right now. neil: i am. >> i want you to change your mind at this moment change to a different number. neil: okay. >> nobody likes to go smaller, let's go with this. can i hand you the pen stuart? stuart: yes. >> i'll have you lean over so tell us what were you thinking about what was the number? neil: the latest one? >> whatever is in your mind right now. neil: 4. tell him what i wrote down please? stuart: 4. >> it's true. reverse psychology you went bigger and back down to 4 neil i'm inside your head. neil: no, i started out with 2. i'm kidding. i don't know what i did. i heard that stuart was going to have you on so i wanted to try to telegraph what i thought the market would be at when we would be picking up from stuart at noon and look what i did. stuart: neil we don't believe you. neil: i think it's a sad thing.

no? >> we're closing the day above 24 k, fingers are crossed. neil: what were you doing with those fingers? all right, there you go this is the best i could do guys and we're down about 90 points here and again there's a lot of confusion is the president going to sign the spending measure or not sign it remember whatever your views on this spending bill we'll owe $1.3 trillion worth of it, if the president does not sign it, we're looking at a shutdown because most of these guys in washington are looking at a two week easter recess and it's going to take quite a bit to get them to come back so we could be looking at a shutdown and now i don't think that's going to happen i think the president whose thoroughly confused his staff including his budget advisor who had said that the president would go ahead and sign this, he will probably do something like that and avoid a crisis but who knows but it's a perfect back drop for our live show tomorrow, our live show

tomorrow cavuto live saturday at 10 a.m. and that i think is what's going on here. it's another reason for you not to enjoy your weekend to you to get to your tv, to find out what's going on and the only way you can do that is to watch me, i'm liken joyment at the same time. we've concluded it, the market reminder we are down now, probably should have used the felt tip pen right? all right, so we've got market watch with us charlie gasparino, executive director alexander smith and end with you began with you. leading this deal here, are you concerned that the president could, could veto this and all of a sudden all bets are off? >> well if i could read the at the leaves i'd be the richest person at this table so i can't say what will happen for sure or not but what i do know is what the president is trying to do is reach out to that base so in the spending bill you have a lot of

incentives for democrats who voted for it and increase in military spending for the hawks who were enticed to vote for it. neil: why did the president do this? >> i think it's really to just reach out to his base to show them that he still, you know, he still thinks that the border wall is important, that it's still something he's going to be fighting for but as speaker ryan mentioned you could look at a lot of spending in this bill as sort of a down payment on the wall. neil: so he could okay it if he needed to and then say i don't like this but it does kind of whipsaw people right? >> i've absolutely no clue where he's going with this. absolutely, i'm going to hire that guy for my office i can tell you that. all i can tell uss that we have a spending bill and everybody's talk about why markets are down we have a spending bill that ensures trillion dollar deficits that eventually the first trillion of our taxpayer dollars is going to go towards interest payments that's going to crowd out the economy and if that doesn't provide a head wind for

the economy as well as markets you're saying i don't know what does, so i don't even know what to say. daca this daca that all i can tell you is i hope they go back to square one. i don't mind if they shutdown the government for a week come back with something better but i think it has been cast and deficits are skyrocketing and debt is going to get out of hand neil: of course this particular is out of the way assuming the president doesn't do this or act on this but i am curious what you make of the trade tariff situation and the response particularly we've gotten out of the white house . charlie: not good but if you really want to get into trump's brain you have to go one up from that dude, get creskit on here to maybe figure out what he's talked about i've spoke to a lot of people on the hill and my sources said why did trump do an about-face on the spending bill, you know, it was all apparently signed off everybody agreed on it and they were like we don't know. >> at the last second.

charlie: and say well why is he doing this stuff with tariffs instead of like trying to thread the needle talk big -- neil: maybe he was right charlie look at the response to the chinese. it was rather muted. charlie: right but look at the response to the market but i'm just saying that using a blunt instrument on trade is generally not, listen evidence knows china cheats right? we're there. everybody agrees on it. it's how do you address the cheating and they did blunt force of tariffs generally hurts us more than it helps us and china is a big market for a lot of our manufactures. they're a necessary evil i'm sorry and we have to deal with them and how we deal with that is really key and the blunt force of what he's doing most investors i speak to and most smart people that understand the economy thinks he's absurd. >> i've got a little something for you u.s. steel is down 30% in the last 10 trading days and dropped 12% yesterday.

i thought these tariffs are supposed to help our steel companies and look at the stocks , billion dollars of market cap, billions of dollars. charlie: that's odd why do you think that is? neil: since that covers the period of the implementation of the tax. >> but it beats the heck out of me. we were told by everybody it's going to help these steel companies. neil: maybe it would have been worse without it. and by the way there are other factors here, right? >> right but here is the big thing. neil: they're all caught up in it. >> i talked about uncertainty for eight years under obama. all these tariffs do is put just more uncertainty in the system as the president says we're going to do more tariffs, and he also talked aunt his trade rep finding more targets that's more uncertainty for business, business planners and the markets we have no certainty. charlie: getting back to your point about steel and why the conundrum of why it's the tariff s yesterday the bonds

actually yields went down yesterday. neil: big time. charlie: even as we lost 700 points on the dow there is a trade out there and this might be reflective of that of what's going on there that the economy might be slowing down. i'm telling you that -- neil: but let me ask you about that alexander, because it was interesting that charlie mentioned see sometimes -- charlie: it's like a broken clock. neil: but in all seriousness that people were looking at bonds as a flight to quality safe haven and the stuff that gary has taught me for years but there was something else going on and i've heard this ebb od before to charlie's point is the flattening yield curve issue, things potentially slowing down, retail sales not quite what they were. what do you make of that? >> look i think that the market yesterday was surprised. we've been hearing so much about these tariffs there have been news and chatter and finally when it happened it was sort of a shock. i think that's why you saw gold rise, the yen rise, and so i think there was definitely sort

of a short term systematic response to all of that. neil: but do you think it's justified? you talk to your clients do you say we've had a good long run here. >> i mean yeah, look i think that the stock market is up overall since the election in 2016, up 30%. charlie: but think about why the stock markets up it's kind of interesting we were talking about this in the green room. when the naysayers on trump like the mark cuban and even hillary clinton. neil: charlie gasparino -- charlie: no -- neil: they think you hate him. charlie: i don't. i actually like him. neil: what's the matter? charlie: [laughter] if you don't stop it, i'm going to unbutton my gold chains but the naysayers of the markets like mark cubans said trump was going to blow up the economy because he's going to spend like crazy and enter into a trade war and they said we don't care how much he tries to cut taxes so what trump did was interesting.

in his first year, he stayed away from the trade stuff and cut taxes and sort of deregulated the economy which pushed the market up and now he's going back to the stuff that people were scared of initially and that's got the market scared. neil: do you think a shutdown has anyone scared? i know you've river en about it because it happens so frequently that even if it came to that point that president i know the short term and immediate reaction is sell sell sell as much as when you impose tariffs the immediate reaction is sell and then they cool or calm down what do you think? >> we can only go by history. shutdowns don't last a long time the longest one i think was three weeks a couple might last two weeks and then a few last a few days so i don't think that's the biggest deal. something you just said that's really important is that we had a pro-growth president and now, if you think about it, do you ever expect republicans to come out with a spending bill like this, and massive tariffs and

these are massive and talking about a lot more. that never works, its never help ed markets in past and you're seeing them come up and keep in mind we were up big and due for a pullback, but we're getting -- neil: but could i raise with you and our charles payne that raised the point of everyone including gary and charlie have concerns about a possible trade war and then maybe just for the hell of it you ought to look into the wisdom of being against the crowds here and to charles payne's point was we do know and charlie gasparino touched on it that the chinese do cheat and they rig their markets and it's very difficult to sell in their market and you don't see a lot of american cars in their country and its been going on under republican and democratic presidents they've all been responding the same way hoping for different results they don't get the different results so this might offer some wisdom that we're not seeing. in other words it could be a good thing not a bad thing. sure, undoubtedly china is a bad actor in this situation.

