reinsurance mechanisms. so, for example, in wisconsin we had a great risk pool that actually worked so people with real high health care costs and diseases and pre-existing conditions could still get affordable health care. well, obamacare repealed that. they had a great risk pool reinsurance system in utah, a good one in washington state. all those are gone under obamacare. here's how they work and here's how our system would work. we would directly support the people with pre-existing conditions. let me give you a sense of this. 1%f the people in these markets drive 23% of the costs. 1% of the people in the individual health insurance market drive 23% of the costs. so reassurance program is to cover more than just the 1%, to cover the people with high health care costs. so by having state innovation funds to go to the states to set up these reinsurance program, we would directly subsidize the people with pre-existing conditions. direct support for people with

pre-existing conditions so that everybody else has cheaper health insurance. what you do when you do this is, the individual market, the people who don't have pre-existing conditions, they have much more stable prices. let me give you an example. take a small business with 40 employees. let's say that four people in that business get cancer. well, under that business, that business has to pay for all those cancer patients, all those cancer treatments, so the other 36 people in that 40-person pool get hit with much, much higher premiums to pay for the four that got cancer. that's how insurance works today. and that is one of the reasons why this thing is going bankrupt. here's our solution. let's make sure we just cover the people who have pre-existing conditions. make sure that reinsurance risk pools kick in for those four people in that small business that get cancer, subsidize that coverage, and what you do by doing that is dramatically lower and stabilize the price of insurance for everybody else.

so those other 36 people in that small business have predictable prices, lower prices. that brings you more choice, more competition, and lower prices for the vast, vast majority of americans who are not in existing condition category. so directly subsidize them through state-based risk and reinsurance pool programs that we would finance with support from the federal government to attack this problem and let insurance stabilize. go down in price. here's another thing that we think is extremely important. one of the problems we have is we don't really have a consumer dynamic in health care. people don't always care what things cost or how good care is going to be, because they don't get that information. we actually immunize or block the ability for people to actually see what things cost in health care or act like a consumer. let me give you an example. jana and i have three kids. they are 33 months apart.

we call them irish triplets. our three kids had three ton sellectomies from the same ent at the same hospital. each one of these times i tried to find out what's this going to cost. never could i get that answer to that question. i only found out what it cost months after those procedures when i got various bills from the ent, the ear, nose, and throat doctor, anesthesiologist, from the hospital, and the variation of price between those three procedures from the same doctor in the same hospital was huge. one of them, the recovery bill, the recovery for my son, he sat in a la-z-boy, $1400. this is crazy. why should we shop like this for health care? so what health savings accounts achieve, this is a law i helped write in 2003, something we as

conservatives have been fighting for the whole time, is we want to increase health savings accounts, so we have more competition and lower costs. here's the point i'm trying to make. in 2000 i got lasik surgery, which was elective. insurance didn't cover it, so i knew exactly what the procedure was going cost up front and since then this laser that does this procedure has been revolutionized and the price is lower. in this area of health care quality went up and costs went down because i cared as a consumer what it was. so it's not that that dynamic can't happen in health care, it's just it isn't happening through most of health care and what health savings accounts does is it helps hard working taxpayers get access to affordable solutions to help them pay for their out of pocket costs, but it's also their skin in the game, their money. if they save money by saying to a hospital or a doctor what is

this going to cost me, where's the best value for my money, if we can bring that pressure to bear in health care, we can enlist the support of millions of americans to help us fix this health care problem. and that's one of the critical things we're trying to achieve here. instead of using opm, other people's money, to pay for health care you don't care what things cost, we want to harness the power of the marketplace, the power of the consumer, of the patient and the doctor, to demand better services, to demand better quality. we want transparency on price, on quality, and economic sense to act on that so we can bring consumers to the bear. this is what we mean when we say we want a patient health care system. okay, here's a really important part of our american health care act, refundable tax credits. i want to explain exactly what we mean when we say this. under the current obamacare system, we have a washington-controlled system with skyrocketing premiums and

dwindling choices. it's a death spiral, it's collapsing, government makes you buy what you want to buy and it's an open ended subsidy for americans. our solution is a port kl monthly tax credit. this is why we believe this is the right way to go. we want a market-based system which will give us lower costs, more competition, and more choices. there's a real problem in the tax code today in that the tax code discriminates against people that don't get health care from their job. if you're working and not on medicaid and you have a job that's paying you $10, $12, $15 an hour and does not give you health insurance, nothing the tax code does to help you buy health insurance. if you do have health care from your job, you have an open-ended tax benefit. what we're saying is, that's really kind of not fair to the man or woman who's working at a job that doesn't get health insurance offered to them. let's equalize the tax treatment to health care and give people the same kind of tax benefit to go buy health insurance if they don't get it from their job.

