32,250, i think -- 22,250, i think, is an all-time high yet again. don't you love it? >> yes. [laughter] stuart: on this happy note, i will give the show to neil cavuto. neil: thank you very much. it does say something about resilience or, sadly, maybe getting used to this sort of thing, whatever. the man hun is on for that subway attacker or attackers. that homemade bomb exploding during rush hour there. 32 hurt with largely -- 22 hurt with largely flash burns. to former cia analyst tara muller on how we protect these so-called soft targets. i do notice a heightened police presence just right outside our windows here on sixth avenue and around times square. that's to be expected. but what do we do? i know the rap is you see something, you say something. but as you know, almost anything you see in times square or

thereabouts warrants probably saying something. what do you do? >> what do you do, there are an infinite amount of soft targets, and there's been steps taken the protect them but nothing perfect. you can't check every single person going onto the subway or underground in london. what you can do is you can have people be vigilant, law enforcement around some of these main transportation hubs like you do in places like washington and new york, for example, and you can have cameras. and that's going to really assist in this investigation, because london has a lot of these, and they have these in areas like transportation targets. so i think you're going to see them hone in on probably getting information about this suspect by watching him potentially on cameras that were in the station and that may have been how they were able to identify the suspect. we're not sure who this person is just yet, but i think you're going to see there probably is some footage of the suspect prior to the attack. neil: you're probably right. we always find out, and when we retrace the steps -- and cameras are everywhere in london,

particularly in their tube or subway system -- so they will find or at least identify the individual or individuals behind this. but we do know that it is possible that this person was being watched by london security. so it does raise the question, i know you just can't move willy-nilly without any proof, but what do we do about that? in our country where we're very big on rights and not overstepping our bounds and not violating people's freedoms, etc., this always comes up with every incident. what do you think? >> sure, there are a few things. number one, there are a hot of mechanisms in place -- a lot of mechanisms in place. there's watch lists, intelligence sharing. we don't know if this individual was on law enforcement's radar screens. it's too early to say. even in some of these cases with hindsight being 20/20 and seeing an individual on law enforcement's radar, again, that's hindsight. there are lots of people that never end up carrying any sort of violation or terrorist attack -- violence or terrorist

attack. neil: but what gets them on the radar? >> sure. it might be communication with terrorist groups, suspicious behavior, previous arrests or behavior for other activities. in some cases, some of these vims are on law enforcement's radar for not necessarily any sort of extremist or terrorist activity, but because they had other forms of criminal activity which may not be necessarily indicative of carrying out a terrorist attack later on. two other areas here, online radicalization is a key part of all of this. we really need to be pressuring technology companies to get this content off their platforms. we saw them react quite swiftly after charlottesville in getting some of the domestic, you know, neo-nazi daily stormer types off their sites, but isis and these groups are using these platforms to recruit and radicalize people who may not either latch on to this ideology. just as a general point, the online world is a big, big component of this as well as are, you know, making sure they can't buy these certain

purchases, certain types of material for bomb-making explosives, people selling that need to be looking at who's buying this and make sure it's on and up and up. same with rentals of big trucks, unfortunately, these days too. there are steps and warning signs that could be used prior to the point where we get to somebody walking on an underground with an explosive device x. the real part of this for counterterrorism is getting these individuals or these steps interrupted before you have somebody getting onto that train like we saw this morning. neil: all right, tara, thank you very much. counterextremeism project senior policy adviser spokesperson in washington d.c. in the meantime, still more worries about north korea firing a second missile over japan in less than a month. the press briefing with h.r. mcmaster, nikki haley, that is coming up a little more than an hour from now. we've got van hipp on whether we should be a little bit worried. van, obviously, you and i,

sadly, tend to talk when these type of things happen. we should find other venues for that, by the way. but what did you make of the fact that north korea was flouting and doing this even in the face of moves toward tougher sanctions? it's as if the sanctions, whatever we come up with no matter how sweeping, don't seem to change their behavior one iota. >> neil, this is the most dangerous national security challenge the united states president has faced since john f. kennedy stared downey kieta khrushchev during the cuban missile crisis. what concerns me, i go back and take a look at this missile launch last night compared to august 29th, it traveled a thousand kilometers more, it reached a higher altitude, but it was faster. on august the 29th the flight duration was 32 minutes. last night was 19 minutes. this is a very dangerous situation. and what it tells me is these u.n. resolutions are great, it's great to have everybody all together, but if they're so

water down -- i think they're so watered down that they're not effective. for example, what the trump administration wanted to do, and i agreed with them, was to have a complete, 100% lap of -- ban of all import into north korea. the chinese disagreed. guess who sells north korea most of their oil? china. neil: sure. you know, van, china must realize that this only boomerangs on them. i would be very worried if now it looks like japan might be remilitarizing here. that would be a nightmare, i would assume, longer term to them and a big worry to them. and, obviously, what they're doing shows very little ability on their part to control it, which is even more frightening. what do you think is going on there that the chinese blithely ignore or can't handle? >> this goes back 20 years. neil, while they were talking a good game, a chinese bank was helping the iranians to launder money to north korea to help pay for all this stuff. so the chinese have a history of

talking out of both sides of their mouth. i think we've got to get tough, much tougher. let's go after these chinese banks, declare them as international money launderers, let's inflict some real economic pain and hurt on china. that's the only way you're going to get their attention. china's holding some cards. they can be very helpful to us more from an intelligence standpoint of what's going on in north korea, and i think that's very important. neil, this is something i think there's an opportunity. something is going on under radar in north korea. people are always starving there, we know about hunger issues there, but they're facing the worse drought they've had in decades. the crop production is down 30% what it was this time last year. the north korean officers are order toking their soldiers to steal food from the north korean farmers. we need to do what we can to exacerbate that. we need a massive information campaign geared to the north korean people. and if i'm a north korean military officer, i don't have job security. i see what this guy did to his uncle. i see what this guy did to his

brother. let's pour kerosene on that situation and help -- neil: you know what i worry about as well, if you're in desperate straits for money and you know there's a black market for a lot of nuclear and plutonium agents and what have you, you will be more inclined to strike deals to get just that, right? >> oh, yeah. and look how he finances. it's not just the iranians. and i'm glad to see secretary of state tillerson call out russia and china today, two of the great enablers beside iran. but, yeah, it's -- these are tough times. but i do think this president is showing real american leadership. he inherited a mess. prior administration -- i went back, you and i have been talking about this a long time. neil: indeed. >> i came on your show in 2006 saying george bush wasn't tough on north korea. this president has inherited a mess, but he's showing leadership. and all the steps to this point have been the right steps but, you know what? i think we can go back and look

at how president kennedy handled the cuban missile crisis. his decision making process was spot on. we can learn a lot from jfk and apply it to this situation right now. neil: van hipp, thank you very much. good seeing you. >> thank you. neil: in the meantime, investors are worried about all of these developments, they certainly have a funny way of showing it. we are in record territory again for the dow. defense-related issues, of course, buoyed by these developments as is always the case here. between that and expectations of some form of tax reform package in the next week or so, investors are looking at the good and ignoring the bad. even like the life-threatening stuff. after this.

♪ it's a highly contagious disease that can be really serious... especially for my precious new grandchild. it's whooping cough. every family member, including those around new babies, should talk to their doctor or pharmacist about getting vaccinated.

so new touch screens... and biometrics. in 574 branches. all done by... yesterday. ♪ ♪ banks aren't just undergoing a face lift. they're undergoing a transformation. a data fueled, security driven shift in applications and customer experience. which is why comcast business delivers consistent network performance and speed across all your locations. hello, mr. deets. every branch running like headquarters. that's how you outmaneuver. your insurance on time. tap one little bumper, and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if

you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. 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, a couple of things we're following here on the launch of these tax cuts, tax reform, whatever you want to call it, a lot of people are surprised that maybe on the 25th we don't get the details, and then lo and behold a "wall street journal" story that the house and the senate are far from on the same page on this. and then there is that division over whether these tax cuts should be paid for right away or you use dynamic accounting and the bang for the buck from cutting those taxes, and so you judge them in a different way. again, they're not exactly in sync on this.

