quick. yesterday, i guess, the group of house republicans put out a, an immigration plan that would deal with daca and also do a whole lot of things that weren't kind of under the umbrella of the four things outlined in the meeting yesterday. was that helpful? was that not helpful? to getting to a deal ultimately? does the president wish that they you know, take that off the table so you can focus on what might be happening with senator flake or others in the senate? how does -- >> no. we think that's a great starting point. we think a great place -- >> went beyond the parameters that the president specifically and you later -- >> he let out the things he felt had to be included. not just what could be included. certainly we think that this is a good starting point. part of the negotiation process. if we could get everything done we think that's much better than part of it done, but we're okay with getting a deal done as long as it falls into the parameters that the president laid out. >> but he understands, right, that adding the extra things are what makes, what has the potential to make this more difficult, because various constituencies think of those things as poison pills that will actually make it more difficult? >> that's all in the negotiation. everything puts everything on the table they want. figure out what you're not willing to give up, we've we've laid out and try to come out with everybody winning what we're hoping to do. both republicans, democrats, the house and senate. we've laid out those non-negotiables for us and will move forward in that process and hope to get that. >> you think you'll get that by the next week or so? >> i won't put a time frame on it but we hope to get it done. the priority, get it done and get it done right. april? >> sarah, secretary mnuchin said this white house has been working with businesses as it relates for a while, as relates to this tax plan, and when it comes to walmart, had this white house been talking with walmart about a safety net for employees that would lose their jobs today? looking at a sign right now from sam's club that says, this club will be closed on january 11, 2018. that's today. the day that secretary mnuchin talks how wonderful there will be increases in pay for walmart workers. >> i'm not aware about a conversation about a specific safety net. i can tell you that we're excited about the fact that they raised minimum wage, increased opportunities when it comes to paid family leave, and that they are increasing salaries to over 1 million american workers. we think that's a positive. in terms of specifics on a safety net and conversations around that i couldn't speak to that. >> and -- status report, i understand that ryan and mcconnell are not together on issues of welfafare reform. >> we've having conversations about that and think it's important policy to look at, but right now our focus primarily is on the budget and secondary is getting a deal done in regards to immigration on daca and border security, and most likely moving on to infrastructure from there. john? >> yeah. thank you, sarah. two brief questions. the president said yesterday that, and i quote "we are going to take a strong look at the libel laws." now, many lawyers said that was an unusual statement, because all libel laws are at the state level. not the federal level. was he refers to states should take a look at libel laws or something else? >> certainly states should take a look at it. look, the president's frustrated with the misreporting and fake news that regularly takes place. he is tired of the media's obsession over recent fictitious, the book on the president and his administration and thinks when things like that happen there should be an action of recourse and simply said it should be looked into. >> he meant the states, not that there should be federal libel law? >> speaking generally libel law should be looked at. >> and is the administration -- any reaction to the reports of the arrest of former iranian president auk mahman abdinijab? >> not to my knowledge. >> and what about talking about abuse and surveil, can you elabora elaborate? >> it's something we talked about many times before. there are a lot of things that indicate there was surveillance at trump tower, and i'm not sure what the clarification is deened on that front. >> two questions for you. a few days ago you said the white house did not have any reaction to the transcript released by senator feinstein related to fusion gps. is the president aware of this transcript and does he have any reaction to the fbi references within the transcript what was said by that gentleman? >> we certainly think it's a gross overstep by senator feinstein to release that transcript. there's been a lot of comments about obstruction of justice and frankly, the only people we've seen trying to influence the investigation are former director comey and democrats in congress and that would include senator feinstein, representative schiff, who have goethe selectively leaked to the media witness interviews. we see that to be a big problem and something that should certainly be considered and looked at. >> and follow-up question. today ecuador announced its granting nationality to wikileaks founder julian assange. does the president agree or disagree with this decision by the ecuadorians? >> i haven't spoken to him about that. >> sarah, can i ask you, on iran again. when the president went through the exercise in october of decertifying, the sanctions waivers, he said, words to the effect of, fix it, or he wouldn't do this again. the fix was supposed to include some legislation which hasn't happened yet. is the president comfortable with where the fix it part of this process is right now? and what is his feeling about what a fix would look like? >> well, the president still strongly believes this is one of the worst deals of all-time, and one of the single greatest flaws is that its restrictions leave iran free in the future to openly develop their nuclear program, and rapidly achieve a nuclear weapons breakout capability. obviously, we see a big problem with that. the administration is continuing to work with congress, and with our allies, to address those flaws, and we'll keep you guys posted as a decision on that front is made. hallie? >> thanks, sarah. i want to ask about offshore