mr. mitchell: congress talks about the impact on small businesses. many of the businesses are called family businesses and the tax cuts and jobs act provides the ability for small businesses to deduct 20% of their income at a much lower rate, at 25% to allow businesses to grow and allows businesses to write off equipment t of new rather than expense its. it means real money out. significant differences allowing businesses to invest in growth. i'm pleased to yield at this time to the representative from

mr. mitchell. mr. mitchell: thank you, mr. flores. i would like to continue with a discussion of the impact of the tax cuts and jobs act by introducing a colleague of mine on the transportation and infrastructure committee and a defender of a strong rural economy, representing the 36th district of texas, i yield to congressman brian babin. mr. babin: thank you, mr. speaker. representative paul mitchell, for this opportunity to talk about our historic tax cut legislation and the great benefits that are flowing to small businesses in tens of millions of americans who work for them. this is a -- this is especially true in the great state of texas and the nine counties that i represent from houston to the louisiana state line which has more petrochemical refining facilities than any district in the entire united states. and their employees -- there are employees benefiting from local taxes but the gains that we have seen say so much more than that. the gains extend far beyond just employees benefiting from lower taxes. i'm also hearing fr

mr. mitchell. guest: i'm not sure what that comment was and i'm not familiar with the cannibis industry. i have to say i wish you well. host: lynette, in clear lake, california, good morning. caller: good morning. i think the biggest problem that we have with our prescription drugs is that the senators and our congressmen are selling their votes to big pharma. and they have to vote for that. they don't represent us, they take the money and go big pharma's way. it's so irritating. i live on $12,000 a year, i got built from my superscript medicare drug plan. they want $57 from me. that is taking food out of my mouth. host: mr. mitchell. guest: that comment, thank you for that, is really emblem attic -- really emblematic of what we hear from many. patients tell us all the time, i have to choose between buying food, i choose between paying rent and buying drugs i need. patients who cut pills in half or skip doses. people who are type 1 diabetes, have to have insulin to manage their disease, who try not

mr. mitchell. familiar with the cannibis industry.ou well.say i wish host: lynettenclear lake, morning.ia, good caller: good morning. my -- i think the biggest our em that we have with prescription drugs is that the senators and our congressmen are selling their votes to big pharma. have to vote for that. they don't represent us, they money and go big pharma's way. got e on $12,000 a year, i a bill from my medicare drug plan, they want $57 from me. is taking food out of my mouth. mitchell. guest: that comment, thank you atticat, is really emblem of what we hear from many. patients tell us all the time, i buying choose between food, i choose between paying i need. buying drugs patients cut pill necessary half, skip doses. are type 1 diabetes, have to have insulin to manage heir disease, who try not to use it until their blood sugar spikes, which is really tcan rous for a diabetic put them into insulin shock, because they can't afford the drugs they need. we had a patient who told us two has cancer andhe can'tltiple sclerosis, he afford

mr. mitchell. guest: that comment, thank you of that, it is emblematic what we hear from so many. patients tell us all the time they have to choose between buying food, between paying rent, and bind drugs i need. inients cut their pills half, skip doses, people who are type one diabetics who have to have insulin to manage their disease, who try not to use it until their blood sugar spikes, which is dangerous for a diabetic. it can put them into insulin shock to they can't afford the drugs they need. a patient told us two weeks ago multipleas cancer and sclerosis. he can't afford both drugs, so he let his multiple sclerosis progress because he has to treat his cancer or he will die. this is happening all over america right now. right, thelutely pharmaceutical industry is one of -- if not the most powerful industry in this country. they have spent billions of dollars over the past 40 years building up a regulatory framework, a government regulatory framework that enables them to charge monopoly prices. we all pay for it. host: how do you feel about alex cesar? think he is very exper

