that's going to wrap up this jam-packed hour of msnbc live. katy tur joins me now. >> hi, craig. thank you so much. right now we're keeping a close eye on the white house briefing room where any moment press secretary sean spicer will walk out to deliver the daily briefing. we imagine he'll be getting a lot of questions about today's testimony on capitol hill from fbi director james comey. comey once again forced to defend decisions he made in the lead-up to november's election. >> i've lived my entire career by the tradition that if you can possibly avoid it, you avoid any action in the run-up to an election that could have any impact. but i sat there this morning and i could not see a door labeled no action here. i could see two doors and they were both actions. one was labeled speak and one was labeled conceal. speak would be really bad

because an election in 11 days, lordy, that would be really bad. con sealing cealing in my view catastrophic, not just to the fbi but beyond. i told my team we're walking into the world of really bad. i have to tell congress we're restarting this. not in some frivolous way. it makes me nauseous to think we might have had impact on the election, but honestly, it wouldn't change the decision. everybody who disagrees with me has to come back to october 28 with me and stare at this and tell me, what would you do? would you speak or conceal? i could be wrong but we honestly made a decision between those two choices that even in hindsight, and this has been one of the world's most painful experiences, i would make the same decision. >> also this hour, middle east peace is maybe frankly not as difficult as people may have thought over the years, according to president trump. that is a quote. more on his face to face with the palestinian leader.

more on pennsylvania avenue. did the president finally make a deal? more of the efforts to save the second health care plan. president obama is speaking at an event unveiling plans for an obama presidential center. our folks are standing by. we begin with nbc's mike va ccao on capitol hill. kristen welker is inside the press briefing room. kristen, let's start with you. sean spicer is coming out any moment. we've seen a lot of interesting testimony on capitol hill today. do we expect the white house to be pushing back on anything? >> reporter: well, he's certainly going to get questioned about it, katy, that's for sure, particularly in light of those very heated comments that you just played by fbi director james comey. interestingly, he was also asked if the white house was corroborated with the russian investigation, and he didn't comment on that, so that could be the subject of some questions

as well. the president just tweeting with the fbi director overnight, effectively saying he gave hillary clinton a pass in this election. that, of course, a response to secretary hillary clinton yesterday, essentially blaming director comey, partially, at least, for her loss. i think this will certainly be one of the key topics here at the daily briefing, but as you point out, katy, a number of other topics on the table to discuss. president trump's meeting with the palestinian leader as well as this new push to repeal and replace obamacare, a potential breakthrough with a new amendment that could deal with the thorny issue of preexisting conditions. so a lot to cover here, katy. >> certainly lots to cover. also eyes, though, have been on fbi director james comey on capitol hill. mike, get us up to speed. it's both side now relitigating the 2016 election. >> relitigating it and some new information. i have to say it was really an extraordinary hearing in the senate judiciary committee,

james comey coming before that committee after he had revealed in his last visit in open testimony the open investigation into possible russian meddling, and incidentally, before we get to the controversy over the clinton e-mails, he does say russia continues to try to interfere in elections and election worldwide. i've never seen director comey that animated, clearly prepared for the onslaught that he was expected to face coming in particular from democratic members. he said he faced, and we heard it in your opening there, katy, a binary source to conceal or reveal the reopening of the investigation. back on october 28, just 11 days before the election, he said his investigators suddenly came upon knowledge of thousands of e-males that were cents by one of clinton's closest aides, is not her closest aide, sent by

her husband anthony weiner. they looked over the e-mails. there was nothing there. comey came back and said as much, although too late for many. in hillary clinton's extraordinary remarks yesterday, they let him have it. they weren't buying his assertion that he had a choice of conceal or reveal. he chose to reveal and we're seeing the repercussions now. >> one of the senators was senator pat leahy. take a look at this. >> it was appropriate for you to comment on one investigation repeatedly and not say anything about the other? >> i think so. i think i treated both investigations consistently under the same principles. in october of 2015, we confirmed it existed and then said not another word, not a peep about it, until we were finished. >> at the most critical time possible, a couple weeks before the election, and i think there are other things involved in

that election, i'll grant that. but there is no question that that had a great historians can debate what kind of effect there was. >> peter, there was so much in the testimony today, not the least of which anthony weiner's activity and hillary clinton's aide forwarding e-mails to anthony weiner. >> he was just talking to you about his decisions. in late october, he said the day before he sent that to congress, he was told by investigators they had found a great big bunch of e-mails of clinton aide leader married to anthony weiner. we assume she had been using her laptop. what mr. comey said she was

forwarding the e-mails from secretary clinton either to weiner to print them out or to hers to print them out. they asked if that would be a criminal act, and they said there was no intent of violating the law. he also disclosed today that of the thousands of e-mails they found on the laptop, 12 were classified and they had already seen them. >> is there any chance there would be any criminal charges brought against huma aberdeen or anthony weiner, or has this been looked at? >> if there were charges, they would have been filed already. they said they can't meet the intent standard of the law the way they've for decaded applied it, so that case is closed. >> let's bring in our special agent clint laus.

