p.m. eastern. check us out on social media with #velshiruhle. now andrea mitchell reports. >> right now, who loves a parade? president trump does. so he's given the pentagon marching orders to plan a military show of might. tanks and all, down pennsylvania avenue. after falling in love with the paris bastille day celebration. >> it was one of the greatest parades i've ever seen. and to a large extent because of what i witnessed, we may do something like that on july fourth in washington down pennsylvania avenue. >> i'd say it's a fantastic waste of money to amuse the president. take the money that the president would like to spend on this parade. instead let's make sure our troops are ready for battle and survive it and come home to their families. >> let's make a deal. lawmakers are close to a longer-term two-year funding fix on capitol hill. but will the president sign on? >> i'd love to see a shutdown if

we don't get this stuff taken care of. so we have to strengthen our borders, not by a little bit, but by a lot. and if we have to shut it down because the democrats don't want safety, and unrelated but still related, they don't want to take care of our military, then shut it down. we'll go with another shutdown. and rocket man. the biggest spacex rocket yet. roars into outer space in flawless, dramatic fashion. blasting the eternal david bowie into orbit. ♪ ♪ and the stars look very different today. good day i'm andrea mitchell in washington, where the pentagon is scrambling today to satisfy the commander in chief's order for a military parade to

compete with france's bastille day celebration. president trump apparently enjoyed watching that parade in paris so much last year, he wants one of his own. if not by july fourth, perhaps on veterans day, next november. but that would cost millions to ship in tanks and other weaponry, as well as assemble the troops. to say nothing of the grandstands and all that security. joining me now, nbc white house correspondent kristen welker, and msnbc military analyst colonel jack jacobs, a medal of honor recipient. joining us, as well. first of all, i don't want to rain on the parade, kristen, but this is hardly the time given the fiscal problems, the budget deficit, the dysfunction in washington, to have this kind of celebratory parade and people are asking, i think with good measure, why spend the money? why not do other things for the troops? >> well, the legislative affairs director mark short was prepped on that very point by my colleague hallie jackson, and he pushed back and said look it is

not a waste of money to honor the military. as you know there's other criticism, andrea. some way military parades are something that you see under dictatorships. mark short pushing back against that notion, as well. saying, look, this has nothing to do with a dictatorship. this is about the president wanting to honor the military. in terms of where we are in this planning process, it is very early stages. the pentagon saying that, quote, we are aware of the request and we are looking at possible dates. you talked about the fact that the president's fascination, really, we saw it on display, when he was in paris for bastille day. actually if you go all the way back to 2011, he tweeted that new york city should hold a parade for returning iraq and afghanistan veterans. so this is something he apparently had his eye on for quite some time. but again, to your point, it's getting a lot of pushback for the simple fact that, as you see right now, lawmakers on capitol hill are fighting over the

budget. how to keep the debt and deficit lowered. and the question that looms over all of this is this a wise way to spend the nation's money? so, that will undoubtedly be where this debate unfolds today. we're going to see sarah sanders for her daily press briefing. the president doesn't have any public events on the schedule, andrea. >> and colonel jack, in fairness, there was a parade after the first desert storm in june of 1991. we did have a parade welcoming back the troops. >> yeah, except that this is pretty much the silliest idea i've heard in a long time. parades are time intensive, personnel intensive, capital intensiv intensive, troops have to work very, very hard to make the parade just right. it robs precious training time from units that are starved for time, that are overdeployed. frequently that are undertrained, and the only thing you learn after conducting a parade, and all the training

that it takes to make a parade okay, is how to parade better. it doesn't do anything at all for the defense of the republic, and is an extremely bad idea. >> and our best research is that it cost $12 million to welcome back those troops after "desert storm." the parade in 2018 could cost as much as $22 million. it's awfully hard to guesstimate what that would take. but if the, as you point out, if the lack of time for training, and if the fact that clearly, the military isn't thrilled about this, so, colonel jack, is this a case where the commanders don't want to say no to the commander in chief? >> well, they can't say no. they can say no but the commander in chief is going to say we're going to go ahead and do it and general mattis, and general kelly can do no better a job than to talk the president out of it. general mattis was in congress yesterday or the day before yesterday talking about the fact that the current funding does

