>> good morning, it is sunday, may 20th. i am ali velshi, and a agreement principle has been re-switch when the, white house and republican negotiators was just eight days left until the june 5th deadline to raise the debt ceiling. and avoid potential default. news of the tentative deal trickled out just a couple of hours after president biden and house speaker kevin mccarthy spoke last night and at around nine, pmf iraq hardly confirmed that news with a quick news

conference at the capitol. >> i just got off the phone with the president, i talk to him twice today, and after weeks of negotiations, we have come to an agreement in principle. we still have a lot of work to do, but i believe this is an agreement and principle that is worthy of the american people. >> i expect to finish the writing of the bill, checking with the white house and speaking to the president again tomorrow afternoon, and then posting the text of it tomorrow, and then voting on it on wednesday. thank you for your time, and i think this is very worthy of the american public. >> we do not have the full scope of the agreement, as the speaker, noted the bill is still being written as we speak, with the intention of completing it by later today. now, from what nbc news has gathered so far, the deal will to raise the debt limit until 2020, five it will keep it roughly flat while giving a slight boost of funding to defense, and if we are providing a new controversial work requirement for people who

receive federal aid. it is also going to pare back the maybe 80 billion dollars of new funding for the irs, that was included in the inflation reduction act, which was president biden's signature economic bill that he signed into law last summer. the agreement, however, is only the beginning of the next stage of the process. now, democratic and republican congressional leaders have to sell the deal to enough of their members to get a pass and get on to the presidents desk before june 5th, which is when the treasury starts to run out of money. the white house is scheduled to brief the democratic congress about the provisions of the deal during a virtual meeting at five p.m. today. and as news the deer broke last night, i can release a statement which said, quote, agreement represents a compromise, which means not everyone gets what they want. that's the responsibility of governing. meanwhile, moments after he made his remarks last night, speaker mccarthy briefed the house republicans by phone about the contours of the agreement, which was met with mixed reactions. jim jordan, the congressman from ohio, said he would like

to see the final language of the bill first, but noted that it seemed like, quote, a pretty darn good deal. and quote. yet other members of the most conservative wing of the republican party have been quick to criticize both the speaker and the deal. two gop sources told nbc news last night that conservatives already bulking on the deal, and they are plotting ways to complicate the passage of the bill, much like they complicated mccarthy speakership election. one of those conservative members, bob, good openly criticized the deal on the call last, night telling the speaker that he, was quote, extremely disappointed. another member, ralph, norman tweeted after the call, this, quote deal quote is insanity. and he vowed not to deal or vote for it. the group of hard line conservatives who have been most vocal about not making any compromises is relatively small. and if enough members of both parties agreed to the bill being written right now, we might not be able to worry about them at all. but they are saying over and over, the hard work to avoid

that continues. joining me now is the white house correspondent monica alma, monica, good morning to. you what is the latest from the white house. we have heard much more from kevin mccarthy and house republicans than we have in the white house, which is issued a fairly limited statement. >> exactly, ali. president biden was at camp david all day yesterday. he departed this morning to go to delaware, where he is now currently attending his grand daughters graduation from a high school there. and then he will be traveling back to the white house later this afternoon. but we do know that he intends to call speaker mccarthy there. they are expected to have another one of these phone conversations by two p.m.. and that is likely because they may still need to hammer out some details ahead of that legislative text being released, which, as you saw, speaker mccarthy say last night, the intention is to get that out this afternoon so that the 72-hour period can begin. but i think the most critical take away from the presidents statement written overnight is the fact that he did concede,

that even though he had said that he wasn't really going to negotiate when it came to the debt ceiling weeks and months ago, obviously this did end up becoming a marathon session of negotiations, with a compromise, he, said means not everybody can get what they want, and that both sides had to make concessions here. so you are going to see both sides come out saying that they fought hard to protect some of the presidents priorities, for instance, nothing is being changed medicaid. that was very important to the president personally, but those work requirements that you talked about a little bit, that is still a subject that is really concerning to some democrats, particularly those who are in the progressive caucus who are already speaking out this morning, saying that they don't think that this is good policy, that they are very concerned about what they saw, calling unfortunate, waiting, again, to see that final text of the bill to render a final opinion. but that really encapsulates, along with the republicans you had in your intro, the challenge now in some ways, even though it has been such intense, long days of hashing out the details to get to a

framework, a truly intensive phase begins now, and a real challenge to consolidate support in a sharply divided congress. so it is not just republicans and speaker mccarthy, we don't know how many republicans he can afford to lose to get this to pass in the house, because, of course, it is going to the democratic votes. and so, to that, and the white house is going to have their own virtual briefing with all house democrats at five p.m. today to try to kind of consolidate and keep that coalition together. so we will see where that goes from here, but the fact that the clock starts ticking once the text is out with a bill possibly voted on as early as wednesday, that is also not even the finish line. we need to remind everyone then, from, there it would go to the senate, where already, you are seeing some lawmakers with major outstanding questions expressing reservations as well, and sometimes, as you, know, ali the process in the senate can take even longer, can take days, then it does in the house, and it can get dangerously close by the june 5th deadline. >> we were talking about this