and assistant to president obama ned price who served as senior director to president obama's senior security council. clint, let's start with you. the fbi had to defend themselves saying there was no investigation into the trump campaign as early as april 2016 and yet he was able to go out and talk about the clinton investigation. he said that was because they were nearing completion of it, and then they did complete it, then they reopened it. from your assessment, does it look like he treated the two campaigns differently? >> i think he did treat them differently, but he also had to treat them differently. what we don't really know about is on the russia investigation how deep does it go? does it actually touch the campaign in a significant way or not? and it started at different times. if you'll remember, the clinton e-mail investigation started well into the year before, and i think he thought that by talking about it even at the end that he would close that down and it

would be shut down. whereas the russia investigation really didn't start until really heavy into the summer leading into the election. >> did we learn anything new from your assessment today? >> i don't think we learned anything new. i think we should be asking, how much longer will this go on? the russian investigation continues to drag down the administration, and it continues to endure in our conversation here in the united states. we're now several months after the election. it looks like we're several months away from having any resolution on this. >> the president is continuing to tweet about this investigation, saying that the russia investigation was the best thing that ever happened to clinton because it gave her an excuse essentially to say where she lost. is there a concern or is there an argument to be made that he could be interfering in the investigation? >> well, i think, katy, what you can say with 100% confidence is that the president is again contradicting not only his intelligence community but his law enforcement and department of justice.

director comey again said today that there is no question the fbi was completely behind the russia assessment, that they clearly did meddle in our election. and i think those that know director comey well recognize that his federal bureau of investigation will follow the facts wherever they lead. obviously the president is creating a lot of background noise, but this is not new for this president. he has injected himself into issues both near and far from his jurisdiction, and i certainly expect that director comey and the fbi will tune this out. >> the "new york times" had a remarkable talk about decisions fbi director comey made last year during the campaign, decisions about why he came out and spoke about the clinton e-mail issue and why he did not come out and speak about the trump campaign. one of the reasons was that he was going to do an op-ed but he was pushed off doing that op-ed about the trump campaign and the investigation into russia by the obama administration. what can you tell us about that?

>> well, director comey, i believe, today made no direct reference to that. what i can say, in this case the obama administration was unscrupulous in following the same playbook and protocols we use in attributing malicious cyber activity and other instances. the most famous instant was the case in 2014 where we attributed that activity to north korea, but there are other cases where we have learned pla hackers in china, where we have named iranian cyber actors, and in all cases we followed the same playbook. the administration asked the intelligence community to come up with a bulletproof assessment of who is behind this activity and then working with the law enforcement community to determine what information could be relayed to the public without compromising any of those sources or methods. i think the american people could understand that in forcefully condemning this activity on the part of the russian federation, the administration went to great lengths to ensure that we were not releasing any classified

information, we would not hurt any law enforcement investigations and that we would not weaken the tools that our intelligence community has used to detect these very intrusions in russian tactics. that is exactly what we did in this case, and as soon as the intelligence community presented this high confidence assessment, they went forward with that on october 7. >> is there any regret about those decisions? >> you can second-guess anything, and i think you heard director comey acknowledge today that there's been quite a bit of controversy around his own decisions. but i think to not have followed that playbook, katy, would have been much more problematic. >> also, today, questions about taxes. a lot of people want to see donald trump's taxes. a majority of americans want to see donald trump's taxes and they speak pretty freely that certainly democrats on capitol hill want to see them as well. they tried to lay the groundwork in a case of trying to subpoena those taxes. take a listen. >> director comey, the russians

have a history of using financial investments to gain leverage over influential people and then later calling in favors. we know that. we know that the russians interfered in our election, and they did it to benefit president trump. the intelligence agencies confirmed that. but what i want to know is why they favored president trump. and it seems to me in order to answer that question, any investigation into whether the trump campaign or trump operation colluded with russian operatives would require a full appreciation of the president's financial dealings. director comey, would president trump's tax returns be material to such an investigation? >> that's not something, senator, i'm going to answer. >> director comey is not going to answer that. we could have seen that coming. clint, talk to me about how donald trump's tax returns could be relevant to this investigation. >> there's two things you want