drilling. before i do, can you clarify something you've said, that a lot of people were confused by that tweet. >> actually i didn't say it. you said a lot of people were confused. >> we weren't confused but some of you were. >> yes. >> i want to ask. mime pompeo was out talking, pushing for this. a lot of people in the president's administration represented he wanted this to pass. his tweet was confusing, contradictory, it just was. how are people supposed to trust, not us as reporters but lawmakers, stakeholders, policymakers, that the people representing the president's position actually are? >> i think that the premise of your question is completely ridiculous and shows the lack of knowledge that you have on this process. i've tried several times. i'll do it a tenth time here. look, the president supports the 702. but he has some very strong concerns about the pfizer program more generally and why he put out a memo last week outlining such and why the dni director put out a new policy this morning. i'm not sure what the confusion is there and -- >> definitively saying the president's tweet was in your view not at all confusing and not at all contradictory? you think that's an accurate statement jie want to be very clear. >> it wasn't confusing for me. i'm sorry if it was for you. >> the offshore drilling ban? questions what's happening in florida? other states pointed to the reason this administration has ginken fon exempting florida saying they also would like to be exempt. so how is exempting florida from the ban anything other than, in critics' view, than giving a political favor to white house allies and key battle ground states? >> look, the president is a massive advocate for america, not just being energy independent but energy dominant. that's part of that process. the offshore drilling. why it's opened up for public comment. these are going to continue to be negotiations. we're going to continue to look for places and ways to make america more energy dominant. if that's one we're going to continue forward in that process. that's why we've opened up drilling and anwar, the keystone pipeline and cut job-killing regulations that have to do with that. it's an open comment period and we'll continue to talk with other stakeholders as we make decisions for other areas and other states. jake? >> and a political favor? >> i am not aware of any political favor that that would have been part of. so, no. >> thank you. prison reform. the president recent ly commute the sents ev s eveence of a fat years. what does the president view as priorities? >> look, the president is looking, one of the big topics are conversation today, looking at reducing reoccurring crime. that's the big priority on that front at this points. >> reports are out, please clarify. what is mr. kushner's role in this exactly? >> helping lead that conversation and put stakeholders together from a number of different areas that have expertise on this matter. one last question. anita? >> can you go back to immigration. can you shed a little light on what the holdup is? members of the republican party were in the negotiations, they're the ones saying they agree with democrats. the administration has been in the meetings, at least some of them. so what is the, what do you know of not -- >> only one member said there was a deal reached. the other members are well in sync, on the same page, we haven't quite gotten there but feel we're close and, against, will keep having these conversations. the president had a meeting here today with a number of members, both from the house and the senate, republicans and democrats, as a follow-up discussion on immigration, and, again, we feel very strongly that we can get a deal made. >> and the president talked about missing, is that the issue? not enough funding? can you shed a little light on it? >> i think it's demming agreeing to the other side of the deal. that's where we are and, again, confident and feel we're going to get there. thanks so much, guys. >> sarah -- is the president -- good afternoon, everyone. sarah huckabee sanders just ending the press briefing. questions particularly immigration. deal or no deal? republican senator jeff flake of arizona says lawmakers from both sides of the aisle reached a deal on immigration. and on daca. his colleague, senator tom cotton hitting the brakes. senator cotton one of seven members of congress who met with the president this afternoon says there's no deal. sarah huckabee sanders asked about a possible deal in today's briefing that just ended. here's what she said. >> there has not been a deal reached yet. however, we still think we can get there, and we're very focused on trying to make sure that that happens. the president's been clear about what his priorities are in that process, and we're going to continue working with members of the house and the senate, republicans and democrats, to make sure that we try to get that deal done. >> okay. this is a little trickier than it appears, because there are different people involve ared in different negotiations. so there may be the outlines of a deal everybody's not filled in on. covering all the angles. peter alexander joining us, lee ann caldwell, attorney at nbc news, ronald reyes. start with you, lee ann. a deal negotiated by one of the groups negotiating you have the outlines what that might look like? >> reporter: i do. of course, it could change after the caveat, now that the deal is not completely final, but what it does, it addresses daca, and the people who applied for the daca program and those who didn't, but are eligible. it gives them a path to citizenship. it also adds about $2.8 billion for border security. it also goes further and addresses this family migration. it says the parents of daca recipients are not allowed to receive citizenship. they, instead, will get temporary protected status, and then this deal also talks about the visa lottery system. there's 50,000 slots from low immigration countries for people to immigrate here every year. it takes half of those and gives those to people from either el salvador or haiti. those who just lost their temporary protected status who have been in the united states. of course, these things could change. there's some republicans on one -- on the right who are saying that this is -- they're nowhere close to a deal. these are