department of defense investigation being opened and the pentagon's warning to him about taking money from russia. also, house speaker paul ryan will give his weekly news briefing. will there be a health care deal? what about a government shutdown? we'll bring that live when it starts. and we're hear from the ceo of united airlines in an exclusive interview. lester holt sat down with him to discuss united's new customer service policies. how the company is shifting its culture in the light of the rece incident. on capitol hill, the defense department's inspector general is investigating former national security adviser michael flynn over payments made to him from foreign governments. this news was revealed a short time ago when democratic congressman elijah cummings, the top, ranking democrat on the house oversight committee, released several documents relating to flynn. given to his committee by the department. one shows the pentagon did warn

flynn not to accept foreign payments without permission. >> this new dia letter counters the suggestion made by general flynn's attorney on tuesday that general flynn followed the appropriate procedures when he accepted foreign funds for a trip in moscow in 2015 and dined with republican president rutan. >> cummings went on to say how frustrated democrats are, claiming they're getting no help whatsoever from the administration. >> the white house refused, absolutely refused, to produce even a single document. not a single document in response to the bipartisan document requests that i sent with our republican chairman. not one syllable. i watched sean spicer make all kinds of excuses about how hard it would be to comply with our requests. come on, man. >> come on, man, is what i think

a lot of people have been thinking, kelly o'donnell. when we've watched the white house tap dance around the fact that the two, the republican and the democrat, the two top members of the oversight committee sent a reasonable letter to the white house asking for very specific things. the response was, no, we can't. >> ali, what they're saying is they don't have possession of these kinds of documents, that the former national security adviser was only in the employment of the federal government for about three weeks. politically, they want to keep their arm's length as much as possible from general flynn, who has created such a cloud over the administration with his contacts with russia and, of course, the larger issues related to russia and interference in the 2016 campaign, and questions about any contacts with trump associates during 2016 and russian operatives. all of that being investigated. fln is sort of the face of this because he held such an

important position for the transition team, the campaign and then in the early days of this white house. what the committee in congress is saying is that there was documentary evidence that flynn as a flag officer, a retired general, had been given the warning that you cannot receive payments from foreign governments. that's part of the rules. that is something they say was spelled out to him. while his lawyer says that he had discussions with the department of defense and the defense intelligence agency, which he ran, about his visit to russia and that there were no questions or concerns raised, what the committee is saying is that he did not fully comply with informing the proper channels that he received payment. now, that payment came from russian television. he was a dpes at guest at an eve slad mah vladimir putin was also at, a large dinner. flynn was a speaker there. he received a payment from rt,

but it is an extension of the russian government, different from our system in the united states. that is where they'll find, probably, the easiest way to say, this was a rule. we don't see evidence that he complied. please explain this. thus far, we have not heard from the white house about this issue. we can, as you eluded to, sean spicer was reluctant to even open the door to any of this. they don't want to be talking about michael flynn anymore. they will have to respond in some way. but also, it is unclear if there are any documents related to the transition that might still exist. remember that michael flynn was one of the unusual people in the sphere of donald trump who already had security clearance. he didn't need to form -- go through all the forms of a new clearance. he already possessed clearance. that allowed him to advise and so forth without jumping through the procedural hoops that many others would have to do as they joined the administration. so is that an area where he was able to sort of avoid some of

these requirements, and is that why the white house says it doesn't have possession of these documents? i don't know the answer to that. but he was different than other employees during that phase. whatever the result, the white house will have to be accountable for michael flynn because he was a close adviser of the president and was for a short time an employee of the federal government he and the trump administtion. ali? >> kelly donnell, thank you. kelly, we will be back with you in a little bit. clint watts joins me on the phone. he's with the foreign policy research institute. he's recently testified on the hill regarding russia. i think he might be doing that today, which is why he's on the phone with me. let's get clarity on this. if the defense intelligence agency warned michael flynn that as a former member of the military he's not to take money from foreign governments, if he did not seek permission, if he did that, is that a simple breaking of the rules or is that a crime? >> it's a simple breaking of the rules, but one that would eliminate you, usually, from

having a security clearance. or you wouldn't be able to come back into the government and assume a role with an intelligence function, which is very much what he did. it's also one of the most basic tenants of intelligence, which is you don't accept money from a foreign government, particularly one that's an adversary. that sets up the russian government to compromise a person that's very well-known, known in the intelligence community and someone who can influence back into the u.s. population. it is a basic thing you learn any time you enter into government, especially federal service with an intel agency. to see the head of one of the intel agencies go accept money from a foreign government, being russia, and to try and either disclose it -- not disclose it or mask it, it is very curious why he'd do that. >> it'd be curious why anybody would do that. on two levels, michael flynn would have known this because now we have documents showing the defense intelligence agency said they told him. and two, pause he wbecause he w

