this sunday, after las vegas. another mass murder, the biggest ever in the u.s. and another debate over whether to debate gun control. both parties in their usual corner. republicans -- and see we're not going to talk about the activity. >> we can have that discussion at another time. >> and democrats. >> if we don't act now, when will we? >> when is the right time? >> this morning my interviews with democratic senator dianne feinstein. >> america is a gun-happy country. >> and republican gun-happy steve scalise who himself was wounded by a gunman earlier this year. let me ask you this.

is the right to bear arms unlimited? plus, should he stay or should he go? despite reports, secretary of state rex tillerson insists he has never considered quitting. >> i serve and am appointed to the president and i will be here as long as he thinks i can achieve his objectives. >> but how long is that? i'll talk to mick mulvaney. and harvey weinstein. why was the producer's alleged harassment of women kept quiet when so many people seemed to know about it? joining me for inside analysis is hugh hewitt, white house correspondent kristen welker, eugene robinson of the "washington post," and carol lee, national political reporter for nbc news. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >> announcer: from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history celebrating its 70th year. this is "meet the press" with

chuck todd. good sunday morning. in some many ways there is a wash, rinse, repeat feeling to this entire week. a sense that we've been here before. one of those stories, in one corner, there is a by now familiar white house chaos story brewing. is president trump angry at secretary x and is secretary y on his way out and how long will the chief of staff last? we'll get to that intrigue later in the broadcast. but another big story in another big corner of this big "newsweek" is political debating about debating gun control. this is in the wake of another mass shooting. this one happens to be the worst one in american history. 58 killed, more than 500 wounded in las vegas all at a jason aldean concert. last night aldean opened the show and then talked about tom

petty who died this week. ♪ no, i won't back down ♪ i won't back down. >> a perfect message of resilience there. but will the latest gun incident produce results? democrats say, can we please paas some gun measures, and republicans say now is not the time to talk about new laws and enforce the ones that are on the the books. steve scalise, congressman of indiana, was seriously wounded at a baseball game. like many republicans, he is a big supporter of gun rights. this morning i had a chance to talk to him about gun violence in the country and what, if any, limits there should be on the right to keep and bear arms. congressman scalise, welcome to "meet the press." >> great to be on, chuck. >> i'm excited to be sitting here face to face sbeinterviewi

you, considering what you went through this summer. do you have a sense of normalcy where you don't think about it every day? >> it's not that there are bad thoughts that i think of because there was so much good that came out of a bad act. the love, the support, the prayers from people all over the country. it touched me and my wife jennifer in a way we never would have imagined because it was so overwhelming and such a good sign of america that you don't see a lot but we felt it directly. >> let's move to the big issue that's popped up this week. obviously the tragedy in las vegas. there's been this debate about when to have the debate. why do you make the case that it's too soon to have a gun control debate? >> i would first say that we've had a gun control debate for a long time. you look at the presidential race, the nra had never endorsed that early when they endorsed donald trump because they knew there was a clear contrast. donald trump was supportive of gun rights and hillary clinton wanted to limit gun rights. >> do you feel as if this issue

of mass shootings is a problem that the federal government has to figure out how to solve? >> i think over the years, you've seen congress address different components of it. one of the things that we've seen in some of the past shootings is that there was serious problems in the mental health community throughout our country. we didn't do a good job of tracking mental health, taking care of people that had mental health problems and some of those people ended up going out and committing mass shootings. we actually came together and passed a major overhaul last year with the 20th century cures act which had included in it major revamping of our mental health system with real money behind it, too. >> but there's been some things that weakened the aspects of the mental health when it came to the database where there was a fight to allow people that have had -- if you get disability benefits because of mental health issues, you can still paas a background check. should that be the case? >> well, there were some people that we saw in that situation where they had not mental health

issues, they had disability issues, and yet because they were on that list, they were getting denied gun rights not because they had mental health issues, because they had disabilities. you shouldn't take away the rights of people to own a gun just because they have a disability but still have good mental health capacity. >> why do you think we do lead the world in these things? in gun deaths, mass -- we lead the world in these mass gun incidents, we lead the world in death by guns, we lead the world in how many guns per person we have in this country. >> if you look at some of the places where you have bad gun violence, first of all, least recognize the vast majority of gun violence and gun killings in this country are committed by people who broke the law to get the gun. but you go to a city like chicago, some of the toughest gun laws in the country are in the city of chicago and yet they have the worst gun violence. >> they'll just tell you you go to gary, indiana. you go across state lines and you can have the toughest gun laws you want in the world, but