not permit him to enlist about 20,000 troops he needs for the services, and to spend money, time, effort, troops, that we don't have on this kind of effort is -- is really dysfunctional to the republic. we-we'd be in much better shape if general mattis and general kelly and others would tell the commander to forget about it. the other thing to keep in mind is that the president said this is to honor the troops. the troops don't like to parade. rife been in lots and lots of parades. we all hated it. it took too much time. too much effort. and we got nothing for it in return. the president's completely wrong about honoring the troops with a troop parade. >> kristen i also wanted to ask you about something, a quirk of scheduling perhaps but the president's official schedule listed him as getting his intelligence briefing starting at 11:00. whether it started on time or

not we have no way of knowing until you ask sarah sanders. but at 11:10 he was tweeting. if you have that tweet available and want to share it with us. so he was either tweeting about new fbi texts being bombshells. regarding texts presumably between those two former fbi officials who were involved romantically and were tweeting about comparing james comey apparently for a briefing for president trump. he's either tweeting during his intelligence briefing, or someone else is tweeting for him or the briefing started later and he was still in, quote, executive time upstairs in the residence. hard to tell. there was no marine guard downstairs outside the west wing at that hour. so, presumably he still was not in the office. >> and the tweet was all in caps, andrea. >> yeah. >> a sign perhaps that it did, in fact, come from president trump himself. all right and you're absolutely right. look he's tweeting about new fbi texts are bombshells, a

reference to those fbi agents, as you pointed out, one reassigned from the mueller probe after it was determined that there had been some disparaging texts sent about president trump in this case the text in question says, this is not an exact quote, but basically potus wants to know everything that we are doing. there you have it. because potus wants to know everything we are doing. yes, i did quote it correctly. and that's potentially an indication, some are saying, that and raises questions about to what extent was former president trump president obama engaged in the allegations in hillary clinton's e-mails. in terms of what the president was doing during his briefing, andrea, this is not the first time we've seen a tweet go out when he was supposed to be having an intelligence briefing or another high level meeting. >> sounds to me like that's a state secret. we'll have to get on that. thank you so much, kristen welker. thank you colonel jack jacobs. joining me now, california

democratic congressman eric swallow who serves on the intelligence committee. well, you're on the intelligence committee. is the president tweeting during his intelligence briefing? >> that would be very concerning. you know, we've seen past concerns about what he does with intelligence. he had the russians in the oval office and turned over intelligence to them. so his handling of intelligence, ironically, for somebody who, you know, castigated his political opponent about the handling of classified information, has been, i would say shaky at best. this presidency. >> sow, john kelly was on the hill last night, there's a lot coming out of that, but one of the things that he talked about was the memo, whether the democratic memo that you were part of, i don't know if you wrote it, congressman or whether you were just part of the initiative from the democrats counteracting or rebutting -- >> led my mr. schiff but it was a team product. >> well, this is what -- this is

what the chief of staff had to say about the process by which the president is about to decide whether to let it be released. >> i would say, i mean, this is a different memo than the first one. it's lengthier. well, it's different. and so, not leaning towards it, will be done in a responsible way. but, again, the first one was very clean relative to sources, and my initial cut is this one is a lot less clean. >> so at this stage have you heard back to whether the president reviewed it, and whether he, during the five-day period, is going to permit it to go forward? >> we understand it's being reviewed right now. we just ask that it be released free from any political edits. we took a step that the republicans did not take, which was we asked for any sensitive information that's not already been disclosed. if that's in the memo for it to be taken out. we didn't write it that way to

disclose anything like that. we just wanted to give full context to the real credibility and seriousness of the investigation, and also the arsenal of evidence that went in to justifying surveillance on carter page. andrea, we really just want to get back to work. it's been about a month since we've interviewed a witness in our investigation we'll we've been under these constant attacks on process, that's time we're not hearing the evidence. >> there was a suggestion from the chief of staff that yours was perhaps not as clean as the other one, it's longer, it's about ten pages compared to three pages. and that yours contains more classified information. >> if by not as clean he means that ours included facts, he's correct. but, it did take nearly ten pages to rebut the real, i would say distortions that they put out there. you have to rebut it. and we were, you know, reluctant to do so, because this has never been the practice to do this during an ongoing investigation.