intelligence business. he would have known one can compromise someone, even if you're not deliberately doing anything by taking money by speaking at an event. there is either compromise or the idea that you are inadvertently being influenced. >> exactly. it's really confusing. when you look at it, i want to believe that, you know, general flynn wasn't up to anything negative or bad, and he was probably just interested in being at this appearance, but then why take the money? you know that's one of the basics of counterintelligence. you don't accept money. you don't influence favor from a foreign adversary or a foreign -- you know, even an ally, you wouldn't do that without, number one, getting it approved and briefing it to the government and, two, making sure you were keeping yourself very much impartial. he didn't do eithe of those things. i can't imagine, as well, why the white house wouldn't just step forward, having already let him go many months ago, just

step forward and say, we have nothing to hide and show whatever documentation. i think their concern is probably that they didn't do good vetting in the run up to the election. this has happened to flynn. this has happened in other cases, as well. they don't want to be seen as being incompetent in that way. >> thanks for joining us. i know you've got to go to a hearing. clint watts joining us from the capitol. now the trump team trying to sell its tax plan with concerns on both sides of the aisle about the detail and the cost. here's what we know. the plan as unveiled -- i don't know if you want to call it a plan -- the thing as unveiled reduces the number of tax brackets from even to three with rates of 10%, 25% and 35%. that is insignificant. it is window dressing. it slashes the corporate tax rate to 15%. that's significant. it eliminates all itemized deductions on individual tax returns except for mortgages, mortgage interest and charitable contributions, and it doubles

the standard deduction for individuals and married couples. reaction this morning to the thing is mixed. >> i'm not impressed with it. >> zero, zip? >> zero, zip. >> it's all republican votes? >> yup. >> this is a great starting point to have a conversation about backing government off the backs of the american people, revitalizing our economy and finally returning growth to our nation's economy. >> i'm very worried they want to do dumb stuff, like deductibility of state and local taxes. that's a killer for states like new york. that's a deal killer for me. >> treasury secretary steve mnuchin responded to some of the responses this morning on the "today" show. >> this is about having sweeping tax cuts, the largest tax cuts in history. the largest tax reform program in history. to create american jobs. this is all about jobs, jobs, jobs. >> that's a little bit of a puzzlement i want to dig into a little bit more. jobs are created generally because of demand, not because of tax cuts. this all comes as president trump tries to explain his major

turn on nafta, the trade deal he once called the worst deal ever. as a candidate, he prosed to pull out of the agreent and now he's willing to negotiate. he tweeted, i received da ed ca from the president of mexico and the prime minister of cab da asking to renegotiate nafta rather than terminate. i agreed. relationships are good. deal very possible. i want to bring in austin, the former chairman of the council of economic advisers under president obama. now a professor at the university of chicago school of business. you tweeted this morning. >> thanks for having me back. >> which gives more detail, the back of a box of crispix or trump's tax plan? that's my issue. i don't know if i can call it a tax plan. it's a thing. >> you should not call it a tax plan. the answer was the back of the box of crispixs. two specific recipes. this was like oprah when she said, you get a car.

you get a car. you get a car. i don't understand why they did that, actually. even the republicans in congress are saying there is zero chance that they will pass or even draft legislation that does what the president called for because it will add $3 trillion to the deficit. so i don't think it enhances his negotiating position. i feel it undermines it. now everybody just wants their christmas gift. >> there are -- as i said, one grouping the tax, income tax to three instead of seven is not as significant as it sounds. the business tax lowering of the corporate tax to 15% is a big deal. the question is, the argument is when you take business taxes down that much, you stimulate economic growth. is that true? >> well, i mean, what evidence do we have? we could look around the world and say, where are corporate tax rates the lowest? are they growing really fast? turns out the lowest corporate

tax rate in the world is uzbekistan. the lowest region, the region with the lowest corporate taxes is europe, where the growth rate is not especially impressive. >> right. >> i don't think the evidence suggests that that's going to be a magic elixir. it certainly hasn't been when we tried that thing before. >> you heard steve mnuchin say, it is all about jobs, jobs, jobs. here's the math for people, right? ifeople feel like they've got more money, they can afford to spend, they create demand. demand is what creates jobs. so you can take corporate taxes to zero, but if the demand doesn't increase, why would companies spend money to open new factories or new stores? >> i think that's a fair point. you know, in a way, the premise behind cutting corporate taxes is if you could increase the profitability of corporations, that they would hire more and expand. but i would just remind people, over the last 15 or 20 years, corporate profits have already

risen to the highest levels really ever in the history of the united states data. so it hasn't been working. so just doing what george w. bush already did, which is massive tax cuts for the very highest income people and the biggest corporations, when you also saw mnuchin say today that he could not guarantee -- >> that everybody gets a tax cut. >> he did not guarantee this would not increase taxes on the middle class. that's a mistake. >> the last thing -- donald trump said he wanted to see his tax plan increase growth by 4%, 5%, 6%. mnuchin said 3%. we had 4.6% last year. it is hard to get a mature economy like america to almost double its gdp growth. >> well, the mature is the part -- your word mature is the relevant part. if you look back to, say, 1980, and the tax cuts in the early