mr. mitchell, good luck to you with your illness. i wish you the best. easy question. last i was diagnosed with psoriasis which i didn't even know is an autoimmune issue so i'm on a drug which is a self injecting drug and i'm paying virtually nothing for it because my husband's healthcare is paying for it and they also pick up the drug company picks up part of the premium that i would normally pay. the program is only good for two years. my question for you what's going to happen when the two years is up? right now i take two of those a month and each pen is $7500. period two is $15000 which is half of my annual income. what do they do? how does that work request. >> is a further reflection of the fact that the drug companies control the prices. they set the price really high and they give you a discount for your copayment part of it, but everybody else, all of us, you, me are still paying for the premium through our employer or our taxes. by doing this they keep you in their control that's why we are taking steps to lower the retail's price so you do not have to rely

mr. mitchell: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. sessions. i think everyone can agree here that continuing resolutions, c.r.'s, are bad policy. for the smokes in the -- folks in the gallery, it's simple. c.r. is whether we keep the lights on or not. whether you can figure out your taxes and call the i.r.s. it's whether or not we function. it's going to be our fifth c.r. shame on all of us. and i do mean all of us. however, people on the other side of the aisle talk about all their legislative ageneral cathay want put in a package and pass or they're going to vote against keeping the lights on. think about that. if we don't get daca, we're shutting the lights off. if we don't get this, we're shutting the lights off. that's what happened in the senate the last shutdown. if we don't get full year funding for the military, we're shutting the lights off. funding if chirp or we're shutting the lights off. didn't work out very well, did it? our fundamental responsibility is to keep the lights on. there's nothing in this bill that's objectionable. th

mr. mitchell: at 3:40 i'm surprised that some of our colleagues wish to talk about history, but so be it. we passed all 12 appropriation bills in september. to no avail. they sit in the senate requiring 60 votes. we talked about math with my colleagues and republicans have 51 votes in the senate. democracy requires people to work together. the senate decided not to do continuingended with resolutions and we have to fund the government in pieces. seemed like there was an a rangement. but our stress, some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the other chamber cided to throw the kitchen sink at it. daca, which we are hearing tonight and came up with pensions. one thing after the other using funding our military and keeping the lights on for their political adependa. we have a basic function on, keep the lights on. which means we have to fund our military which some have felt isn't a priority of theirs. we now have a bipartisan depreement that the senate has sent over, but it's far from perfect. i don't think we will ever see perfect. in 35 years in business, but you take prog

of the parent government of oxfam gb, oxfam contacted the department but did not say enough and mr mitchell'scalled on of state and gave her a copy of the full investigation report and a full picture of what had happened and what oxfam did afterwards. we have assured the charity commission who are our primary regulator, no matter where the money comes from, that we will not use words like sexual misconduct, which is what we used in a report to them, we will spell things out and they can make a more informed decisions as to whether they want to follow that through. we see they want to follow that through. we see the charity commission as our prime source of formal accountability because the money may or may not come from dfid but where i add my apology is that dfid is trying to be a global leader in a development and in tackling violence against women than anything we do that undermines that effort of the british government is compromising. that is why are not delving too far back before your time, all we have is what andrew mitchell said and you concede that was the case, your predecessor was

mr. chairman. >> thank you, mayor mitchell. our final speaker on this topic is the mayor of santa fe, new mexico, one of the original sustainable cities, beautiful city, i had the fortune of being there for a conference earlier this year. mayor javier gonzalez is chair of the alliance for sustainable future. the alliance is a partnership between the conference of mayors and the center for climate energy solutions that was first established to advance the clean power rule developed under the last administration. mayor. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for your leadership. good morning, everybody. on behalf of myself and our vice chair, salt lake city mayor jackie biskupski, i want to brief you on what our group, the alliance for a sustainable future has been doing and encourage you to participate with our efforts. the alliance for sustainable future is a joint effort between the u.s. conference of mayors and the center for climate energy solutions. i'm pleased that we're joined by the president of c2es former deputy adm

