the -- simply because there aren't two regulations on the books to eliminate? >> thank you senator feinstein. i am aware of those executive orders generally. i haven't sfidtudied them as i' not yet in the department. with regard to ordering a review of regulations on the book, my wrerecollection is president ob ordered something silar during his term in office and i haven't studied the results of what study were. i think that any regulatory action taken by any agency of the government has to comply with the requirements of the administrative procedure act, which require reasoned decision making. that statute remains in place. but as to the interplay between the apa and the executive order, those decisions would fall in the first instance to the regulatory agency themselves but i would have to study it

further. >> thanks, mr. chairman. >> senator hatch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me first say that i agree with you that there is no legitimate basis for asking the attorney general to appear before this committee. it is a hearing before the attorney general has had a chance to address this matter further, as he has now done. skipping that basic step of fairness makes it look like this is more about publicity and partisan posturing than anything else. at least it looks that way. responding to written questions after his hearing, the attorney general stated if the matter rose where he believed his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, he would consult with department ethic officials regarding proceeding. now that is exactly what he did. i wish he could say the same

thing about his pred sorecessor. our -- like i say, this kind of double standard makes it at least look like partisan politics. hopefully we can start depoliticizing the justice department. now, let meur to the nomination before us today. i want to congratulate both of you. you're excellent lawyers. have i great respect for each of you. both mr. rosenstein and miss moran are familiar to us and i think just well qualified in being asked to lead the justice department. >> all right, we are watching the deputy attorney general hearings. i want to go now to the house gop members, who are holding a press conference on the american health care act, the repeal and replace of obamacare. >> seven years ago obamacare put washington in control of

americans' health care. for seven long years, this failing law has hurt more people than it helped. families can't afford their premiums, patients can't advice the the doctor that they like. and fewer insurers are offering coverage options every day. it's getting worse. with president trump now in office, house republicans are taking action to delivery le re to americans now. house republicans have introduced legislation to repeal that failing law in making sure americans have health care tailored to their needs not dictated and tailored to washington's need. the american health care act transfers pow from her washington back to the american people. we restore state control of health care so it can be designed for the families and communities in each state. we restore the free market so americans have a greater choice of products tailored again to

what they neednd what their family needs. so in the ims ond. to enhance and strengthen health savings accounts so people can spend their health care tax dollars the way they need to. and we're going to help low and middle-income americans access affordable quality health care with a monthly tax credit that's immediately available. as health and human services secretary price wrote this morning, our legislation aligns with the president's goal of rescuing americans from the failures of the affordable care act. secretary price also wrote that our bill -- our bills are a necessary and important first step towards fulfilling our promises to the american people. i encourage you to read the bill and cover our action tomorrow.

this bill is available to the american public. contrast this to affordable care act. 2,004 pages, written in the dark of night in the rush through congress. this legislation is a little over a hundred pages and every american can read and understand it. house republicans promise to deliver it and we take the critical first step tomorrow. >> and i'd be happy to take your questions. go ahead. >> reporter: you've criticized democrats for years for pushing through obamacare before people had a chance to read it, but now you're holding committee votes as early as this week on a bill nobody knows how much it's going to cost, how many people will lose coverage so aren't you doing the exact same thing? >> no, i'm not at all. in fact, the bill went on live for the entire american people, all of us to lead, all of our

colleagues to read at 6:00 last night. it's, as i colleague aid, you know when democrats did reconciliation, they didn't have a cbo score before it went up to the business can't. >> critics are already blasting this as obamacare light. what's your message to your senate colleagues who are already saying this pill. >> i'd encourage them to actually read the bill, find out what's in it. i've sent notes and copies over to some of the senators who are seeking the bill. so that they can read through it. we are repealing and replacing

obamacare. we start with the 2015 reconciliation, legislation is the underpinning document, we're moving forward to create more choices in the marketplace and to do the biggest entitlement reform since bill clinton signed welfare reform into law. so these are big measures moving forward. we've certainly met the test to the president and secretary price who believe this is repeal and reform. we will work with them. we need them on board to make this happen. >> i might add, too, this is obamacare gone. this is the first and most important step to giving relief to americans from to restoring state control and restoring the premarkets, the conservative, moderates be all republicans have built consensus around.

