the obama administration failed in that now there has been no inclination with the trump administration and the president called a press conference talking about how to ease permits in public projects. hello? we passed the law but they have not so i know with my colleagues in this committee who got the bill passed will be watching closely to make sure the law is implemented quickly and efficiently. to be an extremely powerful office oira as a rule making process and coordinate's agencies and regulations and responsible for reviewing regulations without an undue burden to reflect those priorities of the president and as we discussed yesterday i of the first to say of the regulatory process to make it work better i am proud of the effort to clean out the silly regulation that caused many problems and i will not argue that it is not anywhere near perfect i know those small business owners feel like regulations keep getting piled on to make a living. community banks follow that same category so that being said i have deep concerns to dismantle regulations in ways to have the underlying poli

host: what would you like to see the previous administration, the obama administration, once it receivedntelligence that putin was directing a cyber campaign to meddle with the election? caller: they should have put the fbi on it. not some private service they , a private company. the private company is going to give them results they want to hear. the fbi should have gotten right on that case. like to congratulate my godson. he is going to be a highway patrolman in new jersey as well. best of luck to him. thank you. host: judy is calling in. to you think the obama administration did enough in the face of russian meddling? caller: say that again. host: do you think the obama administration did enough to respond to russia before the election? caller: no, i do not. they should have gotten on this immediately. they messed up the whole system. they want to blame tromp on this. i don't believe that is true. i think whole thing was a farce. more from the washington post piece as they discuss president obama tossed approach to foreign policy. the approach was deliberate and cautious. he was low

and we appreciateld the administration's engagement. already this year, the committee has held hearings on a range of topics underpinning this legislative effort including safety, drone policy, rural issuing, aircraft certification, consumers concerns, and infrastructure financing. one of the key governance issues we have not yet focused on this yearld but which has been discussed extensively overall the last two years and whether the united states should separatete the air traffic serve provider function from the faa and create a nongovernmental, not for profit corporation to do the job. thet' faa runs remarkably safe operations. but outside auditors have dinged the government's performance on deliveryry safety and efficienc upgrades prompting a debate as to the best path forward. yesterday the president used his pulpits to join those who advocate reform. it is hard to ignore the many independent studies and reviews that documentri the flaws with y current structure. i'mmi looking forward to a robu discussion today on the merits of the

how and we appreciate the administration's engagement. already this year the committee has held hearings on a range of topics underpinning the effort including safety, drone policy, aircraft certification, consumer concerns and infrastructure financing. one of the key issues we have not yet focused on but has been discussed over the last two years and occurs in other parts of the world is whether the united states should separate the air traffic fund from the faa and create a nongovernmental not-for-profit corporation to do the job.t the faa runs a safe operation that outside auditors have teamed up a performance on delivering safety and efficiency upgrades prompting a debate as to the best path forward to realize the benefits. the president used his bully pulpit to join the significant reform and challenged congress, his administration and aviationo stakeholders to take action to improve air traffic control system. it is hard to ignore the studies and reviews to document the flaws of the current structure. i'm looking forward to a robust

the obama administration failed to stand that up, so far there has been no inclination of the trump administration to stand that up. the irony is the president has called a press conference for friday talking about how they're going to ease permitting in public projects. we're like, hello, we passed a law. stand it up. make it happen. so i know along with my colleague who was in this committee, who got that bill passed will be watching closely to make sure that law is implemented quickly and efficiently. ms. rao the office of information and regulatory affairs is an extremely powerful office. that tends to stay out of the public eye. it has a significant and determinative role in the rule making process for most federal agencies. it coordinates agency work and insures that regulations are properly developed. is responsible for reviewing regulations to insure they do not put an undue burden on the public. as we discussed yesterday, i am the first to say i'm supportive of reforms and regulatory process to make it work better for consumer and businesses. i'm proud of the efforts i have made along wit