not the parameters and does not go as far as they'd live. other republicans, although, i'm talking to, like senator thom tillis, part of these negotiations at the outset and then left. has always been involved in these negotiations, and he said, you know, there's a couple issues and we're close, but i would not say that there's a deal yet. >> all right. peter alexander. maybe just has been happening so quickly, but sarah huckabee sanders did not seem to buy into the idea that there was maybe a deal. she seems to have reflected the views of tom cotton and others who said there isn't a deal. obviously a discussion with some congressional members at the white house, which she's reflecting. what are we supposed to think about this? >> i think the bottom line, the white house is skeptical there's any deal. they can see there is not a deal right now but are trying to frame this as optimism that thanks to the president's hard work that televised negotiating session just two days ago, largely focusing on immigration the president is helping push the process forward on the four main topics needed to be a part of this. border security including some some way a wall. daca, the d.r.e.a.m.ers and family based migration and ending the lottery system. the administration knows, the problem isn't what happens in the senate but among the members of the house specifically the freedom caucus and other conservatives. frankly, they are skeptical and dubious. they don't want to get too far out in front of their skis, want it to play out. >> if you look at it different, peter, look at the four areas, the stuff leigh ann just reported on, the path to citizenship for daca recipients, the idea it's 2.8 billion dollars for border-related things as opposed to $18 billion the president was looking for, this sort of feels like it might be a little more of a victory for democrats than republicans? >> reporter: still a ways to go. that's why one of the questions posed to sarah sanders here was, should d.r.e.a.m.ers in the country have confidence president trump can press the issue in way, with their status in legal limbo, they will be able to stay. the clock is ticking. early march is the explanation date. one d.r.e.a.m.er said feels like he has an explanation date on his head and others, former homeland security secretaries, republicans and democrats alike saying the real deadline is january 19th to make sure all the paperwork is in place to implement the new plan that comes, congress comes up withened a the president allmyly signs on to. a long way to go and a lot of reasons people are skeptical it gets done. >> i want to speak more about this in a moment. before i go, that was an interesting press conference. what about it, what sort of, stood out to you on that? >> reporter: is that me, ali? >> yeah, you, peter. >> reporter: struck me specifically the white house lives in an alternate universe when it comes to the contacts saying the president was confused about fisa, his early morning tweet but others. the towards sarah sanders used we don't think there's a conflict at all. he has a great deal of understanding. we weren't confused, she said. when asked about the fact that the president tweeted these tweets over the course of a couple hours this morning before the house was to vote on that foreign intelligence surveillance act today, section 702, the intelligence community really cracked down on its efforts to surveil potential foreign terrorists. sarah sanders says it had nothing to do with the fact the president is a fan of "fox & friends" waging this morning and just so happened to be top of mind. people can draw their own conclusions if that's believable. that's the assessment in the eyes of the white house. >> when hallie asked what to make of it, sarah sanders said the premise of your question is entirely ridiculous. interesting stories. peter, leigh ann on capitol hill, raul reyes, nbc.com contributor, we'll talk about fisa in a moment. covering the mixed signals the president ditched out earlier today on the surveillance big. the house so you're up to speed what happened, the house passed a key provision in the foreign intelligence surveillance act known at fisa, not before the president confused everyone by tweeting house vote, what he said. house votes on controversial fisa act today. this is the act that may have been used with the help of the discreddy itted and phony dossier to badly surveil and abuse the trump campaign by the previous administration and others with a question mark. that directly contradicted trump's own administration statements to reauthorize the provision for its value in the fight against terrorism. 90 minutes later, the president walked back the comments tweeting, with that said, i have personally directed the fix to the unmasking process since taking office and today's vote is about foreign surveillance of foreign bad guys on foreign land. we need it. get smart. but the damage had been done in the eyes of some lawmakers. >> look, we speak on an almost daily basis. >> he thinks it's still in the bill. >> a mistake. the president is a posupporting vote. >> the president is echoing the latest message heard from a common daentator on fox news. >> peter, still there. in the end the president came around. the fisa it was reauthorized another six years, but to the point that, hallie's question, to sarah sanders, this is awful confusing. the morning of the vote, the president seems toing taking two opposing positions. >> reporter: not just two opposing positions. a position opposing to the white house's position we received in a statement from the white house last night. there was plenty of confusion here, sarah sanders can press it off and suggest only reporters confused but it wasn't just reporters. chief of staff john kelly hustling to the hill, director mark shore, short-stopping lawmakers before the vote happened. paul ryan having a call with the president before the vote took place today as well. bottom line is not only it created confusion it jeopardized what those members of the intelligence community view as a critical effort to secure america's security around the globe right now. the exchange that my colleague hallie jackson had with sarah sanders a short time ago. >> his tweet today was confusing, it was contradictory. it just was. how are people supposed to trust