to know in a conspiracy like this, connections and finances. if we don't know how our candidates, or in this case our president, are making their money, especially when they haven't di vevested from their businesses, then that leads them to collusion. without that, i don't know how we head down that trial into a conspiracy. >> is it true he doesn't have to give his tax returns? >> i don't know what the rules are about subpoenaing them, but it's probably about his associates at this point. >> but don't they need them in order to conduct a full investigation? >> i think if you're actually looking for collusion, you need to get the -- >> or coordination? >> yeah, or coordination, you need to get the preclusion. they need that to get the evidence. that would come through our

emissaries. >> i want to bring in mike vacarro back in. mike, there is a new e-mail out there that has added support to this bill. tell me about it. >> it's clear they're going backwards on this bill. they were hovering around 20, 21 republican no's, as we know. they could only afford to lose 22 republicans, but a wall against this latest proposal to halt a change of obamacare. the head of the house committee surprised everybody when he said he was going to vote against it. that's when the republicans knew they were in trouble. if you see people running back and forth behind me, it's because i'm standing between the speaker's chambers and the house of representatives. there's been a long meeting inside the speaker's office with many of the major players continuing to try to twist arms.

what we do know is that fred upton another surprised no, billy long of missouri, a long-time trump supporter and supporter of repeal of the affordable care act, he, too, suddenly said he was going to vote against the republican effort. lo and behold, they are both called to the white house for a face to face meeting with president trump. they emerged saying they have changed their minds, they are going to vote in support of the republican effort. why? because of a proposal put forward by fred upton, that republican moderate from the shores of lake michigan, who has now secured $8 billion for those with preexisting conditions to throw into this high risk pool. of course, the concern, the dicey issue for republicans has been weakening the provision that mandates that anyone with a preexisting condition is eligible to get insurance. the way many people had looked at this latest republican proposal was that it was going to water that down, and while technically they could still get insurance, those with preexisting conditions, it would have been unaffordable for

millions of americans. so, fred upton gets another 8 billion thrown into that. you get a sense now -- here comes another running member of congress that passed me -- you get a sense now that the tide may have shifted in some way. meetings are ongoing here. still very much touch and go at the moment. there is talk, murmuring about possibly putting the bill on the floor tomorrow. one thing we know for sure, katy, they're not going to wing it. if they put it on the floor, they know they'll have the votes which brings up another issue which is what happens in the senate? i've been talking too long now so i won't describe that for you. >> i do want to ask one more question about the senate and where it goes from there. there is a feeling that it going to have to get a lot more moderate if it's going to get anywhere in the senate. we heard from tom morgan really trashing this. >> that's the uphill climb they have had in trying to convince

these moderate members of the house of representatives on the republican side to go along with this, because you're essentially asking them to walk the political plank and stick their necks out, to mix metaphors, knowing this will change radically if it gets to the senate. so why would they put themselves on the line and vote for this bill that does weaken the preexisting condition provision, which has proven to be, let's face it, popular even in many deeply republican districts. so that's part of the dynamic here, but, you know, republican leaders, the white house, typically i think in any white house, the strategy is to keep the ball moving three yards in a cloud of dust, send it to the senate and take it from there. >> a democrat in a red state, west virginia, talked to me yesterday about this. he said he warned the president that people won't necessarily remember who gave them health care, but they will certainly

remember who took it away from them. let's get one of ron wyden's tweets back up. he said the upton amendment encourages insurance companies to charge sick people with high premiums because they'll be bailed out with taxpayer money. the upton amendment gives $8 billion in subsidies to make sure those who have preexisting conditions do not get charged more. at issue there is this waiver that states will be allowed to vote on and use if they would like to do so to make it so preexisting conditions are sent to what are called high-risk pools. a lot of various health organizations have come out pretty forcefully against this, saying ultimately those with preexisting conditions won't be able to afford their health care. they'll have the option of it, but health insurance companies will hike up their premiums so

high, it will essentially be like them not having it whatsoever. so they potentially have the votes to pass this. is there a feeling, mike, from your assessment there on capitol hill, that they just need to pass something? it doesn't necessarily matter what is in this bill, but they've got to prove that they can legislate, that they're not just the party of no, and also give a win to their republican president? >> absolutely, and you make a good point. i think the sense for many republican leaders here in congress and republicans in the rank and file is the traditional political sense here in washington. if your party is empowering the white house, then your political fortunes rise and fall on the president of the united states. certainly there is a wary eye here. it does not help that message discipline, shall we say, has not been consistent coming from the white house. they feel as though they have the rug pulled out from under them. they've been working with cross purposes with the president and the president's tweets, in