including members and leaders of the dpree dom caucus and the rnc and republican caucus. we're following that consensus. and here is my main point. as republicans, we have a choice. we can act now and we can keep fiddling around and squander this opportunity to appeal obamacare and begin a new chapter of freedom. >> following on what the president said, tell him -- on the one in and on the other hand -- [ inaudible ]. >> sure. >> probably less people. >> it's going to reduce the potential of people --

>> dave: we've held a lot of we have a lot of discussions over the weekend with the white house and areaious folks there. it is a legitimative process. we now have a bill that's available for all to read. i'd encourage you to read it. i'd encourage them to do it. i'd encourage them to look against their own bills and what they've supported in the pass and that's there's a process et so this is an important step moving forward to fulfill our promise to the american people to refill and owe, if you go back to what wbo predicted would be covered on the exchanges

today, they're only off by a 2-1 rat ratio. 21 million they projected would be covered and 10 million is actually covered and the worst part is we're chasing young people away from various coverage through the various mandates. so 45% of the people who decided not to sign up for baktiari. >> moe and drag more of their dollars into coverage rather than the bureaucratic process they have to go through to get waivers. >> reporter: you have an exemption for employer-sponsored coverage, it was one of the main options you are looking at at the replacement plan. what was the thought process in including that in the final bill? >> yes, we have been listening very carefully to house

republicans the entire conference across the philosophical spectrum about how best to restore state control, how best to create a free market and how to make sure we do that in a way that balances in the budget. we looked very seriously at the option of actually providing the same health care available at work to others to the exclusion the direction they gave us was nat o a po. >> reporter: very simply, will this bill cover more americans or less americans than, more people have opted out, found a way to get out of obamacare than are taking it.

and those who have it, faengly, can't use it. the deductibles are too high, the co-payments are too high. it just a card. it doesn't help them. under our approach, by returning innovation to the states and actually giving americans a broad choice of plans they can actually use, i believe we're increasing access to affordable care for those who want it. and i think that's an important distinction here. and, as i see the tax credit, you know, i have a small business background as a chamber of commerce executive so four they get no help approximately while workers in big businesses they got all the help. so under the you get that help as an entrepreneur. >> those businesses, frenly last

year, 225 counties in america had one option left for people to choose from on the exchange. this years it's 1,022. this insurance market is collapsing before our eyes. the ceo of aetna said it's in a death spiral. those are his words and he's in that market. as i talk to insurers, they're lucky whether they can sustain the losses because of the way the program is if we don't intercede now-for-are you can read that in the bill pretty clearly. we're going to and when you're

down to one out of three koundi koundies, we're hearing there hey be zee. that's the gap you're trying to -- >> candidate trump and even president trump has been come ising better kofage be. >> >> you thinking that do, the letters they've sent us, the communications they've issued. >>o could you just tell do you ha iernal cbo numbers and internal numbers of how many people may lose their health care that you all are working with and is there a reason why you won't share that with us? >> we're waiting for cbo to give us a score of the bill when it's

printed. >> when do you think you'll get that score? >> that's up to wbo. >> can you explain a little more about this insurance gaps and how that's vind ter you'll find a similar version of this to cover pro existing conditions in map care nrjs one. issues we found is that some people were guaranteeing the system with guarantee issue. it's not that they had an extreming issue, they for nine get 2012, when you have a preexisting condition, you look

it's a little bit like you don't get to buy fire insurance for your hope house when the reem owes on fair. it's a little different i realize when it cops to health care, but the concept is continuous coverage. can you have a gap of 63 days. basically that's two months. that's how it is in other areas of federal law today. our goal is to ensure if you have a preem accomplishment because ofa. >> what is. >> reporter: [ inaudible ]. >> yeah, i disagree. i look at the 20,000 jobs that have left america because of the irresponsible medical health tax and the other taxes that drove