and giving a person a monthly portable tax credit gives them the ability up front to go buy health insurance of their choosing. and here's the key, you buy what you want to buy. if you don't want to use your tax credit to buy health insurance, you don't have to. if you don't want to buy this plan, you want to buy that plan, go for it. it's your choice. it's called free market health care. the states get to set up their own health insurance systems, states get to set up their own regulations, so you can buy whatever you want to buy where you live. that is called patients choice, that's called a patient-centered system, and that is one of the biggest tools we believe can be used to replace obamacare. this is part of replacing obamacare with a system that works to give everybody universal access to affordable coverage. here's where we stand. the current system is riddled with endless regulations driving

up costs and limiting choices and you see how the collapse is occurring. our solution, greater consumer options. the patient is a nucleus of the health care system. we don't want insurance companies becoming monopolies looking at washington. we want health insurers, hospitals, doctors, all providers of health care benefits competing against each other for our business as consumers. that is how the great american free enterprise system works in all other aspects of our lives and economy. that's what should work in this system, as well. so the result, you choose the plan that meets your needs. you buy what you want to buy, not what the government tells you to buy. so our goal here is this, lower costs, more choices, patients in control, universal access to care. there are two points i would make in conclusion. we as republicans have been waiting seven years to do this.

we, as republicans, who fought the creation of this law and accurately predicted that it would not work, ran for office in 2010, in 2012, in 2014, and in 2016 on a promise, that we would, if given the ability, we would repeal and replace this law. how many people running for congress and the senate did you hearsay that? how many times did you hear president donald trump when he was candidate donald trump say that? this is the closest we will ever get to repealing and replacing obamacare. the time is here, the time is now. this is the moment, and this is the closest this will ever happen. it really comes down to a binary choice. we now have the ability, through the budget rules that we have in the senate, with our three-pronged approach, to actually make good on our word.

we told people in 2016 what it would look like when we had the chance to replace obamacare. that's what this is. so we said in 2016 to our citizens, to the american people, to our constituents, if you give us this chance, this opportunity, this is what we'll do. now is our chance and our opportunity to do it. questions? >> you say this is a binary choice. why would somebody not take it or leave it when you hear from conservatives say take your bill or change it. and number two, when the democrats approve cap and trade in the summer of 2009 there was much criticism of a manager's amount which was put in at the end to make that bill right for passage on the floor. when we hear these criticisms from republicans, why would we expect something like that not occur in this case? >> i would answer in this way,

what people are talking about, and there's a lot of frustration and confusion out there among conservative groups and members is reconciliation has certain limits, so there are folks who would love to see us put in this reconciliation bill all these other ideas. one group is saying you better put shopping across state lines in this bill or we're not going to support it. guess what, chad, if we did that, it would be filibustered in the senate, wouldn't even come up for a vote. last thing we want to do is prevent our ability to actually get law made. so it really is a conversation about the third prong approach. the other bills we're going to pass outside of reconciliation, which in the house we can pass, that go to the senate. so much of the conversations are about moving this other agenda on the same track, around the same time, to get these things done. the last point is, as you know the process, but a lot of people don't, we're going through four different committees.

that's how legislation works through regular order. we just did the ways and means committee last night. we're in the middle of the commerce committee. next week itgoes to the budget committee, then the rules committee before it goes to the house floor. the bill will be out there for three weeks to be looked at, go to readthebill.gop. it's a 122-page bill, not 2,000 pages of something they whipped together and flipped to the floor like they did. we didn't write it in harry reid's office on christmas eve. this was written by our committees. and let's back up even further, this bill has been worked on for a year, from january to june last year, so that we could offer our constituents and the american people in our better way agenda what we'd replace obamacare with. we offered it up in june, ran on it all through the election, and now translated it into legislation. even backing up further, these two key components, block granting medicaid back to the states, defederalizing

entitlements, putting a cap on it, that is something that conservatives have been talking about and dreaming about for decades. and repealing another entitlement obamacare, its mandates, its subsidies, its taxes, and replacing it with republican free market health care tax policy, if you told me two, ten years ago, this is where we'd be, i'd be in a dream, i'd be doing back flips. to conservatives fighting for health care reform, this is so exciting. what's happening now, members realize this is the chance, this is the once in a lifetime opportunity, so naturally in the legislative process, people are saying i'd love to have this and that in there. that's the legislative process, that's what we're going through, and what people are sort of learning is this reconciliation tool is pretty tight. there's a lot of stuff. we would love to put in the bill, but unfortunately the senate rules don't allow us to do that. that's where you see a lot of confusion and frustration. understandably so, but that's

