2:00 this afternoon, would you make yourselves available? there is a lot of buildup, anxiety if you will. i think you could really help an awful lot of us clear the day up. >> if i could address the senator's question this afternoon is set with technical people to walk us through section 702. rest assured that we will take the first available opportunity to have people back in closed session to address those questions that they can address. hopefully prior to that, the vice chair and i would have an opportunity to meet with director mueller to determine whether that fits within the scope of his current investigation and we will do that. >> all i'm saying is that you can tell by the intensity of the questions here that there's a lot of concerns right now. we have director coats and admiral rogers say they would be willing to testify.

i would hope that would be considered. does the president support section 702 reauthorization? >> absolutely. full support. >> did the president asked her was he given any specific intelligence or info concerning the russia active majors in the 2016 presidential election? was he briefed on that? did he ask for that briefing? >> all that took place -- >> yes, he was briefed on the results of the intelligence community assessment. i was part of that in january, prior to his assuming his dutie duties. >> and finishing up, i would hope that you all with your expertise in all of your knowledge would help us put

closure to this sooner or later. we need your help, we need your assistance. we really do. a final report is with the public is looking for. we can do that without your assistance. >> i fully understand that statement. this investigation will dictate how and when we do that. >> i think we need that sooner than later. >> i want to talk about the import of section 702 to our national security. admiral rogers, i've directed most of these questions to you as the subject matter expert.

i might turn to some of our lawyers for legal questions. does section 702 allow you to collect information on u.s. citizens? >> no. >> does it allow you to target foreigners to do was call reverse targeting of u.s. citizens knowing they are into medications? >> no, does not. >> does it allow you to collect information on foreigners who are on u.s. soil? >> no. section 702 is outside the united states. >> you can collect information on isis terrorists in syria and they come to the united states and you can no longer collect information on his cell phone or email address? >> we coordinate with the fbi. yes, sir, we don't do internal domestic collection broadly. >> mr. rosenstein, do foreigners have constitutional rights? >> when they're in the united states, different rules apply and that's why it's

important for people to understand that section 702 applies only in circumstances where it's outside the united states. if you're inside the united states, we need to rely on other provisions to do that. yes, we can do it, but we need to apply different rules. mr. mccabe isn't responsible for that. >> what happens when isis terrorists comes from syria to the united states and admiral rogers can no longer use section 702 to monitor his medications? >> admiral rogers folks notify mine and we work together to pursue coverage under different elements of the statute. >> i'm sure you work as hard as you can to make those seamless, but it seems to me that section 702 is limited to foreigners on foreign soil without targeting any u.s. persons anywhere goes the extra mile to protect the constitutional rights of american citizens and even the supposed constitutional rights of foreigners when they come on u.s. soil.

that's why i support the permanent extension of section 702 and i introduced legislation to that effect yesterday. tom bossert, for counterterrorism and homeland security advisor to the president wrote that the trumpet administration supports this bill without condition. admiral rogers, is that your position? >> could you repeat? i apologize. >> the administration supports a spell without condition. on a scale of 1-10, how enthusiastic would you be if this bill passed? >> i would be ecstatic. >> my level is about 100. >> i'm not familiar with the rating system. i do think it's very important. >> i met 11. >> director coats, you had an

exchange about the persons who may be subject to incidental collection, this is when you have a lawful section 702 order, but someone does communicate with american citizens. as my understanding that would be virtually impossible to do so in a way that wouldn't further infringe on the rights of american citizens, citizens, is that correct? >> yes, and that's one of the central reasons why i came to the conclusion. the main reason i came to the conclusion is it is not conceivably possible. we can go through the procedures, we can shift hundreds of people to go over and breach the rights of hundreds if not thousands of american citizens to determine whether or not they are american citizens or not. we still, having done that, i could not get to an accurate number, the number that the

senator was trying to get us to. i pledge to him as i would go out there and try to fully understand why it was we couldn't get that. relative to all of the efforts that have been made to answer the question. as a set in my statement, even if we were to take people off their regular jobs and say get on this issue, even if we could put other measures in place, we still would not be able to come up.

