Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  November 14, 2013 11:00pm-1:01am EST

11:00 pm
constituent. so let's be fair. come down to the floor one after the other and shed light on one problem and fixed something the president said that he will fix. just like your predecessor is that medicare is a terrible idea and that is what this is about. we are going to make history here. we were going to fix the problem and there will be more of that. because that is what happens. .. our children will have a brighter future. and i'm just here to say i stand with those who want progress. i'm not going to tear something down like they want to do and go right back to where we were before, with parents like these having to choose between feeding their families and giving their
11:01 pm
kids health care. thank you, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. thank you, the senator from california for telling the stories of people in california which are not unlike the stories in connecticut, an exchange that is working. a flood of people signing up way above expectations from where we originally thought the numbers would be. would be. >> i thank you as well for pointing out what is the reality, which is that over 40 # times, republicans in the house of representatives and senate voted to repeal the health care reform law, and even well over the last five years, using over and over again this montra of repeal and replace, knave offered stlowtly no replacements. mr. president, there was a story in one of the trade publications down here this morning saying
11:02 pm
the republicans were just going to change their strategy, that instead of piling on repeal vote after repeal vote, they were not just going to come down to the floor and use their committee chairmanship to simply criticize the law and shell for the time being their insis sent efforts to repeal the law entirely. make no mistake, that continues to be their intention. well, they will come down to the floor of the senate as they did this morning and tell a handful of antedotes about people who are dissatisfied with the law. their true intention is to get rid of the entire law and go back to a world in which 30 million people in the country had no access to insurance that if you got fixed, you'd lose your insurance, a world in which insurance companies essentially set the rules of the game to the disadvantage of providers and much parties. that's what the agenda is here,
11:03 pm
to repeal the law and go back to the status quo, which is unacceptable. the highest number of uninsured citizens in the industrialized world, the most expensive health care system by a factor of two compared to all of our g20 competitors. i get it, there are people who are unhappy and the president is going to announce later today to set a path forward to try to fix one of the issues of the law with respect to canceled policies, but let me tell you a couple other stories about what the reality of the old systems was. kyle is today about 11 years old, but when he came into my office, he was an 8-year-old living with hemophilia. he's an amazingly brave young man who inspires courage in his parents, but kyle has to get three to four injections a week
11:04 pm
in order to treat his hemophilia, and each injection costs 3,000 dollars. now, his plan prior to health care reform had a feature in it that most people didn't know was included in their health care plan. that was a lifetime cap on the amount of money the insurance company would pay for his care. now, because kyle was mounting up bills in the tens of thousands of dollars every week, his family was going to hit that cap very quickly, and then be on the hook for those $3,000 injections that kyle needs to take three to four times a week. that was going to bankrupt kyle's family. they thank their lucky stars that we passed this health care a form law because now their insurance has to be real insurance. it protecting them against their
11:05 pm
lifetime exposure of high health care costs. think about the burgers from connecticut. they had insurance their entire life other than a two-week period of time when betty's husband switched jobs, and during that two-week period of time, their son was zigged with cancer, and because that was then a preexisting condition, the new insurance plan would not cover their son's treatment. their story, unfortunately, can be told millions of times over across this country because they went bankrupt, lost their savings, their house, everything as they mounted up huge bills to pay for the carpet treatments. that ends with the implementation of this health care law. no sick person can be denied insurance simply cause of a tree
11:06 pm
existing condition because a diagnosis happened in a period of time where your family didn't have insurance. i get the road has been a little bumpy as we have implemented this health care system, but it's nothing compared to the bumps that have been encountered by millions of families across this country who have been abused by a system that simply does in the work. the majority leader's on the floor so i'll close talking about connecticut experience. if our biggest problem is that enough people who don't have ?urnses aren't signing up quick enough for insurance, that's a problem that i will accept because it's a problem we can fix. if all we talk about here here is the pace, where people go from uninsured to insured, and we can fix that because we know
11:07 pm
the product is good. senator boxer talked about the massachusetts experience in which during the first month of their enrollment for the massachusetts exchange, only .3 #% of the total signed up during that month. why? because people take time. this is not animal easy decision to sign up for health care. in connecticut where we have an exchang that's up and running, a wbsz thabs working, the first month, know our number? it was not.# # #%, but enrolled 10% of the expected total in the first 30 days, and here's what people say about their experience with connecticut's exchange. one said, this is a great resource for cops residents to apply for health coverage, thanks to the health care law. another said, i chose access health because i've been denied in the past by other carriers. before this law changed. another said, thank you so much for this health care law. i have not been insured in a decade. i am so, so, so thankful.
11:08 pm
another said, thank you for this program. i lost my job a year ago and couldn't find anything that i could afford in health coverage before this law passed. timely, another said, thank you, this law is helpful and appreciated. god bless america, and thank you, president obama. the president's going to make an announcement that will paint a pallet forward for the relatively small number of americans, 4% who get their insurance in the individual market, some of which have had their plans canceled, but the solution with respect to the timing of enrollment, the solution is to fix the problem so that like in connecticut more people across this country can have access for the first time to affordable quality health care.
11:09 pm
thank you, mr. president, i yield the floor. >> senator from illinois. >> mr. president, i want to thank my colleague from connecticut, my colleague from california for coming to the floor. for the last hour, republican hours told a number of stories about individuals and the difficulties they run into with health insurance, and i don't dispute facts brought to the floor, but i dispute the characterization of what america faces in this point in time. i supported the affordable care act. i believe it the right thing to do, and i still believe it. most democrats and republicans agree on that part that it's off it a rocky start. this website was supposed to be ready, and the sooner the better. it's improving by the day. that's good. americans need access to information about health insurance, and when they have that access, they can do something for many of them for the first time in their lives, go shopping for health
11:10 pm
insurance. you know, there's a lot of people who never had that luxury, some have never had health insurance one day in their lives. others have been given a take it or leave it policy that may or may not be worth anything. i listen carefully to the republicans for a long, long time on the issue of health insurance. i hear criticism and complaints. they wanted to fund obamacare, they want to delay affordable care act. they want to destroy it. they don't have an alternative. oh, we want to repair and replace it. well, let's hear your proposal. we never heard one during the course of our debate on creating this law three and a half years ago. we kept waiting for the republican plan, and the answer is they had none. apparently, they still don't. the reason they don't is they fall back and say, let the marketplace decide. well, many of us know that the marketplace in health care personally. we know the market place that's turned away 40-50 million people
11:11 pm
who are uninsured in america. people who still get sick, still go to the hospital, and whose bills are paid by everyone else. the republican party is supposed to be the party of responsibility and individualism. what about the responsibility that we all have if we can afford it to have health insurance and as a country to provide means for those who can't afford it so they can have protection too. that, to me, is responsible. trying to stop the reform is irresponsible. getting into the specifics on the affordable care act, you never hear republican senator come to the floor and make a case against the specifics. you know why? they don't. is there a republican senator who will come to the floor and defend the right of a health insurance company to turn down a person or family basts preexisting condition? that's the situation we faced when we passed the affordable
11:12 pm
care act. is there a family in america that doesn't have someone with a preexisting condition? most families do. my family has in the past and does now too. preexisting conditions can range from the very, very serious to things which are chronic and manageable for asthma, diabetes, cancer survivors, the list is long. the affordable care act says you cannot turn down a porous person in america for health insurance because of a preexisting condition. the republicans say they want to repeal that. they want to go back to the day where you can turn down a person because of preexisting conditions, then have the courage to come to the floor and say it. they won't. the bill -- the law also says you can't limit the lifetime payout on a health insurance policy. there were a lot of people who thought a hundred thousand dollars was a lot of money for health care until they got into the serious situation.