particular, when he takes to twitter about the budget or about the health care bill. and you're right, opposition from outside groups very influential outside groups, including the american medical association, the aarp still coming out against what has been transpired here over the last few hours, the upton amendment, that extra $8 billion. and katy, they're doing it the old-fashioned way. the members who are wavering go down to the white house, they walk away with a prize of $8 billion. they say, look, i'm standing with my constituents of preexisting conditions. but the problem of that, that sort of dealing behind closed doors, that back scratching or log rolling or however you want to put it is what republicans and tea party conservatives and those in the freedom caucus have been bellowing about ever since they got here to washington. so you win some on that side, you lose some on that side. it remains to be seen whether another $8 billion tacked onto this is going to result, and as

a consequence of that, result in them losing conservative support. katy. >> and on the left-hand side of our screen, we are watching the white house press briefing room. that's where sean spicer is set to take the podium any minute now. but let's keep talking about health care a little bit. the divide on health care within the republican party is still pretty stark. and now there's a new ad that's out being used against him. it's called save my care, and it's from a group working to stop the obamacare repeal. >> announcer: who is against tom mcarthur's health repeal plan? the american cancer society and aarp. whole else? even some in his own party. >> even some in his own party. joining us now is msnbc political reporter heidi presser. heidi, what is your assessment? does it look like they'll go to the floor tomorrow with a vote

on this? >> i don't think they'll go to the floor unless they actually have the votes. the question is do they have the votes and we don't know if this balance has been struck between moderates and conservatives and whether throwing 8 billion extra dollars into the pot will aid the conservatives. that is their principal objection is putting all this federal money into the system. at the same time, looking at that ad, politically speaking, if there is a vote and these moderates vote on it, that is not the end of the story. looking at the house in 2018, all democrats need is about 24 seats. you've got 23 of those republicans sitting in hillary clinton districts, and they're going to be very nervous even if they do vote for an extra $8 billion, because the underlying legislation is the same, which says that health insurance companies can opt out. it's unclear whether throwing that extra money at it is really going to help, or how much it's

going to help those people because you're throwing a bunch of sick people on the same pool which is essentially not risk management, which is the whole idea of insurance. >> so the republican party is divided on this. the freedom caucus wants a full repeal. without a full repeal, they want this to be a pretty watered-down version of a health care bill. the moderates want significantly more protections. they want to keep parts of obamacare intact. after all, a lot of their communities do like it. most of the country, in fact, likes this. the health care law that is currently in place. because of that, if there is a lot of wheeling and dealing behind the scenes, the $8 billion subsidy given to congressman upton, what is the risk they're going to start alienating freedom caucus members? >> there is definitely a risk, and maybe if this had been the first pass-through and this was the initial deal, the freedom caucus members would have thrown up their hands. but at the same time i think they are balancing the political

realities of what would happen to the strength of the party as a whole in terms of what the implications are for this going forward. this is just the first thing that they need to get done. this was supposed to be the easy thing. if they can't get this done, make no mistake, there are huge implications for tax reform as well. >> and here is sean spicer. heidi prezbolah, thank you for your response. sean spicer is expected to address not only health care but probably what's going on on the hill and finding a peace deal between the palestinians and israel is a whole lot easier than many people thought. >> we continue to make progress on repealing and replacing obamacare as rates skyrocket and insurers keep fleeing the market around the country in anticipation of this impending implosion. earlier this week, aetna announced it would scale back its presence on obamacare exchanges even further in 2018, withdrawing from the iowa

exchange. aetna had already cut its participation in the exchanges from 15 states to four in 2017. iowa is going to be hit particularly hard by these recent developments as merica, the last insurance for most of the state, announced it would most likely stop selling individual policies in the state which will affect tens of thousands of americans. with reports like these seemingly coming every day, it couldn't be clearer that it's time for action on health care. we're glad that so many members are with us and look forward to welcoming even more on board. also earlier today, the president dropped by an event focusing on school choice that was hosted by the vice president and secretary devos with students ranging from kindergarten to high school. most of the students who visited the white house today are some of the thousands of local children who will benefit from the three-year extension of the d.c. school choice scholarship secured by the president and congressional allies in the budget deal. in the district of columbia's

opportunity scholarship program which was launched in 2004 provides vouchers to d.c. students whose families receive benefits under the nutritional program, otherwise known as snap, or earn 85% of the federal poverty level. last year 69% of d.c. public school students graduated from high school. that's compared to an incredible 98% of the d.c. scholarship students who received their high school diplomas last year. funding for the opportunity scholarship was one of our priorities during these budget negotiations, and the trump administration is glad to have ensured that the program's extension was taken care of during this appropriations bill on top of the increases in military spending and spending for security. the visit stems from the phone call the two leaders had on march 10 when president trump