if you go across state lines, that's why they want federal. >> i think what doesn't get focused on enough is the amount of momah cross tm people acrosse guns to solve problems. >> is the right to bear arms unlimited or is there a limit? >> the second amendment really predates the bill of rights. our founding fathers want gun rights for our citizens. they didn't put it in the constitution because they didn't think it would be in jeopardy, but later you saw attempts to take it away, so they thought it's so important we'll make it one of the ten bill of rights constitutional changes. it is a long history in our country to make sure you protect the rights of citizens to bear arms. >> but is it unlimited? >> it is. >> you really believe it's unlimited -- >> you've seen limits that are in place, you've seen laws that are on the books and those laws are for a reason -- you're right

in the sense there are already limits on the gun ownership, but let's go out and enforce those laws. don't try to put new laws in place that don't fix these problems, they only make it harder for law-abiding citizens to own a gun. >> so you do agree there should be some limitations. >> obviously there are limits in law -- >> would you have supported those limits at the time? >> i'm sure i would have supported some of them but probably would have opposed others. in the end you have laws that are on the books that aren't being enforced. go out and focus on enforcing those laws. >> do you believe in an automatic weapons ban? >> some of the weapons they included in there really aren't automatic weapons, but those laws are on the books, too. again, you haven't seen a decrease in gun violence with those laws on the books, so go in and enforce the laws that are there. >> what do you make of this bump stock, of this accessory that takes a semiautomatic weapon and turns it into virtually an automatic weapon?

>> if you talked to anybody about a week ago, most of them, including myself, didn't even know what a bump stock is. there are people who want to rush to judgment, they've got a bill written already. minority leader nancy pelosi already said she wants it to be a slippery slope. she doesn't want to stop at bump stocks, they want to limit the rights of gun owners. it's a little bit early for people to say they know what to do to fix this problem. i know they're going back and reviewing the problem to authorize it. >> but you're not ready to caudify it into law? >> a week ago, most people didn't know what a bump stock was. to think we're all now experts and know how to write some panacea law, it's fallacy. let's focus on the facts and we've done that already. >> is there a policy where some

right to bear arms infringes on rights to be safe and secure at a country concert? >> absolutely. if they break the law and take away your rights, you've got a right to be protected in your home and when you're out in public. if you're abiding by the law, nobody has the right, whether it's a gun or hammer or knife, to go and abolish your rights by trying to attack you. >> we learned that this guy stockpiled a lot of weapons over the last year. we don't necessarily monitor that type of sales. i know there's been concerns about that. had we been monitoring, he might have gotten a check-in from the fbi or atf going, what are you up to? maybe that might have intervened. is that something you could imagine ever supporting, the idea that there is a limit on how many guns you buy in a year, in a month, in a week? >> i think it's dangerous for the concept that the federal government would have some kind of list of who has guns and what they have. because you've seen that, by the way, in totalitarian countries where they use -- >> i understand, i get that

argument. >> it's really happened. frankly, go back to after katrina. we saw law enforcement going door to door in the city of new orleans taking guns from law-abiding citizens. that happened in the united states of america in 2005. it should have never happened. we put laws on the books to stop government from taking guns, but government and other governments we've seen over history have used those lists to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. >> do you think we have too many guns on the streets? >> the problem is not that there are too many guns, it's that there are people that will go out and break the law, whether it's a gun or some other weapon or a bomb. there is no excuse for breaking the law. there is no excuse for using any kind of weapon to try to take the life of an innocent person. one more note i want to share with you. friday night congressman scalise was at the game between the washington nationals and the chicago cubs to throw out the first pitch. by the way, he threw a strike.

his optimism is courageous. after the interview, i was more fired up than ever before. democrats, of course, have taken a different position on guns. senator dianne feinstein of california became mayor of san francisco when the mayor and harvey milk were shot to death by a colleague. this week she banned bump stocks on a bill. this is stronger than anything she's introduced in years. i asked her what that meant for the state of the country. >> it's sad. america is a gun-happy country. i think there are many of us in growing numbers that don't want a gun-happy country. guns have their place. i don't have a problem if they're used properly. but what i have seen over the decades is a growth of

substantial improper use of weapons, beginning with the texas bell tower. you've seen law offices, you've seen businesses, you've seen movie theaters, you've seen high schools, you've seen colleges, you've seen a primary school with first graders in it, 20 of them killed, and now you see a great american classic, which is country music, people by the thousands out in a safe place with a big hotel in the background, and somebody comes along. he has been legal, he's gotten his weapons legally, he has 40 weapons, he has 12 of these bump stocks. they are on the weapons. and he begins to fire a weapon that fires similar to a machine gun out of two broken hotel windows.