however, the fbi and the department of justice must have credibility with the american people. they are not above the law. but there's been no evidence they've done anything wrong. and when that's suggested we can't just leave that out there, because right now, as we speak, there are jurors in every federal courthouse listening to federal prosecutors and fbi agents testify, and if they're thinking about, you know, their credibility because of this memo, then there's collateral damage that's been done and we have to clean that up. >> and are you at all concerned about this text that has been released between the two fbi officials who were having a relationship and one texted the other in september 2016 apparently about the clinton e-mail investigation, ongoing and jim comey was about to brief the president, and said, one wrote to the other, yes, because potus wants to know everything we are doing on that clinton e-mail investigation. does that concern you? should it concern you? >> they were removed from bob mueller's team, rightfully so.

this doesn't sound like it relates to the russia investigation. >> no, it apparently relates to the clinton e-mail investigation, which is a subsequent investigation that your chairman, devin nunes, wants to investigate next between the e-mail probe, reopening it and having another special counsel. >> the inspector general of the fbi, who is independent of the leadership of the fbi, is looking at this. i think we should wait and see what comes out of that. i don't think we should mix this with the russia probe which is still ongoing and still is looking most importantly at what we're going to do to secure the ballot box from another interference campaign. the cia director mike pompeo said just last week that it's very likely that russia will try and do this again. i think we should, you know, focus exclusively on protecting the american people from that. >> thank you so much, eric swalwell. thank you congressman. >> you, too. >> and crisis averted. the senate is on the verge of a major budget agreement. but will it get past the president and even the house after the president said he

would love a shutdown. stay tuned, you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc.

no matter how the markets change... at t. rowe price... our disciplined approach remains. global markets may be uncertain... but you can feel confident in our investment experience around the world. call us or your advisor...

t. rowe price. invest with confidence. you know what's not awesome? gig-speed internet. when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids, and these guys, him, ah. oh hello. that lady, these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh, sure. still yes! xfinity delivers gig speed to more homes than anyone.

now you can get it, too. welcome to the party. senate leaders are now inching closer to a sweeping long-term budget deal beyond the short-term fix. to keep the government open just for the next few weeks, which is also in play. but president trump could create roadblocks for this larger deal, especially with a new threat welcoming a shutdown if he does not get his way on immigration

and the wall. joining me now to disentangle this, including whatever confusion i may have just created, nbc's garrett haig on capitol hill. let's separate the long-term deal from the short-term fix. >> sure. >> the containing resolution that was approved by the house last night is also in the senate. this is a bigger deal, something we haven't seen in awhile. >> yeah, that's right, andrea. potentially we could be looking at the long-term deal and we could start there, would last for the next two years. what this does is lifts budget caps on discretionary spending and defense spending. there's elements that would deal with disaster relief, opioid funding, a lot of smaller ticket items. under that top line issue of raising these budget caps. setting the funding for the government out over a two-year horizon. that's the longer term deal that they're hoping to get agreed in both houses of congress, inside both parties at least in principle today. the shorter-term part of this

is, the government still has to be funded beyond thursday. so what's probably going to happen is you're going to see the outlines of that deal attached to another one of these short-term crs. another continuing resolution to fund the government through late march, which gives howmakers time to actually write out a bill that can do all of the things that are set out in this agreement. now the question about a shutdown here is essentially two parts. you had the comments from the president yesterday about a shutdown based on immigration deal and what may or may not be in that. totally irrelevant to the conversation that's happening today. there is not a serious discussion of a shutdown in either house of congress right now. and immigration bill's going to be debated in the senate next week. so senate democrats are largely, i would say, comfortable with that, as what's going to happen there. now, could there be potentially a shutdown a month from now, in that next cr runs out? if the president doesn't get what he wants out of this immigration debate? it's possible. but it would be extraordinary. i mean you essentially have the president rejecting a deal

struck by both parties in both houses of congress, over what republicans described as an ancillary issue when democrats did essentially the same thing saying they weren't getting what they wanted on immigration in the last shutdown. so i think the broad good news for people who are fans of the government that functions is that the shutdown seems to be off the table for now, assuming that these deals, which are getting a lot of extra stuff stacked up on them, can be approved in the next less than 48 hours. >> now, there was a message from pelosi earlier today that she would not sign onto anything long-term unless the house got a commitment from the speaker, similar to what mitch mcconnell had given in the senate to actually bring the dreamers issue to the floor. am i correct on that? >> that's right. and she is still delivering that message in a way, even as we speak, she's been on the floor of the house, for about two hours. this isn't technically a filibuster because there's no bill being discussed here. she as the democratic leader can essentially hold the floor as