i assume the staff of members here will be there this afternoon, but my pledge was to do the best i could to try to get to the bottom of the answer and the result was we could not get to an answer. and trying to get to an answer would totally disrupt the efforts of the agency. you might be able to make the case, let's hire 1,000 more people and get to the answer. admiral rogers has told me, i will be doesn't mind me saying this, if someone knows how to get to it, he's welcome to have him come out until an essay how to do it. everybody says you can get to the numbers easy, there's all kinds of agencies out there that can do it. you might welcome the advice if they wanted to do that. it really raises the question of why there has to be an exact number. >> if we are hiring 1,000 new people, i would focus on terrorists then violating the

privacy rights of american citizens. >> admiral rogers, in response to this question from senator senator mansion -- can you share with this committee how you're determining which conversations you can share and which you don't feel sure free to share? >> the president went to new york and it's a matter of public record. >> then you feel free to discuss those conversations? >> of is not classified. you can keep trying to trip me up. >> are you saying that if it is classified, you will not discuss it? my follow-up question is do you believe the active measures and on the subject of class when information question mike >> i stand by my previous comments. >> mr. rosenstein, when you are

pointing to a special counsel on may 17th, you stated the order you wish it along with that statement provides that 28 laws were applicable. is that correct? >> yes. >> ed states of the special counsel should not be subject to the day to day supervision however, the regulations permit you as acting attorney general for this matter to override dr. dr. miller's decisions under specified situations. it also says you may fire or remove director mueller is that

correct? >> yes. >> you indicated in your statement that you chose a person who exercises a degree of independence, not full independence from the normal change of command. my question is this. in december 2003, the acting attorney general at the time was jim comey. he appointed a special counsel patrick fitzgerald to take over the matter. in a letter dated december 30th, 2003, he wrote the following. i direct you to exercise the authority of special counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the department. in a subsequent letter dated february 6th, 2004, -- he said

my conferral on you and special counsel in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined or limited by 28 cfr part 600. those of the special counsel regulations we discussed. would you agree to provide a letter to director mueller similarly providing that director mueller has the authority of special counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the department and ensure that director mueller has the authority does not define or limited the special counsel regulations? >> i'm very sensitive about time and i'd like to have a very lengthy conversation and explain that. >> can you give me a "yes" or "no" answer? either you're willing to do that or not.

>> chairman, they should be allowed to answer the question. >> it's a long question you posed. i'll get to the answer. my quibble with you is pat fitzgerald is a very independent person. i have respect for him. pat fitzgerald could have been fired by the president because he was the united states attorney. robert mueller cannot because he's protected by those special counsel regulations. although it's theoretically true but there are circumstances where he could be removed by the acting attorney general which is me, your assurance of his independence -- go >> if i may. their greater assurance is not that you and i believe and director mueller's integrity which i am no questions about his integrity. edits that you would put in writing an indication based on your authority that he has full

independence in regards to the investigations that are before him. are you willing or not to give him the authority to be fully independent of your ability statutorily and legally to fire him? >> he has the full independence as authorized by those regulations -- >> are you willing to do -- >> the chair is going to exercise his right to allow the witnesses to answer the question and the committee is on notice to provide the witnesses the courtesy, which has not been extended all the way across, extend the courtesy of our questions to get answered. >> mr. chairman, respectfully i want to point out that this witness has joked with his ability to filibuster. >> would you like to fully answer a question mark i'm not joking. the truth is, i have a lot of experience with these issues and

i could speak to you for a very long time about that and i'm sympathetic. i appreciate the five minute limit, it's not my limit. the answer is, this originated with the independent counsel. i worked in the department during independent counsel. when councils were appointed, they were appointed by federal judges and they had essentially the authority equivalent to the attorney general. that statute son cited in the majority members of this body concluded that that was appropriate because they did not want special -- independent counselors who are 100% independent. that was a determination made with a legislator. i know the folks at the department who drafted this under general reno and they drafted it to deal with this type of circumstance. the idea was there would be some circumstance because of unusual events. it was appropriate, not some way like pat fitzgerald who could be