you are the epa administrator. shouldn't you be able to tell the american people whether or not the president thinks climate change is a hoax? where does he stand? mr. pruitt: as i indicated several times there's enough to , deal with with respect to the paris agreement and making an informed decision about this important issue, that's what the focus has been over the last several weeks, and i have answered the question of couple times. yes, sir. this gentleman right here. >> thank you. isn't it of concern that the united states has broken a promise to 190 countries and the president has not addressed that particular point? second, you have several times raised the lowering of co2 levels, isn't the reason for four -- for that because of the blocking of smokestacks, that now the administration is real outing? -- is allowing? mr. pruitt: we reduced our co2 through innovation and technology not the least of which is hydraulic fracking and drilling. >> isn't it of concern that we broke a promise to 190 countries and how

i am working within the administration to see how we can address the. i am hopeful we will have a partial solution to this very shortly. >> i would be happy to work with you on that as well. i know many members of this committee where the settler service plays a big part in keeping areas in our states connected and continuing to grow and have opportunities for economic growth. i hope you feel free to reach out to me and other members of this committee to try and work through the problems that i see with a request that has come down from this administration. i am pleased to hear that the president has talked about the importance of regulatory reform is a way that we can address infrastructure investment in freight movement across this country. sometimes when we looked at these programs are very prescriptive. i try to look for ways that we can look at performance-based standard so we can involve stakeholders and develop more innovative methods for achieving a regulatory goal that is put out there. do you agree that performance-based standards could facili

the obama administration failed to stand that up. so far there's been so inclination of the trump administration to stand that up. and the irony is the president has called a press conference talking about how their going to ease for projects. and we're saying hello, pass the law. make it happen. i know my colleague in this committee will be watching that bill to make sure it's implemented quickly and efficiently. orirahas a significant and determinative role in the rule making process for most federal agencies. it cardinates agency work and ensures agency regulations properly develop and make sure they do not put an undue burden oon the public and reflects the regulations and policies of the president. as we discussed yesterday, i am the first to say we have reform in regulatory prauz. i'm proud of the efforts that i have made along with my colleagues to clean out some of the silly regulations that have caused so many problems or to stop other regulations from coming to pass. and i will not argue that the process in place today is no

>> this under cscores the confusion with the administration. one hand is not talking to the other, whether it's the debt ceiling or climate or taxes. but they are saying that this is in america's best interests. climate change has a huge economic angle. people say if the temperature continues to rise, that hurts industries, agriculture, manufacturing, incomes will fall. it has a global economic impact. and so that's one of the big reasons everyone in the world has been addressing it. i do think it's really fascinating that donald trump is a jobs first, america first, economy first president but yet he ignored from fortune 500 ceos. it's not a surprise that he pulled out of the paris agreement. it's something he said he would do on his campaign trail. we can't be shocked that he did it. >> we've got to leave it there for a moment, guys. stand by, everyone. more breaking news to talk about at this hour. the white house suggests president trump is deciding whether to use executive privilege to try and block fired fbi director james comey from testi

> texas senator ted cruz spoke at the freedom coalition talk -- congress, and talked about the administration's cabinet picks and tax reforms. take and freedom organizers apologize for excellence by cutting off the senator as he was wrapping up his remarks. this is about 10 minutes. quite thank you very much. what a strong, principled leader ralph is. i think he has in the closet a portrait that is aging every day. [laughter] it is june of 2017. hillary clinton is not resident of the united states. [applause] and neil gorsuch is a supreme court justice! [applause] which demonstrates that elections matter. andemonstrates that the men women here, men and women of faith, pastors, america star star brothers country -- who love freedom, when we were as a band and together we can do remarkable things. this is a strange time in washington. there's a lot of noise, most people letting your hair on fire on cable television every day. [laughter] i have to one simple bit of advice for each of us, for the administration and for majorities in both houses of congress, which is ignore the political circus, and

differ from the strategic patience label that was given to the previous administration? can you clarify what the differences may be? the mecca we are less patient. the development of the threat doesn't give us the option of being patient over any significant period of time. you can read it in the paper as well as anyone and there's daily speculation about the missile threat that's developing. my wife complains every time we have a nice family weekend i start getting calls on my phone. >> welcome to the club. >> the development of the threats that is not one that permits patients anymore. it may have been true at some point and it may not have been wise to be patient in the past. i'll leave that for historians and others. we don't have that luxury. we are trying to do is much as we can to make them feel the impurity as soon as possible. >> have been some sense of election day that advocated for new testing and new roles for u.s. nuclear weapons and possible new types of nuclear weapons development. the united states hasn't tested a nuclear device in 25 years. in this con