yesterday, and people said there was relief that it was june 5th, but it is really giving the math you just laid out, upon us. monika, thank you very much for coming back. we will come back to you at the white house, i am joined now by the republican congressman don bacon of nebraska, he serves as a majority for the house problem solvers caucus, he is also a member of the republican main street congress. congressman, good to see, you thank you for joining. us i noticed that you got into a text exchange with one of our viewers who wanted to know when this vote is, because they want to be in the gallery to watch it. this vote is>> you tweeted thatt that should happen on wednesday, some time. which means that you are hopeful that your conference will be on board, generally? you will have enough members of the republican congress to take care of this? >> we may not have enough to get to 18, because i think there will be some that want to support the bill. but if the president supports this and the speaker, we will also have many democrats be on board. ali, thanks for having me on, first of all, on this memorial

day weekend. i think this bill is reasonable, it is responsible, i also think it is realistic. both sides can get what they wanted, they got somewhere in the middle. that is how america is supposed to govern. that is what james madison set up. so i think we finally have some grown-ups in the room, and felt a compromise that reaches in the middle, it doesn't cut as much as many republicans wanted, but many democrats don't want anything cut. this is kind of in the middle. and i think this is the way it was supposed to work. >> congressman, the only issue is the way that is supposed to work, if you have differences in what should be spent and what should be raised in terms of taxes. that should really happen in the budget and cause, which, every member that i talked to, whether they are republican or democratic, will say, this is a broken process. it is been broken for a long time. in a real world, that is where this would happen, right? you and your counterparts in the democratic party would be arguing about how much we should spend, how much we should raise, and then we go to ways and means of appropriation. and we would settle this, not on the brink of a debt ceiling

default. >> i would say, in a perfect world, but not in the real world, even president biden, when he was a senator, opposed a debt ceiling three times. so i would say that the reality is, when you are in a majority of resource of the senate, with the president, looking for party, and you don't agree with the priorities, this as an opportunity to do some of what you can. in a divided government, but, not all of it is going to get sides to. the reality, is we have been doing this for decades, for the most part, where the minority party, if there is the majority for one of them, the house, or the senate, does try to get their save in the debt ceiling, senator biden did the same thing three times. >> you are in a district that joe biden won in 2020, which means that you are, the people near district are more moderate or, and that means, you need to be, and also a member of the

problem solvers caucus. so, you know, this is a graphic of people like you who are republicans who won in biden districts, and there are bunch fewer on the problem solvers congress, you won both. and there is a lot of attention right now to the work that people like you may have to do over the course of the next 72 hours, right? because you might have to pick up the phone and talk to some of those republicans, or democrats, who are not on board with it. is that something that can happen? because we heard from ralph norman, and bob good, who are more conservative republicans, that they may not be into the steel at all? what happens there, or do we not have to worry about that? do you think you will have the 2:18 will be cleared between democrats and republicans? >> i believe if the president is clear in his support, and the speakers clearness a port, we are going to get 218 votes, they won't be for just one party though. it would be the pragmatic folks who know how government is supposed to work. we have a camera roll,

separation of powers through branches of government, this was designed so that one party can't have this way. and i move this compromise epitomizes what james madison put in when he started government. if you oppose, as you are playing at the hands of progressives that want to cling to the debt ceiling and no cuts at all. so this, is i, think a very good bill on the republican side, it is not as much as we want, but it is unrealistic in the first place. but i think they're reasonable, they're responsible, and a defining government is realistic. >> let me ask about the debt ceiling itself, their only two countries in the world that act this way. every other country -- america generally tweet sections. denmark has a debt ceiling that is so high that it never becomes an issue for them, it becomes an issue for us every few years. isn't it better if we just don't have, this if we are

chooses other processes to, really in good faith, negotiate. because it is valid. you and i will disagree on whether we should have spending cuts, versus tax increases, but that is, as you say, the business of government. that is how it supposed to go. should we just be done with this debt ceiling nonsense, for once, and for all? but >> i would say our focus on spending should be during the appropriations process, the disagreement should have some reforms to use the 12 appropriations bills, so we can compromise on that right there. what if we have an encounter, ali, but as this debt ceiling that allows us to be introspective, we flocked 32 trillion dollar debt ceiling is very big, and the president's budget proposed a 1.9 trillion dollar average increase in deficit spending on average for ten years for 19 trillion total, and we were on the pathway for a 200% gdp ratio which is way too high. it is unsustainable.

