-- that the house committee has. we have to rely on the agency to review and potentially declassify our memo. based on what i know, i agree that as much of this information should be made public as soon as possible through the appropriate process, and i don't just mean the summary memos. the government should release the underlying documents referenced in those memos after deleting any national security information that needs to be protected. but most of this story can be told, and the part that can be told should be told. the american people deserve the truth. stale, recycled media spins from journalists and pundits who do not have all the facts is not enough. the country is filled with frenzy and speculation, but the people are very hungry for facts. however, i cannot release this information on my own and near the should anyone else. -- and neither should anyone else. classified information is controlled by the executive branch. we should work together to achieve the greater transparency while still protecting leg

this was rejected by the committee. we have to wait for the republican rational as to why they stood in front and blocked the schiff motion to release the memo. clearly, it shows how partisan this investigation has become. the other interesting point, wolf, the fact the republicans opened up their own investigation into the doj, the fbi and presumably things that happened during the 2016 campaign. this is going to be the second committee in the house, the second investigation in the house, third committee in the house to investigate the fbi, presuming that intelligence committee continues to go down the route. i asked schiff if the investigation, this russia investigation was dead. he said no. he expects steve bannon back on wednesday. bannon did not answer a host of questions when he came before the house intelligence citing privilege, conversations he would have with the president. he woul not discuss after the campaign season. we'll seek any of that as resolve. he expects bannon back and corey lewandowski back. he di

he said tonight he does not discuss committee business outside the committee.oining us instead republican committee member congressman rick crawford of arkansas. thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. >> you bet. >> the fbi director, president trump appointed a republican, said he asked for an opportunity to come before the committee to share the concerns about the memo. it was turned down. i'm wondering how could republicans say they're for transparency but not want to hear from him? why do you think it was not necessary? >> i'm not sure it was entirely correct. it was my belief the director did vu the memo and there was no changes of any facts. and so they have had eyes on ththe memo. >> you're saying it's not true the fbi wanted to address the committee? >> no. that's not what i'm saying. i'm saying the director did have an opportunity to view the memo. it's my understanding he did. they were given the opportunity to edit, and there was no factual errors that they felt needed corrected or anything of that nature. so the memo you're going to see has b

a very sad day in the history of this committee. as i said to my committee colleagues during this hearing, sadly we can fully expect that the president of the united states will not put the national interest over his own personal interest. it is a sad day indeed when that is also true of our own committee. today this committee voted to put the president's personal interest, perhaps their own political interest, but the national interests in the nine themselves even the ability to hear from the department and the fbi. that is a deeply regrettable state of affairs. it does show how when you have a deeply flawed person in the oval office, that flaw can infect the whole government and today tragically, it affected our committee. at this point, i yield to my colleagues. >> we are not talking about the investigation. we are talking about the distraction that they have created. that is sad and unfortunate, because if you're a democrat or republican, you should care just as much about this. they attacked the democratic process. they hacked

just in that house intelligence committee. attorney general jeff sessions was interviewed behind closed doors and said he wanted to not answer their questions on the basis that the president may some day want to exert executive privilege to stop him from giving that testimony in the future. that was a strange argument from the attorney general. corey lewandowski hasn't given any reason. when the president's son, donald jr. refused to answer questions on the basis of attorney/client privilege. neither donald jr. nor donald senior is an attorney, and which one of you is the client? but in all of those instances, the republican-led committees in congress, the republican-led intelligence committee said no problem with those bull pucky, i mean dubious, even laughbling attempts to avoid answering questions to assert some pseudo legal rationale for not answering the committee's questions. everybody else has weaseled out of answering questions and they have not cared at all. democrats have complained, republicans have mott cared. then

members of our committee. who use 2016 as a successful operation? russia got what it wanted insofar that brought unity. why wouldn't they do it again and? my question for republican leaders as simple. what are we going to do about it? what steps are required to take to protect our democracy before americans go back to the polls or are we just going to leave the door open to another attack. you see it doesn't matter to me whether they try to help donald trump or hillary clinton. the fact of the matter is idle want the russians interfering in our democracy and no american representative should in the house of representatives has been silent. that's not acceptable to anybody anybody. we passed new tough sanctions last year in a bipartisan way on the foreign affairs committee and the sanctions held russia accountable for election interference. so far these tools have sat on the shelf. the president has done nothing with legislation so we pass it and we haven't implemented it. that sounds absolutely unacceptable. i