'80s, where our growth rate is higher, population growth was more than double what it is today. and population growth goes into that growth rate. so to say you're just going to go back to growth rates of 3% or 3.5% is to say you're going to double, triple the non-population growth part of what's going on. >> right. >> it's very hard to see how that would take place. >> austin, thanks for taking time to talk to me. former chairman of the council of economic advisers. we know he eats crispix. let's bring in the congresswoman, member of the house budget committee. good to run into you last evening in the studio. what's your take on the president's tax cuts? >> it's a non-starter for me. the president's tax cuts really, quite frankly, are irrelevant at

this point. he hasn't released his tax returns. unless he does that, how will we know how he stands to gain from this? from what we've seen from the one-page sheet, it will line the pockets of his friends, millionaires and billionaires. of course, who is going to pay for that? the vulnerable working men and women, the middle class. in no way do i want to think about this tax plan until we see his income tax returns. >> let's talk about the other big thing going on. somewhere around you, probably not involving you, is a health care negotiation that is going to try and get the freedom caucus to sign off on a health care bill. this is a health care bill that the last time they floated had a 17% approval rating. now they're taking out some of the good parts of it that were left. what's your sense of what happens next? >> first, the health care bill that they wrote has been really a bill that would make everyone sicker again, the country sicker again, and it would really

destroy the health gains we had made under the affordable care act. this just doubles down on how pad it is. this makes a bad bill worse. for the life of me, i can't see how they could be this cruel. here they would deny emergency care to pregnant women, people in west virginia stand to lose. they would deny mental health services. they would deny all of the essential benefits that people need to stay healthy and stay well and to stay alive. so it is a shame and disgrace. it is immoral. it's hard to believe anyone could vote for such a mean-spirited bill. >> we have not resolved whether or not there's going to be a shutdown. most of the betting money is there won't be, but there is a chance. a short time ago, the president tweeted, quote, what's more important, rebuilding our military or bailing out insurance companies? ask the democrats. how do you respond to that? he's saying that calling for the continued obamacare subsidies to the insurance companies is bailing out insurance companies,

and that's what democrats are supporting. why? >> you know, i hope the president doesn't know what he's talking about, because people deserv health care. 24 million americans stand to lose if their health care moves forward. plus, they run the show. they have the house, the senate and the white house. so any talk of a shutdown, you know, really goes directly back to what disarray they're in and how they're conducting business, which is in total chaos and disarray. hopefully, they'll come to see the light very soon because the american public deserves more and better. >> what do you think is going to happen? what's your guessing on what's going to happen this weekend? are we getting a continuing resolution to keep congress in business or will we have a shutdown? >> hard to know. they run the show. you hear something one hour, something else the next hour. once again, they cannot bring forward a health care bill that's going to destroy health care for 24 million people. if that's part of the deal, you know, i don't think they can

move forward on this. but, again, we'll have to wait and see. you know, one hour, it's this. another hour, it's that. but again, they have the house, the senate and the white house. let's see what they do. but i don't think many of us will support their overall plan. >> congresswoman barbara lee of california, good to talk to you. thank you for being with me. >> my pleasure. house speaker paul ryan is expected to talk about the new gop health care plan and the negotiations i just discussed with the congresswoman to avoid a government shutdown this weekend. we're going to bring toit to yo live. first, we'll speak to trump supporters in ohio. what voters in trump country are thinking of his work in the first 100 days. >> you have to make the choice, do i buy some groceries? do i buy medicine? do i go to the doctor? made it through many market swings.

sure we could travel, take it easy... but we've never been the type to just sit back... not when we've got so much more to give when you have the right financial advisor, life can be brilliant. ameriprise my advice for looking get your beauty sleep. and use aveeno® absolutely ageless® night cream with active naturals® blackberry complex. younger looking skin can start today. absolutely ageless® from aveeno®.