invited president aboss so they could discuss ways to move forward on a palestinian agreement that would end the palestinian conflict. the two leaders made their statement a few minutes ago, but to give you additional details, some of the topics discussed during their lunch was raising pat stpalestinian peace, measur of helping the palestinian economy and providing protection to the palestinian people, providing aid to people in jails and their families to resolve this issue. later in the evening the president, along with vice president pence, will host meetings with the advisory board in questions. president trump is delighted to

introduce this leader to the white house for the first time. later tonight the vice president will also deliver a keynote address to the campaign for life gala. the vice president's office has more details on that. and with that, i'll take your questions. >> sean, on health care, does the president feel like we've reached an inflexion point at the house? is this a make or break moment in terms of getting the bill through the house? what is the president doing and is he taking measures as to why they should support this bill? >> i think he's making several points. one is that obamacare is failing. as i just mentioned, in so many cases around the country, the need to have a provider is becoming greater and greater. two, the costs are out of

control. but the effort continues, especially the effort this morning with congressman long and upton, helped bring more people into this effort, make it a stronger bill and ensure that americans have a health care system that gets them the care that they need at a price that's affordable. >> is this a now or never type of moment, though, with the bill? >> i don't want to put it there. the president has made it clear before that he's not trying to set a date certain. obviously that's up to the speaker and the house leadership to determine when that time is appropriate. but as you have seen, we continue to move closer and closer to that time, and the number of members who are supporting it continues to grow further and further, and i think that's a very promising sign. >> sean, yesterday the president tweeted that fbi director james comey gave hillary clinton, quote, a free pass from any bad deeds. is the president comfortable having an fbi director that gives out free passes serve during his administration? >> the president has confidence in the director, but i think clearly his point was after some

of the comments that were made yesterday regarding the reason for the outcome of the election. i think he just wanted to make it clear what exactly happened. >> on health care, the president appears to be directly involved behind the scenes? how much responsibility does the president plan to take for the outcome of the vote if it does occur this week? >> i think if we have a vote, which is looking greater and greater every day, but again, i'm not going to get ahead of the house leadership in deciding when that is. my assumption is the house leaders will call that when the numbers put usover t over the t. the president has been on the phone constantly, the vice president, chiefs of staff, calling on members, hearing their concerns. i think we have made this an unbelievable bill and an unbelievable replacement for obamacare which is failing. that's what we sought to do from the beginning. >> there was an important politico yesterday that seemed

to say that president trump planned to sign an executive order tomorrow in the name of religious freedom. will the president sign an extraordinary tomorrow and will that help people? >> tomorrow is a national day of prayer. we look forward to having religious leaders with a multitude of backgrounds. >> do you -- >> i answered the question. blake. >> i want to get your reaction to former president obama. he tweeted yesterday after the entire monologue you've probably seen about the child, talks about the need to cover preexisting conditions, funding for the nih and mr. obama said,

well said, jimmy. that's exactly why they fought so hard for the aca and why we need protection for kids like billy. your reaction to both of them would be what? >> we share that concern for a child as well as any child that needs care. that's why the president fought so hard like he did this morning to make sure there was that extra layer of anyone with a preexisting condition, . jimmy kimmel said in his monologue that we need to have these for the democrat, that they're american policies. i think that's what the president is fighting for right now, that we have an american system that takes care of people. we talked about this endlessly over the last month or so, but we have a health care system that's not doing what it's supposed to. it's failing. it's costing people too much.

it's giving people a card, not coverage. . . it allows them to see a doctor that covers preexisting conditions and does so in a way that won't be out of range and unaffordable for most americans. >> what hillary clinton said yesterday, she said, quote, if the election had been on october 27th, i would be your president. and on the hill today, james com comey. would you speak or would you conceal? did james comey make the right decision on april 28? >> i'm a patriots fan, and i think if games ended in the third quarter, there would be a different game here last week. with all due respect to her, that's not how it works. you don't get.

the president has made plenty of analysis on where people would like to spend their time and their resources. it's somewhat sad that we're still debating why the president won in the way he did. >> i think with respect to the election, i think the american people made their decision. aman? >> there's been a lot of focus recently. can you clarify for us exactly what areas of responsibility are here -- i think ivanka has built in a very successful business. she's been working with women to talk about empowerment and education for quite some time. it's a passion of hers. i think to bring in her passion for women, empowerment and

education and entrance into areas that they haven't been able to get to is one of the reasons that chancellor merkel reached out to her and asked her to come to the w-20 summit. because i think she can use her voice to help bring attention to issues. she can use her knowledge to break down some barriers that young women need to break down to get into business. that's where her passion is now. >> she has a weekly meeting with the treasury secretary. what's that mean? >> there's a lot of times where she's meeting with folks to understand an issue, to get up to speed. but i think her primary focus, which she's always said where her passion is, where her time is going to be spent, is to figure out how to empower women, break down barriers for women, whether that's in small business, education. young women in poverty and