he was scheduled to testify to a whole different committee the following day, the judiciary committee, but you know what? none of that happened. those further rounds of testimony, those further documents did not happen, because in a dramatic fashion in a predawn raid on his home, robert mueller and the special counsel jumped in there, that fbi raid with its speed, its swarm of officers, no-knock provisions, all that drama, that may have been because of a fear that mr. manafort would destroy some important evidence the special counsel wanted but also because mr. manafort was starting to give that evidence away to congress. paul manafort, eventually, was charged with a dozen felonies in october. so we got a look at the special counsel's evidence they put together. given the seriousness of the charges, that the charges came alongside another trump campaign official, equal number of felony charges and two other trump campaign officials pleading guilty to felonies, it now seems clear in hindsight that the special counsel's office may not have found it helpful in their inquiries had all the

i have encouraged the committee members and their appropriately cleared staff to do just that. look at the memo senator grant and i sent to the deputy attorney general and fbi director. members can then make up their ownat minds. i've also encouraged them to review the committee's transcripts and other unclassified materials that have been available to them and t thr staff for a long periodme of ti. we mad may agree certain informn should be released at the appropriate time of care to preserve classified information and the integrity of any investigation. i've already been pushing the department to review the classified referral memorandum. three of the unclassified paragraphs each contain the same or single classified fact. now that really surprised me. of the nongovernment sources do not claim to repeat or confirm any information for any government document. evenid after the portions that reference the alleged classified fact it is hard to understand why that should be classified. in the unsecured space and on and on secure phone line. the fbi never notified the entities can'

and the members of the judiciary committee. on intelligencyou have a very few members who are deputiz by the speaker and by the leader, each party, to go to the inteigence committee to deal with iues that rete to the balance between security and privacy. with a the respect in the world for the magnificent members of the judiciary committee, all of whom i respect, it's not right to say there is nothing in thisill that protects the privacy of the american people. in fact, when i was supporting the judiciary committee bil the outside groups were complaning. they wanted the zo lofgren endment. they didn't want that bill. they were complaining abt it. today they are saying that's what they want. issue, one ying the of the differences along the way is when it is issue, one apprri terms of warrant. pleased that we would be offering a motion to recommit that addresses just that concern, which is what i'm hearing from folks about. pleas we would be offering a the amendmt, the motion to recommit, addresses concerns of people on both side

my committee. sins of omission. but you know what? they seem to have forgotten or can't find that subpoena pen any more. they seem to have forgotten how to have a hearing on arguably the most important, extensional issue facing the united states. the interference of russia in our electoral process. not a single hearing at the full committee level. no interest. look over there. and so we are here today to call upon our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, stand up for your country. this isn't about partisan politics. this is about protecting our beloved country. and everybody needs to be counted. and it's not about a partisan game. it is about protecting the interests of the person electorate. thank you for having me here today. and it gives me great pleasure to introduce my colleague and friend, the ranking member of the house foreign affairs committee, elliot engel. >> thanks, gerry. and let me say, it's good to see everyone here. i'm elliot engel, and gerry mentioned before, the ranking mem

so on the homeland security committee side, we have attempted a number of times to get our committee to hold hearings, to listen to witnesses, to do those things that members of congress should do in order to do their job. however, we have yet to have one formal hearing on our election system and the compromising that occurred. more importantly with that is to get the ttempt committee to move forward, we convinced leader pelosi that maybe we need to form an elections task force to look at this issue, because it won't go away. we know from all indications that the next election, which is upon us within a year, there is potential russian actors who will be moving, but also there is a 2020 election upon us. and up to this point, there is nothing going forward with it. now i'm happy to say that our task force, we looked at a number of opportunities. we have had a number of witnesses to come before the task force and very shortly, we will be producing the report from that elections task force which i believe will crystalize more importantly that we have to be faced with. as important is t