now, that would not be a first time in washington, but time is running out to get this together. charlie gasparino, washington examiner and white house correspondent sarah westwood on that. charlie, that's the worry, that time's wasting to finalize the details. >> there is no plan. i mean, listen, we'll see what sarah has to say about her sources. my sources -- neil: i trust sarah more than you. [laughter] >> okay. neil: i'm kidding. >> you'd buy the brooklyn bridge too, i'm only kidding. [laughter] i'm only kidding. but anyway, they -- nobody believes, that i talk to on the hill, believes there's anything concrete right now. they don't believe they're going to get anything concrete this year -- neil: so on the 25th we're not going to have details -- >> they don't think so, and they don't think it'll be passed this year. neil: i want to follow up on that. first, sarah, to you. are you hearing that as well? the first sign of trouble, and charlie and i were here when kevin brady of the ways and means committee said i don't know if we're going to get all the details on the 25th, and

that kind of surprised me, because i thought that was the day we would. what are you hearing? >> right. we're hearing there are still differences not just on the little things, but on the broad, structural elements of the tax plan between the white house, te senate and the white house. they don't know their revenue target, they don't know what rates they're going to set, and if they're still far apart on those big issues, then it's hard to see them coming together -- neil: but, sarah, any guidance from the white house? we know famously ronald reagan who had this put-offish attitude, he was quite the opposite, very much involved in drop dead rate figures on which he would not budge. do we get any sense of that from donald trump, what matters to him, what are sort of nonnegotiable issues? any hint of that? >> well, president trump has set out a lot more general guidelines. he has a framework that he wants congress to operate within, but he's not dictating specifics. he says he wants the corporate

tax rate as close to 15% as possible, he's not demanding it be right at 15%, so there's wiggle room for republicans, they just have to work out differences -- neil: that worries me, because if you leave wiggle room, you'll get it. >> forget about it. donald trump is side-negotiating with nancy and chuck right now. neil: nancy pelosi and chuck schumer -- . >> well, he calls them nancy and chuck. when's the last time he called mcconnell mitch and ryan paul? it's very odd to. so he's side negotiating with nancy and chuck. he's trying to suggest that he has certain parameters for a budget, but nancy and chuck are not going to go for a 15% corporate tax rate -- neil: well, they might if you don't have a tax cut for the well-to-do. >> you sure about that? neil: i don't know. sarah, what dueck? because if you want them onboard, you certainly can't be entertaining a tax cut for the rich, and it looks like the

president won't. is that the means by which you get democrats to get on board? >> well, charles makes a good point, the fact that president trump is also directly negotiating with the democrats at the same time he's trying the broker these disagreements within the republican party, that adds an element of unpredictability -- neil: but he's getting his base furious. mo brooks of alabama saying i am frustrated with all of washington, obviously he's referring to the prime minister as well. he's risking his base as well. >> on the daca issue. neil: and a lot of others. how bad at this point, sarah, is this getting among just republicans who are getting increasingly frustrated? >> well, yeah. obviously, republicans are really frustrated with the way president trump has been dealing directly with democrats. he's not been super helpful in terms of guiding them in one specific direction over another with tax reform. now he's promising not to touch that top rate of, you know, taxes for the rich, so that's something that republicans had wanted to bring down. clearly, there's a lot of moving

pieces to this. and if he sides with democrats over republicans on tax reform and fen then goes -- and then goes ahead and does it again with immigration, that's going to be two too many with republicans. >> here's the lack of leadership which i think we have now with the president not setting parameters, paul ryan -- there's a lot of disagreement about this tax issue among republicans. if you're going to try to herd cats, this is going to be insane. so paul ryan, people tell me, won't go for a 15% corporate tax rut if, if you cut taxes for anybody who makes $150,000 or more, families, 150 miss. that is really, you know, the antithesis of what donald trump ran on in terms of his tax plan -- neil: well, ryan's big thing is he doesn't want to make deficits worse, right? >> okay, here's -- i'm sure there were republicans back in 1980 who would say the same thing. one of those was bob dole, pretty much a deficit hawk back

then, always complaining about the deficits and green eye shade and everything. and ronald reagan was able to say, listen, this is why i won, this is what we need. we need a change. remember you used to say you had your way of running the economy and look at what gave us the 1970s. let me try a new way. we don't have that type of leadership from the president. if we did, paul ryan -- neil: you could argue we don't have the bob doles either. >> oh, yes, we do in the form of paul ryan. neil: well, maybe, but bob dole ended up being a champion of those tax cuts. >> well, in the end, he did. but there was, you know -- neil: bob dole. >> great guy, wasn't he? [laughter] he's still alive, i believe. neil: yeah. >> but what i'm saying is we need, you need presidential leadership to set parameters -- neil: all right. >> -- and we don't have that. neil: so far. i want to thank you, charlie and sarah. meanwhile, housing and urban development secretary ben carson in the middle of a mess back and forth among cabinet officials who are sniping with republicans

and the president sniping at them. then an interesting question. if the president called him an idiot as the president is alleged to have said about his attorney general, would ben carson quit? he's next. ♪ ♪

when this bell rings... ...it starts a chain reaction... ...that's heard throughout the connected business world. at&t network security helps protect business, from the largest financial markets to the smallest transactions, by sensing cyber-attacks in near real time and automatically deploying countermeasures. keeping the world of business connected and protected. that's the power of and.

neil: it really does look like a war zone, hundreds of thousands of homes destroy after hurricanes irma, harvey, all while urban housing and development was facing steep budge cuts, thiess before -- budget cuts, at least before. ben carson on that from an interview a short time ago. very good to have you. thank you for coming. >> a pleasure. neil: we've been dealing with these back to back storms and the cost involved, and i was thinking of the role that housing and urban development plays and knowing early on in the year you were looking at a potential budget cut, is that off the table now given what's

been going on down there? >> well, i think there is a general consensus across our government that our people are hurting, particularly in texas and in florida. as well as in the virgin islands and puerto rico. and this is probably not the time for us to count the pennies, a although we have to be efficient and fiscally responsible. so we will do what is necessary, obviously, to get our people back into good shape. neil: you know, secretary, i'm wondering how you police the monies that are needed. i mean, obviously, the first wave of money for largely, i think, harvey victims -- some irma victims even though it came before the storm hit, a little bit more than $15 billion -- was sort of a down payment on other monies that could be needed, qume thattive -- cumulatively in excess that would be coming from your department. but it comes at a time when

they're fighting in washington back and forth about money, where to get it. is it your thinking no matter what it costs, just give florida, give texas and by extension louisiana whatever they need to deal with this? >> i would say we're going to be, obviously, very diligent in examining exactly what is needed, and we will provide what is needed. not necessarily what is wanted. there's a difference. and we've already started the process long before these hurricanes came along of getting rid of some of the unnecessary paperwork, some of the regulatory things that were slowing things down, making things inefficient, that were costing taxpayers extra money. and so that process was already begun, and it's going to benefit us very significantly in the distribution of these funds. neil: secretary, i wonder what your thoughts are on the president making overtures to democrats, namely chuck schumer

and nancy pelosi, on raising the debt ceiling, attaching it to some of the hurricane aid that you mentioned. he expressed at the time that we got with poorly treated by the gop, in fact, he echoed that yesterday. do you agree with that, that republicans have treated him poorly? >> well, i would say that there's been generalized poor treatment. and it's been going on for quite some time. but i do think there's a good idea to begin to talk across the aisles because this is no way that continued division is going to help us in the long run. there may be a temporary victory here where we can say, haha, we got you this time, but that's not helpful to us as a country. we're called the united states of america. and even though we may differ on some points, on the vast majority of principles and values we're pretty much in the same boat, and we really need to start having much more open discussions about what we're trying to achieve as opposed to what is the ideology of this

side or that side. neil: but are you worried about, you know, what i think steve bannon had told "60 minutes" of a potential civil war erupting within the republican party? i only say that, sir, when the reaction that the president's overtures to democrats on things like daca and on aid and the debt ceiling, you've got steve king furious, you've got mo brooks of alabama saying i'm frustrated with all of washington, and i make no exception -- referring to the president -- then breitbart itself or the news service itself going so far as to say this is an amnesty deal, that the president is letting down his base, what do you say to that? >> i would say people have to get over their own feelings. that's the reason that we're having trouble getting things done, because people say, well, i don't like it. well, it doesn't fit with -- it's not you, it's the constituency that you represent. we need to get back to understanding what a

representative is. what is a senator, what is a congressman. you know? what are those of us who work in government? we are employees of the people. and we should be carrying out the things that work for them, not what manges us feel -- makes us feel good. neil: did you get troubled by the president's remarks yesterday on air force one in which he seemed to once again equate the violence that happened in charl lotsville, virginia -- charlottesville, virginia, equally to both sides with the neo-nazis and the klan and these leftist groups? he was referring at the time, as you know, to his conversations with south carolina senator tim scott who was a little chagrined, he told me speaking as an african-american, that he found those remarks inappropriate. this was prior to the president's comments yesterday on air force one. do you? >> well, i think the president is very willing to call out those individuals who sort of

instigated the whole thing in the first place as well as those who reacted to that instigation -- neil: do you think he called them out enough, dr. carson? that was the rap against him, that he didn't. >> i personally when he said all of these groups thought that he meant all of those groups. you know, for some people all of those groups only means all the groups on the other side. but, you know, again, we need to get away from parsing everything to make it fit, you know, our sense of what's value and ask ourselves what is helpful to us as a nation. and, you know, this whole charlottesville situation deserves a serious discussion. you know, not just barbs from this side or barbs from that side, but let's ask ourselves do we want to get rid of the history of our nation? do we want to put footnotes on it? do we want to have an opportunity to explain what went right and what went wrong to our

children so that they don't make the same mistakes again? do we just want to hide it and say that we're wonderful people? you know, we need to have that discussion because other nations who have obliterated their history have never seemed to benefit from that. so but by the same token, we need to have a discussion about slavery, slave owners versus people who were anarchists and were trying to overthrow our government and how we should look at one versus the other. we don't have those discussions we're going to keep being in this discussion. neil: i'm sorry, sir. do you think statues to the confederacy, there's a move afoot now, just remove them, they're a blight on our past. you're a prominent administration figure, prominent african-american, how do you feel about that? >> i, again, i feel that those are things that need to be discussed. that's why we have local government -- neil: cothose statues bug you -- do those statues bug you? >> me personally, no.