for all kinds of things... like walking.ewarded hey, honey. dad, where's the car? thought we'd walk. he's counting steps. walk, move and earn money... goal! dad... hey, we wanna welcome everyone to the father daughter dance. look at this dad, he's got some moves! money you can use on out-of-pocket medical expenses. he's ok, yeah! unitedhealthcare

hey you've gotta see this. cno.n. alright, see you down there. mmm, fine. okay, what do we got? okay, watch this. do the thing we talked about. what do we say? it's going to be great. watch. remember what we were just saying? go irish! see that? yes! i'm gonna just go back to doing what i was doing. find your awesome wi the xfinitx1 voice remote.

as president trump and congress work to repeal and replace obamacare, some trump voters say they're not sure if the new plan is the answer. we travel to cantokenton, ohio,e 71% of the voters voted for trump. what are you hearing? >> i'm hearing it's dom my kaco for people here. this is trump country, but this facility, which services people in this area, operates primarily with funds from obamacare and the medicaid expansion program. while people have concerns about

it, they're also concerned about anything that could come out of washington that could take their health benefits away. >> reporter: in kenton, ohio, a rural community north of columbus, life can be charming, but it's often marred by tough decisions. >> sometimes you have to make the choice, do i buy some groceries, do i buy medicine or do i go to the doctor? >> reporter: katie and phillip, parents of four, voted for trump, hoping to change obamacare. >> do we need to get rid of it comple completely? no. but i think there's still lots of improvements that need to be made. >> reporter: even though the republican health care plan failed in the first 100 days, katie and phillip still believe what the president says. >> the plan gets better and better and better, and it's gotten really, really good. and a lot of people are liking it a lot. we have a good chance of getting it soon. >> reporter: married with three children, robin oats also has mixed feelings about how trump is handling health care reform in his first 100 days. >> the fact that he hasn't been

able to replace it or repeal it is good because at least we're status quo. >> reporter: clinics like this are funded by medicaid expansion in part, allowing some patients to pay on a sliding scale. before this, a health care center was an hour away, and for many, the only time they saw a doctor was in the emergency room. under the new gop plan still being hashed out on capitol hill, facilities like this could lose funding. if that happens, robin hopes her family will be able to afford insurance. >> let's say the premium is for the two of us, let's say $350. that's at least half of one of my husband's paychecks. half. >> what do you want to see the president do, as far as health care is concerned? >> i don't think anybody wants to necessarily have a free ride. make it affordable. >> reporter: right now, this farming community that planted its hopes in a trump presidency is still giving him more time to deliver.

>> what authorities are saying here, ali, and you're a numbers guy, you can appreciate this, before obamacare and the medicaid expansion program, you had about 40% of the people who did not have health insurance coverage. that dropped down to 15%. anything that would change in washington to change that would have dramatic impacts on people here. >> until the threat of it going away occurred, a lot of people didn't realize how many people are affected in their neighborhoods. thanks very that. rehema ellis in ohio. take a look at this. president trump is meeting the argentinian president. he pulled up moments ago. that's what we're looking at. the president and his wife were greeted by the president and the first lady at the south side of the white house, the other side from where i am. the presidents will hold a working lunch this hour. trade is set to be a part of their talks. the leaders are scheduled to talk about security and intelligence scaring. we'll bring you more on that when we learn about it. we're also awaiting a conference any moment now. news conference with house

speaker paul ryan. he's set to give updates on the health care plan and the negotiations to keep the government running. and i'll get reaction from the pennsylvania congressman. plus, inside the rare white house briefings on north korea that took place in front of the senate. >> i am cautiously optimistic that we are seeing early signs that china is helping and cooperating and reigning in north korea. [fbi agent] you're a brave man, mr. stevens. your testimony will save lives. mr. stevens? this is your new name. this is your new house. and a perfectly inconspicuous suv. you must become invisible.

[hero] i'll take my chances.

thithis is the new new york.e? think again. we are building new airports all across the state. new roads and bridges. new mass transit. new business friendly environment.

new lower taxes. and new univerty partnerships to grow the businesses o tomorrow today. learn more at esd.ny.gov

breaking news. pentagon officials say two u.s. military members were killed, a third wounded, in afghanistan. it happened last night during a fire fight with isis in the east e earn part of the country. numerous isis fighters were killed. this is unfolding in the same area the u.s. dropped the so-called mother of all bombs two weeks ago. we're waiting for house speaker paul ryan who is expected to give his weekly briefing. nbc's senior political editor mark murray joins me now. mark, there's a lot going on generally this weekend. specifically today for the speaker, the government funding bill as it relates to the -- oh, listen. mark, hold on. speaker paul ryan is pulling up to the podium. let's listen in and talk later.