families, figuring out how to help them. part of that is having conversations with people in government, finding out what programs exist where we can help different folks in government or fix a government program not being properly utilized. there is a lot of that. matt? >> back to health care. an analysis from aarp showed that the sickest patients will pay nearly $26,000 a year premiums under the new health care law and that $8 billion, which was included in that amendment this morning, is not nearly enough to lower those costs. so i'm wondering, how would that premium major hike which would be a huge hit on sick patients, be an improvement. >> to make an opinion on that level of decision seems almost

impossible. right now preexisting conditions are covered in the bill. they always have been. we've talked about that before. states have the right to receive a waiver. if someone has continuous coverage, that's never going to be an issue regardless of any circumstance. they would never have a problem if preexisting conditions. if someone chose not to have coverage for 60 days or more, and they were in a state that opted out, and they had a preexisting condition, and they were put in a high risk pool, then we've allocated the $8 billion over five years to help drive down that cost. if we know the number of states that will ask for and receive a waiver is literally impossible at this point. so to do an analysis of any level of factual basis would be literally not -- >> one, would the president prefer, does he have a preference, as to whether or not states opt out, given that option. and two, will people with

preexisting conditions pay higher premiums under this bill than they currently do? >> i think everything we've done, including the additional 8 billion this year, have everything that i've seen shows that the cost curve goes down for them in a lot of ways. if you have preexisting conditions -- and remember what a small pool that is. if you have a preexisting condition currently, the bill protects you. the only factor would be if you live in a state that potentially has a pass for a waiver and then suddenly is grand -- and if he had gone 60 days without continuous coverage. if you go. but the president has worked to make sure that every single scenario. >> then another question, the congressman this morning from.

does the president have a. the president believes in states' rights, number. . care coverage goes up and cost go down. the. >> i want to go back to some things that he said about russia. one of the things he said was the russian government is still involved in politics. is that the view of this white house? >> i think that's the view of the fbi. we rely on them and the rest of the intelligence community to provide the presidents with updates on what they're learning. it doesn't go that way. the director and the intelligence committee update the president on all of the threats the united states faces and all of the intelligence activity that need to be

briefed. >> does he then accept that? >> i'm just saying i don't know what he has recently briefed. i know the question was asked during the testimony. i don't know what new evidence beyond what they shared with the president in december has happened between then and now. >> one more thing on that front. he called russia, quote, the greatest threat of any nation on earth. is that something the president agrees with? >> i think the president has been very clear that he thinks the threat north korea poses with a potential nuclear weapon that has range capacity is something he finds to be threatening to the lives of americans and our allies. alexis? >> i have some health care questions. i want to follow up on the president's conversations with congressman upton. until yesterday the president thought there was enough funding and congressman upton came up with $8 billion more.

your comment was it's impossible to know what was needed. why did the president think that was sufficient coverage for those with preexisting conditions yesterday but today he thinks $8 billion will cover it? what persuaded him to do that? >> i think congressman long addressed it that he, through a series of conversations he had with the president, shared with the president their shared goal. as president long said, the president expressed to him that the symptoms were covered and had -- it wasn't a question of kovrnl, it was the question of cost. so the president engaged in a conversation with them. the president agreed that if

we're adding an additional safety net, which is essentially what that is, not on the coverage but on the cost, that can ensure that the president talked about this from the beginning. he wants to work with members to make it the strongest possible bill, to have the strongest outcome for people in a health care system where the cost continues to go down. i think that's one point, alexis, that we keep forgetting in this discussion with what we're trying to do. it's not just replacing obamacare. obamacare is dying on the vine. costs are going out of control, the deductible is going up. aetna, as we just discussed, is pulling out of states and counties around the country are now going down to one, in some cases, zero, choices. this isn't a question of just replacing something, we are at a point where if we don't do something, some people in this country will have no options for coverage.

we have to do something and that's where the president has been willing to work with us, pick up the phone and figure out how do we get this done so that every american has the coverage they need. >> so i'll ask about the next step. there are members of the house that are concerned on the republican side that they could vote for something that will change dramatically in the senate. what is the president's message to members who are concerned about that? is he going to press the senate to encourage what mayor may not come out of the house, but what you hope may come out? >> the senate will tape the hou -- take up the house bill and then they'll go to conference and that's when both sides have the opportunity to talk about any potential changes. the president feels very good about how this bill has evolved, how much stronger it has become to achieve the goals he set out. he continued to work with mcconnell and others when it gets to the senate -- there could be issues that come up between now and then, but our

