all was as it should be. proof, also, that time is gone, forever welcome to "kasie dc." i'm kasie hunt. we're live every sunday from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. eastern. tonight the president is ready for the sequel to the north korean summit as he delays tariffs on china. plus, reading for mueller is starting to feel like waiting for godot. ab solution as we await the special report. plus, my interview with senator kamala harris. we talk one on one about her vision for health care and how she plans to take on the president, as many democrats say it's more important to beat trump than to agree on all of the issues. but first, the president's former lawyer, ty cobb, once

said he expected the mueller investigation to be wrapped up by thanksgiving of 2017. after rudy giuliani joined the team, he said he thought it would wrap up by the end of last summer. nearly a month ago, then-acting attorney general matt whitaker said everything was, quote, close to being completed. and earlier this week it was reported that the justice department was preparing to get mueller's final report as soon as next week. a senior doj official later told nbc news that will not be happening. while the waiting game continues, so too does the slow drip of information about wrongdoing by the president's former advisers. in the sentencing memo released yesterday, mueller accused paul manafort of, quote, repeatedly and brazenly breaking the law for over a decade. the memo said manafort committed crimes while leading the trump campaign and even after he was indicted. the next week we're expecting to learn more about the inner workings of the president's business dealings when michael cohen testifies before three separate committees on capitol hill. and the stage is set for a

remarkable split-screen moment, as president trump will be half a world away in vietnam for his second summit with kim jong-un. and with that, i would like to welcome my panel, with me on set, "the washington post" correspondent philip bump, and msnbc analyst susan del percio and op-ed columnist and msnbc contributor brett stevens and from washington, nbc news justice correspondent pete williams. pete, it's great to see you. basically, i think the question that everybody is frankly tired of asking, we're all on the edges of our seat, when are we going to get this report? and what are we going to learn? what will the public actually end up knowing here? >> so the difference between this and waiting for godot is this actually will arrive. and we had thought it would be this week. obviously, it's not going to be.

so i would say next week, i mean the week coming, not this coming week but week after, could be the week that we get it. so when i say we, i don't mean the public, i mean it is sent to the justice department. so that's the first step. how do we know this? we know it because of the special counsel regulations. but i think there's a widespread misunderstanding about what the mueller report is going to be. the regulations say when mueller is done, he gives the attorney general a report on his prosecution decisions and what the rules say his declaration decisions, meaning the people he chose not to prosecute. that's it. it's not a long essay about how he spent his summer vacation or every contact donald trump had with the russians. it's very bare bones. and then the report the attorney general is supposed to give to congress is even sparer. it says the attorney general must notify congress when the special counsel's work is done and about any decision that the

attorney general countermand. that is special counsel wanted do and attorney general blocked because it would violate justice department regulations. it's not going to be the starr report. you know, talking to senior justice department officials about the fact this is not the first special counsel under these new post-ken starr independent counsel rules. the first one was actually john danforth, who did a long study about what happened on waco and disastrous fire in the death of the branch davidians. he put out two reports, all of them public, and the message i get from the justice department people is yes, we know, but we intend to follow the rules. and then i think the fight will start between the justice department and congress. they will want to see more and it could go to court. who knows how that will end up. >> that's exactly what i wanted to ask you about, pete. what is your sense how that legal battle might play out? how long might it take?

>> how long might it take? it could take many months. it could take a year perhaps if it goes all the way to the supreme court. here's the thing, normally speaking the justice department doesn't give internal memoranda like this to congress. they don't tell the congress and the public of people they chose to investigate and decided not to prosecute for obvious reasons, privacy reasons and so forth. the problem for the justice department is that they can never say we never do this, because after the hillary clinton investigation, the fbi director, james comey, had a news conference about why he wasn't going to prosecute hillary clinton and sent an enormous, unusually large amount of material to congress, the interview transcripts, reports of interviews, internal documents, that kind of thing. the democrats especially in congress will say there's a precedent here for you to give us more. and, of course, during the whole whitewater thing, there was a