fired, but summary from outside the department who could be trusted to conduct this independently and could be given an appropriate degree of independence. under the regulation, he has adequate authority to conduct this investigation and your ultimate check is the integrity of the people involved, and the fact that if he were overruled or if you are fired, we would be required on the regulation report to the congress. i believe that's important. theoretically, anybody could be fired. there is a potential -- i am confident that director mueller, mr. mccabe and i and anybody else who may fill those positions in the future will protect the integrity of an investigation. that's my commitment to you. >> is not a "no"? >> seems to be one thing we all

agree on, at least so far based on the questions in the comments and that is section 702 is an important tool for the intelligence community. one that needs to be preserved and i agree with senator cotten but it should be extended without a sunset provision. it's good to have one thing we agree on, but i want to ask director coats and perhaps admiral rogers if you want to comment on this as well, as i understand the framework of section 702, it is to intentionally not target american citizens. it is to intentionally target foreign persons and not collect information from american citizens except by way of incidental collection. you've described the extensive procedures that the lab requires and the nsa practices that are in place to minimize the access

of anybody in the intelligence community to that u.s. person and indeed, you've talked about purging incidental collection that was made in the course of the section 702 investigation. it strikes me, the question that senator wyden has asked you and it's come up several times to intentionally target american citizens in order to generate a number is just the opposite of what the structure of section 702 provides because the whole idea is to not collect, not to be able to gather information about american citizens, except in the incidental course of collection. is that a fair statement? >> that's fair in my mind. there was a central piece of

information. you are breaching someone's privacy to determine whether or not they are an american person. >> to generate a list for congress. >> yes, potentially. that wasn't the only basis by which i made the decision, but that was the essential basis. >> thank you. i want to ask you a little bit more about the minimization procedures and the importance of those. you've explained the process and the elaborate procedures that are in place to make sure that this is not done accidentally or casually, and i think that's

very important to reassuring the american people but in the collection of foreign intelligence, we are extraordinarily protective of the privacy of u.s. citizens. this is a question for mr. rosenstein and perhaps director mccabe. if someone is using the process for political purposes, is potentially a crime? >> yes, sir. >> director mccabe, perhaps deputy general rosenstein, for someone to leak the name of an

american citizen that is unmasked in the course of incidental collection, to leak that classified information, is and also potentially a crime? >> is the most significant point. it's important for people to understand, unmasking is done in the course of ordinary legitimate intelligence gathering. leaking is a completely different matter. it's a crime. disclosing to someone without a legitimate need to no purpose, that will be prosecuted and there have been cases where we've been able -- >> i think there is some confusion when we talk about russian investigations. we describe the role of the

special counsel which i think you discussed in great detail, but that's primarily to investigate potential criminal acts and counterintelligence activities. is it not? >> the answer to that is yes. the idea that the russia investigation heads much broader significance to you then we are referring to. >> when people speak generically about the russia investigation, i think they are also including things like our responsibilities as the intelligence committee to do oversight of the intelligence and of the counter measures we might undertake to deal with the active measures campaign of the russian government which were clearly documented in the intelligence community assessment. my count, there are multiple

committees including the judiciary committee on which i serve which has different jurisdiction and oversight responsibilities. it's our job to do the investigation. we are not the fbi, we are not special counsel, we are not the department of justice. i'm afraid in the conversation that we've been having, people have been conflating all of those and those are very distinct functions. >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. director mccabe, on may 11th, you testified director comey -- director mccabe, i'm trying to understand the rationale of your unwillingness to comment upon your conversations with director comey. first, you have had, i presume, conversations with -- you've had

those conversations question rick >> yes, sir. >> it is important to note that mr. mueller and his team are currently in the process of determining what that scope is. much in the way that senator cornyn just referred to. the fbi maintains a much broader responsibility to continue the investigation issues relative to potential russian intelligence activity and threats posed to us from our russian adversaries. it is somewhat of a challenge at the moment and that's why i'm trying to be particularly respectful and not take any

steps that might compromise this investigation. >> getting back to your rationale for not commenting on the conversation, it seems to me that what you say is that either that as part of a criminal investigation are likely to become part of a criminal investigation. therefore, you cannot properly comment, is that accurate? >> that is accurate. >> what about the conversations between director coats and admiral rogers? is not likely to be, or is part of an ongoing criminal investigation? >> i couldn't comment on that. i'm not familiar with that and for the same reasons is not appropriate for me to comment on director comey's conversations, i certainly wouldn't want to comment on those and further away from. >> mr. rosenstein, are you aware of the possibility of an investigation into the