number one goal is to get it out of the house and then have those conversations with the senate and go to conference. but for right now -- in a perfect world, they would just take it straight up and we would go, but i have a feeling the senate will want to say something on this. >> congressman long is happy to move forward with a legislative fix. what about fixes still to come before this bill hits the white house floor? >> the president has always said he's willing to hear ideas. this is a question for speaker ryan, leader mccarthy and scalise as to is this the appropriate time? when they feel they have enough votes to take to the floor updates, et cetera. the president has been constantly on the phone for the

last several. i think we're getting to that number closer and closer, but that will ultimately be a decision that speaker ryan and leader mccarthy have to make. >> on timing, i've heard different things from the president over the course of the last few weeks. at one point i heard the president say he wants the bill to be taken up now. other times it's not important, let's get the bill right. what's your view, is it very important as far as the administration is concerned that this bill vote take place sooner rather than later? >> well, obviously sooner than later. the goal is what we're getting closer and closer to every day. but you don't want to put it up and not move forward. the president wants to make sure leadership is confident it can pass and i think he's done everything he can in terms of speaking to members of the house to get there.

ultimately it will be their decision to do it, and i think we continue to feel optimistic about the direction we've seen the legislation go. mike? >> i want to revisit the president's comments in his tweets about the ominous spending bill in the campaign on his business record on his ability to make good deals, make better deals than politicians in the past have. does the president view the spending bill as a good deal? >> yes. >> sean, can you say definitively that nobody with a preexisting condition will pay more under it if the amendment does get passed? >> i think we've done everything we can to do that. every measurement the president has taken further not only ensures people with preexisting conditions get covered in every scenario but does so that bends the cost curve down. >> but can you guarantee it? >> with all due respect, to answer a question saying can i guarantee something, i can tell you every single thing the president has done, including

the action he took this morning to work with members of congress, does everything by every account to bend the cost curve down to help everybody that would potentially fall into that small group of individuals to bend the cost curve down who have a preexisting condition. the answer, you know, is yes, that we have done every single thing possible to get that down and ensure that, number one, that potential is as small as possible. the bill covers people with preexisting conditions, number one. number two, it does everything to ensure that if a state seeks a waiver, they are still covered. but it looks at every single possibility to ensure that people get the care that they need. >> you criticized former president obama rushing through his health care plan. is this not being rushed through? this legislation hasn't even been scored yet by the cpo or put up for public debate, this latest piece of legislation. >> every piece of legislation evolves as it goes through the process.

we have a piece that makes it a stronger bill. but this is something republicans have been talking about and have had the contours of the last seven years. this has been a process for a long, long time. >> does the president expect to see a vote? >> the president expects to see a vote in its own time. >> senator lindsey graham said a short time ago that republicans got their clocks cleaned on this bill. it looks like as many as 100 house republicans will vote against it. how do you square that, that this was a big win for republicans? >> i didn't address that. mulvaney addressed that extensively yesterday, but to get back to mike's point, this is a great deal for the president. he had $120 billion in military funding. that is a huge campaign pledge that he made very clearly to modernize and up -- it ends

domestic spending for every dollar for dollar. it got 1.$1.92 $1.3 billion to coal miners which delivers another promise that he made. there's to obama bailout. the csr payments which was something the democrats want. there is a three-year extension of the scholarship choice which you saw the children that will benefit from that this morning. it increases funds for the opioid crisis. 150 programs or initiatives. when the director laid this out yesterday. when you look at what the president came forward with a month or so ago and said these my priorities, he got what he asked for. and i think that's big. so the president feels very good about what he got. and again, i think it is important to underscore two points. number one, in the senate we

needed 60 votes. this had to be a bipartisan action. it is a spending bill. therefore we needed to get democratic votes with us. if you look at, as director mulvany said yesterday, it needs to be a one for one spending increase. we got that to $1.20. that's a huge win for the president. he negotiated a fairly strong deal when it comes to what they got versus what we got. the other thing is this is just the final five months of fy 18. any president coming into office wouldn't get first shot at a budget until september of the first year they are elected. so he got to push for his priorities, military spending, d.c. schools, right out of the gate. for the last five months of this fiscal year, something that should have happened during obama administration, he got his priorities, a down payment on them. >> this is at least the fourth white house, the fourth administration in a row that has come in with optimistic

predictions of how mideast peace will go. what's different this time? >> i think demand is different. the president's diplomacy style is paying dividends, whether it is getting someone who is held for years in egypt released, whether it is the actions that china has taken. the relationships and the foundation that the president is rebuilding will pay huge dividends for this country. you saw it today with president abbas, him talking so kindly about the president. you saw the relationship that exists and is only getting stronger between him and president netanyahu. you have two individuals who because of this president are increasing their desire for peace. you've got an individual in president xi in china that has