>> are you ready? >> ready. >> why don't you have your sticker on, speaker? >> what sticker? oh, i haven't had one of those in a long time. good morning, everybody. first, i want to welcome all our special guests today. i think it is great to see you here, and it is great you get to see the work your parents do. don't tell them this, but they're actually kind o good at their jobs. one of those your daughters? oh, my god. so cute. you had one last year with us, i think. >> this is her first time. >> very cool. okay. i digress. sorry. later today, the president will sign an executive order to improve accountability at the v.a. under the obama administration, not nearly enough was done to told bureaucrats accountable for failing veterans at our veterans affairs. despite promises to clean things up, a scattering of people were removed out of their jobs. only a scattering of people were

held accountable. last month, the house passed the v.a. accountability act to make it easier to bring the kind of steady leadership that v.a. medical centers desperately need. last week, the president signed legislation to reduce out of pocket cost for veterans and promote better access to care. these are positive steps to deliver the fundamental reform needed at the v.a. this had to what has been an active 100 days. under the president's leadership, we have cut red tape at record levels. cutting red tape saves families dollars, it saves businesses jobs. in fact, we have saved families and businesses more than $67 billion just already. yesterday, the administration put out its principles for pro-growth tax reform. the next step for overhauling the tax code. we make real progress in our work to repeal and replace obamacare. we posted amendment to the american health care act

yesterday. it was a result of constructive conversations among our members that focus on how we can do more to lower costs for everyone. what this amendment does is gives states more flexibility and tools to reduce premiums and increase choices. it does this while maintaining and preserving protections for people with pre-existing conditions. this is the important point. those protections remain in the books. even as we add new ones. the goal here is to give states greater flexibility if they want it to lower premiums. we've not yet made any decisions on a vote. but this is more progress, and we will continue our progress and our work to repeal and replace obamacare. now, i'm sur some of you have questions. are any you people here who have questions? you're not cutting no bar. sorry. all right, anybody else have any questions? mike? >> mr. speaker, how close are you on health care, and what are

your reassurances to moderates who [ inaudible ]? >> i think we're making good progress. we're going to go when we have the votes. that's the decision we'll make when we have it. something tells me you'll probably be the first to know when that happens. i would argue that this is a bill that a moderate would more likely want to support. some people were concerned about ehbs. ehbs were taken out of the bill. essential health benefits were taken out of the earlier drafts but they're back in. they're in the federal law. a state would have to find a waiver for essential health benefits. if anything, this puts more federal protections in on pre-existing conditions. every state's a little different. in wisconsin, we had a high risk pool that worked really well. i think we ought to be given the flexibility to tailor our markets that work for us in wisconsin. wisconsin health care system is different than the new york or the vermont health care system. that makes sense. but even if a state gets a

waiver, there are multimillilayf pre-existing condition protection. if you have a health care problem and you have health insurance, you can't be denied or rated for higher health care costs. if you swift to another plan and keep your coverage, the same protections apply even if your state gets a waiver. the more important point, i think, is why this amendment is a strep in the right direction s we believe the smarter way to go on getting premiums down and protecting people with pre-existing conditions is have federal support for people sick. support the illness with greater subsidies so everybody else doesn't have to bear the cost in their insurance pools. 1% in the individual market draws 23% of the costs. if we directly support that catastrophic coverage, reinsurance on top of insurance, then you're lowering everyone else's prices. you're making it easier for people to afford quality health insurance and you're guaranteeing that that person who has catastrophic health care

costs, who has a pre-existing condition or gets sick gets the coverage they need. we think it is a step. ♪ rigwe're having productive conversations with members and we feel we're on the right track. we'll announce when we're going to go. >> is there pressure to vote by the president's 100th day? >> we're going to go when we're ready to do. this has been an oregganiorganim up process. i talked about 200 days because i thought the agenda we're attempting to put together here, overhauling health care, overhauling the tax system, rebuilding our military, securing the border, those take more than a few months. they take a long time, at least a year. so that's why we're working on the path to get it right and not constrain it to an artificial deadline. nancy? >> mr. speaker, high risk pools don't have the greatest track record. in wisconsin, your high risk pool was great for the people who were on it, but it was still unaffordable for a lot of other

people, wasn't snit. >> no, it was darn good. this will add federal funding to it. think of high risk pools, there were states who had high risk pools, reinsurance mechanisms, or risk sharing. none had federal funding to it. none had federal resources. this takes that idea and adds federal resources to it to make sure it works even better. hhs will koorp rate with the states to make sure they have good mechanisms in place. we have seen states, wyoming had a good one, utah had a good one, washington state had a good one, maine had a good one, we had a good one. they work. now, we'll be adding federal funding to it and they'll work better. you can lower prices more. >> can you reassure people with pre-existing conditions they won't be worse off? >> people will be better off under our plan. that's the goal here. to make it easier for people. the problem with obamacare is people get one choice at best in 1/3 of en the counties in america. five states, you got one plan to choose from. that's not very good to have just a monopoly giving you health insurance.

