before i get to any events today. there are a few items that i want to update you on. the president spoke with the prime minister of iraq to thank him for his meeting on march 20th. he was weed out of that call. yesterday he also identified congress that a national emergency declared executive order 13694 of the attack continues on april 2017. as you know this notification is required by statues in order to extend the national emergency the past administration declared. the president believes that this cyber enable activities continue to post a threat on our national security and economic and prosperi prosperity. he determined it is necessary to continue this. >> last night a federal judge hawaii put a hold on the president. >> this ruling is just the latest step that will allow the administration to appeal. just a week ago, the u.s. district court and virginia up hell the president on merits. >> this morning we announce that had the president will host president xi of china at margot. the president is looking forward to meet president xi. they'll discuss the issues of mutual concerns including north korea and trades and regional security. this morning, the president had a meeting with the treasury of secretary. experts have been meeting with and hearing from state holders on all side of tax reform debate. tax reform is the certanter pie of the president from his campaign. the team will provide significant tax relief to make american businesses mo more competitive. the first significant tax reform since in 1980s it is going to be a series of under taking. we are the first age of this process, constituents around the country and business leaders and other stake hote holders. accordinginglly a lot of peoplee many ideas about it and we intend to hear about them. he and his team will meet and commit in delivering results to the american business that people will see and feel in their paychecks. the president was glad of the nomination of governor sonny purdue. >> while they previously supported him may have stuck on a party line vote. the president is looking forward to have him on the team and cabinet as soon as possible. >> department of commerce and first responders, firstnet announced at&t will build a first wide broad band. this step was part of the 9/11 commission's recommendation on improving our ability of fire. it is clinical to their missions. it is a sign of the incredible of public partnership to drive-driv drive innovations and solving some of our biggest problems and creating jobs and growing the economy. the president hosted a legislative affair lunch on opioid and drug abuse. the lunch was an opportunity to discuss the goals and agendas o f the president's commission of drug addiction and opioid crisis which he accomplished yesterday. the president promised to the american people that he will take real actions from keeping druggings po drugs from pouring into our country. the commission will bring together leaders on both sides of the isle and find the best way to treat and protect the american people from this academic. many members attended the lunch keep parting o f bipartisan and addiction and recovery act. >> the first legislation over 40 years authorized $181 million to fight the opioid epidemic. too many lives are at stake to waste any money on this effort. the president will welcome the prime minister of denmark for a working business. we'll have a read out of the bilateral meeting for you at its conclusion and a couple of follow ups from yesterday. i know hunter asked about the house senate passage disappro disapproving of the commune regulations on privacy rules from last year. let me expand on that a little and get you questions. the previous administration in attempt to treat internet service providers differently than etched providers such as google and facebook reclassified them as common carrier, like a hotel or retail outlet and opening their door to unregulated framework. the president pledged to reverse this over reach in which bureaucrats in washington taking the interest of one group in the company over the interest of others picking winners and losers. >> he will continue to fight washington that stiples americans. >> jeff is here right now. we are following up on jeff's question. he asked of the climate treaty in paris. we are currently reviewing issues related to the agreement and expecting to have a decision by the time of the g-summit by late mayor sooner. from the beginning the president has been clear about his choices if he had been elected, who he would choose from. the level of transparency is probably unprecedented in modern times at least. he gave the american people 21 judges which he will pick his choice of the supreme court from. the white house n prior to the president making his final decision, the white house spoke with 29 senators more than half of whom who are on the democratic isle. the consensus is that the president's pick should be a respected stream. judge gorsuch is a definition of a mainstream respected judge. he has offered plenty of materials for that. >> judge gorsuch met nearly 80 senators. gorsuch provided the following over 80 pages of written answers of his personal records and responding to 299 questions for the record by democrats ton committee. the most in recent history which was submitted six days in receiving the questions. over 75,000 pages of do you means and speeches and cases and written work going back to as far as his college. over hundreds of thousands of e-mails related to the judge's time of the department of justice. the department of justice provides many access that'll be guarded by various privileges of an historically unprecedented move. almost twice as many as justices -- the white house and the judge did all of this in the hopes of senate democrats of many of whom announced a filibuster on judge gorsuch. he's qualified to sit on the supreme court. it looks more and more like senate democrats would do all that they did in reading and questioning for nothing more than political fear. finally before i take questions, a letter was transmitted to a ranking member, intelligence committees that said in the ordinary course of business, national security staff discovered documents that response to the intelligence committ committee seeking of