also why we have a three-pronged approach. administrative actions by tom price at hhs and the additional legislation we're going to move, as well. >> just to clarify, you're saying this bill was crafted in a way to meet the reconciliation vote test in the senate. >> correct. >> couldn't be much change. >> correct. when you go to authorizing committees, you typically don't go with your score ready. when we get our score we'll make tweets and adjustments. that happens every time we do reconciliation. this is written so it can't be filibustered, so they have to vote on it in the senate. if we put things in this bill to take that privilege off it, they won't even vote on it. they will filibuster and won't even vote on it. that's what i mean when i say this is the closest we've been

to repealing and replacing obamacare. let me say that again, this is the closest we'll ever get to repealing and replacing obamacare. >> how did you come up with the amount you'd give in tax credits and why should a family that makes $140,000 a year get the same amount of a family that makes $40,000? >> that's a good question. the amount of the tax credits is based upon the way insurance works and is modelled after the tom price legislation, which he had last year, which is adjust for age and family size, because the older a person gets, the more costly their health care is. that's how insurance is written. so the tax credit adjusts more tax credit for the person's age. obviously, if you have a bigger family, more health care costs, so a bigger health care credit. why is the cap where it is? by the way, 12 members were co-sponsors of the price administration last december, which is this kind of a tax

credit situation. a lot of our members through our feedback, we had seven member listin sessions in february, four conferences, getting feedback from our members on this draft of this legislation, getting their ideas, and one of the concerns was we should cap this credit. like a millionaire that doesn't get health care from their work but is a millionaire doesn't get a tax credit, so that was something everybody agreed with and the ways and means committee made that adjustment, but the reason it is set where it is, is we don't want to have a job penalty. go back a few years ago and when cbos said obamacare produces job lock, obamacare says that the equivalent of 2 to 3 million people will not go into the workforce and take jobs because of the way the obamacare subsidies work. what i mean is, if you set that credit limit too low and a person loses their credit by getting a raise or advancing in life, you don't want to disincentivize that. so they are set at such a level

so where it is for a middle income family or upper middle income family so we never tell a person don't take that raise, don't take that job, don't take that promotion. we don't want federal tax credits to ever encourage a person not to advance, not to take a job, not to get a raise. that's why. >> let me go in the back. [ inaudible question ] >> yeah. it's a great example. here's what people are not seeing, which is number two. tom price for legal reasons can't tell you what he's thinking about doing. there's laws that prevent that. we can do so much deregulation through the executive branch by the secretary of health and human services.

he actually put one regulation out other day which will go a long way towards lowering the cost of health insurance, so they haven't seen yet what our secretary at hhs can do in number two, in phase two here, where they actually can dramatically lower the price of health insurance, so those companies haven't seen that yet. let me just finish -- don't interrupt, if you don't mind. here's the other point. we have basically a few options in front of us. number one, do nothing, let the system collapse. what the insurers are telling us is, in you thought a 25% average increase was rough in 2017, it's going to be a whole lot more than that in 2018 and more and more insurers are going to pull out. so the insurers are telling us, if we don't know what's going on come late spring, we're going to have massive premium increases and pullouts and you'll collapse the individual market. what they also tell us, though, if you only repeal the law, just gut and repeal the law, as some

folks are suggesting, you'd have triple digit premium increases. if we repeal obamacare, not like life and the world goes back to before obamacare. obamacare did so much damage to the u.s. health insurance system that it's not as if you can go back to the day before. so that's why we are offering a better way. that's why we're offering the american health care act, that's why we're offering a system that brings choice and competition back into the marketplace, gives people the use of risk pools, health savings accounts and tax credits, the ability to find affordable coverage, and that brings insurers back into the marketplace. the insurers are telling us. if they can actually offer the plans that people want to buy, not the plans that people are making them buy, they'll have more plans being offered. more choice and more competition. that is what brings down costs. and in conjunction with all the administrative things that tom price can do, those efforts together can help dramatically

save our system and give us low cost health insurance, better quality health insurance, and access to affordable health insurance. don't forget how this works together. subsidize the sick and pre-existing conditions through risk pools and reinsurance. give families who have jobs but not the jobs that give them health insurance benefits the same kind of tax benefit everybody else gets, so they, too, can buy a plan that best meets their needs. that's how you fix and save the system from the crash that's occurring and we're very, very confident that will work that way. thank you for indulging me. thank you for putting up with my town hall presentation. i just think it's really important to try and iron out all the differences, to show that there's folks who say, gosh, you should have this and that in this bill. reconciliation doesn't let you do it. we're doing it here. people say the regulations are

