[inaudible discussion] >> good morning. let's see how much we can get done in 20 minutes. i will'll try to be brief. here we are. such a sad time for news california with the wildfires. mother nature is raging with the wildfires and hurricanes and the rest. so much uncertainty in the lives of so many american people, and we want to make sure that we meet their needs. but it really is still raging.

and n northern california and southern somewhat as well. here we are going home today, a day early, as if we have time to -- we have no jobs bill in infrastructure bill no common sense action on gun violence prevention, no vote on a bipartisan dream act no chip chip reauthorization and instead the president is sabotaging health care and have no information in the congress. to -- as you know there's there's the ryan-mcconnell tax cut framework. it's not tax reform. it raises taxes on the middle class and reduces taxes on the wealthy u.s. one percent and explodes the deficit. this is what is so sad is because when i say no dream act, -- excuse me -- no state children health insurance

program. they're inthis children's health insurance program be paid for out of accounts that serve children, like inknock racing and the rest and want to give tens of billions of dollars of tax cuts to the he end, unpaid for. we'll be talking more about their tax cuts to the wealthy later. the senate is at 1:15? 1:15 today. about the opportunity cost for the american people. increases the deficit, tax cuts at the high end and has terrible impact on the budget. more on that later. again, in terms of the dream act, we are still optimistic there are enough republicans who care about the dreamers to join in a bipartisan way, to pass that legislation and to do so soon. puerto rico and u.s. virgin islands, how sad. a real challenge to the

conscience of the nation. these are american people, american citizens, who have fought and died in our wars, are so much a part of who we are as a nation, and the president is dismisses them in such a way. i wanted to address one issue that we have been working on with our members-especially our committees of jurisdiction and that is the issue of nuclear first use. i put this in the category of urgent. we take an oath to protect and defend, and the law under witch which the president of the united states is -- has authority to exercise first use is one that is ancient, it's from 1946. it was in a different world. now i think it is necessary for us to address it. there are all kinds of proposals out there. one saying -- declaring the united states of america will

not engage in first use of nuclear weapons. i like that one best. others which talk about if the president were to use nuclear power, it would be with the advice of some people in his cabinet. who would they be. that's part of the discussion. and so more to come on that. we go forward with anything like that it has to be in a bipartisan way. it's about all presidents. no matter who or she may be down the road. that is, again, part of the -- take this to the iran agreement. again, part of the stop the world, i want to get off, agenda of the president. walk away from the paris agreement, and not engage in diplomacy in terms of north korea, walk away from the iran

agreement, which sear seriously endangers the world and not only that, jeopardizes our credibility, our standing on how we deal with north korea. yesterday we had very interesting session with our members, with four ambassadors, the bam booster of u.n., am bars for at the uc. ambassador of france and ambassador of germany. they presented to our members -- bottom line basically said if the u.s. walks away from this we're not. we are there in this agreement with iran, unless iran violates the agreement. there is no evidence that they have. the same meeting we also heard from the secretary of state, former, john kerry, former secretary of energy, moniz, former secretary -- i say that because he was on the phone -- secretary of the treasury, jack lew, and former deputy

undersecretary of state, who was magnificent in terms of negotiations and al the rest. in any case, they all spoke to the fact that this was made the world safer. it was an agreement that is -- that iran is not in violation of, that it has transparency and we would know and could tell if they were and it as even mentioned that former prime minister and former defense minister of israel said we should not walk away from this agreement. this is going to be -- we don't know because the republicans have not shared any information with us, what form any legislation would be -- that they would send over to us but there are several different options, and we'll see. when the president makes his announcement and see when the republicans decide to what to do about it.