so i think the debt ceiling allows us to discuss as a country, are we going down the right path. and i'm very worried about our kids and grandkids inheriting a country that is a fiscal house of cards with a 200% gdp ratio. so i would, say some of the goodness is, it allows us to reflect, and maybe try to turn the ship around. because i think it needs being turned around. >> that is a very glass half full way of looking at what we are just going through right now. >> that's what we love about having you, on congressman. it is good to have you. happy memorial day for you. thank you for being, with us as always. >> republican congressman don bacon of nebraska. coming on, i will be joined the top of the hour by the republican congressman dusty johnson of south dakota,, live from capitol hill. plus, the texas state house has voted to impeach the state republican attorney general, we are going to break down why, what comes next, and what it means for the politics of the republican party in texas, and across the country. , and it is election day in turkey, again. we will head to the capitol for a report on the worldwide implications of the crucial

runoff election, that is next, on velshi. on velshi. >> card is made for people like sam who make...? ...everyday products... ...designed smarter. like a smart coffee grinder - that orders fresh beans for you. oh, genius! for more breakthroughs like that... ...i need a breakthrough card... like ours! with 2.5% cash back on purchases of $5,000 or more... plus unlimited 2% cash back on all other purchases! and with greater spending potential, sam can keep making smart ideas... ...a brilliant reality! the ink business premier card from chase for business. make more of what's yours.

suffering from sinus congestion, especially at night? chtry vicks sinexs. for instant relief that lasts up to 12 hours. vicks sinex targets congestion at the source, relieving nasal congestion, and sinus pressure by reducing swelling in the sinuses. try vicks sinex. with a majority of my patience with sensitivity, i see irritated gums and weak enamel. sensodyne sensitivity gum & enamel relieves sensitivity, helps restore gum health, and rehardens enamel.

i'm a big advocate of recommending things that i know work. millions have made the switch from the big three to the best kept secret in wireless: xfinity mobile. i'm a big advocate of that means millions are saving hundreds a year with the fastest mobile service. and now, get the best price for two lines of unlimited. just $30 per line. there are millions of happy campers out there. and this is the perfect time to join them... save hundreds a year over t-mobile, at&t and verizon. and get the best price for 2 lines of unlimted. >> all right, turning now to

visit xfinitymobile.com today. turkey where voters are back in the polls today for the country's presidential runoff election, which is one of the most consequential elections in years, and it has got global implications. president raja erdogan, the authoritarian leader who has been in power for two decades is being challenged by kamala collegiate derulo, and it comes two weeks after neither candidate received 50% of the vote that was needed to win outright, though erdogan came very close. it also comes amid economic turmoil and huge inflation the country covering around 50%, and that is a reduction inflation and it is just months after a monumental earthquake left tens of thousands dead and destroyed several implications. it has lots in the nato

military election, but it is the largest land army in nato, and for russia's war in ukraine, where turkey has played sort of a unusual role, both sides can get a little bit. speaking of russia, coolidge durham knew has said that it has tried to metalton infiltrate the turkish election. joining me now from the turkish capital is foreign correspondent matt bradley. matt, good to see you, the results are set to be released around five p m eastern time, and the last election, the first one that they had a few weeks ago, the results came out relatively quickly. tell me what we are expecting and describe for us some of the implications more literally. >> yeah, ali just about ten minutes ago the polls closed here nationwide, and we've actually heard that there is not gonna be five pin eastern time, it is gonna be a vip am local, or just within the next hour, they were going to hear the results, and that is when things here are moving very quickly. it helps, as you mentioned, this is a runoff election. this is just between these two men there is not a whole host

of different parliamentary candidates. it is just an upper down vote based on either voters voting for recep tayyip erdogan, who has led this country for the last 20 years, or four kemal kilicdaroglu, and he is compiled an almost impossible coalition of some six political parties. now these two men are facing off each other, and this really is probably the biggest challenge that erdogan has faced in the last 20 years, and this is really the most consequential election outside of u.s. borders that the world has seen in recent memory. and that is because turkey and erdogan's geographically, and that's, why erdogan has been a spoilage for nato, as you mentioned,'s he's gotten acquainted with vladimir putin of russia, even at the same time he has a nato ally, he has put it controversial a very expensive, sophisticated antiaircraft system, from russia, and that comes a huge

row with russell -- with brussels and with washington. and that is a huge pilot stake for erdogan and kilicdaroglu, as with any election, anywhere in the world, this is not about these lofty foreign policy issue, or even -- cultural issues, this is really about dollars and cents, this is a bread and butter election. and this is about, for the most part, here economics. for a lot of folks that we have been speaking to. they said that they are voting their pocketbook, as you mentioned, inflation is high as 50%, sometimes it goes up to 80%, but those are just the official numbers. a lot of it said that inflation here could be as high as 100 percent. and i spoke with some, voters recently, one,'s who said she was voting for, another said he was going to be voting for erdogan. here is what they had to say. >> what are young people like you looking for in this election. >> from what i hear from my friends, they don't like the job salaries, et cetera, and my