they've not lived up to their obligations. neil: are you okay with this in your face response? >> look the intellectual property alone, the theft there of is absolutely appalling that being said, i think that, you know, one thing you could maybe look at in all of this, i'm opposed to tariffs as just a general proposition but if you look at the -- neil: even though china has its own tariffs. >> yes. neil: you're probably opposed to them as well? >> well look in a free market this will come back on american consumers as well. neil: but there's isn't a free market they screw us royally. charlie: capital flows help to pay and by the way they keep inflation low. neil: so we live without and take the good for the bad. charlie: not only that neil we do sell stuff there. neil: i understand but it is a rigged market. charlie: let me just say one thing about the rigged market which i hate them. >> all this dumping of all this stuff here keeps prices down. keeps costs down for companies. so it is --

charlie: but why do you think the automobile manufactures are against the tariffs? and by the way -- neil: because it's going to raise the price of their car. charlie: right which they build here and actually have more manpower building cars than you'd use in steel manufactures because it's extremely automated i'm just saying -- neil: is this resolved real quickly? charlie: no. neil: what do you think? >> interesting things are being made here because you have democrats praising president trump for these tariffs but look to a senator like claire mccaskill she has farmers in her state to worry about and she's opposed the president all day long on taxes on healthcare, and all of a sudden now she's standing against him on tariffs as well? >> and china will come after the farm belt no doubt just to stick it to them because they know that's a place that he gets a lot of votes from, so watch how that plays out. neil: 45 days he made sure to make sure these are implemented in 45 days guys thank you very very much. there is a white house briefing on all this 1:00 p.m. eastern time and there is a concern

generally that maybe the macro picture is changing we'll be talking to billionaire investor ken fisher on that after this. ♪ there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why.

medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp.

like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack! call to request your free decision guide now. because the time to think about tomorrow is today.

neil: all right, china is all right responding to these tariff s, $3 billion worth of u.s. imports about 138 different

products, industries whatever you want to call it that the chinese are looking at here a good deal we're told agricultural although they have alluded to the fact they could be looking to the aerospace industry that by the way might be boeing which is why that stock has been under pressure, the dow 30, fisher executives ken fisher is very good to have you. >> so good to be with you neil. neil: same here. my big concern with the tariff thing you and i were briefly touching on is that be careful what you wish for mr. president you might just get it but you think there's something else going on here? >> i do, but first, forgetting about what i think which might be wrong and i'm not all that important, there is something that's simply important which is that to move from a world that we've been into a world that fears what we're doing which is the tariffs cause recession and and and and you know the rest of the narrative, they miss a simple point, which is is that

to tip economic growth 3% into recession, you've got to come up with 3 trillion bucks of new global negative gdp. a couple billion is like throwing pebbles into a lake. people missing the in significance of the relative scale people aren't good at scaling, they're missing point of these tariffs which are bad, wrong it's a mistake, aren't big enough to do enough to cause the thing that people are extrapolating for. neil: so if it's 50-$60 billion of these tariffs? >> 50-$60 billion of tariffs are not enough you need to come up with several, it's bad. it's bad. bad is bad. neil: i know tariffs are bad but should they have been higher >> so let's go back to i'm opposed to bad. bads wrong, but if you are going to tip into recession you need to come up with two, $3 trillion of new bad in a world that's otherwise growing at 3% global

gdp and this isn't going to do that. neil: what do you think he's up against? >> i'm listening to bannon yesterday. neil: steve bannon? >> yes and he's real clear that trump can't go immediate with kim jong-un in current circumstances regardless of what you'd like to say because kim jong-un can't get out of north korea and it's not safe to put trump there. once you get that he's got to put pressure on china and i see this as a china trump classic, let's get people to look over here while i do this over there because -- neil: so the two of them meet at a neutral location? >> he's got to force china put pressure on kim jong-un. neil: you think this is it? >> i think he's trying to push on china. is it right, smart, will it work , i don't know. i'm not going there i don't have a clue, but i don't think this is about trying to promote, i don't think he thinks that hours him with his base but i don't think this is about what people think it's about and certainly isn't enough to cause recession.

the stock market in my mind is looking like a model conforming double bottoming corrections. looking at the world instead of the s&p or the dow, we're less than 1% away from creating a double bottom. neil: and what would that mean we do that then what? >> then after that all these folks looking for reasons for the correction, looking for reasons where there's not really enough there to matter to a hill of beans, things get forgotten about over time and you ramp up off the other side. neil: be careful what you wish for right? i keep saying that with these, we had trade boards that have started insignificantly and grown to include other items this one started remember with solar panels from south korea and now it's to include all of these items and it get the bigger? >> if it does get bigger and bigger it's a very bad thing neil we agree on that. neil: so you tell your clients what these days ken don't worry about it? >> sit tight for now because it isn't big enough and bad enough to do enough bad to cause the

thing that pemex trap late from it and in fact otherwise things look pretty good. i note yesterday people are upset about the disappointing pm i's. you saw that? neil: right. >> but the fact of the matter they're still positive just lower than expectation. they're still positive. but across-the-board. neil: it's a continuous trend of things getting slower and slower >> one of my points people freak out about powell and the fed and i'm not a fan of mr. powell, i nevada much cared for the fed. if it were up to me we'd do all of that business but it's not my business or mine to say but what i will say is that the u.s. yield curve is not nearly important as the gdp global weighted curve because money floats across borders pretty darn freely these days. the cost of moving money from this country to that country isn't big enough to stop the money from flowing downhill and the fact of the matter is the

global yield curve has been not shifted really at all over the last six months. gdp weighted global yield curve and that's the one that matters. neil: even though it's flatten ing fast here? >> it's flattening here but its been steepening in places overseas to offset it. neil: i understand that but in the past when its flattened here but you're not worried about what's happening here. >> i'm worried about the global yield curve because money helps us move around the world. neil: but it moves away from us. >> most of the time, yes it's an argument against america, you're absolutely right about that . most of the time, when it flattens here it also flattens everywhere else. that's the traditional pattern we've seen most of the time, and that if it flattens every where that's bad, but because money floats it's really the global. there's an age-old saying you've heard it forever. we've all heard it. think global first. focus local. think global first. people have a hard time doing that because they tend to go from the local and extrapolate out and that's a mistake it's

the wrong way to think. neil: how do you think for your investors then when you look at american companies versus the world, how do you play it for them? >> i think badly. the fact of the matter is i'm in a business where if you're right 70% of the time in a long term you've become a living legend so you better be used to being wrong 30% of the time so be comfortable and think about how do i minimize wrongness so i've got to not overextend and not think too much and try to keep it simple, and this is a bull market we haven't gotten to john templeton's famous growing skepticism and they do that unless you hit the wallop which is some two or $3 trillion of new negative bad that comes out of nowhere and a real global trade war in huge scale could do that but this is just peanuts. neil: so the market the way it is now -- >> double the bull market. i think we got a couple more years of bull market because

look at all of the worries we're far from euphoria. we're still in a world where we're contracting the supply of equity. we've even gotten to where we have new equity offerings exceed buybacks and takeover, you know, cash based take overs. the fact of the matter is the new issue world and the equity based takeovers haven't created supply increasing normally unless you hit that wallop of trillions of dollars, you get to where equity supply increases, consistent with that. neil: there are pockets right? >> of course. and everything about crypto was looking into that. euphoria will come. it's a sign that it's alive and well in the spring and we will get it down the way, but it's not actually. neil: when you say two years less of the bull market? >> don't hang me on two. neil: i understand, but percentage wise if you had to just throw a figure out there

how much? >> your model conforming bull market on a global basis. the first third of the time and the last third of the time are more than the middle third of the time. that's the normal. neil: what's that mean then? >> it means you get acceleration in the end, you get a fast start and slow down and acceleration in the end and last year was strong, i'd expect after we get past this correction, we see average return in a bull market year of which we haven't had this has been a long slow grind ing bull market average return in the bull market year is about 20% the fact of the matter is people have forgotten the magnitude of what normal is in a bull market. we ought to get more good years before this is over but then lead to that optimism that turns into euphoria that has people not thinking ignoring all little things and thinking about things are going to be perfect forever. neil: do you like this technology? >> i think technology will be back after this correction yes. neil: facebook does that telegraph problems for you? >> just think of facebook as one

that maybe lags a little. i was listening to a panel yesterday facebook kind of against google and google was playing this whole pattern much smarter than facebook is because they're really saying that it's not our position to be engaged in trying to do the first amendment suppression which leads to a journalist that is involved in saying that website is one that you shouldn't be able to have access to our search engine. that's a smarter direction for them to play in a hands off -- neil: those two young guys need supervision -- >> i think that the world we live in today is unfair compared to the world we grew up in. when i was growing up you didn't get venture capital-based ceo's who were kids. they had to actually have proven histories and been around and been through the war some in the world of that whole era, you had veterans that have been time