long as she wants to talk about this. but her statement was interesting. because, yeah, she said she will not support a long-term deal without this kind of commitment. but she doesn't call on her colleagues to do the same. which i think is notable. and we've seen this back and forth between her and speaker ryan in terms of their spokespeople, sort of battling back and forth, with ryan's office saying we've offered a commitment to talk about immigration. pelosi saying yeah but it doesn't have to be. pelosi wants the same deal the senate had which is nothing has to be approved by the president to start this conversation. they want to let the house do its own thing and not have to be contingent upon what the president wants to see in the final bill. >> i'm so glad you're on top of all this. it's getting complicated over there. >> yes, it is. >> let's bring in our panel, veteran conservative radio host and msnbc contributor joining us from walk, and jennifer palmierry, former white house communications director under president obama. so charlie, is this progress, are they actually getting something done? and how do you explain the

president in the middle of all of this talking about how he would welcome a shutdown. everyone i guess loves parades and shutdowns. >> the most interesting thing that garrett said was the phrase that the president's comments were, i think he said, totally irrelevant. i want you to think about that. to the extent that we are actually moving toward a deal, the president of the united states, the great dealmaker, is completely irrelevant to this process. k3e79 for possibly throwing in some stink bombs there walking about a shutdown. we're obviously not going to have a shutdown. it's also interesting that the deal that they're talking about, which is raising the budget caps, probably a good thing obviously from the point of view of the military, but i'm old enough to remember when republicans actually did care about the deficit, and the debt. and you'll notice how little attention those issues are getting right now, after the tax cut, and the projections that we might be running a trillion dollar deficit this year. now we're talking about rather significant increases in

spending. and i suppose that's a double irony. >> yeah, in fact a lot of people are wondering what happened to the paul ryan that we all knew, who talked about budget deficits and dealing with that. jen palmieri, at the same time you've had the chief of staff, describing the dreamers, as people who either are too afraid to sign up for daca, the people, the 1.2 million let's say beyond the 600,000, 700,000, 800,000 who have signed up were either too afraid or too lazy and suggesting that the they were sitting on the couch, or some other phrase they used. >> yes. >> how are democrats looking at that? how are other people looking at that? you don't need a party label to be concerned about -- >> about that -- about how they described the dreamers, yes. and as someone who worked in white houses for a long period of time, it's revealing what's going on behind the scenes.

my first thought is he said what kelly said was like or as some people say, if you like put those words in someone else's mouth, and that's how the president talks about dreamers and it just reinforces when you hear, you know, like s-hole countries, and then talking about dreamers not wanting to get off their asses it tells you, i think it undoes any kind of sense people have that they're serious about wanting to solve the problems for dreamers. i do feel it's good that leader pelosi is doing what she's doing on the floor to keep focus on the dreamers and i think that by the time we get through the many weeks that garrett walked through we'll probably get a year protection, at least, some kind of bridge to protect the young people with daca. but too bad they can't do something more than that. >> charlie, who is the president appealing to, who is he appealing to when he describes democrats as traitors for not applauding him in the state of the union? >> well, this is a moment to

demonize the other side. you know, i mean think about the rhetoric on the immigrants. this has been a consistent trump theme. that immigrants are portrayed as rapists. as murders, as drunk drivers, as being from s-hole countries, as being too lazy to get off the couch. you know, this is the u.s. versus them framing that the president has used. he was elected, you know, in 2016, by making it a binary choice. no matter how bad i might be, the other side is so much worse. and i expect that you're going to be hearing that kind of rhetoric, actually, amped up because the reality is, there wasn't that much pushback. here you have the president of the united states, you know, using words like treasonous to describe the other political party, and basically it's just, what? it's just another tuesday in washington. he is normalizing that. i mean no kudos to jeff flake for pointing out that no this is a line that ought not to be

crossed but it is yet another line that we have crossed with this president. >> well, in fact, they've now done a commercial. they've done a campaign ad and put that out there. so they are doubling, tripling down, i don't know what the ad buy is and whether it's just online or on tv but they have actual little done a campaign ad to amply fie that message to their base. so it's going to be a midterm message as well. well, we'll have to wait and see what happens with the parade. because, as you say, we all love parades. thank you, charlie sykes, thank you jen palmieri. and red-handed. rex tillerson echoing that warning from mike pompeo, russia is already gearing up to interfere in this year's elections. and there's nothing we can do to stop them. really? you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. ♪

a wealth of information. a wealth of perspective. ♪ a wealth of opportunities. that's the clarity you get from fidelity wealth management. straightforward advice, tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management.