up health care costs on americans, especially those who could least afford it. you run down tax increase after tax increase, after tax increase, they hurt the economy. they hurt health care, they achieve nothing. i don't want americans to continue to strugglend the obamacare taxes, which is why we are moving to repeel them as well as the subsidies. and at the end of the day, as you all know, for this to pass the senate, this has to balance within the budget and the window that we've been giving and we'll make sure it does. >> where are the deviations between the 2015 bill and this bill this year? >> on the side that we're focused on, very little from the stand point of repealing the taxes, the penalties on the mandates and the subsidies, as well making sure that we are defunding planned parenthood and redirecting those dollars to

community health centers so women have those services where they need them. so we used the 2015 reconciliation. but we go further, restoring the market so people can choose health care they need. >> from our stand point we have crafted the biggest entitlement reform in the last 20-plus years by goingo per capita allotment back to the united states to traditional medicaid. i think that's really important to empower states and to put medicaid on a budget. so that's probably the biggest and we have the patients stability and state stability fund in here as well because there's been all this damage. we want states to come in here,

whether it's texas or oregon. we have vastly different decision making. >> is that going to be an annual pay-in by congress or is that going to be set up as an endowment? >> i think it's a $110 billion fund over ten years. it will be about $10 billion a year out to the states that they could know that's coming to their states. >> on medicaid, have you talked to any states that didn't expand and determined whether or not they would expand if this law were to go into effect? >> we've talked to a lot of states. i've heard from a lot of governors, had some very productive discussions. i don't believe they'll be allowed to expand if they haven't expanded before, but if they have the expansion, they can add new people on until december 31st of 2019. now, why do we do that? because the states have told us and others have informed us that you've got to have a transition period here that works for the people that are on medicaid and

that works until mr. brady's tax piece is up online. and remember, when the insurance markets it takes them a year or so to come up with the new plans and policies and get them out there. what we're trying to do is what we pledged we would do, not pull the rug out from anybody, make sure there's a transition with a better y, with more policies, more opportunities and a more fair health system. >> reporter: go in on that tax policy question, your vision. you were talking about the importance of small beneficiusi. so this is going to repeal that net investment tax and sur tax at the upper end. how does that fit into your broader tax vision with the rate cuts? >> we have an economy that's struggling, we have young people who can't find good paying jobs. a lot of people have given up. so part of this is to remove the damaging, we think job-killing

taxes in the affordable care act, begin to lower the cost but also it fits into our vision of a tax reform proposal that's built for growth, built for the growth of jobs, of wages in the u.s. economy. i think a key element of the tax credit is that it is really targeted and tailored to the individual. it's a credit that's immediately available to them. it grows and increases with age because your health care costs go up as you get older. it expands with your family because you have greater needs as a family. it's a credit you can take from small business to small business, from state to state, home if you're starting a business and raising a family, even as you're approaching retirement. this is unprecedented freedom. and i would note, too, that in this legislation thanks to the work of chairman waldon that those who are on the aca today who are watching it slowly

collapse, they'll actually be able to buy products off the exchanges, including catastrophic coverage. it's very important to them as we make this transition. and so it is very carefully and deliberately thought out. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning. i'm ali velshi at msnbc headquarters in new york. you were listen ng ing to the chairman of the commercial committee and kevin brady, the representative from texas was the man who had a hair cut much like my own. the republican plan does away with the mandate, it does allow

coverage for preexisting conditions. it promotes continuous coverage by requiring a 30% premium to the insurance premium on people who let their insurance lapse. it rolls back medicaid expansion for low-income people that provided coverage for 10 million people across 31 states but provides tax credits to help people pay for insurance based on age, not income, although the wealthy would be excluded from those credits. the tax credits proposed would start at $2,000 a year for somebody under the age of 30. so if you're 20 years old and you have income against which you can claim these tax credits, you can probably buy insurance for $2,000. the credits, however, would rise to a maximum of $4,000 for a person aged 60 or older, which

is likely not to buy anything better than catastrophic insurance. we've got all this covered. we begin with chris jansing at the white house. let's start with you, chris. the president heralded this plan this morning on twitter. there are a lot of questions about the cost. you just heard kasie hunt asking whether more people will be covered or fewer. we don't really have full answers on that. >> that's really the critical question here for a lot of folks who are out there in congress because they can't go back to their districts where people have gained health coverage or are among the millions who have gotten health coverage and say it's going to go away. that's the immediate problem. when you look at the house side, we talked to jim jordan, a member of the house freedom caucus. we asked his spokesman about whether or not he would support it. the answer we got, he doesn't see that as different from the draft plan that was leaked a while back and he didn't like that plan. they're going to need every republican on the house side so

