tv Washington Journal Niels Lesniewski and Gabby Morrongiello Discuss the... CSPAN June 30, 2017 7:03pm-8:01pm EDT
[inaudible] [inaudible] >> tomorrow on "washington journal" we talk about the republican party and how democrats should respond to their gender. numbers usa looks at the recent immigration enforcement actions taken by the trump administration. bloomberg businessweek writer will discuss her piece on the gender wage gap. and how companies are working to close it. "washington journal" is live tomorrow at seven eastern from c-span. >> on "washington journal" this morning we talked to two reporters on the trump administration relationship with the media.are back
>> we are back. roundtable discussion about the we can washington, joining us is gabby, the new york post washington bureau chief along with neil -- think about her being here. gabby let me begin with you about the state of healthcare. the senate bill. it was pulled from the floor has our viewers know. so where do things stand now? >> the majority leader has set a deadline for today hoping todl have a finalized version of a revised bill to send to the congressional budget office so when they return from the july 4 recess they'll have a better idea what the changes have been making will have on the overall impact of the health care bill. it doesn't look like they'veac reach that deadline. they might be sending some components to the cbo today for scoring but they are still working on negotiating this. there's been a lot of discord
and a lot of different senators who want different things in the spell who are not happy with the direction that negotiations have gone. were waiting to see what happens. the white house is a little disappointed especially they didn't reach the deadline today and are still in the process of speaking with senators and working on coming to a consensus. >> neil, what is mention the majority leader eyeing for changes in who would they satisfy? >> the most recent batch of potential changes that we heard about largely pertain to keeping an investment tax on dividends and the like for people who are earning generally over $200,000 per year. this is one of the obama careta taxes that was completely unrelated to healthcare by the
cbo smith, that would give them about and next are $172 billion to play with. in terms of giving credits or subsidies. that's one area, the $45 billion to help deal with the opiate crisis that has been making the rounds seems like it is certain to be in the package. what the problem now might be is that we don't yet know how they will appease the more conservative members of the republican conference. there has been some reporting that senators like ted cruz and likely have been meeting with the parliamentarian and trying to sort out a way to get loosening of regulations included in the package. but sources i talked to say it
is not clear how they will be able to do that and keep the moderates on board. >> i want you to both react to this from the president this morning on twitter. if republican senators are unable to pass with their working on now, they should immediately repeal and then replace at a later date. >> is this a change in strategy? >> it's a shock to the gop leadership that's been working for the past three weeks on a consensus bill. is prob probably something conservatives are happy to hear because theycf have been advocating for a cleao repeal all along. does enough to actu rand paul has been one of the opponents of this because he doesn't feel it does enough to get government out of thee healthcare industry and repeal the original healthcare law. i t i think the white house is a bit frustrated with how the process has unfolded and is eager to turn their attention to tax
reform. if healthcare doesn't end up happening before the six week august recess coming around the corner, they are going to have to put it on the back burner and shift their attention to anothet legislative item and now likely be tax reform.optics o >> the other day the presidentde was meeting with the 50 senators and he was flanked by lisa murkowski, some say that was intentional to say that he's on their side, the moderate factio. of the debate on health care. but then the street this morning. >> they were certainly setting up thi seating arrangement to pt some people like to the president. i don't know where and i would be fascinated to know where thie will repeal tweets came from.erh i don't know sitting here what
president trump was watching on television this morning. i don't know if there's a panel discussion on fox and friends that led to him to deny. i do know that senator ben of nebraska is sending a letter to president trump dated this morning calling for what was in that tweet.hat led i don't know if there is a conversation that led up to that letter but it certainly seems like it had to have come from somewhere. we had not been hearing the # fall repeal line from anyone in the last several weeks. >> what is happening behind the scene? ith who is talking to who? >> i know the president and advisers have been in touch with the senators who remain opposed to the original healthcare bill. they been reaching out to rand paul in ted cruz, the vice
president has been involved inin healthcare talks not only with the house but with the senateiss discussing thanks with senator cruz. he's been pushing the administration to back what he calls the consumer freedomom amendment. in something that would allow insurers to offer unregulated plans in addition to the plans that meet obama care guidelines. the white house is involved in his these discussions but it's a surprising tweet to hear from the president. especially less than a week ago him telling the senate that he wants them to make sure theyy pass something but he would be okay if it fails. now for him to say let's turn the attention to something else if we can't get it through i think that's a complete change in strategy and one that will make these talks even more difficult going forward.now
>> what you are just reporting to the senator, senator sass now say i'm glad you agree mr. president. this full-ement next week to steps, repeal first and then spend august full-time andto kn replace. he's referring to know august break in washington. >> here we go with that again. with senator purdue from georgia had an op-ed the other day where he was making a similar caseng over although not specific to health care about not enough of the agenda being done to leave for the august recess. there's generally no appetite for sticking around washingtonun in august on the vast majority of senators. in fact, you could argue that if the deadline of august recess is taken off the table because people will be around, thingsly might actually go slower because
the only thing that drives congress and maybe the senate to act is the incentive of recess. so we'll see where that goes. the other interesting thing to point out is that if you have this will repeal now, replace later the other place that comes into conflict is what president trump was saying about the senate plan meeting more heart or that the house plan was mean, if you in fact to a full repeal everyone gets ticked off the medicaid expansion tomorrow. if you just take the law off the books and the states are not getting extra money from the federal government for medicaid the whole system has problems so immediately.