i think it's fortunate we just continue to say to russia, look, if you think we don't see what you're doing, we do see it and you need to stop. and if you don't, you're going to just continue to invite consequences for yourself. the point is if it's their intention to interfere, they're going to find ways to do that. and we can take steps we can

take. but this is something that, once they decide they're going to do it, it's very difficult to preempt it. >> secretary of state rex tillerson in bogota, colombia, warning that the russians are already trying to influence the midterm elections. and that the u.s. is not any better prepared to stop them. joining me now is allen rosenstein former attorney in the justice department's national security division. allen, we've heard from now mike pompeo, we've heard from the democrats on the senate foreign relations committee, in a report that was released, all things the russians are at it again. and the democrats on foreign relations are saying, the reason why nobody is stopping them is that the white house has not ordered this as a priority to stop the russians, and have someone in national security and homeland and the like get on it. >> well i think what's important to appreciate is, first, that secretary tillerson should be commended for raising this issue again. i know that it's something that the president doesn't really want to talk about. but it is important for us to

deal with. i do think that there are ways of, i believe, blocking some of the impact of russian interference. tech companies like facebook and twitter can do more to prevent interference, journalists can do more to highlight the issue. but i do actually fundamentally agree with secretary tillerson that if the russians decide that they're going to try to interfere in our election, they're going to try to do that. and there's not much that we can do to stop them. >> i don't know why that's the case. because, after interviewing homeland security, jay johnson in the past, where they pro-actively alerted states and localities to work on the election machines, which fortunately are not hooked up to the internet, so that they are not as vulnerable to hacking, homeland and others could be doing a whole lot. the fbi could be doing more. >> oh, i absolutely agree with that. i certainly think that we can improve the security of our voting infrastructure, we can get the word out. but ultimately, the best defense against russian meddling is going to be a skeptical american

public. it's going to be a public that's skeptical when they read out their news reports that the they're going to ask themselves is this real or is this part of some coordinated campaign? and so i think the best thing that we can do is to keep talking about it. i think what's really getting in the way of a powerful response is not the lack of sanctions, though that might help, it's that every time president trump talks about this, he dismisses it. he talks about it as if it's some democratic-led fake news. and, as a consequence, something like 40% of the electorate believe in him. and in that sense not only are we going to have to deal with this in 2018 and 2020 but we may be even less prepared than we were in 2016. >> it also sends a signal to the agencies, don't assemble a deputy committee meeting, and tee something up for a principle's meeting at the nsc to take actions, don't take pro-active action because the boss doesn't want you to. and he wasted a year with a fake election fraud commission

supposedly looking at all the fraudulent voting which doesn't exist. so i mean if it's not going to come from the top it's very unlikely that anything is going to be done. >> that's absolutely right. when i was in government, we spent a lot of time thinking about ways to protect the homeland. and a lot of these discussions take an enormous amount of time, and the staff, the career staff knows that some of those won't come to fruition, because for whatever reason the white house will choose not to do it. but if they know from the outset that there's no point in coming up with even basic proposals for security, the integrity of our elections, then as you said, there's not going to be a lot of action on that front. >> the other thing that has just been noted by a politico investigation last week was that the #releasethememo which was promoting the devin nunes memo, was also being promoted by russians. they're at it on an everyday basis. >> yeah, that's absolutely right. and i mean, obviously i think at this point social media companies like twitter and

facebook are on notice that the russians are using their platforms, and they that have to step up their game to try to keep russian bots from spending propaganda, keep russian advertisements from posing as american ones. but ultimately, and this is one of the real challenges, is that a lot of the misinformation comes from regular people forwarding each other fake news. actually fake news. and there's not a ton that facebook and twitter can do about that. and that's why just to -- why i emphasize that the most important thing we can do is be skeptical. and if the president wants to do anything about this, which i'm not convinced he does, that's what he should be doing, is encouraging the american voters to be skeptical in light of this threat. >> consumer beware. thank you so much, good to see you. thanks for joining us today. >> thanks so much. >> and starting five, melania trump follows only a handful of people on twitter. you'll never guess who made the cut. stay with us on "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. ing is helping the new new york rise higher than ever.

as the world leader in unmanned aerial systems, we're attracting the world's best talent to central new york. and turning the airport into a first-class transportation hub. all while growing urban areas into vibrant places to live and work. 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.