not us as reporters lawmakers, policymakers, stakeholders, the people representing the president's position actually are? >> i think that the premise of your question is completely ridiculous and shows the lack of knowledge that you have on this process. i have tried several times. i'll do it a tenth time here. look, the president supports the 702. but he has some very strong concerns about the fisa program more generally. again, this is why he put out a memo last week outlining such and why the dni director put out a new policy this morning. i'm not sure what the confusion is there. >> before i -- >> definitively saying the president's tweet this morning was in your view not at all confusing and not at all contradictory? you think that's an accurate statement? i want to be very clear about this. >> it wasn't confusing to me, i'm sorry if it was for you. >> wow. >> reporter: clear the confusing to a lot of others including republicans. you played peter king, a short time ago. he called it a mistake. it wasn't just the media as the white house would like to suggest or some democrats, but be clear today. critics of this president, you have to wonder how much this president cares, is concerned about the intelligence community when the he seems to not have a fundamental understanding about the fisa program. >> policy by twitter is complicated but to this point, your last point, president obama recognized that this 702 in fisa poses some challenges to privacy and liberty in the interest of safety and wanted to do some things with it and the intelligence committee, community, able to say, look, we really need this. enacted in 2008. you know, it's nuanced, complicated. not a black and white matter. >> reporter: you're right. one of the questions i wanted to pose to sarah sanders the fact the president today in the tweet rails what he described discredited and i think phony dossier, the way he described it, which raises the question of, is it appropriate for the president to be neglect relying on his personal frustrations when he is applying policy creating, directing policy in some way on this occasion the president made that selection again to follow through with that effort. >> thank you for your insight. at the white house. joining me now, knows a lot about the intelligence community, ned price, former national security council spokesperson under president obama. ned, pick where i left off with peter. this is nuanced. right? fisa is supposed to live somewhere between our expectation and need for privacy and freedom and expectation and need for security. and that's not an exact science. so president obama strugglealed with this. clearly, president trump is struggling with this, but you've got to be careful how you play this in public? >> ali, every president struggled with and it's become ever for complex in the age we live in. the united states intelligence community is capable of so much more than you or i could ever imagine. the question becomes what boundaries, what policy boundaries do you set for the intelligence community knowing that we as the american people, cherish, of course, our security, but also cherish our civil liberties, and it's finding that balance there. >> so president trump is a little bit mad. a little hot und are the collar, about the unmasking business. right? what he wanted was some changes to that. but the challenges to fisa and its reauthorizations, which happened this morning, are that -- it is needed for certain things, but americans can't in some surveillance? >> ali, 702 and fisa in general does have safeguards baked into it. there have been safeguards enacted over the course of the past few years, even additional ones in the course of the past few months. there is contrary to popular opinion judicial oversight, a foreign intelligence surveillance court that takes a close look at this program every year. there is something called the private and civil liberties oversight board, an independent non-partisan board that looks at this. also you have to listen to the intelligence community. what the intelligence community has consistently said ever since this statute was passed into law in 2008 was that 702 is one of if not the most important tool in the arsenal that they have. this is a statute. this is a tool that actually has allowed the intelligence community to save american lives and been able, in fact, to declassify some of those examples. >> in your opinion, did the right thing happen today in the end? >> the right thing did happen in the end. look, we also saw president trump once again snap defeat from the jaws of victory, but fortunately, his team was able to step in. they were able to keep lawmakers in the building behind me in line and i think that congress was right. congress was right to reauthorize this tool. you will hear from the intelligence community ta congress did the right thing and i think the american people are much safer because of what happened behind me. not because of, but in spite of president trump. >> ned, thank you. msnbc's national security analyst and former national security council spokesperson under president obama. back to the big story of the day. immigration. joining me, as promised, attorney and msnbc news be.com contributor raul reyes. same question i asked ned. if we do have a deal as leigh ann caldwell outlined. it's not clear we have one. clear for some on capitol hill we have a deal but it's outlined $2.8 million combined for something like a fence or the border, much less than the $18 billion asked for. a path to citizenship for d.r.e.a.m.ors and other things. does that feel like the right thing to you? >> that feels like the right thing, if we were talking about a normal administration. you're looking at the parameters. excuse me. at those parameters. you're going to hear voices on the right saying, it's too laxed. hear voices on the left saying no. this is too hard-line. that in itself is normally an indication that you've reached a good compromise. both sides are concerned about what they're giving up and what they're getting. so in theory, yes. but with this administration, we know trump is impulsive and we know as sarah huckabee sanders mentioned, the president has not signed off on this deal. >> correct. >> and really seems to be under the influence right now at least of stephen miller who is a known