a very sad day i think in the history of this committee as i said to my committee colleagues during this hearing, sadly, we can fully expect that the president of the united states will not put the national interest over his own personal interest. but it is a sad day indeed when that is also true of our own committee. today this committee voted to put the president's personal interest, perhaps their own political interest above the national interest in denying themselves even the ability to hear from the department and the fbi. that is a deeply regrettable state of affairs >> the nunes memo will come out. i want to give you context here. the republican memo was written for the chairman of the committee devin nunes. shocking facts he just allegedly uncovered about the russian investigation. facts we later found out he had just gotten from the white house. the white house he claimed he had to rush to to brief them on facts they already had. it amounted to a smoke screen. democrats say that is what today's memo is about today. that brings us to tonight's other breaking story. andrew mccabe

and that it's a committee. and writing by committee takes more time. and i'm aware of that. my work schedule and other obligations allow me to have the time to spend to devote to this committee. >> great. i just wanted to make sure. i think eyes wide open is really important because the amount of time that this takes and the amount of intensity and the amount of scrutiny and the amount of importance of this body requires that level of commitment. so, if you're prepared to make that commitment, i think that the your background and qualifications are up to the task and you have, as i said, nice recommendations from the nominating organisations. so i appreciate that. any other committee members have any other questions? >> no. >> ok. seeing none, i think what we need to do is hear from the second -- yes. the second applicant. and then we can take public comment. so, thank you, scott. if there is any other questions, we'll call you back up. >> thank you. >> ok. and so now let's hear from our second applicant, ms. betty packard. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. >> and shall

in addition to the vigorous debate before the rules committee, both the judiciary committee and intelligence committee held markups on legislation to re-authorize section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. today, we have the opportunity to pass an important piece of legislation that will enhance our national security and strengthen protections of americans' privacy. mr. chairman, i'd like to publicly thank chairman goodlatte and chairman nunes for the important work on this legislation. as a result of their efforts, the legislation we will consider today will protect the privacy rights of individual americans without hindering the intelligence community ability and identities of our enemies. the value that we place on these duties is reflected by the fact that they are enshrined in the preamble to the constitution, to provide for our common defense, the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community try to defeat our foreign adversaries, whether they are terrorists, hostile foreign states or nuclear proliferators. our constitution tasks each branch of government with co

committee and unnecessarily some. but it is partisan because of the budget process. members on the other side of the committee, several members, senator white house, senator cain and the members on this site i think we all agree that process is broken. it is a resolution and therefore the majority crams down the throat of the minority there political statement about what they think they should do on spending and you get caught in the middle. middle. when site likes your opinion, the other side doesn't. this will change and at some point in the future what they will be in the majority, this is a broken process we have to fix that in thbut in the meantime, n important role and i think it is critical you being as nonpartisan as youpl can be, i agree with the chairmen and ranking member that they should be involved in thehe prioritiesf what you're allocating time and resources to. you heard important questions being asked in the healthcare and tax debate that didn't get answered. how do you do respond to that and then i w

of the committee chairman. it relates to this incredible presidential national security scandal. i don't know of any examples of senators doing something like that before. >> you know, i'm going talk than. >> okay. >> as i get into the show. >> good. >> but i was thinking exactly that today. and i had to go all the way back to 1984 to find anything. >> wow. >> anything that even resembles this kind of boldness and unusual step. and it was actually senator moynihan. it involved the senate intelligence committee. but that was nothing compared to what senator feinstein did today. >> but, of course there is something in 1984. that's the closest analogy. and you knew about it and had something to do with it. of course. this is why you're here, my friend. >> but it's such an important point. because the senate is a very careful place with the most behaviorally careful people in america. >> yes. >> and there is line you follow there are traditions. there are rules. those things and those mores are never violated. to s

and the members of the judiciary committee. on intelligencyou have a very few members who are deputiz by the speaker and by the leader, each party, to go to the inteigence committee to deal with iues that rete to the balance between security and privacy. with a the respect in the world for the magnificent members of the judiciary committee, all of whom i respect, it's not right to say there is nothing in thisill that protects the privacy of the american people. in fact, when i was supporting the judiciary committee bil the outside groups were complaning. they wanted the zo lofgren endment. they didn't want that bill. they were complaining abt it. today they are saying that's what they want. issue, one ying the of the differences along the way is when it is issue, one apprri terms of warrant. pleased that we would be offering a motion to recommit that addresses just that concern, which is what i'm hearing from folks about. pleas we would be offering a the amendmt, the motion to recommit, addresses concerns of people on both side