they don't bug me personally. i'm a big picture type of person -- [laughter] you know, i don't tend to get bogged down with things that perhaps tend to drive other people nuts because there's so many bigger issues. and, you know, as i was saying when this whole charlottesville thing started, you know, you've got kim jong un over there with nuclear weapons who also needs money, who probably wants to sell those things to people who are not going to be deterred by the mutual destruction argument, who would be happy to try to destroy us even if we destroyed them. you know, we need to be thinking about that. we need to be thinking about our electric grid, the fact that you could explode a nuclear weapon in our atmosphere and destroy our grid and put us into a helpless situation. it doesn't mean that those other things aren't important, but let's focus. neil: you know, because you've had a very calm approach to this and haven't, you know, been very volatile about it, some have interpreted that as acquiescing

to it or allowing it. the michigan chronicle went so far as to call you a house negro. herman cain defended you in a letter saying, well, if that's the case, house negroes better stand up. how did you feel about that? >> you know, i understand that people allow themselves to be manipulated and feel that you must all march to one drum, and if you deviate from that, that, you know, there's some horrible name they can call you. i don't care about that, quite frankly. you know, my center, to be honest with you, neil, comes from my relationship with god. that's what's important to me. and the values and principles that are consistent with what he says. so, you know, when other people come along and they want to call you names and they want to, you know, create strife, you know, if that's their fun, let them have it. we have much more important things to do. neil: that's your point of view, and i understand that, and you don't like the name-calling back and forth. yet you're always in this sort

of tough position working for the president of the united states who we're told not too long ago had referred to his attorney general over the anger of recusing himself from the whole russia investigation an idiot, browbeat him in public, humiliated him. what did you think of that? >> well, it's probably not the way that i would handle things. [laughter] but again, you know, we're -- neil: well, if you were treated like that, dr. carson, would you stay on? >> if i had something important that needed to be done, i would not let personal insults deter me from doing that. neil: so if the president of the united states called you an idiot or browbeat you in front of others, there's been some surprise why is jeff sessions still staying in the job. i know you don't want to judge him, but if the same were done to you, you would stay depending on the importance of your mission?

>> yeah, i think the importance of the mission far exceeds any personal insults, you know? people sometimes put themselves into too high a position, and they worship their position and what people think of them. that's not important. what's important is do you have the ability to effect positive change. neil: your thoughts on this tax package. the argument is that the rich should probably be left out of it. the president seems to have intimated that, that we can get significant bang for the buck without, you know, giving bucks back to the well-to-do. do you agree with that? because there's a vision line along the conservative members of your party, they do not. they think a tax cut should be across the board for everyone. how does ben carson feel? >> well, i'm a pragmatist. who pays most of the taxes?

whoever is paying most of the taxes, that's probably who needs the tax break. i think -- neil: well, they're not going to get it. >> i think everybody needs a tax break if the purpose is to stimulate the economy. if it's to encourage further investment. now, if the purpose of it is political, then you can start parsing it out. you know, as you remember when i was running, i said why not do it the way god does? he says i want a tithe. he wants the same proportion from every person. you make $1, he wants ten cents. you make $10 billion, he wants a billion. seems pretty fair to me. neil: but it's not going to be this tax a package. >> it's not going to be this tax package, but i hope in the discussions we come back and ask ourselves what are we trying to do. are we trying to stimulate the economy, or are we trying to win brownie points? if we're trying to stimulate the

economy, then obviously we need to have tax cuts in an area where it would really do something. you look at, for instance, the corporate tax rate. bring that down, create an environment that creates a net influx of jobs into our country rather than an outflow. those are the kinds of things that make sense, and they should make sense to everybody. neil: ben carson, hud secretary, doctor, thank you very much. >> thank you. always a pleasure, neil. neil: all right. the fallout from that chat and what it says about the administration, where it stands right now going into this battle and this struggle for the towel soul of the -- for the soul of the republican party, a lot of republicans miffed, others delighted that the president is martialing forces to get bipartisan support on the things that matter. in the meantime, a quick homework assignment in this commercial break. i want you to google gender discrimination. go ahead, google it. and met me know if google -- let me know if google comes up.

♪ ♪ the bottom line is, for your goals,

this is a strategy i'd recommend. huh. this actually makes sense. now on the next page you'll see a breakdown of costs. what? it's just.... we were going to ask about it but we weren't sure when. so thanks. yeah, that's great. being clear and upfront. multiplied by 14,000 financial advisors, it's a big deal.

and it's how edward jones makes sense of investing.

♪ ♪ neil: is google fair? it's facing a lawsuit by at least three former employees who are women alleging that they were discriminated against for their gender, and it proved in their pay, and this has potential class action written all over it some lawyers say. hillary vaughn on the latest. hillary. >> reporter: neil, this lawsuit accuses google of paying women less than men, and the plaintiffs say that this didn't happen by accident. three former female googlers also say the company is slow to promote women and tries to channel them into careers where they're less likely to be promoted. the lawsuit claims that google has known about these issues for a long time, and it's failed to do anything about it. >> we'd like to change google's policies and practices going forward so that in the future women get a fair shake at

google. and since google is an industry leader, at the valley as a whole. >> reporter: a google spokesperson is pushing back on the accusation saying in a statement, quote: in relation to this particular lawsuit, we'll review it in detail, but we disagree with the central allegations. if we ever see individual discrepancies or problems, we work to fix them. all three women no longer work at google, and since they left, google has made some changes. they brought on a new vp of diversity who has spoken candidly about changing the workplace culture. but google's diversity programs have now also caused controversy. last month a google engineer published a memo blasting these programs saying they create inequality and actually increase race and gender tensions at google. he was promptly fired after his memo went viral, and then he filed his own complaint against google. this isn't the only legal battle that google is facing though, neil. the u.s. department of labor says they found evidence that

google pays women less than men, so they've requested more data from google. but, of course, google now doesn't want to hand it over. neilful. neil: and here we go with. hillary vaughn, thank you very much. on to equifax right now, no less than senator elizabeth warren wants to launch an investigation into how it is better than 140 million americans' records somehow got out there. democratic pennsylvania attorney general john shapiro is leading a multi-state investigation into what equifax knew and when it knew it and what it did to try to prevent it. what are you fearing, attorney general? what are you trying to put together here? >> well, neil, there's a lot of layers to this. first off, just a massive data breach affecting 143 million americans. in my home state of pennsylvania, 5.4 million pennsylvanians, about 75% of our adult population. here's the layers to. they knew about this six weeks before it was disclosed. so i want to get at the heart of

how did the breach happen, why did it take them so long to notify the public, and since they've notified the public -- to add insult to injury -- they've made it harder for consumers to go and protect their data. sometimes making them pay fees to freeze their credit. and just as recently as 20 minutes ago when we went online to check whether or not we could access helpful information on their web site, their web site was down. layer on top of that further for many seniors and others who are afraid to put their information online, to go and freeze their credit, when they call the call center, they're met not with a live voice, but either with a busy signal or not being able to get access to their information. so we're not only leading a massive, bipartisan, multi-state investigation with over 30 states involved right now, but we're also trying to get equifax to change its behavior right now to help consumers in pennsylvania and all across the united states. this is a massive data breach. there's a lot of questions that we're going to get answered in

the course of this investigation, and we've got to protect consumers. neil: you know, is there anything illegal about -- because it certainly seems suspicious, attorney general, a company that says, all right, we will protect you from this happening again if you sign up for this service, sort of a credit protection service they say as long as you, you know, sign off on a waiver that you would not sue us. now, it seems that that issue is a moot point, but it also seems like an illegal act. >> well, it's a moot point because the moment i and other attorneys general saw this, we immediately fired off a letter to equifax demanding that they take that provision away. and for your viewers -- neil: the provision that you cannot sue them if you sign up for this service. >> right. neil: okay. >> when you signed up for them to help you, they said you're waiving your legal rights. they now took that away, and we want them to not only keep that away, but also make it easier

for people to freeze their credit, not pay a fee, and if they're forced to pay a fee, for equifax to reimburse them. we want all that to to go on while we're investigating the data breach. at the end of the day, we want to change corporate behavior not just from equifax, but these other corporations that take your data. we want to make sure that our data, the american people's data, is protected no matter what. and that's part of what we're going to hopefully do here in this investigation. neil: all right. watch very closely. attorney general, good seeing you. >> thanks for having me on, neil. neil: in the meantime, we are focusing on this scare now with north korea and its latest missile test that has the japanese once again operating sirens. a white house briefing a little under half an hour from now. general h.r. mcmaster will be there, ambassador nikki haley will be there. again, the u.n. reportedly apoplectic, but again after every such test, there's an

emergency session, and the tests continue. what changes? after this. ♪ ♪ u trade. fidelity's active trader pro can help you find smarter entry and exit points and can help protect your potential profits. fidelity -- where smarter investors will always be. and life's beautiful moments.ns get between you flonase outperforms the #1 non-drowsy allergy pill. it helps block 6 key inflammatory substances that cause symptoms. pills block one and 6 is greater than 1. flonase changes everything.