11:13 pm
one diagnosis, one serious disease, one accident away from medical bills that would wipe out a hundred thousand dollars in a day or two. we put in the affordable care act there can be no upper lifetime limit when it comes to the payout under the health care ?urnses poll -- insurance policy. the republicans want to repeal it. i challenge any republican senator to come to the floor and explaining that one. did you know as well, mr. president, that of the family policies sold in america, 60% of the policies did not cover maternity benefits? we require the coverage of maternity benefits. now, let me tell you, my wife and i are not in the situation where we are likely to use those personally, but we happen to believe that it's a good thing across america, and it's a family-friendly thing across mark to make sure policies cover maternity. those who talk about family
11:14 pm
values and love of family and love of babies and children, why in the world wouldn't you want to include that protection in all family policies? spread the risk across the population, but make sure every family affords to have prenatal care for a healthy baby and mom when that blessed event arrives. i'm waiting for the first republican to come to the floor saying that's a bad idea too. incidentally, insurance policies used to discriminate against groups, particularly women. we said that's over. you can't discriminate against women and treat them differently. you got to be fair in the allocation of the risk, and you can't use gender as a basis for increasing the cost of a policy. the republicans want to repeal that. i'm waiting for the first republican senator to come @ floor and say health insurance policies, because of the free market, should be allowed to discriminate against women. that's a reality. the other thing we provided in
11:15 pm
the affordable care act, finally, families with children coming out of college, looking for a job, keep their kids on their health insurance policies to the age of 26. some 300,000 plus, why is that a good thing. a lot of good things from college don't find a job right away. they don't have a full time job or ben fetes. if you've been a mom or dad been in the circumstance as a father where i called my daughter and said, jennifer, do you have health insurance? dad, i don't need it, i'm healthy. those are things that keep you up at night. the affordable care agent provides additional protection for these young americans who are just starting out in life and want a job. the republicans want to repeal it. i'm waiting for the first republican senator to come to the floor and make that case. oh, we have to make sure that
11:16 pm
young people in their 20s have it. what about senior citizens, and senior citizens can stay healthy, independent, and strong for as long as possible, and the problem we had, of course, was called the donut hole meaning out of pocket expenses seniors paid for the prescriptions. we are closing and filling the donut hole that is a seniors do not give up life savings in order to are have prescription drugs needed for a healthy life. they want to repeal that. they want to repeal the affordable care act. i'm waiting for the first republican senator to come to the floor and say seniors need to pay for more prescriptions under medicare. that's a result of repealing the affordable care act. now, let me also say this, life experience tells us several things. first, premiums on health insurance go up with frequency.
11:17 pm
we're trying to slow down the rate of growth, but they go up for a long time. in some markets, for example, when if comes to individual policies people buy, those have gone up dramatically, sometimes 15% a year for a long period of time. secondly, 67% of those policies are canceled every two years. now they come to the floor telling stories about premiums going up and cancellations. i remind my friends on the republican side that's been going on for a long, long time. now they blame every increase on the affordable care act. that's not the facts or true. i have mail received on the subject. here's an e-mail from a congress stitch went i want to read from illinois. this is what they write. as a lifelong republican, i'm
11:18 pm
absolutely appalled by the extremist who hijacked the party and ashamed of the attempts to defund president obama's health care act. my costs already dropped due to early provisions of the act, and if it passes, i'll save $6,000 a year on health insurance premiums. i realize that nots everyone shares this, but when the agent is broken down into component parts, polls show they agree with the program. all i ask is that we give is a fair trial, a fair chance, say two years. it needs tweaking and revising, but if it doesn't work, repeal it after two years. quite frankly, obstructionist are a public embarrassment to those of us who grew up with a different republican party that cared about people and was not trying to exclude as many as possible through hateful bigotry and racism.
11:19 pm
this is too important to let it fail. i stand with the president and the democrats on this issue. i hope that you'll do everything in your power to see the health care act remains in force. now take a look at what's going on out in the country. there's senators from states that have come to the floor and i'll use as an example the senators from the commonwealth of kentucky, both of whom came to the floor to call for the repeal of the affordable care act. well, take a look at the numbers with a startup. what is going on in the state of kentucky? in the state of kentucky,76,000 people already submitted completed applications under the new health care law. 39,000 are eligible to enroll in the plan and as of this date, 5586 have selected a plan. kentucky is leading on a per capita basis many other states, some larger, some smaller, kentucky is leading while it's
11:20 pm
two senators come to the floor and rail against the very health care law that the people of kentucky apparently need and want and exercise their right to choose. i want to salute the governor in connect. he stepped up and said get out of the way. if you don't want to help good health care, get out of the way. we're giving them a chance. he's doing it. other states fight the president, fight congress tooth and nail. they will not cooperate at all. we wobder why the start up is slow. without cooperation, it's more difficult. i'm not making excuses for the website. it's got to be improved. it's got to be better. it will be. look at that experience of massachusetts. the senator from california talked about that earlier. during the first month of enrollment in massachusetts, 123 # people signed up. the first 30 days, but by the end of the year, 36,000 signed up. the number of uninsured young people went from 25 mg to 10%
11:21 pm
within three years. massachusetts today because of the leadership of governor mitt romney and the cooperation of the democratic legislature in that state has nearly universal health insurance coverage. however the rollout was not without problems as ours is. there was a series of website problems, also said the website was a work in progress for the first few years. there were outages in peak times and problems searching for providers. i recently met with a doctor from boston, one of the best. he said people in massachusetts can't remember what it was like before. they can't remember what it was like before people had health insurance. this doctor's an oncologist who deals with people who are diagnosed with cancer. he had a 19-year-old woman come into his office before they had this version of the affordable health care act in the state of massachusetts. he said to her, we can cure you, but we got to really do this
11:22 pm
aggressively. it's going to take chemo, radiation, and surgery. this 19-year-old woman said, please, don't tell me parents. i can't afford to pay for it. if they hear this, they'll mortgage their home to pay for the medical care, and i don't want them to do it. well, the parents learned. they made the decision, and they mortgaged their home, and their daughter's life was saved. this doctor, this cancer doctor said to me, senator, i never ran into another case like that since massachusetts passed its affordable health care act, since people have basic insurance and basic protection. the life and death choices make every single day should be front and center here and not the political squabbles that is the trademark of the town. we have to understand that there are hard working people across america who have no health insurance. there are families with people who have preexisting conditions who can't get a policy.
