voice. >> on my audio book. >> reading your book to me. >> disturbing or enjoyable? little of both? >> equal parts. good book, though. >> 11:00 a.m. out west and 2:00 p.m. here in the east. ahead this hour president trump at the u.n. more on that raid at paul manafort's home and another massive storm. hurricane maria is now a category 5 storm and she is barrelling through the caribbean. puerto rico is preparing for what could be a direct and devastating hit tomorrow. maria has already battered domenica and martinique. right now president trump is at the united nations for a luncheon where he just toasted the great potential of the u.n. earlier he threatened to totally destroy north korea in his debut address to the u.n. general assembly, arguably the most important foreign policy speech he has given to date.

and he also used his new nickname for kim jong-un and said some parts of the world are, quote, going to hell. >> our government's first duty is to its people, to our citizens. as president of the united states, i will always put america first, just like you as the leaders of your countries will always and should always put your countries first. no one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the well being of their own people than the depraved regime in north korea. the united states has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy north korea. rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his

regime. the united states is ready, willing, and able, but hopefully this will not be necessary. major portions of the world are in conflict and some, in fact, are going to hell. but the powerful people in this room under the guidance and auspices of the united nations can solve many of these vicious and complex problems. >> we have a team of reporters and analysts here to help break down the president's speech. peter alexander is at the united nations. joining me in the newsroom, andrea mitchell. phil richardson, former new mexico governor, and former director for korea, japan, and oceanic affairs at the national security council. peter, let us start with you. there is a lot to be said about the president's tone today, his language today. what is the white house saying was the goal of this speech, and

how it was crafted? >> well, the white house, of course, views this as a home run. they think the president delivered exactly the message they needed to do, in their eyes he was strong, clear, principled. we spoke to a senior administration official that says this speech was, quote, subversive in the best way, in effect, flipping on it head the outdated conventional wisdom. they said of north korea the president's tough remarks that deterrence prevents war. it was those series of remarks the president made about north korea, that suicide mission comment about rocket man, his comments about potentially threatening nuclear annihilation against north korea that really got the most attention from these remarks today, but notably here's how the president cast his own speech as he entered the general assembly hall early today. take a listen. >> what was your message to north korea? >> the message is really a message of peace. it's a message of coming together. hopefully, it's a message of

strength. we have done things with our military that have not been done in many years, as you know, almost $700 million is being spent. i think it's really a message of strength and of peace. and i hope you enjoyed it. thank you very much. >> of course, this was a president who campaigned as a noninterventionist, but on this day he really was, in fact, preaching intervention in all parts of the world, from iran where he threatened the u.s. may tear itself out of the iran nuclear deal, which remember the u.s. is not the only one a part of that deal. and separately suggesting that the u.s., basically, was dependent on these other nations like china, russia, others, to try to enforce the punishing sanctions on north korea right now. so there were certainly some contradictions in the president's remarks on this day. katy? >> talking about venezuela, as well. peter, thank you very much. andrea, the president, obviously, campaigned on this, projection of strength, this idea that he would be the one to say things that nobody else was

willing to say, and he would be unapologetic about it in order to protect the american people. no doubt the voters who voted for him liked this speech. it's what they wanted to hear. how was the rest of the world taking it, though? >> two minds on this, because it was so tough in the rhetoric, so insulting to north korea's leader, and no one in the civilized world supports what the north korean regime is doing. that said, is it smart? is this the way to approach north korea? if you believe that he's a rationale actor, wants the survival of his regime, wants to keep his nuclear program and general clapper, the former head of national intelligence said after visiting pyongyang he's not going to give up his nukes. we just have to learn to deal with this. the best we can get is a freeze, some kind of accord with verification. and they cheated in the past. so this is complex, but is it smart to not have an approach to negotiations? and that's what critics of the speech would say, that it is, as

well as threatening to walk away from the iran nuclear deal, what's that saying to the other five members, four members of the security council, as well as germany, as well as the european union, once you make a deal aren't you supposed to stick with it, even as the u.n. energy inspectors say it is being obeyed by iran. >> talking about this sort of heightened rhetoric, it's not the first time we heard donald trump say these sorts of things. saying that north korea, though, today would be totally destroyed. is kim jong-un intimidated by that sort of language? >> i don't believe he's intimidated. in fact, i think it strengthens him internally with his people. he's been saying to his people the u.s. is our enemy, they are trying to destroy us, we have to build up our nuclear weapons to protect ourselves. nobody knows how kim jong-un will react, because nobody's ever talked to him except dennis rodman and a few other people. the worry i have is i don't