conversations that director coats and admiral rogers have had? >> that is limited to what i read in the newspaper this morning and what we've heard here today. >> director coats, have you had any contact with special prosecutor? >> i have not. >> have been advised by any of your councils, private or publi public, that this conversation could be subject to a criminal investigation question rick >> i have not. >> admiral rogers? >> for the last question, no, i have not. >> let me return again to the points that senator king made very well. this unwillingness to comment on the conversation with the president, but to characterize it in a way that you do not feel pressure, yet refusing your answer very specific and

nonintelligence related issue, it doesn't have an impact on the classification and our status, whether or not you specifically asked by the president to do anything. you still maintain that you can't comment whether you were asked were not? changed since the initial response. >> i stand by my previous answer. >> the question i have, if you could say that, you would say that. thank you. >> gentlemen, you're here at an interesting time, it's funny how sometimes events run together. this morning's "washington post" top intelligence official told associates trump asked him if he could intervene with comey on fbi russia probe. it goes into some detail, i'm sure you read the article.

it's more than disturbing, obviously if it's true, that the president of the united states would be trying to get the director of national intelligence and others to abandon an investigation into russian involvement, it's pretty serious. i also understand the position that you're in. it is classified information and yet, here it is on this mornings "washington post" in some detail. i'm sure you've read it. i guess if i understand you right, in a closed session, you are more than ready to discuss the situation, is that correct? >> i would hope we have the opportunity to do that. >> i hope we can provide you with that opportunity.

it shows what kind of an orwellian existence we live in. it's detailed, as you know from reading the stories what you discussed, when you met, et cetera. yet, and a public hearing before the american people, we can't talk about what was described in detail in this mornings "washington post" ." do you want to comment on that? >> are you asking me? comment on the integrity of "the washington post"? i guess i've been around town long enough to say, not take everything at face value that's printed in the post. i served on the committee here and often saw that information that we had been discussing had been reported, but that wasn't

always accurate. think -- the re to the post was that i did not want to publicly share what i thought was a private conversation with the president of united states. almost all of them intelligence related and classified. i didn't think it was appropriate to do so in -- for the post to report what reporte reported. >> it's an unfortunate situation that you are sitting there because it's classified information. the post describes in some detail, not just outlined, but times and dates and subjects that are being discussed. i'm certainly not blaming you, but it certainly is an

interesting town in which we exist. >> just because of published in "the washington post," doesn't mean it's now unclassified. >> unfortunately, whether it's classified or not, it's out to the world. that's obviously not your fault, but describes dates and times and who met with whom. do you want to tell us anymore about the russian involvement in our election that we don't already know from reading "washington post"? [laughter] >> i don't think that's a position i'm in. i do know there are ongoing investigations. i do know that we continue to

provide all of the relevant intelligence that we have to enable those investigations to be carried out with integrity and with the knowledge. >> and must be a bit frustrating to you in protecting what is clearly sensitive information and to read all about it in "the washington post." you have my sympathy and i expressed that at your confirmation hearing doubting your sanity. admiral, do you have anything to say? >> no, sir, other than some days i wish i was on the bridge of the destroyer again. >> i can understand that. i feel the same way. mr. rosenstein? >> i can't speak for anybody else, but i am proud to be here. i'm proud to be with director mccabe and i'm sure he feels the same way. >> i do. [laughter] >> at whatever might mean. >> thank you.

the chair is going to recognize senator wyden for one question on section 702. >> i appreciate the courtesy. this one, director coats, i would like a "yes" or "no" answer on. could the government use the fisa section 702 to collect communications it knows are entirely domestic? >> not to my knowledge. it would be against the law. >> thank you. >> senator warner. >> again, i want to thank all the witnesses, but i come out of this hearing with more questions then when i went in. gentlemen, were both willing to somehow characterize your conversations with the president. you didn't feel pressure, but you would ensure the content. in the case of admiral rogers,

we will have an independent third-party who will provide some level of contemporaneous description of that conversation and why there were concerns enough to commit that to writin writing. i'm pretty frustrated that there is this deference to the special prosecutor even though the special prosecutor has not talked to you. i'm concerned that the deputy attorney general also deference to the special prosecutor, but there doesn't seem to be -- we are committed to making sure that we are appropriate. we don't seem to have is the same commitment to find out whether the president of the united states try to intervene directly with leaders of our intelligence community and asked them to back off or downplay.