even those who voted -- who were opposed to it before, understand that walking away has serious consequences. anyway, here we are again no, bill -- no jobs, no infrastructure no gun violence prevention, no dream act, no nothing. the speaker said he will keep us to christmas to dethe tax cuts for the rich. why don't we just stay tomorrow and get moving on this so we can have a bipartisan discussion on how we can simply --some my identify -- have real tax reform that creates good paying jobs, reduces the def skit and gross our economy instead of making threats before the christmas holiday. so, here we. any question? >> good morning. >> your so faithful. >> okay. what-if there is noncertification of the iran deal and obviously its up to the

republicans how to approach this. obviously you support the iran deal. that is the best onces, preserving some of it or just get rid of the 90-day -- >> none of the above. >> if they put legislation out there, if you have a say, what would you say put in that new piece of legislation. >> i don't think our negotiations should be a renegotiation of the iran agreement. i remind you, the five permanent members of the security council, plus one, germany, plus all of the members of the eu, engaged in this negotiation with iran, so it's not up to the congress of the united states to say, well, we're going to improve this or that. it is a package. they are not in violation of it. they have stopped going in the direction of producing nuclear

weapon and they can't do that for ten, 15, 20 years in different stages. without the agreement it would be they were months away from developing a nuclear weapon. so we have to take yes for an answer. so it's not up to the congress to have its own side negotiation on this. what we do support and have supported are the sanctions on the ballistic missile activity on the part of the iranians and the activities they're engaged in that are supporting terrorists in the rest and we join with our allies in being strong on those sanctions but they are separate from nuclear activity. so we just have to face the reality, again, be part of the world, and the world is saying, if we want to stop proliferation we have to honor the agreement or who else would make an

agreement with us. walkinged away from paris, walking away from iran maybe. in addition to that, my concern is that -- about proliferation -- about developing a nuclear weapon by any country, including probably starting with north korea, is not just that they would have it but they could sell it and -- how long do you think it would take if iran had a nuclear weapon, for other country in the region to decide they had to have that, too, and by the way, there are places that would be willing to sell them some of the technology, scientific know-how, the launch capacity to make the world a more dangerous place. we don't no. there are several options that could come out. the president could decertify, and put the sanctions -- we don't know what he is going to do. >> that's why -- >> way don't know what he's going to do. >> you said it's not up to the

congress. it is up to the congress to put something in place -- >> we're not renegotiating the agreement. you said what -- change this or that. we're not renegotiating the agreement. so we'll see what the president says, and then we'll see what the republicans -- they have been very close to the vest on it. think they had someone unease in their caucus about some people who may have opposed it before but understand the danger of walking away. >> the can you respond to what we know about the president's executive order on health care they're putting out today and your take is on him doing anything by executive order after potentially failing to get anything through congress on health care. >> i don't know what he is putting out today. i know it's a sabotage of the affordable care act, and quite frankly, a real disservice to the american people. many of whom voted for him. we'll have more to say about it when we see what he is putting for. we know there is bipartisan

support, even the high-ranking republicans in the congress that said we should do the cost sharing fun that are -- funds that are there. we have to take matters into our own hand as having navigators ourself to say to people this is the time to sign up. the bigger the pool -- the healthier the pool, the lower the cost. but the president -- i think -- not having seen what he had to say but just judging what he said, knows very little about health care legislation. >> is it appropriate for him to address this with executive order when congress is working actively on the issue. >> he, as one who has criticized the president for acting under executive order, it's pretty interesting to see that he would go down a path about which he knows little, and to do so in a -- flying the face of the congress and saying all the while i have the votes for health care.

something is wrong with this picture. >> the president's data demands -- daca demand you made clear it's not a nonstarter, you call it trasher. if there's know deal by december -- >> right now we are starting with our member. we have the re -- we have to respect our members when say they, on both sides of the aisle, republican colleagues -- all the democrats have signed up in support of the dream act. when our colleagues say they want to protect the dreamers, what the president did, i don't know if it's the president but whoever in the white house did, was draw a line in the sand between dreamers and an agenda that is so ridiculous that it is -- shouldn't be called principles because it's very unprincipled. we are just getting the votes to take up a vote to pass a bill,

and that is where we are now. >> despite the president's demand you're confident that lawmakers can still make progress? >> yes. >> on the same topic. seems like you had an understanding with the president over what to do about the dreamers. what do you think happened and what does it mean for your ability to negotiate with him in good faith. >> he has not told us that he will not support the dream act. that was what our agreement was. he would support the dream act. in a previous meeting he said, comes to my desk, will sign it, and the second meeting he said, i support the dream act. we also understood that there would have to be some security measures that he would like to see with that, but it wasn't anything to change the nature of the dream act. the dream act is what we are getting signatures -- i mean -- sponsorships for, people either sign the discharge or cosponsor the legislation.