so expensive and costly. tom price at hhs can fix those things. >> good day, i'm andrea mitchell. house speaker paul ryan in a 45-minute effort to try to save his health care bill moving through house committee swiftly overnight but facing uncertain future still on the house floor. joining me now, peter alexander at the white house. we know very briefly, peter, the president is going to make his own pitch to lawmakers later today. their plan is caught between more conservative republican house members and some moderate republican senators who think that the plan is not generous enough on medicaid expansion. >> yeah, that's exactly right. we heard a few minutes ago from president trump himself who's pushing back on the sense this health care plan isn't being well received right now. he just tweeted the following, "despite what you hear in the press, health care is comi along great. we're talking with many groups and it will end in a beautiful picture." to be clear, it's not what you're hearing in the press, but many individual groups.

among them, aarp, american medical association, american nurses association, american hospital association, among others who said they oppose this plan. some of the other critics, lawmakers, many members of the freedom caucus will be meeting here at 12:30 today to have lunch with president trump, individuals that expressed criticisms and concerns publicly, indicating they are questioning whether or not they believe this act will lower costs and premiums. andrea? >> peter alexander, thank you so much. now the other major story today, stunning claims this morning from wikileaks founder julian assange in london accusing the cia of devastating incompetence, saying the agency lost control of its cyberweapons. it would be, if true, a devastating blow to the cia. >> the cia developed a giant arsenal, what appears to be the largest arsenal of trojans and viruses in the world, didn't secure it, lost control of it,

and then appears to have covered up that fact. >> the cia telling nbc news today, julian assange is not exactly a bastian of truth and integrity. despite the efforts of assange, the cia continues to aggressively collect foreign intelligence overseas to protect america. dianne feinstein was a long-time member of the intelligence committee, now the top democrat on the judiciary committee and joins me now. thank you very much for being with us. first of all, your response to julian assange and the claims he made about this alleged loss to the cia. >> well, mr. assange is one of my most unfavorite people in the world. i believe he's done great discredit to this nation and committed acts which are -- which are quite das dardly. if this is true, this is a major

release, it is a substantiative release, and it is going to cause problems. we don't know the degree to which it's true yet. his allegation that the cia was lax and didn't protect this material is something we'll need to look inside and we'll take steps to do just that. the point i've been trying to make is, we have a lot of contractors working in these agencies, and beginning with snowden and then going to a contractor at the nsa who walked out with a huge amount of hous all of which was t in his classified and now this being dumped by a contractor really should cause us concern and the need to look at what we're doing. i'm one that believes that government employees should be doing this and not contractors. contractors are generally much more costly than a government employee, and they certainly don't have the level of loyalty

to our government that someone that is sworn in to carry out the law and works for the cia does. >> senator, i want to drill down on that, but let me just ask you, are you sure this is not russia, which has a relationship we know with wikileaks, certainly during the campaign and the hacking of the democrats in the campaign and how it was turned over, the information to wikileaks. are we sure that the contractor or sub contractor allegations from wikileaks and from a lot of others is not a subterfuge to cover up for a foreign adversary? >> well, right now i only know what's public. i don't know what the cia response to this is. and we will be finding out what the cia response is, so this is a hard question for me to answer. >> let's talk about the sub contractors and the contractors. we know that edward snowden worked for booze allen, other contractors, maybe a dozen, we

don't know, probably a classified number of contractors involved. why does the cia and nsa use contractors to develop these codes and this whole system? why can't they be employees of the cia? >> well, that's a good question, and beginning with leon panetta, when he was director of the cia, we begin to cut back on contract employees. at least 5% a year, and that had continued on, and it is still continuing on, but the fact of the matter is, there are so many that i think thisis highly problemati there are literally thousands. and we have to pay more attention to this and i think through budgetary means and other means also discuss this with the new director, which we have not had a chance to do, and see if we can't get a more reasonable policy with respect to contract employees. >> do you think at this stage

congress needs to hold an investigation, hold hearings, opened or closed hearings, to look into the whole employment practice of the cia? >> well, i think we do, candidly. i mean, we've now had three major instances, and this latest dump of anywhere between 7,000 and 9,000 files, as i understand it from the press, some people say, well, maybe it isn't true, and i don't know whether it is or not, but i've also just been reading that the cia does not well secure this material. now, that's something definitive that we ought to take a very close look at. >> are you persuaded that the cia does follow the law and does not use the cyberweapons against people in the u.s.? >> i believe that with the proper supervision of government employees, that we can assure that these weapons are properly -- that these products

