keep the lights on? we will focus on that. it comes as the white house chief of staff says that the president has no plans to extend protections for those dreamers beyond the march 5th deadline. and ready for launch. a new rocket could revolutionize spaceflight and takeoff could happen within the next hour. how this rocket could take us further than ever before. we start today with a big question on capitol hill. who will and who will not meet with the special counsel. just moments ago, nbc news learned from a source familiar with the process that steve bannon is likely to meet with robert mueller's team next week. contrast that with his former boss. as president trump prepares to talk immigration and crime later this hour. "the new york times" is reporting that the president's lawyers are telling him not to sit down with mueller. quote, his lawyers are concerned that the president, who has a history of making false statements and contradicting himself, could be charged with lying to investigators. this comes just a day after the

president called democrats treasonous for not standing up and applauding during the state of the union. report also comes a month after nbc news reported that the president's legal team is looking at options other than in person testimony. for instance, submitting answers. to written questions. reaction, as you might imagine, on the hill today, split, along party lines. >> should the president sit down with mueller for an interview if he asks for one? >> i would say that the president ought to listen to his lawyers on that point. >> to me, this is a pretty low ethical bar. for the president of the united states, to meet with bob mueller and respond to questions. if he chooses not to, i think the american people are going to ask what is he hiding. >> obviously, that was ron wyden, not chuck grassley. let's start with our white house reporters. jeff, my friend, at the white

house, tell us more about the president's team's thinking on this right now. >> hey, peter. to be clear, the fact that the president is getting advice from his outside viadvisers, that is not new. the president's legal team is considering a number of possible options for an interview with the special counsel. also written responses to question questions from the team or even an affidavit from the president. what is new, according to "the new york times," that the president's lawyers are so concerned that the president who has a history of contradicting himself and making false statements, that he could be charged with lying to investigators. that's a fairly remarkable thing for an attorney to say about a client. particularly one who happens to be president. but the president's advisers fear that he could contradict himself during what would be a wide-ranging interview. we asked the president's team of lawyers about all this. here's the response they issued

to nbc news. it reads like this. the professional and active discussions between the osc, the office of the special counsel, and the president's personal lawyers regarding how and under what terms information will be exchanged are understandably private. not' whole lot to work with there. one can understand why he can't say more than that. john dowd is president trump's perm attorney. dowd doesn't want to see trump incriminate him. ty cobb is the white house lawyer. he represents the office of the presidency. cob has been encouraging the president to cooperate. the sense is it's important for any president to cooperate with an active investigation. this one happening to be one into the president' own campaign. we're told the president's legal team expects to come to some agreement within the coming weeks. >> we've been told that for a while. i'm struck by that language, how and under what terms information will be exchanged. they don't use the word interview.

jul julia, what happens if a deal cannot be reached and the special counsel subpoenas the president? >> if they can't reach a deal for him to come in and have a sit-down with mueller's team in which he would obviously, you know, he could be charged if he lied, but it wouldn't be a grand jury subpoena. if they can't get to that, if he refuses to do that, they can use a grand jury subpoena power. but they will be able to bring him in, if they could show there was a need in this case to bring the president in, since it concerns his campaign. they probably wouldn't bring him in front of the grand jury, but that wouldn't keep him from speeni i subpoenaing his documents. there are other things of the president they could bring before the grand jury. there's really not an easy out here for the president or his legal team. >> let me ask you, if i can, about steve bannon.

some news we've reported out within the last hour. now expected to speak to the special counsel within the next week. but not speaking with house intelligence committee members right now. where do things stand right now? do we know what the holdup is on the outside? >> this is the third time now today that they have postponed the time that bannon is supposed to testify. remember, last month, he went to testify, he basically claimed executive privilege over a wide scope of questions. since then, the white house and the committee have been back and forth over the scope of the questions that will be asked at his next sit-down. we can expect that this would come up again on other committees on the hill. but it's clear that bannon has taken the route to go ahead and speak to mueller's team. we reported last month, peter that investigators from mueller's team had showed up at bannon's house. requesting for him to be subpoenaed. seems he decided to take the

first option, where he could sit down with his lawyer at his side and speak to mueller's team before it got to that grand jury level. it seems with the team, they're taking the softer approach in. because he knows he will eventually have to speak with them. with the house intel committee, there's a lot of wiggle room. this postponement could continue for some time. >> we thank both of you. two weeks ago, that's what the president told reporters, that's when he told reporters what he thought about talking with bob mueller. he said this. are you going to talk to mueller? >> i'm looking forward to it actually. >> do you have a date set? >> no. i guess they're talking about two or three weeks. i would love to do it. again, i have to say, subject to my lawyers and all of that, but i would love to do it. >> join meg for analysis, john mclaughlin, and the former acting director of the cia.