grand jury report that went to the house committee that was looking at possible impeachment. so there are precedents that give congress hope they can get more than the spar legislation the special counsel set out. >> so let me get this straight, having covered the comey press conference and clinton conference at the time i find this to be rather delicious. democrats were so unhappy about what jim comey did putting all of that out tlxt you're telling us it might be that very precedent that ultimately leads people to get more information about what mueller has to say about donald trump? >> yes, i don't know how much it's a legal precedent for the courts to lean on but as a political matter, it does seem -- and you're already starting to hear some of this -- you didn't prosecute hillary clinton but you had a news conference about that and look at all of the stuff you sent to congress. we want the same kind of thing here. >> susan del percio, this has a certain richness to it but i also think pete's ultimate point, which is after how many

months and months of speculation, we may not actually find out what the heck this thing says. >> right. and i just can't help how many things we might find out about other offshoots of this mueller investigation takes. whether it's different courts being sent indictments for get indictments on other folks or if it causes investigations by senator or house investigations. perhaps we find out information that mueller couldn't indict on but maybe it's worth an investigation. i think we're going to be talking about some form of these findings for well over a year. >> philip, you wrote this week about all of the criminal activity by a former trump adviser that the special counsel has already uncovered. and you write, quote, america has been waiting for mueller to present a document that ties all of this together, either in part for evidence proving the president's guilt or exonerating him on charges he and his campaign worked with the russians. as people have awaited the outcome, it's allowed trump to

lump every revelation into a snowball labeled no collusion, parroting the same refrain as the snowball grows, this has been fleshed out slowly over the course of 16 months makes it easy to look what we already learned. mueller's report to some significant degree is already out. you're arguing basically we learned everything that is going to be relevant? >> no, not necessarily. not anything. we learned a ton. the ap had a great piece over this weekend, sort of walked out the narrative. this narrative we saw in the starr report after the clinton investigation we're not expecting to see now. for example, if you go back and look at what mueller's indictment against the russians were alleged to have hacked the dnc or hacked clinton campaign chairman john podesta, it's very, very detailed, what they did, when they did it and how it went forward. it was literally a thousand pages of documents on manafort that just came out this weekend.

all of these pages together, hundreds and hundreds of pages of information about how this thing progressed, what links there were between the trump campaign and illegal activity between the russians. and not a lot. this is what he hangs his head out, not a direct connection and that's the question mark and people are waiting for mueller to weigh in on. in part pause they're so focused on that, they ignore the skads of information that set on the outside. >> what do you hope to find out for the mueller report, what would be the best thing for the country? >> the best thing would be if director mueller tells us whether he found evidence of collusion or not. i think a lot of us have invested him with a high amount of credibility, which he deserves. and the americans deserve a sense of finality. investigations without end are bad for the country and this f this follows endless paper trails, it does help anyone. i think it doesn't help anyone

except for donald trump, who can then start to make the case this really is this endless witch-hunt, an endless sort of environment of investigation into crimes that seem to be effervescent. and phil said something that's so important. this is a report that's hiding in plain sight. what we know is the trump campaign was studded with officials who had ties to russia and those ties, even if they did not involve, quote, collusion or sharing of information, put those information in position to be blackmailed by the russian government had they made it into -- had they made it into the trump administration. if paul manafort had, say, bill casey in the reagan administration ended up as director of cia or chief of staff, imagine the danger we would have been in to have a person in such a position. >> we did, we had flynn. we in fact had it. >> for 20 days. and the point you made, this is

another point i'm borrowing, this is like a frog that's been boiled quite slowly. >> that sums it up quite well actually. >> if all of this we know now landed on a single day, it would be -- >> blockbuster. >> blockbuster political bombshell. but because these revelations have come one month at a time over the space of two years they seem less sensational. >> pete williams, how much pressure is the attorney general under here? brand new to the job, always come under a lot of scrutiny on capitol hill. as you point out, he will have to be the one to make a decision how to act and tell congress what he did. what's your sense of how he's handling all of this? >> pressure is an interesting word. he doesn't seem to be someone are under pressure. when you look at him close up, see how he's interacting with people in the precedent, he seems at ease. remember, he's done this before. and what's the right word, there's a fee dom of having the