documents determined whether information collected was mishandled and leaked. we have and will invite the senate and house ranking members and chairman up to the white house to view that material in a accordance to their schedule >> cheryl. >> i am trying to gain probability of a government shut down at the end of april. are your direction to hold firm on the spending cut that the president wants or try to keep the government opened. >> i don't know if they are exclusive. >> generally is. i think that we want both. i think we want to maintain some of the spending priorities as well as the reductions in the 2017 budget. we want to do so responsively and the president's lay out. i think his funding request and priorities are laid out in the budget that direct details and sent up. for the remainder of 2017, there is some key things to that. >> i don't think both of those goals are exclusive. we don't want the government to shut down but we want to make sure we are funding the priority of the record. >> thanks a lot. >> i want to ask about some news that the president made of a tweet that he put out on twitter. he seems to be picking a fight with the freedom caucus. the freedom caucus has 30 members. does the president real how important this coalition is in terms of asking for a replacement bill for the affordable care act and passing the rest of his legislative agenda. >> of course, he understands that the goal of all legislation gets to the majority of the house and senate. at the end of the day, he's trying to enact and ran on and told the american people that he would do as president and he will get the votes from where ever he can. >> well, there are two questions. one is mathematically, yes. >> yes, secondly, there is a few members of the freedom caucus look prior to last friday's vote and since then expressed a willingness to work with him rather than necessarily as a block. i think that there continues to be some promising signs in that -- again, part of that is if people are more concerned of voting of a block then the best thing to the american people, he's hoping that the american people will see the bigger picture and sometimes of the really good -- >> i am going to say and i am going to let the tweets speak for itself for those of you who think or just for your understanding. it would be improper of me to discuss the election defeat of any candidate for this program. matt. >> mr. sean. two questions if you don't mind. >> i want phenomenonal question from you. >> i know i got it. according to the time of nunes, the senior director of intelligen intelligence who was hired boo flynn, i am wondering if the white house thinks it is appropriate for national security officials to be conducting of what's a political task which is trying to find information and validates something the president said. >> it rather report and respectfully, i think your question assumes that the report is correct. the letter that was submitted earlier to the ranking, the chairman of the ranking members of the two committees, two intelligence committees on the hill of the reasons the white house asked him to come up to view that information. again, i don't want to get in front of that. as i have said before. we are not as obsessed with the process as much as the substance. our goal is to make sure the ranking members of both committees as well as the chairman sees the information that the materials that are important to this and worry about the outcome at the end. >> and then on a different topic, of mrs. walsh's departure today, are you expecting of any shake up in the west wing? >> no. >> katherine. >> in order to comment on that story would be to validate certain things that i am not at liberty to do. >> again, there is an assumption and as i said before, we cannot condone, in the same way you protect sources when i call you and say you got 18 anonymous sources. our view was the smart move was to make all materials available to the chairman and the ranking members of the relevant committees. i understand of the obsession of the process piece. we are focused on the substance of itd a and the goal is making people having the substance liking into this. >> no, we sent letters within the past few hours to both of those committees informing them that we wanted to make that able to them. >> what kind of message do you think this sends? >> it sends a message that we want them to look into this and i think that as we maintained from all along that there is a belief that the president has maintained that there was surveillance that occurred in the 2016 election that's improper and we want people to look into this and take the appropriate legal responsible steps to both understand it and address it. >> major. >> so when you asked the white house having any role providing any information. what you said did not make any sense here. i don't know why he, chairman nun nunes, i am not aware of this. it is now reporting which i cannot tell if you are disputing or not identifies two people of the sources of this information, i am trying to put these things together. you said it does not pass the smell test on march 23rd and now reports of the white house that there were the source of this i am trying to put these together. >> the quote that you are reading, based on what chairman nunes has said, the following does not make sense. >> something new since then. >> no, again, major, i have commented on this yesterday and today that your obsession with who talked to whom and when is not the answer here. it should be the substance. the same way that your obsession is the substance. you continue to look at it from a backward prison which is what happened and who drove in and what were they wearing that day as to oppose to what is the under line substance of this. did something happen and did leaks occurred? we are not going to engage in actively in that kind of leaking that has been a problem. in fact, if you look at this obama's deputy secretary of defense that's out there, evelin farkus, she made it clear that they went around and did this "that's why there are so many leaks." they admitted on the record that this was their goal to leak stuff. she says on the record, trump's team. there is a series of questions of what happened and why and who did it. that's