as the administrator of the epa, what do you say? mr. pruitt: what's important to know was that the president said unequivocally yesterday that the targets set in paris are not enforceable and they're not going to be complied with. where theclimate united states committed $3 billion in additional funding is not going to continue. that is unequivocally the case and that's when the immediate. there are discussions that are ongoing with the justice department on the steps that we will be taking to execute the withdrawal and exit. that is something that's going to be happening over the next several weeks. as far as the targets are concerned and the green climate cyber is a media that is clear. european leaders have made it very clear that the deal can't be negotiated, so how is the present renegotiated ideal when the parties will come to the table -- will not come to the table? mr. pruitt: whether it's the paris agreement or another -- what america -- the united is the united states and we are leading with respect to co2 reduction and we've

i think i am very much aligned with the administration. a great again and i say make america competitive again. to the things that give me optimism about this administration are your appointment and the appointment of mr. ross. i'm very excited about fair and free trade. i appreciate your work on the steel industry during my four years here i've had a constant stream of legitimate complaints about trade practices from chin china. i have companies who have lost employees because of these unfair trade practices and i very much appreciate your focus on that. i want to talk about something more fundamental. that is what mr. nunez discussed earlier about the fact that 140 other country have adopted order taxes through the value-added tax system. i know this hearing is about trade, but we have heard how so many factors enter into. trade. earlier today, whether it's employment practice or environmental practices, environment and other. what i am curious about is, in negotiating these trade agreements, how can you ensure we achieve fair trade, trad

that is the goal of the administration. as wems of the cbo score, said yesterday, the cbo is a budget office. --le it does very well whether it is revenue or spending i don't think it is a great job and i think the administration has been clear and consistent that we don't always agree. given their history they projected that obamacare, there were bit what the 4 million people that were part of that. that number is dropping every day. i don't have a lot of confidence in that number. i do think some of the places where they do a good job are on the budget and revenue side. the cbo score they pointed out was that it would cut deficit by $300 billion. i think those are good things -- i think when they focus >> the warning to syria, what is your message to the and theional community american people who may be concerned when they read a headline like that? i ms. sanders: think that the message from the statement yesterday was extremely clear. i don't think it was a gray area. 30 black and white. >> you went on the record this mor

i think that i'm very much aligned with the administration that mr. trump says make america great again and i say, make america competitive again. two of the things that give me the most hope, most optimism, are about this administration is your appointment and the appointment of mr. ross. i'm really excited about fair in free trade. i appreciate your focus on the steel industry and i've already had steel in his alkaline is close during my four years. we've had a constant stream of legitimate complaints about abuse of trade practices in china and i've got steel in my district, that glass and conway, we lost employees because of these unfair trade practices and i very much appreciate your focus on that. i want to talk about something more fundamental and that is what mr. nunez approach earlier about the fact that 140 other countries, including every one of our significant training partners, has adopted order adjustment taxes generally through the value-added tax system. i know this hearing is about trade but we've heard how so many factors enter into fa

the administration has certainly been busy on trade. the headlines these past few months have been filled with stories about modernizing nafta, withdrawing from nafta, executive orders and executive memos, section 232 national security reviews on steel and aluminum imports, canada dairy, mexican sugar and u.s.-china and the 100-day plan and the issue of currency manipulation. what we've been missing in this overall vision as well as the specifics behind all of it is activity. one of the administration's trade policy goals and what priorities are you trying to serve and how are you going to do it and i hope this morning you can provide us with some answers. >> on a range of issues there's been a lack of clarity, consistency and consultation. for example, by statute, the administration was required to submit a report on trade policy and its agenda on march 1st. on that date the administration instead submitted a statement and promised to submit a full report after ustr was confirmed and had the full opportunity to participate in developing