every american should look at those pictures and say, do we want more of this? this is one simple thing that stops the making of a semiautomatic weapon into a machine gun. >> let me ask you this. give me the slate of laws that if you could wave your wand and have enacted that could have prevented vegas. >> well, i don't know. i would have to take a good look at that and really study it. i'm not sure there is any set of laws that could have prevented it. i do know this, that we have a second amendment. there's been difference over its interpretation by the court, the high court. nonetheless, the high court has held and possession of firearms is legal under the second amendment. now, possession of machine guns

is not legal under the second amendment. the national firearms act said they were not legal. ergo, now you have people with american inventiveness inventing something that can be added, an additive that boosts the firing rate to that of a machine gun. and that's what every american saw coming out of those hotel windows. >> so you've heard congressman scalise there. he really outlines, though, a set of reasons why he believes all of these various attempts at gun control infringe upon those rights. and senator, that seems to be the poulls that we're at here ad why both sides seem to talk at each other and not to each other. >> well, i don't agree with that. first of all, let me say i'm delighted he's back at work. he's obviously a very strong man. all i can say is right on,

continue, mr. congressman. i'm very happy. that's one good thing this week. i don't agree with that. there is still a lot of descent over the court's decision with respect to the second amendment. be that as it may, the court has decided, and americans generally fall in line. so let's say from the perspective of this decision it is legal for an american to carry a weapon. it's legal for them to drive a car. however, they register that car. we should perhaps look, and the nra says, you know, guns don't kill people, people kill people. well, cars don't kill people. people driving them kill people. so there are a lot of things that could be done to make it safer. but every single one has been opposed by a very powerful organization that then goes out to get any congressman or

senator that votes to the contrary. that's a fact of life. >> are you okay if this ends up being a regulatory change by atf, or does this have to be kaud fid caudified by congress, view? >> in my view, it has to be caudified by congress. it can be changed any time. look, how many events do we want to have happen with these devices now before we do something about it? >> the california republican party has been calling on you to return or donate to charity campaign contributions you've received in the past from harvey weinstein, the movie mogul. there is some explosive sexual allegations against him. do you plan to do that or have you already done that? >> i don't know that i've received any. i'll certainly take a look and then i'll make a decision. >> they found some about 20-odd years ago on that front. any of that money you plan on getting rid of or not?

>> i just don't know. any time somebody does something wrong, and he's done mighty wrong, and no one has ever questioned where i stand on any of this stuff. somebody comes to you and says, oh, they contributed to you, are you giving back the money, and you sort of look like a startled bird and say, well, let me look and see, and that's the best i can do for you today. >> senator feinstein, one last question. are you running for reelection? >> you're going to find out about that very shortly. >> what did you make of the poll recently? 50% say they don't know if they want to see you run for reelection again. >> there are polls and then there are polls. i'm ready for a good fight. i've got things to fight for. i'm in a position where i can be effective, and hopefully that means something to california. >> that sounds like you just announced your reelection bid? close? >> close.

>> senator feinstein, i will leave it there. thanks for coming on and interviewing. >> thank you. bye. you can see both my interviews in their entirety with congressman scalise and dianne feinstein on our website. we talk about other issues, not just the gun issues. coming up, we're going to be talking about this issue. where is the line and is there a line when it comes to the rights between to bear arms and those rights about going to that country music festival feeling sa their experience is coveted. their leadership is instinctive. they're experts in things you haven't heard of - researchers of technologies that one day, you will. some call them the best of the best. some call them veterans. we call them our team.

retail. under pressure like never before. and it's connected technology that's moving companies forward fast. e-commerce. real time inventory. virtual changing rooms. that's why retailers rely on comcast business to deliver consistent network speed across multiple locations. every corporate office, warehouse and store near or far covered. leaving every competitor, threat and challenge outmaneuvered. comcast business outmaneuver. another anti-wrinkle cream in no hurry to make anything happen. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair works in just one week. with the fastest retinol formula to visibly reduce wrinkles. neutrogena®.