are properly used. it's very hard to make that assurance when we don't know exactly what it is that has been released, how much of it, and, you know, somebody casually says, well, everything. well, i don't know what everything is. so we have to be very specific. we have to take a good look, and, yes, i do think an investigation is due. >> take us behind the scenes, just hypothetically, what kind of investigation? how would the cia be able to track who was the leak or how this got out? what would they be doing? >> well, i guess the same way they found snowden. and made the arrests. so -- or the gentleman from the nsa that walks out every night with things he shouldn't be taking home. there are other examples, as well. this now has to be looked into very seriously. three big events in a row are

three too many. >> there was a mention of you by julian assange today. i want to play part of that and get your response going back to when you were investigating the allegations of torture and came up against the cia management at the time. >> a lot of the operations of the cia conducts would be questionable. for example, the operation conducted against the senate intelligence committee. now, if the cia had no capacity of its own, it would have had to ask a security agency to provide hackers to help it attack and try and take those cia documents off dianne feinstein and her staff. now, it wasn't able to. it didn't need to disclose that to the security agency, because it had the capacities to do it itself. >> a lot of questions raised there, but also the suggestion

today that it was the nsa, as well as the cia, that there were other cyber bases, the one in frankfurt, one at the cia, one at dni, perhaps, it's the whole intelligence community, is it not? >> well, i don't know that it is. that's the problem with speculation at this point, and i'm not in a position where i can speculate. i have to have the known fact. and i don't. all i know is what's written up in the newspapers. and i really choose not to respond to mr. assange. he makes his statements and so be it, but we have a different responsibility. >> fair enough, and as a member of the judiciary committee, i have to ask you if you have a view now about president trump's tweet on saturday morning at 6:30 accusing president obama of a felony, of ordering wiretaps of him at trump tower. i know you've had a chance at least to do the confirmation

hearing of mr. rosenstein, who's going to be, if confirmed, the deputy attorney general and be in charge of the overall investigation. does this need to be investigated, or is that sort of a red herring and is it pretty much concluded that the president was not basing that on fact? >> at this stage i would say it is a red herring. there's no evidence presented by the president. and president obama's people have said very clearly that he would never do this, that he did not do this, and there is no evidence that he did do it. what surprises me is that a sitting president would make this kind of an allegation about his predecessor and not present a single real fact. and that causes great concern, because what the president of the united states says has to have weight. i mean, i see enough disturbing information about what's happening in the world to understand that how important

intelligence is and how important a president is, and if this nation has to take some action, we have to believe the president, and it's important. and so to put thing out there that are simply unsustainab, unbelievable, or not with any evidence, to me is a huge mistake. >> senator dianne feinstein, as always, thank you so much. really appreciate your patience with us today. >> thank you. joining me now from nbc capitol hill is kasie hunt. speaker ryan, of course, just wrapped up his seminar on the republican health care plan. kasie, trying to answer the questions raised from both wings of the republican party most primarily. >> seminar is right, and yachlt this is the powerpoint presentation that senator ryan just walked through that seemed to be aimed at his own membership and maybe even the president of the united states as much as it was aimed at people watching, those of us

reporters here in the room. he essentially is trying to say, look, this is complicated by the process that the senate has, we have to work within that process, and he said over and over again, this is our best shot, and essentially potentially the only shot that they will have basically suggesting that, look, if this fails, then republican efforts to repeal obamacare will fail. so he's trying to set the stakes extraordinarily high around this bill. and i have to tell you, andrea, talking to both conservative house members here and some who are, you know, worried about the medicaid expansion on the left, more moderate wings in the republican party, plus republicans in the senate are starting to say privately they don't see any way this bill as written at the house could get 50 votes in the senate. it's becoming less and less clear to me how this package as it's written in the house has a path forward. andrea? >> kasie hunt, to rather test

that point, joining me now mark walker, chairman of the republican study committee of the largest bloc of conservatives in congress. congressman, thanks for your patience. we were waiting for the speaker's presentation, so your reaction to it, and whether or not he's answered your questions, because you were advocating, in fact, less medicaid expansion to move up the date to actually the end of 2017, beginning of 2018. >> yes, we've met with the leadership, chairman committees and a lot of this is headed the right direction. even though we still have concerns. specifically to your question, the medicaid expansion, we want to cut that timeline back a good bit because of the 70 million people on medicaid, 15%, close to 10 million of those are capable bodied adults with no children. if we truly believe in upward

mobility, we want to continue to provide in areas that are suffering. >> you sound as though you're coming closer to the speaker's position. do you think you'll end up providing him with the votes he needs as this moves through committees? >> well, we have always worked very hard to get to a yes. historically someone who offers the most conservative aspect or form of the legislation being submitted. with that we have concerns. with that two are being addressed, medicaid freeze and the other is work requirements