that's why they're trying to make this sell. over on the senate side, you have this letter from four different republican senators to talk about whether or not people are going to be covered, questioning whether or not they're going to be able to go back again to their districts and make the argument that their health care is okay. they wrote to mitch mcconnell, quote, the february 10th draft proposal does not meet the test of stability for individuals currently enrolled in the program. and o.m.b. director, mick mulvaney, who was sent out by the white house today was asked about coverage on the "today" show and here's what he said. >> under obamacare, we forced people to have insurance. it's easy when you put a mandate on it and they don't participate in the process. when you take government and put them between people and their care. the program we talked about today that the house rolled out last night puts people in charge of their own coverage and they

can go out and get that access through the safety nets and other things that we are providing. >> reporter: the actual answer to the question of how many people will be covered was the real answer is, mulvaney said, compared to what? and then he was also asked about the price tag and he said we will know what it costs before they vote on it. those two committees represented both are going to be looking at that tomorrow, without that number, the estimate from the congressional budget office. one more thing i would say this afternoon, some of those republicans are going to be coming over here to the white house to talk to the president. surely one of the key things is going to be strategy since they have so much pushback on both sides, the house and the senate. >> two big concerns, the cost to individuals for coverage and the cost to the government. that's the cbocore we keep talking about. the congress budget office coming out with a number to represent what this is actually going to cost. we'll be waiting on that, chris.

thanks for your great reporting on that. joining me to discuss the new republican health care plant canned the america health care act, dr. kavita cabbel and bruce bartlet, who held senior policy roles in the reagan and george h.w. bush administrations. thank you both for your patience and being here. kavi kavita, even republicans said the bill needed fixes. did they fix it? >> no. we still haven't seen details on how we're going to advance care. there are provisions in the bill

where states have flexibility to charge up to five times higher or even more for the age of a person. so insurance could be way more expensive for a 60-year-old, as you said, than $4,000 a year. >> we're going to talk a little bit more about that in detail. bruce, you tweeted and i want to put it up here, proof that republicans' health care plan stinks is that they plan to pass it without a cbo score, contrary to congressional rules. i just want to get into this for a second. a cbo score is -- everything in congress happens with a cbo score, anything that involves money, so that members of congress can vote on the basis of how mucthiss going to cost. >> well, that's right. and it's also very important to understand that a lot of the data that will come out of a cbo analysis of this legislation will include things like the number of people who will lose coverage, the number of people who will get a huge tax cut, the ultra wealthy, the number of people who will not be able to

afford the coverage that is being promised to them. so i think there's a lot of people who vote republican, voted for trump who somehow thought they were going to be better off with this republican health plan who are going to be very, very surprised to discover they are much, much worse off. >> kavita, back to you. there are concerns and i want to get into this a little more, you'll understand this better, it's hard for people who aren't involved with medicaid expansion to understand what this is all about, but there are changes to people on medicaid under this new proposal. what impact is it going to have in. >> right. so if you're in one of the 30-plus states that have expanded medicaid, they did say already, you heard the chairman say that you can keep that expansion until december 31st of 2019 when after that point, state funding for medicaid would move to what they call a per capita cap. and, ali, the simplest way to

think of this is that they will use 2016 spending dollars and the amounts that we're spending last year to determine how much they should spend on medicaid in 2020 and that will dramatically reduce the amount of money that the federal government is giving to the medicaid program. >> that wouldn't work if you' w buys buys can, which haven't gone up in many years. the problem here is those worse off are getting hit a little bit harder. >> and we know. forget obamacare. even before -- people talk about this being a repeal and replacement of obamacare. we're not going backwards. we're making things worse than they were in 2009. so take that in for a moment, ali. we're fundamentally changing a program not since obamacare but from before the affordable care act. >> bruce, let's talk about the fact that fundamentally there are philosophical differences.