tested and time to mature in the real world, when you become a celebrity big bang ceo in your 20s, you become isolated from the world. neil: how do you think president trump is? >> pretty well. perfect, no, do we get perfect presidents? no. is he unusual by any standard? overall, however, the economy is doing okay, overall, if a different republican president had picked his justices people would think they're great. fundamentally he's doing okay. neil: there's a thought republicans are going to lose the house, you look at the big picture but does that enter into your investment strategy whose control in congress? >> yeah, so i love grid lock. i've always loved gridlock. and it hurts capitalism. we have a former gridlock now that we're not conventionally used to which is the republican

party fractured so not much happens and you get the classic republicans that won't stick with the core. the republicans hang on to the senate i think is easy to see. just look at the races just look at the eight democratic seats up in republican states is going to be very hard for the democrats. neil: they might pick up. >> yes, in the senate and in the house, if the democrats were to take the house you revert to the traditional form of gridlock. neil: yes. >> it's not what the fox viewer traditionally would like to see but it is the gridlock that has adverse features against capitalism. this administration isn't about to ramp up. neil: you'd be surprised what fox viewers think real quickly real estate. >> i was 10 feet from jeff z uck er. neil: did you defend us? >> it wasn't my place. i was i wasn't interviewing him, but boy oh, boy oh, boy you talk

about an opinion. neil: his opinions are sound and valid. >> he said literally, fox has nothing on pass. either way you do it is no good. neil: let me real quickly, real estate what do you think of real estate right now. >> what kind of real estate? it's not all one thing. neil: residential real estate. >> i've got two views on that one it's a bull market. two the prices are going up. three, they're not going up as much as people think the tax changes, a mortgage impact, but thirdly, i've written columns on this in usa today, two of them which got some of the most hostile reaction huge reaction and hostile consistently which is that people don't account for the cost of home owneship correctly and when you pull all of the costs in, home owneship returns are never as good as people think they are because there's all other costs that you need to build into it, and so people overestimate how good an investment homes are and i think

we're going to see in the periods ahead homes become a worst investment than they have in the past. the fundamental reason for a home to become more valuable is in nominal terms rising inflation or we're building family formation faster than we're building housing stock and for a long time, we've been building housing stock faster than family formation and in a low inflation environment, those two don't play for high returns. neil: interesting, very good catching up with you. >> great to see you. neil: give my best to bannon when you see him again. ken fisher regardless of your views bull or bear, one of the finest minds in the community and one of the weiderest markets certainly now the dow is positive, just since he came up why is that? after this.

♪ for all the noses that stuff up around daisies. for all the eyes that get itchy and watery near pugs. for all the people who sneeze around dust. there's flonase sensimist allergy relief. it relieves all your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. it's more complete allergy relief. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. and 6 is greater than 1. flonase sensimist.

neil: all right i don't know what to make of this but ahead of the white house briefing at 1:00 p.m., the president of the united states just tweeting there's a news conference at the white house concerning the omnibus spending bill but may i

add this? charlie: [laughter] neil: because, he earlier today hinted that he might veto this $1.3 trillion spending plan, because he doesn't like it. and a lot of people read into that, that wait a minute, you're going to maybe telegraph a government shutdown. he leads to guessing and driving up viewership numbers for that white house briefing. so, maybe ken fisher was right. maybe there's a method to what appears to be utter madness. charlie: [laughter] neil: no idea just trying to build the drama my next guest former chief of staff former secretary of transportation very good to have you. >> good neil nice to be with you neil: it's an aside here talking over with my staff after talking to billionaire investor ken fish er there is a method to the president's sometimes apparent madness when it comes to, you know, having you think he's going back and forth and there's

a strategy to this, tariffs maybe the deal with north korea and the chinese, and there's a strategy to having you think about whether he's going to reject something he said he would sign like the spending measure there's a strategy for this volatile nature of his what do you think? >> well, it's hard to say, he's obviously very unique in his style and this particular case it maybe he woke up this morning saw some of the articles and newscasts about he didn't get all he wanted on the wall and he didn't get daca and he was vet ting his frustration it would be apart of a star i'm strategy, i think it would be hard for him giving the assurances they've made over the last several days to veto this bill and shutdown the government. neil: you know, secretary there's been a great deal of turnover in the white house staff with general mcmaster now and john bolton potentially coming in and i could go on and

on and the names and the revolving door i believe in the case of ambassador bolton he would be the third or fourth national security advisor this president had a little more than a year. does that turnover worry you or a good thing or a healthy thing? >> well, stability is always good. you need stability and the american people want to see stability in government and see it in the house, the senate and the white house as well so when you have a lot of this churn for lack of a better word of personnel it sends a message to the american people why can't you get your team in place and keep it in place, and so i don't think it's good and healthy and it's unhealthy and i think a healthy environment would be a little more stability, and he's entitled to his team he was elected president and trust his team and go forward with the team that he picks, and just because you get frustrated with him over one particular thing doesn't mean you replace the team or members of the team. i think frankly, neil, general mcmaster had done a great job as

national security advisor. i think general kelly is doing a great job as chief of staff and they bring stability to the white house and i think they are counterbalance to the president and it's very healthy and i hope general kelly stays a long time and i hope that that stability we see a little more stability out of the white house. neil: and general kelly he's a source of some rumors too by the way but don't want to get too distracted with that but secretary, i am a little curious about what you think about the tariffs. the argument has been and the presidents argument has been my predecessor republican and democrat have tried to play nice with the chinese and hope they would change their ways they never do i'm going to do this and you say what? >> well it's obvious that china has a vision of being the greatest economy in the world, and they have a long term vision and you've got to be counter balance to that. you can't disrupt our entire economy or there's but on the other hand, you've got to make sure there's a fair playing

field in china, just as there is in the united states, and i think frankly, a lot of people believe that the rules in china are different than they are in the u.s. and it's harder to get and do business in china and i say that having been on the boards of companies that have done business in china to do business in china than it is for the chinese to do business in the u.s. , so i think we need pairity i don't know if tariffs are the best way to get there but we just can't let the chinese run all over us. neil: all right secretary real pleasure seeing you again. i'm sure the feelings mutual we'll take a quick look at this dropbox going public today this has been a doosey to watch folks it surged almost 42% now at $ 29.81 a share, in other words that much north of its offering price, a lot of people seem to think that this is a sign, facebook and its troubles notwithstanding the underlying market technology in general is doing just fine so the nasdac 100 and these etf's geared

toward the big technology names are just fine dow down about 55 points waiting for that white house briefing in about 20 minutes an the president might have been able to tip his hand or build marketing drama ahead of it, that it will be looking at this spending issue here, and that spending measure, a measure that he said or entertained earlier today he just might veto and that made people go nuts. they just thought well wait a minute you just said yesterday you were ready to sign this, approve it, write-off on it let's say he were to veto it we'll have a shutdown. that simply means we'll have a shutdown. is that going to come up here we shall see and i will add the drama after this. so lionel, what does being able to trade 24/5 mean to you? well, it means i can trade after the market closes. it's true. so all... evening long. ooh, so close. yes, but also all... night through its entirety. come on, all... the time from sunset to sunrise. right. but you can trade... from, from... from darkness to light.