♪ traders -- they're always looking for advantages. the smart ones look to fidelity to find them. we give you research and data-visualization tools to help identify potential opportunities. so, you can do it this way... or get everything you need to help capture investment ideas and make smarter trading decisions with fidelity for just $4.95 per online u.s. equity trade. fidelity. open an account today. ♪ welcome back. the panelists are here, hugh hewitt, has his own show on saturdays, kristen welker, and last but not least, "the washington post"'s eugene

robinson. gene and hugh, i want you both to get in on this, everybody. here is peggy noon an. and here is the horror for me of las vegas. i was not shattered. that shatters me, she writings. it is not the new normal. it is the new abnormal and deep down we know it's not going to stop. >> no, it's not going to stop. these things happen, they're awful, they're tragic. and then we start the gun debate non-debate. one reason it's a non-debate is that we debate what specific piece of legislation could have stopped this incident. and you can never put your finger on it. and therefore you can't talk about any piece of legislation that might have stopped the last one or might stop the next one. meanwhile, there are 300 million guns in this country. and so a real gun debate has to look at that fact. 300 million guns. we need to, you know, look at what was done in a place like australia where they had a gun

buyback. gun control is permissible according to the supreme court. if congress were to decide, it won't happen, were to decide that all assault rifles, long guns are something that -- military style weapons, are something that citizens should not have, they should be police and military only and we're going to buy them back, that would have an impact. it's not going to happen. but that would have an impact. that's what the debate ought to be. >> hugh? >> the pitfall i want to avoid is, people who talk about guns don't know anything about guns. i'm among them, i'm not a gun owner. but i know the two supreme court cases very well, and reasonable restrictions are constitutional. i took the scalise incident, every survivor takes inspiration from that, because he looks great and terrific. people don't turn their ideology around because of horrific acts. the peggy noon an piece, the

brett stephens piece in "the new york times" -- >> i'll put it up here. they should want to change it fundamentally and permanently. there's only one way to do this, repeal the second amendment. >> he's honest. the second amendment is real and conservatives will support constitutional and effective measures as a ban on bump stocks. the speaker of the house of representatives told me he's open to hearings on that because it's effective and constitutional. >> one of the things that highlights both sides when it comes to this issue, everyone seems to agree something needs to be done about bump stocks, but there's no agreement about what to do. you have republicans, the nra, saying let's do something through the executive branch, let's just make sure that the regulations are in place. democrats are saying no, as you just heard fieinstein say to yo, we want to see some kind of

legislation. democrats tell me, if there's legislation, we'll put background checks and that's never going to pass. >> republican leaders don't want to see those votes on the floor. >> that's a great outlook. you can't have a good debate about guns in the wake of a tragedy like we saw in las vegas. that's how these conversations keep happening. when it happens outside of the raw pain pa tthat the country i feeling about something, maybe it will be more serious. the idea that republicans are softening about this, it's a tone that's different, but it's not policy, saying you want to kick this to the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms, they've already reviewed it and said bump stocks are legal under current law, means you're trying to avoid actual legislation. until the congress actually does something, it's hard to see that issue being resolved. the debate never sparks up when there's not an incident. >> exactly, there's never a good time to have the debate.

you don't have the debate when nothing happens, then when the worst mass shooting in modern american history happens, if you don't talk about it then, you're never going to talk about it. >> a lot of people feel the debate ended he after newtown, you had 20 children killed, and there was no legislation, no action in the wake of that. what is different this time? it is the worst mass shooting, but the politics haven't changed. >> i want to go to something else that peggy noonan brought up. why is a plurality of americans stockpiling guns? >> they are afraid. not of confiscation. i was unfamiliar with what representative scalise said about seizing guns in new orleans. they are afraid of having to defend themselves. if in puerto rico the power goes down, the grid goes down. it does not account for people who stockpile. i would suggest the one place where you might have a consensus

is like with controlled narcotics. if people buy a lot of them in a short period of time, it triggers a red flag. >> and you heard congressman scalise's response on that, because we know the nra fears the registration, okay? >> i didn't -- >> how do you do both? >> you have to have great security in the age of equifax where people can break into data. so many background checks are run in such a short period of time, you have a red flag. >> that's an interesting thought. >> good luck. i mean, because the nra sees that as a registry. so they'll fight it tooth and nail. >> donald trump was at one time a gun control guy. >> right. >> obviously this is a big part of -- what is the conversation in the white house? >> the conversation in the white house is we are open to having a discussion about bump stocks. but then when they're pressed, is the pretty going to lead that conversation, they say, no, his role right now is to unify the country.

