wh tt? mrscme n beushe ia aiof coan fit a, lleson stl i crgofhe atrn ger? eea ecl pseto isaso ave rroh. ersee aegioafr leti,ueioafr quti. spiaprecorshas caedor ifhedmisatn s thg hide,he w't obct anyo erydy [capong rfmebyhe naon ctiininite, whh rpoib f i ptn ntt d cucy vit ic.o] aponcorit tial cae teitco. 17 >>t outhsa tehi rng,ouemrac ad ncyeliweed- ers atheaitoy dungereey ieng . lo:oomoin at wk, h?

stig w lrn tt jf ssnsth aory nel ofhenid at,ie deoa thi cleuein thsetendo emeca op aut h cmucaon wi t rsis. erarstdas ofsialonctor atrns. peal topaw enrcenffernur cotr wh ith msa tt at ses tourytohe laer ith ste dertnt tthamic b soatn,hias anrdofor -of ofsial cdu, t atf aba,hias stdasor pfeiol coucortsttne? thfahathatrn nel, t t c iur cotrieunr tho e aneoes ous f m esn. gun f ho si. h pveth his quifd a uito rv

tt sionf us alstve wke scer nevincof sre mmicio bweenr umofcisndheusan en. erartw iuehe. 'vbealngoree r mo rushiel fm th iesgaonntth rsal pitalnd fincl nntiseten thtrppetindhe ssns resiimlfecseis coecon t t daltrp mpgn w shae msf edannvtitior lyg. 'sgastheawnd t p wnfcentffer ou kwha edmisatn eay caote tst t veigetsf. the mt andennt birtanouidcoison iesgaheru licapeon a naia cneiotohe ruia. r llgu, ical wl

d ijumng he d th listi f wle 10 othhoe moat haigd tt. annoheha rubca copoorips ll atheamtie ve siatn er ato, u ynobeer tt e puics eidg ei afof.c. reabi i bemt omnd pnng ho aomtt mku bor e ngssnaudt fi orisvaab the puic th i uea o enhe rubca, nar ndau iricinghi th hcat en e at thr pn . e rubca kw w t eraneoe wl acwh e ngssnabuetffe realth t rubca biilrae al ctsn e dd css, isra falyovaganutilon ofeoe t hlt

vege- llnsf ppl t hlt cere. remb, h tee stdas. estow ct,oet pa befs,ndoeit crseccs. isil test l t veeirti. rendouhath bls onof aigfeofeah eahit opou tr ther lln ch ery whe ctsre ireedor loanmilee mies inuroury yw, in srk contrt at the rublica a dng when w did theffdae re acan thecriticized ts, th a t oer thi, er we sres ohein, nddsfmemes, some decraticsoeplin, meccte oea, me diedf ch, and som rect oboemocratic and puicanmendmes.

e satfinance cmiee spent eit ysubcl marking uth bl. e longest rk in 22 year anhe ty e,eadhe bill, adhe bl. ahweeath bl. we wrote t blnde ad thil here thearhing the bl the basement. n'ta mword for it. ju a sat rd paul. heaie n't en cess -- ha aes tit the rubca a too rried ofhe cstues toakthr planoestroy affordleeah reubc. eyhod y- ey shldt yakitaw th d'tanto me public nowth sul'try to make it law on tuesda as youno ts stueay the pridt' jntddss --adhis joi addre t the inseioof cgrs. my view, it was hollow sas tc go salesman. u ve to give him pois f th. radicarhor, pt promises.

there was no there tre the reoobs pn,o frtrtu plan, pn t replace theffdae re act , no planxct scary ouin o iigtion reform. the list gs a o soere we are, days to the trumpdminisatn. puics ve sceededn puing wa seefit rushg elwa seet pr oma seet. d working fils' rerent sin. mo tmake ari sk ai haveewn fear iamics vuerleomnitiesith dangerou ior a constitutionalxeti tis. d,etngacko where we ben thisonrence,lled russia'srion the adnistraonondgeur securi a o doccy y estions?