>> >> millionaire casino mogul and major republican donor, former rnc chair -- finance chair i should say, steve wynn, has now resigned as chairman and ceo of his own company wynn resorts following allegations of sexual misconduct on his part against female employees, spanning decades. it is the latest fallout for wynn who recently stepped down

as finance chair of the rnc. he's denied all of the accusations calling them quote, preposterous. let's get the inside scoop from susan page, "usa today's" washington bureau chief and "washington post" opinion writer. the latest titan to fall. there's no way of overstating his influence on modern las vegas, you know, from all of the resorts. and the fact that, let's face it, he was forced out after the board was meeting for days and days because they were about to lose their gaming license in massachusetts. the stock had just collapsed. so susan, this was a financial decision by a publicly owned company. >> what's remarkable is the me too movement has made it a financial decision that companies, and politicians, and museums, and all kinds of organizations are now having to face. that's what's different now. there's such consequences to these credible allegations of sexual misconduct. and of course, he's very important to las vegas. he's pretty important to the republicans party. finance chairman of the rnc. that's a big job.

in the last five years he's given $1.5 million to various republican organizations, campaign organizations, so this is a big thing. >> kathleen, you know, there are some people who have cautioned that we need to come up with some metrics for judging and examining, and none of us are independent investigators, institutions, the wynn board, i'm sure, does not have full capacity to examine all of this. but the fact is it's unchallenged that he paid $7.5 million to a manicurist back in 2005, after her allegations of an unwanted attack. >> yeah. well, i clearly went into the wrong business. i should have been doing nails for mr. wynn. >> no you shouldn't have. >> i'm making -- a bad joke. so, when you've given that kind of money, it's obvious what transpired. that's a cover-up that -- >> something happened.

>> -- so i think when you have that kind of evidence then you're justified in making that move. i think we're all a little bit concerned that there's not a -- you know, i think these metrics are really very, very important. and i think they will start to see some of that take place within various companies and industries. but a lot of people are uncomfortable with just the accusations, minus the investigation by some third party. >> and especially the political sphere. this is troubling. people have raised the issue of al franken and whether the fact that his -- the accusations against him had not been properly investigated or vetted. >> right. >> before kirsten gillibrand took to the floor. >> there was a purpose to that. you have to let him take the fall when he's done less than many others, obviously. but how did they go after the republicans, how they go after the president, without that sacrifice? >> it's a political decision in

the case of al franken, not a legal decision. i think what made it untenable with senator franken was the photograph of him pretending to grope a woman who was asleep. it seemed to me that was the kind of evidence that just made it very difficult for his fellow democrats to defend him. and timing matters, too. we're at a point where everyone's taking these allegations very serious. companies, employers are acting very quickly about them. we're going to enter a period i think where we try to sort this out, and have a way to ensure the rights of people who might be accused unfairly. that is something that clearly there's going to be a case where someone is unfairly accused and we need to be prepared to be judicious in those cases as well. >> you talk about timing, susan, i'm thinking, too, that we're in a different period in american history. because, i mean, look al franken is a senator. and you expect behavior befitting a senator. >> when he was on the uso tour he was not a senator.

>> that's correct. that's correct. >> and he is also, you know, there was a time, 20 years ago, this wouldn't have made a ripple. i mean it would have been terrible judgment, ridiculous, you know, i hope you've grown up since then. >> two years ago. i mean it's really, the onset of this has been unbelievably rapid. it's really been since the presidential election that it's taken off. >> and, let's just pause. mitch mcconnell is on the floor i believe announcing a budget deal. >> a deal that is a significant agreement. i want to thank my friend, the democratic leader, for joining me this afternoon, and for the productive discussions that have generated this proposal. the compromise we've reached will ensure that for the first time in years, our armed forces will have more of the resources they need to keep america safe. it will help us serve the veterans who bravely served us and it will ensure funding for