and barbara mcquaid, a former u.s. attorney. barbara, we'll go to you first. can a president -- what power does a president have to dig date the parameters of his testimony to the special counsel? >> well, ultimately, because robert mueller has subpoena power before the grand jury. but, rather than delay this, have a protracted litigation, maybe have to go to the supreme court, i think mueller would rather get his information sooner than later. that's where the president has some leverage in saying i'll agree to come talk to you and you don't have to go through all this process but i want to do it on my terms. he can ask for things like i want it to be an interview, i want my lawyer to be president, i want to limit the duration. or as we're hearing, even requesting written questions. i'd be surprised robert mueller would give in too much because in the end he does hold those cards with the power of the grand jury subpoena. >> you and i were having this conversation, the break before

the broadcast. started right here. one of the fundamental challenges if the president's team pushes for written answers is that doesn't give mueller's team the ability to follow up. how do they follow up? as you indicate, that's one of the key portions of the interview process. >> that's why you want to interview a subject in a case like this. you want to be able to ask a question. typically, you know the answer. there's something you don't know that you want to fill in. very hard to do that in a written exchange where the special counsel would then be in the position of having to go back with another written request to rerequest. i don't think you'd ever get to the bottom of it. i'm very doubtful that counsel mueller will agree to that. >> what specifically are the concerns? you can't speak for his attorneys but what are the concerns for the president's attorneys? >> i think it's very obvious. the president thinks

extemporaneous extemporaneously. they have to be concerned, because in these cases, and barbara may agree or not agree, but usually the vulnerability is by someone mystiquing and committing perjury. perhaps not even wittingly or intending to do so. the president's chances of doing this are so much greater than the average person because he's careless with the facts. >> your take on that? what are your biggest concerns? >> i do think, as john just says, his history of carelessness with the facts. i do want to point out if he makes a mere slip of the tongue, that is not necessarily perjury. perjury requires making a material misstatement of fact. so it has to be a knowing lie. it isn't enough you just messed up on some detail. there's been an allegation that robert mueller's laying a perjury trap for trump, which is

defined as calling someone to testify when you have no legitimate investigative purpose. of course mueller has a legitimate investigative purpose to find out the truth of what happened with the potential obstruction of justice. i can understand why trump's lawyers are very concerned about what's happening. there are a lot of protections there. this materiality requirement, the absence of a perjury trap. >> barbara makes a very important point i think. having worked with bob mueller, i can't imagine that he would try to lay a perjury trap. this is a man who plays by the rules. plays by the book. he will simply be trying to find out what are the facts. so i think she's absolutely right on that score. >> let me ask it broadly if i can. the simple question is did we have to get to this place? did we need to arrive at this place right now, this contentious relationship between the special counsel and the

president? >> we didn't have to be at this place. it's kind of tragic that we are. normally this is the sort of thing that is handled within a committee. that's why these were committees that were set up in the 1970s in order to bring the best nonpartisan people in congress to oversea the most secret activities of the u.s. government. in order to assure the american public their elected representatives are doing this. >> that process clear lay peers broken right now. >> that process broke down in this case largely because of nunes' memo. the other sort of large factor going on here is that the president has engaged in so many falsehoods without consequences that it's encouraged others to do so. i was struck the other day when chairman nunes said quite casually the president had never met with george papadopoulos -- >> -- with jeff sessions and the president -- >> it's been slashed all over internet and the television.

i'm sure aware of that on some level but nonetheless felt unconstrained in doing that. it's that atmosphere, kind of casual disregard for the facts and an expectation that there's no consequence for that. >> how important is body language in a conversation? how important is it for the president to be there in front of a special counsel for an interview of this time? >> i always found it essential. i think that's why robert mueller will likely resist responding to written questions. not only the absence of the ability to follow up but to assess credibility. it's so important to look at someone, to understand their inflection, their tone, their body language, their eye contact, all of those things matter. and investigators are looking at those things as they assess the reliability and credibility of what the person is saying. >> john, finally this democratic memo. we know the white house is trying to confirm if the president has seen it himself. what do you view of the potential impact of this democratic memo?