neil: is it your thinking that no matr what it costs, just give florida, give texas finish and

by extension louisiana -- whatever they need to deal with this? >> i would say we're going to be, obviously, very diligent in examining exactly what is needed, and we will provide what is needed. not necessarily what is wanted. there's a difference. neil: that's an interesting distinction there. what the governors of the affected states of these hurricanes are saying in texas, certainly in florida, is they're going to need a lot of money. that's not a guarantee washington's going to fork that over. all of this comes at a time when florida's chief financial officer is looking at a lot of folks in that neck of the woods who are worrying about time running out to file claims especially for homes they can't get back to. you're saying, mr. potronis, relax, right? we're going to waive these deadlines so you have time to do just that, right? >> thank you. and that's exactly right. we're -- the governor and i and

the insurance commissioner, we've issued a 90-day emergency order freezing policy rates, freezing people being able to be eliminated from having homeowners insurance, we're trying to give them a chance to catch their breath. the natural disaster that has affected the state of florida is a challenge for all of us, but we're going to work our way through it and make sure our citizens have peace of mind. neil: how many are in a situation where they can't make that deadline or, sadly, finding out the coverage they thought they had they don't, or it's limited or deductibles are high or what? >> we've got an insurance hotline, our folks are standing by to help people walk through those issues. we've had over 200,000 claims reported in the state of florida. the insurance companies are reacting and trying to start that dialogue in getting those policyholders and homeowners made whole. neil: i understand the problem is getting adjustors to the locations, right? some of these are, you know,

intravelable. can you steer me through the procedure, forget about the extension, that's a sigh of relief, i'm sure, for plaintiff to these -- for many of these homeowners, but what has to happen? >> right now the state of florida, as of just earlier this week, we've got over 200,000 licensed adjustors in the state of florida, individuals that are working with the insurance companies to come and assess your damages. so they're out there hitting the streets. but still you have these people trying to transition back. what i'm concerned about most is what happens in between the adjustor and the homeowner, and that's the fraudster. we can't allow these individuals to be hurt twice by the hurricane. these fraudsters will come in, they'll knock on their door, and they will part people with their monies. so the adjustors are doing everything out there to assess the damages but, look, the hurricane brings out the best in people and the worst in people, and our folks have some vulnerabilities right now. neil: for those that are, you know, finding that their coverage -- obviously running this through the state and all,

but find out that their coverage, they didn't read the fine print, does the state do anything for them? they thought they were covered for this or covered for flood, winds and all that, turns out that they might not be, and it might not be to the degree, or their deductibles are higher than they thought? what does the state do for them or can it? >> well, and a lot of this is also solved through the private sector already. you go out and get a mortgage for your house, your mortgage learned's going to require all these -- lender is going to require these additional coverages. the mortgage holder wants to be made whole, and that in turn will pretty much cover the needs of the insurance policy holder too. neil: all right, jimmy patronis, thank you very much, dealing with a record number of claims. we've had doozies in the past particularly going back to katrina and before that to andrew in '92, but nothing like they are seeing now. all right, want to keep you up-to-date on developments at the white house.

pretty soon we're going to see a joint press conference, general h.r. mcmaster, our u.n. ambassador, nikki haley, they're going to address the press on what our response might be and should be and what the world's should be to north korea conducting yet another missile test, this on the heels of tightening sanctions that don't seem to do the trick exactly. every time that we see that, north korea responds with still another test. so if they're somehow cowed by these activities, the north koreans have a funny way of showing it. what do we do, if anything? after this. ♪ retirement squirrel from voya. i represent the money you save for the future. who's he? he's the green money you can spend now. what's up? gonna pay some bills, maybe buy a new tennis racket. he's got a killer backhand. when it's time to get organized for retirement, it's time to get voya. (honking) (beeping) we're on to you, diabetes. time's up, insufficient prenatal care. and administrative paperwork, your days of drowning people

are numbered. same goes for you, budget overruns. and rising costs, wipe that smile off your face. we're coming for you too. at optum, we're partnering across the health system to tackle its biggest challenges.

. neil: all right. we are waiting on a white house briefing that will feature the national security adviser general hr mcmaster, and un ambassador nikki haley in respond to what the north koreans are doing, yet another test that has the world frazzled. initially, it prompted a selloff abroad that has since dissipated, even with the apparent terror attack in london. so we'll take you to that when it ends. but the aforementioned terror attack in london, president trump has already spoken with britain prime minister's teresa may. sky news is saying that they believe they can identify the suspect or have a clear image. and the massive manhunt is underway for that person or persons. they're not really being specific when it comes to that and that a fifth terror attack could have been a whole lot worse than it ended up being.

terrorism analyst gabriel on what happens. what we do know depending on who you believe is that this person was on their radar. you always hear this stuff. i don't know how true that is. but that would not be the first time that authorities were aware of someone they were looking at that ultimately pulled something like this. what is the rule on this sort of stuff on suspicion drag them in? but you need something more than suspicion; right? >> you need something more than suspicion, and i believe they will find something more than suspicion. unless you mentioned, neil, we have seen a pattern. almost every single terrorist attack in europe when they would capture the attacker, he was on the radar screen of the intelligence authorities. whether it was in belgium or in france or in london or even in australia. so we are seeing the same pattern. but i hope that this would be a lesson to the intelligence agencies that when you are monitoring somebody, that is either talking to isis or

dealing with radical islamic terrorists in any country in the world, whether he has on his facebook or social media anything relating to radical jihad, you need to pay attention and immediately either at least bring them for questioning, or do something or just protect the public. you cannot gamble with the lives of innocent civilians because you want to be politically correct. neil: the president did speak to teresa may, and quoting here with the united kingdom to stop attacks, worldwide, targeting innocent civilians into combat extremism. but how does this extend to lone wolfs who are doing to crazy stuff on their own? >> there is no such thing as lone wolfs, neil. every person is part of a group. a person doesn't wake up in the morning and decide you know what? i think i'm going to put explosives in a backpack and about it to a train station. they're usually part of a small group that networks with

them. they usually are funded by money coming in, either overseas or from terrorist network within the country in which they are committing the terrorist attack. so this is a problem because now, the terrorist attacks move from being on a megascale 9/11, 2001, to basically small groups leaving a backpack of explosives on a train station. and this is where the intelligence committee work along with the vigilance of the population in every country to pay attention to a backpack left unattended or someone acting suspiciously and calling the authorities. that's our hope in saving lives. neil: yeah, apparently in this case it looked like a paint bucket but with wires coming out of it. if not for wires coming out of it, it wouldn't have drawn nearly the suspicions that it did. so what is the rule of thumb on this? i know i'm repeating here, and you can remind me if you see something, say something. but what -- how does that apply in cities where you see a lot of stuff?