friends think that they are not going to do well in turkey. and they are looking forward to go abroad to europe and so on. >> he is the only hope for our country. but he has been here for over 20 years, he is a pro candidate. >> so ali as you can see this is a very hotly divided election but if the polls are to be believed and if the first round of election two years ago, as you mentioned wasn't believed, we can probably expect that erdogan will prevail, and that his 20 year rule over this country will be extended for another five years that will be more frustration from washington and brussels and other western capitals when it comes to dealing with turkey. ali? >> bottom of the right screen, and the corner here, matt, we are just watching mccarthy coming out in a moment stormed out interrupt you for this question but it's but kilicdaroglu tried to assemble a group of people who could

defeat erdogan. erdogan is hard to defeat he was a leader of an opposition coalition, why isn't that working in a place where erdogan does have a lot of opposition up? >> it is working, it is working to the extent that this is erdogan the most formidable challenge since he's been in power, so in a way, it is shown that it is really effective in challenging autocratic leader who enjoys expansive power, not only over the government, but who control something like 80%, 90%, of all of the media here. so the fact that kilicdaroglu is doing as well as he is, and this big coalition is doing as well as it is, just speaks to the efficacy of compiling that group together. but there is some skepticism that if he does get elected, if he does get into power, it is going to be hard for him to hold all of those odd bed fellows together, especially since, just two weeks ago, we saw that there was a parliamentary election during that first round of the vote. that put erdogan's akp in very

much in control of parliament. but the fact is, if kilicdaroglu elected president, he can think erdogan for the fact of the presidency in this country enjoys so much more power than it does in other countries throughout the world. so he will be able to govern, probably, with a lot of authority, and he may be able to roll back a lot of the sort of autocratic moves that erdogan has made in the last few moves in years. >> although turkey, not just a nato country, but a very important one, it is sort of the leading edge of nato in some cases, it is the only muslim majority nato country there is. it is the largest land army in europe, and yet, erdogan has, on a few occasions, looked like he is playing two sides of the fence. there are two sort of problematic nato countries in the world right now, it is hungry and turkey. but what does -- oh, i have mccarthy coming, out i got to put this on pause. we were going out to continue our conversation later. >> kevin mccarthy, now speaking

to reporters about the deal. let's listen >> just to take you back where we all started, back to february 1st, mean with the president, i said let's work together to be able to raise the debt ceiling, but curb the amount of spending. to let america be able to work again, cut red tape, get some work requirements to help people get back into work, i think this agreement frames all of that from limits to save and grow. doesn't get everything everybody wanted, but that's a divided government. that is where we can't, up i think it is a very positive bill. i want to thank garrett graves and patrick mckinley for the hours that they put in, in the hours from the beginning. no one thought, any given day, that we would be where we are today. the president said he wouldn't negotiate with us, from 97 days. he would even allow us to talk after he passed a bill, where he would get in. it wasn't until the final two weeks that he would really be able to sit down and i do want to think the president's team

that see that they're very smart, very strong beliefs, different than ours, and i think, at the end of the day, people can work together to be able to pass in the house in the senate together to send it to the president. with that let me bring in, i want garrett to say a few words, i want patrick to say a few words, and then we'll be able to take questions so we will start with patrick mchenry. >> thank, you mister speaker. and thank you for your strong leadership here. that the commitment of house republicans passing a plan to raise the debt ceiling and take on our nation's finances and turn the trajectory of this debate with the white house, and without the speakers from commitment, we would not have been in these negotiations. and the negotiations were intense, they were quite challenging. the outcome of that is a fundamental shift in the spending trajectory in washington. this is the biggest set of spending cuts and substantial

change from the spending of the last two years for this administration. that is changing their trajectory of the fiscal house here in washington, that is very important. we have consequential work requirements on important programs. we eliminate loopholes, and we bring in the value of work to these important programs. the meaning and value of work, connected with fiscal responsibility, those are very important top lines for this negotiations. but it would not have been possible without the firm commitment of house republicans and us passing a plan. >> >> this is congressman garrett graves, this is congressman he garrett graves, he did chavis one for you. >> i feel like i need a bend initiated it missed warning. >> trying to get over to over this microphone. i'm sorry. this microphone. hey -- what? >> he put a lot of hours into it. >> yeah.

a good friend. hey, so going on what patrick said first of all, the committee for responsible budget put this together recently. it codified, but a child born in america today, will inherit something like four and a half million dollars in debt over their lifetime. think about that for a minute, four and a half million dollars for every child or grandchild born in america today, they will inherit as a result of irresponsible, reckless and selfish spending of politicians in washington. as patrick said, and the speaker said, this is transformational. this truly saves trillions of dollars. not just means discretionary appropriations, but for one of the first times in decades, it takes mandatory spending, the social welfare programs like snap, food stamps, gas assistance and simply asks look, if you are going to ask taxpayers to provide you assistance, there it is

recognizes, that you will recognize that some people will do for you, you need to work to help yourself if you are single and don't have dependency, when you turn 18, that you can volunteer, go to school, you can work at your church, get job assistance, training, saving billions and billions of dollars, of course this is great for taxpayers. u.s. good for those people? the social safety programs, it helps get them back into the workforce. this for the first time in over four decades, those transformational changes into the permitting environmental review process today, it takes over seven years to get an environmental analysis for a rental project. we know that down for 1 to 2 years, and i've been streamlining, working to get electronic documents, transparency to where you can understand what's going on, making sure it can happen faster, make sure you are focusing on true environmental outcomes, not only the other into larry things. ensuring congress plays the role that the founders intended,