>> a couple of things strike me. it's longer. it's about ten pages, we hear. that's contrasted with 3 1/2. so there's going to be more detail here. it has a disadvantage in coming after nunes' memo in that the public has already heard about what the president's characterization of that is. it has the advantage i think of now knowing what's in the nunes memo and being able to go point by point and make its rebuttal. we already know some of the things in the nunes memo are wrong. so i think the impact is going to be very embarrassing for the white house. it's going to confront the white house with the decision about whether to put it out or not. >> and about what exactly they redact. >> and about what they might change in it if they choose to claim there is secure information that has to be removed. >> good to see you. barbara mcquaid, thank you as well. eric swalwell is the democratic congressman from california. he sits on the house intelligence committee.

congressman, nice to see you. i appreciate you being here. >> thanks for having me on. >> are you confident that the president will allow the release of this democratic memo? >> if he wants to be trade forward with the american people, he will, but no, if past is prolonguprologue, i expect m confetti bombs from the president to distract us from connecting the dots here. >> do the memo that the democratics sent to the white house include any redactions at the request of the fbi? >> we have asked first for it to be sent to doj and fbi so they can tell us if there's anything sensitive, taken in the context that the republicans put out a memo that has die vul vulged so and methods. we have not heard anything back yet. because we don't want to be as reckless as they are. >> to be clear, the white house says the president is reviewing the memo.

so is the memo they received, does it include those redactions you sent to be included? >> we believe that's being done con tem p rainiously. now in some cases, they've opened the memo for us to have to, you know, include more evidence because they withheld it. but, again, we're not seeking to include anything that would jeopardize anything more than what they've already put out there. we just want people to have the full context. we wanted doj to review it first. >> help me more broadly then. i know you can't be expect but broadly, what are the items you worry most the white house may try to redact to protect the president? >> this was a credible application for a serious investigation. that, you know, they try to first show that the fbi -- the fix was in or they were not turning over all the materials. there was a arsenal of evidence that was sent over on carter page. part of that included the steele

dossier, but there was other pieces of evidence they sent over and the public will learn, you know, what that application looked like. >> president trump, as you likely saw on twitter, described nunes, the chairman of the committee, as a great american hero. how would you describe the chairman nunes? >> he's obstructed our investigation. i think i've worked with him nonrussian-related matters but he has not left it. his duty is to connect the dots, to tell the american people whether anyone on the trump team worked with the russians and protect us from future attack. instead, he's working with the white house to peddle their narrative. >> do you agree with nancy pelosi's call for nunes to step down as intelligence committee chairman? >> i believe the harm is irreparable. we will not be able to work on

nonrussia-related matters. >> steve bannon, we know he's expected to meet with the special counsel next week. what is stopping your republican colleagues from taking the next step against bannon, which i believe would be holding him in contempt of congress? >> i can't say. i can tell you his actions. he is not asserting executive privilege which is just so maddening. because that's a legal privilege that can be litigated. he's just saying the white house is telling him he can't talk. that's actually unlawful if that's the case. it's time to get serious. it's time to hold him in context or have him sit in the witness chair and have him answer legitimate questions. >> how does that impact this extended deadline, i think it's the third time the deadline's been extended, for him to speak before your committee? >> there's 24 hours in the day. he should be sitting in ours. that's something i think we can

sort out. >> can i ask you about the dreamers? the chief of staff said the president was unlikely to be extending that deadline for action. what does that mean for recipients right now? do you have sincere fears that if the president doesn't extent that deadline, by that date, that dreamers could be deported beginning as early as next month? >> it's a betrayal to the dreamers the president promised whose fate he would fix and give certainty to. again, he invited -- his best day in the oval office was when he sat down with republicans and democrats and said you work out a deal, bring it to me, i'll sign it. not only did he reject it, he sent us many, many yards backwards with his unfortunate comments about where immigrants come from. >> are you going to vote in support of the continuing resolution, the short-term spending bill this afternoon?