think we have an end game, the united states, nor we don't know what north korea's end game is. i think the answer is diplomacy, negotiation, a freeze, some kind of a dialogue that leads to a broader agreement. >> is that the way you get to diplomacy and negotiation, though? >> well, no one has ever used this, no american president has been as rhetoric strong as president trump. but what i worry about president trump is, all right, that's his style. it's not going to change. he's going to tweet. what is he going to do next? i mean, a preemptive military option, 25,000 american troops in south korea, 50,000 in japan, and then seoul, the people of south korea, 25 million right at the perimeter of the dmz, so it's hard to find where we want to go. >> and i want to get to that in a moment, but is it a good idea

to personally name call, call somebody, make fun of them with a nickname rocket man, somebody who is as unstable as he is believed to be? >> no, i mean, calling him, kim jong-un names, he has to react. there's going to be another missile test, potentially a nuclear test. he has to react to this. he doesn't want to look like he's caving to trump or look weak. >> but talking about, and i know these are your areas of expertise, talking about south korea, talking about japan, we think about these icbms that can potentially reach the u.s. and that's, obviously, very concerning. the reality is, though, south korea, seoul, and japan are direct targets, and those are the places that would realistically, likely be the first targets if we were to attack north korea. >> south korea and japan were already under nuclear threat from south korea. seoul is over 10,000

conventional artillery pieces within 60 seconds of seoul. they've already been living with this threat, so i think south korea and japan's direction right now, there's a lot of nervousness about what washington is going to do. they've already been living under nuclear threat. >> what do you think about the president's rhetoric? do they like it, think it's a good idea? do they think, hey, listen, nothing else has worked? >> this kind of trick, because they know it's going to already make paranoid kim jong-un more paranoid. we don't want him to be more hysterical about this and he'll have to react more forcefully. i think this escalates things. i don't think they necessarily like this kind of rhetoric coming out of washington. >> another piece of the puzzle, china and russia. >> there is an audience in beijing watching, listening to donald trump and he's trying to keep the pressure up because he wants china to stop cheating, observe sanctions, tighten sanctions, but at the same time china is very, very nervous. i think you're the expert. >> is he being strong enough,

though, on china and russia? is he? >> i was at the u.n., and we tried sanctions on iraq. these sanctions that were passed, that were approved, have some bite. coal, sea food, south korean workers, textiles, a partial ban on oil. the issue is will china enforce them? will there be enough cross border smuggling, so they mean nothing? i think china's moving towards a tougher line against north korea, but not tough enough to cripple them. maybe to hurt them, but not to cripple them, and we need their help. this is why i think in the end what's interesting is a statement that kim jong-un made four days ago, said i want nuclear equilibrium with the united states. he wants to negotiate with us, with the u.s. he thinks we're the big guys and they are the big guys. they don't want china, south korea. >> it elevates him. >> it's an ego thing. he wants to save face. this is why i agree with my

colleague that calling him rocket man, i remember when i was talking to the north koreans and president bush said something about his father, derogatory like that, they reacted very negatively. those personal insults are stronger there felt than they are here. >> yeah. also donald trump went after iran. he's made no secret him thinking that the iran deal is the worst deal that america ever got into, he talked about repealing it and replacing it, he's talked about that on the campaign trail and president, as well. lester holt sat down with the president of iran ahead of the trump address. here's president rouhani's reaction to the trump threat of pulling out of the iran deal. >> so iran would be able to make choices if the u.s. withdrew. would that include resuming some of the nuclear activities that are currently prohibited? >> translator: always one of the options and choices.

where one of our counterparts not to remain in the current framework would be to go back to previous activities. this is one option. and that's not difficult. we can easily go back to previous conditions. if counterparts were to not live up to their commitments, but you do know fairly well that iran will not be the initiator of this return to that path. >> to be clear when you say resume activities, you're speaking about peaceful activities, you don't -- you're not talking about a weapons program? >> translator: certainly, what i mean is return to peaceful activities only. clearly, unequivocally, we were members of the nonproliferation treaty, we did not and do not intend to leave it, and we were

members of the safeguards and even under the current conditions that we're implementing, the jpco framework, we're also adhering to additional protocols. so we will never go towards production of nuclear weapons. just as in the past we never intended to go towards that path, nor did we ever. it has always been peaceful. >> andrea, you were there as they were negotiating the jcpoa. you followed them from country to country. in vienna when they finally finalized it, i guess, two and a half years ago. >> july of 2015. >> around the time donald trump announced he was running for president. benjamin netanyahu is very happy about this, clearly, but this idea that we could pull out of the iran deal, does it look like it's likely to happen? >> there will be some moderation. there's something coming from the white house, and i'm not sure exactly how it's going to be finalized, but by october 15th when they have another deadline to recertify that iran

is complying, the president said he doesn't want to do that again. so there will be some side issue. whether they stick with it and then demand something else from iran remains to be seen, but it really would hurt us with the european allies, who are all part of this, plus russia and china. >> where's tillerson on this? >> tillerson is badly damaged with the president for sticking with what the experts are telling him at the state department and from the u.n. weapons inspectors thinking that iran has misbehaved in other ways, their support for terrorism, behavior in syria, and also the accusations that they are still experimenting with ballistic missiles, but the fact is that tillerson tried to slow down the president's rush away from the iran deal and that is one of the issues of substance where the president became very disenchanted with the state department. >> andrea mitchell, bill richardson, good to have you all at the table, in studio, in the newsroom for once. great to have you, great