, every administration including the previous administration, that any oversight responses be coordinated through the chairman and ranking of each committee. so that's separate from like ordinary kind of correspondence took oversight is a big difference and this has alwaysco been the policy through all administrations. >> i'm very skeptical. i had to say with all due respect, about the plan that has been advanced that would providd for so-called reform in a system that is seen no for talent on a commercial plane since 2009. i am puzzled that the administration wants to breakk apart the faa and put the critical safety oversight role, air traffic control, into the hands of an unknown untested entity that in effect will be controlled by the airlines, particularly since nearly 40,000 people are expected to die on our roads every year, and the administration has yet to propose a specific set of measures to build new roads, rails, bridges and other infrastructure i in decamping president trump promised to replace our quote obsolete end quote rails and tunnels with the quote gleaning end quote i

and that is to be clear another loss for the trump administration. look at these countries on the screen, these are countries the trump administration said through two consecutive executive orders they wanted to block travel for now. they described it as national security imperative, said the courts okay, even if there needs to be decision on this later, please let us do the travel ban now. so decision by the court to hear the case and leave the stay, the block in place is bad news. in the interim, the ban is not in place. bad news for the trump white house. doesn't tell us how they'll ultimately rule. >> i know you're not a white house reporter, you're a legal correspondent. walk me through a little of what you think we might expect to see from trump. we are checking in, asking how will we see some response, will we see some response from the president or white house when this news comes out. i expect that something is being formulated now would be my guess. we know we're going to hear from sean spicer not on camera, but i imagine this is one of the

jeffrey, that is a partial win for the trump administration. >> it is certainly a partial win for thetration. it is also a partial win for the state attorney's general and the groups challenging the travel ban. they can say the people who have relationships with people in the united states, family -- >> the question further complicates things, to what extent, to what degrees? >> relationship protects your sexual one. how that works out in the real world. >> the president's own words, michael, we'll get to you in a moment. the president's words in the ninth and fourth circuit when the team was arguing this, says surrogates of his like rudy giuliani talking in that way. that has to be a concern for the administration as this case is heard in the high court. >> it is. i think this is something the president may be in good shape on. how much courts used campaign language in deciding the merits of this case. i have always thought that the trump administration has a better chance of winning in the supreme court than it did in the lower courts. the supreme court has been traditionally very r

is, and what's the mood on capitol hill as the administration fights back? well, as for sessions, he did seem to be trying to give testimony that, if the president were watching, as perhaps is like lilikely that he was, thate president would like to hear. he was quite combative, defensive of himself, of the administration. he would not reveal anything about conversations that he'd had with president trump, which did not go over well with senators of either party really. particularly because he didn't seem to have much of a rational for why he was not able to disclose those conversations. he said that trump had not claimed executive privilege but perhaps at some later date, he would. which -- okay. as for the broader situation on capitol hill regarding the special counsel, paul ryan, mitch mcconnell are backing mueller. they were both asked in this past week, and firmly behind mueller. so were it to come to pass that the president would listen to these other people, roger stone or someone else, and go down that road, one can only imagine what would happen on

the administration, the obama administration did make some knows about it, but it was sort of a comedyrors in the way it was done. it came out on the same day as that famous access hollywood tape about candidate trump another high newsworthy things. he got pulled under the waves of other news a few weeks before. >> shepard: the folks trump administration, they say it was trump and his team that said the election were wrecked, and they were concerned -- whatever they do might add to that working fear? >> their concern was, they would be bolstering claims that there was something wrong with the electoral system. something that the obama/clinton had somehow rigged it. that is one of the arguments you here put forward by obama folks. that said, even if they did make a bigger deal about it at the time, i'm not sure for example imposing the sanctions they did later in the year, doing those in october, would have caused a huge stir from the media the way it has the last few months. >> shepard: what is your supporting suggest that the white house is doing now? we are told by everybody involved

that the obama administration did not do enough. have been very angry as well. not this family. he's been a journalist missing in syria. what can be done to bring these people home? >> well, i think president obama tried in the case of austin tice enormously, appointed an envoy, jim o'brien, to work on hostage families. we are here at aspen. david bradley is a big supporter of the aspen ideas festival. he's done a lot as a private citizen to try to bring americans home. there is nothing any of us can do for any family that has to suffer through waiting for their loved one to come home. it is just, the meetings that i had with any of these families when i was undersecretary were the most difficult things i had to do because there is no -- there's nothing you can do to comfort them except to bring their loved ones home. so i would hope that president trump would appoint someone to pick up the work that jim o'brien ended when he had to leave at the end of the obama administration, and i quite agree with austin tice's family. we have to