but for the first time, putting statutory, in a law, something called paid a, where we are no longer going to allow putting president biden over the last two years, waving anything you want, and you can unilaterally determine that 1.5 trillion dollars in taxpayer funds we spied without any consideration from congress. look, we could go on and on, i will say this again, it is transformational, number one and two, it would not have happened without the strength of the speaker, without the dissolve of the speaker, telling the white house he is not backing down without support of the republican congress, demanding we make progress in terms of saving, changing the trajectory of this country and ensuring this entire time, but our perspective was that kids, the next generation would inherit the irresponsible spilling from washington, that is been going on for decades. thank you. >> not only is this bill transformational, i hope you see the change in congress. i will open up the peoples house, i hope you saw this, going through, we will be very

open to the american public with what we are talking about. no longer do you have to pass a bill to find out what is on it, this will not be thousands of pages, this will be about 150 pages or less. not only will members be able to leave it, the public will be able to see it as. well i want to make sure that the members actually got the information about the bill before it is read to all of you. i am trying to change the house with what works again. we know anytime when you sit negotiating with two parties, you have to work with both sides of the aisle. so it's not 100% of what everyone wants. when you look, the country will be stronger. this will be transformational, what congress will vote to spend less money this year than we spent last year. we will reform cutting red tape, so it is just nepa, which has not been reformed in more than 40 years, streamlining it, construction jobs today, if you want to build a road, 70 years

of review. we narrowed that down to one or two. that is transformational, so americans can get to work again, americans will have jobs again, and cut our spending and protect our military and our vets. with that, let's open up for questions. >> you are more excited then [inaudible] talking to u.s., they are angry, they heard not pleased. those conservative numbers, could be? them >> i'm not sure who you are talking, do we did a conference call with our conference, over 95% were overwhelmingly excited by what they have seen. we have a text today, the process. in every single negotiation when it comes to the debt ceiling, and others, we get both sides of the party voting to pass the bills, expect this. >> can we confirm the numbers at 10:00, they said [inaudible] spending, calling it insanity.

even if you could afford to lose some of those conservative numbers, do you worry someone, any one of them could bring a motion? >> not at all, not at all. not at all. >> how confident are you today that this bill will pass on wednesday? >> look, i think people will sit there and read it. i think it's good for the american public, republicans and democrats could move this to the president, the president greenlit this bill as well. yes? >> the comments on wednesday, could you commit to this market, there is some concern, you have a target, as this was with 2008? >> we are going to foot the bill on the floor, in 72 hours and passed. we spent a lot of time thinking of crazy stuff. >> the defense non-defense specifics and also -- depending on how many numbers you have on the floor, you didn't have to [inaudible]

you didn't want to tap into those votes? >> look, we are putting up the text to everybody, i think we will be fine without getting it through. patrick, when you handle that? >> so everyone wants to know the top line, to the big piece of negotiation. we are spending caps that are now in law and enforceable for this congress. we have a significant return to a reform a decade ago, to restrain the appropriations process there, the capacity to spend more money year over year. and we have the administration, important administration pay go, which puts into effect expensive to the taxpayer, regulatory and executive decision making. we put constraints on that, there are cost savings there. in terms of the fiscal house, you want to understand what's happening now, spending caps are in place, spending caps taking on defense discretionary spending and to 704, thank you

for the appropriations reporters who care about the details of this. and we hope it is harmless. so this means that for non defense, non-veteran spending, there are significant cuts year over year. >> that will stay the same in four years? >> yes, ma'am. >> what do you discuss with the president this afternoon? >> we just wanted to get back together now that we finalized all of the language, to make sure both sides agree that the language is what we have agreed to, as we spoke. so once we have that, we will post it. a lot of you are you will react to whatever room are you guys are writing about. let's let the members actually beat the bill before you make a decision and go forward? >> i know there's been some confusion about some [inaudible] levels once spending goes back, what thompson told us yesterday, it will roll back to 52?

