infrastructure can t be optional. we can t go raise taxes all the time. we just saw the benefits of this great pro-growth tax reform that the present will be talking about today. if we are going to get the spending we need on infrastructure, we need to make priority decisions. this plan to rescind some of the spending can get us some funds to do pro-growth infrastructure. harris: that s what we do on our houses, right? we try and figure out what we have actual money for, no matter how much money you make. vacation, put an addition on, but you can t fund all the priorities. harris: i appreciate you telling us about the demons. honestly, 1.2 and 1.3 might not sound like a lot of money difference but as you forecast out, i get where it is. we also understand why the president may have wanted to veto this. congressman davidson, thank you so much. we appreciate your time. we hope you ll come back. facebook founder and ceo mark zuckerberg set to testify two
behaving. mayor, i take it you don t agree that the president often behaves in a unifying way. yes. he was doing well when he talked about the president s response to harvey. after that, that argument really fell apart. about 99 out of 100 problems that the president has are self-inflicted. he causes himself and steps on his own message and undermines his own staff. he has tried to demonstrate over the past week or so that he is fully focused on harvey, hurricane harvey, and the citizens who have been devastated by it. i think this is that moment, ana, where as an executive, you have to start making some priority decisions. and so you ran through a list of a dozen different things. but, you know, you can t do all of those things on the first day back. you probably can t do them all in september. so what s important? hurricane harvey and its victims, debt ceiling, and a
and assumption of greater responsibility by the prosecutor at trial, the best agents i worked with sat side by side at the counsel table and we tried the cases. there is a shift of responsibility in the system, but again, it s a team effort. i think that s the way it should be approached. obviously there are not limitless resources. at some level you as the director will regularly have to make priority decisions versus cyber investigations and violent crime investigations and public corruption, et cetera, lots and lots of really important missions that the bureau has. when you re making those prioritization decisions, when would it be appropriate and when would it be inappropriate for main justice and beyond and i mean in particularly the white house to be providing direction about fbi priorities and mind share and budget investments? i don t think the white house should be playing a role in
sequestration. $85billion, a lot of money. it s only 28 days the amount of money the federal government borrows. it s something that is manageable. singling out these programs that cause great damage and cost to americans so that we respond, this bill gives us the opportunity to say, don t cut this but there are other things here that we don t need to spend money on, make priority decisions. jenna: so this is about a half billion dollars, $500 million that pays for this program. where does the money come from if they are not choosing to cut this. what do they cut in order to have the money for this program, or are cuts not needed? i m sur just about where specifically you find the money to backfill for this program. for example, general aeu also have another amendment that deals with white house tours, and what we discovered was, we transfer money from the department of homeland security, they just two weeks ago purchased $50 million of tsa new uniforms, and how did that
administration our requests for security money from congress have not been met. you have had to make priority decisions, and it s been difficult. i m determined to the leave the state department safer and stronger and i know that john kerry will pick up the baltimore and run with it. with respect to do we go back. this was the heart of libyan revolution. we knew there were dangerous people in and around benghazi and there were a lot of lose weapons. part of what we were doing is get leads on recovering those loose weapons. we knew that there were smuggling routes to threaten israel. there were important reasons why we were there, not just the state department but other government agencies. whether or when we go back will depend on the security situation and what kind of security