♪ you're not gonna say it are you? ...with its high-tech cameras and radar... ...contemporary cockpit... ...three hundred and sixty degree network of driver-assist technologies... ...and sporty performance... ...what's most impressive about the glc? all depends on your point of view. lease the glc300 for just $449 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing.

neil: man, this is getting better and better, every time, now we're learning that the 1:00 p.m. press briefing that the president urged you might want to tune into, he's at it. it's his press, his event, so,

you know, i think sarah sanders needs to scoot down the bench for the president of the united states so it gets more interesting along with this call earlier today when he tweeted out that as the president that he just might veto that $1.3 trillion spending measure, that republicans and democrats have come together in the house and the senate just need his signature and he hinted no guarantee he would get it or give it and now he's going to be giving this briefing in about 15 minutes so you do want to stay tuned for that. couple of things we're following very quickly news that facebook received a letter from the senate commerce committee for mark zuckerberg to testify. we've got tech analyst on all of that and developments right now with dropbox soaring in it's debut trading today first always good to see you russ on the facebook thing no big surprise here washington wants to chat right? >> absolutely what happened here was not good. it's very bad for facebook, it's very bad honestly for america, they have, you know, we have ten

s of millions of people really hundreds at this point logging on to facebook every single day and their data was not safe and was not secure and it got out there and someone needs to account for that and really, zuckerberg is holding the bag on that. neil: i'm far from apology for zuckerberg but i am curious though companies in the past that data ended up in the wrong hands, way back to target where credit records, why is he getting disproportionately beaten up over this? >> well i think it's the newest situation right? we certainly have data breaches in the past you're right but i would also say it also has that broad national appeal who isn't logging on to facebook every day , so everyone feels impacted by this and kind of wronged by this and, you know -- neil: do you think he's losing, of course he said in the cnn interview that there's no evidence of losing a lot of customers or people, and anecdotally we've heard from the contrary but he has 2 billion users worldwide so i don't know

what number would be sufficient to warrant that. what do you think? >> so it's not the issue of people deleting their account. deleting your account on facebook is really hard it takes a lot of effort they make it difficult but the issue is when people start thinking well maybe i won't login today, maybe i don't want to post this thing on facebook. neil: but you go elsewhere instagram or snapchat anywhere. >> absolutely but that's a disaster for facebook if people don't view facebook as a landing page for their daily interaction s if they're like maybe this isn't super secure then their active user base plummets and that's the disaster neil: do you think that could happen? >> i think it is very far down the road but this is sort of them trying to head that situation off where if they follow this path, like people continually lose trust in facebook having their data, that's the end result. could be five or 10 years down the road but that's the end result and yeah, that's what they they're trying to head off. neil: real quickly dropbox coming out of the gate very strong, what do you think

of that? >> yeah, so i think it is a really good situation for drop box, because unlike facebook , which has this kind of ethos of like maintaining kind of almost a journalistic aspect of what they're presenting to you, dropbox is a service industry. they make a very successful product which is storing your data online, and so long as the security is good, it is a very good, it's a more stable situation. neil: as long as the security is good. >> if they don't get hacked and if they do it's a big big disaster but they've existed for many years at this point and they've been pretty secure so far so good but as with the tech world, who knows what tomorrow is going to bring. neil: always good seeing you my friend thank you very much, after all this breaking news cutting in we're waiting to hear from the white house a press briefing coming up and the guy doing the briefing the president of the united states donald trump, a little more after this. how do you win at business?

stay at la quinta. where we're changing with stylish make-overs. then at your next meeting, set your seat height to its maximum level. bravo, tall meeting man. start winning today. book now at lq.com

oh hi sweetie, i just want to show you something. xfinity mobile: find my phone. [ phone rings ] look at you. this tech stuff is easy. [ whirring sound ] you want a cookie? it's a drone! i know. find your phone easily with the xfinity voice remote.

one more way comcast is working to fit into your life, not the other way around.

neil: all right, we are awaiting a news conference this time featuring no less than the president of the united states a lot of people have read into that does this mean he's going to reject this $1.3 trillion spending measure that the house and the senate approved yesterday, that would alarm certainly many on both sides of the aisle here and that maybe this would be his rationale to

explain why he's doing so and why stocks went from positive to negative. i don't necessarily assign too much into the market sort of tic by tic movements here but it could be among the reasons people are getting a little concerned just what will he say and what will he hint at in this conference but it's coming up in a little bit, seven minutes. all right in the meantime we've got market watcher jarod leavy. let's say the president goes ahead and says i threatened what i'm doing i'm going to veto this spending measure and we're looking at a government shutdown and those will argue good, not the shutdown part but the spending measure just added to our debt anyway showed a lack of resolve on both parties part but what do you think? >> yeah, so i think the initial reaction obviously would be bear ish right you saw as the momentum shifted when he announced he's the one giving the press conference so yeah the first reaction sell-off, from there really depends upon the outcome and but this plays into like a bigger theme. i was talking to a buddy of mine

very smart guy this morning and he says why is everybody jumping to conclusions and market participants in other words and i said that's what we do. we're not going to we need to figure out the ramifications of everything of a new tax plan, of a, you know, of these budget agreements, of a tariff. all of these changes need to have an end result and figuring out the end result is the difficult thing and the initial reaction is to sell right with the tariff for instance because anyway you look at it and sort of digress here but with the tariff any way you look at it in my opinion is a net negative from an economy standpoint right that money is going to tariff is going to flow to the government but goods flowing into the country are going to become more expensive and again that goes on the shoulders of the american consumer so sorry to go off the rails there, but there's a lot of just questions and i guess you can hear the tone in my voice and my confusion is what a lot of investors and smart money is thinking now, where do we go and what is the next thing he's

going to do. neil: but if we get to that point, and you kind of touched on it, we're looking at a government shutdown and to your point, i mean we've had them in the past. they're not the end of the world but they do sort of disrupt the world for a little bit but then what? >> right, so the shutdown again, if one does happen, again it uses leverage to get things going quick and really at that point it's who makes the better argument who makes the quick argument and who comes up with the best deal. i honestly don't have, you know, a good opinion on that because i don't know, neil. it's so hard, i'm curious -- neil: but the markets generally don't like shutdowns, whether it's republican or democratic president i guess this would depend and by the way we're taking a leap here this is something the president is going to recommend that is veto this so we're faced with that, but sometimes a longer day dragon, the more the markets in a weird way get used to them but what do you think?

>> there's certainly desensitized right but the more things happen and the more experience we have with those things the less shocking they are if you remember years ago the first big shutdown it was a full panic like we'll deal with it so again i think the more important portion of this is what's going to come of it and what is his biggest sticking point here. neil: we shall show thank you my friend very very much. sorry to throw the breaking news at you but that is the breaking news at the moment the president of the united states will have a press conference whether he will take questions on spending measures is anyone's guess but he'll be up there in just minutes from now after this.

. .

neil: all right. waiting for news conference with the the white house that will involve no less than the president of the united states. presumably talk about a spending measure. whether he will make good on that threat to veto it. then what happens if he does? to chad pergram. what happens then, chad? >> if the president vetos it there will be a government shutdown tonight. the house and senate passed omnibus spending bill, 2200 pages this was negotiated with the white house, mick mulvaney, mark short, the director of legislative affairs defended this agreement. you don't put out a 2200 page bill, pass it through congress neil, unless the white house is in on it. it doesn't happen that way. a lot of people wonder if this

is sabre-rattling. this is the key. the house and senate are not here. they are on recess. they were prepared to stay through the weekend. members are overseas on codels. congressional delegations. they have a pro-forma session where they do know business 10:00 a.m. they were delayed 12 minutes before that started. some speculation on capitol hill, could they recess and come back later in the day. neil: sorry to jump on you. we can alleviate those concerns. we're learning from white house official the president is in fact going to sign the $1.3 trillion spending bill after tweeting he is considering a veto. now to me this kind of sound like, you know, bugs bunny thing, duck season, rabbit season, for the time-being he is going to sign it but us did the confusion rattle folks? >> absolutely. there would have been even more confusion here on capitol hill

today had people been here. there was a skelton staff on board. everybody thought that was the case. they worked around the clock for several is today. you had members of congress who were besides themselves. chris van hollen, democratic senator from maryland, he talks about what a great negotiator he is, "art of the deal," why wasn't he at the table signing off on this agreement? people were rattled. you had people in the defense community very upset because remember, the size of the defense increase in this bill, goes from $568 billion to 719 billion. had they blown up that up with a street toe, democrats said we gave you the big defense increase, what will you give us? we'll try this again? probably something big on daca. allowing a lot of undocumented persons path for citizenship, they would have asked for something bigger. neil: thank you, chad, sorry to jump on you.

ken bracwell, trump confidante, national taxpayers union and campus reform cabot phillips. the president confused people, i might sign it, i might not sign it that could change before he takes the podium. but what do you think? >> i won't believe anything until i see the president saying something from the podium today. this could be wanting to appears the base, this was not easy decision. this was not popular move for conservative base. it did nothing to change the funding of planned parenthood. very minimal funding for the border wall, no patter what republicans spin this as this is not enough funding for border wall. this is big government and swampy bill from trump supporters. him waffling this, showing i am not easy to do. i had to stand firm. trying to sign this. appeasing the base he was willing to stand up a little bit

but ultimately i think this was move the republicans know midterms coming up. government shutdowns reflect poorly on party in power and it would look poorly on them. neil: >> i will talk quickly, neil. here is the omni. chad is absolutely right. the only thing that happens if this omni doesn't get signed into law we get a worse deal. now it is true that the omni is not great conservative bill. there is way too much spending bill. not a lot of priorities we'll get tucked away. that is because democrats had to be brought to the table to get this thing over the line. be clear shutdowns one class of people only, that is politicians. the american people don't like them. the american economy certainly doesn't. markets don't like them as you discussed earlier. politicians were grandstanding for no reason other than their political gain only benefit from a shutdown. this is true in 2013.