attitude i don't need this job. that's the tone of the confirmation hearing. i'm doing this because it's my duty but if it and does the work out, i was ready to retire anyway. he's self-assured. he wants to do the right thing. he's certainly aware, if his confirmation didn't make it clear, there's very high expectations they will do more than just work to rule at the justice department, that they will try to get as much information one way or the other to the congress as they can based on what mueller turns over. i think bret's point is a very good one. remember when mueller was appointed the special counsel, the homework was simple, did anyone in the u.s. meddle in the investigation? you were asking that and that's what it is. >> to that point what is the material difference between meaning to collude and doing it by accident, which seems to sometimes be their defense, we didn't know what we were doing. we didn't have it together.

>> at one point it becomes a legal definition. at what point can you held accountable for your actions. even if they don't invite the president now, could they consider doing an indictment? what it shows is how far are the republicans willing to go out on a ledge for him, especially in the senate, if they think something big is going to break and not the president's way. that's what i'm looking at. he has the authority to declare a emergency. if someone has a backbone to stand up to the president, that would be great. those politics will be very interesting. >> going to be the story of my life the next couple of months. pete williams, quickly because i have to let you go, yes or no, do you feel like the public will get like what they feel is the end of this story or not? >> no, because the very simple thing is when mueller is done, remember he worked for the justice. so did all of the people working for him.

those files are all to doj and a lot of this -- any leads that need to be followed up will be sort of spun off to local u.s. attorneys. >> very cheerful. pete williams, thank you so much as always for your great reporting. still to come, richard haass joins us to talk about a high pressure week of foreign policy for the president. but first my interview with senator kamala harris as she makes her first visit to new hampshire. can be confusing. confusing like why am i sitting here in a hospital gown waiting to get my eyes checked? ready? absolutely not. see, having the wrong coverage can mean you get the wrong care, or you're paying more than you have to. that's why i love healthmarkets, your insurance marketplace. they make sure you have the right coverage, health insurance, medicare and, yes, dental and vision too. wow, think that's painful? wait until he gets the bill. a cavity can cost as much as $350, and a root canal, whoa.

but with healthmarkets, for less than a dollar a day, you can save a bundle every time you go to the dentist. exams, cleanings, and x-rays? those are covered at 100%. that sounds free to me. plus, healthmarkets has plans with coverage for fillings, crowns, dentures, even root canals. with over 200,000 dental providers to choose from, it's easy to get the care you need. heck, there's even options with no waiting periods. call today and you can save tomorrow. now that will keep you smiling. can you read what that says? hon, i've already taken my meds. no, can you see the letters? i've told you a thousand times, i do not like your sister better. healthmarkets has plans for vision and hearing, too. plans with free exams, huge discounts, and allowances on glasses and contacts, hearing aid coverage, even discounts on lasik. wow, that sounds great. and get this, healthmarkets guarantees

the lowest price on the plans they offer. want to know how much they can save you? call healthmarkets. they make finding insurance fast and easy because they know you have better things to do. ♪ your insurance marketplace, healthmarkets. ♪ you can save now on dental and vision plans with healthmarkets. call the number on your screen. call healthmarkets now.

check in from afar with remote access, ♪ and have professional monitoring backing you up with xfinity home. demo in an xfinity store. call, or go online today.