i think he's torn. he's taking a hard look at this. you saw sarah huckabee sanders get choked up in the white house press briefing room. there was a shift. what the result will be, that remains to be seen. >> you've seen a lot of tweet storms, carol, he's been very reserved on this issue. >> i think kristen is right, he's a little bit torn. he's not a traditional republican in the way that the republican party thinks about guns. we've seen in the past when there are shootings or when children are involved in some sort of attack, the president really gets, you know, uneasy with perhaps taking the traditional line that his party wants him to take. >> we'll pause it here. later in the show, what we've learned about harvey weinstein and the conspiracy of silence among those around him in hollywood. but up next, whether or not he did call president trump a name, there are real questions about rex tillerson's future. will he remain secretary of state much longer?

we'll talk to a top official about that and a lot more when we come back. >> announcer: "meet the >> announcer: "meet the state for very lo ronoh really?g's going on at schwab. thank you clients? well jd power did just rank them highest in investor satisfaction with full service brokerage firms... again. and online equity trades are only $4.95... i mean you can't have low cost and be full service. it's impossible. it's like having your cake and eating it too. ask your broker if they offer award-winning full service and low costs. how am i going to explain this? if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab. schwab, a modern approach to wealth management.

why should over two hundred years of citi history matter to you? well, because it tells us something powerful about progress: that whether times are good or bad, people and their ideas will continue to move the world forward. as long as they have someone to believe in them. citi financed the transatlantic cable that connected continents. and the panama canal, that made our world a smaller place. we backed the marshall plan that helped europe regain its strength. and pioneered the atm, for cash, anytime. for over two centuries we've supported dreams like these. and the people and companies behind them. so why should that matter to you? because, today, we are still helping progress makers turn their ideas into reality.

and the next great idea could be yours.

welcome back. earlier we mentioned the wash, rinse, repeat feeling we got watching president trump this week. there was news that rex tillerson called president trump a moron and that tillerson had to be talked out of quitting. is mike pompeo being considered as tillerson's replacement? is john kelly really talking about leaving? the white house dismisses all of it as rumors but the west wing leaks and conversations only adds to the sense of turmoil in the administration again. welcome the director of office and budget and former member of the house of representatives, mick mulvaney. mick, welcome back. >> good morning. >> john kelly was brought in to be chief of staff to cut down on what looked to be public drama. from the outside, it looks like the drama is back. is it? >> no. and from the inside there was never that much drama in the first place. what i can tell you has changed

is the flow of information to the president, the flow of information from different people, from different sources. it is a much more orderly and aligned west wing than it was previously, and i think the president is extraordinarily well served by that, and more importantly, likes it. i was surprised to hear you say in your intro folks were talking about john kelly leaving. that's the very, very first i ever heard that. >> i only asked because it got sparked in a story on this. let me ask you this. was the president getting bad information before? that was an issue when you said the flow of information. was it bad info? >> it wasn't bad information, it just wasn't ready for the president. >> contradictory? >> not contradictory, folks would come in, there was an open door policy, and they could wander in and talk to the president about anything. that's probablyç not the most effective way to get information about very, very complex issues in front of the president of the united states. what john has done has really refined that flow of information so that we know before the president sees it. it's right, it's accurate and

it's ready for him to act on. >> you just said you were shocked and that expressed a lot of confidence in john kelly. does the president have that same confidence in rex tillerson? >> he does. i talked to rex this week. i spent a good amount of time with the president, and the topic never came up. i look back and say, rex said it isn't true. the president said it's fake news. you ran the story because nobody else was doing it, so between you and the folks involved, i believe the folks were involved. >> rmattis, tillerson and kelly quote, keep our country separate from chaos. >> he's not running for reelection so i think it sort of

unleashes anything he wants to say. i don't believe we're that close to chaos, anyway. the folks he mentioned are excellent at their jobs, but most of the stories i see, and again, chuck, i'm there every single day. i'm in the white house every single day. i've never seen the chaos from the outside, i've never seen the infighting, the back-biting. the president wants people who have different ideas and different perspectives than he does so he can get a bunch of smart people in a room to help him make a decision. that's not chaos, that's just good decision making. >> i have one more sort of administrative issue. this issue with the use of government planes or private planes, we learned more. we learned you were on one of these flights with the secretary of treasury. i guess you were in one leg of a flight that just ended up going to new york. you were only on one part of it. but you're a part of a new policy here. has this policy been abused? >> actually, that's not factually accurate. >> you were not on one of these

treasury flights with the secretary of treasury? >> i was scheduled to take that flight -- >> you were on the manifest. >> -- i was on the man teifest i ended up flying the next day. but when the federal government is looking at each of these agencies, every single one of these flights will be legal. the policy that we put out last week -- >> what's ethical. >> right, what's necessarily legal isn't necessarily right. i think what we did is, john kelly and i last week got together and came out with this statement of policy that says, look, you can fly, it's reasonable under certain circumstances, but it needs to be the hard exception. there are going to be times when ryan zinke needs to go to the arctic circle or rick perry needs to go to the middle of nowhere in the nevada desert. those places probably merit flying something other than commercial. >> let me ask you about policy. the president said, quote, i