conversation. >> and congratulations on the book. >> thank you, thank you, it's exciting. back to the news, a reminder to catch more of lester's interview with the president tonight on nbc nightly news. check your local listings. and we have new developments in the russia probe, including how the feds pulled off that raid at paul manafort's home and what they told him after. plus, why did senate investigators cancel today's meeting with trump's personal attorney after he showed up? >> that's a question you're going to have to ask the senate. and later, a state of emergency in puerto rico. hurricane maria is expected to slam the coast in just a few hours. al roker is here tracking this monster storm. this is the story of john smith. not this john smith. or this john smith. or any of the other hundreds of john smiths that are humana medicare advantage members. no, it's this john smith. who we paired with a humana team member to help address his own specific health needs.

at humana, we take a personal approach to your health, to provide care that's just as unique as you are. no matter what your name is. but on the inside, i feel chronic, widespread pain.like most people. fibromyalgia may be invisible to others, but my pain is real. fibromyalgia is thought to be caused by overactive nerves. lyrica is believed to calm these nerves. i'm glad my doctor prescribed lyrica.

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

failed to clearly inform people whether the information had been stolen, then t ri senator elizabeth warren speaking on the floor right now, addressing yet another equifax hack and another revelation of an equifax hack. this one happened in march. it predates the july hack. so far 143 million americans have been impacted, getting things like addresses, social security numbers, and the like. we're going to keep an eye on this and see what she has to say, bring you any news that may come out of it. meanwhile, robert mueller is knocking on paul manafort's door. well, actually, he's picking the lock. that detail and others came out in two new reports on the russia investigation and the former trump campaign chair.

first "the new york times" shed new light on the july raid of manafort's virginia home, where federal agents actually, again, picked the lock to get in. prosecutors followed up by telling manafort they planned to indict him. and cnn reports today manafort was wiretapped by u.s. investigators under secret court orders before and after the election. manafort isn't the only trump associate feeling the heat. the president's personal attorney, michael cohen, was on the hill today, where he was supposed to be interviewed by senate intel committee staffers, but an hour after he got there, he told reporters the interview was postponed. >> the committee has chosen to postpone today's meeting, and we will come back for voluntary interview whenever we can to meet with them. >> was it your request to postpone, or was it -- >> what were you doing here today? >> it was a request by the senate intel to postpone, and i'll be back and look forward to

giving all the information that they are looking for. >> here with me now is nbc intelligence and national security reporter ken delaney and joyce vance, former u.s. attorney for alabama's northern district under president obama. she resigned the night before trump's inauguration. ken, let us start with you. why did this -- this meeting get postponed? >> well, katy, a source familiar with the situation told me that lawmakers from both parties were really annoyed that michael cohen, donald trump's personal lawyer for more than a decade, released a statement to reporters right at the start of the hearing in which he made sort of a blanket denial around collusion allegations. they thought they had reached an agreement with him that neither side would talk to the media. they were annoyed when jared kushner about a month ago did the same thing before his senate testimony. they didn't want that to happen again, because senators feel constrained about talking to the media about these behind closed door sessions, so they cancelled the meeting and now they are contemplating a subpoena to mr. cohen unless he -- unless they can agree to another voluntary

appearance. now, in that statement, though, he explicitly denies colluding with russia in any way around hacking or fake news in the election, and he says he was in close proximity to donald trump during the campaign and he saw no evidence donald trump colluded with the russians. he also specifically talked about his efforts to build a trump tower in moscow, which occurred during the primaries. he said that had nothing to do with the election, he said i was just doing my job. and the deal, obviously, didn't come to fruition, katy. >> what's this mean for cohen going forward? >> well, it's an interesting fact of life as a prosecutor that these sort of written prepared statements that can look good in writing often don't hold up when they are subjected to rigorous cross examination. and cohen's statement is in many ways very general. the type of denials that it issues, but it also doesn't cover the core of information that senate investigators,

senate staff would have liked to have had the opportunity to question him about. that being his efforts to build relationships between the trump camp and russia. so, it looks like cohen will now receive a subpoena, an invitation to appear publicly, and one suspects that will be an appearance that will be ride led with invocation of the 5th amendment as cohen tries to essentially dance and avoid to having to under oath in a public forum make false statements that can be used against him down the road. >> at the very least one that will get a lot of attention on capitol hill and across the country, who would want to see him testify. ken, talking about paul manafort, the new details about the raid, the idea that he is being told that he will be indicted. there's also the cnn reporting that he was wiretapped. let's start with the indictment. what do you know? >> so, nbc news, katy, has not confirmed manafort was told he would be indicted. we have confirmed this was a no-knock warrant, which means