>> i can't continue to support short-term spending bills. it's reckless for the planning of every federal agency and people who depend on it. i've been on student counsels that plan farther than three to four weeks out and it's time the government start doing that too. >> we appreciate you being here. thank you. >> my pleasure. >> want to focus on another major story we're watching all day today, that is the markets. the big board now. they are in the green. approaching 100 points. the stock up after hitting correction territory this morning. the dow currently above 24,000. 24,000, almost 500 at this point. on monday, the stocks had their worst one-day point drop ever following more than 1,000 points. the president called democrats treasonous and un-american for not standing and clapping during the state of the union when he focused on positive news he said. so how the white house is trying to explain his comments. the world's biggest rocket now

getting ready for takeoff. there will be a car that will play a sentimental song in space. it could happen live this hour. today, big thinking in the finger lakes is pushing the new new york forward. we're the number one dairy and apple producers in the eastern united states supported by innovative packaging that extends the shelf life of foods and infrastructure upgrades that help us share our produce with the world. all across new york state, we're building the new new york. to grow your business with us in new york state, visit esd.ny.gov

oh! there's one.a "the sea cow"" manatees in novelty ts? surprising. what's "come at me bro?" it's something you say to a friend.

what's not surprising? how much money matt saved by switching to geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.

back now live on msnbc. we're following new developments in the russia investigation at this the hour. the president will now decide whether declassify that memo from democratic members of the house intelligence committee. democrats say the memo should be

released to rebut claims mademe >> the president needs to stop hiding behind the slanted nunes hack job. he ought to release the shift memo so that the american people can get the truth. >> let's bring in jennifer rubin, "washington post" opinion wri writer, and ken vogel, political reporter for "the new york times." ken, is the white house likely to approve the release of the democrat's memo? they've said we will treat this no differently than we treated the republican memo. this is going to be a challenging spot for them. >> yes, absolutely. by that rationale, they were treated no differently than they treated the nunes memo. there's going to be a lot of pressure from democrats to put it out. even if they don't actually

clear the release of it, we sort of already know what's in the mellow. just as we knew what was in the nunes memo. because despite the lip service that congress pays to the rules for dealing with classified information, congress leaks. that's just a rule of politics and a rule of washington and so we've seen some of the very detail pushback against the nunes memo, including push back on the idea that in the fisa application, the original one, there was not a recognition and explicit tracing of the steele memo and the use of the steele memo, tracing of it back to a democratic opposition research. well, democrats have already pushed back. by pointing out there was this footnote in that application that does say that this was from political opposition research. so that is undoubtedly a key part of the schiff memo and we already know it. >> jennifer, to be clear, you have concerned the damage has

already been done to this sensitive secret process, that it could hamper oversight in the future, that it could have a real impact on the fisa court and its ability to work. what's your concern? >> i hear from those at the justice department and people at the fbi i've been speaking to over the last 48 hours or so. first this is encouraging people to be less forthcoming in the fisa courts. and you might, frankly, get less surveillance. maybe that's a good thing. but it shouldn't be made on the basis of a political calculation. it should be driven by what our security needs are. second, congress has an oversight role but it's dependent upon the intelligence agencies to share with them and those agencies are going to be a lot less willing to share after this escapade. i think it's also been very hard on the morale of both the justice department and fbi. they've had the president making all kinds of slurs against them. and i think they take it personally -- >> -- reporting it wasn't even true that the fbi had these

issues with ja s wits with jame past as the white house had suggested. this seems to be a moment indicative of a larger divide between democrats and republicans. it was exactly a week ago that the president stood before the nation during the state of the union and he preached bipartisanship. but yesterday in ohio, he had a very different tone when he spoke about democrats. some harsh words as he described their unwillingness to applaud some of what he described as positive news. take a listen. >> they were like death. and un-american. un-american. somebody said treasonous. i mean, yeah, i guess, why not, you know. company can we call that treason? why not. >> you write trump's lap dogs now accept the labeling of opponents as treasonous. the white house says this was tongue in cheek. they didn't respond when we asked them about the un-american comment. >> first of all, donald trump doesn't really joke. he doesn't have much of a sense of humor. he makes pointed barbs and nasty

