to look at is the labor force participation. there are a number of americans that are forgotten, that have been ignored and that have cropped out of -- dropped out of the work force. labor force participation is lower than it should be, and our hope and ivanka trump's hope and this administration's hope and certainly, you know, president trump just this morning referenced these individuals who are forgotten. because they're the ones that elected him. through apprenticeship program, you know, we're hoping to bring them back into the labor force. because to have growth, we need that labor force growth. >> you would admit that this is just a small part of bringing the labor force participation rate up. what else do you think needs to happen? is it tax reform? is it -- what else needs to happen -- >> all of the above, right?

this is a small but very, very significant part because, you know, if you start providing -- if you start changing the system to demand-driven education where educational institutions, whether they be two or four-year colleges or other -- or experience-based educational institutions are providing work force skills, with each passing year for every hundreds of thousands of folks that go through this, those are all new jobs. but certainly, all the policies that you see this administration administering whether it be tax reform or other is part of bringing individuals back into the work force. ma'am. >> yes. when would we see results? when would the skills gap close, and what types of jobs are we talking about exactly versus professions? >> when is a speculative question. i can't provide you an exact date. and the second question was, ems? >> jobs. >> again, what kinds of jobs, i think we're looking to apply

this broadly across all industries. you know, it's, you know, it's interesting because as some of you know i i was at a university, and i know a student that really wanted to be a police officer. and so that student majors in criminal justice. and when he graduated, he probably had student debt. but he didn't have a job. because criminal justice doesn't prepare you to be a police officer. so what would things be like if actually a criminal justice degree allowed students that wanted to, to have the option of also attending a police academy? and i want to give that as specific example of what tse possibilities would be. whatou a legal studies degree be like if you could actually also get paralegal or legal assistants' training? there are possibilities all across that we can look at. ma'am. >> two things. bear with me. there is an idea out there for

big cities to require students graduating high school to have either, you know -- whether they're going to college, the military or a trade school would lead to these kinds of jobs. i'm wondering what you think of that. and my second part of that is to really make, help us understand what the white house doing with these meetings, with the ceos, is anything being reduced to a memo of understanding or a letter so we actually get the pledge? because i want to have more of a sense of what is out there. nice meetings are nice, but what is the promise that you could say that people are telling you, and how are you codifying it so you have it written down so you can go back to this ceo and say you said you're going to do it, and you didn't. so how can you explain -- >> happy to answer both. first, what do we think about requirements that every student have a letter saying what they're going to do.

i, you know, i'll speak just for myself on this one with. i worry about a requirement that requires students to do a, b or c. i think our nation is about choosing, and i i think you need to respect individuals' choices. and you can certainly encourage, you can say what are you going to do with yourself, what do you want to do. but i always worry when i hear the word "requirement," because i think we're about choice. going to your second point, i'll say in part stay tuned for the wednesday announcement as to what specifically we're going to be doing, and i would say after that wednesday announcement you can certainly expect quick and vigorous follow up with the various ceos and industry associations with which the administration has been speaking because, at least for myself, the expectation would be, okay,

you said you're very interested in this. let's sit down, and let's pen something out, and let's see how we can go forward. >> [inaudible] >> one last, one last question, ma'am. >> could i get you to clarify your answer to julie's question about the budget? because there's so much confusion about this. seniors, agriculture, you know, adults who have been displaced, are you saying you evaluated all those programs in recommending that they be cut because they're not working, or because the president merely does not want to spend the money. >> as you point out, i come from academic settings so let me answer the question by analogy. used to be the question of whether a university is, how t