important efforts such as disaster relief, infrastructure, and building on our work to fight opioid abuse and drug addiction. this bill is the product of extensive negotiations. among congressional leaders, and the white house. no one would suggest it is perfect but we worked hard to find common ground and stay focused on serving the american people. first and foremost, this bipartisan agreement will unwind the sequestration cuts that have hamstrung our armed forces and jeopardized our national security. secretary mattis said, quote, no enemy in the field has done more harm to the readiness of our military than sequestration. for years my colleagues on the senate armed services committee, led by chairman john mccain,

have spoken out about these damaging cuts. in the face of continuing and emerging threats, these cuts have left us unable to realize the potential of our missile defense capabilities, they've whittled down our conventional forces, laying an undue burden on foreign deployed personnel, and their families. and they've shrunk our fleet to its lowest ship count in nearly three decades. we haven't asked our men and women in uniform to do less for our country, we've just forced them to make due with less than they need. this agreement changes that. in addition, this bill will provide for our returning heroes. too often, underfunded, overcomplicated bureaucracies failed to deliver the care our veterans deserve. the trump administration and congress, thanks to the leadership of chairman isaacson,

have made important progress for veterans in the past year. this agreement will expand on those steps. this agreement will also bolster our ongoing national struggle against opioid addiction and substance abuse. it will fund new prevention programs, and law enforcement efforts in vulnerable communities all across our country. it also provides funding for disaster relief efforts. last year powerful storms crippled puerto rico and the u.s. virgin islands, and damaged mainland communities from florida to texas. thanks to the efforts of members such as senator cornyn, cruz, rubio, and others, this bill will get more help on the way. and the agreement will clear the were a for a new investment in our nation's infrastructure. a bipartisan priority shared by the president, and lawmakers of both parties.

this bill does not conclude the serious work that remains before congress. after we pass it, the appropriations committees will have six weeks to negotiate detailed appropriations and deliver full funding for the remainder of fiscal year 2018. but this bill represents a significant bipartisan step forward. i would urge every senator to review this legislation and join us in voting to advance it. i particularly want to thank my friend the democratic leader. i hope we can build on this bipartisan momentum and make 2018 a year of significant achievement for congress, for our constituents, and for the country that we all love. now one final matter. as i've said publicly many times our upcoming debate on daca, border security, and other issues will be a process that is fair to all sides.

the bill i moved to, which will not have underlying immigration text, will have an amendment process that will ensure a level playing field at the outset. the amendment process will be fair to all sides, allowing the sides to alternate proposals for consideration, and for votes. while i obviously cannot guarantee any outcome let alone super majority support, i can ensure the process is fair to all sides, and that is what i intend to do. madam president? >> the democratic leader. >> first let me thank the republican leader for his comments and his work these past several months. we have worked well together for the good of the american people. we had serious disagreements, but instead of just going to our own separate corners, we came

together with an agreement that is very good for the american people, and recognizes needs that both sides of the aisle proffered. i'm pleased to announce that we have reached a two-year budget deal to lift the spending caps for defense and urgent domestic priorities far above current spending levels. . there are a few details to work out, pu all the principles of the agreements are in place. but the deal doesn't have everything the democrats want. it doesn't have everything republicans. want. but it has a great deal of what the american people want. after months of legislative log jams, this budget deal is a genuine breakthrough. after months of fiscal brinkmanship, this is the first real sprout of bipartisanship. it should break the cycle of spending crises that have

snarled this congress and hampered our middle class. . this budget deal will benefit our country in so many ways. our men and women in uniform represent the very best of america. this budget gives our fighting forces the resources they need to keep our country safe. i want to join the republican leader in saluting senator mccain. we wish he were here because he's fought so valiantly and so long for a good agreement for the armed forces. folks caught in the grip of opioid addiction, veterans waiting in line to get health care, students shouldering, crippling college debt, middle-class families drowning under the cost of child care, rural americans lack iing acces

to high speed internet, hard working pensioners watching their retirements slip away. democrats have been fighting for the past year for these americans and their priorities. we have always said we need to increase defense spending for our armed forces, but we also need to increase the kinds of programs that the middle class so needs and depends on. it is our job as americans, as senators to make sure that middle class people can can live a life of decency and dignity so that they can keep in their hearts the american belief that their kids will live a better life than they do. in this budget, we have moved, for the first time in a long time, a good deal forward on those issues. a budget deal will lift funding for domestic programs by $131