a number of conservatives would have preferred what we're going back to, which is basically a market-based system. the health insurance stocks are going better today, this will mean more people in the private commercial insurance market. here's the question. obamacare had the mandates. here there is a penalty if you don't -- if you let your insurance lapse. fundamentally people didn't take insurance because it was too expensive. does this address that? >> not really. some people will undoubtedly have some benefit. the younger workers. but a lot of people are going to be worse off, and it's really important to figure out who these people are. and i think that it's important to understand they're trying to rush this legislation through. they're going to start mark up tomorrow without having any of the fundamental information that is essential for policy making or legislating and i think they're just trying to pull a

fast one by doing something in the dead of night while expecting the american people to take their lies as assertions and as facts. and they're not. they're just making things up and playing to their own base. >> bruce, i wanted to talk to you about other things that were going on but at the pace at which things get unrolled in this administration, we haven't had a chance and i hope you'll come back and we'll have the conversation about other matters we were planning to have. kavita patell. she worked on the department. back to that hearing that's under way on capitol hill, the nomination of rod rosenstein ambassador the deputy attorney general, i want to bring in nbc's capitol hill correspondent kase ooe hunt. kasie, in the mix of all of these things that you're involved in, including a

question you just asked about health care, i want to take you back to this. who is rod rosenstein? most americans wouldn't have been able to name the deputy attorney general for a long time. why is this so important? >> yes, and forgive me, we're still in the room where the press conference about health care just took place. rod rosenstein is the attorney for the eastern district of maryland, and you're right, you would not necessarily have any idea who the deputy attorney general might be, but it's become so important because of t this investigation that's going on into russian meddling into the election and tying between the trump campaign and russians during the course of the election. and democrats have been calling for a special prosecutor to look into this. and because jeff sessions has recused himself from the

process, answering that question of whether there's a special prosecutor as well as any decisions in this type of investigation will fall to the deputy attorney general. that is mr. rosenstein if in fact he is confirmed. so democrats have been pushing him on this question. take a look at how senator patrick leahy framed this. >> the question is does the president have the unilateral authority to wiretap somebody's phones? >> i don't know the details, senator, and i'm reluctant as a lawyer to comment on that. in a criminal investigation the answer would certainly be no. >> there of course he was talking about those allegations that president trump made, unfounded allegations that president obama wairetapped the phones at trump tower. he was pressed by senators leahy and finestein as well.

he says there is no decision at this point that's been made about a special prosecutor. so so far he's not given democrats the commitment they are looking for. senatorlumenthal from connecticut has threatened to hold up the nomination entirely if he doesn't commit to it. >> i suspect we'll be seeing you many more times over the course of the afternoon. >> joining me life, greg be bernste bernstein, he worked closely when he was -- with rod rosenstein. his answers seemed solid, he's coming across well but he's not making the specific commitments that some democrats are looking for. what can you tell us about this man? >> well, ali, good morning. you're right, i did work with rod when i was the state's attorney in baltimore city from 2011 to 2014. and for your viewers who were

watching his temperature, i think his answers are just class he enjoys the respect of prosecutors and defense lawyers all over the country. he's known as a man of great integrity and intellect. i think his answer to senator grassley about what he would do about appointing a prosecutor summed up his demeanor and his professionalism in that he -- in that he will -- has to view, you know, all the evidence, all the information before he can make the decision about whether to appoint the special prosecutor. and having worked whoclosely wi him the last four years, it comes as no surprise that would

be the way he would handle it. he needs to get all the information in order to make the appropriate desion. this was a man who was appointed by president george bush in 2005 and yet served under the obama administration as well. it's very rare for a u.s. attorney to serve from presidents from both the republican and democratic party. i think it speaks volumes as to how apolitical he is and more importantly what people think of him. >> thanks po s for the insight him. this hearing is getting more attention than usual because rosenstein would be in charge of any investigation into allegations of russian involvement in the election context with the trump campaign and with the trump administration, as we discussed senator richard blumenthal is vowing to block the nominee unless he commits to appointing an independent special prosecutor into that investigation. meantime, a panel on the