our job here is to make sure people get more choices. by getting more choices, you can get better quality health insurance and lower prices and we preserve those protections for people with pre-existing conditions. that's the goal of thisbill. that's what the bill achieves. we think it is going to be a big improvement on the status quo, which is collapsing before us. >> juan? >> thank you, mr. speaker. democrats say they -- >> uh-oh. >> just repeating what she was saying. not what you said. >> democrats are saying they will withhold votes for a funding bill -- >> said something about that. >> what's your reaction to that, and can you guys pass a funding bill with just republican votes? >> i would be shocked they would want to see a government shutdown, the democrats would want to do that. let's just take a step back. the reason this government funding bill is not ready is because democrats have been dragging their feet. periodically, they haven't even been showing up for the

negotiations. the reason we need an extension in the first place is because democrats are dragging their feet. even if we get an agreement, let's say, in ten minutes, we simply can't process the paperwork that long and we have a three-day rule. people need to be able to read the bill. so inevitably, under any scenario or circumstance, requires a short-term extension. i'm confident we will pass the short-term extension. i'd be shocked the democrats would want to create a government shutdown because they have been dragging their feet. kasie? >> back to health care a moment. with all the changes that you have made that have led to the freedom caucus getting on board, should this be an easy yes vote for the moderate members of your conferen conference? >> tom mcarthur is the leading moderate in congress. it is his amendment. so this is -- >> -- frustrations by his fellow moderate colleagues? >> i don't be think so. mcarthur, working in insurance,

understanding the math, mecha c mechanics and science of insurance has come up with an amendment we think works well. it gets to where we all want to go. we want to bring down costs. we want to preserve protections for people with pre-existing conditions and we want to respect the fact that states, you know, have different issues, different health care marketplaces. we want to give states greater flexibility so they can get the maximum reduction and policies and premiums so we can get the best possible health care system. what we've learned is a cookie cutter, one size fits off health care system doesn't work for america. it's a diverse country. different states have different ru rules and systems. we need to respect that. mcarthur is a co-chair of the tuesday group. he's one of the leading shot -- sorry. it was a good shot. pretty cool. one of the leading members of the tuesday group. i think it is a coalescing thing. >> aren't there seats potentially at risk here if they vote yes? >> i think seats are at risk if

we don't do what we said we'd do. we campaigned on this law that is chancing. the american health care system and the market is in pearl. we have a moral obligation to prevent people from getting hurt, stop damage from being continued. we promised we would do this. if you violate your promise, you -- >> do you -- are you saying t s this -- you don't want to deal with the spending bill. what's the future of these because it seems like the house republicans are on different pages. >> we're in litigation. i won't go into details of that. it's a difference between the separations of powers. we're in existing litigation,

and the white house, the administration, has been making those payments while it's pending, which is still pending. the white house has already made comments on this, and i'll leave it at that. >> once the lawsuit ends -- >> i won't speculate because i don't know what the outcome of the lawsuit is going to be. yeah? >> the house oversight committee -- >> i'll come back to you next. jumped in front of you. >> didn't see you there. the house oversight committee released documents showing -- raising concerns about michael flynn. i'm wondering, in his failure to disclose form payments. do you believe he may have broken the law, number one? number two, are you concerned about the white house's vetting procedures and hiring to this position to begin with? >> i don't know whether he did or did not. that's why we have an investigation. this, i see, as part of our ongoing investigation. we'll just find the answer to that question during the investigation. i'm not going to pre-judge the conclusion. >> where do you stand, should the benefits be extended, the health benefits, permanently?

do you think companies -- >> i believe some benefits should be extended. i'm not going to insert myself into ongoing negotiations the appropriators are having about the length of that. >> last question. >> the tax foundation, their estimates of tax reform and the effective tax cuts, you guys decided on the republican side often. one of the assumptions is there is no effect from rising debt as part of that. i'm curious as to whether you in the past have said the rising debt, entitlement programs will have a drag on economic growth. is there a -- can you square that? >> it is all about interest rates, right, jonathan? so i think under most models, you assume aormalition of interest rates will occur. the question is, donterest rates go above their normal rates or do they go higher because of debt and deficits crowding out investment? i do believe that we have to have fiscal discipline in

addition to economic growth. you know me well. that means reforming the entitlement programs. that means passing this health care bill, lowering the cost of health care is important if you're going to lower fiscal exposure. if you're going to help close the debt. one of the biggest drivers of the debt is the insurance inflation. if we can have a system that's restored by reviving the individual market, that's one of the greatest things to do to bring down high health care costs and close the debt and the deficit. i believe you have to have comprehensive entitlement reforms along with pro-growth legislation like tax reform to get the best of both worlds, which is getting the debt under control, getting people back to work and getting faster economic growth that gets us better revenues. that was the last one. i've got a -- my turn to ask a question. how many junior reporters do we have here today, including photographers? okay. why don't we all get a photo, all right? over here?