it is true when the democrats tried to shut down over daca as well. no-win situation for this bill not to get signed into law. what needs to happen the bill needs to get signed into law and president and congress need to work for things for the american people like tax reform bill. let's stop taking our eye off the ball and focus on things that matter to americans, higher paychecks at home, keeping more of their own pay and invest in vehicles that allow them to have savings over time. all things were introduced by the tax bill. like to keep the president keep his eye on the ball there, invariably, ken, the president tweets something else, might be perfectly justified in his eyes but gets your eye off the ball constructive things with the tax cut and steps on his own otherwise good message. what you do think. >> as a board member of the national taxpayers union and the club for growth, this big spending bill is a real disappointment. i'm used to the chicken little,

the sky is going to fall if in fact we stop government for a couple days. as a matter of fact, i'm one of cheerleaders when these guys are in session they do more harm than when they're out of session. look, i actually think we have to begin, continue to look at the correlation, you increase the debt, you accelerate spending, you in fact impact in a negative way the benefits that you have from economic growth and job creation. this is a, this is really a bad deal. that being said, we have engaged this president in the conversation, and in the negotiations, my concern is that when you go up on the screen the amount of the wall that is impacted by $1.6 billion be given enormity of the challenge he is way off target there in

terms of what he promised. there are those of us in his camp that have to constantly push back when we think things are going in the wrong direction. this is a big government spending bill and we just have to accept it. now if he is negotiating behind the scenes and he is going to get some additional benefits, my concern about that is that that's add-ons, increases spending. it doesn't, it increases the deficit. look, this -- neil: i don't think he is worried about the deficit. he is not, he is not just a nut about that. he is not about the debt commission stuff and all that. i could be wrong. i just don't that is a priority for him and history indicated that. >> neil, i think you show some concern for the deficit by saying look, we are going to hold spending. neil: he doesn't. he is not holding spending.

republicans they run the town, and they're not doing that. >> that is a concern. look i'm with diane black on this. i think her budget that passed, there was influential in the house, with the right direction to go. look, we can not act as if we're there just to be yes men and yes women. we have to show that we have some guiding principles that serve the president and his agenda well. neil: all right. now we're getting a better idea. i think that big pile of paper you saw to the left of the podium there where the president will speak, will not be in the briefing room. they will make this quick announcement, won't be a presidential presser per se. that is the spending measure, all 2200 plus pages of it. he will grudgingly sign it but doesn't like it. but that is just the latest we have. but you know, cabot, this is the latest thing we talk about.

10 touched on it did mattie, no one likes this but they're saying it will avoid a government shut down, et cetera, for your generation, young people are gouged. ken and i just come under the rope for this one, that our social security looks okay and everything else but cabot, hate to break it to you, you're out. you're out. looks like mattie's out. that is just the way it is going to be. >> you better include me in that. don't call me older than cabot. neil: i hope you can deal with that because both parties abandoned any sense of fiscal discipline to help out guys like you and mattie. what do you think of that? >> i was at the white house yesterday with leadership institute campus reform with a group of millenials talking to the president about issues important to us. one of the common themes kept coming up talking to other millenials in the room, we're worried about the budget, we're worried about the debt that we're getting into because we'll

pay for it. that issue can't coming up. neil: did he say i can't be bothered, i don't want to hear you whining? >> much of the talk president was doing, free speech, opioid crisis. >> not the budget. not the deficit. not the debt. >> there was no conversation about the budget, not for lack of people in the room caring. i think it is important to remind young people this debt will be passed off on to us. also when you get back to the bill itself, not just what's in this spending bill. also how it was passed. when the democrats tried to push through obamacare, we'll pass it now, we'll read later, make sure we get it through, republicans were mad, rightfully so. same thing with this, 2,000 some odd page bill. neil: they did the exact same thing. >> it should anger everyone. neil: they did the exact same thing. it is very good point. mattie, if it doesn't change, nothing does happen, i'm not faulting the president for dropping the ball on spending, i am blaming by extension everyone in washington, no one seems to

really care. that is collective statement. if they cared they wouldn't be doing this but they -- >> i care. cabot cares but you're right. politicians who get very invested in this effort. it doesn't have to be like this. it hasn't always been like this. 2011 republicans used short term measures, peel away $30 billion, erase the nancy pelosi, harry reid, obama spending. there are times republican stood up, use tools at proposal to cut size of government. we need fundamental reform to change it. neil: i don't know what it is they can't do it. you both have to hold hands. both parties jump off the cliff at same time to do it. i don't see it, republican presidents, democratic presidents, president will express obviously concern about signing on to a measure 2200

pages plus big. $1.3 trillion bloated big. and grudgingly do it. and tell people that he is unhappy to do it. but, he is doing it. >> well, look, this is business as usual for washington, d.c. we have to help the president understand runaway spending increases the debt. that will have fact on economic growth. neil: no one cares, ken. no one cares. falling deaf ears. >> young people we're on with now, basically they don't want that intergenerational theft to continue. as we go into the negotiations with china, you know, we hit them with surgical strikes, and in terms of tariffs and their theft of intellectual property, but at same time, now, they hold, you know, disproportionate amount of our debt. why are we going to continue to, you know, take out bullets in

their guns and then put them right back in? we have to hold the line at some point. and if, i thought that the president was actually getting his agenda, the wall, if in fact was getting a deal with nancy pelosi and chuck schumer on daca, you know, you might have to just wring your hands hold your breath, say okay, okay, hold your nose say okay. but he is not getting daca, a deal on daca. he is not getting the wall. you know, he is threatening the benefits of the tax cuts and his signature legislation, legislative effort to lift incomes, we can watch this get wiped out. the president is going at this with both handses tied behind

his back embracing status quo. 2200 pages, these guys haven't read that. neil: i don't know a speed reader among them. but apparently a speed reader would have problems. there are a lot of legalese. we're hearing from our white house producer, this is coming from senior administration firm, that the president may sign this bill, but then again, but saying that the president is getting a lot of mixed internal guidance on this from advisors. many of then are saying he should go ahead and veto this only one top white house visor in the mix advising him to sign it. up shot, we don't know. cabot, you know, being young guy, dissatisfied way things are going, your generation could be heard out, you're always whining about how ken and i are taking

your benefits away. ken and i are fine with that, by the way. >> that's right. neil: if we have shutdown, how do you feel about that? >> i don't know if a shutdown is the right move. it doesn't end up playing well politically speaking for the party in power. it is never good to use the shutdown and changing people's lives during the shut down as way of a political pawn. we saw last time how the republicans tried to spin it at democrats being reason for it, not coming to negotiating table. i don't think if you look at polling numbers american people felt that way in the long run. the budget itself, interesting too, think back a few months ago, president trump released his proposal for a budget, house republicans in d.c., this is great, slashing spending, exactly what we want. when they have a chance to pass budget similar to it, they completely go away from it, a lot of hypocrisy. the fact you choose between a big government budget or

shutdown, that is part of problem in d.c. those are mutually options. >> neil, i will call time out real quick. go back a few years, they were blaming republicans for the shutdowns we gained sheet. let's not change history. >> that point saying usual lip it is party in power that ends up getting blamed for it. blame the democrats there for being in power. >> one thing i remember with the shut down as well, the fact we had healthcare.gov system completely crumble in on itself. that helped republicans in midterm elections. >> true. >> shutdowns don't play well for us. we need to talk about successful reforms made it into the law such as the tax reform bill. having a shut down completely distracts from that. we learn our messaging power. americans stop focusing on paychecks are bigger, what they do with extra income and start focusing on dysfunction in washington. no one wins. that is the case. neil: guys, thank you very, very

much. that measure is there, 2200 plus page spending bill. i have looked at that. every sipping gell page reads, all work and no play, something out of the shining there. there is a lot of words and a lot of paper and a lot of money there. former white house press secretary bush 41 ari fleischer joins us now. president is being counseled differently, go ahead veto it. others say don't. he is leaving us guessing, although that doesn't look likely if we were to veto this obviously everything would be upended, what do you think? >> if he vetoes, this is what message should be in my opinion. number one, i was a businessman. you guys won't change. i won't stand for it. there is compromise we need to reach on daca. you get daca, i get a wall.