>> well, again, we just have to adjust. israel adjusted. and i live in israel. you cannot leave anything. if you left a sandwich bag, a mcdonald's bag, somebody's going to take a look at it and call the authorities and say there is a mcdonald's bag left empty on that table. so we as a society as westerners in general because we are targets, we are the bulls eye in the eyes of the radical jihadists that we need to pay attention to every little thing, and we need to take away and throw in the garbage political correctness. a lot of people, neil, are afraid to look judgmental. so even though they may see something that will raise their suspicion, the other side of them says, no, i shouldn't say anything, otherwise i'm going to be accused of being a racist because i saw someone acting suspiciously. and especially if they look islamic or middle eastern. we need to overcome that type of thinking and start working really smartly in dealing with the authorities because the country where we live in, those types of attacks are going to grow and grow and

grow. look at france. it's a regular occurrence. we're seeing the same thing happening in london. it's not long before it comes to the united states. neil: well, well put. good seeing you again, even under these circumstances. analyst extraordinary. meanwhile, the international worry right now seems to be focused on north korea, warning sirens were blaring again in japan. this after north korea fired its second missile over japan less than a month. i mean, they could see this thing. to hudson institute senior fellow rebecca. seems every day we get together, there's a new missile launch here. but the one thing i always worry about, and i, you know, express the view before is the possibility of an accident. that this lands on land. a missile that goes off course, you know? and hits people. hits land. then all bets are off; right? >> right. i mean, this was highly provocative, another missile, of course, that flew over japan. even if it breaks up in the atmosphere, the debris can fall down on unsuspecting japanese civilians. of course, we have american

forces deployed there. so it's very reckless. it's important, though, to understand that north koreans aren't irrational, they're reckless, they're cruel, but they're not crazy. and so -- neil: what would they respond to? i agree with that. they must know that threatening to blow up the world only assures their own destruction. but having said that, what would get their attention? apparently nothing approaching the severe sanctions, at least that we've seen in generations does the trick. so what -- >> well, so this -- secretary of state rex tillerson said that this is a pressure campaign. the administration is implementing and a couple of months ago, he indicated that he said if there was a dial on this pressure campaign, we're at a five or a six. assuming that that dial goes up to ten, they've got a lot more up their sleeve. this is a psychological situation that we're in with the north koreans. the north koreans need to maybe understand as well as the chinese that the united

states factually will not allow the north koreans to have a credibility capability threat with a nuclear weapon. they have, to me, to understand that we're using force to do that. we have to squeeze china and implement secondary sanctions if they don't. neil: that isn't force; right? i mean, that obviously -- i think you're right to go after china that the hand that feeds them would be a step in that direction. but force would be some military action against them; right? or to shoot down a missile or to shoot down a base of operations as much as israel did back in 1980 with iraq. i mean, would we see or entertain anything seriously like that? >> we have to. i mean, i think that -- what the north koreans don't want is the same thing the chinese don't want. and that is for the united states to unify the peninsula. that is what they don't want. so, you know, we need to try everything -- and secretary tillerson has the made it quite clear that is not the objective here. the united states does not want regime change. we simply don't want to be

threatened with a nuclear, ballistic missile. and so both the chinese, again, and the north koreans need to be made aware that we will, though, use force if the alternative -- neil: so aren't we sounding like the boy who cried wolf? yeah, yeah. once again, un, you know, assembly urgent meeting. after every test, you could almost time it. but the north koreans read to that, you're not going to do anything. so they keep calling our bluff. what would the bluff response be then? >> well, i think if the north koreans decided to launch one of these missiles at guam, secretary tillerson, secretary mattis, the president of the united states are going to have a very different response than what we've seen with these launche l. neil: in other words, if they take the north koreans beyond these errant missile launching over sky and into water; right? >> that would be my analysis. and i'm not privy to the conversations, of course, and no administration official is declaring these red lines. if you've noticed, presidten

trump has even gotten very quiet ever sinhat firing comment becse we nd to ha space he to move politically with the chinese and implementing these sanctions. but, again, this is a pressure campaign. we're going to convince the north koreans -- and the chinese are nervous because even with sanctions, you can get to the point where you actually -- you upset the regime in north korea, which has the same consequence, almost, as military force. and so it is this gradual tightening sinking to get to the point where the north koreans cry uncle and then say forget it. we don't want to test these missiles anymore. we'll come to the table. we want sanctions relief. that is the hope right now. that's what we're trying to d d. neil: i don't know what they're getting, say, stuff from the chinese but nothing seems to work. maybe that's a sign that they are going to tough it out because for now, they can. >> it's for voting. that's why this tough talk coming towards the chinese with secondary sanctions is important.

one thing i would note too. it's so critical for the trump administration to show ironclad commitment to both the japanese and the south koreans. you and i have talked about this before. they will seek their own deterrent capabilities. we don't want that. we don't want to increase -- neil: and china doesn't want that. that might be the most distressing development for the chinese that japan could remilitarizing as a result. >> and the south koreans. the south koreans have done -- you know, nuclear -- having their own nuclear capabilities growing in popularity, which is why i would also advise, you know, the trump administration if it were up to me, i would advise to hold this -- having a renegotiation between the united states and the south koreans with our trade deal. it's important. i think it's out of priority. it's out of wha what can be. i would put that on hold until we can get the north koreans under control. neil: rebecca, senior fellow at the institute. thank you very, very much. we'll see if general mcmaster and nikki haley were listening

to anything rebecca was saying. it might be a good idea. she's pretty good at this stuff. so were any of those possible responses? we'll find out in a few minutes. dow 46 points. not to worry too much after this

(baby crying) (slow jazz music) ♪ fly me to the moon ♪ and let me play (bell ringing) (audience cheering) so we need tablets installed... with the menu app ready to roll. in 12 weeks. yeah. ♪ ♪ the world of fast food is being changed by faster networks.

♪ ♪ data, applications, customer experience. ♪ ♪ which is why comcast business delivers consistent network performance and speed across all your cations. fast connectns everywhere. that's how you outmaneuver. . neil: boy, there's a perfect time to have former treasury

secretary of the united states john snow with us. the we know, we're waiting to hear from un ambassador nikki haley on what we're going to do, respond to the north koreans. secretary, very good to have you. the idea is that we're going to up the sanctions or get even tougher. maybe with china itself. what do you think of that? >> well, i think we need to put more pressure on the chinese, and they need to recognize it's in their own self interest to put more pressure on north korea. i think in the end, this has to be a diplomatic solution in which the chinese are fully engaged, neil, and recognize that their own long-term security lies in steps to demilitarize and denuclearize north korea. neil: let's say they know that. because they're not idiots. but they can't control this guy. what about that possibility? >> well, are they doing the

best they can? all we can ask of them is the besthey can to leverage their position, their authority, their influence. and i doubt that they fully exploited all the influence they have on the situation. neil: sanctions on chinese themself. in other words, we're obviously going after anyone who does business now with north korea or trades with them. now we're extending potentially with the chinese. now, obviously, that risks a trade war, but the administration seems more inclined to risk that. what do you think of that? >> you've got to deal with the relative risk. and the risk of a nuclear north korea unanchored to the well-being of the rest of the world is truly a menace and just cannot be allowed to go on. i think we can avoid a trade war with the chinese because they're going to understand this isn't about trade. this is about bringing leverage on a rogue nation that needs to be reigned in.

neil: but i wonder whether they are getting that message and, again, you're more stew to this than i. about his the chinese thinking that eventually, you know, we huff and puff, but we're not going to go much further than that, and we're offended by what the north koreans continue to do, but we're not going to risk a trade war to exact more concessions. do you think we should let the chinese know on that that they are wrong? >> i think we have to get the chinese into a mind-set where they recognize that the options that we have are not good for them. antinuke missiles station all across the southeast asia, a possible -- the possible nuclearization of south korea, of japan, and ultimately, neil, and this is the ultimate one, of taiwan. neil: oh, sure. no, you're absolutely right about that. and, by the way, the growing fear that the japanese have had it and might get back to

militarizing again. because they just have no confidence that china's going to control it. that would be a nightmare to china. is it your sense, though, that this cat and mouse game that we've been playing, you know, like, in the un just a few days ago, sir, we've slapped wider sanctions on -- and yet at the last minute i'm told the chinese and the russians some of them. in other words, that they were not as rough as they could have been. >> well, the chinese, the russians, they're all hoping that there's a way to escape this without escalating. i think we've got to show them that there's not going to be an easy out on this. they're going to have to invest in the solution. and i think nobody better than this president to make that point, you know? skilled negotiator, he's a skilled strategist. he's, i think, got a strategic mind capable of sizing up the other side and what leverage points he has with them.

this is the right time for president trump to be in that office. neil: if you don't mind my switching gears, secretary, on the whole tax cut thing. we're told, we might, we might get details in the next week to two weeks. maybe not on the 25th. that was the earlier date. it's potentially being pushed back. we're told there are great differences between the house and the senate packages. we're told as well the administration actually president trump has made it very clear he does not want to make these across the board that the rich, for example, won't be getting a tax cut or most likely won't. what do you think of that? >> well, i think it's -- neil, vitally important that we get tax reform done. we have had eight years of stagnant growth and stagnant income. we've had a president committed to 3% growth versus the 1.5 to 2 that we've seen. and we have an american public that's demanding action. i think it's absolutely critical that the congress and the president deliver on

their -- neil: but when you get that kind of growth, sir, the rich are left out of it. say what you will about the rich and what they do account for most of the taxes raised. if they're not getting a tax cut, would you get as much out of it? >> well, what's tax policy all about? it's marriage, good economics, and good politics. and you have to bring them both together. i think the focus on middle class prosperity has got to be the cente centerpiece of the reforms. and at the same time, we have to make sure that we remove the burdens from the job creators. and who are the job creators? well, entrepreneurs. so certainly, we've got to make sure that small business entrepreneurs, job creators

have the burdens of this tax code, which is miserably burdensome on them lessened. so sure. we have to make sure that they have lower marginal tax rates. neil: all right. finally, you know, there are has been some frustration within the republican party that this president has gone over their heads and reached out to democrats to support the president saying he was really compelled to do that because they let him down on health care and other matters. so he is negotiating with democrats increasingly. how do you feel about that? >> well, you know, neil, after eight years of gridlock in dc, i think there's something refreshing about a president trying to break the gridlock and reach out and looking to shake things up and cut across the aisle. go across the aisle. what's wrong with that? things haven't been working the way with what we've seen the last eight years. but try something new. i think the president is going to be commented for it.