>> what this will do, is it will increase defense, and increases veterans. if you take non-defense and veterans out, it goes below the level of 2022. yes? >> i want to go back to what you touched? >> no. yes? yes. anybody else, yes, sir? >> [inaudible] >> first of, all its keep in mind, nepa the national environmental policy has not been amended in over 40 years, for decades. we have, in statute, we are now going to require a one-year limit on environmental assessments, which of course is the lower level of review. into your timeline, on environmental impact statements, we are doing an expansion, what we are referring to as a sharing of categorical exclusions. we are shrinking the scope, i want to be clear, nepa has

grown to study all of the things that have nothing to do with the environment,. i would argue, it has worked against the protection of the environment. we are trying to refocus the scope back on that on the environmental impacts, making sure we get the best environmental outcomes. lastly, the other big win in there is, we are making some tweaks to threshold, in terms of when the ball plans to give you an example, speaking of a billion dollar project, $1 of federal funds and there will trigger a national environmental policy analysis. we tried to right size those threshold where the environmental resource agencies can be focusing of projects which will truly help. >> think about what garrett just said. it has not been reformed in 40 years, it is a frustration for people all across this country on both sides of the aisle. does not matter if you want to build a road, a renewable energy project, it all gets dark and studied for years, it's a frustration. that is millions of dollars with it. that is all changing now.

so that we can build again in america, make america stronger. we compete with other countries. this is a win for the entire country and for both sides of the aisle. yes? >> how is it you get a majority with mccarthy, and include you? would you reflect -- >> yes, this is a good, strong bill that majority of republicans will vote for. yes? >> [inaudible] the robust effort on both sides of the aisle, have you started that? >> tom amorous, our whip, he will continue. and look, members have to have the tax before they say where they are. so they can see it and work through it. yes? >> he took a long time to come to negotiate. how would you describe it? >> i thought christine was very professional, very smart. very tough at the same time. so, good job. yes? what i was referring to

president, i was referring to president biden, yes. >> he released memos last night, letting congress work again, basically would trigger rhetorical spending at 1990 fiscal levels. could you discuss how to prevent future government shutdowns? >> well, i think the frustration america has is when they look at congress not doing their job. we have watched this place breakdown, where members show up to or it, or that very basics of appropriations weren't passing. you watched what happened before we took power, they had this omnibus come at the last moments, christmas, thousands of pages, nobody could read it, you needed 72 hours, and just jamming through funded government that way. we want to make sure that congress works again for the american public. so when we became the majority, we wanted to do everything in our power to have this process change. and then again that the

appropriations. part of the strength of having this agreement, you've got the top lines for the next two years. so people can go right and decide priorities for america. and the difference here is that if you don't get that job done, you should not be rewarded. what he would do is make sure government doesn't come down, but a continuing resolution, for 99%. so gives you the incentive as well to do your job. this was an idea brought forth by thomas massie. i think it is very positive idea. what it is doing is it is forcing consequences for members of congress on both sides of the aisle to do their job. this will not be a republican or democrat idea, this is for americans telling congress there should be consequences for you not doing your job, now gives you the incentives. so what you will find is congress is going to work better, smarter in this process because of it. then we will get our work done.

>> at least spoken to that leadership? >> i haven't spoken to them, i expect most will say yes. >> [inaudible] >> i spoke to hakeem jeffries on a number of times, look, members should read in the bill before hand, people should look at it. but negotiating, communicating with the president, the president signs off, i expect his party to be supportive as well. yes, sir? >> you characterized this bill to make a case to members as something that has no concessions. how do you expect -- >> look, we, we, we raised the debt ceiling, we raised it in good faith with the president. i remember many times i was in that position as well, where we had president trump negotiating with speaker pelosi, an agreement the president made to support the president in that path. but i think there is a lot in

here -- look, everything in this country is not just a republican and democrat idea. there are ideas for america. i firmly believe there are democrats out there who want to have their projects looked at. i might want a pipeline or road built, they might want renewable energy projects built, that is a project. and they are both being stopped because of what nepa studies are doing. this helps everybody. it's not a republican or democrat idea, it helps the country. the idea that we will have this process work again, that is helpful to the nation. hi so that is republican and democrat. does not mean that you get to determine the outcome of where you spend your money, but you have a process to do with instead of shutting down here. if you look for an idea that we have, putting people out of poverty, that is a positive thing, we watched this time and again. both sides of the difference of opinion on that, but that is helpful. when you look at pay go, i think it does not matter who is in power, republican or

democrat, you want to look at the constitution working, that the president, whoever it is, we have president biden, president trump who can't go around. this was an executive order that president trump put in, we took it, put it into statute now and made it stronger. that is good going forward a long term on both sides. something people will look back and say, i didn't get exactly what i wanted, but it should be about america not. you america believes we have spent too much so this spends less, first congress did. we pull back money. you know what? no longer but we send american taxpayer money, the cdc, the global fund to china. i think both sides of the aisle it would like that. there is a lot in here for both sides. yes? >> this could be a deal followed by years in -- >> all right, we have been listening to kevin mccarthy, house speaker. this is the republican response to the deal which was made, or agreed to in principle laced --

late last night, can mccarthy's negotiators, on behalf of the republican leadership in congress, and with the president in the white house. joining me now is for a governor john kasich of ohio. this is important because john kasich was a former member of congress. and was the chair of the house budget committee. governor, good to see you again. thank you. this is very, very relevant. the reason why i started with that was because, kevin mccarthy talked about the fact that this improves how congress works for the american public, by putting these discussions about money, spending, taxation back into the budget process and the appropriations process, which is great when you observe it and look at it. but republicans have very dirty hands on this one as, well everybody does. the budgeting appropriations process in america has been broken for years. it is why we had a government shutdown. it's why we have come to the