you testify to your feelings response. your feelings response is important, but the content of his communication with you is absolutely critical. i would say, the president is not above the law. if he intervenes in a conversation, would that not be subject of concern? >> anybody obstructs a federal investigation, it would be subject of concern. i don't care who they are and i can commit to you that if there is any credible allegation, it will be investigated appropriately. that's our responsibility and will see to it. >> i appreciate that we can work on this in a bipartisan way. >> director coats, i know you have to go, give me 90 more seconds if you could.

have our partners globally used section 702 intelligence to stop a terrorist attack? >> yes, sir. if we were to lose section 702 authority, i would fully expect leaders from some of our closest allies to put out one loud scream. >> in most cases, didn't they take credit from our intelligence? >> they don't publicly talk about where it talks about -- comes from. >> i want to get it on the record. a global asset that the war on terror has is section 702. >> if i could take the time you are trying to protect from me for my next appointment to say -- following my interaction with my contemporaries in a number of european countries, they are deeply, deeply grateful to us for the information

derived from section 702. it has saved what they said literally hundreds of lives. >> certainly the committee is privy to those instances. we are grateful for that. gentlemen, i want to thank you for your testimony. before we adjourn, i would ask each of you to take a message back to the administration. you are in positions whereby you are required to keep this committee fully and currently informed of activities. the sensitivity of those activities, and may be appropriate for the full committee or open session. there is a mechanism that you may use to brief the appropriate parties. ed sometimes often is referred to as the gang of eight notification briefing. without exception to everett at table has utilized that tool before.

congressional oversight of the activities of our government is necessary and it must be robust. thus the provisions of this unique briefing mechanism, given the availability of that sensitive briefing avenue. at no time, should to be in a position where you come to congress without an answer. it may be in a different format, but the requirements of our oversight duties and your agencies demanded. with that, again, i think you. this hearing is adjourned. >> harris: we've been watching this live. president trump's national intelligence team on the hot seat on capitol hill. there have been some rather fiery moments in the last hour of this. note the timing. we are less than 24 hours before the high-stakes testimony from fired fbi director james comey

is set to begin. that came up a lot during this. this is "outnumbered," i'm harris faulkner. here today, sandra smith, meghan mccain, rachel rachel campos-duffy, today's a #oneluckyguy, charlie hurt. that was interesting. i went to get your thoughts on how we didn't talk about fisa they were going to dogleg renewing. we do talk a lot about james comey and the president. >> charlie: this is exactly why america hates washington. it's why donald trump is president. they came together to talk about something that is vitally important. and they got nowhere. it's evolved into a political food fight and that's all it was. they accomplish nothing. as you said, are we going to renew it or not? >> harris: that was two and half hours and i said that because they hadn't talked about

it. i was kidding. now they do have a private session that you heard everyday talking about and close doors coming up at 2:00 eastern. the hearing is supposed to be, as we talked about, a new "washington post" report that claims president trump pressured coats and marched to convince comey to back off michael flynn. that report also claims that he asked coates and rogers to publicly deny any evidence of collusion between his campaign and the russian government. both officials denied ever feeling pressure to act inappropriately. here's a touch. >> to the best of my recollection, i have never been directed to anything i believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical, or inappropriate. to the best of my lack

reflection, during that same period of service, i do not recall ever feeling pressure to do so. >> i've never been pressured, i'm never felt pressure to intervene or interfere in any way with shaping intelligence and a political way. the >> is he even asking? to me, that is a very relevant piece of information. >> harris: sandra, you made a comment that we are far from the original conversation, we also have something else going on. they're not going to answer these questions in public and they said it how many times? >> sandra: going back to charlie's point about not getting much out of this other than the headline is, dysfunction washington. there really is no big news coming out of this, otherwise confirming what we already knew. >> charlie: senator warner tried to make a joke or make fun