our focus on making sure if that information gets out. >> the process from your vantage point -- >> there is a review that we asked for -- >> and you told us to look into the process. >> please don't put words in my mouth. i never said that i will provide you answers. the responsible thing for us to do is providing the individuals and the committees are looking at the materials that they are looking for. we don't know what they are looking for. our goal is to be as forthright as possible. they asked the community intelligence for more information. we are will to provide them with information that we have the materials that we have come across and i think that's important. >> you said "we have information." are you disputing the report on new york times. >> i am not commenting on the information, i am just answering the question. >> you said "we,"? >> "we" meaning the white house. we are not going to start commenting on one anonymous sources that publications published. >> if it was wrong, would you tell us. >> i am not going to get into this. >> how many times are you going to ask this question. hunter? >> does he think this agenda has to be neutral. >> when it comes to tax reform, he's got three under lining goals. one is tax implications and two is to lower the rate and three is to grow jobs in the economy. part of it is if you look at it dynamically as the plan developed and again, we are not there yet and we are in the process and engaging stake holders. there is a cost put on it and that's a decision that gets looked at as well as what are the economic growth and job creation aspects to it. to answer that question without knowing the full scope of it is, is looking at something and answering it in a vacuum. >> i know you want identify congress nunes as choices, is it bu abu abundantly clear that some officials have to get access here? >> i cannot get into who those individuals were. >> but, it was someone at the white house. >> again, if i start to go down the path of confirming and denying one thing, we are going down a slippery slope. i made my position clear on that. >> jessica. >> thank you, sean. >> can you talk about the location and how it was chosen for this visit? >> as you can imagine on my trip no matter of who foreign leaders are, there is a lot of discussions between the white house state department and the equivalent other heads of government, their appropriate counter parts. those are kinds of things that go back and forth in terms of how long the activities and what will be discussed and every single thing is discussed on both sides. that was a long and ongoing negotiations with the government of china and with their representatives, lasting several weeks now. >> how did you arrive at mar-a-lago? >> i would suggest to you both sides discuss various locations and topics and agendas and lengths and etcetera and aspect of the trip. >> what is the goal of the white house to accomplish during the visit? >> well, i think there are a few things. this is an opportunity for president trump to develop a relationship with president xi, he spoken to him on the phone a few times. we have big problems. everything from the south china sea to trade and north korea. their big issues of national economic security that needs to get addressed and i think there is a lot on the table when it comes to that over the two days we'll talk. >> lastly, the chinese are expecting the white house to provide some sort of framework for the relationship to be viewed for. can you talk about what the framework may be? >> can you expand on that a little? >> looking how to view the relationship, you have the rebalance and the prior administration, is there a tag line or revision for u.s. china relations that you will roll out in this visit. >> we'll see. if you have any hashtags, let me know. we are not worried of slogans as much as progress. there is a lot of big things we need to establish with china. we'll work on that. kristen. >> the president directed that he want in his white house or national security team to try to find information and intelligence to backup -- >> i don't -- i am not aware and i have to look into that. again, there are two sides of this. one is the information side and two is the policies and the activity and legal piece of what happened. i don't -- those are big buckets if you will. >> it is possible. >> i am not going to comment on it. >> one more. investigation to lift any lingering clouds that there maybe? >> no. i think you have two committees looking into this. the fbi has been looking into this as they mentioned in the hearing. how many do you want? >> i understand that you may not have -- >> the house intelligence investigation is still valid given in all of these questions. >> how is it valid? >> all these questions of where d devin nunes got the information from. >> again, right now i think you got the fbi and other probably other intelligence committees looked at 17 of them and issuing a report earlier in the involvement of the 2016 election and you got two congressional committees looking into that. i am not sure of the exact need that people are doing. i understand that there is a need for you guys to have more information and sources. this is being done in a responsible way where people are being discussed of what they know and information being shared. >> can you quickly talk about the timing of enlighting the investigation of the white house now, is it because of this report? >> i think of a couple of things. one is they ask and they task the various committees and mid march, agencies rather to provide information. we thought we had information that's relevant and i think there are some -- there is a desire to make sure that both sides of the isle who are looking into this as well as the chambers having that information. >> anita. >> eric trump gave an interview a few days ago to forbes magazine that he will update his father regularly on the business giving probability reports. i have two questions about that. have they spoken about the business in january and two, how does this violate why the president sets out protocols of how he would deal with the business. >> two things, i don't know if they have spoken. it is not, you know, maybe it is a question directives to the trump organization. secondly, i