when the fbi searched his home, they first had to convince a judge there was some evidence manafort would destroy records or evidence, such that they had to essentially break the door down or pick the lock while they were searching his house. that's a significant development as joyce well knows, they had to have evidence to show to the judge on that score. >> and, ken, according to cnn, some of the intelligence collected includes communications that sparked concerns that manafort had encouraged the russians to help with the campaign. talking about this fisa warrant. how significant could that be if this report turns out to be true? >> we just don't know. the report also says the evidence could be inconclusive. certainly there's been no charges and manafort has denied engaging in collusion with russia, but there are a lot of unexplained contacts between trump officials and russia and that's the point of the mueller investigation, to determine what this adds up to. was it an overt conspiracy of collusion, did donald trump play

any role in that? that's what the investigation is designed to determine. >> there's an argument out there, ken, this means trump tower was, in fact, wiretapped, that the president was right. >> well, the thing about this, these would likely have been roving wiretaps directed at a person, not a building, so it would be manafort's cell phone, his communications, his e-mails, but it is true whoever he talked to may have been captured if, in fact, this did take place, including potentially donald trump, katy. >> joyce, it certainly seems to a lot of experts in your field that this looks like bob mueller is trying to flip paul manafort, putting the sort of pressure on him. what's your take? >> i think it's likely that manafort was someone they wanted to flip from early on in the investigation. he could be a narrator. he knows a lot about foreign financial activity, and in that activity one could find out whether or not there was either an act of conspiracy or whether

there were profits or other methods of conducting that conspiracy that were concealed. so i think that that's likely. but it's important to note here, katy, that manafort actually was compromised in two separate kinds of investigations. the fisa process that we saw reporting about last night is a means of surveillance of suspected foreign activity. activity conducted on behalf of a foreign government. and that's not the type of surveillance that you typically hear prosecutors talk about when they are discussing wiretaps. wiretaps obtained under title iii are a mechanism used in order to drive evidence, to listen to conversations in real time and prosecutors have to satisfy a federal judge that there's probable cause to believe that the phone in question is being used to conduct criminal activity. evidence can cross over from a fisa investigation into a criminal one under certain circumstances, but i think it's

interesting to note here that there was both information about manafort's engagement in activities on behalf of a foreign entity, as well as potential criminal conduct, and mueller will be interested in hearing about both of those. >> joyce vance, former u.s. attorney and professor at the university of alabama law school. joyce, thank you. ken dilanian, as well, thank you both. hurricane maria is not letting up as she churns towards puerto rico at cat 5 strength. at this point they'll need a miracle to avoid maria's rawrat. al roker is tracking it all next. you totanobody's hurt, new car. but there will still be pain. it comes when your insurance company says they'll only pay three-quarters of what it takes to replace it. what are you supposed to do? drive three-quarters of a car? now if you had liberty mutual new car replacement™, you'd get your whole car back.

i guess they don't want you driving around on three wheels. smart. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, we'll replace the full value of your car. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. dental professionals recommend using an electric toothbrush. for an exceptionally fresh feeling choose philips sonicare diamondclean. hear the difference versus oral b. in a recently published clinical study, philips sonicare diamondclean outperforms oral-b 7000, removing up to 82% more plaque and improving gum health up to 70% more. its sonic technology cleaning deep between teeth. from the most recommended sonic toothbrush brand by dental professionals. switch to philips sonicare today. philips sonicare. save when you buy now.

a live look where senator graham is talking about health care. let's take a listen. >> allowing people from your states to make decisions that would have been made in washington. the most beneficials a poekt of this bill is as follows. if you don't like obamacare, who do you complain to? you can complain to me, but i sure as hell don't run it. if i can get south carolina in

charge of this money that would have been spent in washington by a bureaucrat who's unelected, i promise every south carolinian the following. if you don't like your health care, somebody will listen to you. as your governor and state house representative. you can go to the state house representative, who most likely goes to the same hospital you do. you can go to your governor, who will listen to you, because they care about your vote, if nothing else. i'm trying to take the money and power in washington and send it back closer to the patient. if you believe government closer to the people is the best government, why not health care? and finally, we know how this movie ends if we don't change. we're going to have a single payer health care system in this country that's going to bust the budget and we're going to start rationing care like you've never seen. obamacare is failing for a reason. it's a bad idea. state control of health care

will work because the people in charge will be accountable to you, unlike obamacare, where the person in charge could give a damn of what you think. >> for 25 years i've treated patients in louisiana's charity hospital system. it's been my life's work to try and bring health care and coverage to those who do not have, so when a fellow back home with a special needs child tells me that he's paying over $40,000 a year in premiums, plus a $5,000 deductible and more money on top of that, we know that the system is failing. i spoke of the jimmy kimmel test, who those who had need would have their needs addressed. it's almost beyond their reach. he has a job, doesn't get a subsidy, therefore, cannot afford his insurance coverage. that's not the way it should be. what we attempt to do is get all the dollars here in washington, d.c., dole it out at the state, and return it down to the states