neil: i was wondering. we're getting a about to-minute warning for this presser. one thing that has been raised among republicans and by extension and maybe it could be daca, it could be this with the president talking to chuck schumer and nancy pelosi that he will settle for a tax cut in this case that won't be as big or won't be as stimulantive, but it won't be the real bang for the buck. is that a fear? do you share that? >> no, i don't. again, i go back to the fact that the president is a skilled negotiator and strategist. neil: all right. sir, thank you very, very much. this presser is about to begin right now. let's listen in. >> at the top, i would like to read a statement on the recent attacks in the uk and france. the united states strongly condemns the cowardly terrorist attack in london today that targeted innocent civilians during their commute on the subway. we are grateful that no one

was killed in this horrific incident, and our thoughts and prayers are with those injured, and we wish them a speedy and full recovery. we are aware of the arrest that took place on a terrorist, and we are thankful that the soldier was not seriously injured. we are also aware of the attack in burgundy, and our prayers are with those in that incident. france is one of our closest and oldest allies, and we will provide any support to their investigation that they request. looking ahead to next week, the president and his key members of the foreign policy team will be in new york city for the united nations general assembly. here today are national security adviser hr mcmaster and united states representative to the un nikki haley. who will walk you through the meetings and other events of next week and then take some of your questions. as always, i'll be up afterwards to answer questions, unless, of course, you guys want to give me a free pass since it's friday. and with that, i'll turn it over.

thanks. >> good afternoon, everyone. i also want to begin by acknowledging the horrific attacks in europe. the united states, of course, stands in solidarity with the people of the united kingdom and france. we will continue to work tirelessly with our partners to prevent attacks. and, of course, the united states remains committed to defeating terrorist organizations, as well as their evil auto ideology. the president has been unambiguous here, isis complained on calling muslim majority nations to combat extremism and to end financing of terrorist organizations. we will defend our people and our values against these cowardly attacks, and we will always stand with countries around the world that do the same. now, i want to turn to president trump's trip next week to attend the 72nd united nations general assembly. the president's consistent message throughout all of his engagements throughout the week want to emphasize three goals. common to all nations who will be gathered there. first, to promote peace.

second, to promote prosperity, and third, to uphold sovereignty and accountability. a peaceful world depends on the contributions of all nations. we must share responsibility for international security while each country protects the security of its own people. prosperity is also a shared responsibility. the president looks forward to furthering economic cooperation, investment opportunities, and new business ties with other governments and businesses across the world. as always, this administration'sine clad commitment to free, fair, and reciprocal trade and access to markets will be the bedrock of our economic talks. sovereignty and accountability are the essential foundations of peace and prosperity. america respects the sovereignty of other countries, expects other nations to do the same, and urges all governments to be

accountable to their citizens. that accountability is broken down in places such as venezuela and syria. and we also see today revisionous powers who are threatening the sovereignty in the greater middle east, eastern and southern europe, and in east asia. now, let me quickly run through the president's schedule. on monday, the president will join senior un leadership and the leaders of more than 120 other nations to discuss reforming the institution. the president will express support for secretary general reform efforts, the united nations, of course, holds tremendous potential to realize its founding ideals. but only if it's run more efficiently and effectively. that day, the president will also meet with the leaders of france and israel, two of america's closest allies. while their conversations will be wide ranging, we expect that iran's destabilizing

behavior, including its violation of the sovereignty of nations across the middle east to be a major focus. monday evening, the president will host a working dinner with latin-american leaders. he's looking forward to discussing the crisis in venezuela, as well as our increasingly strong economic ties, shared goals for elevating the prosperity of our peoples, and the extraordinary success of like-minded latin-american nations in recent decades. the president's tuesday morning speech to the general assembly will emphasize the need for states to promote peace and prosperity while upholding sovereignty and accountability. as indispensible foundations of international order, he will urge all states to come together to address grave dangers that threaten us all. if nations meet these challenges, immense opportunity lies before us. later that day, the president will have lunch with un

secretary general antonia, meet with this year's general assembly president, and meet with mayor. in the evening, he will host a traditional diplomatic recession. on wednesday, he will meet with the leaders of jordan, the palestinian majority, united kingdom, and egypt. he will host with africa january leaders to discuss how the united states can help african nations help their economies strengthen security relationships and economic relationships between our nations. finally, on thursday, the president will meet with the leaders of turkey, afghanistan, and ukraine. the ladder two countries, in particular, have suffered direct and persistent attacks on their sovereignty in recent years. he will also host a lunch with the leaders of south korea and japan as kim jong-un's most

recent missile launch demonstrates north korea remains one of the most world's urgent and dangerous security problems. it is vital that all nations work together to do our up most to solve that problem. with that, i'll turn it over to ambassador haley. >> thank you very much. and i will tell you that next week is not going to be short on topics. i think, first of all, we can all say it is a new day at the un. the un has shifted over the past several months. it's not just about talking. it's about action. the members are starting to get used to act, whether it's security council resolutions, whether it's un reform, whether it's with peace keeping, we're starting to see a lot of changes at the un. they are all anxious to see what the u.s. delegation looks like next week, and i think they will be heavily impressed with the fact that we have the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, many members of the national security council coming to really show the u.s. strength that we have in the world. and i think, obviously, this will be the first time that

the president has addressed the general assembly. they are all very anxious to hear what he has to say, and i think that he will make quite an impact in terms of all of the issues that we're dealing with. we have three events that will be extremely important. first, the president will highlight the un reform event. it is very, very important. we've got a massive reform package being led by the secretary general that really streamlines not just the processes but also the budget as it goes forward and makes the un much more effective. we basically have the president headlining a un reform effort, which would really support the secretary general. but the impressive part is we asked other countries to sign onto their supportive reforms. and 120 countries have signed on and will be in attendance. that's a miraculous number. the vice president will be doing two very important briefings. he's going to do one on human rights counsel. now more than ever human rights matters. we say all the time if a

government doesn't take care of its people, bad things will happen. and i think we're seeing that in multiple places, and that's all the reason why the human rights council needs to be effective. we have offered reform. i think the vice president will go and not only support the reform but talk about why it's needed in the areas that are really needing to be addressed when it comes to human rights. the second one he's going to do is on peace keeping. and in the last several months, we have taken every peace-keeping mandate and changed it. basically, we have saved half a billion dollars in peace-keeping. but before anyone think so that's a travesty, basically, the way they handled it in the past, if there was a challenged area, they would throw more troops at it. but they didn't see if they were trained or give them the equipment to do their job. now we're going towards the political solution, making sure the troops are trained and armed, making sure we're more effective. so it's smarter, and it cut half a billion. and in some cases, we're

having to increase and some places we're having to decrease. so having the vice president talk about the importance of peace keeping is going to be very important. and as i said, there are no shortage of issues with north korea being front and center. efforts and how we counter that, and it is a huge topic on what we're dealing with. and, obviously, the humanitarian issues that we face around the world. so with that, i think the general assembly is going to be quite active next week, and i think the u.s. is going to be very strong next week, and we look forward to a very good week. >> thank you my question is about north korea. about a month ago, the president issued a threat to north korea and warned of fire and furry. and as you know, ambassador, the security council imposed tougher sanctions on north korea. both of these efforts don't seem to be changing their

behavior. is it time for the u.s. to change its approach to north korea? is that something that you're contemplating? and, general, if you could lay on this as well. i would appreciate it. >> i think what's important with north korea is that we try to push through as many diplomatic options as we had. if you look at the resolutions that have passed in the last month, the two of them, they cut 30% of the oil, they banned all the labors, they ban 90% of the exports, they banned joint ventures. we basically have taken -- and in the words of north korea, we have strangled their economic situation at this point. that's going to take a little time. but it has already started to take effect. they continue to be provocative and reckless and at that point, there's not a whole lot the security council's going to be able to do from here when you cut 90% of the trade and 30% of the oil. so having said that, i have no problem kicking it to general mattis because i think he has plenty of options. >> general, could you weigh in

on that? >> just the point that ambassador haley made. these sanctions are just now taking effect. what's really important is rigorous enforcement of those sanctions so that we can let the economic actions and diplomacy progress as best we can. but i think we ought to make clear what's different about this approach is that we're out of time; right? as ambassador haley said before, we've been kicking the can down the road, and we're out of road. so for those who have said and have been commenting about the lack of military option, there is a military option. now, it's not what we prefer to do. so what we have to do is call on all nations. call on everyone to do everything we can to address this global problem short of war. so that is implementing now these significant sanctions that have just now gone into place. and it is convincing everyone to do everything that they can. and it is in their interest to do it. what's different i think about this approach to north korea is worth noting.