welcome back. earlier this week i travelled to new hampshire for senator kamala harris's first trip to that state. when we spoke last summer she was, of course, coy about whether or not she was going to run. but now she's in, and she's distinguished herself early in a crowded field, with voters in early campaign states packing her events, eager to hear what she stands for and, of course, how she plans to beat the president. as this primary unfolds, how do you view your path to the nomination? i've heard you say now here in new hampshire you're going to be here a lot. i know you've already been to iowa. but you started out in south carolina. how do you see this campaign playing out for you? >> i plan on working really hard. i plan on talking to as many voters as i can. i feel very strongly that it is important to listen as much as we talk, and actually more than we talk, to hear how people are feeling, what their concerns are, to be challenged in terms of what the priorities should

be, so that the end of this process we not only win but we are relevant. that's how i'm thinking about our path. >> how do you win back voters across the midwest who decided they want to put donald trump in office? >> when it comes down to it, i'm going to compete for every vote, regardless of who people voted for in the last election. and i believe the vast majority of americans have so much more in common than separates us. when people are waking up in the middle of the night with the thought weighing on them, they're not thinking about it through the lens of the party through which they're registered to vote. they're thinking about those issues like personal health, health of their family, they're thinking about can i get a job, keep a job, for students, can i pay off the student loans? those are issues that are pref prevalent issues that keep people awake in america today. i plan on talking about those issues. i plan on talking about solutions to those problems. and i believe that people will care about that. >> you don't tend to say president trump in your speeches, you refer to the trump

administration. what's the strategy behind that? >> it's about an administration's policy, it's obviously led by the president but it's also about a cabinet and members of the cabinet. it's also how it plays out in terms of the enforcement of those priorities, all of which are bad. >> do you think there's a risk of talking too much or going after the president too much with democratic voters? do you think they're looking at what democrats stand for, is that part of it? >> i feel very strongly, kasie, this has to be an election about america's future. obviously in the context of where we are now but for me my motivation and my goal is to talk about where we can be unburdened about where we've been and unburdened by where we are right now. there's so much at stake. obviously, it is about change. it is about having new leadership in our country so we can get where we need to go. but truly, we're looking at a world that is in flux.

issues like climate change, issues like what we will do to develop the workforce of the 21st century. these are issues that are transcendent issues meaning where will we be as a nation on these issues or will we be forward thinking or looking behind us? >> bernie sanders jumped into the democratic race today. you said you're not a democratic socialist. >> i am not. >> what is the difference between a demme and democratic socialist in your mind? >> i can talk about who i am. i believe we have got to have a system that recognizes that it has not been working for everyone equally. so i support capitalism. it in theory is something that requires competition that will allow us to be better and evolve. but there are assumptions also that are wrong, that it applies equally to all people, that all people can compete equally. that's just not the case in america today. so i also say we have to correct

course. we have to recognize the rules over the last many decades have been written in a way that have excluded working middle class families. and that's why i propose, for example, we change the tax code in a way families making less than $100,000 a year will get a tax credit they can collect up to $500 a month because the majority of american families today cannot afford an unexpected $400 expense. we have to correct course. >> let me ask you about health care. you said at one point you thought it would be okay to emt private insurance. now i realize you were on several bills that would not go that far. do you think eliminating private insurance would be a socialist idea? >> no. so my -- i strongly believe that we need to have medicare for all. and within that system -- >> do you think that's socialist or not, medicare for all? >> no, no, it's about providing health care to all people. it's about understanding that access to affordable health care should not be a privilege, it

should be a right. it's about understanding in a democracy, and the way we've constructed our democracy, we at least in concept have said that your access to public education, public health and public safety should not be a function of how much money you have. but in america today, that's not the case. in america today one of the leading causes of bankruptcy for american families is the inability to pay a hospital bill. that's just simply wrong. >> let me ask you also about senator sanders. is he company while his civil rights movement when he was a young man, has struggled to talk to black voters and did in his 2016 campaign. do you think that bernie sanders understands the struggles of african-americans in this country? >> i'm sure he does. i would hope he does. >> you have seen that in his previous campaigns? do you think he's done enough to try to talk to democratic voters who are african-american? >> let's just agree that the issue of race in america is a