>> wolf, we know that during the early days of the administration and really the early months of the administration this was a key discussion going on behind the scenes inside the white house. but top officials have been sort of all over the place on this issue. keep in mind just last week during the president's foreign trip gary cohen, the president's top economic adviser he was asked what is the position on sanctions and he said the president didn't have one. he had to clarify and said no, we do believe in keeping the sanctions in place until russia changes its behavior in ukraine. that is essentially the position that's been taken by the secretary of state rex tillerson. we do know by trying to confirm a "washington post" report mentions this as well there is a discussion about the russian comp pounds that were expelled from during the last days of the omar administration. that was in retaliation that the obama administration took for russia's actions in the u.s. election. so the question becomes well, is this something that the u.s. is preparing to do? i talked to a senior adminis

presumably the trump administration had on who those russians are or were. again, there is a ton on this story in the "washington post." i'm anxious to talk to nagashima about that in a moment. there is an overarching framework to what the "washington post" has reported today. basically the big question around which they frame all this new reporting, and it's a question i think we all have to admit will loom large in our history about this time in our country, which is how did russia get away with this? not just what did russia try to do, but how did they get away with it? especially now that we know various parts of the u.s. government were able to conclude confidently not only that the attack was under way while it was under way, but they knew who was doing it. how did they get away with it? how have they continued to get away with it? i should tell you that nbc news has an exclusive story out just tonight about the trump administration and how they have done nothing, how they have taken little, meaningful action since trump has been in office to shore up u

the administration putting that out today. there is a significant in washington tonight about the prospect of former fbi director james comey telling his side of the story to a congressional panel one week from today. at issue, will comey say president trump try to get him to drop his investigation of former national security advisor michael flynn. that's one of the questions. catherine herridge has the story. >> the senate intelligence committee leadership confirmed that fired fbi director james comey will testify thursday next week, first in a public session followed by a closed session later. fox news confirms that comey spoke at with robert mueller about the scope of the appearance so that comey does interfere or jeopardize the probe. >> i suspect he's not going to have carte blanche widely over aspects of h. >> the wild card is whether the trump administration would take the step of invoking executive privilege to shield the president's conversations with comey. they say the administration may be an weak position because m

three days before the end of the previous administration. however, there is a process by which that goes to the congress for 30 days. disputes and rebuttals and challenges can occur but it theyy didn't happen and inserted hundred $70 million into this and it did make the cut for full funding agreement. and to the department did sign it. so for those involved in the project, we do have the funding for 2017 but future years, they need to be thinking ahead. themd a plan on holding accountable for spending the federal dollars to make sure they are accounted for and properly spent? pace ale authority has lot of scrutiny. until there is an audit with background. i go with my second question. approval, all members send a letter to you citing the project cost increase, reductions in the scope and failure to secure private funding. was to stop funding until an audit was completed. you think it was too difficult of a request? i am aware of that letter. we try to work with both sides of the aisle. but when the omnibus bill came through with the consent

do in the end, they settled on sanctions and a covert cyberattack which the next administration, the trump administration would be responsible for carrying out. but president trump, he says it was all too little too late. >> well, i just heard today for the first time that obama knew about russia a long time before the election, and he did nothing about it. but nobody wants to talk about that. that the cia gave him information on russia a long time before they even, you know, before the election. and i hardly see it. it's an amazing thing. >> not only is he going after his predecessor, but he's also attacking the media as well here. kelly? >> kristen with these new revelations, how are former obama administration officials responding? >> well, some are saying it is simply not fair to look at their actions in 2016 and judge them based on what we now know in 2017. but others, like president obama's former deputy national security advisor ben rose, are placing the blame back on president trump. he posted on twitter quote what did president trump say when the obama administration issued