mr. mitchell: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. sessions. i think everyone can agree here that continuing resolutions, c.r.'s, are bad policy. for the smokes in the -- folks in the gallery, it's simple. c.r. is whether we keep the lights on or not. whether you can figure out your taxes and call the i.r.s. it's whether or not we function. it's going to be our fifth c.r. shame on all of us. and i do mean all of us. however, people on the other side of the aisle talk about all their legislative ageneral cathay want put in a package and pass or they're going to vote against keeping the lights on. think about that. if we don't get daca, we're shutting the lights off. if we don't get this, we're shutting the lights off. that's what happened in the senate the last shutdown. if we don't get full year funding for the military, we're shutting the lights off. funding if chirp or we're shutting the lights off. didn't work out very well, did it? our fundamental responsibility is to keep the lights on. there's nothing in this bill that's objectionable. th

mrs. clinton talked about it with george mitchell, robert byrd said absolutely not, were not going to use reconciliation, that's not what this is supposed to be. we want to have full consideration of something this important. and yet, in the bush tax cuts, 2001 and now again reconciliation has been misused in order to accomplish something with partisan ends with 50 votes. look, i believe and i recommend my point out that the senate rules haven't been looked at since 1979. they need to be re-examined by former senators or representatives and bipartisan commission. this is a serious question you could ask whether the senate should have super majority for anything as opposed to just majorities, but it has to be agreed on. when democrats are in power you need 60 votes but when republicans are in power you can do things with 50 votes. that doesn't work or shouldn't work. the tragedy is, that it has worked for the republicans and most particularly and most recently for senator macconnell. now, i want to talk precisely about that for a couple minutes. i know we are getting closer to the time whe

mrs. clinton talked about that with george mitchell at the time. robert ernst said absolutely not. we are not going to use the reconciliation. that is not what this is supposed to be. we want to have full consideration of something this important and yet in the bush tax cuts in 2001 and now again reconciliation has been misused in order to accomplish something with 50 votes. >> host: i believe that i recommend and i point out that senate rules haven't looked at since 1979. they need to be re-examined perhaps by former senators with public representatives as well and the bipartisan policy commission. it's a serious question you could ask whether the senate should have supermajorities for anything as opposed to just majorities but it has to be agreed on. you can't claim that democrats are in party but when republicans are in power you need 50 votes. that doesn't work or it shouldn't work and the tragedy is that has worked for the republicans and most particularly and most recently for senator mcconnell. >> host: i want to talk precisely about that for a couple of moments and we are g

mrs. clinton talked about that with george mitchell at the time. robert byrd said absolutely not. we are not going to use reconciliation. not with this is supposed to be. >> i remember that well. we want to have something for consideration. >> then you had tax cuts in 2001 and now again, reconciliation has been misused. in order to accomplish something with a partisan edge with 50 votes. look, i believe and i recommend and i pointed out, that senate rules have not been looked at since 1979. they need to be re-examined. perhaps by senators with public representatives as well, bipartisan policy commission, that you are on can weigh in. this is a serious question that you can ask whether the senate should have super majorities for anything.as opposed to just majorities. but it has to be agreed on. you cannot play that you know when democrats are in power you need 60 votes and when republicans are in power you can do things with 50 votes. that does not work. or it should not work. and the tragedy is that it has worked for the republicans and most particularly and most recently, for se

next on american history tv, ohio state university professor mitchell lerner talks about the 1968 north korean capture of the uss pueblo. mr. lerner is the author of a book on american foreign-policy. we recorded this interview at the american historians annual meeting at washington, d.c.. it is about 15 minutes. >> mitch lerner is a historian who was in demand these days. he directs the institute for korean studies there, something that is on a lot of people's minds. and he has written a book about a particular incident in u.s.-north korea history, the pueblo incident, which is marking its 50th anniversary. so let me start by asking you to just give the story of the pueblo. mr. lerner: it is an amazing to story. it is also amazing to the extent which it has been forgotten by the american people. the uss pablo was an old world war ii cargo carrier that had been retired. it was old and dilapidated. in the 1960's decided to pull it out of retirement, send it out for something they called operation click beetle. the fight the fact that had almost no weapons, mechanically a disaster, communication systems are a disaster. the n