11:23 pm
they'll be begin their chance. we'll be a better america for it. to the republican critics, after this is in place, after thousands, maybe even millions of americans have signed up, you're not going to take it away. they are going to fight to keep it, and i'll stand by them in that fight to make sure they have supporters and champions. >> would the senator yield through the chair for a couple questions? >> i'd be happy to yield for questions. >> first, thank you so much. i'm glad you are here. i see senator's from colorado is here as well. it's so interesting to see republican senator after republican senator come down here to focus on one of the problems we're having and are going to fix. not one of them touched any of the issues that you spoke about or i spoke about or the senator from kentucky which is the broad look at what we were facing when we passed the affordable care act, the benefits that have gone into place that are saving our families from bankruptcy and saving lives, and i know my
11:24 pm
friend was very clear on this, and i think when you said, senator, that to see this become all about politics is something that is so wrong. we all know there's time for politics, and you and i, we're into that. we understand that. there's a time and place. there's also a time and place to put that aside and help our families. i wanted to ask my friend a couple questions. do you not remember, as i do, that years ago as we were facing a crisis in health care in this nation, before the affordable care act, that we found out from constituents 0e6r -- over and over that their insurance company would walk away from them just at the time they got sick. they thought they had a policy like some of our people who think they have good policies that don't meet the standards, but when they got sick, i remember con constituents gettia
11:25 pm
call saying, you know, back five years ago, you didn't mention the fact that you once had high blood pressure. we are sorry, we're canceling the policy. does my friend remember that? does my friend remember learning, as i did with shock, that being a woman is a preexisting condition, for example, if you're a victim of abuse as a woman. they said you were too much a risk, and they turned you away. does my friend remember just those two problems before we tackle the affordable care act? >> i thank the senator from california. responding to the chair, there was a time as a a member of congress and a senator when this was a normal request. people called the office and said, i'm at my wits end. the health insurance company won't cover the problems my family faces. can you make a call to an insurance executive? we have. almost to a person, members of the house and senate is is done it advocating to open up
11:26 pm
coverage for a health insurance policy. that was the reality. frankly, many of these health insurance companies, any excuse would do. they would disqualify people on preexisting conditions because as an adolescent, the insured had canceledny. acne. i see the senator from colorado is on the floor, and i want to yield him the time. i thank my colleague from california for coming forward. i just hope at some point the republicans who are so adamant about repealing and ending obamacare as they call it or the affordable care act would have one good idea on their own about providing affordable health insurance for the people across america. we all share that responsibility. i yield the floor. >> looks like most americans can hang on to their plans through 2014. on the issue, what did we hear
11:27 pm
from president obama today? >> the president said that he proposed an administrative solution that would allow insurance companies to continue offering plans that they were selling in 2013 and earlier into 2014. this is an attempt to provide one year of transitional relief to the people who got their cancellation notices that their plan would no longer be a viable option under obama care. >> the commerce committee has a bill on the house floor friday that does something similar. how does that bill differ from what the president is proposing? >> it's a little tech technicalt the upton bill voted on tomorrow would allow insurance companies to keep open the plans and tell sell them to anybody. what the president is proposes is plans exist again for only the people who already had the coverage. he said that ensures kind of limited -- limits how many people can get a hold of the plans which don't have the insurance protection that the
11:28 pm
affordable care agent has that the president and democrats on capitol hill say is so important to have in the 2014, you know, post obamacare, post affordable care act world. >> well, the health care law has been the focal point for the last week or so, and ending tomorrow on this debate on the bill. would democrats support that bill number one, and if not, do they have an alternative that they may get to propose tomorrow? >> the house democrats were putting a lot of pressure on the white house to come up with symptom solution that they could vote for. they are worried about constituents at home getting the notices, and they worry there's a campaign ad in the next selection saying they were helping the president break a promise that the constituents would keep the coverage they like. when they had the solution today, they came to the hill, pitched the solution to them, and so far many democrats who were thinking about voting for
11:29 pm
this bill say they are reconsidering, that they might oppose it. the white house says that the -- the upton bill would just undermind the affordable care act and very worried about defections. i think we still will see some democrats vote for the measure, typically, the bills against the affordable care act have got a little support from republicans, probably see more than normal on this. probably at least a few dozen, but i think the huge defections, hundred or more democrats that the white house was worried about won't happen. >> switch to the senate and an article you contributed to "politico". they are not fully satisfied with the obamacare fix, and the picture, what in particular did we hear about from the senator today? >> well, you know, it's interesting. in the house a lot of democrats were appeased by the white house
11:30 pm
plan. >> they want to vote in a legislative fix that would restore the promise from the president they say is broken. the senators, several other democrats up in 20 # -- are pushing forward. >> our viewers can follow jennifer on twitter and read your reporting at thanks for joining us. >> thanks a lot. >> tomorrow morning, a house panel looks at the food and drug administration's implementation of the food and safety bill. the measure gives the fda is faster prescription drug review process. senior officials will testify at a house subcommittee hearing.
11:31 pm
live coverage begins at ten eastern here on c-span2. [applause] >> thank you very much for being here ambassador. >> thank you for having me. >> and i heard david's question which is this is going to be the country that's going to defeat the iranian nuclear program.
11:32 pm
>> i couldn't hear. what he was saying? >> let me ask you the question. what happens next on the iranian deal? >> well, walter, our approach remains as it's always been to ensure that iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon, but it is always been our aim, if possible, to resolve the problem through diplomacy, and we've been pursuing a two-track policy of sanctions and pressure on the one hand and diplomacy and engagement on the other. the sanctions were designed to try to change the iranian call calculation and see if we could reach a negotiated settlement. going back now many years including to 2010 when i was at the united nations, we were able to impose the toughest multilateral sanctions to date ever on iran and congress came behind helpfully and layered on additional national sanctions, the european union, the japanese, our gulf partners, the
11:33 pm
canadians, koreans, many others implemented their own sanctions, and the pressure has mounted such that the currency has fallen by half,. oil exports fell by a half, and the pressure is significant. that led to many people assess to the election, and what we have begun to see as a new posture at the negotiating table so the united states with our p5 plus 1 partners, russia, china, britain, france, and germany, have been negotiating as a group and also -- >> what happened last week, yeah -- >> so the negotiations have led us to a point where there is a perspective deal on the table which would occur in two phases if it were agreed, and it's not been agreed yet because while they presented the deal in aup mid fashion, they agree it makes
11:34 pm
sense, the iranians were not able to take it last weekend, and we'll see whether they are willing. >> what is the hold up? >> the hold up is? this is an issue and elements that clearly the iranians don't feel -- >> and at what levels? >> let me give you a sense of how it works. it's a two-phase deal, if it were to happen. the first phase would be essentially a six-month period in which all progress on iran's nuclear program is halted, and the program is rolled back in certain important respects. there ability for center fuses, abilities to pursue plutonium processing in the iraq facility, their ability to increase their breakout capacity, all would be halted or rolled back and unprecedented transparency and insight into their programs so
11:35 pm
that the international community and we could have confidence that nothing is happening that we are not fully sited on. in exchange, there would be limited, temporary, and reversible economic relief provide for the iranians while leaving the entire architecture of sanctions wholly in place. this phase is designed to buy space and time to achieve a comprehensive solution because the short term is to ensure we dent get into a protracted negotiation while iranians continue to accumulate -- >> have they agree to that first phase in principle? >> well this is, again, what the discussion is about. nothing is agreed yet. >> right, okay. >> there's outlines on the table, but the deal, if reached, will be for the first phase, and then there will be time and space to negotiate the comprehensive solution to ensure we are fully satisfied that iran in the future will not have the capacity to prostitution the
11:36 pm
nuclear weapon. >> is this unhelpful that the prime minister keeps denouncing this before it's even negotiated? >> well, first of all, i think it's important that everybody understands what the deal is that needs to be reached and then make a judgment -- >> do you think he doesn't understand the deal? >> well, it's not done. by definition, it's premature to judge it because the outlines have yet to be finalized, and we, of course, have said that no deal is better than a bad deal, and any deal that we accept is going to be one that we have confidence is in our interest and interest of our allies and partners in the region and beyond that gives us clarity and confidence that the iranians can want make any progress and indeed will see their program rolled back while negotiations continue. the relief they get is very limited. it's wholly reversible. if at any point along the way they are not meeting obligations, not only would that
11:37 pm
relief end, but we would be far better positioned internationally to ramp up the pressure and have additional sanctions, not just on a national basis, but potentially on a multilateral basis. >> what were the objections that the french had? >> well, the french are on board. some reporting on this has been, frankly, rather misleading. >> i'm shocked. >> and indeed president obama spoke to the president today that both issued statements affirming our unified support for this deal on the table. this has been a process where both within the p five plus one and between them, we are refinding and improving this deal, and it's very important that all all of us in the p5 plus one are in agreement -- >> after the conversation with him today that the president had, and i assume you listened in on whatever -- >> you think. >> i won't get who else was
11:38 pm
listening in, but i won't go there. [laughter] do you think it's likely there's going to be a deal the next round or a frame work deal the next round in a week or two in >> it's the 21 is #st and 22 -- 21st and 22nd of november. the short answer, walter, is we have to see. we think what's on the table is a rational frame work, buys time and space giving us the confidence and ainsurances that we need, and we think if the iranians were wise, they'd take the deal because the alternative is heightened pressure and more isolation for them, but they have not taken it yet, so, you know, they have to make their own calculation. >> if they take the deal, do you think it's proper for israel to give too strong a push back? >> we think israel and the united states and all allies and partners have the same goal, which is to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and our strong view is if we can achieve that through a peaceful, negotiated settlement, that's what the american people want
11:39 pm
and i think that's what the people of the region and around the world should want. we hope and expect in that context that all of our friends and partners see the merits of the outcome. >> how are we dealing with the saudis on that question now? they have seeming to be bulky. >> they have been in close communication. we have had dialogue in washington, and secretary kerry was just out there last week, and we are working with them on a whole range of issues. >> has the president made phone calls to the saudis? >> been in close contact. bottom line is the saudis understand very much that we have the same strategic interest and same strategic objectives. we differ on tactics, for example, around syria or egypt. we've been working through the differences, and i think we're very confident as the cabinet announced yesterday that the relationship is on a very, very strong footing.