but this is a major, major victory for the trump administration. returning to another big opinion that just came down from the court, trinity lutheran church versus the missouri department of natural resources. this is a case that centers around religious freedom. i a church school in columbia, missouri. applied from the department of natural resources for researching of the playground, a pebbled playground, gravel prey grown, and the missouri resources had grant money to resurface it in a rubberized format. are they denied the application because of the trinity lutheran church, in their opinion, a religious affiliated school. in its opinion, the high court said today that the exclusion, and i am reading here, the exclusion from trinity lutheran of a public benefit to which it is otherwise qualified is odious to the constitution all the same. and it cannot stand. so yet another victory for conservatives in the high court today. a much more interpretation will go up as it evolves. one lingering issue, the fate of fate of chief justice kennedy. there'

we that matters the current administration? and it's in the president's -- it's the president's prerogatives to lift sanctions. but now, and subsequently, the trump administration has said that it will keep sanctions in place until the russians are, well, out of eastern ukraine, more or less. but when i said we want to lift sanctions, the we in that case is, was the outgoing obama administration, but also our european allies, the canadians also, the japanese, the australians. in other words, a coalition of the world's leading democracies all impose sanctions together in response to russia's aggression against ukraine, and we all agreed that we would put on the sanctions together and we would take off the sanctions together at the right time. now, it's the right of the incoming administration to change this policy, but they -- i would hope they would do so after thinking it through and doing it in a rush and without good reason related to an american interest i can identify struck me as a bad idea. >> we should note you're a car

it has been proposed decades ago by the clinton administration. what we're trying to do is to bring the faa, bring the air traffic control system to be able to have the latest technology with which to manage the air space. so for noise, for example, noise would still remain at the faa. so what we are doing is actually addressing one of the major issues, which has been long-standing, a conflict of interest of the air traffic control system regulating its own safety. we are separating that out. there will be a safety component, which stays with faa, the air traffic component will be independent and separate. and on noise that still stays with faa. so citizens will -- the new air traffic control system has to respond to the same regulations, noise regulations and if people are unsatisfied, they would have the same recourse. they could go to their congressmen and senators as well. >> i try to keep myself on time as well. but we will continue this conversation. mr. price? >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, i want to first ask for your assuranc

what we saw with the obama administration was an unwillingness to act -- >> i get the criticism of the obama administration. [ overlapping speakers ] the question is, what is he doing? >> i think he's going to take into account all the advice of what we're seeing here. we see, of course, the washington post in this story that you're quoting says despite the dire warnings, there was no meltdowns of the united states voting structure. he was just meeting with signer security people just this week. he sat there with all of the leading lights of the signer world and internet. >> that's more about updating i.t. systems in the federal government, which is a valid thing. [ overlapping speakers ] >> my point is the underlying attitu attitude. if your underlying attitude about the russians was appeasement, let's get along, hillary clinton and the reset button, you are just opening the door for this kind of thing. donald trump has sent missiles flying into syria, objected to by the russians. he has no fear of acting when he feels he needs to act. >> maggie, whatever the obama administration did

that the obama administration said were used for russian intel. obama kicking the russians out in late december. that was part of the formal punishment for the meddling in the u.s. election. that "washington post" report cited several people with knowledge of the exchanges. that is a loose reporting term. it means people close to the activity who know about it and don't want to speak under their own names. that is how of course a lot of russia reporting has been trickling out. reporters with solid sources vouch for those sources. they verify the information that's coming out. and we all learn a little bit more as we go. at least for those of who aren't moving on. but tonight we have a report that is different. long time investigative reporter michael michael just published how after the campaign and after the transition the new trump administration was rushing to try to ease sanctions on russia right when it walked in the door. by some accounts tonight, this is the most comprehensive detailing of how the trump administration in government approache

it came out criticizing -- 's feeling are talking about the mit authors? >> administrator pruitt: it's fishy to me that mit updated their study or their results after we started siding it. no one it is questioning the methodology. >> chris: you cited their study before paris. >> administrator pruitt: what's interesting is before paris, before paris, this country reduce their co2 footprint over 18%. what does that demonstrate? it demonstrates that american innovation, american technology is leading the way with respect to reducing the co2 footprint, not government mandate. if china and india want to reduce their co2 footprint. india, by the way, any agreement, conditioned any steps that they would take on receiving $2.5 trillion of aid. china agreed to make no steps until the year 2,030. >> chris: let me pick up on that because you've taken me exactly where i want to go. working together. [laughs] the president had one more big complaint about paris and he said he treats the u.s. unfairl unfairly. >> president trump: china will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coa