insults. this really goes above and beyond anything that another president has done. listen, all presidents are partisan to a certain extent. unfortunately in our political system, people attack motives. but to call the other side treasonous and to attach yourself as the indication of patrioti patriotism. if you disagree with me, you are not a properatriot, it is the antithesis of democracy. really, in some sense, he's menacing the democratic framework that we work under. >> what's striking is the president, again, just a week ago, talking about bipartisanship. there's so many issues that reyer require bipartisan agreement. not the least of which is immigration. what challenges does that kind of language create in this current climate with so much that needs to get done? >> it certainly dissuades democrats still further from working with him. and we all heard he was sort

of -- democrats are not particularly inclined to work with him. democrats are not inclined to work with republicans to fund the government. the comment, the treasonous comment also shows a complete lack of awareness of the sort of way that there are states of the union. democrats, the opposing party almost never claps at state of the union from a president from the opposing party. and we've seen far worse behavior towards president obama. including joe wilson yelling you lie during state of the union. trump just got a polite sitting on the hands. for him to equate that with treason really shows a lack of historical awareness of the way washington works and also what the very definition of what treason is, very serious crime laid out in the constitution. the only one laid out in the constitution, punishable by death. it is not just not clapping for the president at a state of the

union. >> ken vogel from the "new york times," jennifer rubin from "the washington post," thank you. turning now to the stock market. today opening down sharply. it moved quickly into positive territory this morning. and has been moving back and forth. the dow at this moment looks like it's up about 70 points. yesterday in its single largest single day point drop, the dow fell 1,175 points. 4.6 decline. that's the good news percentagewise. it wasn't as big as the point total would make it appear. nbc business correspondent jo ling kent. explain what's happening today and why after seeing such a huge drop we're now seeing gains at this point. >> yes, that's right. we're sitting in the green right now. the dow is up about .2% right now. what we're seeing is some investors probably taking an opportunity to buy on the dip yesterday. obviously a lot of stocks were available at a discount after that record close with the point

drop over 1,100 points on the dow. we're also seeing some stability. we saw some folks, some investors in exchange traded funds sell and that also exacerbated the drop yesterday. so i'm watching the s&p 500 as well. that is just about even. broader index oftentimes called a better indicator of where the markets are. there's also concern that continues to permeate here about what the new fed chair is going to be doing if he does, indeed, raise rates four times this year instead of the expected three. that could continue to roil the markets. obviously making stocks more expensive. you see an opportunity here. some people buying on this dip and taking advantage of what we're seeing today. >> obviously the president likes to talk about how much he has done to help improve the stock market, how it's been growing so rapidly. you know like i do a large majority, a large number of americans don't own any stocks actively but in real terms, what

is the impact for most average americans on those retirement plans and others right now? >> you certainly saw a dip yesterday and percentagewise, as you mentioned, that really hasn't been much of a record breaking impact. a lot of the financial advisers we've been talking to all say for people who have 401ks, those long-term investments are long term for a reason and not to make any sort of sudden moves on that. we see a pretty big recovery. we have to remember this so-called trump rally that has continued to climb over past year, well, 1,100-point drop does not necessarily wipe it out. it wipes out the gains from this year so far but it doesn't come anywhere close to where we were back when trump took office and when trump was elected back in november 2016. so relatively markets are very much up if you're going to look at it from a political perspective. >> jo ling kent, thanks very much. right here coming up,

blastoff. a rocket that could revolutionize spaceflight is ready to launch. this afternoon, how it could change the future of space exploration. ( ♪ ) ♪ one is the only number ♪ that you'll ever need ♪ staying ahead isn't about waiting for a chance. it's about the one bold choice you make, that moves you forward. ( ♪ ) the one and only cadillac escalade. come in now for this exceptional offer on the cadillac escalade. get this low-mileage lease on this 2018 cadillac escalade from around $879 per month. visit your local cadillac dealer. from around $879 per month. trust #1 doctor recommended dulcolax. use dulcolax tablets for gentle dependable relief.

suppositories for relief in minutes. and dulcoease for comfortable relief of hard stools. dulcolax. designed for dependable relief.