11:40 pm
what caused it to get off footing then? >> well, i think there's been some issues of difference over how we deal with certain challenges and issues that arose in the region. for example, egypt. the saudis's view has been that the interim government which came to power from events to put it dipmatically ought to have the complete and un reserved endorsement of the united states no matter what actions it takes. well, we think what happened in july was after big yows. we recognize that even though it -- the democratic government was removed, that that removal came with the support of the vast majority of egyptians who grew frustrated from the misgovernance and poor policies of the muslim brotherhood, and we tried to indicate to the
11:41 pm
egyptian people and the egyptian government e we support them in their transition back to an elected democratic government, and that government needs to be inclusive, needs to be brought about through a process all egyptians can participate, and without violence so when it august in the process of trying to clear the protesters from some of the squares from cairo, over a thousand people were killed. the united states said, you know, we have a problem with that, and we can't pretend to conduct business as usual in the context of government taking that action against its people. >> how did you make the decision to cut assistance done to egypt, and is it reversible, and how would you reverse it? >> we said clearly, first of all, we withheld certain assistance, kept others going, that which benefits the
11:42 pm
cooperation, the cooperation to sinai and other areas of mutual interest and concern. we want to see a full lill restored assistance relationship with egypt, and that, we hope, will come as the democratic transition progresses, and we very much indicated that there's every prospect for a full northerlyization in the relationship for when the progress occurs. this relationship goes beyond military assistance. we have shared interest. we cooperate on a range of issues, regionally and otherwise, and we want to support the egyptian people to have on a sustainable basis the democracy they want and deserve. >> it's america's policy or that israeli settlements in the west bank are not good for u.s. interest or israeli interest or peace in the region. how are you going to get the
11:43 pm
prime minister's government in line with that more, and is there -- make progress towards a palestinian peace, and would that help the overall situation in the region? >> well, i think as you know, walter, the president, president obama, and secretary kerry and all of us have been working hard to support the two page solution of negotiations, and we got them restarted. they are progressing, and and so they need to be resolvedded at the negotiating table. that's what we support. we recognize as you pointed out that there's real differences that we long had between the united states and israel over the issue of settlements, and going back decades and multiple administrations was the policy
11:44 pm
of the united states to view additional settlement activity as illegitimate, but more than that, it's unhelpful to the process, but so is insightment so there are many things both sides have done that we have urged them to refrain from doing to create a climate that is conducive to a successful dpoarks and will continue to have that discussion. >> but, i mean, in all honesty, isn't the relationship with israel now pretty fraught compared to previous years with all the issues we just talked about, and -- >> i think -- >> what's the problem there? >> i think in all honesty, it's stronger than it's ever been. following the president's visit, highly successful to israel and the west bank in march, i think he had the opportunity to communicate with and relate to the people of israel in a way that he hadn't before as president, and that is led to a strengthened dialogue and cooperation across a range of
11:45 pm
issues. i think if you ask any israeli officials, particularly those involved in security and defense, they tell you the nature and strength of the security cooperation has never been greater whether it's iron dome or the nature of our assistance, military and economic assistance, it's unprecedented, and that is the very important part of what bonds us, but beyond that, what binds us are shared interest and values, and those remain very much the case and in tact and strong. we may have differences here and there over issues. we talked about either with respect to the saudis, we had differences also with israel over how to approach the situation in egypt very much along the same lines. >> did we adjust our egypt strategy based on the advice we were getting from the saudis and then the israelis? >> look, on all of these tough challenges, we talk to our friends and partners. we hear their perspectives, and
11:46 pm
we factor them in. no question. >> uh-huh. on syria, i was -- i think jeff goldberg appointmented out to me in samantha powers' book, a moving passage from you on rwanda and in retrospect and i wish, ect., and we cannot let it happen again, do you feel that assad may have been able to get away with too much, and is there some feeling you had that we should have done more to punish him for what he's done to his people? >> first of all, i'm of the view that it's past time for assad to have left and his atrocities are e enormous, some estimate sioux ,000 people died in the -- estimate 150,000 people died in the conflict. that's horrific. one of the important things we tried to do is put in place mechanisms so there's accountability for the crimes. i think we have to separate a few things. first of all, the policy of the united states hash to try to
11:47 pm
resolve the conflict in syria at the negotiating tail, and the reason for that is the following: the last thing we need are the state institutions of syria to fragment, and for syria to become a fully fail state and a safe haven for extremism. the only way to prevent that is through a negotiated settlement that leaves the institution of state in tact and assad and those who have been his hinch men out of the picture. >> sorry, a negotiated settlement end with assad leaving is what you are saying? >> i think, as you know, and i'm sure many in the audience know, over a year ago when we gathered in geneva at the geneva one conference that dealt with the future of syria, it was agreed with the russians, with the chinese, with all of our allies and partners and neighbors of syria, that the way this crisis will end is through the establishment of what they called a transitional governing
11:48 pm
body meaning a transitional government formed on basis of mutual concept, ie, the opposition and those remitting the government at the table had to agree and that that body has full executive power meaning it controls the security app appars and other key institutions of state, and that transition would then culminate in elections for a new government. assad cannot be a part of that. >> russia has a say -- you say, "everybody," are the russians fully aboard that assad is not part of the transaction? >> they signed up knowing what it meant, and they reaffirmed it, actually, again at the g8 just this past year. the russians are not in a hurry to compel assad to step down, and that's part of why it's so hard to get to geneva two and get the opposition there on a basis of the plan of geneva one because they don't have confidence that, indeed, when the syria government shows up,
11:49 pm
they are willing to talk about a future without assad. >> i happen to hear one of your predecessors talking, meaning -- >> which one? >> kissinger. who said before the whole revolution happened in syria, he said here's russia's interest. russia doesn't want chemical weapons sloshing around, they don't want it in syria or radical islamists threesenning them. our interest aloin with russias more than people think and we'll end up working with them. are we more in alignment or in conflict with russia when it comes to strategic interest in syria? >> well, both, frankly. there's areas where they align, we share concerns about extremists and syria becoming a safe haven. we share a concern about chemical weapons which is when -- which is why when the united states indicated a readiness to use force, to degrade the chemical weapons that assad has and detour
11:50 pm
further use, russia was energy jizzed about brokering and working with us on a deal that would ensure that assad could not keep his chemical weapons. >> when you say "all of the sudden," were you zeusing that with the russians over months or just a surprise? >> they are a sense of urgency about it with the warships off syria locked and loaded, so it was the credible threat of the use of force that i think motivated the russians to persuade syria that they would not keep their chemical weapons and what's been remarkable is we were able to negotiate the details of that in try it in a binding security counsel resolution, and as of october 31st, the syrians allow the weapons inspectors to visit all the sites that they wanted to visit, bar one, couldn't get to for security reasons, and the
11:51 pm
syria capacity now to manufacture and maintain their chemical weapons stockpile disresulted. >> by the way, that is a remarkable achievement for which you all deserve credit. last question because we about run out of time. a broad question. what is your day like, and what is it like to work in this administration with so many incoming missiles? how do you think both strategically, tactically. tell us about the job? >> it's great working in the administration and for president obama. i loved what i was doing in new york at the united nations. that was a lot of fun and a great deal of challenge, but being inside and being able to support the president first hand every day is a lot of fun, and i work with a great team, and i understand that, you know, there's sometimes missiles coming into; sometimes there's bouquets thrown in.