of them for talking about feeling pressure, not feeling pressure. whether you felt pressure is the definition of whether there was obstruction of justice or not. if the president said to them, just knock this off, there's nothing here. if he said that, but they didn't feel pressure, then there was nonobstruction of justice. if there was, we would know it. first of all, they would have reported it. there have been obligated to report it. >> harris: got kind of uncomfortable at one point. trying to get the intel chiefs to answer questions and they clearly were saying were not going to talk about that, it was

classified information, if it's not classified, will you talk about it? i got interesting. that's on the focus. >> rachel: just like when she interviewed director pompeo when he was up for his nomination to the job and she asked him about climate change. she's always off-topic. she's trying to make a political statement. what's interesting about this, i live in wisconsin. this month is terry month. every county has a breakfast. we go to a lot of these aspolit. no one is talking about any of this. i know it might be really hard for people in d.c. and new york to figure this out, i know they're pushing this comey thing tomorrow, nobody asked about that. people ask us if we are going to pass health care or tax reform.

i think -- >> sandra: or as my kid going to get a job when he graduates college? >> harris: in just a few minutes, the president is expected to land and some advocacy on the tarmac and talk about health care. there are a lot of other things to talk about. this is a shiny object in washington, pre-ambling the other shiny object with james comey tomorrow. what are your thoughts question marks. i completely agree with what rachel is saying that the average american -- there are so tuned out at this point. we have "the washington post" saying one thing and then dan coats saying something completely different. first and foremost, i want to know who these sources are but "the washington post" continues to keep speaking to you. if they just lied under oath, obviously, they can go to jail for that. i don't believe they did. who are you talking to? there's a reason why the average american has lost complete and total faith and journalists. there's so much information

coming out everywhere. at the end of the day, people like me just want to know, did the trump campaign have anything to do with russia? the fact that there put a sizing, a point in the direction that there is most likely not. >> harris: senator warner said this, there is no smoking gun. what are they looking for? >> sandra: executive privilege came up in the hearing, here is the exchange. >> is there an invocation by the president of the united states of executive privilege? is there are not? >> now that i'm aware of. >> then why are not answering our question? what you feel isn't relevant. what you feel isn't the answer. the answer is why you not answering the questions hashtag if there is, let's know about it. if there isn't, answer the questions. >> i stand by the comments i've made, i'm not interested in

repeating myself, sir. >> harris: you're having a reaction. >> meghan: him saying your feelings don't matter. it's like my mom chastising me. it's a point you're making. we are learning nothing from all of this. politicians on both sides are grandstanding because they want to go home to their constituents and say i'm fighting for x agenda. i have very little faith we learn anything tomorrow with the comey hearings as well. i think we probably know everything that he is going say already. he is already testified. i don't know the end goal is other than what i said, did president trump put pressure on comey to lay off the investigation? >> rachel: i think the answer to your question, why are they doing this if we've already heard from both of these witnesses and comey himself saying they didn't feel pressure. the reason they're doing this is a thing that can stop the trump

agenda. they want to do anything they can to come up the political wheels and stop the republicans from doing what they have promised their people that they were going to do. that's what this is about. >> harris: looked out the president has been doing this week. we saw movement with the va which people have been waiting s >> meghan: tomorrow will have all four networks live. whatever we are trying to do with repealing a place right no now, the agenda has been hijacked. it may last a week, but they can't do this forever. >> harris: putting policies into place, it may not get talked about. the policies in place. the president signing executive orders about things. talks today about a $1 trillion

infrastructure legislation, that will be in place. >> charlie: the theatrics of this versus president trump out in america talking about health care, if you want to kick off a reelection campaign, this is the week to do it. >> harris: we are going to talk what we do expect to come up tomorrow and remember, that one has a public rabbit session just like today's. what do you think you'll see and hear in public from james comey? we know you like to call him a bit of a show pony. we'll be right back that's why you drink ensure. with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. for the strength and energy to get back to doing... ...what you love. ensure. always be you.