judiciary committee says it will investigate president trump's claim that the obama administration wiretapped trump tower before the election. some are demanding that donald trump provide evidence to back up his claims. >> the american people have a right to know on what basis the president of the united states said that his predecessor had broken the law by wiretapping trump towers. >> if the white house doesn't provide information -- >> the american people should demand it. the american people should know on what basis. they we'll see what the basis is. if there's no basis for it, then there's no reason for an investigation. >> joining me is ian bremor, a political scientist, an author. the are areas of your exrtise, particularly or backing andorthing

relationship with russia. there a lot of people who are saying this is masterful donald trump distracting from the russia investigation discussions by talking about the obama administration wiretapping trump tower. what do you make of this? >> i think we're talking much more about russia than anyone wants to be and the reason is because there are big questions about why members of the trump administration have repeatedly lied about the extent of their relationships with officials, as well as oligarchs from moscow. >> there's nothing wrong -- >> there's nothing wrong with them talking to russians. i'm not on their payroll but i certainly talk to them. but the fact that you now have the former national security out, that there have been questions specifically around misdirection from jeff sessions on this issue, there are good reasons for americans to want a better relationship with russia than we had at the end of the

obama administration. i personally believe obama mishandled the russian government on many issues, on syria, on ukraine, on calling them a marginal power in decline. but there's a big difference between saying we want to fix the relationship and saying actually, our relationship with russia should be at least as good as our relationship with germany, ainge ngela merkel. people didn't understand why the bromance of trump with russia, the very fact that the national security adviser was forced out on the basis of this which itself is unprecedented in the first 30 days of the administration brings the questions. if trump wanted to distract, much better to distract with other shiny objects that have nothing to do with russia than -- >> wiretapping that just brings us back. >> i think it's a saturday

morning, there's no oversight, he sees something, hears something, he's not spending a lot of time -- he's shooting from the hip. the fact is he can get himself in a hole. >> i know you follow what goes on in russia, too. today donald trump tweeted, i don't know if we got it but he tweeted under obama all these thing happened, russia took crimea and launched missiles and then, you know, politico reported, quote, kremlin-backed media turns on trump. news outlets funded by putin's government rooted for his election but now relish the chaotic fest weeirst weeks of h administration. >> it's an overstatement. it's clear there were a lot of people around putin that were telling him when obama put the additional sanctions on after the hacks on the alelection.

if we hold off on retaliating, then everything is going to be fine. and now we're 45-plus days in the trump administration and those people are looking at what's happening in the u.s. and saying, you know what, it's not going to be fine. and i tell you, if you were a senior or mid-level official in russia and you put your neck on the line with putin and said hold off, i'm telling you, i've been talking to these guys, i've got it in order and now you don't, you are a scared human being. and those people now are freaked out that, you know, that putin is blaming them, that you gave me intelligence and it's not rking out, your head's going to roll. in russia when your head rolls, it's not a pleasant thing. >> in all the time we talked about crimea, the discussion about either side using or talking about nuclear weapons didn't come up. now there are discussions about

nuclear a narsenals and stuff l that. there can't be discussion about russia playing with their nuclear arsenals. >> putin has talked about upgrading for a long time. largely on the back of oil prices and a bit on sanctions, too, the defense sector has always gotten the cash. trump has always said i want to modernize my military, modernize nuclear weapons. there's a lot of tough talk here. the issue is what happens if the u.s.-russia relationship doesn't just not get better but goes off the rails. but unlike u.s. china, where the chinese really want stability, putin has very few constraints on him to cause trouble, to undermine. the fact that he was willing to engage in systemic hacking to delegitimize the u.s. election is a risk and make that public, is a risk that you just don't

see the chinese taking. you can imagine if putin gets his noise out of joint and trump has a couple of incendiary tweets, we could be in trouble with the russians. i don't think we're talking about nuclear armageddon but an air clash, the kind of thing that happened with the turks where they shot down the plane. i could see that happening between trump and pun. >> ian, thanks for spending time with us. coming up next, the revised executive order on travel. what actually changed? i'm going to speak with washington state's attorney general bob ferguson, who sued the trump administration over the original version of the order and in just a few hours, attorney general jeff sessions will meet with civil rights leaders, including the national, a network founder and president reverend al sharpton. [ thomson ] imagine what you wear every day

actually making your body feel better. i'm heather thomson, and that's exactly what tommie copper does for me and my whole family. they call it "wearable wellness." and tommie copper has infused it into everything they do. [ male announcer ] experience the difference wearable wellness can make in your life. go to tommiecopper.com, enter your e-mail to become part of the tommie copper community, and get 15% off your entire order, plus free shipping. life hurts. feel better. 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, t plans let you choose any doctor orpitathat 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. the search for relief often leads... here...