11:52 pm
that's the nature of the business. as you any, this is not the first administration i've worked in, and i know that some days are better than others, but it's a huge privilege to serve the country and work with talented people and do it on behalf of objectives that we believe are vie vital to keep america safe and make the future brighter. >> our privilege and honor to have you as a guest here today. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> more now from the washington ideas forum. next, chairman cook of the cook political report, chuck todd of nbc news, and john harwood of cnbc and the "new york times" talk about the 2014 elections. this was hosted by the atlantic, aspen institute, and the newseum. >> charlie, when i met you 30 years ago, we were then talking about a republican lock on the
11:53 pm
presidency. we knew it was a center-right country. we knew that social issues worked for the republicans, and we wondered when a democratic candidate could carry california again. we then went to a period when the exemplified by bush-gore, an even 50/50 split. it appeared in this election, to me, as if we saw revealed that the place that shifted a little in democratics on the high side drip demography. are we headed towards a democratic lock on the white house? what do you see in terms of the balance going forward? >> that's a great question, john.
11:54 pm
>> what do you think happens first? democrats elect a president or republicans legislate a speaker this is about in 1990-91 #. someone said, you know, when one happens, the other will probably follow, which i just thought was really very awesome. hey, buddy. so, i think that if republicans don't fix their problems with minority voters, young voters, moderate voters, and young women moderate and minority, yes. i mean, they got -- if this republican party were a business, they have an unsustainable business model unless they changed it, and so you tell me whether they are going to address these challenges. >> chuck, i asked charlie about how when we startedded covering washington together, we talked about a republican lock on the white house, then we got to even, and now you wonder whether or not democrats because of
11:55 pm
demographic change and the changing role of social issues, cultural issues, whether democrats are headed towards a lock? charlie said not sure, could be, what do you think? >> well, when you start with what is 242 electoral votes over five straight elections now, i mean, that's a pretty good baseline to start with, which is what democrats start with. that's their biggest problem, and if you saw, to me, what was interesting about virginia governor is that socially it played out like a federal election. when you realize terry and ken were rejected by swing voters, not crazy about either one of them. i live in one of those -- they are -- actually it's a republican precinct in arlington county, and, you know, all my neighbors, the big halloween party gathering doing the i don't know what to do, i'm not voting. like, that was the attitude. these were people that, you know, were basically republican that you hear about who said, oh, you know, yob how i feel
11:56 pm
these days about the social issues, this party, i'm not crazy about the tea party, there's that, this is the republican businessman and woman, and so that, to me, i don't see how they fix it by 2016, look at california, virginia,,colorado, and florida, they are demographically moving away from the republican party. i hesitate a lock on the white house. there's a great book i remember buying right -- it was right when i was leaving high school to go to college, written right after the 88 presidential election, which is called the permanent minority party -- >> by peter brown. >> yeah, yeah, yeah, that's the book, just how the democrats are the permanent minority party. they basically only lost one popular vote presidential election since that book was written in 2004. you know, the permanent
11:57 pm
minority, i didn't say it, but this demographic issue, you just can't overlook it. >> well, charlie, let me ask you about demographics because the message of peter's book was that democrats had been so enthralledded to the interest of marginalized groups including racial minorities that they were not appealing to mainstream white voter. since then, it's gone down to 72% in the last election. what are the implications for our politics going forward of the fact that the republican nominee got 60% of the white vote, the democratic no , nomit 80% of the nonwhite vote. are we headed towards a racial polarization in voting that is going to create other problems and become self-fulfilling? >> i have yet to write a book, but peters book was never make a definitive statement that will
11:58 pm
just bite you for the rest of your career, but anyway, you know, you can slice and dice it demographically or another way. for example, mitt romney -- if you told me two years ago that mitt romney was going to win the independent vote by 5%, i would have guessed he won the election. if you tell me that ken wins the independent vote by nine points, i guessed he won the election. there's agan between democrats and republicans is so wide that just winning the independent vote isn't enough for republicans. now, that's partly a function of demographics, but part of it is, you know, the gap between, you know, for example, republicans can win -- romney won the independent vote, but lost the moderate vote by 15 points so there's a difference between independents and moderates so you can look at it demographically, but look at it in terms of self-identification of ideology as well, and republicans are not, you know, they take solace in knowing
11:59 pm
their 10% more conservatives than liberals, but forget there's 40% identifying themselves as moderates. >> democrats just won virginia, but if you look at the election by geography, romney wins by nine points in the 11 states of the old confederacy. obama wins by ten points everywhere else, so if you're a republican how do you figure out how you can break out of that trap which, at one point, swung the elector rat to the republicans, but now it's too confining. >> right. well, the problem for the republican party is they fell into this trap, and virginia and florida peeled away. they are not part of, you know, they don't vote like the rest of the south. they are pure swing states, and watch out, georgia and north carolina are next; right? both is why, it's demographics. it's not black and white. jazz will be fascinated to watch this coming year with the senate
12:00 am
race and governor's race that is both surprisingly competitive, partially, though, it goes because the republican party candidates are weak. they are just -- there's one decent, i think, strong potential senate candidate there, and that's it. everybody else will get too tied up, easily become characteristictures in the -- caricatures. i would not be worried about virginia or florida, but just living in the state of california. if you can -- you think about the problems for the republican party with the suburbs and hispanics, and colorado, one of the things with colorado is you can't explain it away. ..
12:01 am
>> you have to rural, upper income folks and it is that upper income white folk in the suburbs, that the republicans have problems let. if used figure out the colorado issue, everything else will fall into place. >> but it also transplants virginia, bringing non-southern attitude to a lesser extent but still very particular. >> you have to drive 30 miles
12:02 am
away to welcome you into the state of virginia. >> okay, virginia has a ton of transplant and it stands for a containment area of relocated yankees. [laughter] and these are the three southern states, which i think you could say for colorado as well. >> that's right. >> so that has changed. >> let me ask you as someone who knows a does a lot of politicians very well that a very practical a structural problem within the situation that you're trying to figure out from their point of view and how do you bridge the divide in the presidential gop because we know with redistricting have a lot of
12:03 am
members who could really care less about the broader constituency. >> i spoke and the conclusion was part of this. >> they had the ceo explaining what they have done and how they had to reformulate the pizza when people thought that it sucked. [applause] >> but the election was done and then the conclusion that the end was the republicans were satisfied with the house majority and you don't need to change at all, not one bit, what is if you want to win a majority in the senate you will have to change a lot. and so these numbers are in the sort of ideological districts
12:04 am
and it doesn't look a whole lot like the jurisdictions, you know, when you run statewide and they have to decide what they want to do. >> you and i have been on some conference calls with their posters and we are talking about this affect what the american people in the belief that washington is not working, which points to a problem for democrats, they are the party of government, and i don't have this mess in health care but i'm wondering how big of a political threat once we get beyond the government and the implementation of the health care law that looks to the american people elect another government? >> why should we assume that they will get immigration right? basically the public, when you
12:05 am
look at this, they are angry that the republicans don't want to govern in the maquettes don't know how to govern. >> at some point i want to get back to this larger issue here, which is it is easy to sit here and say that health care will be a disaster and 2014 when we thought the shutdown would be a disaster but i think both parties are right and we are going to see things like a we saw in virginia, which is sort of like this and it's going to be like we have experienced this since 1992 and we had a public group of people very angry and an angry at an out of touch republican party is running the white house and we had incumbents losing primaries in odd places and it didn't really change the massive balance of power. but it felt like a big change so
12:06 am
i think that, you know, i think that this is why health care has to be fixed and it has to be implement it well. because this could set back the democratic party generation on being a governing solution. >> i'm shocked that we're not seeing more independent candidates and i know part of this is we don't trust us anymore. mike bloomberg is not the right guy. >> do you agree with that? that if there is a third party, bloomberg can be leader of the? >> i don't think an independent candidate can possibly win a three-way race.