billion. it will fully repeal the domestic sequester caps by securing $51 billion in additional funding including $6 billion to fight against the opioid crisis, $5.8 billion for the bipartisan child care development block grant, $2 billion for critical research at the national institutes of health and $20 billion to augment our existing ining infrastructure programs, including surface transportation, rural water and waste water, clean and safe drinking water, rural broadband so desperately needed in. large parts of rural america and energy infrastructure. and $4 billion for college affordability, including

programs that help police officers, teachers, firefighters. the deal also boosts several health care programs that we care a lot about in this country. an increase in funding for community health centers, which serve 26.5 million americans is included. my friends senators murray, testers, sanders and many others have been champions for these community health centers. i want to thank them for the hard work they put to get this done. the children's had health insurance program will be extended for an additional years. credit is due to our ranking member for his effort tr this extensive. american families with children who benefit with c.h.i.p. will be able to rest easy r for the next decade. seniors caught in the medicare donut hole will also benefit from this bill.

helping thousands, millions of seniors afford prescription drugs. we have waited long for this. rural hospitals that struggle, seniors, children and safety net hm providers will benefit from a package of health tax extenders as well. on the pension issue, democrats secured a special select committee that must report a fix to the problem by 2018. millions of pensioners, teams r teamste teamsters, miners, bakery workers and so many more are staring down cuts to their hard earned pensions. they didn't do anything to cause those cuts. . their livelihoods are staked to these pensions. we ought to make sure that they get every penny they earned. we democrats would have liked to take up and pass the butch lewis act. we couldn't reach on agreement to do that, but now we have a

process and potentially the means and motivation to get it done. there were so many senators led by senator brown who were responsible for this. i want to acknowledge him and senators casey and stabenow, klobuch klobuchar, who worked so long and hard on pensions. the budget deal also includes long awaited disaster relief for texas, louisiana, florida, the western states, puerto rico and the u.s. virgin islands. many of these places are still taking their first steps in the long march to recovery. much of puerto rico and the v virgin islands we mains damaged and in the dark. this recovery aid could not have come a moment too soon. senator nelson worked hard for florida and puerto rico relief. as did so many others in this chamber. i'd also like thank our ranking member on the appropriations

committee. who worked so diligently with his staff and ranking members on these issues. who has been our beacon on health issue where is we made real progress today. the budget deal is a win for the american people. it will do so dpood for our military and for so many middle class americans and finally consign the arbitrary and pointless sequester. caps to history. >> with the end of ste quester, the lifting of the caps, we're talking about a new bipartisan senate agreement. garrett haake is still on capitol hill for us. we don't know what the president's posture will be and the house of representatives are caucus canning.

this is a strong senate deal. >> it's a good day for people who like a functioning government. you saw the fruit of months of work behind the scenes between members of both parties trying to reach a big, r broad, wide ranging deal. the kind of thing that typically has not been done up here for years. and what you just heard outlined by the two leaders here is a very wide ranging deal. everything from lifting the sequester caps on the military, how important this is to secretary mattis, how important this is to america's military to have the ability to spend the money that they say they need in a long range, long view way for training. then you have accomplish ms that the democrats think they have

gotten republicans to address. putting money into specific programs that democrats care a great deal about. $6 billion to fight the opioid crisis. $4 billion for va hospitals. a $20 billion down payment on infrastructure. and some of the stuff buried in there that didn't even make our top line reporting on this that's also fascinating is the extension of the children's health insurance program. now they are going to add a couple more years on top of that. so a lot going on in this deal, but there will be opposition from conservatives who won't like the total money and liberals who say there's not a daca can deal in this agreement. mitch mcconnell laid out how that would be dealt with in the coming weeks on the senate side. >> garrett haake with the update on the breaking news from capitol hill. a senate deal, a two-year budget

deal and now it's going to be up to the house and the president as they are still negotiating a short-term deal to keep the government open for the next two weeks. that does it for me. tomorrow we have an extensionive interview with joe biden. peter alexander is up next. >> must-see tv. good afternoon. for my friend craig melvin, in the last 15 minutes on the senate floor, leaders announcing they have reached a bipartisan government funding deal. that means that on the senate side they will be able to avoid a government shutdown. it o would fund the government for two years. right now, obviously, all eyes are on the white house where we expect a press briefing to get und underway in 30 minutes. that's been set for 1:30 this afternoon. we'll hear what sarah sanders has to say just a day after president trump himself said that he would