called chuck schumer yesterday to see if the dems want to do a great health care bill. is the president open by calling chuck schumer, the democratic leader in the senate, is he open to some kind of compromise that fixes obamacare, that leaves it in place? >> fixing it. that's an interesting word. >> depending on your definition of it? >> that's exactly right. is the president open to repeal and replace? yes. but the president wants to get something done. he sees and understands what obamacare is doing to folks back home, and he really doesn't like it very much. so he's looking for folks who will work with him to help change that. we had hoped it would be the republicans and the senate. they failed twice to do that. can you blame the president to sort of stand back and say, okay, if my own party can't deliver what i need, can i work with the other side? >> that's interesting. what message should senate republicans take away from this phone call? some are upset.

>> keep your promises. you promised to repeal and replace. do it. you promised tax reform. do it. chuck, i used to be an elected official, i used to be a member of congress, now i'm just an ordinary member of california. i have two senate members and a member of congress and i expect those men to deliver on their promises to repeal and replace and do tax reform. >> i want to go to tax reform and this issue of the deficit. here's congressman mick mulvaney on debt and deficit. take a look. >> how can we possibly have a credible discussion about the debt and deficit and not include defense? >> more and more people are recognizing the threat to the overall economy the debt presents. >> we ran up this debt. what are we going to do to make sure it doesn't happen again? >> the debt is a problem that must be addressed sooner rather than later. >> what has changed between congressman mulvaney on the debt and budget director mulvaney

when you said earlier this week, we need new deficits to increase economic growth? >> this is what's changed, is that i've come to the realization that washington is not going to solve the debt problem, the deficit problem, through spending. i had come to washington in 2011 and hoped that would be the case, that we had a spending problem and not a revenue problem. >> you've come to that because you acknowledge that there is only so much spending you can cut? >> no. there is a political will. we offered, for example, $54 billion of discretionary cuts in our budget this year. i think by the time it's over on capitol hill, four or five of those will be put into place. i just don't think there is much appetite to cut our way to balance. my emphasis on the debt and deficit and getting rid of it is the same as it was when i got here, it's just that i recognize the fact that the growth factor will have to be a bigger part of that. when we balanced the budget in the late 1990s, we did it with fiscal restraint, we didn't cut our way to balance. there was fiscal restraint and

growth. you look back at how we balanced the late 1990s, it was growth of the economy that balanced receipts and grew the economy. >> you're admitting that if tax reform passes, there will be a hole in the deficit. we're going to expand the deficit. you can't fully grow your way out of this anymore. >> i think that's the only way you're going to get out of this is to grow your way out of it. we're willing to have short-term tax and deficits in order to get back to that real healthy american economy. remember, if you're 30 years old, you've never had a job as an adult in this country with a healthy economy, and we're trying to get back to that. >> in sandy relief, as congressman, you were for rheth relief but you wanted some cuts with it. why should hurricane relief for harvey, irma, maria, now nate be

handled the same way? >> we're not there yet. keep in mind there are a couple different ways we address disaster relief funding in this country, and right now we're sort of in the emergency, making sure people have drinking water and electricity -- >> is this something that's changed for you being a congressman? >> the fight we had in congress, i think it was in 2012, i lose track of the years -- >> sandy. >> -- sandy, yeah, that was the area that people wanted to rebuild after the storm. it was not the emergency money that was needed to keep people out of harm's way. >> what did the president mean when he said he's going to wipe away puerto rico's debt? i know you corrected it, but put it in layman's terms for me. >> sure. i talked to him about this at lengths after the puerto rico trip. puerto rico is $79 billion in debt, depending how you want to count it. there is no way they will get back to prosperity having that debt hanging over them. the mesa process, which is a bill that passed two years ago,

is going to have to find a way to relieve puerto rico of that debt. it doesn't mean we'll wave a wand and wipe out their debt and it also doesn't mean we'll bail them out, because we're not. >> but you will work with them in some form to mitigate this debt? >> we're going to work with them to rebuild the island, there is no question about that. how they deal with their long-term debt is actually part of an existing legislation called mesa. >> plts and their administrations have been talking to north korea for 25 years, agreements made and massive amounts of money paid. only one thing will work. do you have any clarity on what that one thing -- >> it t's the first time i've heard that specific tweet, but every sentence about that is true. what the president is clearly telegraphing is that military options are on the table with north korea. they absolutely are. >> mick mulvaney, budget

