steve: schumer and also mitch mcconnell coming out saying we have got a deal. ainsley: we did it. steve: what is in the deal? there is nothing to do anything with daca. that has angered a number of democrats. it will increase the pentagon spending gigantically and domestic spending also. brian: to the tune of 80 and then 85 billion. steve: increases defense spending by 85 billion in 2018. or domestic by 63 billion. ainsley: what s that mean what s domestic spending like infrastructure? steve: paul ryan said yesterday if you re going to go ahead and spend money domestically you might as well do it on stuff that everybody likes. apparently what it s going to be on is infrastructure, also vet medicine, things like that. brian: it is pretty much. look, it s an emergency situation when it comes to defense. secretary of defense mattis
significantly. defense spending up by 80 billion, domestic spending 3 billion in 2018. brian: next year, two year deal, defense spending will go up 84 billion. that is what defense secretary matters needs. in turn to do that as chuck schumer said, middle class spending kicked in the tune of $63 billion. speaker ryan feels differently, that spending is too much, but he has to make a compromise. get half the freedom caucus to sign on for. they go on a lot of trump agenda, struck instructs, means testing for medicaid. ending medical advisory board, extending chip for 10 years. ainsley: kellyanne conway was on earlier. she was talking about the deal. it is not perfect but at least we have a deal. this deal is not perfect. we need to see the final details but at same time this president
dollar-to-dollar match. they re not getting it now. it s $63 billion. how do you feel about that deal? i m against the $63 billion. the american people elected republicans to control the house, senate and white house. we campaigned on doing what our military needs to secure the nation. we didn t campaign on growing government. this isn t consistent with what we told the voters and not even close to what was said in the 2016 election. i m opposed to growing these programs in government. i m for doing what the constitution tells us what you re supposed to spend your tax dollars on which is the united states military. you re growing the government either way. it s not like a real guns and butter argument anymore. you re putting $80 billion into the military, the government grows. the constitution is pretty clear. national defense is the number one priority of the federal government. we should do it in the efficient and best way we can. that s why i m for auditing the pentagon and ma
let s talk about the shutdown comments in a second. what are the details of the bill you re hearing? is it going to get done? i m not going to go over the details here. i think you ll have an announcement today that presents a cap s deal that enable us to have hopefully congress work on its appropriations the next two years. is what is being discussed something president trump would support? there s a couple outstanding items. like what? couple things that need to be negotiated before i can tell you whether the president will sign it. i do think this does enable the president to deliver on his commitment to the american people that he would rebuild the military. the numbers you see in the caps is something that secretary mattis respectfully asked for. the 80 billion for defense spending specifically. what is the sticking point? where do you see the president being concerned when it comes to the deal that s being worked out? i think we re always concerned about the non-def
resolution to keep the lights on this week, the fifth in five months just since the fiscal year started. so there s been a lot of antsiness to get an actual budget deal through. the contours of this emerging deal, it s not final, from what my colleagues and i are hearing is that it s going to increase military spending by 80 billion, increase domestic discretionary spending by 53 million. i think we have a graphic to pull up for that. this is going to be a problem for certain party members on both sides of the aisle. who is happy? who is sad about some of those numbers? the people who are sad about the 63 billion in nondefense increases are the conservatives, particular pli in the house. mark meadows said as a conservative he cannot support that. he estimated that there may be as many as 80 to 90 house democrats needed to cover the loss of the conservatives that would break away. on the democratic side, a number of house democrats very upset that their senate democrat without a