here... or here. today, there's another option. drug-free aleve direct therapy. a tens device with high intensity power that uses technology once only available in doctors' offices. its wireless remote lets you control the intensity, and helps you get back to things like this... this... or this. and back to being yourself. aleve direct therapy. find yours in the pain relief sle. let's pop in on the senate judiciary committee holding hearings on the nominationsrose to be deputy attorney general.

right now senator graham. >> without some court approval. >> my answer to that, senator, is i would hope and i would agree with you that that would not happen. >> yup. okay. do you -- are you familiar with the executive order regarding the daca kids that president obama issued? >> only by virtue of having read about it in the newspaper. >> okay. do you know if it's constitutional or not? >> i do not. >> the executive order was to give legal status to i think 800,000 kids who were called daca kids that came here as small children and president obama gave them through an executive action legal status. can you get back to me as to whether or not you think that falls within the president's prosecutorial discretion? >> i don't believe it would be appropriate for me to comment on an issue like that. it might well be lit gigated ani would have to associate with the

appropriate officials in the department and i would not prejudge and apart from the context of having to litigate i in my capacity oeputy attorney general. >> listening in to this, we'll listen to it on the side, that is lindsey graham, talking to rod rosenstein at pointee for the deputy attorney general position who would lead an investigation into the russia relations with the trump campaign if he is nominated f he's appointed. joining me is bob ferguson, attorney general for washington state. it was his state that filed the first lawsuit challenging president trump's original travel ban order ultimately bringing it to a halt. thank you for being back with us on msnbc. you've had a chance to look at the new immigration order. some described it as a cleaned up version, might withstand the scrutiny of the courts.

what is your reaction? >> thanks for having me on. the new order reveals what we saw in court for the past month. the original executive order was unconstitutional and illegal and numerous federal judges agree with our assessment. the new revised order makes schingz we view it as capitulation by the president on numerous key aspects of the legislation. >> except in cleaning up the order he gets a lot of what he was aiming to do and you get less of an opportunity to push back on it. >> he narrowed. it no longer applies to green cardholders that's 500,000 people in our country, visas, many tens of thousand, does not apply to syria on a personal inept basis, drops iraq. those are significant changes that have profound impacts on people in our country. >> john kelly said the

administration is weighing a plan separating women and children crossing the border illegally. >> i would do almost anything to deter people from central america getting on this dangerous network that brings them up through mexico to the united states. >> be precise. young kids manage to sneak into the united states with their parents our department of homeland security personnel going to separate the children from their moms and dads. >> i am considering it in order to deter movement along this network. i am considering exactly that. they will be well cared for as we deal with their parents. >> what are your thoughts on that? >> look, an hour ago i kissed my 9-year-old twins good-bye as they set off for school this morning.

i can't imagine a more heartless approach to an important public policy issue than that and just when you think there's nothing that key administration officials are going to say that are going to surprise you, something like this comes along. so i guess i'm not quite sure where to start responding to that. >> the new immigration order drops language offering preferential stat to us persecuted religious minorities, a provision widely interpreted as favoring one religious group or favoring christians over muslims in particular. are you looking at these changes that have been made and saying that there's another court challenge in here in the future or is the battle somewhere else now? >> well we're certainly doing our analysis. we're looking at the executive order and what we're doing for the next 24 to 48 hours is going back and talking to washington state colleges and universities to see for example what impact there might be on students. we're going to be looking and talking to businesses that were key supporters of our original litigation. we need to determine the harm to