brink on these conversations. i listen to kevin mccarthy, at his word i say great, i'm glad you are all fixing that. probably should not have happened in the course of a debt ceiling negotiation. but are you optimistic we can get back to the process in which congress, the president proposes a budget, the congress debated and we get things done in an orderly fashion? >> yes. you know i don't want to be a pessimist here on sunday morning. but look, a couple of things. first of all, give the republicans some credit for the fact that they got something here. is what they have your transformational? not in the least! and when they keep saying they will spend less, i don't understand how they can say that, because entitlements are going up dramatically. ali, what i am hopeful for in a way, cautiously hopeful, is in order to pass this, they will have to in the house, they will have to marginalize those on the left, and marginalize those on the right, and they will have to do this within the coalition of republicans and

democrats, basically from the middle. does that then give you some sort of a coalition that could deal with these serious fiscal issues somewhere in the future? i am very disappointed this no commission in here. so, we need one to explain to the american people that, if in fact we do keep doing what we are doing, running these deficits, we have higher interest payments, it starts to crowd out all of the other spending but the federal government considers necessary, that is good in many respects for the american people, and secondly, nothing in here that talks about the crisis, the pending crisis alley, but we face both in medicare and particularly, social security. the public itself needs to understand why this debt is bad, and what is the looming crisis of medicare and social security. maybe you have a mature group of responsible people, not just to deal with budget, but a i, so many other things that could begin to govern. i just don't know where it's

going to go. give them some credit, they are doing something, ali. but this is, you know, this is not a relationship. >> i hear you. and i would love a commission to discuss how we deal with medicare and social security. i suspect you and i would not be on the same side of this issue, that doesn't matter, right? >> ali, i do not know. no, i would not say that. we all agree. >> on how to do? it >> well, here is the thing i'm trying to say, in the old days, you have ten people working for everybody who gets, now got ten people getting, and only one working. those are not exactly numbers by any stretch. by any stretch >> before we come up with solutions, when people on both sides to say here are the reasonable things to get you to fix it. reagan and tip o'neill did this, they both compromised. it looks like this is a compromise, but look, it's good they are opening in this

direction, it is a transformational? not even close. remember, when i was chairman, ali. one more point, when i was chairman, we worked with the clinton administration and balance a budget for like three years, pay down the largest amount of debt, and who was a direct the program? the republicans did. because they like to spend as much as the democrats except they feel guilty when they do. >> let's talk about this. a couple of times we have come close, 1995 was one of them. in 1970, we had a technical default. it's the only time america has gone into default in the, budget was not a political issue, a technical issue. mark sandy from movie was telling me there are some analyses by economists who say we are still paying, the amount of money we paid extra because of an uptick in interest rates back then, we are still paying. for 2011, when we came very close, within 72 hours of defaulting on our debt, the estimates here are that the cost of that was 19 billion

dollars in increase in interest costs. this brinkmanship is very expensive. when you brought up, as you rightly did, the amount of money we spend at interest, aggravating that and not spending that money on other matters is really bad for the economy. so, what has happened now, has it and other self in that for the economy, to get this close to a default. >> well, 19 billion is a tremendous amount of money. but compare that to a whole budget, that, everything else, interest rates are going up anyways, ali. as you know. this means the cost of financing these deficits is increasing, which means the amount of money that goes to pay for interest, that money is not available to pay for critical programs, veterans, education, any of these kinds of things. there has to be some kind of a tripwire. because you said it, republicans have dirty hands. of course, the democrats do. it is just spend, spend, spend.

there needs to be some trip wire which gets people to say no, we can't keep doing that. it will wreck our economy. it will wreck the critical programs that we need. so, i just think that the debt ceiling forces people to do something. i support a constitutional minute to require a budget, except in times of war, just like when i was governor, i had a balance to budget. governors all across the country have to do it. we have to get ourselves in a better position financially, fiscally. it will be good for the american people. that's the way i look at it. >> if our discussion to be had. there is a good discussion to be had, whether you have to balance the budget to be a good fiscal position. we have to balance our budgets here, so i have a commercial break so we can pay the bills. we will take a quick break and discuss it on the other side, so we can be fiscally responsible as well. >> goodwin ali, good.

thank you. od thank you. the other day... and forgot where she was. [buzz] you can always spot a first timer. gain flings with oxi boost and febreze. paradontax blood when you brush could lead to worse over time. help stop the clock on gum disease now. parodontax toothpaste... ...is 3x more effective at removing plaque bacteria, one of the main causes of bleeding gums. parodontax. the gum experts.

wake up, achievers. you're making the most of every hour of your life. one of the main causes of bleeding gums. except the hours that you're sleeping. so why do we leave so much untapped potential on the table? this is a next level bed, for a next level you. my circadian rhythm is kicking your circadian rhythm's butt! it's not a competition. i know, but i'm still winning! so, it is a competition. save 50% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed. plus, special financing and free home delivery when you add any base. only at sleep number. (tap, tap) listen, your deodorant just has to work.