for those who are capable, particularly tho without children, to be able to continue to work. we've seen this work in kansas, maine, now florida. if the ultimate goal is to downsize those on the federal government's responsibility, that should be the goal for all of these programs. we need to measure not how many people we're putting on the program, but how many people we're successfully transitioning off. >> but you've got republican senators, a number of them now, who are calling for more benefits, more medicaid expansion benefits, so how do you navigate that? you're going to hit a wall when you get to the senate if this becomes the bill that you want to see get through the house. >> sure. well, it's hard to anticipate or speak for the senate. we have seen a few of the comments there, but we would engage them to give it a thorough look-see once all the amendments are put and attached to the bill, but i'd also say this, not trying to shoot too much dust towards that direction, the house in 300 to

400 pieces of legislation last congress that the senate has still not done nothing yet. we're trying to do our job to offer specifically in this case a bill that was promised $2,500 less in premiums, average across the country is $3,700. that's a $6,000 swing for most american families. we're trying to offer more choices, more option, and find a way through the house. is the process tough, is it a little grinding sometimes? it is. but that's one of the positions to make sure we're not adding a long-term to what could be characterized as an entitlement to the columns we're already trying to save and rescue in the meantime. >> congressman walker, the head of the republican study group, thank you very much. coming up here, senator kristen gillibrand has been calling for an investigation into the marine photo scandal. former republican and air force colonel martha mcsally joining me next here on "andrea mitchell reports".

i thought i married an italian. did the ancestrydna to find out i'm only 16% italian. so i went onto ancestry, soon learned that one of our ancestors was eastern european. this is my ancestor who i didn't know about.

there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so don't wait.

ca now to request your free decision guide and find the aarmedicare 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. everything your family touches sticks with them. make sure the germs they bring home don't stick around. use clorox disinfecting products. because no one kills germs better than clorox. welcome back. armed services committee member senator kirsten gillibrand is demanding an investigation into the scandal rocking the marine corps. nude photos of more than a dozen female service members on a private facebook page. twoomen are stepping forward. erica butner served in the marines for four years until june, saying her photo was posted to marines united without her consent. >> victim blaming and the excuse that some are giving that boys

will be boys needs to stop. it is an excuse to justify the perpetrators' behavior and normalizes aggression towards women. as a marine corps veteran, i'm disheartened and disgusted with this scandal. >> joining me now is republican congresswoman martha mcsally, who served 26 years in the u.s. air force, retiring as a colonel, she was a fighter pilot. congresswoman, your reaction to this? >> andrea, when i first heard about this, i was deeply disturbed, disgusted, and infuriated. the honor code of the marines includes honor and courage and commitment, and it's this kind of behavior going after your teammates, that trust is so important when we're a fighting force together. this needs to be investigated, people need to be held accountable for their behavior and crimes that were committed. there also needs to be support to the victims, and there needs to be really addressing the culture that brought about this

behavior in the first place. i met with the common dant yesterday to convey my concerns and outrage and to address these issues that all need to happen. we need to look at the culture that brought about this behavior, as well. >> did you get a response from him? he expressed concern publicly, but do they get how this really does get to the heart and soul, the dna of the marine corps? >> well, i appreciated his response. if you've seen it on video, which was pretty strong. keep in mind that in his role he cannot sh undue command influence that could impact any future instigationsr court marshals or those types of things, so he's a bit restricted on what he can say. i do believe in the conversation i had, which was very candid yesterday, i was, you know, very forthright and strong in my response to this, and what i'm expecting in my role as one of only two female veterans in the house and armed was as committee

and they've got a problem. and they've got to address it swiftly in those three tiers that i just talked about, and we'll be holding them accountable moving forward. >> very briefly, congresswoman, do you think that perhaps senator gillibrand was right in her arguments that these cases should be taken out of the chain of command and bring in civilian prosecutors to move that -- >> when looking at this case, again, potentially some veterans that only civilian courts would apply, but for those currently in the service; we have what's called article 134, articles unbecoming an officer, we can take people up on charges because of their behavior eroding what we call good order and discipline and trust and teamwork and everything that we need in order to go into combat together. so we actually have some ability to hold people accountable where civilian court doesn't have those types of, you know, crimes listed under the ucmj. so again, the investigation

needs to be swift to hold those accountable, working with civilians is appropriate, because there may be some civilian veterans there. they are already moving on to other places and websites, so this is deeply zurk, but ultimately we have to get to the behavior and culture, also the response of some people to the person who brought this to light, who's a marine himself, thomas brennan, is disgusting. the fact they are making threats against his wife and his family, that is even showing more how deeply disturbing and disgusting this all is. >> well, you're one of the best arguments for why we need more women, more veterans as meers of congress. >> we do. >> thank you for your passion and commitment. thank you so much. >> absolutely. thank you for talking about it. as we wait for the white house briefing, with sean spicer, i want to talk about the republican health care plan and how it is targeting planned parenthood funding by cutting funds for any organization that provides abortions, except in the case of rape, incest, and if a mother's life is in danger.