we're back. a new era in space exploration could be about to begin. a rocket poised to launch this afternoon at the kennedy space center's historic launch pad 39-a. the apollo moon missions and space shuttle missions were launched from that site. a private company hopes for its own successful unmanned test launch of what they call the falcon heavy rocket that could one day take humans to mars. nbc's tom costello is parked at the kennedy space center in cape canaveral. what a gorgeous day for a launch. what makes it so significant? >> i think it may not happen. that's a headline breaking right now. that is because we have such strong upper atmosphere winds right now. wind shear very high up. they've now postponed this launch until 3:05 at the earliest eastern time. the window closes at 4:00. i think we're right now in a very precarious situation for a

launch and the clock itself has stopped. so i would not be surprised if they try to postpone this for a day or so. to underscore, this is an unimagined test mission. you mentioned it is the biggest rocket in the world today. it would be the biggest launch from here in terms of rocket power since the moon missions of apollo in 1973. so will this rocket get off the ground? assuming the winds stop, will it be successful? i asked musk that question out there on the pad and as you know he is the founder of space x. his answer was a bit surprising. listen to this. >> i hope it goes right. i give it maybe i don't know a half to two-thirds chance of working. >> that's it? >> yeah. actually, i feel like two-thirds but i think realistically half. >> so 50/50 he says. the other half of the chance, if it doesn't go well, it could blow up. he's been very candid about

that. 27 engines on these three rockets. and they would put out the equivalent of 18, the thrust of 18 747s. it is just a massive amount of firepower coming from underneath these rockets. there's going to be tremendous vibrations on these rockets. so their concern, quite literally, the vibrations would be so extreme they would rip the rockets apart. will this thing get off the ground? we hope so. it's unmanned. if it goes well, they would like to use these rockets to eventually put satellites into space much more cheaply than they are today. and maybe use the technology and build upon it to go to the moon or mars. but that's down the road. right now, they got to get this puppy off the ground and we'll see how that goes. >> that darn wind shear making it difficult. i know it's cheaper if they get to reuse these rockets but what does it cost? what is elon musk throwing behind something like this?

>> this is a $90 million, we believe, 90 mi$90 million missi. this is not a public company so he doesn't disclose all this. that's a fraction of what it normally cost to put satellites into orbit. why is it cheaper? you got right to the point. because they can reuse these rockets. instead of letting them fall into the ocean, they're able to bring them right back down, land them right here at cape canaveral and then they land one out at a platform out on the ocean. if they can do that successfully, they can reuse these rockets and that cuts their costs dramatically. this is a win-win technologywise. can i just give you one more oh cool factor? when they come back down to earth, they will have the sonic booms associated with them. two of them per rocket. so we could have six sonic booms as these three rockets come back down to earth. a lot of people here who are space geeks say this is really going to be something special.

>> enjoy the sun. it's a cold one in washington. i stole the space heater out of your office, all right, buddy, so we'll have to talk about that. >> yeah, buddy, the future's so bright, got to wear shades. >> on the ground for us at cape canaveral. thank you. the new warning from the senate democratic leader to republicans about a spending plan that the house is trying to pass. and a new rebuke. senator jeff flake, a frequent thorn in the president's side, prepping a new speech to call out the president. we'll likely hear it this afternoon.

you might take something for your heart... or joints. but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is the number one selling brain-health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember.

right now keeping an eye on two significant stories happening on capitol hill today. the house about to take another procedural vote, moving toward passage of a stop gap funding measure to try to avoid another government shutdown. then later today, senator jeff flake expected to take the floor to chide president trump for calling democrats who didn't applaud at parts of his state of the union address un-american and treasonous. nbc news capitol hill correspondent kacie hunt is joining us from her perch on the hill. what is in this bill? is it likely -- sounds like it's going to get through the house. does it make it through the senate right now as we approach a deadline barely 48 hours away from potential government shutdown. >> i think the first and most important thing to note here is unlike when we went through this a couple of weeks ago, there doesn't seem to be much of an

appetite for a government shutdown. you had people clamoring in the senate particularly for that last time around and now the focus is figuring out how to avert that. the challenge is that there doesn't seem to be great or obvious plan in place to do it, so there is some scrambling going on to try to figure that out. the house is planning to vote tonight to pass this continuing resolution. it would fund the government through march 23. it would provide a year of defense spending and two years for community health centers. it's that year of defense department funding that is potentially the problem. because the senate, senate democrats, have essentially said no way. now, why would that be? it's because it has major impact on a major budget deal they have been working on. democrats essentially want to mark defensive spending levels to defense spending and they're giving away potentially a bargaining chip if they sign off on something like this. the path forward isn't clear here because house democrats, you'll remember republicans last