immigration hard-liner. what struck me in the press conference we waged earlier when mr. costa asked sarah huckabee sanders if d.r.e.a.m.ers should have confidence a deal would be made. she quickly answered yes -- >> as long as it meets the president's criteria, or whatever she said. >> right. that to me shows to a certain extent the presidency is operating in a bubble, because 15,000 d.r.e.a.m.ers already lost their protections. >> right. >> we have immigration rates taking place across the country at these 7-elevens. an activist in new york city taken into detention. things are happening on the ground. for these d.r.e.a.m.ers, it's a roller coaster. someone part of nbc news be latino, we cover immigration and follow immigration and talk to sources every day. >> yeah. >> it is often very -- lately, often confusing to me, to many of us who follow this so closely. so how can people whose lives are going to be affected by this, could be upended? how could they vi have any confidence in think future? >> as of this morning, provide visions for the d.r.e.a.m.ers has don't lead to a path to citizenship citizenship. you said yesterday it's a nonstarter. if this is true -- we don't know how real the deal is -- but if true to get a path to citizenship for drmers a ed.r.e and the money for the wall, doesn't seen believable, something the president would sign off on, but would seem like a victory for those who wanted the d.r.e.a.m.ers to stay? >> right. if true, represents a huge breakthrough. instead of talk about specifically about this border wall, we're here to talk more about border security, fencing, drones. instead of -- >> barriers. >> right. instead of ending so-called chain migration, sort of an exchange of the diversity visa lottery numbers for the tps protections also in a round about way benefit the daca beneficiaries because some of those numbers would go for their parents. if this were to hold and stay within the few parameters, yes, seems we've moved forward from yesterday. again, this is not a normal presidency. >> if you're stephen miller,'s stephen miller has argued, on the wrong side of economics. a lot of people think the daca, d.r.e.a.m.ers, people with an education and in many cases working, can't have a felony. they're the kind of people who you would put with legal immigrants. this isn't going to pass stephen miller's muster anyway. >> right. that is the worry. when you have someone who is, you know, taken aim and taken away already tps, he wants to cut back significantly on legal migration. how can you think he would allow something like a path to citizenship for these d.r.e.a.m.ers? >> right. >> not that that isn't a worthy goal for many people. we just had a poll this week. 80% of americans, plus, according to this quinnipiac support are in favor of d.r.e.a.m.ers. sent a letter to the white house saying we want a path to citizenship, we will employ the d.r.e.a.m.ers, but in the end it will come down to i think whether stephen miller can continue his influence with trump and how much pressure they are able to withstand or bear from the senators. >> raul, thanks for being with me. just to underscore the degree to which this is not clear about what's going on. here's senators john cornyn of texas and senator jeff flake of arizona on this deal. >> senator cornyn, is there not a deal on daca? >> there is not. >> it has to get 60 votes. we're the only bipartisan deal in town. this is -- >> wait. senator. that's not right. another group. >> the number twos working together. >> how do you square the two things? >> ask senator durbin. he's part of both of those. the bipartisan group and see if the other group has a deal. i hope they do. i wish they would, i should say. but right now, this is the only bipartisan agreement out there. and we're just shopping it to more colleagues. >> you have six. can you get 60? >> oh -- 60? total, yes. it's the only way. obviously it's got to be a bipartisan deal. >> we'll continue to follow that to find out whether or not there is the a deal. up next, jared kushner, taking on a topic hits particularly at home for him. prison reform. after the break, what came of today's meeting in the prison reform movement. ♪ if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,... ...isn't it time to let the real you shine through? maybe it's time for otezla (apremilast). otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months,... ...with reduced redness,... ...thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has... ...no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased... ...risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have... ...a history of depression... ...or suicidal thoughts,... ...or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla... ...reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper... ...respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take... ...and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you. we support our law enforcement partners, and we're working to reduce crime and put dangerous offenders behind bars. at the same time we want to ensure that those who enter the justice system are able to contribute to their communities after they leave prison which is one of many very difficult subjects we are discussing. >> all right. the president last hour on prison reform. a focus of the meeting at least we were able to hear. ways to reduce recidivism. returning to crime after people have been punished. that's not the only issue to punish on for reform. also a concern of for-profit prisons and what that does for incarceration dates. this a year after jeff sessions rescinded an order by president obama to phase out prisons. this is the most heavily incarcerated country in the world. currently there are more than 2 million americans behind bars. more than any other country including people locked up in state local and private prisons. of this 2.1 million, more than 128,000 are held in private facilities. not government facilities. keeping all of these individuals locked up means huge business for private prisons. one estimate, for-profit prisons are a $5 billion industry and there are two major for-profit prison companies in the united states. core civic and the geogroup, combined the two manage the overwhelming majority of private prison contracts in the united states. we should note, both companies donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the trump campaign. for more on private prisons and overall reform, joined by senior counsel, nyc center for justice and an author. "an american dilemma in the age of incarceration." i've never been able to get my head out of this. i'm a business journalist. there should be lots of things for-profit. but if you're profiting out of prisons you're benefiting from people being in prison for longer amounts of times? >> that's what the book explores. history of the privatization of the justice system, and you're right. you just spoke about those figures. today we have about 8% of incarcerated individuals at the state level in private prisons. 