first of all, there is consensus among all key nations that denuclearization of the peninsula is the only acceptable objective. the second thing is this is not an issue between the united states and north korea. this is an issue between the world and north korea. and the third recognition is there is a lot that we can do about it together. and so we need time, obviously, for any strategy to work. it is a sound approach to a very difficult problem, and we'll see if it succeeds. >> ambassador haley, a conference call proceeding the briefing here, next week's unga will be as much the world taking measure of the united states as it is the u.s. speaking to the world. he went on to say that the unga because of its very quick meetings, sort of like speed dating from hell and then the very sophisticated dance that neither secretary of state tillerson or the president

have particularly strong point on. what would you say to people who are wondering how the u.s. will do at next week's unga? >> i think there's a lot of interest in how the u.s. is going to do. and they're going to find out we are going to be solid. we are going to be strong. if you look at all of the meetings that the national security team has, these are important meetings. these aren't just wasting time. this is going to talk about terrorism. this is going to talk about the issues in north korea. this is going to talk about the issue in burma and what we're dealing with there. no one is going to grip and grin. the united states is going to work. and i think with all of the challenges around the world, i think the international community is going to see that. this is a time to be serious, and it's a time to talk out these challenges, and it's time action follows it. >> some questions from people outside of this room, in addition to what we do militarily as a humanitarian effort, and we've been criticized for not being involved in humanitarian

effort too much. when you go to new york and in addition to addressing the security measures, how are you going to address the criticism about the u.s. not leading humanitarian efforts? >> we actually have led humanitarian efforts and continue to. human rights, in general, is very important. that's something we've been loud on, which is the fact that you have to protect human rights with the humanitarian side of what we're seeing in south and the democratic republic of congo. what we're seeing with the syrian refugees that are in turkey and jordan. the fact that we're trying to deal with burma and find out ways that we can get humanitarian access in there. yemen is something that the united states has been working very closely with the saudis on and the un and trying to make sure that they get humanitarian access. so we have been as active and vocal and leading the charge on humanitarian access in all of these areas. and we are making a difference. i think just in theory, we've had over $3 billion that we've given in terms of helping that situation. venezuela, you saw what we did with the sanctions, but we're making sure they get that. right now in burma, we are

taking that very seriously, and that's of utmost importance that we get front and center on that one. >> general mcmaster, general, you mentioned, obviously, the terror incident overseas in london. the president tweeted this morning to people who were in the sights. made prime minister may that is not helpful to speculate. did the president share information that he wasn't supposed to? and if not, why was he? >> i think what the president was communicating is that -- is that, obviously, all of our law enforcement efforts are focused on this terrorist threat from, you know, four years. scotland has been a leader as our fbi has been a leader. so i think if there's a terrorist attack here, god forbid, they would be in the sights of the fbi. so i think he didn't mean anything beyond that. >> meaning he was saying generally terrorists are focused? or was he saying in a specific

incident scotland yard knew potentially this was coming? >> i think he means generally that this kind of activity is what we're trying to prevent. and so these organizations, they're responsible for, whatever comes out of this investigation, that remains to be seen. it is likely that law enforcement had been working on that problem. >> did that come up with prime minister may? >> i was not on that call this morning. >> north korea, obviously, there's more security council that could be taken. are you at all hopeful that there's any chance of a full oil embargo as the administration has wanted? or at what point has the president said himself that this is a small step? i think secretary tillerson seemed to agree that this would be a bigger step. for example, put tougher sanctions on china in order to put pressure on north korea? >> i think, first of all, let's talk about what a big sanctions resolution this was. the first one was a billion dollars. the second one was $1.3 billion, not counting the 30% decrease in oil.

we did a 55 -- and just imagine if this happened to the united states. a 55% reduction in diesel and oil. overall ban of natural gas. overall ban of any substitutes. overall ban of any textiles, stopping the labor program, which we call modern day slavery. stopping all foreign ventures. we have cut off now 90% of trade going into north korea. and they are saying that this was strangling -- so whether some believe it's big or small, i think what the president is saying this is just the beginning of what we can do. so it's going to be by the time we get going on this if we have to go further, this is going to look small compared to what we do. but, no, it was a massive sanctions bill. and i think the fact we had a 15-0 record, and you have china onboard and russia on board, i think that's very important. we've cut 30% of the oil. is there more you can do? there's always more you can do. but then you get into the

humanitarian aspect of it, which is at what point are you going and actually hurting down to the people of north korea? but we will always explore all options that we have. yes? in the red. >> turkey, russia, and iran, i believe deployed hundreds in the program. does that mean that you leave behind and what exactly was the focus when you talk about syria at un next week? and you said that the meeting between the president and prime minister netanyahu -- how much will the palestinians take place in that meeting? >> i think the efforts in syria have been remarkable. both syria and iraq to see how we have really bulldozed through isis in the way that we have shows how strong the u.s. has been in partnership with them. but i think we're also looking at post isis, you know? what does that look like? and i can tell you, iran is not going to be in charge. and iran is not going to have any sort of leadership in that situation to where they could

do more harm. but syria is always going to be a topic i think we continue to be strong in making sure there's no chemical weapons and making sure that we're looking at the humanitarian situation. but the u.s. is a very strong partner in the resolution for syria. and will continue to be until we know everything's stable. [question off mic] >> well, i think we're not going to be satisfied until we see a solid and stable syria, and that is not with assad in place. but what we are going to do is continue to be very effective and be part of that process so that we get to resolution. >> i'll just say of course, the president will talk about the prospects for lasting peace between israel and palestinians, among a broad range of regional issues with, really, all of the leaders that he's meeting during the week. >> the first one is the fact that president putin and president won't be there. will it have an impact on the outcome of whatever you will discuss from syria and north korea?

and, general, you've been insisting a lot on the respect of sovereignty. wouldn't an investment be mentioned be part of getting involved and having a stronger impact on this? >> i do think that it's still going to be strong and have an impact because you've got two very strong foreign ministers from russia and china that are going to be there. and the idea that we're going to be talking about syria and north korea and iran and all of those other things. i think it will be serious discussions. and i think the fact that president xi and putin couldn't there is not going to change the effect of the talk we have next week. that's their choice not to show up. >> i want to say the assembly is not a substitute for bilateral relationships with any nations. and as you know, the president's been working very closely, especially with president xi on this common problem. and this world problem of north korea. and it will continue in the

context of multilateral but also bilateral relationship with china. >> in the back. >> thank you, ambassador and general. question regarding etiquette in the past. presidents copiously avoided certain world leaders. a decade ago, president bush avoided president when he was in the un. will the president speak to president maduro? >> i think it's unlikely that he'll speak with president maduro, as you know. the united states designated president maduro after he victimized his own people, denied them their rights under his own constitution, and i think the president has made clear that they will talk at some point in the future. but it would have to be after rights are restored to the venezuelaian people.

[question off mic] >> well, i think that security council reform is still being talked about, and i know it's something that india wants. many other countries want it as well. so we'll have to wait and see. >> right now, the sanctions will work towards north korea. >> you have to look at how much has been cut off. they've already started to feel it. but they're getting ready to feel 90% of their exports going away. 30% of their oil. imagine what that would do to the united states if it was there. and, you know, if you look at -- i was looking what north korea was saying. they said it was a scale economic blockade suffocating its state and its people. this is dramatic. this is something -- and not only is it dramatic, but you're looking at peru has dropped ties.

thailand has dropped ties. we're seeing so many just kind of get rid of either the ambassadors or the trade that they're doing. there is no way that north korea doesn't feel this. now, how they choose to respond? this is totally in their hands on how they respond. one more question. i'll let you pick who gets the last one. >> thank you. appreciate it. so i was wondering we talk a little bit about the president on tuesday, but i was wondering if you could talk in any more detail now, and details later, will he be sending direct messages about iran and north korea? is there any more? and also ambassador haley, i want to ask you on the question of un funding, i know reform is probably an important part of this question. but as a candidate, president trump was somewhat skeptical about the import of un and the

point of it -- as president. is the u.s. committed both to fulfilling its vital obligation and where does it stand in terms of voluntary funding. >> start off with the speech the president does. you can see it the right place. he hugs the right people, and he comes out very strong. the second part of it is, you know, the un when i originally spoke with the president, what i said is we'll see what we can make of it. and that's the thing. we're creating an opportunity. we're making the most of it. we're moving foreign policy, changing the way peace keeping is really done. really bringing up human rights. and what i appreciated, they stopped focusing on the commas and periods and were actually acting. were actually seeing strong things happen. so i think the president has believed there's great

potential in the united nations, but the world has seen it that it's changing and becoming more effective. >> to traditional u.s. funding? >> i think you'll have to wait and see. thank you very much. >> thanks. >> thank you, general. thank you, ambassador haley, general mcmaster. figured you guys would rather take questions from them, since you see me every day, so i tried to let that go on for a little bit longer. we're going to be pretty tight on time, so i'm going to try to get things pretty quickly. before i take your questions, i wanted to make one quick comment about our new friend frank that many of you got to see here today. we welcomed frank to the white house this morning. frank is an inspiring 11-year-old man from virginia who started his lawn mowing business. he wrote the president earlier this year about his admiration for the president's business background and offered to cut the grass in the white house.