>> all right. congressman paul ryan wrapping up his press conference, weekly press conference, talking about the components of the new health care bill that he has shown to some of his members or most of his members. he said we will put it to a vote when we have the vote. so they continue to negotiate on that front. president trump has just met with the argentinian president. let's take a look at that from the white house. oh, sorry. we're getting that ready for you. it'll be in a couple moments. he was meeting with the president and his wife of argentina. planning to talk trade. we'll find out momentarily what they talked about. let's play it now. >> [ inaudible ]. >> i was going to terminate nafta as of two or three days from now. the president of mexico, who i have a very, very good relationship, called me. also the prime minister of

canada, who i have a very good relationship -- and i like both of these gentlemen very much -- they called me. they said, rather than terminated nafta, could you please renegotiate? i like them very much. i respect their countries very much. their relationship is very special. i said, i will hold on the termination. let's see if we can make it a fair deal. nafta has been a horrible deal for the united states. it's been very good for canada. it's been very good for mexico. it's been horrible for the united states. if you check my campaign, any of my speeches, i said, i'll either renegotiate or i'll terminate. so they asked me to renegotiate. i will. and i think we'll be successful in the renegotiation, which frankly would be good because it'd be simpler. we have to make a deal that's fair for the united states. they understand that. so i've decided rather than terminating nafta, which would be a pretty big, you know, shock to the system, we will renegotiate. now, if i'm unable to make a

fair deal, if i'm unable to make a fair deal for the united states, meaning a fair deal for our workers and our companies, i will terminate nafta. but we're going to give renegotiation a good, strong shot. >> mr. president -- >> thank you very much, everybody. thank you. >> kind of strange, given he's got such fantastic relationships he presidents of mexico -- the president of mexico and the prime minister of canada, he'd first decide to terminate nap th -- nafta and then get a phone call and say, hey, let's renegotiate. he mentioned venezuela in his conversation with the president of argentina, saying venezuela is a mess. we'll bring you more on those conversations and we'll have more conferenversation about na and what the problems are with us when we carry on our coverage. for the reaction to the comments we heard from paul ryan, we bring in a republican of pennsylvania and a member of the house ways and means

committee. congressman, thank you for patiently listening to that with me and i want to get your comments on this. first of all, anything the speaker said there that surprised you, or is that stuff you knew? >> well, it didn't surprise me, no. the speaker has been making those points. he's been articulating that consistently, and i was not surprised by it. >> all right. he talked about the new deal, the mcarthur deal that got between the tuesday group, the moderate republicans and the more conservative republicans. he says that americans with pre-existing conditions will be better off under this revised american health care act. i'm not sure i understand how that's the case. how would nay be better off? >> i might not be the right person to be arguing that. i have some reservations about it myself. those are some discussions i'm going to be having with the speaker. i think the point that they're suggesting is that there are some things you can do with the high risk markets and others that would be able to create

care. i have some reservations. i'll leave it at that. >> i'll ask you because you're ultimately going to vote on it, what are your reservations about it? >> well, i told you, i'm going to raise those with the speaker. you can have other people on here that can play counter point at this point. >> i'm not worried about counter point. there are only so many of you who get a vote. i can get all the experts in the world. we don't get a vote. you get a vote. >> i'm concerned about the essential health benefits and the idea of whether or not states are going to have the backdoor way to influence the assurance that we're going to be able to contie to give those coverages. i'm concerned about the scope of capability to deliver on care for those who have the kinds of high utilization of the health care system. sick people. >> right. let's talk a little bit about the other issue going on. that is this budget, the continuing resolution. what do you think is likely to happen? what would you like to happen? >> i think the good thing is we have a point in which the

negotiators have been getting close to yes. it was a big thing to have the president earlier this week pull back from making the support for obamacare and the wall as sticking yes. it was sticking points that could have influenced the outcome. the negotiators from the house, senate, and both parties have been making good progress. the cr is just so they can o cross the ts and dot the is. >> i want to get your take on the morning's breaking news, the department of defense inspector general is opening an investigation against michael flynn, tell us where this is going. this seems to be a constant distraction. what do they have to do to get it out of the way. >> i think there has to be a conclusion with respect to what