for the states to do that which is best for that state. if you're in a state which is not expanded medicaid, you're going to do great. and all those lower income texans, floridians, mainers, virginians, missouriens will have dollars in their state to get health insurance they currently do not have. if you're a state which has expanded medicaid, we do our best to hold you harmless. we don't want to hurt folks. we run it through the chip program. i hear no one complain about the chip program. the chip program is something on a bipartisan basis has been recognized to be an effective way to provide access to quality care to those in need. we take it through the chip program. we continue patient protections. whatever waiver a state wishes to have, they must ensure the secretary that they continue to provide adequate and affordable coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. that is our backstop. we preserve mental health parity, but ultimately we give

the dollars to the state for the state to be inventive. we can look at the things states have done over the last ten years, some of which were squashed by obamacare. in maine their invisible high risk pool, which obamacare put out of business, lowered premiums by 20%, is now seen as the policy to go forward. in indiana where they prefunded health savings accounts to lower income hoosiers could be empowered to purchase their own services, they found that costs went down and outcomes improved. we give it to the states. i'll finish how i started. i'm a doctor for 25 years, caring for those who didn't have coverage. it is my goal continued to bring them coverage. i think graham cassidy, heller johnson does a far better job for this than status quo. thank you. >> any questions on the substance, i'd like for senator cassidy and senator graham to handle. >> senator graham, can you -- you said you've never been in a better state with this before. do you know that almost any

repeal and replace plan, however it's packed is going to give anywhere between 46, 47 republican yeses, might be higher now, but that's not much better. why is that different than july when fundamentally the math hasn't changed? >> well, at the end of the day we need 50 votes and if you're a republican, chances are you believe in federalism, because if you don't, you're probably not a republican. so the last effort to repeal and replace obamacare was better than obamacare, but it did not embrace the concept that bill was talking about. so i believe that most republicans like the idea of state-controlled health care versus washington, d.c.-controlled health care. employer assessments are going out at the end of next month, by the end of 2017 over 90,000 businesses will get a notice from the federal government under obamacare that's $4.8 billion. a lot of republicans would like to stop that from happening, and the best way to do that is to repeal the employer mandate,

individual mandate nationally. states can reimpose it, so we've come upon an idea that is uniquely republican, but over time has proved to work in other areas like welfare reform. so i would hate to be the democrat that voted against more money for my state and more power and keep the status quo, so if you're a democrat, let's say in missouri, you're going to get far more money under this proposal than obamacare and your state would have more control over the money. to reject that money and that control means you believe that somebody in washington cares more about people in missouri than people in missouri. you believe it's okay to help california, new york, maryland, massachusetts, more than missouri. that's just what a democrat would have to face if they voted no. if you're a republican and you

vote against federalism, you got to explain to people back home why washington knows better and almost every state except the four i've described do very well under this new approach to taking the money out of washington. so i think the idea is more powerful, i think the substance is much more fair, and at the end of the day, i really believe we're going to get 50 republican votes and i make a prediction, there are going to be a lot of democrats struggling with a no vote, because at least eight of them, eight of them, their states do far better than obamacare in terms of funding and they have more control over the money, and that's going to be a hard no. [ inaudible question ] >> the cbos told us they'll have a score for us. the coverage that will be on the

cash aspect of it, the financial aspect of it, so we'll have a chance to look at it. >> senator graham, when is the bill coming to the floor. >> you all understand that we would have to deal with this before september the 30th, and so that's the answer, you know, we'll have to deal with it, because the vehicle expires at the end of the month. [ inaudible question ] >> if we were going to go forward, we would have to act before september 30th. >> haven't decided whether -- >> we are in the process of discussing all of this. everybody knows that the opportunity expires at the end of the month. >> can i say something about that? >> go ahead. >> okay, here's the test for republicans. we work as hard to repeal obamacare as they did to pass

it. mitch mcconnell and the leadership has done everything we've asked and then some. i spoke to paul ryan, speaker of the house, he says i like it, you send it to the house, it's going to pass. every republican out there believes this is a fundamental reason we're in charge, that democrats have lost a lot of seats backing a bad idea and we've been the biggest political beneficiary of obamacare and we want to try to make patients the beneficiary of our idea. so at the end of the day, will we try again? i would argue that, yes, we should, because i do not want to go back to south carolina and say that i did everything i could to repeal obamacare and not believe it in my heart. so senator mcconnell is doing everything he can, paul ryan told me to my face if you pass it, we pass it. >> leader mcconnell, this plan has been out there for a couple of months. how do you convince americans