he got to do that this morning. the president has always loved go-getters with frank and invited him to join the world class grounds crew. he did a great job cutting the grass in the rose garden and spent some time with the president. the president believes it's our duty to keep the american dream alive for kids like frank, and it was an honor for all of us to host him here at the white house. so thank you, frank for coming. and with that, i'll take your questions and try to get through as many as we can. jeff. >> a follow-up on what ambassador haley said. she mentioned that she would feel comfortable kicking this issue secretary mattis. should the americans be concerned about the possibility of war? and how much time are you willing to give china to implement resolutions that the us security council -- >> as we said many times before, i'm not going to broadcast or lay out a timetable on what that would look like. we're continuing to keep all options on the table. we're going to push forward with a plan right now. and, again, as both general mcmaster and ambassador haley stated, we are working on putting that pressure on

north korea to do the denuclearization perform. we're going to keep pushing on that front. but we're going to keep all options on the table. >> what will the president say to the leaders next week who are eager for talks with north korea? i know that the president -- how will he address that with the europeans and others? >> i'm certainly not going to get ahead of any conversations that the president is going to have. we'll always provide readout and backgrounds of the conversations. i think the president will be very clear in putting extreme pressure on north korea is very important. >> thank you. the president today tweeted out that he wants to see espn apologize for what he called untruth. by him saying that, though, does that mean that he's willing to apologize for claims that he has called?

>> i think the president has made plenty of comments on that front. i think the point is that espn has been hypocritical. they should hold anchors to a fair and consistent standard. espn suspended a longtime anchor linda kohn not too long ago for expressing a political viewpoint. the network's public editor has said there's a perception that espn has become political, and that has harmed the network. this is clearly a political statement. they should be consistent in whatever guidelines that they have set themselves in that front. john. i'm sorry i'm going to try to keep moving so i can cover as much ground as possible. john, go ahead. >> do you still stand by your statement the other day when you said what jamel did -- >> again, i think they laid out themselves by suspending one of their own anchors for political comment? >> the president's response to the london attack. is the president aware that the british prime minister said that his speculation was not helpful? what was his reaction? >> i know that the president

and the prime minister spoke. and we'll offer a readout on that call later today. i believe it did. i understand it may have come up. >> the president this morning tweeted that migration could not be part of any migration bill. what did he mean by that? >> the president is focused on making sure that in the efforts of these on going conversations between both democrats and republicans, that we deliver on responsible immigration reform. he wants to help american workers and families. no deal has been final reached on this process. he supports making an agreement on daca, but that would have to include massive border security and interior enforcement. the president continues to push for those things. he still 100% committed to the wall. and we're going to be playing out what our specific priorities and principles are in that front over the next seven to ten days, and we'll make sure that you guys are all part of that. >> chain migration. this is referring to the idea that people given status and a bill could not then sponsor

relatives later for immigration status. has he drawn on the red line on that? >> as you know, this president doesn't use the term red line. but, again, we're going to lay out specific priorities what that looks like over the next seven to ten days. and i imagine that you will get more details on that front. david. >> you said several times yesterday by the president by one of your deputies that the white house did not support immigration bill. how would you define amnesty? and the path for citizenship for dreamers or other undocumented. >> the president supports the daca program and supporting, making a deal on that. but, again, that has to include that massive order of security. >> daca -- >> the whole definition says deferred, so i think that takes away the idea of the permanent peace. when the idea of daca is literally the definition of it is deferred action. meaning it's not a permanent process. >> so you don't support the

test? >> again, we're going to lay out exactly what those principles are going to look like over the next seven to ten days. right now, our goal, our focus is making sure that that program gets taken care of also coupling that with massive border security, interior enforcement. some of the things we probably like to see into sanctuary cities, expedited removal, more immigration judges, supporting things like the raise act. those are things that you will see us focused on and talking more about in the coming days. >> the president said today he wanted the travel ban to be larger, tougher, and more specific. as you know next month on the travel ban currently next place. why is he fighting for when, in fact, too small, not tough enough, and too broad? >> this is a step in the right direction. the president's order is motivated by national security and every step we can take to protecting people in this country, that's a step we're going to take. and we're going to continue to push forward. john decker. >> about espn, did he give any

pause from the podium here at the white house? >> i wasn't being talked about a private company but an individual. >> that's better? >> when ultimately is reached on daca, will it be a deal reached between the president and the top republican, the president along with speaker of the house, majority leader in the senate, and democrats, or will it just be the president alone? >> we certainly hope it will be a bipartisan bill that will have both republicans and democrats coming together to really focus on responsible immigration reform. i think there are a lot of people onboard sides that want to see this happen. we've had a lot of conversation with both republicans and democrats over the past week. and we're going to continue to do that and push forward. francesca. >> a quick question but clarification on the espn matter. you said it was a fireable offense. being interpreted that she should be inspired. are you or the president

saying she should be fired? >> that's not a decision that i'm going to make. that's something for espn to decide. again, i was asked about that. i think it is a fireable offense. based on the standard that espn has set themselves by saying that go too far to make political comments have been suspended from their own network. i think that that is the consistency that they should probably focus on. margaret. >> i know you have, and i appreciate that. but you said it was an individual. >> i'm just asking you to be respectful to your colleagues that i can get around the room. i have about two minutes left. >> you haven't answered it. could you? >> go ahead. and this will be the last question since we're tight on time. >> clarification there, but advice for a private company, yet, you're giving advice to espn. >> it's not my decision to make for a private company. i was asked specific about that individual. i made a comment. i stand by it.

i think espn needs to stand by the standard that they have set in their own actions that they have taken with previous employee. i really don't have much else to add on that front. margaret. >> the un stuff standards monday, but can you walk us through the president's schedule? is there anything we should be looking forward to this afternoon? can we talk about whether anything kind of policy-related? or anyone interesting over the weekend? is there anything else that they didn't go over on the schedule next week involving the first lady or anyone else? >> the first lady does have a couple of events. we'll be sure to get the details of those out for next week. she will be participating in the activities and some of the meetings at the united nations generally assembly next week. the president will be spending most of his weekend preparing for the meetings and the speech that will be taking place next week.

as you can hear, the president's getting ready to depart. and with that, we'll end. i hope you guys have a good weekend. we'll see you on monday. . neil: all right. a lot of discussion about things that didn't seem to me really that news eeyore topical about what to do with the espn sports anchor. but be that as it may like the world possibly blowing up, seemed a little bit more germane. generally, mcmaster and nikki haley telegraphing what's going to be a busy week next week with the un in town and the general assembly, and we know what that is. connell mcshane and the traffic and everything else. but obviously, they're going to raise all of these issues. the question is what would be different this time? >> right. i mean, i think with the the north korea issue all summer we talked about it. it's been exactly the same. i don't think it's changed now unless there's something that we don't know. it won't change until it changes if that kind of doesn't make sense. neil: they want to put a little pressure on china. presumably we have and to little

-- >> the latest rounds of sanction which is was the most severe, we were told, it's just starting to take effect. take effect. a few times. they will keep doing what they are doing. unless they cross the line, which we don't know what the line, is be the way, nothing changes. neil: you know what's scary, think about the possibility that china can't control them. >> yeah. i think that's more than a possibility. that's been the way it is. to get back to what the guy's motivations are, kim jong un and presumably most people think that motivations are remaining as he is. he thinks having the nuclear weapons is the best way to do it. he goes back to the examples of gadhafi and saddam hussein. apparently a missile flying over

japan as long as somebody is figuring out it's going to the pacific ocean it's not enough to have a conversation. neil: unless it misses. connor mcshane. trish regan, go figure. trish: i won't argue with that. we have a heck of a lot of stuff going on. thank you, neil. general mcmaster and nikki haley where they warned terrorists and warned north korea, do not mess with the united states of america, thank you very much. president trump is about to depart from joint base andrews any minute from now, the president and the first lady will meet with military personnel and their families. we also expect to hear from the president on the london terror attack and north korea's missile. dow up 47 points despite the fact that north korea was flying a missile over japan just last night. i'm trish