12:07 am
let's say that you are a person in every respect, very smart, what happens? you run this race which would translate into a lecture electoral college vote for each state gets one vote and republicans have 30 some delegations. it's an impossibility for an independent to win the presidency. what i wish americans would do if with it is that instead of trying to get a passport to run, is encourage independent candidates and people who are former ceos, community leaders, to run as independents for the house and senate and there's nothing wrong with the senate that three or four legitimately independent senators weren't fixed and that could go a long way and there is a structural
12:08 am
barrier on the presidential side. >> that's what i'm shocked at. where are the 2014 independent candidates? i look at this, my home state of florida come in a and watching what is going on there, basically we have a very unpopular governor versus somebody who is a party switcher who i think the public is going to struggle with an are you for real this time. it looks like the virginia governor's race on steroids except for more money will be involved and it's one of those we will have swing voters and he might've been a viable independent candidate this
12:09 am
creates political skepticism. i don't understand why there aren't more candidates. i know both parties are struggling. no one wants to run in a political primary anymore and we know what a mess it is on the republican side. the quality is mediocre at best. >> if you are an accomplished person, someone who has been very successful in life in whatever way, running as an independent candidate is like jumping out of a plane and not being really sure where the parachute was. there's no support mechanism and it would take an enormous leap of faith and my suspicion, a personal checkbook that can basically pick up this part of the race. we have people that could do
12:10 am
that. >> the two parties, that is what you were speaking about. self identification is below 50% and that is people saying that i don't want to be considered a member of either party. that doesn't mean ideologically. they are not comfortable identify with either party because they're kind of embarrassed on the governing front. the public is screaming for this and they are begging for independent new people to run and the two parties i think are not the place to be. >> i was talking to a democratic pollster two weeks ago he said that voters want to punish republicans but they don't want to reward the democrats. and i think that that really kind of captures this. that we have these two competing narratives on the one hand and will they fix their problems
12:11 am
with the young minority women and moderates moderates and on the other hand, are we just seeing a classic case and all the problems that typically happen, including chickens coming home to roost? which is the informal care. >> we have a need to repair these issues and we notice house republicans don't go there. >> i think that there is -- to me this is where you look at where the three house leaders are from. the house republican leaders. boehner, mccarthy, swing states, california and virginia. these leaders know what they have to do. i think that they are buying time. everyone -- i'm an optimist. i think sometime in the spring after filing deadlines, the
12:12 am
immigration is not that hot button issue and we need to focus on health care, it is probably way the republicans might be able to -- >> i think it happens in this congress and maybe i am being naïve as an optimist. but the leadership knows they have to do this. so they just have to find the timing could just do it without totally exploding this. >> i'm not going to call you naïve on optimist. >> i hear you, i know. >> i think they just know that they have to, so they're trying to find a way. >> i think what would have to happen if they have to find some very credible conservatives to go office by office, sitting down, one at a time, walking people through the numbers of why this current course of the republican party can't work. but the key is that they have
12:13 am
this work and that was without -- i mean, i think they have to literally walk through and get each of them comfortable kind of walking through the numbers. but we know that most members are a lot more afraid of a primary than they are a general election and anything that they do that can be described as this in any perverted way will get jammed. but i've never seen a situation where party had a problem that there was the potential for the same problem on the other side and if the budget ever got over to the entitlement or anything like that, you would see the same fissures that you see now on the republican side on the democratic side and the left will go out of their mind.
12:14 am
>> that's why we have to consider how we have this machiavelli and lay and he just introduced his budget and parts of the budget deals because they could end up splitting the democratic party and a very hostile a. >> maybe a lot of those older social security and medicare recipients would be happy if they did that. >> at the weird issue is that a lot of us still view that somehow there's to many people that think older voters will be part of this. this is a base republican vote and are way too early poll of chris christie and hillary, if you want to take away a reminder, one of the only three groups was among the senior.
12:15 am
>> again, when we started covering this, social issues were murder for democrats. >> so will marijuana be legal in every state? >> well, you look at surveys of millennial voters and what you'll see is that there is not older siblings order, you know, parents or anything, in the sense that they are not antigovernment why conservatives. they are not pro-government like liberals been very skeptical of government.
12:16 am
this generation has also been very libertarian. >> and if republicans just figured out, turning the volume down. just pulling it back a little bit. the like community won't start voting democratic republicans push it down the priority list. and i mean like, not every state. probably not every state. i have been stunned.
12:17 am
>> and about 2004. >> so the thing is -- and i think that the country is changing faster than ever before >> they almost open the door and i think that next time gay marriage goes to the supreme court, it will get to this whole recognition of marriage thing. >> it will get to federal recognition, it will be more where you can't ban it and you get married in one state and in the recognition is another. and this is part of the abortion issue, because they were winning, country, thanks to
12:18 am
technology, is a pro-life activist, what would happen if you have a republican candidate. and this is how much i care, i don't want anyone come i don't want any unwanted pregnancy, some also for handing out birth control at 15 years old. would you work against or for that? and democrats get to talk about -- basically personal sexual freedoms. an abortion was the number three issue. but terry mcauliffe on the election. so until abortion is the
12:19 am
catchall. >> and there's a one a chance that hillary could run. and everyone thinks that this is 100% political when she turns 69 years old two weeks before the election, that will be the same age ronald reagan was when he got elected. i was talking to a friend of theirs and if his or her health is good, she will run. i would modify that to say that the help is good and she feels up to it in the last two months the secretary of state was pretty tough.
12:20 am
>> if she runs, she will be the nominee? >> i think in all probability. the way that i look at this, for , for example, for joe biden, if hillary does not run, i don't see how he could make himself run in that way. he just wouldn't be able to help himself. [laughter] in exit memo running doesn't always make a whole lot of sense, you know, i think it would be an easier decision to make if she runs. but if she does run, you will see martin o'malley or hickenlooper or maybe howard dean, some people and i don't think that you it's the governor cuomo, but i do think that we seem to have struck a combination. >> let's talk about the republican side. in our poll, chris
12:21 am
third of the vote for someone else and it was very heavy to the northeast. so how do you handicap with a republican field is right now? >> you have your establishment and their only two guys, chris christie, jeb bush. and i'm someone who thinks that jeb bush is probably thinking a lot harder than this and what people realize. >> you can guess a better chance of going the distance and chris christie. >> i do. i think he can straddle the fence and unite the party. then you have this middle ground guy, the individual that could be strong and be there if he falters and that is where scott walker occupies the space.
12:22 am
he is the guy that i would go to vegas now and put 10 bucks on because you can probably get him for the 20 to one odds and i think that he would be -- i think he's likely to be on the ticket. >> but then there is a tea party where i know everyone is high on ted cruz. and i just assume that he's more on this track words like cisco to burnout. just so much attention. and rand paul feels like he's more built to last. and who else could legitimately expect to win the nomination? my assumption is that i think rand paul can win the nomination and i think that he has an interesting situation. his biggest problem will be social issues in iowa. and this is the history of his father and he's too much of a
12:23 am
states rights guy and he will have to navigate the tougher waters but i think that he can potentially do this, you know, you can see him doing well in new hampshire and libertarians for years have over perform that and you can see how he pulls this off with the hardest constituency for him that is going to be this. >> you agree that? you think he could win the nomination? >> i have to go to vegas, i would pick skywalker and rand paul. i don't think -- i think the chances of jeb bush running under 10%. he's intrigued by it, he would love to be president,, but i think there are just some family issues that don't relate to his last name. >> you think he could win the nomination? >> i think that ted cruz has redefined the term extremism in the republican party.