very real issue. that everyone should be informed about. and think about. i just sponsored a bill that for the first time will recognize the crime of lynching, and it was 200 years in the making that finally we would have the united states senate recognize and pass legislation recognizing it to be a crime. >> i imagine most americans already thought it was. >> yeah, but it wasn't. >> which is remarkable. >> and the other piece about this is there are a lot of americans who do not realize the significance of recognizing that for generations, we had a system in america where plaque people were being the victims of horrific crimes, kidnapped from their homes, dragged, hung from trees, castrated, right? i'm sorry for the graphic detail

but there's so much about america's history on the issue of race that is not discussed and is not known, and to our collective detriment. and i would hope and believe that anyone who purports to be a leader in our country would be acutely aware of our history on the issue of race and be sensitive to the implications of and the product of history, of slavery, and the history of jim crow and history of legal segregation and discrimination. and then actual segregation and discrimination, even today, and that we would all know when we want to do the work we do, we represent all people and we should recognize the history that people have in our country, and seek to remedy the harm that may exist. >> let me ask you as we wrap up here, andrew mccabe -- and this is more of a question in the vain of your role on the senate intelligence committee, where i normally see you. andrew mccabe said that the gang

of eight was briefed on a counterintelligence investigation, a counterintelligence investigation opened into the president. are you aware of that? were you aware of that? that something that went to the broader committee as well? >> i condition the talk about what we do in senate intelligence but i will say i'm aware of the reports and what he has been saying recently and i think people should pay attention to those reports. >> do you trust andrew mccabe? >> i don't know. i believe there's no question, however, that the president has relied on vladimir putin over the men and women who have sacrificed in many cases or willing to have sacrificed their lives, the intelligence community of the united states, to give the president information that he should believe, and upon which he should base his priorities around who our friends and who are not.

and i think there's been a real failure to do that and that's a real subject of concern for me and it should be for all of us. >> and my thanks to senator kamala harris. of course, 2020 democratic presidential candidate. susan, where do you see senator harris in this field? she's sort of taking a quick leap into -- i'm not going to go so far as to say front-runner sattous considering the state of play at the moment with so many people involved but taking note as a member of the top tier, but she has run into a couple tough questions about jussie smollett and some other issues. she did not seem to answer the question about what was the difference between a democrat and democratic socialist there, which i think will be a main attack from the president of the united states. >> yeah, she didn't answer a lot of questions. and that's where she now has to kind of bring it. she did a great rollout. she raised some money. she is in the top tier. i look at it if you name the top three, four people and her name is always in that category. but now she has to answer some questions and i think she's a

little unsteady on her footing. she may know her positions but she's not projecting them. i don't fault just her. there are going to be a lot of people like that. elizabeth warren has lacked details at times. so has bernie sanders and whole host of others. but now you have to keep that front-runner status and you have to bring it every time. frankly, i didn't see her doing that here. >> if i were in the trump re-elect team -- god forbid, but if i were, my number one choice would be bernie sanders as an opponent. my number two would be senator harris. when you're talking about supporting medicare for all or green new deal that are trillion dollar expenses with no real discussion about how you're going to pay for it, that's going to be a very powerful theme for the president to say whatever else you think of me, what they're proposing is fiscally ruin us and it will be able to obviate some of the fiscal claim that's could be made about this administration.

>> how long do you think the candidates can keep the gloves off the others in the democratic field? that was one thing, kamala harris declined a very easy opportunity to criticize bernie sanders, who had announced his run on the day we did the interview. >> i think bernie sanders is an interesting outlier. he has a massive popular following. so i think if they're going to start throwing punches, the last place they will start is bernie sanders. it will come. we will get to the debates sooner than anyone in america realizes. i do want to come about to kamala harris. i think kamala harris is not who donald trump wants to face. i think one of the reasons donald trump was beaten by hillary clinton in the electoral college, a lot of african-american voters didn't come out to vote in 2016. i think she can do better there and i think she's someone who can balance what the democrat are saying to appeal to democrats, basically the broader base of the democratic party, she can talk that talk but also talk a more moderate talk. what we heard there was a politician who's very good at

giving politiciany answers which suggests to me she's possibly well positioned within the field, even outside of the fact she's doing well. >> we will see if that works in a primary where people are demanding so much authenticity from their candidates. that you both so much core coming in tonight. coming up as president trump prepares for his second summit with kim jong-un does he have the nobel peace prize on his mind? president of the council on foreign relations richard haass joins me next.