think everything that he's done is in accord dance of what the council -- >> he said he was not going talk to his children and son about his business. >> again, i think everything that's being done in terms of pro-course or updates is being done with the council's office. >> i have two things i want to ask. it is sort of unclear of what you guys are telling and the members of information that would validate the president's claims and surveillance during the 2016 campaign or is it information about fraud russians investigation? >> again, i am not here to share that. that's why we invited them up to review the classified setting. it is not to be shared with people that don't have the appropriate clearances. >> you are not intending to provide that this is the information of chairman nunes had been talking about. >> and then western house center filed a bankruptcy yesterday. i wonder if that propertied a security of concerns or any effort of the administration to sort of help them navigate bankruptcy concerning that -- >> i have to check on that. i think there is a couple of departments that would be interested in that. >> i want to ask you align of what you told us. in the ordinary course of business, the national security staff got the documents, can you explain how these documents were uncovered. >> no, that's why we invited them up in a classified setting for them to see these materials. it is not the setting appropriate to discuss that. >> no in the national security staff -- >> good question. we are not here to go through the process. our job is to get to the substance of this and making sure that the people with the appropriate access and authorities to look into this matter. that's several networks and everyone forecast made that proclamation about what was going on during the obama administration regarding the trump team. that's something that they made clear on the record, john. >> a couple of things sean. on the freedom caucus of congressman hamash. michigan responded on campus saying most people don't like to be bullied and in a response the are the says sending out such tweet is constructive as fifth way may allow a child getting his way but that's not how the government works. >> can you respond to that? >> this is consistent with everything he has said friday of last week. >> and i think he's looking for members on both sides of the isle of achoieving the goal. that's plain and simple and i think that his comments and tweets speak for themselves with respects to how he feels in library. >> following on that, is this a divide from congress strategy? >> it is a math strategy which is to get to 216 and pass in effort to continue to move the agenda forward. >> if i can follow. you accused people in this room several times of being interested in the process than actually in substance of things. when information is discovered by the intelligence committee chairman of the house at the white house, it is potential of what the president has tweeted out and it is reported that one of the people that's involved and uncovering that information is a white house staff member who was kept in his position over the request of the national security adviser by the political leadership of the white house. does the process does not take on any relevance. >> we are as i have noted and we have invited the chairman ranking members who are looking into this and reviewing the matter that are up here. that does not mean we aloud uncleu aloud -- allowed members. >> no, that's not what i asked. when you have that connection of dots all the way along. does the process, the providence of this information not becoming relevant to your own investigation. >> it is up to the people that's k conducting the review to decide that. it is up for them to look at the investigation and make their evaluations. you have seen it clearly in the house's eye and starting at the senate's eye. that's the appropriate forum and personnel to revealing it, plain and simple. >> sorry, i cannot hear you. >> we'll look into that. i am not entirely sure or what the status of that is but i can follow up on that. >> i understand the question, i will look into whether or not where that stands. blake. >> the time line of healthcare first, there is a release yesterday that 73% americans want tax reforms happening this year and with healthcare being on hold. is healthcare the number one priority or tax reform is the number one priority of the administration or healthcare is taking up some of the oxygen? >> i think there is plenty of oxygen for both to go on. i think the president would still like to see it done. i think there is no reason that we cannot -- if you look at the time line for tax reform. you are talking about several months. the process is beginning on that. i think you will have a duo tract strategy. >> you describe what was going on of the meeting today as a first phase, can you lay out what if someone entails on that. is the president guyiven strategies? >> it is a little both. they're talking about the process that they intend to partake and how this is going to lay out and who they are engaging with and how they are beginning on the process. some of the guys and principles making sure of in i updates or principles he wants to suggest are incorporated as they begin to meet with stake holders. part of is is to level with him and how they intend to do it. does all of those go together? >> again, remember they are not all the same people. some of them over laps and some of them don't. part of it is you got to remember that some things can happen sooner than other because of the legislative calendar. some things are going to take longer because of the calendar and because of the number of individuals involved and the complexity of the situation. there are a lot of things that can be moving at once because of how the time is played out. >> thank you, sean. >> yesterday vladimir, twice poisoning russians and vice chairman of russians testified before the subcommittee of sanctions against russia. he called out on secretary of state pearson to meet with russian's civil society members. he also said that he will be membe member of congress of both parties. are there any plans for the president or anyone at the white house to meet him and will he meet with