, go aad reporterso,bviously you ink that attorney general sessions should step aside. ms. pelosi: yes, i said that last night. reporter: is there, though, consistency here on the democratic side on this? when there were issues with attorney general lynch and bill clinton and her context and whether or not she should have stepped aside, is there consistency or not? ms. pelosi: thank you for your question there. ouldn't be a stark difference. attorney general lynch had a with the ounter former president of the united states. they discussed their grandchildren. she did not have a major role in the hillary clinton campaign. this is a completely different thing. the reason we have been saying that the attorney general sessions should step aside and maybe should have never been confirmed is because he was a surrogate. he was a very important part,

when the first people in the congress -- one of the first people in the congress to endorse president trump. now we see that -- though he has not told the truth about it, had conversations with the russian officials, which, if they were innocuous, why didn't he admit it, instead of lying about it? so this couldn't be more stark in terms of relationship to the campaign, and who the attorney general was speaking to. no. completely different, day and night. reporter: one of your members, congressman keith ellison, has released a statement that mentions that perjury is a felony punishable about by jail time. do you think that's an appropriate piece of this conversation? ms. pelosi: an investigation would show that. but the law has been broken. what he was stating was fact. that perjury is a crime. and there are consequences to it.

it remains to be seen what the investigation -- what else the investigation will lead to. but perjury by an ordinary citizen is punishable in the courts. how much enhanced is that accountability for the top law enforcement person in our country? let's see an investigation. i don't know what problem the republicans have with the truth. they don't want to know the truth about the russian connection. they don't want to tell the truth about their affordable care act bill that they have hidden in a basement some place. they reject the idea that removing this from congress will have an independent commission outside the congress look into the russian connections, which are about hacking and undermining our democratic system. we should have that even if hillary clinton had won the white house. so from what you have said, i didn't see the statement, he was stating fact.

an investigation will take us to the next place. but an investigation of those charges -- of those actions is definitely warranted. definitely warranted. i remind you that this congress impeached a president for something so far less, having nothing to do with his duties as president of the united states. reporter: why is it important that you see the c.b.o. scores and have you gotten any understanding why they're not ready yet? ms. pelosi: i don't know if they're not ready or they're just keeping it in secret. we just don't know. but we've never been able to proceed with legislation of this magnitude without seeing the congressional budget office score. and the republicans have been very much a part of -- we both have insisted -- we have to know what we're doing. what is the impact on the budget? especially if they intend to do this under reconciliation. the impact on the budget is essential to go forward. in terms of -- they did outside

reconciliation, it's still essential that we know what we're doing. reporter: what kind of score do you want to see and what do you expect? ms. pelosi: i want to see -- well -- well -- i don't even want to see what they're doing because what they're doing is reducing benefits, reducing access, and costing more. from what we have seen. again, what it is is in a basement someplace. maybe it will free itself somehow. i don't know. but you know that they have conflict within their caucus about it. so what you're asking is the regular order. we have to know what it will cost. so we have always said, our -- have been to increase lower cost, improve benefits, and expand access. if they have a bill that does that, we're happy to talk to them about it. i doubt it, from what we have seen so far. but they have tremendous unease in their own caucus about it.

reporter: what account american public expect of the house intelligence committee looking into the connections with russia during the campaign? and is it adequate? ms. pelosi: yesterday -- i don't know, has it been released to the press? it was released to the press proposal of re a scope for what the look into the russian involvement in our election, that's a step forward. it's not a giant step forward. but it's a step forward that in a bipartisan way the chairman and the ranking member have signed this letter of -- is that whole thing in the public domain now? that is in agreement. ok. the agreement goes into different categories, who they would call in. that's something. i would hope, though, that in

that scope document that they have, that that means that they would follow any trail. that they don't shut it down because it wasn't listed in that primary document. i'm not impressed, quite frankly. i mean, i think this is progress. it shouldn't have taken this long. both the house and senate committees should -- but it takes time. you want to see documents. i respect that. i'm an intelligence person myself. you want to see the documents. you want to take the time. but we want to know that there's a path. not just an avoidance of it by killing time instead of using time. so we'll see. but as i have said, i think while it's important for the house and senate intelligence committees to investigate this, what we also have to do is have an outside, independent, bipartisan commission to look into broader than what i just said the impact of the russians on our election.