and today tragically it affected our committee. at this point i'll yield to my colleagues. >> we are not talking about the investigation. we are talking about the distraction that they had created. that's sad and unfortunate. if you are a democrat or republican you should care just as much about this. they attacked the democratic process. they hacked into board of election. one can imagine a scenario where they are just as likely to attack a republican candidate as democrat. >> i should also mention it was disclosed to the minority today for the first time that majority has evidently opened an investigation of the fbi and investigation of the department of justice. under our committee rules that has to be the product of consultation with the minority. but we learned about that for the first time today. it has been publicly reported from time to time there was a subset of the majority work on some kind of a investigation or inquiry into the department of justice and fbi, but apparently the chairman made it formal today. according to

intel committee members before they voted last night. the "post" reporting today, quote, wray, the fbi director, has seen the memo, but it's unclear whether the justice department remained opposed to its release. schiff said that wray raised concerns about the memo after viewing it and asked the committee to allow him to brief the members before voting on its release. they did not do so, he said. to help us better understand how these developments create a relatively unprecedented backdrop for tonight's state of the union address, we're joined by favorite reporters and guests for the hour. with us from the "washington post," white house bureau chief phil rucker. from "the new york times," chief white house correspondent peter baker. with us on set, republican strategist and msnbc contributor steve schmidt. kimberly atkins, chief washington reporter for the "boston herald" and msnbc contributor. and john heilemann, nbc news and msnbc national affairs analyst. phil rucker, let me start with you, because it's your paper's superb reporting o

members on this committee and off this committee. you said the va believes the future of community care should include eight tenants. those tenants are improve veterans choice of community providers in meeting their health care needs. with the folks on veterans' clinical needs, to pave the way of all community care programs, add convenient care benefits, set timely payment standards, streamline how we pay for care, including care in state veterans' homes, medical records sharing in the network when needed for veterans' care and addresses clinical staffing shortages through graduate medical education and improving va hiring and retention of staff. i would just tell you that the caring for our veterans act checks every one of those boxes. and it checks every one of those boxes because when we drafted it, he we had those tenants in mind. i would really look forward to strong press release in support of this bill. i'll tell you why. senator moran, chairman and myself and other members of this committee that you've been silent. so thank y

and the members of the judiciary committee. on intelligencyou have a very few members who are deputiz by the speaker and by the leader, each party, to go to the inteigence committee to deal with iues that rete to the balance between security and privacy. with a the respect in the world for the magnificent members of the judiciary committee, all of whom i respect, it's not right to say there is nothing in thisill that protects the privacy of the american people. in fact, when i was supporting the judiciary committee bil the outside groups were complaning. they wanted the zo lofgren endment. they didn't want that bill. they were complaining abt it. today they are saying that's what they want. issue, one ying the of the differences along the way is when it is issue, one apprri terms of warrant. pleased that we would be offering a motion to recommit that addresses just that concern, which is what i'm hearing from folks about. pleas we would be offering a the amendmt, the motion to recommit, addresses concerns of people on both side

if we are really busy with committee work, we have to asked the committee, can we make this a priority and oftentimes the answer is no. i know that is frustrating, but we are trying to take direction from committees as to how to direct our resources. >> we will be looking into whether there is a role for the ranking member and the chairman of the budget committee to have more of a role in that ranking. my time has expired almost, so i will turn it over with senator sanders. hall, as we contemplate maybe someday passing a budget , refreshld you help me my rim -- memory. my recollection is that in the budget control act of 2011, one of the cornerstones of that ill was parity -- bill was parity. if i'm correct, the next three budgets that were passed also had parity as a cornerstone. is i correct? >> that sounds right. >> dr. hall, my republican colleagues havspent a lot of time this year on health care, and if my recollection is collect -- correct, your agency has been criticized a bit for the analyses that they provided us on various health care proposals. so let's go over it again, bec

but this memo encapsulates an entire year of work by these committees, by these committee chairmen and they are to be commended for the excellent job they have done for the professionalism that they've undertaken, and for the stunning facts that they've uncovered that will soon be available for the american people. i'll have more to say on this throughout the hour, mr. speaker, but first i'd like to recognize one of my colleagues in the congress who was one of the first and loudest voices calling for transparency at the highest levels and to the maximum extent possible, i'll yield such time as he may consume to mr. zeldin of new york. mr. zeldin: thank you to mr. gaetz for organizing this important special order. to all my colleagues who are coming to the house floor tonight, encouraging the president of the united states now to certify the release of this memo to the american public. the american public is a lot smarter than a whole lot of other people give them credit for. present them with the facts, the truth, and they can form their own independent judgment as to what transpired.