state of the administrative state.do mr. chairman, there is little doubt, at this point, that formulating and implementing regulatory policies is simply unacceptable.naccepta for years, citizens and businesses have complained about administrative process that is opaque and on responsible. for years this process is thensu produced results that harm economic growth while rarely involving public health and welfare. accordingly, over the span of several past administrations the consensus has formed that an important step ira streamlining and improving the admission process with an ira administrator. neomi rao is supremely and uniquely qualified to step into this role and under her watch we can expense our ira to carefully scrutinize rules. but of course as she gets to work we can take our eye off the ball here ira congress. we will need more than just exceptional candidates like professor neomi rao. the legislative branch must do its part and this is why i'm pleased to cosponsor the regulatory accountability act along the senator

the trump administration is far behind. as of last wednesday, the -- [indiscernible ] -- the president has nominated 10 of 28 of the critical post, only one of which, you you, has been confirmed. the treasury department has no deputy secretary, no wonder secretary, no assistant secretary. economic secretary for policy, financial stability, financial institution, have not been nominated. administration having difficulty recruiting qualified individuals that want to serve? what impact does these vacancies have on the work of the department? you mentioned fair and free trade. i noted with great disappointment the presidential indication he intends to turn back the clock with regard to our relationship with cuba. how can we seriously want to , free and fair trade, when we have got a neighbor 90 miles away that is receiving and is engaged in very china, commerce with canada, mexico but yet we want to turn our backs and particularly my state of georgia, we export over $70 billion in agriculture and of are other items besides agric

the administration's proposal to extent pilt is not good sign. i would thoet it should be mandatory and not subject to an across the board cut not unless the government is willing to divest some of its lands and allow others the to recoup alternative alternatives. it's better than what we have seen in recent years. it doesn't rely on budget gimmicks. it asks us the look for years where we can cut spending. it asks us to take care of the federal lands that the government already owns rather than continuing to buy more. and it will help western states to increase the production of our natural resources. secretary i thank you for being here, i thank you for the steps that you are taking to help restore alaska's trust in the department. with that, senator cantwell i turn to you for your opening remarks. >> thank you madam chair. this morning we are reviewing the president's proposed budge for theent did of the interior. overall, the bumming is proposing to cut underiffing by $1.8 billion, a 1% decrease from current fiscal year funding. this budget wou

the administration is called to account by this committee. that is the american system, the power thief purse. the notion that would besiegemented -- >> not only my mind, sir. >> looks like it's in the -- >> we have received. >> yes, that's right, and i -- >> it's become. >> you have made it much more explicit than other secretaries have and we certainly will need to explore this further. >> thank you, mr. price. member culberson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary chao, appreciate your service to the country and i can confirm that is indeed been the policy under president obama when he was first elected and the four years when the democrats were in the majority here, the administration followed that exact same policy you just read. so you're exactly right. of course we all work together. we all work together very well and any oversight or concern that they majority have i know our chairman would work with him to make sure the appropriate oversight is conducted. want to focus on a superb speech that president trump gave at the department of

regarding the trump administration, the trump administration will deal with russia but they will deal with it in a private manner and they will not broadcast what they're doing. it's exactly what obama tried to do as he was walking out the door by putting these cyber bombs into the infrastructure for russia. don't broadcast it, don't tell them what they're doing, keep it secret. >> martha: from your side of the political aisle, is there concern that we have fueled this flame in terms of this investigation into russia. now it's turning around and focusing on us and what we did. in the obama in administration. >> i think there are issues that are related, with all due respect to the congressman, two of those three things he just said aren't true. the intelligence community had not definitively said there is no collusion, that's exactly what is being investigated by the intelligence committees and by the special counsel. they also have never said anything about the russian interference changing people's minds. they have said very clearly they didn't say both tabulations. look, we can deb