>> this plan proposes a one-yeaa delay after voting on repeal before it is affected. i want real repeal and real replace as we promised. >> that would change the game somewhat from what the president's tweet was this morning. >> i'm putting you on the spot r little bit, but is there an option see? to' i want to show our viewers what senate minority leader chuck schumer had to say yesterday. >> let's start over. drop the fundamentally flawed approach, abandon cuts to medicaid, abandon tax breaks for the wealthy and we can discuss the problems that americans are actually concerned about. the cost, quality, and availability of healthcare. i suggested president trump
invite all senators to blair house to begin a new on a bipartisan approach to healthcare. unfortunately the president said i wasn't serious. mr. president, try me. the minute you make the invitation we will take it in a very serious way. >> is there serious discussion to use that word about invitingg democrats are crafting a deal that could get democratic quotes? >> i think the president made it clear that he thinks democrats have done nothing but obstructionist on healthcare. and so there is a sense of reluctance among white house advisors and the administration to play that card and reach out and say were willing to bring you to the table. they don't think that they would cooperate with something like healthcare. perhaps infrastructure they can be bipartisan work on. perhaps someone tax reform.
i think healthcare is one area where republicans want to go it alone. this administration has made ita clear they want to go to loan. y if there was any desire to reach out to democrats i think it would've happened.e commen seems like it hasn't based on the remarks from senator schumer. >> more on the policy agenda and what happened in washington. we also want to invite you to call in to your questions and comments about the legislative debates happening in washington what's down the line. go to james and tennessee. >> i been listening to the show yesterday and today about the repeal and replace, i do agree that they should, can you hear me?
i do agree the republicans talking about repeal for several years, go ahead and repeal itt and then try to replace it but they won't do it because they don't want set to do that. but i want to talk about i heard a lot of your callers and i don't want to get into the weeds with it but i want to say it does matter what the president tweets about. if you look at the four presence on mount rushmore that's how president should be acting. that's why we set the benchmark in the reference point to how they should be acting always with other countries and withh the citizens of the unitedat it states. i do think it does matter what he tweets about. as we look at his character.ow if we know a person's character know what the person would do or say or whatever.
>> host: and the other question out of that conversation is,thee what does a tweet like that in the reaction to it do for the president's agenda and the republican agenda on capitol hill? what are you hearing. >> it's not helpful. i don't know that it will have that much of a tangible effect on things but certainly in the hallways on capitol hill most of the questions from reporters were about healthcare yesterday. i think it was actually one of those days where you have people who are covering the president's comments about mika but largely it was not, so it -- but it's not helpful because even once or twice your senator and having a talked to the hallway and get asked or get a tv camera in your face about, so what you make of
the president's tweet this somee morning and you're someone who the president in the white house needs to be negotiating with, that's not going to be helpful thing for the white house i because why would you fear senator want to be engaging with people who had any point in time and make your life more difficult because of something that appeared on the internet. >> host: can you add to that? >> i think neil makes a great point. you don't want to be asked questions and it does really impact or it can impact the way negotiations do occur. i know yesterday susan collins is one of the large are most significant moderate opponents of the healthcare bill.televisi and was on television yesterday having to answer to the president tweets. that puts her further away from the negotiating table.