, the intelligence committee. as you know these committees in the house and senate side were set up in the 1970s as a check on presidential excess. they're the least partisan committees. they've stood up to presidents. and now to see all these republicans throw off the guise of oversight and put on the trump hat and do his bidding on a political matter, it's a shocking development and it really represents a real turning point in the history of these committees and their role in having some kind of accountability and checks and balances in our government. >> charlie, your in your opinion is reporting that rod rosenstein could be the real target of this memo because he approved extending the surveillance on the former trump campaign official, and the republican staff of the committee is finding fault, it seems in the memo, with the underlying elements of that request to extend that surveillance. >> that's right. i think -- of course, we haven't seen the memo yet. it sounds like we're going to see it pretty soon. our

if we are really busy, with committee work, we have to ask committee if we can make this a priority and often the answer is no. our work takes party. we have to put off work. i know that is frustrating but again, we are trying to take direction from committees how to direct our resources. >> we will be looking into whether there is a role for the ranking member for the chairman of the budget committee to have more of a role in that ranking and my time has expired almost. so i will turn it over to senator sanders. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. hall, as we contemplate, maybe someday passing a budget here, could you help me refresh my memory but, my recollection is that in the budget control act of 2011, one of the cornerstones of the bill was parity. he will funding for defense and nondefense. if i am correct, the next three budgets that were passed also had parity as a cornerstone. is that correct? >> that sounds right, yes. >> dr. hall, my republican colleagues have spent a lot of time this year on healthcare. and if my recollection is correct, your agency has been criticized a bit fo

committees and leadership. among cbo's statutory requirements is producing certain reports, the best known of which is the annual budget of economic outlook and includes the cbo's baseline bugetary and economic projections. cbo is required by law to produce a formal cost estimate for nearly every bill that's approved by a full committee of either house or senate. those cost estimates are only advisory, they can, but do not have to be used to enforce bugetary rules or targets. more over, cbo does not enforce such bugetary rules, the budget committees do. third, cbo produces a lot of work each year, for example, last year the agency published 740 formal cost estimates, provided technical assistance to congressional staff as they developed literally thousands of legislative proposals and amendments. and published many reports about the budget, the economy and related issues. nevertheless, because of limited resources the number of estimates and analyses that cbo can produce falls short of congressional request. mo

they voted for it 60-0 in committee. mr. chairman, you know how many amendments they offered in that markup? their opportunity to refine the legislation, their opportunity to improve the legislation, eir opportunity to put their on the amendment. you know how many amendments they offered? zero. zero amendments were offered by the minority who now claims that somehow they were cut out of the process. and for six months we've been waiting, waiting to bring this bill, waiting to hear about these improvements and only three legislative days ago did finally the democrats dane to offer any new improvement to this bill. so i think, mr. chairman, she doth protest it too much. and now what i don't understand, mr. chairman, is how my democrat colleagues can defend some of these rowing regimes and some of the -- rogue regimes and some of the activities of the world bank. i quote from dr. gene ensinger, a professor of social science at cal tech, who testified that there is corruption, corruption throughout world bank projects on the ken

i can't stress enough that the committee, your committee, your colleagues in congress are the ones that you should feel most confident at reviewing and providing proper oversight for this program. you see, it's those individuals that reach the clarity that's needed to -- for this body and for the congress to look at the american people and say, we haven't crossed the line. we've stayed within the legal box that was created. but don't leave it to committee. let's use the -- but don't leave it to me. let's use the privacy and civil liberties oversight board. in 230914 following an extensive review, pclob noted to date, there are no known instances which government personnel deliberately violated the statute targeting procedures or minimization procedures. let me say that again. the privacy and civil liberties oversight board which many here created came out and in their report said, to date, there is no known instances in which the government personnel deliberately violated the statute targeting procedures or minimization. at the same time, in that report, pclob made a number of recommend