washingtonones in light of the new executive order. we need to reevaluate if not. i don't want to prejudge that decision. one we'll take our time on. >> thanks for being with us. >> thank you so much, appreciate it. just a few hours from now attorney general jeff session also sit down with leaders from some of the nation's most distinguished civil rights organizations in a press release civil rights leaders plan to express grave concern for several troubling actions by the department of justice and the trump administration. one of the leaders set to meet with the attorney general is reverend al sharpton. of the national action network and host of msnbc's "politics nation." just touched down in d.c., got in front of a camera and joins me. good to see but >> good to see you aly. >> there are a number of issues you're concerned about. what are you planning in on

honing in with him? >> we want to hone in clearly on the aspects of this travel ban in terms of how it can be used to roh file people. there are six of us meeting. our organizations have been on record dealing with racial profiling. this is profiling an area of real concern. we want it deal with the voting rights act. we had the celebration of the 52nd anniversary of going across the edmund pettes bridge that led to the voting rights act in 1956 with the support of the new attorney general when he was in the senate and now said that he will not continue as the department of justice has been doing to support our fight in the texas voter i.d. law case. naacp legal dchbs fund is directly involved in that.

police reform he's against consent decrees. that's down the area many of us have been involved with and the case of walter scott, the man shot in the back in north charleston, south carolina, by police officer that was indicted, the trial waiting. we want to know is he moving forward on that trial and where are they on the department of justice investigation on the chokehold murder of eric garner in new york. so there's a lot of things that we are directly involved in that we want to address him on. >> going to be a busy meeting. i want to switch for a moment to talk about the comments made by hud secretary ben carson. he likened slaves to imgrants during a speech to employees. listen to this. >> that's what america is about, a land of dreams and opportunity. there were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of of

slave ships worked longer and harder for less, but they, too, had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandson, granddaughters, great grandsons, great granddaughters, might pursue prosperity. and happiness in this land. >> took to facebook and made this statement the slave narrative and immigrant narrative are two entirely different experiences. slaves were ripped from their families and homes and forced against their will after being sold into slavery by slave traders. the immigrants made the choice to come to america. the two sheernss should never be intertwined nor forgotten. reverend al, i hand it over to you for your thoughts. >> i'm glad he released a statement last night because i was beginning to wonder if the doctor needed a doctor. to act as those who came in the

bottom of slave ships dreamed of their grandchildren and great grandchildren having a better life, they dreamed of going back to their homeland. >> right. not being in chains. >> eventual ly those that were the grandchildren dreamed of a better life but those dreaming they would not be kidnapped or returned home. we see a pattern. edation secretary devos black colleges were the pioneers of -- >> school choice. >> of pro choice, of school choice rather. they were reacting to no choice. now we have this. we need to give a crash course to the trump administration on american history and particularly african-american history, because you already have two cabinet members that

got it embarrassingly wrong. >> we will leave it there. good point to consider and close on. reverend al, good luck in your deliberation this is afternoon. thank you for joining me. >> thank you, ali. >> thank you for watching this hour of msnbc. find me on twitter, facebook, instagram and snapchat. right now on msnbc, "andrea mitchell reports" is live from the state department. andrea? >> thank you ali. right now on a special edition of "andrea mitchell reports" live from the state department. obamacare light, republicans laying out their plan to replace obamacare. still the question of how to pay for it and not all republicans are on board. >> we can act now or question keep fiddling around and squander this opportunity to repeal obamacare and begin a new chapter of freedom for the american people. >> reporter: will this bill cover more americans than less americans right now? >> el we'll cover more americans with affordable health care than

today is probably the key question. >> what we're trying to do is what we pledged we'd do, not pull the rug out from anybody. four days and counting, still no evidence of president trump's startling claim that president obama tapped his phones, fueling democratic demands to hand the russia investigation over to a special prosecutor. the man taking over that investigation and who would appoint that special prosecuteor was aske aut that at his confirmation hearing today. >> i'm trying to figure out what your bottom line is. i interpret that as a no. is that fair? >> i don't know, senator. i think the answer is i'm simply not in position to answer the question because i don't know the information that they know, the folks who are in the position to make that decision. >> i think that the president of the united states, who has stated categorically that trump tower was wiretapped, that he should come forward with the information ta led him