that you truly think this would lead to better health care and it's not just a last-ditch attempt to do something before the deadline? >> i think you've heard the arguments here from senator graham and senator cassidy. it is better than the status quo by far, and i think that's an argument we're all comfortable making. >> limited time left in the calendar year, how concerned are you about time in terms of getting everything you want to get done this year? >> i think we'll be fine. yeah. as you know, the next big priority is tax reform, and i think we are just fine. >> senator graham's raised a lot of concerns early on the process about how this was working, how you were moving through. one of your colleagues and good friends made this kind of a basis of a rather important vote in july. given the compressed time table, do you feel like you will adequately address senator mccain's concerns? >> we have a hearing scheduled monday in finance. we had one vote on the nda, the

defense bill. why? because democrats subjected to tom cotton's amendment. my friends on the other side love process when it advantages them, so there will be a public hearing, which john has been asking for. you can have different opinions about the quality of this bill. at the end of the day, this is the only process left available to stop a march towards socialism. we have between now and the end of the month to have a vote and a debate about whether this is better than the status quo. my friends on the other side are never going to agree to a bipartisan proposal that does anything other than prop up obamacare. i've talked to the president five times in the last two days. he is focused like a laser. he has told me he's not going to throw good money after bad. he's very excited about this state centric health care system, and all i can tell you is this the process left to us is that the democratic party is

never going to give us anything that fundamentally changes obamacare. we've had weeks of talking and the only time they've gotten serious is when they are afraid that my bill may pass. and now they are coming to me, what about this and what about that. here's what the speaker of the house told me. i will not bring up a bill for a vote in the house that props up obamacare, because that is not why i came here and that is not what our majority wants to do. and the president of the united states is committed to repealing and replacing this bill, not propping it up. >> there you have it, republicans sounding pretty confident about their ability to pass health care for, i guess, this is the third time. the graham-cassidy bill, you saw senator graham sounding quite bullish on it right there. right now they have 51 votes for this, because senator paul has already said no.

they can afford to lose one more, not two more, so everybody is looking at a few senators, there's senator murkowski, senators kaine, lee, collins, but among that group the focus is on the senator from alaska, senator murkowski. what way does she go? if she says no to this bill, the others who are undecided might say no, as well. the bell weather, you could say, for whether this lives or dies on the senate floor. jake sherman of politico is with us, our eyes and ears on capitol hill. jake, what do you make of this? do you think they have the votes? >> i don't think they have them now. here's how i kind of see it, murkowski came out of this meeting with vice president mike pence saying she wants to see numbers, she wants to see the impact of this bill on her state, and on the american people, which doesn't seem like too crazy of a request. and they are not going to have those numbers next week. the congressional budget office says that they are going to need more time. they are going to have some sort

of judgment about where this bill stands and what the coverage numbers are, what the deficit is, but that's not going to be for a few weeks. now, if you read the tea leaves, john mccain looks like he's trending towards being more favorable for the bill. there's a hearing next week when he said he wants hearings. he said he wanted months of hearings, he's not going to get that. the question is, is this being bought for the price of a flaggen of rice or is this a real situation, real concession by mitch mcconnell to get the vote and i don't know the answer to that yet. >> listen, jake, and we're going to bring in kasie hunt for this, september 30th is a big deadline, later than we think. the time is near and the mission is clear. kasie, i apologize for throwing that at you, but they have to get this done before september 30th. tell us why. >> they do, because they want to use budget reconciliation rules that let them pass this through the senate with just 50 votes. if they go past that deadline,

all of a sudden the threshold changes dramatically. this is not a proposal that's ever going to get 60 votes in the senate and i'm going to have to run in a second, because chuck schumer is about to come to the microphones, but i want to underscore the point about lisa murkowski, she is the one to watch here and what she signals is going to send messages to a lot of other republicans in the conference. with that, kate, i'm going to toss it back to you because we're about to see the senator from new york. >> kasie hunt, thank you very much. here is the senator from new york, chuck schumer. he is, obviously, going to rebut what the republican senators just said. let's listen in. >> hey, folks? take it somewhere else. okay. i'm proud to be joined by my colleagues, senator durbin, senator wyden, senator stabenow, to talk about what's going on

with health care. first, we heard a lot of talk about the states and governors. just released was a letter, ten governors, five democrat, five republican, opposed to trumpcare 2, the so-called graham-cassidy bill, and more in favor of a bipartisan negotiation such as that that senator alexander and senator murray are going forward with. second, i just heard our republican colleagues speak. there was a word missing, people, patients, care, all this stuff, democrat, republican, governors, washington. how about how this affects people? millions will lose coverage. no guarantee of pre-existing condition. and an end to medicaid as we know it. tens of millions of people could well lose coverage. people who desperately need

essential services would lose it. our republican colleagues don't seem to care about how this affects the average american. that's why trumpcare, the previous trumpcare bills were so unpopular, that's why this bill is so unpopular. and that's why, despite all their efforts, they are struggling, because their own senators know that the public dislikes this bill. the latest version of trumpcare may live under a new name, graham-cassidy, but no matter how many ways they try to dress it up, they try to hide it, it's even more dangerous and more reckless than the previous bill that was defeated. simply put, trumpcare is a sham. they are crafting it in the dark of night to say one hearing on one day without a cbo score and only two witnesses against the bill? that's a hearing? that's a full airing of the bill? come on.