cecil richards is here with me now. >> this is aimed at women, one in five women in this country go to planned parenthood for health care. i think what's important, we're not in the federal budget. what paul ryan is saying is that the two and a half million patients that come to planned parenthood each year can no longer come to us for preventive care, cancer screenings, birth control, and for many women we're their only health care provider. >> to be clear, for decades now federal money has not gone -- i don't think since the hyde amendment, federal money has not gone for abortions. you raise money privately. >> that's right. federal money doesn't go to abortion services at planned parenthood or anywhere else. we operate like any hospital in america, we simply get reimbursed for these services. i was in speaker ryan's own district where we see thousands of patients every year, his own hometown newspaper has come out

against this bill, as has apparently every organization in america. these women are desperately concerned they are going to lose access to the services we provide. i think one of the most important things, we were making such progress. we're proud we were at a historic all-time low for teenaged pregnancy in the country, finally women are getting better access to family planning services. the last thing we should do is end the ability to go to t health care provider that helps them. >> what do you say to those critics who say money is fungible and if you get this federal money for women's preventive care and health care, you can also use it to support your abortion services? >> it's simply not true, and he knows this as well as anyone. again, hospitals that provide abortion services, community health centers that provide abortions, they are also reimbursed by the federal government for preventive care, just like planned parenthood. this is a bill that's targeting planned parenthood, so when i

see that speaker ryan is saying now we should have choice, everyone should be able to go to the health care provider of their choice, seems that's true except women in america and the 2.5 million patients who every year choose planned parenthood. >> thank you very much for being with us today. and we want to take note, today marks ten years since american contractor bob levinson went missing in iran. he was not one of the americans released during the prisoner swap more than a year ago. in a statement today, the white house said it will spare no effort in trying to bring bob levinson home. and this just in, very sharp statement from the levinson family which reads in part, "ten years is beyond enough. how much more agony must he withstand? it is time to get bob levinson home to his family." in just a few moments, sean spicer will be holding that daily white house press briefing, but joining us now, chris cillizza and new york times political reporter and

msnbc contributor. chris, first to you, we've seen a lot of action today on the health care proposal, as well as reaction from dianne feinstein earlier this this program, strong reaction against what president trump tweeted. i don't think any one of the critics, democrats o republicans for that matter, lindsey graham and others are going to drop the accusations of his against president obama until they get answers or some address from the white house. >> yeah, and this just goes to show, andrea, we've known this, his actions have unintended consequences. the wiretapping allegations, the theory would be to take some heat off the stuff about jeff sessions meeting with sergey kislyak, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum, you know, i don't think democrats are going to suddenly forget about their interest in trying to get some kind of independent investigation into the ties between the trump campaign and

russia. meanwhile, and this is very much donald trump, tweets about how everything is going great. in my twitter feed, i had that tweet and literally the next that came through is rand paul saying we need to scrap this and start over. so everybody's got a different narrative at the moment as to where it stands. >> and i want to switch briefly to nbc national security reporter ken delaney with me because we have this wikileaks press conference. this bizarre press conference, julian assange inside the ecuador embassy in london, where he is protected from being extradited for the charges against him. ken, he charged that the cyber weapons arsenal is now out there and on the black market and the cia has completely lost control. we haven't seen the arsenal of the weapons yet. what's going on here? >> if that was true, it would be

huge. without actually revealing the exploits, which he says he's going to reveal, then a larger claim the entire cia hacking arsenal is in the wild, maybe in the hands of russian intelligence. the cia is not publicly denying that. it's hard to do that without confirming they have a secret cyber arsenal, but it's a huge question that we need to be asking right now, andrea. >> he's claiming it shows devastating incompetence on the part of the cia. >> it would if it were true, but some could argue just the leak of 9,000 documents calls for incompetence and hard questions about that. >> bringing in nick from the new york times, here you have the cia already under fire from the president, from the white house, to an extraordinary degree, mike pompeo, cia director, is coming in to see the president today. this will inevident fwli come up, at least with pompeo it has to. >> absolutely. i think it's interesting