this is someone trying to build a rapport with the administration but actions like that make it more difficult for any senator because it introduces difficult questions i have to ask and they were if they support her seem like they're defending it will impact the in upcoming races. i think it complicates things significantly and something the advisors have been trying to tell the president for months that you need to put thought into the the consequences of whatever it is you're posting because there can be far-reaching consequences and ie doesn't seem like that he takes that into account from time to time. >> host: the other agenda item for this republican-controlled white house is tax reform. where does that stand now and what are people talking about? the treasury secretary and
speaker of the house insist this can get get done in this calendar year. >> it can get done this calendar year. it is in theory and easier left for republicans because there's more internal consensus on what to do. the problem is the way the budget law works is that you really can't to both healthcare and tax overhaul with all republican votes at the same time. once a budget resolution gets agreed to for fiscal 2018 which would likely include the instructions to allow the expedited process for tax reform, was that's agreed to by the house and senate the instruction for healthcare turn into a pumpkin. there is no way to do tax
reform, you could do it in the house but you can't do it in the sun until after he figure out what you're doing about healthcare. >> have a, concerning healthcare. i think they should just discard both of the obama and gop and let the states handle healthcare. the federal government should be looking at infrastructure and a lot of people are using the medicare program and medicaid office. it's a waste of money. all these nursing homes have people that can't feed themselves or get up and bathe. 's costs and eight or $9000 a month.es these children need it. i think the whole crowd is crazy. to heck with it. let's the state handle it and put the money in our military
and children. >> nancy in texas, on the republican line, company to. >> caller: good morning. i agree with the last caller. the government is too big.er it's interfering in all of our lives costing us working people a higher paychecks.lives. government in our lives, we want you out. >> host: are you referring to the healthcare bill? >> caller: the healthcare bill and the taxes. they're taxing us to death. we have no paycheck left. we'd be better off if we never worked a day in our lives, to know that? all of these people getting a free ride, we are supporting.ner we would be better off if we never work today in our lives.
if you people want socialism, every other country out there's a socialist country. go pick one. people who want socialism and the government, go be someone else's president, john pr's. >> host: so you want to see republicans repeal the affordable care act, get theat government out of healthcare. what about the possibility that republicans -- here's gap be story about the new york post c website. the same healthcare bill where republicans consider keeping obama care tax on the rich, do you agree with that approach?or. >> no.ey if they're rich, good for them. they've earned it. they worked hard their whole life. god bless them. the people who don't want to get nowhere in life and live off the government and everybody's working it out there.
and all these rights, the democrats have to stop. >> host: okay. gabby, what about the republicans considering keepingg attacks in place? >> it reminds me of the pledgest they take from a group to not increase taxes and here's the opportunity to take the tax away.e it would as mentioned earlier in various ways to court the holdout on this bill. putting money towards the medicaid program and making sure they roll out or back is a bitb. slower than the current version
of this bill. i do think this would be something that conservatives would protest relentlessly. they feel as though they keep someplace too much of the original framework of obama care.ling the as nancy was saying, a keep someplace taxes that americans are feeling the burden of. doesn't matter how much life may reach by keeping the income tax in the bill. i know they tried to repeal itai is certainly something that will repel those conservatives that remain supposed to the bill. >> i made a note on one of the previous colors mentioning nursing homes. which is one of these things that can often be overlooked in this debate. and i don't know what wouldd han happen frankly if more people
knew, because i still think people don't realize it's a medicaid not medicare that actually pays for nursing homesr beds, meals, and shelter for people who are elderly who have really no walls to turn. these are usually cases where all of the income or assets have already been sold off big law to pay for end-of-life care expenses. the nursing home issues one that can easily be overlooked in this debate. a lot of the issues with medicaid and the cost the callers are talking about are related to this nursing home question. some states there's no way the states could do it themselves. >> host: were talking about the week in washington.