director, utility issue infielder today as well. thanks for coming on and sharing your views. >> you bet. coming up, why the nra keeps brian, i just need to know if the customer app will be live monday. can we at least analyze customer traffic? can we push the offer online? brian, i just had a quick question. brian? brian... legacy technology can handcuff any company. but "yes" is here. you're saying the new app will go live monday?! yeah. with help from hpe, we can finally work the way we want to. with the right mix of hybrid it, everything computes. you wouldn't do only half of your daily routine, so why treat your mouth any differently? complete the job with listerine® help prevent plaque, early gum disease, bad breath and kill up to 99.9% of germs. listerine® bring out the bold™ this ♪s electricity.

this is a power plant. this is tim barckholtz. that's me! this is something he is researching at exxonmobil: using fuel cells to capture carbon emissions at power plants. this is the potential. reducing co2 emissions by up to 90%... while also producing more power. this could be big. energy lives here. money managers are pretty much the same. all but while some push high commission investment products, fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions from you whether you do well or not, fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. right. in. your. stomach! watch this!...

>>yikes, that ice cream was messing with you, wasn't it? try lactaid, it's real ice cream, without that annoying lactose. lactaid. it's the milk that doesn't mess with you. your bbut as you get older,ing. it naturally begins to change, causing a lack of sharpness, or even trouble with recall. thankfully, the breakthrough in prevagen helps your brain and actually improves memory. the secret is an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember.

and we are back. data download time. las vegas has put gun control back in the center of debate in the country, but few seem to think there will actually be substantial movement on the issue. the reason may be best understood by looking at who owns guns and who is most invested in this debate. according to recent data from the pugh research center, 42% of all households in america have a gun in the home. that's not even half the country. when we look at gun ownership by race, you see it this way. 49% of white households have a gun in the home, 32% of african-american households and 21% of hispanic households. 58% of rural households own guns compared to 41% of suburban homes and only 29% of those who live in urban america. not surprisingly, the partisan

political divide is also evident on the question of gun ownership. more than half of all republican households, 56%, own a gun. that number is only 30% for democratic homes. so we know who owns guns, but who actually cares the most about this issue? a recent nbc journal poll we asked, other than issues in the economy, would one or two issues impact how you vote in the election? guess what, gun rights and gun control were number one. but look at the breakdown of this answer. 47%, nearly half of trump voters, said the gun issue impacts how they vote in an election. it's a whopping 20 points higher than clinton voters. only 27% of them said the same thing. in other words, people who support gun rights vote on that issue. opponents, they don't vote as often or with as much passion. look, there is a long list of reasons why gun control

advocates will have a hard time tightening gun laws, including politicians' fears of being opposed by the gun lobby. when you look at the numbers, though, one side is clearly more for one side than the other. on this issue, gun rights advocates have a crucial edge. when we come back, end game. and a conspiracy of silence with some hypocrisy thrown in. what we learned this week about harvey weinstein. >> announcer: coming up, "end game" brought to you by boeing, conditioning to most people, i look like most people. but on the inside, i feel chronic, widespread pain. fibromyalgia may be invisible to others, but my pain is real. fibromyalgia is thought to be caused by overactive nerves. lyrica is believed to calm these nerves. i'm glad my doctor prescribed lyrica. for some, lyrica delivers effective relief for moderate to even severe fibromyalgia pain. and improves function. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions,

suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worse depression, unusual changes in mood or behavior, swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or blurry vision. common side effects: dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain, swelling of hands, legs and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who've had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. with less pain, i can do more with my family. talk to your doctor today. see if lyrica can help.

retail. under pressure like never before. and it's connected technology that's moving companies forward fast. e-commerce. real time inventory. virtual changing rooms. that's why retailers rely on comcast business to deliver consistent network speed across multiple locations. every corporate office, warehouse and store near or far covered. leaving every competitor, threat and challenge outmaneuvered. comcast business outmaneuver. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ wow! nice outfit. when i grow up, i'm going to mars. we're working on that. some people know how far they want to go. a personalized financial strategy

can help you get them there. see how access to j.p. morgan investment expertise can help you. chase. make more of what's yours.