18% at the federal level and something a lot of your viewers might be surprised at, that 65% of immigrants detainees in department of homeland security detention centers are actually in private facilities. >> that's right. >> that's a huge boon to the private prison industry under the trump administration. >> the government argues, people who are proponents of these, say they're efficient. running on a profit motive, run it for less money and the government doesn't pay as much to incarskars ecarcerate people >> that's what the book explores. the great hope the private prison entry in the mid-1980s said they would do. do a better job. >> better places, less money. >> always lousy recidivism rates in's countries. three quarters of people who leave prison return within three years. a lousy rate. then three quarters of states in mid-1980,eneder order to reduce prison populations. we can do it better than the government. four decades later, we haven't seen that innovation or that promise. we haven't seen the cost savings. it's something we really need to be vitgilant now that the trump administration is increasing reliance on the private prison industry. >> is there anything about private prison industry incentivizes judges to send them there for people who otherwise wouldn't go to prison? >> there has been. one pretty well-known case in pennsylvania where the juvenile court judge did receive some incentives and was paid to actually send juvenile defendants -- >> i remember a kid shoplifting and first offense, got sent to jail. >> right. while that case might be an outlier it gets at incentives. there is no incentive for government prisons because there's no corporation behind it. >> doing in this way, somebody is profiting from having people in jail. >> exactly. >> good story. thank you for joining us. we'll continue to follow these developments. senior counsel at the brennan center for justice and author of "inside private prisons: an american dilemma in an age of mass incarceration." you are might know someone invested in bitcoin pap demand for jobs in the industry connected to cryptocurrenciecry. those details, after the break. to prepare you for the future. looks like you hooked it. and if that's not enough, we'll help your kid prepare for the future. don't hook it kid. and if that's still not enough, we'll help your kid's kid prepare for the future. looks like he hooked it. we'll do anything... takes after his grandad. seriously anything, to help you invest for the future. ally. do it right. seriously anything, to help you invest for the future. looking for a hotel that fits... whoooo. ...your budget? tripadvisor now searches over... ...200 sites to find you the... ...hotel you want at the lowest price. grazi, gino! find a price that fits. tripadvisor. but on the inside, i feel chronic, widespread pain.like most people. fibromyalgia may be invisible to others, but my pain is real. fibromyalgia is thought to be caused by overactive nerves. lyrica is believed to calm these nerves. i'm glad my doctor prescribed lyrica. for some, lyrica delivers effective relief for moderate to even severe fibromyalgia pain. and improves function. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions, suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worse depression, unusual changes in mood or behavior, swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or blurry vision. common side effects: dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain, swelling of hands, legs and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who've had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. with less pain, i can do more with my family. talk to your doctor today. see if lyrica can help. all right. you've been hearing all about it. investors are going wild for cryptocurren cryptocurrencies. mostly heard about bitcoin. tell you about what bitcoin has done. up over 1,500% in 2017. other lesser known cryptocurrencies usually worth less were even, up even more than that. with that kind of return on investment a lot of people are flocking to get in on the access. demand is so high that major cryptocurrency exchanges can't keep up with new retgistrations and here to being blocked in a number of cryptocurrency places. and technology behind bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. it's incredibly risky. be prepared to lose your money if you get in the game. some positive things about bitco bitcoin, which i never do, bring in my old friend. seema mody. >> right. businesses are on the hunt for experiences in blotching. underline technology that bitcoin and ehere to yutheeethe 2,000% jump compared to the same period a year ago. rules vary from developers with experience launching cryptocurrencies. some businesses simply looking for a blotching consultant to come in and explain how this new technology can make their product or business more efficient. now, getting a blonching professional is not keep. houry rate ranges from $100 or higher. i found one who left his job in engineering to pu sue this. he charges $625 an hour. seeing more bitcoin related job postings specifically in the financial services industry, and linkedin says more members are including cryptocurrencies and bitcoin in profiles to attract test. we spoke to coin and doubled head counted in 2017 to 200 employees. certainly an industry to keep an eye on. >> instead of putting or your bread in the investing cryptocurrency think about working in it and get ak sting salary no matter what happens. >> thank you. >> for more on crypt other currency or cryptocurrency fever. carnegie mellon, silicon valley. you