but the personal, financial and political connection between the trump organization and the russians. reporter: what does it say to you that many republicans, some are calling for senator sessions to recuse himself, but are stopping short of calling for a special prosecutor? ms. pelosi: in all of this, all roads lead to the republicans in the congress. what are they afraid of? they have been afraid of the truth every step of the way. they don't want to see the president's tax returns. when every president since gerald ford. every president in modern time has released his tax returns. and candidates released their tax returns. so what is it? that would be a key indicator of their interest in the truth. the question is to them, what are they afraid of in the tax returns, what are they afraid of in the investigation in the russian involvement to undermine our democracy, to repeat that in other countries,

to combat here and do that -- come back here and do that again, what does it say about them that their chief law enforcement officer, the top cop in the country, lied to his colleagues in the senate and to the american people? a person who himself knows about prosecution and knows about the law and knows about perjury and its personalities. so what is it about the republicans that they want to hide the truth from the american people? i call it stonewalling. i call it stonewallinging. you'll have to ask them, though, why they're stone walling and what they're afraid of. reporter: the trump administration this week called for some pretty big budget cuts, including almost 25% -- [inaudible] -- what if anything can democrats, particularly in the house, do to push back against those? ms. pelosi: everything is about the public. how many times have you all heard me say, public sentiment is everything. abraham lincoln. the public has to know what they are doing to our future. we all agree that we want to

have the military that we need to protect the american people. we take an oath to protect and defend our constitution. and the american people. but our strength is not only measured in our military might, it is measured in the health, ed cathes and well-being of the -- education and well-being of the american people. the people are not only our inventors and our family, people who grow family and community and build our country, they are also our soldiers. so we see, again, a budget's supposed to be a statement to values. what the president is doing is quite outrageous. he's throwing out the window years of compromise in terms of parity, similar amount for defense, as for domestic. at the same time it's important to know that defense is defense, but domestic is also veterans, homeland security, the state department and all that is involved in our

security and soft power, as well as weapons sales and the rest of that are in the domestic side of the budget. so honoring our camp david commitments and the rest of that, all in the domestic side of the budget. in saying he's going to make these cuts, if he in fact increases defense this way, what is his mission? what is the mission? tell us your security mission that would justify this. what is? is this more contracts for contractors? what is it? what is this money for? a. b, how can you possibly take that much money out of the domestic side? so then they say, well, we're not going to -- we're going to hold veterans and homeland security, we're not going to cut that. well, if you hold them harmless, then you even have less to invest in education, research and development.

100,000 kids kicked off of head start, probably 3 $3.5 billion cut from the national institutes of health. that's probably 1,000 grants to scientific research that we won't be able -- wouldn't be able to do. for example, if they did a 10% cut across the board. the list goes on. it's tragic, really. again, budgets are supposed to be a statement of our values. how we honor our responsibilities to the people to protect them, to be number one in the world in terms of our economic growth. president also said when he was saying this that he was promising clean air and clean water. he's going to cut the e.p.a.. does he not know the connection in een protections that are an environmental protection agency and air our children breathe, the water they drink, the safety of the food that they eat? and the protection of their neighborhoods, what is he going to do to the justice function and the law enforcement function in the budget?

all of it will be subjected to cuts according to what he's putting forth. we haven't seen a budget. we've seen -- what do they call it? an outline, blueprint. mini me budget. there's no there there. there's no there there yet. what we've seen so far is scary. very scary. and in every respect, whether it's protecting our security and not pandering to vladimir putin, not flirting with lifting our sanctions on russia for their aggression and eastern europe, and not undermining our treaties on nonproliferation and the rest, what do the russians have on him? nd then to turn around and say , our strategic opponent here

is russia. and i'm going to undermine our intelligence collection on russia because of what? that we just don't know. we don't know a vision. we don't know a judgment. about what works or any knowledge associated with it. we don't know a strategic plan. all we know is a sales job. so we have to make sure we make those distinctions. but we will have that time because during the appropriations season, i'm an appropriator and intelligence person. appropriators always try to come together in a bipartisan way to get the job done. for the american people. it remains to be seen what the republicans will do to those decisions. and if the allocations, resources to certain subcommittees that deal with alth, education, jobs, our justice system, our transportation, housing, research and development,

energy, science. it remains to be seen. we'll be making those and we'll take them to the public, inspired by abraham lincoln. public sentiment is everything. and that is -- the public has to be vigilant, very, very vigilant. more vigilant than ever. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] mr. ryan: hey, scottie, how are you cog? it'slw