>> announcer: "end game" brought to you by boeing, continuing our mission to connect, protect, explore and inspire. back now with "end game." i want to get to the harvey weinstein stuff in a minute, but carol, i asked the budget director mick mulvaney about the rex tillerson dust-up. he was very comfortable pushing back by saying you at nbc news are the ones reporting this. where are we right now with the rex tillerson story and the president? i say this -- before you answer, let me show you what the president said last night. >> we have a very good relationship. we disagree on a couple of things. sometimes i'd like him to be a little bit tougher, but other than that, we have a very good

relationship. >> okay. what did that mean? read between those lines. >> first i'd like to point out that director mulvaney is actually incorrect when he said we are the only ones reporting this. we were first but there are plenty of other very reputable news organizations reporting the very same thing. i don't know what the president meant by that except that he has decided that it's in his interest to back rex tillerson publicly as much as he can while also at the same time he can't avoid saying that, you know, they have their differences and he would like him to be tougher. rex tillerson being tougher, and by that he means defending the president, has been one of the issues in their relationship. >> i confirmed yesterday the president's senior advisers are discussing with the president moving director pompeo from the cia to state and senator tom cotton to the cia for the strategic reason, and you mentioned this on the "today" show, the secretary must represent the president abroad.

you think he's a moron and not only that, a bleeping moron, it doesn't work. they both have access to the data that allows them to say there is no there, there in the russian story. >> it just seems like an untenable situation. the comments we just heard from the president undercut the secretary of state, and it is the latest example of that. he's done it on a whole range of issues. >> i want to move to the harvey weinstein news. it was -- you know, gene, it's like his defense of it was just awful when he said, i was just a product of the culture of the '60s and '70s. but really been most disturbing is liberal hollywood who has been very aggressive about promoting feminism, promoting the rights of women, and here was someone who publicly promoted it and practiced hypocrisy. >> apparently there have been stares f

stories for years and years and years, for decades, about this guy harvey weinstein. for the record, there was not a time when what he did was acceptable, right? >> let's get that done, yes. >> and it's not, you know, locker room stuff or anything like that. i mean, i've been in locker rooms, you know. and so there does seem to be a certain willingness on the part of a lot of people in hollywood to look the other way when the bottom line is concerned. >> can i rise in defense of hollywood? i've been on the fringe of hollywood for 27 years. people like rob reiner, ron howard are wonderful human beings who are wrong about politics, but they're wonderful men. >> carol, the disturbing part is there's been this what aboutism. they're saying look at the president and on the right they're chastising harvey

weinstein. why is there not a collective agreement that this was not okay? >> the disturbing part is the number of people who knew within the organization, within hollywood, and nobody said anything. i think if you want to talk about the the politics of this, the democrats are probably going to have to answer whether or not any of them knew about any of this, whether there was talk about that among them because they were so intertwined with harvey weinstein in terms of fundraising. >> when i saw this break, the first thing i thought about was the oscars. the oscars are always thinking of harvey weinstein. i do think there is a part of this that transcends politics. you now have women speaking out and saying they're not going to accept this type of behavior, and i think that the hope is that sends a message to this generation. >> here you had women who had a soapbox, who were prominent. and what this made me think of was women in the workplace and the idea that as far as we've

come, this sort of thing can still go on and women can still be powerless. >> you have to give ashley judd credit. that took guts to do what she did. the chief of staff of the vice president talked about a purge of the party, we heard steve bannon talk about going after the establishment. how serious is this civil war on the republican party and is it going to play out in the senate battlefield? >> it is very serious. it is being described to me by someone close to bannon and his plans that this is going to be a full assault on the president's establishment. they will be targeting every incumbent with the exception of ted cruz. that includes nevada, missouri, w west virginia, mississippi and they'll be rolling out the campaign essentially in batches of three, so buckle up. >> missouri and nebraska aren't states you want to be messing around with and adding to the

democratic party, do you? >> i think steve bannon is a category of one and i do believe they intend to do it. i just don't think it's going to work. >> it makes the senate map suddenly a lot more interesting when we thought it wouldn't be. that's all we have for today. thank you for watching. we always do appreciate it. we'll be back next week, because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." ♪

♪ ♪ hi! leaving a career to follow a calling takes courage. a personalized financial strategy can give you confidence to take the next step. hi guys! aw yeah! see how access to j.p. morgan investment expertise can help you. chase. make more of what's yours.

captions paid for by nbc-universal television chase. martin truex jr. wins at chicagoland. >> i never thought i'd maic it to where i'm at today. >> i've won a few championships and if you want to come up and take it from me, you have to do all that stuff to get there. >> you want to dominate every race. >> we feel as though we're right on target to go out there and repeat as