week went on their policy retreat. house democrats are supposed to do that this week. the house is supposed to essentially be gone after today. but if the senate makes some major changes and sends it back, they would probably have to take more action. >> one of the challenges, this basically funds the government through march 23rd. but march 5th is the deadline for these dreamers in many ways. the point of the last long-term spending bill was to create some pressure for them to come up with an immigration deal. does this do anything to resolve that? >> it doesn't, and that's the potential wrench here this week on the hill. you have the immigration talks are essentially at an impasse. they're trying to figure out -- mitch mcconnell has said he'll put it on the floor next week but we don't know what the underlying outline of any compromise it's be. there's been some conversations up here on the hill about maybe a more limited action. john kelly, the white house chief of staff, was in mitch mcconnell's office. he spoke to reporters a little bit today.

he said that the president doesn't have any plans to make any kind of fix past march 5th so if congress can't do it, he doesn't have any intention of acting further. so right now it's really very hard to see how this gets resolved. now, republicans have essentially said we're not going to talk at all if the government is closed if our kind of fiscal issues are not set up so they're counting on democrats to do that. democrats have, as you point out, try to shoe-horn these two things together. as you well know, it is very difficult to get ning done around here that is not much pass or that doesn't have a very hard deadline, peter. >> i think that's exactly right. jeff flake supposed to be speaking on the floor only a short time from now, criticizing the president. we'll be watching for that. kacie hunt, thank you very much. a new message from the white house to those dreamers. why the chief of staff as we just noted says the president will likely not extend their protections beyond the deadline that he's already imposed. what impact could that have on this debate. and i quit smoking with chantix.

my friends and family never thought i'd be the one to quit smoking, i was such a heavy smoker. but i was able to do it with chantix. i did not know that chantix would reduce my urges so significantly. along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. chantix reduced my urge to smoke. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. some people had changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, or suicidal thoughts or actions with chantix. serious side effects may include seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking or allergic and skin reactions which can be life-threatening. stop chantix and get help right away if you have any of these. tell your healthcare provider if you've had depression or other mental health problems. decrease alcohol use while taking chantix. use caution when driving or operating machinery. the most common side effect is nausea. everybody had doubts, including me, but i did it. ask your doctor if chantix is right for you.

tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management. the white house says it's unlikely to extend dreamers' protections beyond the march 5th deadline. the president's chief of staff, john kelly, also telling reporters today that the dreamers, quote, are not a

priority for deportation, even if obama immigration protections should expire. joining me now is congressman leonard lance, republican from new jersey. congressman, thanks for being here. i want to play for you, if i can, what the house speaker paul ryan said today about immigration legislation. take a listen. >> we're not going to bring immigration legislation through that the president doesn't support. we're working on something here in the house. we're working on bipartisan negotiations. it's going to be a bill that we support, that the president supports. >> the president has been tweeting about immigration all morning, two similar bipartisan bills in the house and senate have been introduced. how close are lawmakers right now with that deadline quickly approaching for dreamers to finding a solution that does or doesn't include the president's proposed border wall? >> i hope we do find a solution, peter. and sooner rather than later. and i have been associated with a bipartisan bill in this area. and there are other bipartisan bills. and i think this cries out for bipartisan cooperation. and i hope we can achieve it. and i hope we can achieve it by

early in march. >> let me ask you, if i can, about what the chief of staff, the president's chief of staff, john kelly said today about the discrepancy between that number, 690,000, which is the number of official daca recipients, and the 1.8 million dreamers that the president has now offered to accept. here's how the chief of staff characterized it. >> the difference between 690 and 1.8 million were the people that some would say were too afraid to sign up, others would say were too lazy to get off their [ bleep ], but they didn't sign up. >> should the white house be characterizing those who did not sign up in a climate where frankly a lot of people were anxious to give over their personal information as to lazy to get off their bleep? >> i would not characterize it that way. perhaps they were concerned or apprehensive, but i want to move forward. and i like the president's figure of 1.8 million, which is a more generous figure. and i hope that we can negotiate from that point of view.