the communal feast. potluck. this parade of dishes will soon be yours to scrub.

and they're not even... yours. new and improved dawn ultra can finish off this buffet. each drop now has even more grease-cleaning power. so you can scrub 50% less, and get done faster. next month, their place! a drop of dawn and grease is gone.

who we are as people and making everybody feel welcome. ordering custom ink t-shirts has been a really smart decision for our business. - [narrator] custom ink has hundreds of products and free shipping. upload your logo or start your design today at customink.com.

this week president trump reignites with kim jong-un for a sequel to their first meeting, which the president claims, they, quote, fell in love. president trump and the north korean dictator will meet in vietnam as the u.s. tries to draw a roadmap to rid kim's regime of its nuclear weapons. today the president again brushed off warnings of being outfoxed by the young leader of the hermit kingdom, this as politico reports even secretary of state mike pompeo, the man charged with leading negotiations, quote, expressed frustration to allies about the lack of diplomatic progress and

voiced concern his boss will get outmaneuvered, according to a course with direct knowledge of the conversations. joining that conversation is the president of the council on foreign relations richard haass. he's also the author of "world in disarray: american foreign policy and crisis of the old order." still with us, of course, is bret stephens. gentlemen, thank you so much for being here. i want to start with you, richard, because there is i'm trying to figure out how much is at stake with this next summit. how much of it is for the president simply an opportunity to grab the narrative back to where he wants it to be, especially considering that we don't seem to have gotten very much out of this first round of talks. >> well, we didn't get that much out of the first round of talks and the president in some ways then exaggerated what we did. he's also set the bar extremely high, unrealistically high with the phrase denuclearization. north korea is likely to do many things during our common life

times here. one of them is they're not going to get rid of all of their nuclear weapons and their missiles. that's the reason they're taken seriously at the table. they saw what happened to ukraine. they saw what happened to leaders like gadhafi and saddam hussein who gave up their weapons and they don't want that fate. i think can get some things out of the summit. north korea will probably agree to get rid of some facilities for a certain degree of sanctions relief. it will be modest, something for something, but i don't think we're going to change the fundamentals on the peninsula. >> the problem is we've been here before, which is north korea has a policy which you might call cheat and repeat. they've been doing this since the early 1990s. they agree to make concessions, they agree to close down a nuclear reactor. in exchange they get economic aid from the west or from south korea, and then when the process starts to break down for them, what they do is basically cheat on the agreement, they escalate. there's another crisis and then

they try to basically extract bribes. kim's grandfather did this, his father did this, now it appears he's doing it. i would feel more confidence if we had a really canny negotiator on the american side. i have a feeling donald trump is hankerring for a nobel peace prize. he wants peace at any cost. i will say this, if barack obama were doing exactly what donald trump is doing now, i know very well what republicans on conservatives would be saying about it, that he's giving away the store to a dictator who doesn't intend to make peace. >> do you agree with that? >> there's a danger here we will give up way too much. i hope for example he does not put on the table the american true presence, the core of our alliance relationships. >> that's what caused a lot of headaches last time around. >> we're not going to get -- let's actually take something bret said, i'm not sure he will have to cheat. i can imagine a situation where the north koreans agree to do things.

other things are not covered. even though they give up some capabilities, they continue to enhance others. it's like taking some water out of the bathtub at the same time you're putting more in. on the balance, we may not are further along. but if however they sign up to freezing their nuclear program, something the united states wants them to do, then i think we're setting themselves up for a cheating scenario because then they can't improve anything. and i simply do not believe they lock in the status quo. >> i want to ask you about some news today, the president tweeting he will delay this round of tariffed against china and hold a summit with xi at mar-a-lago. what do you think is driving this and will it be for the better. >> >> what's driving this is neither side wants to go to the next step to raise tariffs and so forth. what i think we will get a meeting more modest than the president is tweeting. chinese will buy american natural gas and agriculture products and we will see a reduction in the $300 billion or so annual trade deficit between us.