reprieve theyto refrain of those for the members of the judiciary committee. we support the integrity and the importance of 702 as a national security tool and we wanted reauthorized but we want it right. that is the protection of the american people against unreasonable search and seizure. no matter how much my friends on the other side of the aisle argue, we that the fbi can have the tools that it needs. in the instance of this underlying bill, similar to the bill that was passed in 2007 by of whichadministration the judiciary committee amended it and made it a bill that provides the tools that was needed by those who were on the front lines in the united states military and the fbi but ultimately, it was changed to deny those rights. warrantsinstances, the that my friends are talking about, are revised to only fully predicated cases. and does not apply to the searching of documents that will have information on americans. i asked my colleagues to postpone this. let us work together on the behalf of the american people. who are we if we cannot uphold the con

the decision has been made by the committee to vote out the memo produced by the republicans on the committee looking at classified material about surveillance during the campaig campaign. here is a compilation earlier of some lawmakers, whether this memo should be released or not. >> it certainly should be but somebody should explain how utterly insignificant it is. >> this memo answers what i think are really legitimate questions and i do think the fbi should look at it before it is released. >> i don't wanted released yet. i want somebody who is without a political bias to come in and look at the allegations. the way the fbi conducted itself and the department of justice bothers me. >> no one at the white house has seen the memo. it would be hard for us to make a decision. >> bret: other lawmakers say they are tremendously disturbed by what they see in the memo and want to get it out. that's the position the committee has taken tonight, voting along party lines to do just that. i want to bring in the panel early. tom bevan, real clear politics. mollie hemingway, senior editor at "the feder

can i get a report from the committee as a whole? vice president cooke. >> i'll do that at the next board meeting. >> okay. a report from curriculum and program committee, please, commissioner norton. >> yes. the curriculum and program committee met on the 17th of january . we had two informational items. the first was a report on the current state of our language pathways, which was a good -- it was good to declare where we are, where everything is. i think we all continue to have concerns about these programs and, you know, where they are, the student assignments issues related to them, the facilities issues related to them, so it was good to get a -- a good data and update to them. we also had a great report on african american history in sfusd curriculum which was really extensive and i -- you know, i can't do it justice in a board report, but you should look at the powerpoint which i think all of you got. there's just some really great things going on. i one thing i will highlight is the class at mission for african american gir

passed out of committee. as we all know, we had a 14-1 vote and we all know we had some differences of opinion on the veterans' choice bill and the care bill that we passed out of committee. i did everything i could to bring about a unanimous common ground, but i didn't get that totally done. so i made a phone call to the white house and talked with the president. i believe if i'm not mistaken the secretary was on that phone call as well as a number of other people of interest, and the president, and this is my remember -- repeating what i remember him saying to me, he said you're all good guys. you've got good solutions on both sides. y'all see if you can't work it out. we tried to get together a couple of meetings to work it out but that didn't materialize one way or the other. my goal as chairman of the committee is to find a positive resolution to no matter what problem i confront. and not because it comes from my wisdom but my persistence to see to it we keep our eye on the goal. and the goal is choice f

i am the chairwoman of the committee and my name is first. it is truly a committee product. michelle: i wanted to ask you a little bit about some aspects of the bill that address opportunities for career and technical education. i know you frequently talk about that our current two-year and four-year institutions do not always prepare people for the workforce. how does your bill address the gap and give us specific examples. rep. foxx: a great question. i do feel very keenly that are post secondary education, and some of the elements of secondary education have not done what they should to help students be prepared for the workforce. i really have evidence -- we have 6.2 million jobs in the country unfilled right now. i often ask groups of people and individuals why did you get a degree? why did you go to school? everybody invariably answers -- to get a job. something is wrong with all the money that we are putting into our education in the country, we now have over 6 million jobs that are unfilled and yet people are graduating from high school, people are graduating from co