two reporters who with us for this discussion. what are your questions or comments about actions being taken in washington? one yesterday was to pass two pieces of legislation. here's the story from roll call's website. health passed bills have murky -- in the senate. >> murky might be an understatement. what the house did yesterday was passed a couple of republican favored bills, one of which goes after sanctuary cities. these are places where they don't participate in the enforcement of federal immigration laws where your pleas are not regularly going to be running immigration checks are turning people over to the department of homeland security. these are measures that have come up in the past were discussed in the past. president trump certainly wants
them enacted. they are not the kind of thing that have the support of democrats.so i know some voter for it in the house.o by large they don't have the support of democrats and will be dead on arrival in the senate. the kind of things that didn't cause president trump to call again for a lemonade and filibusters in the senate soso republicans can pass them on their own. >> host: color from daytona beach. >> caller: you may call them republicans but you're not really republicans. people leading this country every public contour trying to calm the american people. and their latest column is the self-care bill.ill. this calls the tax reduction bill for the wealthiest 1% of our country a health care bill when it does not cover health or even care. it covers illness care for millions of americans the great
tax relief for care of the greedy republicans who care only for their pockets books. wealth to transfer wealth for the people who need it the most to the people who need it the lea least. >> host: vicki from south dakota. good morning to. >> caller: i would like to know how the people in the congress can do this to the elderly into this to people who are mentally sick and have cancer. cancer is not only caused by smoking, it's caused by a gene. that gene is defective. but they want to kill people. >> host: why do you say that? >> they talk about the holocaust and other stuff and keeping people off medicaid. children who have asthma. they have no fault in the and their parents to work. it may not be a 40000-dollar your job or a hundred and 85000-dollar per year job, but
their parents work. and they struggle to stay ahead. if they will control the cost of medical, people wouldn't have to die. w and if they wouldn't waste money on wars that we don't need to be in, they would not be pulling the stuff. and lining other rich people's pockets with taxes and taking away from the poor and taxing them more money is ridiculous. >> that was the copies -- the colors. . . a caller earlier was talking about how the rhetoric from the left -- i think she was a democrat -- about the health care legislation is democrats saying they are trying to kill people. what about the optics, the politics. substance, but the politics of the senate and house republican bills? guest: i think there are
heart-wrenching stories on either side of it. people who have been largely impacted by obamacare who cannot afford to pay their premiums and are not getting quality healthcare.and on the other sides democrats are talking about children who might face impact the way pre-existing condition might be impacted by this bill. it does really inflate the rhetoric around this and make it difficult for either side to defend or to oppose it. i think it is one of the reasons why republicans are looking at keeping this tax in place on the wealthy because that has been one area were democrats have routinely criticized the healthcare bill. saying this does little to address the problem of middle-class and low income americans. yet it is not getting a tax break to wealthy americans.
by keeping that task in place at least republicans will then be able to eliminate one key critique that we have heard from the democrats. >> taking away that talking point. >> right. the question i think that is also relevant here is then what do you do with that money? if you have the extra money from the revenue from that tax staying on the books, then you have to figure out what is the best way to then spend that money? and that might be where some of the debate is now. one of the issues that certainly you will run into, we will use ohio as an example again. there are people who are on the exchange in ohio that cannot afford premiums. but there are people who are doing better in ohio because they were subject to, thanks to the affordable care act, and
the action by governor k-6 and company they were able to get on the medicaid role because they were in this sort of income gap where they now are eligible for medicaid and so that is part of the conundrum here. you have two different sets of problems. people at ted cruz who repeatedly said that the number one priority is bringing down premiums. and that is one population but then there is the other population he says there on the expanded medicaid. so i think even if you keep the tax, you should only get rid of the talking point but then you have to see where to spend the money. >> and we have a democrat, good morning to you. >> good morning to you. my beliefs i think that if a good investigating reporter would find out where all of the money is going, the representatives and
congressmen, i bet they will find out why the republicans are doing this. because they are getting a boatload of money. and everyone knows it. when you are making money like that, you don't care about the poor. you don't care that death makes money. the dying, suffering of the poor. they love that. because it is filling their pockets full of money. >> okay let's take the accusation. you are saying that about lawmakers. gabby morrongiello, who was in the room of this working group with senator mitch mcconnell over the past few weeks while they drafted this legislation? were lobbyists there? who was actually doing the work? >> it was the senate republicans who have been working on this bill all along. i do think that there has been a number of lawmakers who have oppose efforts to spend more
money on various programs because this comes from a bit of a different angle, but they are concerned that they cannot track where the money is going or they do not know what the impact is.they have not been able to measure that yet. one thing i would point to is on the opioid addiction treatment. it is a really difficult issue because on the one hand, you do not want to be in the camp restricting funding for individuals and states that have been impacted heavily by this opioid epidemic. on the other hand, you want to make sure that bending more money on these treatment programs is actually producing results. and so it is difficult. republicans find themselves in a really difficult place and i think it is why democrats have had such an easy time going after this bill and launching a campaign to make it even harder for them to get this passed. >> would you be able to, as an investigative reporter, track
where this morning is going once we see fully the text of the legislation?and wood members of congress like that color side, line their pockets? >> well, that gets into the pocket of which lobbying group stands to benefit. i think we can, i think we all know in and around washington that there were plenty of folks who either had details of what was being drafted in mitch mcconnell's office or who thought they had details of always being drifted in the office. because quite a bit of what they actually had turned out to not be entirely accurate. there were certainly people who work, whether it is pharmaceutical companies or the insurance lobby or who were doing everything they could to be involved in the discussion. and certainly, that is always part of the question of here.