economist it's they're sitting around this table and wanted bore everyone can explain why that doesn't matter. put that aside. >> fair enough. >> but what i don't think we're going to get -- and you can't get an agreement because it's all about implementation, no matter what the chinese say, it would be hard to take it an face value they're going to stoop stealing american technology, and much less they're going to change their economic model to creating these things. if they agree to it, no way they implement it. >> the main problem with china is the trade deficit, and our main problem is they steal intellectual property. that's what has to stop. if you're going to use the threat of tariffs to make them stop, that's fine f you think this is about solving a deficit issue, then it's useless. >> quickly before we wrap up, i do want to touch on venezuela and the situation there. we've seen these pictures of humanitarian aid on fire. richard haass, what is your

assessment of what's going on there? there are critics of the administration who say they're using it as a political tool to oust the regime but the reality is maduro is starving his own people. what should u.s. policy be here? >> as you say, he is starving his own people. more than 3 million have been forced to leave the country. he should be ousted. we ought not to launch an invasion but this blocking of humanitarian aid is outrageous. it's a violation of basics of international law. he has the responsibility as the head of the country to look after the welfare of his own people. now it's up to the neighbors p. the united states hopefully also, we will persuade russia and china to stop subsidizing this man. once that happens, then i think the military will ultimately move away from him. he's really up to winning the hearts and minds of the venezuelan military. i am hoping the blockage of aid will get some of them to rethink their support for him. >> i'm not a constant critic of the administration but at this point he's shown leadership. >> thank you both so much. still to come, i'm join live by congressman max rose of the

homeland security committee as house democrats prepare to block the president's national emergency declaration. "kasie dc" back after this.

as the debate over border security rages on in washington, acting defense secretary patrick shanahan toured the southern

border and with agents there yesterday in the wake of the president's national emergency declaration, shanahan is examining a proposal to shift as much as $3.6 billion in funding for the planned military construction towards fortifying the border. joining me now, democratic congressman max rose of new york. he's a member of the homeland security committee. congressman, it's great to have you. >> thank you so much for having me. >> let's start with we're expecting a vote in the house on this national emergency to essentially force the senate's hands here. what is your take on how the administration is planning to move this money? congress has allocated it for one thing, they clearly have to take it away from some of the construction projects to build the wall? >> sure, that's what they're intending on doing. but i think it's important to take a step back and look at the big picture. this president is declaring a state of emergency around the southern border. i wonder what was happening for the first two years of his presidency, when his party literally had the keys to the castle?

no declaration of a state of emergency. but now it happens. i believe the reason is because this is politics. it's politics at play. it's an opening salvo to trump/pence 2020 and that's what's wrong here. we're seeing it will be pulling money from some incredibly valuable projects. i have one in my district. thankfully we're protecting it but we're looking to build a sea wall along the east shore of staten island, which was in response to superstorm sandy. we can't be doing this. it's wrong to play politics with national security. >> there are some democrats in the 2020 field who have been asked about the existing walls, beta owe work among them. he said some of the walls currently there should be torn down. does that make sense to you? >> no, i don't think that's what this conversation is about now. we have sensible national security policy. what we can do not is play politics with it. so i think that's what really we have to look at here, not whether to go backwards but how to go forward with technology, with sensible he forcement. i have fentanyl streaming into