they are ashamed of this bill. they are afraid to find out what it actually does. and so we get another bill in the dark of night. so the process is awful. our republican colleagues, you know, we heard justice being blind, our republican colleagues should be walking around with blindfolds, because they don't want to see what's in the bill they are being forced to vote for. with all the cuts to people. with all its unpopularity. with all the basic meanness in this bill. they don't want to go home and tell a mom, who learns her daughter or son has cancer that an insurance company can make insurance unaffordable for them. no, they don't want that. they don't want to tell a middle class family in the suburbs that mom or dad in the nursing home may no longer get coverage. they don't want to tell a 23-year-old young man, who

desperately needs opioid treatment that it may go away. this isn't simply making the decisions at the states. they make the cuts here in washington that hurt average people, and then tell the states to figure out who to cut. this is not a neutral bill that simply devolves power to the states. it's a bill to end medicaid as we know it and let the governors do the dirty work. that is why, that is why ten governors from the states of colorado, ohio, alaska, montana, pennsylvania, virginia, louisiana, nevada, massachusetts, and vermont, five democrats, five republicans, have said don't do trumpcare 2. don't do graham/cassidy. and just on the substance, according to the center of budget and policy priorities, it

will result in about $700 billion in cuts to health care by 2027. it would cause millions to lose coverage, millions. it would radically restructure and deeply cut medicaid. it would bring us back to the days when insurance companies could discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. it would get rid of the consumer protections that gives americans access to maternity care, substance abuse, prescription drugs, and it would throw the individual markets into chaos, resulting in 15 million people losing coverage. if they let the cbo do its work, if cbo weren't pressured to put out something that's just a few lines, this would all be told by cbo. and how do we know? because similar bills in the past have been scored by cbo with similar provisions.

they are afraid. they are afraid that the public will hate this bill, so they are trying to rush it through in the dark of night. we want, above all, a bill that protects average americans. tha protects average americans not slashes the health care they need, whether the governor or washington should try to do that it's wrong. we want to work in a bipartisan process to make things better. we want the house, the president, republican leadership to stop pressuring those who want to come up with a bipartisan solution to refrain from doing it. we can make this work in a bipartisan way. and the final thing i'd say is this. we have seen some very, very hopeful sprouts of bipartisanship in the last month. going back to this trump care

two, graham/cassidy would shut down that bipartisanship that america yearns for. i'm going to call on senator stabber now because she has to go to a hearing. >> thank you very much to all my colleagues and thank you to everybody who has now reengaged to e-mail, to call -- >> as you might expect, the democrats trying to rebut what the republicans just said about the graham/cassidy bill saying this would not be beneficial for the average american, that it would cut their health care and leave them in the lurch. jake sherman still with us from politico. cut through some of that for our viewers? >> schumer has a point on a lot of this, right? they are doing this in the dark of night. there is only one hearing. i want to bring up one more element we need to think about. that's when this bill companies over to the house side where i'm standing right now. the house is a very complicated

body. there are a lot of republicans from big states like new york and california that could be in trouble with this bill, that voted for the last version this bill and now we're looking at the graham/cassidy thing and are not as comfortable with voting for this. i don't think this story is fully told yet. and democrats, really all they can do is turn up the heat. they don't have any leverage when it comes to votes. house speaker paul ryan and the white house have kind of put the kai bosch on gop efforts -- on efforts to.pro up 'em obamacare. we'll talk with congressman tom reed, the republican congressman from new york. thank you for joining us. do you think the graham/cassidy bill, if it does get to the house, will stand there? >> obviously it has to go through the senate first. we don't know what it's going

the look like, we don't know what the score from the cbo is going to be. >> it's only going to be a partial score, not even a pull skr? health care is a very tough issue. we want to know what the final bill is before we take a position, want to read the actual bill before we take a position. i will tell you there is a lot of concern. we lost a critical amendment that we put in the original bill that we sent over for the local property property tax levee. they have got to get it through the senate. i don't know if they have the votes there. >> we are talking about a hypothetical here because this does have to get through the senate. >> yes. >> your republican colleague peter king of new york said he is not going to vote for it, doesn't see how he could vote for it. it is a extremely damaging to new york. he also says whether it was right to have the medicaid expansion in the first place the