i use secret aluminum free. just swipe and it lasts all day. secret helps eliminate odor, instead of just masking it. and hours later i still smell fresh. secret works. ohhh yesss. >> back with me, former

governor john kasich of ohio, a former member of congress, chair of the house budget committee. i want to remind people, you, sir, you are in the midst of this in 1996, when we were having someises with budgeting and debt. i want to play something you set on, you said on january the

14th of 1996. then i want to talk to you on the other side, let's listen. >> all right. >> oh, wait, i don't have it, i don't have. it sir, i save. you let me read to you what you said on meet the press. >> what was it about, ali? >> you said it is about negotiations around the budget. then you said we are miles and miles away on a basic, just on a basic issue like welfare reform. we can't even reach agreement on whether able-bodied people within the ages of 18 and 50 who get food stamps ought to be required to go to work. we are so far away. frankly, it is there. so my point is, you were having very much the same discussion, it sounded like kevin mccarthy was having with the white house, in 1996. your comment? >> well, you know, we had welfare reform. the republicans and democrats reached an agreement on welfare inform. and people who were really worried about it said it would be terrible.

turns out, we look at the results, it's been pretty darn good. look, having been governor, there were some requirements for people to work, but i waved at points in time, when the unemployment was so high in that area. but look, we don't want to use this as any sort of a punishment. like, you are getting something for free, no, that should not be the way that we think about it. what we should think about is the dignity of the work or the dignity of training. we want people to be able to get out of this mess. >> but since 1966 when he made that comment, we have changed most of it. there are work requirements, sorry, 1996, work requirements for almost everybody who able-bodied who can. so we are just inking around the edges, it's not a big a deal is kevin mccarthy is making it? >> no, yes, no do i think this is a giant deal? i do not think it, is i don't think anything in this package is actually a giant deal. but again ali, look. we know that congress is largely dysfunctional.

we know henry kissinger and eric schmidt or a book about the dangers of a.i.. and the possibility of global conflict comes from the fake a.i., or chatgpt. we know that. we have to come up with responsible things, we have to come up with responsible things to make sure people, so we can have a solid social security, a solid health care system. i am looking to find those people who can operate in the middle across the lines, who can say let's look at these problems, let's recognize them and work together to try to fix them. that is what i like about this deal. and i call it transformational, that is how they sell a package. i had to sell a package, turn out what i was selling worked out to be pretty good, but you always have to sell it, right? you have to sell your show, we have to sell things. let's not get too carried away about what all of the impact is about this. >> so the studies that have been done since work requirements were put in, let's put this in the context of 2020,

three of the three and a half percent unemployment rate in this country. everybody who is unemployed, more jobs are available than there are people available to do them, but there's a bit of a mismatch. sometimes jobs available are either not suited to the people who are available to work or they are not in the right places. in the end, we effect of the saving of money, because of his work requirement things, it won't make more people work, it will make more people pay those benefits out to fewer people. why then shouldn't we look at corporations who don't pay taxes? and the very wealthy who get breaks? if you are a bus driver, a working stiff in this country, your tax rate as a percentage is higher than anyone else, you have no right of, no ability to do anything. why do we keep going for the least of us? why don't we go for the strongest among us and raise more money? that's the other way that you could balance a budget, raise money. lance a budget>> well first of f you raise money, congress will spend the money. that is just a fact, okay?

number one. number two, when we talk about rich people, why do you think all these people are moving from new york to florida? because the amount of taxes they are paying is sky-high. i was told the other day, if you get a bonus over in new york, you work on wall street or something, 40% of it goes to taxes. how much should it be? 50? 60? i want point should people say they don't want to participate or work that hard? look what's happened in the country, the fastest-growing states in our country, texas, in florida, if we go -- >> look at taxes, governor. but look, horrible places to live in terms of gun violence, in terms of in case you are gay, you want to go to the library and get a book. i mean, i would much rather live in these places, but i get, you they are cheaper. taxes are really low, but they're kind of horrible places to live.

>> you ever go to florida? >> i understand, yes i have to go there these days a lot. >> what's going on in florida in terms of the cultural issues, i don't agree with the way they are approaching it. but people who are going to florida, it is not a horrible place, ali. i mean, you don't want to say florida is horrible? >> the restaurant scene is great, but if you are gay, trans or like your freedom with books, or having an abortion, it's actually a horrible place. >> yes, but what i'm saying to you as people are going there, you are getting off the subject. the subject is about taxes. why don't we just raise taxes. by the way -- >> colin, the reason why, hold on, hold on, hold on. let me finish talking about taxes. you said people moved these places because of lower taxes, i don't disagree with you. rich new yorkers actually moved to florida because of taxes. but they're not laterally determinant about why you look in a place. >> look, ali, what you are saying is we could solve this problem, if we raise everybody's taxes, the rich pe