>> let me ask you, if i can, this issue obviously hitting close to home for you. a small group of clergy rallied in support of a clean d.r.e.a.m. act. they were arrested outside your offices in new jersey yesterday, i think. what are you telling your constituents to try to calm their fears right now? first, the simple question, i guess, would be, do you support a clean d.r.e.a.m. act? >> i have a cosponsor of one of the clean d.r.e.a.m. act bills sponsored by congressman curbelo of southern florida, but i'm not sure that can pass and i want legislation that can pass. and regarding those who were in my office yesterday, we welcomed them and then when our office closed at 5:00, they were asked to leave. i am certainly willing to meet with them or their representatives. i have a great respect for the clergy and there is a tradition in this country of advocacy adv. >> john kelly said the deportation of these dreamers after that march 5th deadline

would not be a priority. what do you say to those dreamers in your own community, to give them some assurance that they will not be deported if congress doesn't come to terms, come to some agreement on this? >> peter, i hope that we can come to terms by the 5th of march, but i believe the chief of staff has also said that deportation of dreamers would not be a priority and certainly they should not be deported. i hope, however, that we can work to a bipartisan conclusion on this issue, to make sure that we can address it as quickly as possible. >> you going to vote for another short-term spending bill again today? >> i am, indeed. and i hope that the senate will vote for it, as well. and i do not -- >> even without immigration being resolved, as the president had said he wanted to have happened? >> i hope that it's resolved, but i doubt that it's resolved this week. but i certainly do not favor shutting down the government, peter. i did not favor it when barack obama was president. i don't favor it now that donald trump is president. >> new jersey congressman leonard lance, we appreciate your time and your being here. thank you so much. >> thank you, peter. >> we'll be right back.

it's time now for "your business" of the week. l.a.-based million dollar baby designs cribs for some of the bestest celebrities. find out how this couple moved from china to the u.s. in the wake of the tiananmen square massacre and founded this multi-million dollar family business. for more, watch "your business" weekend mornings at 7:30 on msnbc. so that's the idea. what do you think? i don't like it. oh. nuh uh. yeah. ahhhhh. mm-mm. oh. yeah. ah. agh. d-d-d... no. hmmm. uh... huh. yeah. uh... huh. in business, there are a lot of ways to say no. thank you so much. thank you. so we're doing it. yes. start saying yes to your company's best ideas. we help all types of businesses with money, tools and know-how to get business done. american express open.

breaking news right now. we want to take you to the white house, specifically to the cabinet room, where president trump is hosting a law enforcement roundtable on the transnational gang, ms-13. take a listen. >> -- zeldin, lee, good to have you. you've been working hard on this. martha, martha mcsally, good. i hear you're working hard out there. congresswoman barbara comstock. barbara. thank you, barbara. nice to have you. and congressman michael mccaul, who's really an expert on the subject and has been for a long period of time. it's a tough subject. ms-13 recruits through our broken immigration system, violating our borders, and it just comes right through, wherever they want to come through, they come through. it's much tougher now since we've been there, but we need much better border mechanisms

and much better border security. we need the wall. gonna get the wall. we don't have the wall, we're never going to solve this problem. and i've gone to the top people. many of these people are at the table right now, including this group, and without the wall, it's not going to work. during my state of the union, i called on congress to close the immigration loopholes that have allowed this deadly gang to break so easily into our country. my administration has identified three priorities. we went through and looked very closely. we've identified three priorities for creating a safe, modern, and lawful immigration system, securing the border, ending chain migration, and canceling the terrible visa lottery. we've been discussing it. we've been talking about it. we're talking about it in congress. we're talking about daca and how we can work that out. and i think the democrats don't want to make a deal, but we'll find out. as congress considers immigration reform, it's

essential that we listen to the law enforcement professionals in this room today and so i'm going to turn it over to secretanielj. >> mr. president, thank you for hosting this roundtable today on ms-13. it's the first gang dangerous enough to be classified as a transnational criminal organization. we've talked at length at the devastating destruction and violence it causes in our communities and we're here to talk abo talk to a variety of folks who work to combat this. it's my privilege to be here as part of the people who fight this every day and to be joined by members of congress who have shown great leadership. we thank you for that, and as always for your support of doj. if your recently reviewed framework, you asked congress to