the russian society? >> i am not aware of this and the national consult and the state department is more appropriate for you to alexis, t yesterday when you said, preliminary questions have not gotten answers and you continue to add. do you know the answer to that and you are saying that you will not answer that question today? >> right. so what i am saying to you is that the decision that's made to bring in all the relevant individuals, they're reviewing situations and making them available that getting into sources and processes are not the proper way to conduct this review and we want people who are kconducting it to understan, fully materials and not necessarily who came in what time or whatever. >> just to clarify again, you asked the questions. and you were not given an answer. >> i am just saying s-- >> let me finish. >> you said yesterday you asked and you did not get the answer. what you are telling us today that you are never going to get the answer, you ourself are never going to get the answer of chairman nunes. >> what i am saying is that the decision was made to focus on the process and the substance and the decision was made -- >> you are not answering my question. >> i let you ask the question so let me answer, please. the answer that i am giving you that the decision was made to focus on individuals who are doing the review both republicans and democrats and house and senate have to look at the materials. that's what the focus should be on. >> caitlin -- >> wait, here is my bigger question. >> the president has expressed his affirmation of support for the findings of russia interfering with the 2016 election. that's the center piece of the investigation at the fbi and the senate intelligence committee, my question is, can you update us, what is the president doing now in the administration to respond to director james comey's testimony? >> um, what you are talking about, you are talking about the exec tiutive order, is that correct? >> can you update what the administration is doing to prevent that and respond to that preliminary finding already that we already know. that's continuing. >> well, the executive order that the president signed to continue the national emergency deals with looking into malicious attempts and cyber attempts coming into the united states. >> soa sum total of the respons so far? >> i am not going to get into what's being done booiehind the scenes. there is an emergency declared with respect to challenges that the united states faces over a variety actors outside the united states to comment and use cyber techniques to hack the united states. it will continue under the president to address the threats that we face from abroad and from a variety of places. april. >> caitlin. >> i am sorry. >> she can go first and i will go after her. >> sean, what's the ultimate goal of leaders coming in and getting this information and will it be information that nunes received plus or whether it be -- basically a synopsis of what nunes received. >> well, it is the materials that are relevant to discussions of the area they are reviewing. that's up to them to decide on the relevancy of that. it is up to them to make a decision of the relevance of those documents. there is two issues here. >> april, what do they see and what do they want to see in addition to that and a result of those materials. in other words, they may see things and say hey, this is interesting and i wonder if there is a pattern or i want to see more or they make a conclusion right away. that's part of the idea to your question is sharing the information with them is to allow members of both committees to review materials that we think is relevant to the issues that the president talked about with respect to surveillance, masking of individuals and the handling oing of it and etceter etcetera and up to members to decide what to do with that information and how to explore that more in-depth. >> they can whine up. >> it depends. i think that's possible. i don't want to prejudge and what comes in responsible and it has to do with what documents we have. they may go down a particular trail. >> maybe some of the materials they see prompt them to ask additional questions. that's part of providing it to them. it is an ungoing review. this i part of that review process. >> are they allowed to say any type of briefing and who they are no matter him being ahead of the committee and are other members allowed to see the same thing even though they are not aheadf the committee, are they allowed that? >> my understanding is they would be. >> lastly, sean, do you know who -- >> no. caitlin. >> okay. i have a question for you. >> sure. >> has anyone in the white house ever raised the possibility of a cabinet position or top intelligence post later on in the administration for devin nune >> not that i a aware of. >> the president can answer questions on surveillance claims and all these intelligence -- >> am i not good enough? >> he's making the claims. >> you are not making the claims. >> we'll see at some point. he enjoyed the last one so much. >> does that work for you? >> okay, let me see what i can come up with. >>sylvia. >> i have not seen the materials. it is national security committee that comes across these documents they want to make it available tohe members. >> why not be more forthcoming of the entire process of who let this in. if this was enough -- if the president of the united states could tweet this thing about wiretapping, does the american public have the right to know more? >> yes, they do. that's why we are going through the process. and i say this respectfully, i understand that you want all of those processed answers and what were they wearing and what door were they coming in. the relevance question is about the substance of this. it is interesting -- i don't get the same thing when i see these unpublished stories. do you accept this apology? [ laughter ] >> that's not how it works though. >> i would argue that when you guys write a story and you call, i have four anonymous sources, well, what were the sources and you go, sorry, i am not revealing anything to you but the substance i am asking you to respond to. the shoe on the other foot, you are all about the process. the bottom line is there are two congressional