the administration will not bring the proposal here? >> chairman brady is going to look at changes. >> as you know, the republican colleagues here, like you, are very over optimistic in my opinion but optimistic about the benefits this tax reform will bring to economic growth. they have included, within their projections, significant benefits from economic growth, dynamic scoring which you pay for. they concluded that was not enough. $1.1 trillion of paying for comes from the border adjustment tax. what specific changes in tax policies do you advocate, can you identify any specifics as distinguished from generalized comment to make up for that $1.1 trillion gap if the border adjustment goes? >> let me comment, we have a terrific career staff at treasury. we have a lot of resources. we have over 100 people working on this. i have senior advisers full-time focused and there's lots of scenarios we are running. >> as they look at that, have them look at the $2 trillion hole in your budget that comes from double county. you have counted the

in under the bush administration, it grew under the obama administration. ould have collapsed there he economy had we chosen to do that. the president chose an extremely deep and irreversible concessions. permanent and irreversible concessions on the part of the united states for temporary and reversible concessions on the iranians.e it did not stop them from getting a bomb. it put their program on a glide path to a bomb and it started a nuclear race in the region because the other actors in the region, including the israelis, are not going to wait 10 years to find out about this. at the heart of this deal with this philosophy that the mccartin articular came out of it. particular elite in came out of it. if you swept it to the side, it would go away. that we could turn the iranians into, if not allies, partners in the region. but make domestic part of this deal was the deal of the region. weident obama believed if got the nuclear deal out of the way temporarily, he could come up with an accommodation with a rent bang over the region. over a rack, syria and

that is a decision that's already been made by the administration. so i don't anticipate a change in that, but i'mhappy to at least let you know the information that they have on it. >> the administration already made a decision to zero outfunding for unicef. that's the starting point as you said, it's not necessarily an ending point. we can continue to put some of thispush back -- >> and i think that that was just a directive that we got, youknow, that that was going to happen. we haven't had that on unicef and some other things, but what i will tell you is very important is that global health of women and children as we go forward, and so we have made sure that that same money is going to global health programs to do the same things withinthe u.s. aid but i'm happy to give you any information as to what the administration's stance on that. >> miss ambassador, it's great to see you here, it's refreshing to see you hitting there compared to where we saw last time. but ilove your attitude because you're not serving political party, you're not serving s

security council it's been a consistent policy from the past administration also i think with the current administration to do necessary reforms and modernize the u.n. security council. can we get -- obviously the politics at the u.n. aren't going to be easy, but in the statement released earlier this week the president reaffirmed his commitment to add india as a permanent member of the u.n. security council along with what i should argue we should include all of the g 4 nations. is that something that we can get your commitment to continue to work on? >> well, i have told all members of the u.n. that we are in support of security council reform as long as they don't take our veto away. that's been very important. so, yes, i know that there's multiple different plans out there and things that are going on. we're going to continue to engage and continue to talk about that. >> great. thank you. in your earlier comments you noted that the budget was making a point as opposed to being reali reality. my colleague, mr. connelly talked about what unicef does and you yourself in answering one of

today the trump administration put those questions to rest. white house said the president will not block him from testifying. sarah huckabee sanders said even though the right the well established, the administration wants a swift examination of the facts. so that means mr. comey ask free to speak his mind. you can pretty much already smell the popcorn cooking in microwaves across the country. there's something else happening this week worth staking pin in. it's not about russia, but you can bet democrats on that panel will ask him about it anyway. they could grill him on his role in comey's firing. recall that he wrote that memo that was used to justify it and what he knows about trump's interference. rod rosenstein spoke on the record late friday night sending an early warning through press that he and the attorney general sessions might get tied up in the investigation that's now charging full steam ahead. he said the special council reports to him he would recuse himself if he becomes part of the investigation. which is strange. why would

i've covered the bush administration, the obama administration and the trump administration. never have we seen a press secretary who responds like this. but it is because of the principal, because of the president, because he is quite flexible and fluid on his views. so the white house press secretary and others speaking for him have intentional hi taken the line of, i've not asked him about that, because they know he's changed his view. on the issue of russian interference in the election, this happened seven months ago, election day was. everyone in this town has stipulated to it, republicans, democrats, every member of every intelligence community, but sean spicer did not feel confident enough to say the president believes that, because he's one of the few people left in this town who will not say that. but logical, i'm not sure. legal, perhaps that's the reason he didn't say that today. >> what did sean spicer have to say what the president thinks of the health care bill? >> reporter: he said the president is in favor of some type of health care reform. he wants the senat