let's do this everybody knows that is obvious compromise of the fact you nice couldn't do it. i will end the business as usual. veto the bill. get talk at that done. that would be a pretty bold and powerful move by the president t would shake things up. neil: why can't both parties hold the government, operating up to these arbitrary deadlines. they are not arbitrary but fickleness of this is? just have a better budgeting process period, much like corporations for example, do, why can't we do that? >> one word, filibuster. filibuster is the cause of all of this. when i worked on capitol hill for 17 years we used pass 12 different bills, funded chunks of the government one at a time interior gets money, agricultural gets money. department of commerce gets money. because of the filibuster, no individual bills get up, they

all get filibustered, forcing gigantic omnibus bill fund everything moments, if you don't fund everything, everything shuts down of the filibuster should be abolished. it is misused. it is perverted. it is not, purpose of filibuster reserved for momentous most important moments in american history, fundamental laws. and it doesn't serve anybody any good other than the cause of obstruct, delay and shut down. filibusters should be abolished. neil: meantime we use the whole budget process to extract favors. i will do for you, if you do something for me. much said under your old boss, president bush, to get support for the war, other initiatives, look other way of spending priorities of other democrats. i don't understand the truth the matter but i understand how it works, washington works. democratic presidents done the same in reverse but what gets us away from that kind of process? >> i don't think anything will

get you away from that, neil. as long as you have closely-divided congress. one thing getting you a way having big majorities. 55 republican senator, 56, you don't need the democrats to come on boards especially if you abolish the filibuster. so long as you have closely divided congress, republicans can't do it all on their own. democrats can't do it all on hair it own. as soon as you need the other party, you're dialing, wheeling, compromise principles. our society changes between compromise and principle. neil: we have tariffs. i would be remiss if i didn't raise them with you. many are concerned where they could lead. chinese responding and targeting 138 u.s. products. 3 billion in planned responses of their own. where do you think this is going? are you worried? >> i'm worried. i've been trained to oppose tariffs. everything i learned growing up in politics and economics was

tariffs are not helpful. i am willing to let this play out because china has been cheating especially on intellectual property. there are huge neighborhoods in china you buy knockoff material, clothes, fashioned designed by americans and put their own labels. they're fake, they're fraudulent. they get away with it, in addition to stealing all our intellectual property? who stand up to china? we never do. we can't get them to do tariffs. bad principle, bad practice. finally trump is standing up to them. will it work? big question, who knows? could it lead to trade war? i suppose it could? might it not and china modifies behavior? maybe. i am willing to let it play out. i don't think status quo is interest of americans. trump is coming in like bull in china shop to change things. i'm not willing to condemn it. i am willing to let it play out.

he has 45 day window to if chinese comply. waiting to hear from the president of the united states on spending measure, whether yea or ney. we don't know given with bickering within the staff. we wait for president. on the phone with us freedom caucus member ohio congressman jim jordan. if you had your druthers, you said he should reject it? >> heck yeah. this is the worst bill i've seen in congress. freedom caucus sent him a letter to veto. hopefully that is what he does today. that we'll get a bill that more consistent what the mere people want us to do. neil: if we look at that government shut down for few days, maybe couple weeks, congress started two-week easter break. what do you think of that. >> yeah. neil: markets will probably go nuts. >> yeah. look no one want as shut down you can do continuing resolution, cr we call them in

washington lingo on government current levels, three or four or five weeks, go back to work. not like we haven't done that before. neil: explain the process, sir. everyone would have to come back to do that right? >> to save the country from going bankrupt, to do a bill consistent with the election i think it is okay to inconvenience to congressman for goodness sakes. i'm okay to come back to washington do better than this piece of, this bill was not in any way elected to do. >> what is frankly your problem with it, congressman, that really sticks in your craw? >> everything. the process was terrible. 16 hours to read 2232 pages. no one can do that. process was terrible. we offered amendments, we as freedom amendments were not made in order. you know why they weren't made in order, because they would have passed. we won't make your amendments in order, because they will pass, consistent with voters would do.

poll is -- policies are terrible. we fund things exact things we said we weren't found and not funding things like we said we would. wall is not getting funded but tunnel is. planned parenthood is getting funding but wall isn't. sanctuary cities getting funding but wall isn't. not to mention it is $1.3 trillion, for good know sakes, will result in trillion dollar deficit this year alone. neil: do you think this president cares about deficits? >> i think he choirs about what the american people elected us to do, i sure do. i would say this. this president, his first year in office, taxes are lower, regulations are lower, the economy is growing, embassy going to jerusalem. neil: lower deficits, right? >> yeah, but look, that first year of presidency was good but this bill is not what we need this year. this is not consistent with the election mandate and this is not consistent with what we said. so this is why i hope he vetos

it. i'm not sure what will happen. we're all waiting like you are, to see. neil: the, his action on tariffs and chinese response, your thoughts? >> well, not a big tariff fan. i do think though for people like china who aren't, who aren't dealing with this in the way that they should, stealing intellectual property and things mr. fleischer mentioned in the segment before, i think there should be some kind of consequence, some kind of action on our part. i'm glad the president softened a little bit there are exceptions for conditioned today and mexico and trying to redo nafta with the order he talked about a few weeks ago. so we'll see. neil: we'll see. thank you, congressman, very much. >> you bet. thanks, neil. >> thank you very much, everybody. we have a lot of good news to report, some tremendous trade deals are being made with various countries. we're negotiating very long, very hard but very quickly and

the deal with south korea is according to secretary ross, and bob lighthizer is very close to being finished and we're going to have a wonderful deal with, wonderful ally. we're getting very close to it. it was a deal that was causing a lot of problems with our country in terms of employment and lots of other things. i might ask secretary ross to say a few word about that. then we'll get on this ridiculous situation that took place over the last week. so secretary ross. >> thank you, mr. president. we believe we are relatively chose to a pretty comprehensive resolution with the south korean government. it will encompass, if it goes through, both the 232s and

broader trade issues. and we hope by sometime next week to be able to have a real announcement. >> thank you very much, wilbur, i appreciate it. the last time we negotiated something like this, as you know it has always been a problem for our country. they get together and they create a series of documents that nobody has been able to read because it was, it was just done. now you tell me who can read that quickly? takes a long time to read it. for the last eight years deif defense cuts have underminded our national security. if you look what is taken out, they have hallowed out our readiness as a military unit, and put america at really grave risk. my highest duty is to keep america safe. nothing more important.

the omnibus bill reverses this dangerous defense. as crazy as it has been, as difficult has it has been, as much opposition to the military as we've had from the democrats and it has been tremendous, i try to explain to them, you know the military is for republicans and democrats and everybody else. it is for everybody. but we have tremendous opposition it creating really what will be the far, by far the strongest military that we have ever had. we've had that from the democrats. so if we take something for the military they want something for, many cases things that are really a wasted sum of money. it is not right and it is very bad for our country. we're looking to do funding for our final fight in certain areas. as you know we've gotten just about 100% of our land back from

isis. we have troop increases necessary to accomplish what we have to do and we have very importantly a pay increase for our troops. and this will be actually the largest pay increase for our incredible people in over a decade. it increases total defense spending by more than $60 billion from last year and funds the addition of critically-needed ships, planes, helicopters, tanks and submarines. we have submarines being built the likes there is nothing anywhere in the world like submarines we build. our military equipment is the best in the world. one of the things you saw two days ago with saudi arabia and other countries. saudi arabia, as an example is buying hundreds of billions of dollars worth of our equipment. we're getting very fast approvals on that. therefore as a matter of national security i have signed this omnibus budget bill.