safe politically well to discuss that i'm now joined by mitchell good call for russian opposition politician and a former member of parliament mr it's good to talk to thank you very much for your time now you're not running in the russian presidential elections but i think you may have contributed more to voters in gauging and then some of the candidates every way appreciate the program that you created of enlisting citizens or voters as monitors which i think really helps to energize the base but why do you think projects like this capacity building projects democratic projects like this are so rare in russia. that there is a new threat or is it to produce a bit in the. and if we don't thing that it's a real elections because you know one of the. critics at least in the army just was bound to produce a play in this election's there is a serious police in the position so. i said i want to launch an electoral campaign to break all those elections i soon that we need to support those cordons critics who will be in the belak list so or and try to unite the people from different strategies into the project we would like to organize

mr van hauwermeiren from 0xfam. full details are in the times tomorrow. welljoining me now from nottingham is the mp andrew mitchelllopment secretary at the time of the problems 0xfam had in haiti. and with me in the studio is anthony stewart, chair of the haiti support group, which works to improve the life of people in haiti. i'll start with anthony, there is a lot to unpack from what dame barbara said, first of all that she was aware of cases of sexual exploitation by 0xfam staff, even before the 2011 allegations. was the way 0xfam behaved in 2011 with what they discovered the right one? when it comes to my reaction for the interview and the statements in 2011 and today, they are very keen on talking about something that happened in the past and they didn't particularly want to talk about again today. and they want to keep that in the past but in haiti there is a saying, the giver of the blow forgets but the bearer of the scars never does. i feel that to respond to these allegations by removing the people in question tends to highlight it as an isolated incident but it is not. we do not know for certain that the

presence of former secretary of state hillary clinton and george mitchell that when we also accepted president putin's in litigation to meet with mr netanyahu in moscow but he has regrettably is a that point to the baiting and such a meeting we also engaged with all seriousness with former secretary of state john kerry but the israeli government in transitions was the valuer of all of those efforts after all of this how can it be said that it is we who reject negotiations that we have never refused any information to participate. please do not say that we. rejected negotiations we believe that negotiations are the only part of the words the people so how can we reject i go shirish and please believe me this is not confronted with this is that you know. we have the neither given up or the know how we have come to the united nations. believing in the purposes and principles of the charter of the united nations and affirms galia other the inadmissibility of the existence of the retore by force and affirms that the rights of the cell of determination large a golden age of fourteen and forty one reaffirmed nobody has held israel accoun

next on american history tv, ohio state university professor mitchell lerner talks about the 1968 north korean capture of the uss pueblo. mr. lerner is the author of a book on american foreign-policy. we recorded

mr. secretary, for being with us today. >>> and law and disorder. president trump's unprecedented war with the justice department. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports." that's next on msnbc. than our name suggests. we're an organic tea company. a premium juice company. a coconut water company. we've got drinks for long days. for birthdays. for turning over new leaves. and we make them for every moment in every corner of the country. we are the coca-cola company, and we're proud to offer so much more. i knew at that exact moment, whatever it takes, wherever i have to go...i'm beating this. my main focus was to find a team of doctors that work together. when a patient comes to ctca, they're meeting a team of physicians that specialize in the management of cancer. breast cancer treatment is continuing to evolve. and i would say that ctca is definitely on the cusp of those changes. patients can be overwhelmed ... we really focus on taking the time with each individual patient so they can choose the treatment appropriate for them. the care that ctca brings is the kind of care i've wanted for my patients. being able to spend time with them, have

mitchell. we also accepted president putin's invitation to meet with mr. netanyahu in moscow but he has regret my evaded participating in such a meeting. we also engage itched with all serious nose with former secretary of state john kerry but the israeli called the failure -- cause the failure of these efforts. how can it be said that we who reject negotiations. we have never refused any invitation to participate in negotiations. please, do not say that we rejected negotiations. we believe that negotiations are the only path towards the peace. so how can be reject negotiations? please believe me, this not true. confronted with this, we have neither given up nor have we lost hope. we have come to the united nations, believing in the purposes and principles of the charter of united nations which affirms the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and affirms the right of people to self-determination, article 40 and 41 we affirmed. nobody has held israel accountable when it occupied our territories in 1948. so the charter affirms the right o