and senate budget committee. isn't that the original incarnation of the cbo? >> i'm not sure what the original intent was but that characterization is right. we're here only to assist the budget committees invest to congress. >> my reading of history tells me the senate found it beneath them to share a staff with the house budget committee. once they insisted on having their own staff, we insisted on having our own staff and you were left to advise us both there on the side. my experience, you talk about hiring people irrespective of political outlook. i think that's very challenging to do. my experience with cbo directors, i tend to learn more about their politics after they're gone than while they're there. we see a lot in hindsight. i look at -- i'm reading from a cbo cost estimate of the american health care act. the top line says this. cbo and jct estimate enacting health care act would reduce federal deficits by over $19 billion and $23 million in 2026 current law. >> yes. >> you could have said we're going

committee. trump just nominated to a senior position at the state department the wife of the chairman of that committee that oversees the state department. now, that's not the end of the world. it's a little weird, right? but on a ranking of trump administration norm busting and ethics flouting this would not be a championship contender. yeah, it's weird. the member of congress most responsible for overseeing one of your agencies, you give his wife a plum job at that agency? it's a little weird. i mean, for these guys it's like tuesday. not a big deal. you know. so we have that news a few days ago from "the washington post," then today, just days after we got news of the racist wife getting a job at the state department, we got the very surprising news that congressman, ed royce, the committee chairman, the one whose wife just got that big state department appointment, he's quitting congress. now, ed royce is a long-term california republican congressman who's been there for 25 years. he's chair

the house oversight committee, as well as the house judiciary committee. they plan to meet behind closed doors to get the update on his own investigation. and that is highly anticipated. it could be released in the coming weeks and they want to see if there is any intel to essentially given they will more ammunition for their investigation going forward. >> stand by. evan, the inspector general at the department of justice. we're now hearing he may have played a role also in the sudden removal of andrew mccabe. >> i think what he is referring to helps explain what we are seeing today. they are expecting it will come out in march or april. that's the guidance that they have given. i think that there is a certain number of factors that have come into this. but chris wray, the memo that he sent to employees within the last hour, hinted at the fact this ig, the inspector general report was coming out and suggest that had might have played a role to lead. it appears there is a mix of being pushed and nudged out of fbi and mccabe's own realization that perhaps h

azar to the finance committee this morning. i want to thank you for being here and for your willingness to serve in this important capacity. mr. azar certainly has his work cut out for him. health and human services is a massive, sprawling department that overseas trillions of dollars in spending and liabilities and encompasses all areas of our nation's health care system. as a result, if confirmed, mr. azar's work will impact the lives of every single american. now, that's a big job. it requires knowledge, experience, and, most important, strong leadership. fortunately, our nominee brings all of this to the table having nearly two decades of experience in the health care sector, including about six years working at the highest levels of hhs. during his time at hhs, mr. azar played key roles in implementing new policies including medicare part "d" and the medicare advantage program. he was also a leader in hhs's responses to the anthrax attacks shortly after 9/11 the sars and monkeypox crisis and hurricane katrina just to menti

we think that's an important criteria for the committee to consider, and also, at thesub committee meeting, we had discussed the fact that this is based on some previous verbiage. we'd still love to review that policy potentially as part of the committee, but thank you so much for this amended resolution. we appreciate it, and again, the parent feedback that was considered is -- is appreciated by more than just the cac, so thank you. >> nina blanc. >> good evening, commissioners, public, superintendent. i wanted to say how appreciative i am that this is coming before the board, that the board responded in a very thoughtful manner when it first came to the sub committee. there was -- knowing that there was very strong feelings, almost across the district from educators, with different nuances from different divisions and very strong opinions and feelings voiced by the parents, and rather than kick the can down the road, as often happens, i feel the board took on the challenge of finding a way of addressing the need that was being -- was incorporated into the initial resolution. and the usf

considers and this committee and future committees consider. so this may now be evolving into a question which is, relative to the 973 market situation, i mean, this is precisely the kind of place that you want to use the mills act because you're taking a building and breathe new life into it and it cost a lot of money and there's more work to be done and this makes perfect sense. and i also note that it's approximately $150,000 a year of tax deduction to the city, $147,000 and change. so part of the question then, yes, there's ongoing every five to 10-year maintenance requirements but is a 10-year tax break that when all told will be worth more than a million dollars, is that sufficient to do the capital investment in the window system? would it be fair for this committee, who has to balance money and preservation incentives, to ask you whether -- this is a question for the project sponsor or the applicant -- whether or not after a period of 10 years you would be sanguine with that mills act contract terminating? >> so the question, just so i