12:24 am
and i feel like with senator mcconnell, i thought it would be like a gym bunny kind of thing. they get along very well. >> and ted cruz is helping him to get better. >> chuck, our time is up. you'd think that he can win the nomination? you think that republicans, donors and voters and everyone could look at him and say that he could win the white house? >> i don't know, and i think that his supporters will talk about this. he could run to the left on some of these issues and they're
12:25 am
obviously ways you can picture how the democrats of work. and i think that that's the biggest leap, how to get the conventional donor and he was a big new york republican financier and he is trying to enter their skepticism. and so i guess that's why don't will this out at all. but we underestimate mike pence a little bit. of all the governors, i could picture him if jeb bush doesn't run, but it's not inconceivable, it could be that other governor
12:26 am
who is with conservatives. >> and personalities aside, i think we don't know what the value will be in 2016 or the democratic nomination. but we do know historically that five times out of six, the party that has had the white house has lost sense of history argues for the republicans. on the other hand, if they haven't fixed this or there problems with specific groups, they can't do that. on the other hand, we also know that president obama's numbers are right where those of george w. bush are at this point. i don't know that voters will be open to the possibility of a third democratic term. so i think that these are the dynamics are going to drive 2014 in 2016. >> call me skeptical and please
12:27 am
join me in thanking charlie cook. thank you. [applause] >> more from the washington idea storm. a former adviser spoke about the rollout of the health care law. doctor ezekiel emanuel with his brother rahm emanuel spoke to "the washington post." this is 35 minutes. >> you know the nuts and bolts of obamacare. you are in the engine room when i was being devised. so what the heck happened? i will give you a technical answer, that i don't know and in january of 21 i thought we were on course. but i think that the one thing that didn't happen, and i've said this before is that we needed a ceo who understood was
12:28 am
a really great manager and owner said the health insurance site and understood enough to make sure that the i.t. and e-commerce aspects were going to run nice and well and i was key. no one got appointed to do that with sufficient stature and you don't give this cms decision in there, this isn't something that they can do. and i think that if you had to pinpoint something that should've been done differently, that's the thing. and i think that the question is that going forward, the aca is alive and in the midst of transforming the health care system and everyone was engaged in the health care system is working as if it is the law and they have to get the exchange is up and running properly and
12:29 am
reasonably well in the next few weeks and then they need to perfect them over the next year or so and again i still think that, you know, getting someone who can do that. just as great, but you need a permanent person who'll see it through to the end of the administration. >> we talked about the baseline, i'd say that we are nowhere near that yet. >> i think there is an encouraging thing in the disappointing thing. >> it's not complicated thing to
12:30 am
do. there are services out there that are now doing it in the private sector. i have talked to individuals yesterday,. >> it took us a while to understand what was going on, and then designing a very nice website, easily searched and easily done. not rocket science. >> would they sell it to a certain federal government that seems to need one? >> it cost them less than $2000 to do this. this is not high-level complex computer science and we know this problem can be solved. you know, that is the easy part. the slightly more difficult part is the five steps of verification in income and citizenship and etc.
12:31 am
i assume the problems will be solved. >> okay, 106,000 enrolled in october, just over 26,000 through the federal website that doesn't work and then through the state exchanges as well. and that is not what was hoped for to say the least. and people talk about 500,000 and this is nowhere near that. even assuming that things get up and running in the next few weeks, how far does this set the affordable care act behind in terms of ramping up its goal or anywhere near its goal of 7 million? >> first of all, one of the things again, you have to make an assumption that the website will work reasonably well.
12:32 am
and then i think that we all know that people are going to shop at the last minute and that's what they're going to do. twenty 20% of people sign up in the last month and we have six total months until the end of march to get 7 million people. so now we have 4.5 months left to go and i think that that is doable. and when you have a crummy website, you have no pr around it i think it's very difficult to extrapolate these numbers but i do believe that it's possible to get to 7 million and again, on the condition we can get the website working. the important thing is this is a play that is going to transform the american health care system over the next 10 or 20 years, just the way medicare and medicaid bed. so i'm confident that over a year or two we can get this
12:33 am
perfect and then hopefully constantly be further revised and refined and it is going to have a dramatic effect on the health care system and it's going to change how people get health insurance, how this response to people, because in this exchange, people are going to shop on costs and premiums and that is going to put downward pressure on the health care system to become much more efficient and focused on patients and i think that that will be a very good thing. >> and there is a commitment to let people keep their health insurance that they had. >> we are joining the call that allows people to keep their
12:34 am
insurance plans as president obama said that they would be able to about 20 times. will that happen? sure that happened? if it shouldn't happen, why is that? >> okay, so let me be clear, my view here is as of a minority but i do think the following is the case, no one forced any insurance company to cancel a plan, the affordable care act does not require an insurance company to cancel a plan and insurance companies are canceling plans and constantly canceling plans, changing plans, raising the rates, wounding coverage, this is not a new practice by them. [applause] [applause] >> they do not see this individual market and they are not investing anything they want to be out of that market and into the exchanges, which for them is the future. so they have other reasons. it's easy for them to blame obamacare and i believe that we
12:35 am
kept the president's promise because we grandfathered every plan that existed and said you don't change that plan and you can keep it forever. that is not the affordable care act, that is the insurance company for their own business reasons and i think that we have to talk about grandfathering. it is clear that many american people and the american public thought that it was different. the website were working, this would be a tempest in a teapot and when even register. so people are feeling the loss and i understand that. i don't know what the fixes are, so here's what i can imagine. you say that you're going to change this around for what constitutes a plan to be liberal and i do not think that the
12:36 am
proposal, anyone knew can sign up and that was not the pledge, that's not what the president said. that is a surreptitious method to try to kill this bill by saying, you can of the old system. the old system had pre-existing condition exclusions that said were not covering you and we don't want that system. the notion that republicans are saying that we won't have a pre-existing condition exclusion but we will go back to the old individual insurance market, that is something that insurance companies won't buy. so i am -- i'm not clear what the president's administrative solutions are, except as i have mentioned, the one thing is to be more liberal and that will affect about 30% of the people who are in the individual market getting their cancellations. >> that would help to balance the ratio between the number of people who are enrolling in
12:37 am
thrilled with obamacare and the number of people who are annoyed. annoyed his winning. >> there's no doubt about it. >> let's talk again. does it communicate effectively with insurance companies to let them know who their customers are and, you know, where they are and that sort of thing? >> as i understand it, it's not 100% perfect. but i also think that this is a thing that is not urgent this very minute because you have to get that information to them in a timely manner but you don't have to do it day to day as you're collecting the number of people but they need a couple of weeks to issue cards and register people and etc., but they don't need six weeks. so you know, i think that -- the form is not that complicated. why it is a challenge, if the
12:38 am
photos may not talk to the i.t. people in the befuddles me why people -- why this has turned out to be a complex problem for the programmers and again, that makes me believe it's a solvable problem and it will be solved. >> put on your visionary hat for a second the month assume that we all know that the affordable care act is the law it's going to be the law and certainly as long as president obama is around and so will have time to work and service transformation. transformation he talked about at the beginning. and painting the picture of the transformed american health care system. as well as how it affects you and me. especially as we get older, especially as we get to the point where we are going to need or we will have this care.
12:39 am
>> you have given me a minute 40 seconds into what i think is the most important question. >> i know, so into the question. [laughter] >> the first thing is from an insurance buying standpoint, and more and more of us are going to be in the exchange and by the planets for us and i do believe less of us will get it either through our employer or other means. and i think that's a good thing. we will be able to figure out what is best for us and i think more importantly on the delivery of care every health care system is working and we'll see more care go out of the hospital, more care go out of the physician's office and it's going to be much more convenient, linked electronically so that you get like a test at cbs erred with the pediatrician, you will have it, we'll know, you'll be able to get antibiotics, convenience will go up and the really important transformation that is
12:40 am
beginning now and will blossom towards the end of the decade is a lot more vip care focused upon patients who have chronic illness and those who have congestive heart failure, emphysema, diabetes, cancer, hypertension, they are the people who actually use the health care system and cost a lot of money and we have not done well in our situation with people with these chronic conditions and they use about 10% of the population the use about two thirds of all the dollars we will focus a lot more attention on these people and prevent them from getting sick and having exacerbations other problems and we will have visiting nurses going to their house and we will have a new era of sensors in and around the houses, built into the scales into the medicines they take and to make sure that they are doing well. when things are just beginning to get bad, i think that is kind
12:41 am
of like the high-tech scare and i think that will be the wave of the future and for the rest of us, a lot more convenient for care. >> so when will we see the results and how are you going to measure? are we going to see life expectancy go up when are we going to measure this? >> what we are going to an unseen by the end of the decade is a lot fewer hospital infections and a lot more care and admissions going down and people with diabetes and heart failure being admitted much less frequently and functional on a daily basis, not homebound, but much more interactive, those will be the metrics that we look at. >> okay, we look at them. >> thank you. we appreciate it. >> the head of the transportation security
12:42 am
administration said that the tsa is studying how to improve airport security and emergency response after the recent shooting in los angeles. and then the senate for debate on health care and later national security susan rice talks about the middle east. >> coming up on the next "washington journal", a look at the health care law and allowing americans to keep their current health insurance and the upcoming vote on the gop bill and our guest is andy harris of maryland. and then the health care law and the farm bill negotiation and pending changes to unemployment insurance. "washington journal" is live each day at 7:00 a.m. on c-span.