taken fairly significant action to help the, with the united states, especially with respect to our desire to end the threat in the north korea that has been unprecedented. the president's ability to work an individual, to have back room diplomacy is something that is going to continue on pay dividends is that get results for this country. charlie. >> in january, the president -- he said i don't know why they're even wasting their time why. is the government focused so much on existing border security measures, rather handle the fighting for the wall that he promised that he would build? >> thank you for an opportunity to show you some things. so if i can get the first image up. you asked. but you literally could not have

helped me more. this is what exists throughout our country. this is kind of barrier that exists throughout the country. you see a place where cars can literally create little things and drive over. you have places that can get burroed under. this is what, those images represent our nation's current border security. according to a ga report from earlier this year, from fiscal year 2010 to 2015, the customs and border patrol recorded a total of 9287 breaches in pedestrian fencing at an average cost of $784 per breach to repair. every time they cut through, break through, it is costing just under 1,000 mpbl for us to go out and fix. now to the next slide.

>> the bill that's about to get passed, title six states that an additional $497 for procurement, construction and improvements of that total, $341.2 million are to, quote, this is literally what it says in the bill. to replace approximately 40 miles of existing primary pedestrian and vehicle border fencing along the southwest border using previously deployed and operationally effective designs such as steel despines prioritize agent safety. so that's your answer, charlie. hold on. wave porous border right now with broken fences, things that can be cut through, places that can literally be driven over. to replace this with 20 foot high ballard wall will protect our country. something that the dhs has designated the most effective

way to do this. so that's what we got out of this bill. >> just one question about the photos. are those photos of fences or walls? >> that's called a ballard wall, pass levy wall. no no. there are various walls that can be built under the legislation that was just passed, it allows us to do that. as we've mentioned, that's called a levy wall on the left. that's called a ballard wall. >> so that's not a wall? a levy wall? >> that's what it is called. that's the name of it. >> the fencing. not the wall. >> in this current bill, it allows us to do the following. so to be clear, in several areas along our southern border, we have what was in the first slide, areas in which someone can cut through with a pair of wire cutters or put a barrier over that a car can drive over the top. what we've done is taken the tools that we have to replace, and if you look at that one in

particular, you have a chain link fence is currently at our southern border. that is literally down there now. we are able to go in there. instead of a chain link fence, replace with it that ballard wall. >> that's not the wall the president promised. >> hold. on i'll take turns. just to be clear, he asked the same thing. this is the 2017 budget. this is a down payment on what the president is going to prioritize in the 2018 budget that starts october 1st. as i mentioned to john roberts, the idea that we got a shot at this is something that should have been done last term under president obama. we have an opportunity on use the last five months of the fy 17 fwougt gbudget to get his pr jump started. so he is using the current bill. to answer the question, it is being built in arizona, sunland

park, new mexico, and we are going to start to do this in san diego, el paso and rio grand valley. >> so you're telling supporters, the president's supporters to be satisfied with this existing tough guy fencing until he is ready to build the wall. >> no, what i'm telling everybody, the president said he would build the wall and he is doing it. with the department of homeland security, said it is the most effective way to keep people out, to stop drugs, to stop cartels, illegal trafficking and illegal immigration. that's what i'm telling you. >> he said he wants to see east jerusalem as the capital palestinian state. you're still looking at moving the u.s. embassy to jerusalem. what is the white house view on those remarks? we didn't hear anything on that. >> i think the vice president as you know commented that it is

something being discussed and considered by the president. it will ten to be a discussion that he what is both prime minister netanyahu and prime minister abbas. >> they are, they have a series of private discussions. that's why the president is able to effectively get things done for this. he is going to continue to have discussions with netanyahu and abbas moving forward and he feels confident about where that relationship was in relation to where it was today. i'm not going to negotiate from this podium. i understand it. i am telling that you we won't negotiate from the podium. >> just to follow up on the president's meeting with abbas, he did say, talking about middle east peace and the conflict. maybe it's not as difficult as people thought. why does he believe that the

toughest foreign policy challenge in our lifetime may not be as difficult as people thought? >> i think both these leaders have discussed the confidence they have in the president's negotiating skills, in the president's desire to work to get peace. the prince william he's built with them individually and the trust and respect that they have for them. and i think that he in discussions with them, in private discussions with them, feels very optimistic about the shared goal that everybody has. obviously, there are a lot of issues that have to get covered. but the president understand that's they respect his ability to want to get this done. the relationship that's have been developed. this is something that he wants to have happen. >> why even monkey around with pre-existing conditions? that's the most popular they know in obamacare. why are you guys spinning your wheels messing around with pre-existing conditions? >> i wouldn't call it