committees that are conducting reviews of the situation and those committees are looking at the relevant information and talking to relevant people. we have made individls available and encouraging individuals to testify and to meet with or discuss with that have been. i think what we are doing and frankly i know that you disagree and we are doing the responsibility thing by making sure that documents and materials showing of the appropriate classifications and settings and people of different committee would like to discuss these matters with or made available to them. that's the responsible way of handling this. yeah? >> sean, thanks very much. i have two question, one on venezuela. today the supreme court of venezuela says that they'll decide to take over congress power and the position says that it is approved. do you consider -- what can we expect the united states to do and the other question is because president obama signed the bilateral climate deal with brazil, china and india, what will happen to those? >> well, on the first one, respectfully i would send you this and i would refer to the state department and the only supreme court that i am focused on is ours and judge neil gorsuch confirmed by the senate. the state of department is likely to discuss the activities over there. second, when it comes to things like the paris treaty and the offset, that's being -- >> i understand but i think there are things -- we'll have updates for all of these things. right now i got nothing on it. >> thank you sean. >> the wall street journal reported this morning of the trump administration of changes of nafta. is the white house viewing sweeping changes of nafta? >> robert lighthouse -- that's not a statement of the admission policies at this point. there is nothing in those documents that we are confirming or in that report rather that we areconfirming. that's not a statement of the policy and not an accurate assessment of where we are at that time. our goal is to get robert appointed the next ambassador. when we have that, we'll have plenty of updates where we go of the rest of our trade agreement. with that, i am going to say good-bye. i will see you tomorrow. >> i am sorry, i promised two day in a row. >> first one, republicans were very critical of president obama handling the iranian reserve aleutian six years ago. >> is this something tha that -- what do the administration feel its role should be regarding that. >> that's a hypothetical question to talk about what would happen. >> i know when it comes to protests, we obviously encourage as we did last sunday of the peaceful -- the government to allow the peaceful protest of individuals throughout the country. we obviously support the people to have a voice throughout the world. >> the on -- >> i think it is a two-way street. i think we -- part of it is and we, the president and the first lady extended invitation and we are excited to see senate democrats come. i wish we would have seen more. there is an opportunity to engage and discussing some of the issue that come together. ill argue that when you look at this fight on gorsuch, there are -- i don't disagree with the fact that if you are democrats, i don't necessarily agree with some of the rulings and philosophy of judge gorsuch, they always agree and most cases, the filibuster have never been the norms. it is odd to see these individuals -- it is one thing to vote know ano and one thing we don't agree but now filibustering the senate, unbelievably qualifying people. there is nobody that i am aware of that is suggesting that gur su gorsuch is not qualified. republicans in the past allowed nominees to vote on up or down. for the most part when you go back to president obama and bill clinton, republicans are joined with people to qualify under the court. this is a huge, huge crack. i think there was a column in the papers today that you are really fundamentally changing how the senate operates by doing this. that's important. they candace agree with it philosophically. when you have an election, you can assume that the republican president is going to choose republicans or appointments and for federal judgeship and democrats will do the same with their time in office. >> but, it was obama nominees that got there the republican support. it is difficult to understand why when you got someone that's qualified of gorsuch that this is the state that they'll drive. >> i think it is a two-way street. i would ask you what is, you know, i remember a few years ago with all this talk from the get-go and obama and democrats hey, of how they wanted to see of a one term president. i have seen a similar tactics from democrats now how they want to defeat him and stop the agenda and there is no sense of them wanting to work with this president. we have shown a willingness to bring them together. it is amazing how many senators when you talk to them over the course of 70 days have said i have been to the white house more in the last 70 days of the trump administration. i think that speaks to the president's desire to bring people together to find common grounds and areas o f mutual agreements where we can move the country forward. thank you, i will see you tomorrow. this weekend on american history tv on c-span 3. >> james haley author of paradise talks about hawaii, of the queen of hawaii. >> they'll restore her powers. from this possession, she went back to the liliokalani palace. >> at 9:00 on the presidency of the effectiveness a presidency of the 20th century of the president. >> sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern on real america the 1961 encyclopedia botanical film, the ordeal of woodrow wilson with former president hubert hoover. for our complete american history tv schedule go to cspan.org. president trump's 2018 budget calls for defunding corporation for public broadcasting. the government provides about $445 million every year. about 70% of the total cpb funding. its ceo is patricia de stacy harrison. she testified before a house appropriations subcommittee. good morning. it's my pleasure to welcome mrs. patricia harrison, or my dear friend pat harrison. i'll reveal our sordid past to everybody in a moment. but the ceo of the corporation of public broadcasting to the subcommittee on labor, hhs, and