there are a lot of things i'm unhappy about in this bill. there are a lot of things that we shouldn't have had in this bill with you we were in a sense forced if we want to build our military we were forced to have. there are some things we should have in the bill but i say to confess, i will never sign another bill like this again. i'm not going to do it again. nobody read it. it is only hours old. some people don't even know -- $1.3 trillion. it is the second largest ever. president obama signed one that was actually larger which i'm sure he wasn't too happy with either. but in this case it became so big because we need to take care of our military. and because the democrats don't believe in that, added things that they wanted in order to get their votes. we have to get rid of the

filibuster rule. we have to get rid of the filibuster rule. and to to 51 votes in the senate. if we're going to have really sustained, continued success. daca recipients have been extremely badly by the democrats. we wanted to include daca. we wanted to have them in this bill. 800,000 people, and actually it could even be more and we wanted to include daca in this bill. the democrats would not do it. they would not do it. to prevent the omnibus situation from ever happening again i'm calling on congress to give me a line-item veto for all government spending bills and the senate must end, they must end the filibuster rule and get down to work. we have to get a lot of great

legislation approved, and without the filibuster rule, it will happen just like magic. i want to address the situation on border security. which i call national defense, i call it stopping drugs from pouring across our border, and i call it illegal immigration. it is all of those things. but national defense is a very important two word, because by having a strong border system, including a wall, we are in a position, militarily that is very advantageous, and before i get off of that subject i'd like to ask secretary mattis to talk about what we've accomplished in terms of the military because

there has negative been anything like we have been able to do. our military is depleted but it is rapidly getting better and in short period of time it will be stronger than it ever has been. i would like secretary mattis to say a few words. >> thank you, mr. president, and ladies and gentlemen. in 1790, president washington said to be prepare for war is to be prepared for peace. we have received the largest military budget in history, reversing many years of decline and unpredictable funding. and together we're going to make our military stronger than ever. we in the military are humbled and grateful to the american people for their sacrifices on behalf of this funding. now it is our responsibility and the military to spend every dollar wisely in order to keep the trust and the confidence of

the american people and the congress. thank you. >> thank you very much. thank you very much. thank you very much, general. the border we worked very hard on. we have a lot of, really by any standard, a lot but not by this standard but we're going to make it go a long way. we have a lot of money coming to the border, and it will be coming over a period of time. we funded the initial down payment of $1.6 billion. we're going to be starting work literally on monday on not only some new wall, not enough but we're working on that very quickly, but also fixing existing walls and existing, acceptable fences. there are some areas you have to see through, you have to see through the other side in order to he is what is coming. in many cases it is not a pretty

picture when you look but you have to be able to see it. so we have $1.6 billion for the wall. that will start immediately. this is a short-term funding but it is immediate. it started immediately i would like to ask secretary nielsen what we've done in terms of homeland security and what the bill does for homeland security. thank you. >> good afternoon. we at the department of homeland security work very closely with the department much defense and we support this omnibus and the in the defense of our country. as the president has stated under his leadership he has delivered for the american people. this is a down payment on a border wall system. this is a 10% increase for immigration customs enforcement. this will help us improve our aviation security with some badly-needed upgrade and we look forward to working with congress on additional needs that we have. i will say however it is unfortunate that congress chose

not to listen to the men and women of dhs and those on the front lines. they told us how to build the wall, where to build the wall, we'll continue to work with them to make sure the wall is where we need it, how we need it as president describes and and make sure is serves the american people and security of the nation. we'll work with congress to close the dangerous loopholes the president mentioned many times and increase our overall security. finally we think those in congress that support the department of homeland security. i will continue to make myself available to them. i look forward to working with them but we must fund the department and give it tools and resources it need to execute the mission the american people have asked us to do. thank you. no thank you very much, secretary. we have many elements in the bill that we wanted. just to look at a few of them. we're providing 650 --

$654.6 billion in total discretionary funding for defense. it is a record. all records for defense. therethere will be nobody that s our military is going to be depleted like they have been saying over the last long period of time. long period of time. frankly beyond president obama. that won't be happening. we're spending a lot of money on nuclear, our nuclear systems, to upgrade and in some cases brand new, whether it is submarines, nuclear submarines and others. so we'll have, by far the most powerful nuclear force on earth, and it will be absolutely in perfect shape and condition and hopefully, praise be to god we don't ever have to use it.

but there will be nobody that is even close. this will give a substantial increase to people even outside of the military, but military-related. some of the many things that we're buying in the military, we have $23.8 billion to procure 34 navy ships. our navy is at about the lowest point in terms of ships that it has been in over 100 years. and we're adding a significant number of extremely advanced, advanced vessels. $10.2 billion for 9f-35 aircraft. that is the -- 90 f-35 aircraft. that is most sophisticated jet

fighters in the world. total stealth. they're hard to find. they're hard to see. therefore they're hard to beat. it is tough to beat a plane when you can't see it. most advanced in the world. 10.2 billion for 90 f-35. we have 2.9 billion for 15, kc-46 tanker aircraft. the tanker aircraft is very important based on everything. it allows our planes to travel anywhere in the world without landing. 1.8 billion for 24 f/a-18 ef superhornet aircraft fighter jets. 1.7 billion for 10 pa, poseidons, incredible stuff. 1.1 billion for 56 uh-60 black hawk helicopters. most advanced helicopter in the world by far much. fighting machine.

1.1 billion for the up grade of 85 abrams tanks. 705 million for the cooperative programs that we're working with israel and others various missile defense systems. we're spending a lot of money on missile defense. we have a lot of offense that has been recently installed. we're spending tremendous money on missile defense. you understand what that means, everybody does. what with we have out there, missile defense is very, very important. we are funding our border patrol agents and our i.c.e. agents. they are working long hours, under tremendously dangerous conditions. we're adding large numbers of immigration judges. high-quality, judges, not only are we adding them in the district court level and federal

level of court of appeals but we're adding immigration judges at a very high level. so, while we're very disappointed in the 1.3 trillion, nobody more dispointed than me, because the number is so large. it will start coming down, we had no choice but to fund our military. because we have to have, by far the strongest military in the world. and this will be by far the strongest military that we've ever had. so when you look at all of these pages, a lot of that is devoted, a lot, to the military. i just want to thank members of congress for working so hard. while we can be disappointed in some ways, we have to also know that there are a lot of strings

pulling everybody in different directions. the republican senators, the republican congress, men and women, have been steadfast on their fight for the border, and steadfast for their fight on the military. we're also spending $6 billion on, as you know, various forms of drug control, helping people that are addicted. it is a terrible problem but this will be also, this will be a record. we'll be suing certain drug companies for what they have done with the opioids. and we'll be bringing the suits at a federal level. the level of drugs that are being put out there and the, power of this addiction is hard to believe. people go to the hospital for

period of a week, they come out, they're drug addicts. has to be a better way. doctors are way down now in their orders of the opioids, way down. it's a great thing. we're also looking for in our research funds, we're looking for a medicine that can stop the pain without the addiction, so that people are not going to become addicted to these incredible drugs. is that is part of what we have. we $6 billion having to do with opioids and other problems in this country. in fact the world is having with drugs. so, we're extremely proud of what we've been able to do. when it comes to our military. our military will be far superior than any military anywhere in the world. that is very important for us. you see the players out there. you see what we're dealing with.

we're very happy with what has happened with opioids. we're very happy with what happened with certain elements of the border. not happy with $1.6 billion but it does start the wall and we will make that $1.6 billion go very, very far. going to go very far. i can tell you this, and i say this to daca recipients, that the republicans are with you. they want to get your situation taken care of. the democrats fought us, they fought every single inch of the way. they did not want daca in this bill. and, as you know, daca is also tied to the wall, for the major funding. $25 billion for a wall and other things. so i think that it will be coming up very soon. but i do want the hispanic community to know, and daca recipients to know that

republicans are much more on your side than the democrats, who are using you for their own purposes. with that being said i just want to thank everybody for being here. we're very proud of many of the items that we've been able to get. we're very disappointed that in order to fund the military we had to give up things where we consider in many cases them to be bad or them to be a waste of money. but that is the way unfortunately right now the system works. but we have a a great country. we are going to have the greatest military we've ever had and lots of good things are happening. the trade situation we'll be talking about next week. we have many trade deals, not only the deal being made on south korea, which looks like it is very close to being finalized.