assange, who has unwitting ties to russian intelligence has chosen a certain moment in time right now to embarrass the cia, to embarrass the intelligence community and the officials who the president believes are ratting him out, are deeming behind his back. so the timing is really fascinating, andrea. >> meanwhile, mitch mcconnell also spoke today in talking about the wall and mexico and who's going to pay for the wall. this was his answer. i want to play this for you all. >> well, i'm in favor of border security. there are some places along the border where that's probably not the best way to secure the border. >> do you believe that mexico will pay for it? >> no. >> that's about as blunt as you can be. chris cillizza, it's clear both leaders on the hill are

beginning to feel more of their independence, perhaps as they've seen aotweakness on the part of this white house, polical weakness. >> look, it is a remarkable thing that the president of the country, but who is a republican, is essentially saying let's float $12 to $15 billion out of the federal treasury, run the deficit up, but i'll make mexico pay it back later, just trust me, and that every republican, who i'll remind people, republicans very much in the 2000s, andrea, we have to find pay fors for everything from disaster relief, no money going out without figuring out a way to not increase the deficit, and mitch mcconnell is reflecting publicly what i hear privately every day, an eye roll, a laugh, and he's not really going to do this, is he? i think the real question here is, does mitch mcconnell carry some sort of funding bill for the wall? he's estimated the cost between $12 and $15 billion. does he try to get that move

through? is there any chance that it happens, given the fact that if you polled the 52 republican senators, 50 of them at a minimum would have the same private answer that mitch mcconnell just had publicly. >> nick co, what about the twee and accusation against president obama? does the white house have to eventually investigate that or hope it's going to die out? >> look, they have no answer on it, andrea, because there's no evidence they have what the president has, so what they are reduced to is making claims maybe some access to secret information or congress should go and prove him right by doing an investigation. of course, if he has the facts and have the evidence, then there isn't any reason for a long investigation. i think they are hoping it will get shuffled under the carpet by the other stuff, but it really shouldn't. it was a massive accusation. if it was true, it is a huge scandal against presenobama, and if it is not, it is a

terrible lie about president obama. >> and ken, jeremy bash said this investigation could take two minutes, one question to the fbi, is there such a warrant, they have a whole list of them from the fisa court. >> even if there's a kernel of truth, was there a fisa warrant against the russians, the president could declassify that tomorrow if he wanted to. he's the ultimate declassification authority. >> they have a list of every one of the fisa warrants. that's completely available to anyone on the intelligence committee, but certainly to the executive branch. >> why it's strange for the white house to ask congress to investigate this issue, andrea. >> sounds very much like a delaying tactic. chris cillizza, we'll be back in a moment. thank you, all three of you, for being with us as we wait for the briefing to start at any moment. and we'll be back bringing you the briefing of sean spicer live from the white house. when we return.

eyes open? good. because it's here. cue the confetti. say hi to xiidra, lifitegrast ophthalmic solution. xiidra is the first prescription eye drop solution approved to treat the signs and symptoms of dry eye. so give your eye doctor a ring, and your eyes just might thank you. one drop in each eye, twice a day. the most common side effects of xiidra include eye irritation, discomfort or blurred vision when the drops are applied to the eyes, and an unusual taste sensation. to help avoid eye injury or contamination of the solution, do not touch the container tip to your eye or any surface. if you wear contact lenses, remove them before using xiidra and wait for at least 15 minutes before placing them back in your eyes. are you ready to do something about your dry eyes? talk to your doctor about xiidra.

usaa gives me the and the security just like the marines did. the process through usaa is so effortless, that you feel like you're a part of the family. i love that i can pass the membership to my children. we're the williams family, and we're usaa members for life. at angie's list, we believe there are certain things you can count on, like what goes down doesn't always come back up. [ toilet flushes ] so when you need a plumber, you can count on us to help you find the right person for the job. discover all the ways we can help at angie's list. ♪ everything your family touches sticks with them. make sure the germs they bring home don't stick around. use clorox disinfecting products. because no one kills germs better than clorox.

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 aisle.

those words from a girl no more than 9 or 10 in our own country brought a smile to my face. i don't know her. i don't know if we ever will know who she is, but what i do know is that there are many more out there just like her. they are the leaders. you are the leaders.

never lose your optimism, your persistence, and your resistance. we can build the future we envision when we started on this journey with vital voices two decades ago. >> hillary clinton last night at the kennedy center, the 20th anniversary of vital voices, the women's organization that she founded and she returned and it was quite a night. that does it for this edition of "andrea mitchell reports." thanks for being with us. remember follow the show online, on facebook, and on twitter. craig melvin is up next right here on msnbc. >> andrea, thank you. craig melvin here on "msnbc live." good day to you from new york. we are, again, expecting the white house briefing with press secretary sean spicer to start, literally, any moment now. before we get to sean, though, let's get to our reporters. nbc's hallie jackson you can see in the briefing room, kasie hunt on capitol hill. also philip