wrote on nbc think the bitcoin bubble will burst. promote viable digital currencies instead. you believe in the underlying concept but worried that bitcoin itself is a little out of control? >> yeah. this is a dotcom boom version 2.0. we're in january 2010, when the peak was in march and everything crashed. these people are looking for jobs, looking at unemployment soon afterwards. digital currencies make a lot of sense, however, blog sharers don't need this. look at china. china is now transacting 5.5 trillion dollars on digitdigita currencies. they have their own system which acquired lockchain. india has universal payments interface. transacting billions of dollars all without block change. largest will soon be on difgita and we'll sit hearing having lost our investments in big coin. >> i'm with you. people say, i think bitcoin is out of control but the block chain technology is brilliant. do you believe in block chain technology? >> block chain is valuable for doing land records. for smart contracts perhaps. there are limited cases, but those aren't worth billions of dollars. if you're in africa and want property records, it makes sense to do it. you think silicon valley will cash in on that boom? no. 1/100th of the value previbed to it now. >> valuation is the important part. warren buffett talked about this on wednesday. let's listen to him. >> in terms of cryptocurrencies, generally, i can say almost with certainty that they will come to a bad ending. now when it happens, or how or anything else i don't know. >> now, i remember in the early 2000s, warren buffett saying the same about the tech bubble. while he was right about the bubble at the time, he's not generally been one at the front end of investing trends. should we be believing warren buffett on this? >> in this case, yes, because it's gotten crazy. we're at the peak of this bubble right now. it's going to burst. people are going to lose life savings because of scamsters in silicon valley and outside hyping it. talking about bitcoin worth $1 million, and then you have investor types saying, hold on to it for the long term. all it does, give them a chance to sell out. hyping it, they will cash are g cash out and the poor are going to be left holding the bag. it's a scam. i'd strongly advise people not to fall for it. however, block chain does have uses, and it will exist in the future. there will be new stuff built on it, but not the value we're prescribing to it right now. also not for digital currency. it's not the killer app for block chain. >> good to talk to you as always. technology entrepreneur. professor of engineering at carnegie mellon's silicon valley campus. a group of lawmakers will be dressed all in black, similar to sunday's golden globes to show solidarity with victims of sexual misconduct. some will also bring victims to the address as their guests. congress has been slow to react even as a number of colleagues on both sides step down or retire. one of the most effective ways congress and businesses can address sexual harassment is to hire more women and encouraging a more mature culture. i want to bring in a woman who knows all about changing a workplace environment. the former chief talent officer at netflix. also the author of a new book "powerful." patty, great to have you on the show. >> terrific to be here. >> really, unless we change our workplace cultures and get to a place of pay equity and things like that, we will not have moved the needle enough with the me too movement and it will have passed us by. you spent 14 years at netflix developing sets of ideas. i was about to say rules but one of your rules is you shouldn't have too many rules. that's the one i wanted to hone in on. how do you deal with this as a cultural problem we're in right now which seems to be fixable by prescribing rules when instead, it's a way of thinking. >> like all ways of thinking, you have to demonstrate what it looks like. a way of thinking is one thing. a way of acting is another. i have to follow up on your last story about crypto currency and the rise of employment there and i would like to really see how many women are joining that workforce, right? >> and a lot of these are coders. end to tends to be a guy thing. >> oh, here's another one just waiting to happen. another bunch of white geeky guys creating this fantasy -- >> we've seen it in our time in silicon valley. a culture that we've developed. >> more than once for those of us in silicon valley for a long time. so here's my premise. i named the book "powerful" because i hate the words that we use around work now like my particular pet peeve is the word empowerment in that, you know -- n that's going to be one of the solutions. you'll hear it. we're going to empower women to make a difference and hit them with a magic wand and it will all be done. >> you write people have inherent power. >> they walk in the door. it's not just the employer responsibility. it's the employee responsibility. so i spend a whole lot of time talking to women's organizations now, and i say listen. this is not their problem. this is your problem. >> interesting. >> and you should go out and interview and when they talk about engagement, nobody put a ring on it. if you go interview, you're not cheating on your husband. so you should spend a lot of time knowing what you're worth in the open market because that's how salaries oar. >> that's an age-old problem. guys ask for more money than they're worth and women often don't. >> they often don't know. i'm advocating to get started, go interview at other companies -- >> even if you aren't planning on take another job. practice and understand your value. >> then go back to your company and decide whether or not they're going to address that situation or not. and my second pet peeve is that because of the competition systems that most corporations have in place, they'll say, oh, yeah, that might or might not be true. we'll address it in our next performance review cycle a year from now. right? meanwhile, you're losing wages for that period of time. >> you have a simple proposal. that's to pay top of market. the way many businesses deal with this is how little can i pay you to get you to take my offer or to stay? >> and you get a different kind of worker that way. that may be really appropriate for a different kind of business. the