12:43 am
>> most apartments include their fair share of academics who offers straightforward choruses in psychology and women's history and literature and statistically challenged individuals set the tone. and if there is a department that devises us, let me know because i would love to visit with you. and conservative women, moderate women, libertarian women, religious women, they have lucked out. >> her critique of late 20th century feminism has led critics to label her as antifeminist. on sunday, december 1. live, three hours beginning at noon eastern. and looking ahead, in-depth, the
12:44 am
first sunday of every month on c-span2. >> mike mccaul said it was not the tsa who alerted local law enforcement about the shooting at lax earlier this month. he question the head of the tsa and homeland security officials at this two-hour transportation subcommittee hearing. >> the committee on transportation security will come to order and we are meeting today on the behavior activities and learning from the tragic shooting that occurred at los angeles international airport on friday, november 1, and i will recognize myself for an opening statement. i like to think eyewitnesses for
12:45 am
taking time out of their day to be with us. tragically killing one transportation security officer, wounding two other individuals, along with a high school teacher. on behalf of the committee, our condolences go out to the victims and their families and the tsa officers take great personal risk everyday in order to secure the aviation system and we thank them for their service and before i continue with opening remarks, i would like to ask everyone to join you in a moment of silence to honor the life of her although fernandez. i thank you.
12:46 am
this includes reviewing programs to be sure that resources are being used in the most effective and efficient manner and coordination of communication with local law enforcement is occurring. it is a target, much like a train station and it can be open to anyone who wants to enter, including someone who may have malicious intent. while it is the airport's responsibility to provide security and law enforcement, we all know that there is an unavoidable risk of being in a public space in instances like this. what is important is to identify the vulnerabilities that we can learn from and it is important that we have seamless communication and resources that could be shifted around and this includes layered security posture. i do not expect eyewitnesses to have all the answers. but i do believe that the
12:47 am
hearing is a timely opportunity to examine one program that has been heavily criticized by both the government accounting office and the dhs office of inspector general. the screening of passengers, also known as spot, deploys over 3000 officers in an effort to identify passengers that may pose a risk to aviation security in these employees are not trained law enforcement officers. they allow law enforcement to handle these situations beyond the screening of passengers or if they think someone is acting suspiciously. in order to determine this according to the accounting office, we know that the threats are real raid our enemies continue to plot against us and i think my colleagues and i think that they would agree that we need layers of security. but those layers have to make sense and they can't be based on
12:48 am
a hunch. but they have to be proven. i want to commend the administrator for his tremendous effort to transform the tsa into a risk-based agency and a program like this is a huge step in the right direction. it doesn't necessarily address the threats emanating from overseas and it may not provide a deterrent that we are looking for, but i'm not convinced that the current form is actually proving it with two entirely different things and to my knowledge there has not been a single instance where a detection has been deemed a terrorist. and therefore it is important that we measure is to find a way to do that in the latest study conducted found that the human ability to identify deceptive behavior based on these indicators is the same or
12:49 am
slightly better than chance. in the tsa has limited information and finally that there will be at least three years before they can report on the effectiveness and we recommend that the tsa limit further funding for behavioral situations, demonstrating that the indicators can be used to those that pose a threat to aviation security. and with that being said, i see the value of using the analysis to bolster the security, but only when we can prove that taxpayer dollars are proven in this manner. in this includes suspicious behavior making more sense than having 3000 employees directly employed by the tsa and these are questions that we should examine and according to the
12:50 am
congressional research services, the tsa program is the only stand-alone program within either dhs or doj and this type of program works, i expect it will deploy the stand-alone programs and so far we haven't and i look forward to hearing the recommendations, including assessing spots of effectiveness and with that i recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. richman, for five minutes, for his opening statement. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you.
12:51 am
i will yield a few minutes of my opening statement to the gentle lady from california. >> we have unanimous consent for maxine waters. >> thank you so much and i'm very appreciative for allowing me to take this time to give an opening statement. >> and this considers the initial lesson learned, which could reflect what is going on and what happened at lax. i would like to join with my
12:52 am
colleagues to honor the tsa officer who was killed in the line of duty during this tragic incident and i offer my deepest condolences to his family and also all of the tsa officers and lax police officers and others who risked their lives to stabilize the situation and protect the public. lax is the busiest airport and they offer this to 96 american cities including other foreign countries. this includes more than 63 million passengers and handling more than 600,000 landings and up and take offs. it is of paramount importance. the lax shooting raises two
12:53 am
specific concerns that i will highlight today. the first is allowing individuals to be stationed at screening technology points and to have access to airport security cameras and both of these issues were raised in the letter with police officers of the tsa administrator is on september the 28th of 2012, more than 13 months before this tragedy occurred. it was decided that the president of the peace officers association, of the benevolent association, in a response dated october 12, it was agreed that both of these issues merited further discussion and i request
12:54 am
a response in the record for today's hearing and there are two methods by which they provide support and this method acquires a police officer to be stationed at the passenger screening checkpoint and it requires that they be able to respond at a checkpoint in the letter explains that it was virtually impossible for an individual police officer to respond quickly to the problem if the officer is responsible and performing other functions. it recommends a standard for all major airport, which requires an officer within 300 feet of the area and it's my understanding that the lax officers did
12:55 am
provide police officers at lax at the time the letter was written. and then they agreed to discuss the issue, a decision was made to waive the requirement for protesters at lax. and there were apparently no officers stationed at the checkpoint when the shooting began and it also raised the issue of real-time police access to airport security cameras and most do not have a coordinated camera system and they operate their own security camera systems that they provide should an incident occur and this is certainly the case at lax. >> your time has expired. >> thank you.
12:56 am
this is about the program and i did not think that it was viable or doable and i do believe that i wanted to talk about some of the issues and i thank you very much. >> i thank you. the member's time has expired. the chairman recognizes the chair when, mr. mccaul, when he has his statements ready. we have a positive development with a pre-check system. >> we have southwest airlines to sign off on this and that it's going to be a huge change in
12:57 am
terms of the traveling public being passenger friendly. while targeting the threats and i want to thank you for that. and we certainly appreciate your service and aviation security, which many forget is a fortunately unfortunately viable threat to the public. >> the individual who carried out this assault upon life and wounded three others in our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families during this difficult time. incident demonstrates just how vulnerable they can be to those
12:58 am
who wish to carry out attacks and the swift response by law enforcement is laudable, but there are still some unanswered questions about the shooting itself in a week after the incident took place i was surprised to learn that the police officer assigned to patrol around the security checkpoint at lax and may not have been in the correct vicinity of the checkpoint to immediately respond when the shots were fired. and it's very significant. and we have since been told that there may have been a three minute radius of a checkpoint and this issue displays new questions about the response protocols in place and how they work. and this includes the checkpoint that saved many lives and no one
12:59 am
push the panic button that is supposed to be used in these situations. and a landline was almost use by an individual to communicate with police but the phone was abandoned during the evacuation because it wasn't mobile. police responded based upon a phone call from the airline contractor with tsa. the response is swift and successful and local police and personnel responded deserve tremendous praise and they are looking for vulnerabilities in our system. we must everything we can to secure the perimeters of airports and communication and to make sure that assistance is in place and use limited resources effectively across the
1:00 am
united states. the response from local authorities undoubtably saves lives, the government has for unobstructed minutes at a time like this and that's a long time. with 150 rounds, that's a long time. it's extraordinary that more lives were not taken and we thank god that do not have been that day. .. havoc. several questions coming to mind. our emergency response times at airports adequate? does tsa have appropriate plans and means to community with law enforcement in the event a checkpoint is evacuated?


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on