fact is it's in place. local hospitals, basically the apparatus in new york is conditioned and based upon getting that funding and it would be extremely damaging. do you agree or disagree with your colleague? >> i have a lot of respect for peter king. he has been at this for quite longer than i have been. he is articulating some of the shared concern that i have for new york and people of our district. that's how i look at it when i decide to take a position on a bill. if and when this bill comes to the house it's going to have difficult concerns being raised. to me that's going to be a path we have to explore. about we can't explore it until we know what's coming and we have a chance to read it. that's fundamentally what we should do as legislators. >> congressman you are part of the problem solvers caucus. >> yeah. >> do you think it is a good idea to pass a health care vote in the senate that is not bipartisan that's along partisan lines? >> i will tell you, my personal opinion is the more we can work

across the aisle, the problem solvers caucus is doing yeoman's work, and many are stepping forward, my colleagues in that caucus. i think that's the better solution. if this sfals in the senate which i believe the votes just aren't there, so we are going to have to deal with health care. when we maybe want to do is talk about how do we get the health care costs going in the right direction? not just health insurance f. we start doing that then i think you can bring people together and we can benefit the american people. >> congressman tom reed. thank you for joining us, and thank you for trying to talk about a hypothetical. i know we don't have all that much information on this as of now. thank you. meanwhile, we are following two major natural disasters. another one right now in mexico. breaking reports of a strong earthquake outside of mexico city. the u.s. geological survey says it calculates the earthquake that struck central mexico as a

magnitude 7.1. we are also getting images on line of the quake as it happened via twitter, instagram, and our nbc universal network tell mundto. the quake was about 76 miles southeast of mexico city. meanwhile, in the caribbean, hurricane maria is now a category 5 and is targeting islands already hit hard by irma. we are still showing you images of the earthquake. there we go. it is poised to make a devastating and direct hit on puerto rico in the coming hours. nbc's tammy leitner is in san juan with the latest on last-minute preparations. tammy, are they ready? >> reporter: hey katie. people are scrambling. for those that are not ready they are still trying to get ready. as you can tell the winds are kicking up here. they have been all afternoon. we know hurricane maria is getting closter. people are going out and stocking up on what little is

left on the shelves. can i tell you a lot of the shelves are bare. it's very hard to find water right now. there are no generators on the islands, no batteries, no flashlights, no gasc canisters. people riding it out in their homes have been boardsing up their homes all afternoon, boardsing up business. the airport here is closing at 6:p.m. tonight, which means anybody that is not on the last flight out, they are not getting out. we spoke to a family that is stranded here. let's listen to what they had to say. >> we are concerned. we're going to bunker down. we don't know when we will be able to get out. hopefully the airport doesn't get a direct hit. but fingers crossed. >> and you have never weathered a hurricane either. how are you feeling right now? are you worried? >> yes, i am, very worried. and concerned also for the people of puerto rico. >> reporter: according to the

amount of p., hurricane maria has already claimed one life, that was on the island of guadalupe. people are taking this very seriously and are not taking any chances. back to the earthquake. again, it was a 7.1 in mexico. you might remember just a few weeks ago there was another giant earthquake, an 8.1, in mexico. so this is just on the heels of that. you can see the images right there of the shaking within the city. these are images that we are getting which just happened moments ago of what's going on in mexico city. we are unclear right now the extent of the damage. we are unclear right now if there were any injuries or any fatalities from this earthquake. coincidentally, and not a good coincidence here, this comes on the anniversary of the 1985 quake in mexico that did major damage to mexico city. earlier today, today, buildings

across mexico city were holding preparation drills on the anniversary of that quake. that quake killed 9,500 people. obviously, building codes were shored up after that. but, again, a 7.1 is a pretty big and powerful earthquake. speaking as somebody who has lived through earthquakes in los angeles, when you get to 7.0 on the richter scale you are feeling quite a lot of shaking and it is not an enjoyable experience. it is pretty scary. obviously our thoughts are with mexico right now. we are going to keep an eye on this story and bring you the latest as it happens. you can see folks running from office buildings trying to find open space right there. we will keep an eye on this. ali velshi is picking it up right now. >> it's difficult to find open space in mexico city if you are working downtown. we will pick up the coverage from here. and we will see you later on.

i'm ali velshi. a powerful earthquake has hit mexico city. it is a heavily populated region 150 miles outside of mexico city. we were just looking at some of them -- i'll show them to you again, some of the first images we are getting of the damage from you are our sister network telemundo. as of right now we are told there are no reports of serious injuries or deaths in mexico city. this is very early. we are still trying to get information on mexico city, and pueblo, and spaces in between. today's earthquake comes less than two weeks after an 8.2 tremor hit the country killing 186 people. today the anniversary of a quake that struck back in 1985. earlier in the day some of those in mexico city were holding drills because of the anniversary. we will continue to follow the latest on the earthquake. we will bring you the updates as we get them. we are working hard to get you more information. the other story of