kind business i advocate this for, the kind in this book is an example about scarcity in the silicon valley. when you have scarcity, it's market factors. fewer people that know how to do what you need to do. and because i've been in the valley for so long that got to pay somebody twice as much to do this thing, as soon as you do that, then everybody wants to do that thing and now you have a lot of people that know how to do that thing and the value plateaus out over time. so supply and demand scenario. >> interesting market study in how to get people paid more and get more value out of them. >> thank you for joining us and thank you for the book. >> patty mccord, author of "powerful." still following developments on the immigration matter in the senate. moments ago senator lindsey graham, dick durbin, michael bennett, cory gardner and robert menendez have come to an agreement. they released a statement that read president trump called on congress to solve the daca challenge. we've been working for four months and have reached an agreement that addresses border security, diversity lottery, chain migration, family reunification and the d.r.e.a.m. act. we're now working to build support for that in congress. nbc news capitol hill correspondent kasie hunt just wrapped up an interview with jeff flake of arizona. so maybe she can tell us what's really happening here. is there a deal? >> i got to tell you, this entire issue has gotten so confused over the course of this afternoon. flake was the first person who said they had a deal and then lindsey graham was at the white house with some other members. came back and says this is not what the white house wants to do. the white house thinks this deal that they have struck in this bipartisan group cannot pass the house, primarily, and they are focused on another set of negotiations which are the number twos in the house and the senate. the minority whips basically. majority leader kevin mccarthy on the house side and john kelly, the white house chief of staff. but the reality here is that all of this has muddled the path forward for a daca solution. it's now much less clear how this is going to wind its way through congress. i spoke to jeff flake. and he told me that he thinks the solution they came to is the only one that can pass. take a look. >> and if the president is the only bill that's going to be ready to be introduced is the one that we produced, the one that we're working on now that we have agreement on. we hope to add some other members. that's what we'll be doing over the weekend. but that's where it is. it's got to be a bipartisan bill. i can't see how -- what the process starting in the house now with partisan bill. i don't see that that gets us anything. we've got a short runway here march 5th. these protections run out for d.r.e.a.m.ers. we've got to get a bill on the senate floor. >> that short runway is likely what's going to determine what happens next here and what could throw the entire governing process into crisis. there is, of course, a government funding deadline coming up next thursday. and there is a possibility that democrats or perhaps republicans under some kind of strange confluence of events could wind up not being able to get the votes to keep that open because there is no deal yet on the d.r.e.a.m.ers, on this particular issue. democrats have drawn a line in the sand. defense hawks who don't want to extend government funding. it was looking as though we're proceeding along to get to a deal relatively quickly. now it looks like that timeline is more drawn out. there's so much at stake for these d.r.e.a.m.ers. right now it's, quite frankly, a mess here on capitol hill. >> and the irony here, as you said, the white house thinking that congress may not pass this. that's what lindsey graham said to garrett yesterday. we may have a deal. the house is another story. >> that's exactly right. one thing i will say as well, ali, there's two dynamics going on. first hard right conservatives who are concerned, didn't really want this conversation in the first place on daca or an immigration conversation. but there are also some democrats who are pretty unhappy that instead of simply talking about fixing the d.r.e.a.m.ers issue, there are now broader conversations about these other issues the white house has focused on. the white house calls it chain migration. democrats and activists and others will say that's a pretty callous way to describe family based immigration where people can come if they have a family member here. that's a huge, sweeping, potentially fundamental change to our immigration system that in many ways is the source of a lot of disagreement up here that's been thrown into the mix. the bipartisan agreement would say this will only deal with daca recipients. the white house doesn't want that. they want a change for the whole country. that would be very difficult for a lot of democrats to vote for. >> kasie, thank you for that. much more of that interview on "kasie dc." on sunday at 7:00 eastern. the dow up 135 points to yet another record high. the nasdaq composite also -- regularly with our ameriprise advisor. we plan for everything from retirement to college savings. giving us the ability to add on for an important member of our family. starts right now. i do want to go back to this because the dow is -- particularly on high volume days for the numbers to shake out. that's remarkable. a 200-point gain. yesterday we saw a flat market. we've been seeing these gains. we're off to the strongest start for the beginning of the year for these markets in a long time. look at that second one. a 19-point gain on the s&p 500 which i like better than the dow because it's 500 stocks as opposed to the 30 in the dow and probably is a little more reflective of your investment portfolio. th

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Arizona , India , Iran , China , Ecuador , Florida , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Capitol Hill , Americans , America , American , Sarah Huckabee Sanders , Dick Durbin , Leeann Caldwell , Leigh Ann , Warren Buffett , Carnegie Mellon , Lee Ann , Cory Gardner , Sarah Sanders , Peter King , Raul Reyes , Patty Mccord , Stephen Miller , Seema Mody , Jared Kushner , Sarah Huckabee , Lindsey Graham , Peter Alexander , Jeff Flake , Paul Ryan , John Cornyn ,