but many other countries are now negotiating fair trade deals with us. so we'll be rolling them out, as you see them. and part of the reason frankly, we're able to do that is the fact that we have the tariffs on steel and tariffs on aluminum. because it showed how unfair some of these trade deals, that have in existence for many years, how unfair they have been. so, it will be great for our country and frankly, it will also be great for other countries and it will be fair and it will be reciprocal. thank you very, very much. i appreciate it. thank you. [shouting questions] neil: there you have it, the president has gone ahead and said you know he is going to do this, sign this one $1.3 trillion spending measure. not a fan. let's listen. >> if we had the veto, i was thinking about doing the veto but because of the incredible gains that we've been able to make for the military, that

overroad any of our, any of our thinking. >> how are you concerned about impact on the stock market? >> i think the stock market will be great. the stock market is way up, when i came into office, the stock market was from a different planet. it is way up. china is going to end up treating us fairly. for many years they had free rein. they don't have free rein anymore. we're friendly with china. we have great rips with china. look, it is time. it is time. last year we lost 500 billiondollars on trade with china. we can't let that happen. thank you all very much. [shouting questions] neil: all right. again you might have heard the president mentioning military. that was the reason why ultimately holding his nose, went ahead and improved this $1.3 trillion spending measure, apparent with his kids, the last time i'm going to do this! he said i will never sign another bill like this again.

so just be warned. this 2200 plus pages which staggered the president, staggered a lot of people, lawyer and non-lawyer alike, that a measure could be that many pages but he did it because it is important for the military. the read with phil wegman, "washington examiner," commentary writer, charlie gasparino with us and deirdre bolton. phil, that was his message. i'm doing it. i'm not keen on it, but this is the last time i'm going to do it. what do you think? >> i think the president is a day late and $1.3 trillion short. the fact of the matter is conservatives are going it cheer line-item veto. they will cheer the idea of filibuster reform but that is empty rhetoric. yesterday we had mechanic mulvaney, marsh short and mike pence promise this was done deal. the president just needed to offer his signature. then this morning president sees something on television upsets him. he threatens a shutdown but what does he get out of it?

he doesn't get anything. frankly the president looks really weak right now he is promising never will do this again but right now he didn't show up. all of washington knew this was coming except for the president. neil: we don't know, deirdre bolton, one of the things when he talks about seeing something on television, i don't think he anticipated the rage he was going to get on the right, especially from freedom caucus and other members, republicans dropped their resolve on spending if they even hinted of that. that caught him off guard. he was well aware of it, but didn't know the degree of that rage. this was his way of saying it i share your angst but i also feel this is only way military get the spending i think necessary, thedown payment on a wall i think it is necessary day, i will do it. >> we've seen the pattern, one pattern i've seen with president trump, that has been he really seemed to want to keep his election promises right? this is one of them.

taking care of the military. taking care of military families. kneel, to your point, the republican party is extremely fractured. we had the national debt cross a huge milestone last week, right, there were a lot of people yelling then, we should not be spending one more nickel than we need to in discretionary spending. here we're spending quite a lot, $1.3 trillion all going to the military. this is about him keeping a campaign promise which is, we're going to support the military. neil: that justifies that. we keep showing you this large pile of paper, 2200 plus pages. that is how much this spending bill is. the truth we actually looked at it, repeatedly says all work and no play makes jack a dull boy. that is from "the shining." a lot of legalize. charlie gasparino, i know conundrum president is in, but both to these from speakers points the debt keeps going up,

up. >> every republican president, we should point out supports the military. neil: right. >> even the democrats will say they support the military that but military spending is a fait accompli with republican presidents generally. he is not doing anything so spectacular there. the wall is different but again a lot of people think -- neil: but he went back and forth on this. what did you make of that? >> i tell you it me seemed like he is not ready for prime time on this this is like you either cut the deals before all this or you don't do it out in public. neil: that is just it. >> on top of the bizarre trade stuff that he is doing, this does not lend credence -- neil: these are no-win situation. phil, you touched on it. dow up over 100 points. i don't want to jump gun, phil, on relief we'll not have a shutdown, even those tend to be short-lived type of reactions. what do you make of what the market is saying, what the president is saying? >> market is reacting very

quickly because government shutdowns are not good for business. a second ago we were talking about campaign promises. i'm a young guy but not young enough not to remember for the last decade republicans promised they were going to do two things, repeal obamacare and reduce spending. this president he has to know way things get done in washington, when it comes to the massive spending packages his staff certainly knows that. he was playing a game of chicken but didn't know it but comes up on losing side. yes there is more funding for the military but republicans and democrats generally agree on that. neil: i think he is shrewd politically to weigh the political risk, in the scheme of things americans are numb to issues of the debt. i think they're important for your generation. very important. i will get my social security, you won't get yours. i'm fine with that just kidding. weighed the pros an cons and come out in favor i will sign this i don't like it but better

to have running government than get caught in debate over this issue americans by and large don't seem to fret much about. >> so this is the president. he signed up for this job. he knew that this deadline was coming and very upset about the fact that he didn't get a lot of his priorities. and absolutely, he should be frustrated but he should have come out two weeks ago, gone to congress, you're a coequal branch, so am i, time to negotiate because i'm the guy who makes deals. neil: i to thank you. get to my next guest. i will bring some of these other players into it and it concerns this market reaction where the dow is up 142 points. market watcher alan knuckman on that. we should point out boeing taking a stand at a comeback here, after getting bludgeoned yesterday, it was thought to be early target of the chinese to maybe pull back on aircraft orders and like here, but right now benefiting from this turn-around appreciably so, alan

what do you make of market reaction this moment? >> boeing still up 70% over the last year. even with the sharp selloff last couple weeks. what i want to talk about today, not what the market do do in the future. talk about what it is doing. stocks are stablized. we stopped going down. i instituted my two-day rule, i have to wait two days, see where the market stand after some surprise announcement. see where we are at the close of business on monday, after the china tariff talk yesterday. neil: is that -- >> what is happening. dollar is going down. long-term rates going down. neil: i'm sorry, buddy, does the whole tariff stuff bother you, worry you as a trader? >> yes and no. i think we've become a little bit conditioned it's a lot of bluster up front, then a punch in the month and you negotiate what the damage is in the future. if you look at it specifics are not there, a lot of would haves,

could haves or ifs. if you look at china's reaction as trader in the exchange, china announced tough talk and tough penalties, but they're our biggest customer for soybeans but soybeans are down five or 10 cents. stocks are down a lot this week. we used a lot of energy. two tuesdays ago we were up close to highs in the s&p. neil: thank you, guys, very much. the dow in and out of session highs, this session highs, on way to recouping 700 point loss yesterday. a lot of industries sectors, getting hard hit, believing chinese would target for retribution. those would have been unwound. we have couple hours trading to go. in case you just tuned in, the president signed off on the $1.3 trillion spending measure with a certain warning to democrats and republicans i'm

not going to do this again, and you kid have got to stop it!. after.

:

nah. not gonna happen. that's it. i'm calling kohler about their walk-in bath. my name is ken. how may i help you? hi, i'm calling about kohler's walk-in bath. excellent! happy to help. huh? hold one moment please... [ finger snaps ] hmm. the kohler walk-in bath features an extra-wide opening and a low step-in at three inches, which is 25 to 60% lower than some leading competitors.

the bath fills and drains quickly, while the heated seat soothes your back, neck and shoulders. kohler is an expert in bathing, so you can count on a deep soaking experience. are you seeing this? the kohler walk-in bath comes with fully adjustable hydrotherapy jets and our exclusive bubblemassage. everything is installed in as little as a day by a kohler-certified installer. and it's made by kohler- america's leading plumbing brand. we need this bath. yes. yes you do. a kohler walk-in bath provides independence with peace of mind. call for a free kohler nightlight toilet seat with consultation or visit kohlerwalkinbath.com for more info. >> all right, we had an intra-day low and high in the same show, i think, i think. right now with the president writing off on the spending measure here, the dow came back, boeing came back, that is counting as it did disproportionately for the sell-off today, the run-up 10 bucks or north of 3%. the markets have a tough, tough

week, it's early, anything can happen, and this lady could ruin it. lauren simonetti could ruin it. lauren: neil? you are correct, you did have intra-day high and a low in your show. what does that say about you my friend. a little manic, maybe? i don't know. markets are the way they are. and break right now everybody. it is official, president trump signing congress' newly passed, nearly 1 1/2 trillion dollar spending bill and called it ridiculous, all this as the markets are all over the place today. right now we are near session highs for the dow jones industrial average. up 137 points. what a friday. thank you for joining us. i'm lauren simonetti in for trish regan and welcome to "the intelligence report." president trump shaking capitol hill today threatening to veto the spending bill saying it didn't spend enough on his border wall, and said he would sign, it but never anything