my district, killing kid, the epicenter is staten island of the opioid epidemic. i don't hear much discussion about that. it's going right through our ports of entry. that's what we have to focus on. >> i was going to say, what do you think is the solution to that? the president has talked about drugs coming across the border. what is your view on that? >> when it comes to fentanyl, we have to deal with the ports of entry. but not just law enforcement, we need significant investment in treatment and education and prevention. we've done this for public health crises in our history. we did it for the hiv-aids epidemic. what we need is a ryan white care act for the 21st century opioid epidemic. we have not seen it. the president ran on this issue as well. so to bring this full circle, because 2020 politics is dominating everything. the president is trying to fulfill promises. i just hope he tries to fulfill those promises, opioids, infrastructure, draining the

swamp. let's focus on that. we can really do great things. >> i'm glad you raised a public health crises because one that is looming a lot of our viewers may not be aware of is the 9/11 victims' fund which is reportedly paying out less to people making claims now because they're essentially running out of money. what are you prosing to try to fix that? >> i'm proposing that it be adequately funded, and it's not me proposing it. there will be legislation dropped this week with initial bipartisan support arguing that this thing needs to be adequately funded for basically the duration of the century. the reason being is because these folks were there for us at a moment of great national crisis, incredible terror, they put their lives on the line and they were there in the immediate months and years afterwards. you hear politicians on both sides of the aisle say we'll never forget. they come to new york city or they go around the country and they say thank you for your service. this is their opportunity to actually back that up with real action. i expect that there will be significant support in the house

and senate for this bill because it's the right thing to do. we have to have their backs. >> have you heard from leadership about whether they plan on moving this forward? and if they haven't said that, what's their argument for not doing it? >> i don't think leadership will be opposed to this, reason being is because, like i just said, it's the right thing to do. you know, on 9/11 we were attacked. but every person who has died there after from a health issue related to those attacks, that was just yet another casualty of the 9/11 incident. yet another casualty. we have to treat it like that. and compensate them for the illnesses that they're dealing with right now and compensate their loved ones after they pass. >> looking ahead a week or two, we're going to hear from the homeland security secretary, from your homeland security committee, and the oversight committee is already investigating the child separations at the border. what do you plan on asking the homeland security secretary given the chance? >> you know, what i want to talk

to the homeland security secretary but generally the entire department, any executive, any official that comes before us, is what is your actual strategy to keep us safe here at home? and what is your evidence, what is your evidence that what you are doing right now accomplishes that? because i don't think they have painted the picture. i really don't. and they deserve to go before not only the committee but the american people and talk about issues like you tell us there's terrorists in the caravan, show me some evidence. we haven't seen it. and if there is no evidence, then it is wrong you have spoken about the caravan in that manner. we are constantly presented with what i believe is a false choice. it's either security, public safety or maintaining your values and it's ridiculous. you do not have to choose between the two. this is america. we welcome our open arms. we are a nation of values and also public safety.

white house is preparing to assemble what the paper called a quote ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government's analysis of climate change and counter conclusions that the burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet. huh. the president's own administration released a report last fall warning the damage caused by climate change could knock a whopping 10% off the size of the u.s. economy. deputy security advisor, charles kupperman said the president was upset his administration had issued the assessment evening though it's required by law. the reporting follows the president's decision to nominate kelly kraft to be u.n.

ambassador to the u.n. she currently serves as ambassador to canada made headlines in 2017 for saying this about climate change. >> i think both sides have their own results from their studies. i appreciate and i respect both sides of the science. >> is that how science works? ♪

did you know you can save money by using dish soap to clean grease on more than dishes? using multiple cleaners on grease can be expensive, and sometimes ineffective. for better value, tackle grease with dawn ultra. dawn is for more than just dishes. it provides 3x more grease cleaning power per drop, which cuts through tough kitchen messes, pre-treats laundry stains, and even tackles grease build-up on car rims. tackle tough greasy messes around your home, and save money with dawn ultra. brand power. helping you better.

this morning, president trump is gearing up for his second summit with kim jong-un, the two will meet in vietnam. there is a lot on the table. and the president delayed new tariffs against china. and the 91s annual academy awards. it was an evening filled with historic wins for diversity. we have all of the highlights from the big night. good morning. it's monday, february 25th. i'm ayman mohyeldin alongsi