>> president trump has arrived in ohio and you will remember for before the break we were telling you that he will actually be speaking right here on the tarmac. he will be talking about health care. we are looking at the cysts jack cincinnati municipal airport, we knew he will be going to rivertown in cincinnati to talk about infrastructure. this now has been added to his schedule, he will debrief with these people right here on the tarmac and is expected to comment on health care. it is interesting to watch the president turned their wheel and

take control of the narrative with the issues americans told him about on the campaign trail. things like veterans affairs, policy and legislation on that this week. infrastructure was an area he said he might be able to in a bipartisan manner talk with democrats across the political aisle to get something done. will that actually be the case? we don't know but he is talking about it today. we will see if chuck schumer and others across the political aisle will adhere to those things that they said they would maybe bend on. >> and politics they are always being disingenuous. something senator mccain said during this hearing just a minute ago, he was talking about how orwellian all of this is. imagine you are donald trump and you are really not a big

political figure and you ran on a campaign to do something about terrorism, trade, health care, and then you get here and all anybody wants to talk about is russia. they see russia under every bed, in every closet. >> i am going to step in here. he is talking with obamacare victims. those of the group of people that you saw the president with their and we anticipate that he will step up at this point and talk about health care. as that happens -- i didn't mean to step in on you but i just want to draw everybody's attention to the screen. >> what he tweeted before his arrival, getting ready to leave for cincinnati and the great state of ohio to meet with obamacare victims and talk health care and infrastructure. we are awaiting remarks. all of this as we've been running a countdown clock, james

call me testifies tomorrow. >> what's also important is the company excited uncertainty over the future. >> sometimes there will be a wild microphone around the president, doesn't always happe happen. this particular president has been known to say a few things and sometimes will be able to hear it. if that opportunity comes back -- wait, he is walking right up to the lectern, let's watch together. >> hello everybody, thank you. i want to thank you, i am joined today by two american families, great families. just met them on the plane, they have had their lives completely upended by the disaster known as obamacare.

from ohio and kentucky, two great states, their very beautiful children and families. i want to thank you very much for being here. great families. for being here and sharing your stories today and giving voice to millions and millions of americans who are going through turmoil right now, absolute turmoil. these are americans like you, like you, like all of us. health care is about so much more than dollars and cents. it is about real people, honest americans who work hard to take care of their families and give their best to our wonderful country. raya and her husband live in dayton, she had an affordable health care plan that worked for her and her family. then came obamacare, she wanted

to keep her doctor, she was not allowed under the rules and regulations unless she paid an additional $50,000 in out-of-pocket expenses for the birth of her precious little girl, just born. the monthly premiums have quadrupled, their deductible is a staggering $15,000, meaning they won't even get to use it. hopefully i have to say, but they won't get to use what they are paying so much for. dan's story is just as bad. he owns css distribution group, a small business in louisville, kentucky, . before obamacare, his 11 employees enjoyed multiple options for high-quality, affordable health care. everybody was happy, everybody was happy. then came obamacare and now they

have fewer choices, premiums are 150% higher, amazing. but you are not alone, by the way. in alaska it just went up over to 200% just announced. creating new jobs is no longer an option for dan because the health insurance is so expensive. raya and dan are just two of the many victims of the obamacare catastrophe created by congressional democrats. across america, premiums are skyrocketing, insurers are fleeing and american people are paying much more for much worse coverage. the coverage is horrendous. it's horrendous. since the law's provision took us back, premiums have exploded by an average of 80% in ohio and

75% in kentucky. those states are minor compared to others. the numbers and some of the states are much, much higher. just yesterday we learned that one of the largest insurers is pulling out of ohio. or that could mean another 20,000 counties and 19,000 people will have no plan available to them. in kentucky, seven carriers have exited the state. i've been saying this for a long time. as a result, nearly half of the counties in kentucky had only one choice in 2017. if trends continue, and i think they definitely will -- we don't have to think, they will continue. we will come and we will do something great. we are in the process of doing it. but if trends do continue, they will have no plans in kentucky

in 2018. so 93,650 families, 93,653 families paid $6.3 million in penalties instead of purchasing unaffordable obamacare health care plans or did not needs. obamacare is in a total death spiral and the problems will only get worse if congress fails to act. obamacare is a dead, i've been saying it for a long time. everybody knows it, everybody that wants to report fairly about it. the house of representatives has done its job, it's sent a plan to the senate and the senate's looking it over, i spend a lot of time yesterday with mitch mcconnell, a lot of great senators -- they happen to be