would derive some of that information. i know there is a big difference between opening an investigation and coming to begin win conclusions. so asking for a new investigation does not necessarily mean they're going to turn up anything new and you already have the intelligence committees particularly in the senate looking aggressively at these questions. i'm not quite so sure what new information will come through the department of defense that is not available to the intelligence committees that they're not looking into. >> thank you for talking to me. >> thank you. >> coming up next, people around the world are reacting to what they witnessed in president trump's first 100 days in office. we'll hear concerns from asia, the middle east, and the europe union. it's time for the "your business" entrepreneur of the

week. a teacher who loved make up started creating you tube tutorials. she created a product line and does $20 million in sales now every year. >> brought to you by american express open. visit open forum.com for ideas to help you grow your business. or fill a big order or expand your office and take on whatever comes next. find out how american express cards and services can help prepare you for growth at open.com. parts a and b and want more coverage, guess what? you could apply for a medicare supplement insurance plan whenever you want. no enrollment window. no waiting to apply.

that means now may be a great time to shop for an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. medicare doesn't cover everything. and like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, these help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide. it could help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. these types of plans have no networks, so you get to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. rates are competitive, and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. remember - these plans let you apply all year round. so call today. because now's the perfect time to learn more. go long. stay with me, mr. parker. when a critical patient is far from the hospital, the hospital must come to the patient.

stay with me, mr. parker. the at&t network is helping first responders connect with medical teams in near real time... stay with me, mr. parker. ...saving time when it matters most. stay with me, mrs. parker. that's the power of and. hey you've gotta see this. cno.n. alright, see you down there. mmm, fine. okay, what do we got? okay, watch this. do the thing we talked about.

what do we say? it's going to be great. watch. remember what we were just saying? go irish! see that? yes! i'm gonna just go back to doing what i was doing. find your awesome with the xfinity x1 voice remote. all right, thank you for spending this hour with me. i was -- i'm a little hungry, i was getting a jump on lunch. we have more news to talk to you about. president trump's 100th day in office, just two days around the world, they are seriously concerned about his experience and unpredictability. i want to bring in richard engel who is live in london, what are you hearing from people? >> well, it's impossible to get a worldwide opinion poll, but we

have spoken to experts, we spoke to people on the street, more than a half dozen countries, and there are deep concerns about credibility. his temperament, concerned that the world is more unpredictable and dangerous. the reviews are starting to come in and based on what we' hearg, they're good. >> around the world for nearly 100 days, the top story has been president trump, and he is being watched it more than a bit of concern. >> quite a few people are saying we're still here, and i think there was a genuine fear. >> it is not an all-out nuclear conflict, but it is openly talked about. i find that quite extraordinary. >> there was fierce -- >> a top anchor at britain's itv kn

news has been watching the affairs for years. >> there is a real concern. not so much on the idol threats of putting people in their place, it is based on the perception of inepty tuesd tiin. >> he is starting fights with everyone. >> to the west bank. >> he doesn't know what he is doing. >> to germany. >> he didn't think about what he does. he seems rude, harsh, and not presidential. >> people don't seem to know what to expect or believe from president trump as he plays brinksmanship with the nuclear armed and highly erratic north korea. punishes america's neighbors, mexico and canada, and flip-flops on syria, lobbing a few dozen missiles at a regime

th when they seemed to back them a few days later. >> these are truly uncharted times. >> i think our view here, observing it as impartial reporters is like a school report that says the start was not as bad as it might have been, but can do and must do better. >> the biggest concerns that we heard consistely was about credibilit unless the united states's promisesnd commitments are honored, then the u.s. cannot conduct foreign policy if is an enormous challenge when you're trying to conduct statesmanship. >> thank you for that, i'm glad i stayed and didn't run out for lunch early. that was a good report. now i'm going to get lunch. thank you for spending this hour with me on msnbc live.

find me on twitter, facebook, instagr instagram, snap chat. time for me to hand things over to andrea mitchell. >> and right now on andrea mitchell reports, show me the money. a lochk awaited tax plan with big savings for americans. no details or specials on how it would york. >> he has released plenty of information, and more financial disclosure than anyone else. i think the american population has plenty of information. he is open to renegotiate with canada and mexico as long as it is a fair deal for all.

this was him just moments ago. >> they asked me to renegotiation. we have to make a deal that is fair the united states. instead of terminating nafta we will renegotiate. if i'm unable to make a fair deal for the united states, i will terminate nafta. >> and a field trip, the entire senate bussed to the white house. even the chairman gave it a big yawn. >> how it was? >> it was fine. >> did you learn anything in there you didn't know before? >> i didn't really. they already have reporting, and you know they have nuclear