so, you hear all kinds of things but the fact is the dream act is still the vehicle and we still are hopeful we'll have it even before december. >> following up -- there aren't many legislative days until the cr expires on december 8th. have negotiations begun on top-line spending levels or omnibus of when do you expect them to begin? >> yes. not completely but, yes, we're going down that path. we hope to be finished by december 8th or even sooner. this is the debate we have had in and the debate we always won and hopefully won't by that controversial but we'll see. again, last bill way did was in april. had to get rid of 200 poison pills.

if they try to go after birth control, family planning, we'll have that fight again to defund planned parenthood. hopefully the american people's interests in this situation is regarded, has been impressed upon them. just as the american people have their attitude toward our dreamer -- i want to come back to that for a moment. the reason the president supports the dream act is that the american people do not base chuck and i were engaging dinner partners or chuck's double manners. it was the dreamers and the attitude of the american people. similarly for issues like birth control, that -- it's a funny thing. in congress for 25 years, i kept trying to say to people, they don't believe in family planning, don't believe in contraception. people just would not accept that. couldn't find it to be true

until the came in with a budget and said we'll eliminate funding for family planning. thank you for making my life a little easier. unfortunately, if you succeed you'll make everybody's lives harder and that's why we have to succeed. >> do you expert parity -- >> absolutely. parity if they lift a cap -- those are fundamentals. yes. parity, if the capture list -- we would have parity unless they want sequester, -- sequestration i don't think anybody wants this. >> you declared no first use. is this out of concern that trump -- >> has nothing -- >> world war iii like senator corker. >> host: this has to do with the presidency, any president who is there, and it is no first use. i remind that if our country is attacked, the war powers act

triggers for the executive any and all powers, but there is interest in u.s. establishing itself as no first use no first nuclear use. >> with democrats -- >> has to be bipartisan. so inside and outside the congress. another option would be to ensure that it just doesn't rest with one person. as you know the law that was passed in 1946 was in a different reality of our country's standing in the world and the rest, and now we're not in a bipolar situation. we're in a different situation, and we want to be clear as to what our intentions are and what they would be should we be attacked. >> i think we have to go now. we have one more? >> please.

>> we're getting to -- >> thank you. trump tweeting this morning that fema and dod and the other emergency responders in puerto rico will not be there forever, and some are interpreting that as a threat he might pull out area. this is hours before you pass this emergency supplemental. how are you interpreting that message from the president no mention of harvey or florida or texas. ...

i remind the people of the virgin islands and puerto rico are american citizens. and we are all americans. and we owed them what they need. it's not about cost, it's about what they need and this is only part of it. let me thank you for that question so i can emphasize, what we're talking about is emergency relief . there is going to have to be relief right now. there's going to have to be recovery and that's a whole other,shall we say, . and that's why we work together to document needs, mitigate for future damage . for example, the forest fires we've had in california. when we get funds for recovery, it has to be with mitigation so that we are not throwing good money back to

be damaged again without prevention. this more so we want to know, when i came to congress a couple years later, i had an earthquake in california so i became completely informed about how this all works and we hope the president will as well. >> this weekend on book tv, live coverage of the 2017 southern festival of books in nashville. darting saturday at 11 am easter with biographer jonathan i and ali, a life. national book award finalist nancy maclean with her book democracy in chains, the deep history of the radical rights stealth plan for america and talk radio show eric

erickson, author of life lessons from a father to his children. then on sunday, our live coverage continues at 1 pm with best-selling author liza monday with her book code girls, the untold story of the american women codebreakers of world war ii. national book award finalist patricia del scott with the firebrand and first lady, ortrick of a friendship . eleanor roosevelt and the struggle for social justice and creative writing professor erin sexton, author of the people are going to rise like the waters upon your sure, a story of american rage. watch our live coverage of the 2017 southern festival of books in nashville this weekend on c-span2's book tv. >> now we join live coverage of the hearing examining the threats posed by north korea. this is a house homeland security subcommittee just getting underway.