to the point of lawmakers themselves aligning their pockets and for that gets us to this question of a law that generally has no way of being enforced. at least we have not seen it yet. the stock act which was passed a few years ago that became law which says that members of congress and staffers are not allowed, it is insider trading if you actually go out and say, say if there's going to be a provision and i'm sort of making this up as a hypothetical. say there is a provision in the healthcare bill that provides a benefit that basically means that one particular pharmaceutical company is going to get a lot of new business because a new drug is going to be covered or something like that. if a member of congress were to before that bill text is
released, go out and buy a bunch of that pharmaceutical stock in theory, that is illegal. there have been some discussions about prosecuting over such matters before that have not gone anywhere. so i do not know how effective the prosecution would be. but in theory it is illegal. >> deborah, birmingham alabama, republican. >> yes, first of all i love c-span. i want your guests to clarify something for me. whether it is the healthcare law or? when they tax, don't those companies incorporate those costs into the business and onto consumers and everybody else actually paying the tax? basically i mean, aren't all of us paying the increase of the cost of business? >> we will take your question.
>> i think that this is something still being discussed among republicans and how obamacare would impact pharmaceutical companies, insurers and consumers as well hang paying for coverage. i do not know the answer to her question but it is something i will look into. [inaudible] >> right, there was in the aca there was an excise tax on medical devices. and what we sometimes can be called durable, there is this argument about how durable medical equipment is paid for and medical, and there was an medical advice excise tax. if you are a medical device manufacturer, you would argue as they have, and as bipartisan
members of congress who particularly from states where they manufacture a lot of these things, that this excise tax is an increased text - tax to the consumer. the counter to the argument is that expansion of various federal programs under the affordable care act meant there were a lot of more medical devices to be sold.so, the sort of argument in favor of the tax which was never all that popular but, there are some people who liked it. harry reid was always a fan of it.he thought it actually worked out fairly well. that so many new customers were being brought in to buy the equipment because they were newly insured people. that the excise tax actually made sense because companies
were making so much more money but the companies argued otherwise of course. >> we will go to an independent collar.you are on the air. >> thank you for taking my call. the congressman represents the constituents and of course it is hard to prove that if you have a lobbyist in their, i'd did want to say that i find it despicable that these callers -- is coming and some callers calling about leave everything to the state. i remember c-span did a segment on which they depended most on the government. if you let that happen then the majority of states i think they were red states, the states are not going to get assistance and is the same people screaming get the government out of our lives. then stop taking money from the government. >> thank you for the comment.
we are going to tim is wisconsin. democrat. >> good morning c-span. i think we should move on to infrastructure. the reason i say that is the healthcare reform and repeal was mainly designed for tax cuts for the wealthy. we can't move on to taxes unless donald trump shows, we will never get tax reform without donald trump showing his taxes. >> okay let's talk about infrastructure. where does that stand? gabby morrongiello?>> that is a great question because there's so much hype about getting a bipartisan package through congress early on in the administration and it seems to have died down a bit. i'm sure that there are still discussions taking place but right now the focus is obviously on healthcare and after that on tax reform. there is, i think a lot of areas in which republicans and democrats can work together on infrastructure.
i go back to my previous comments, if there is any big legislative items that we are going to see bipartisan action on it would certainly be infrastructure. >> green bay wisconsin, republican. >> good morning. a great day to be american. i just have two quick questions. on the cbo score came to me how accurate the scores are? for obamacare, what was it like and second of all, isn't everybody grandfathered in this health bill? do you know what i mean? they're not going to lose their insurance. >> if you're getting healthcare on the affordable care act exchange, are you asking no matter what they do do you still get it? >> yeah, with medicaid. >> with medicaid, okay. >> isn't that grandfathered in? i will take the second question first. i believe the answer is no. because there is a phase out of
the expanded medicaid coverage. if you are in a state like kentucky, and you are someone who works in say a restaurant job and you make enough money, you make too much money to get medicaid coverage over the old system but you do not make enough to really buy your own health insurance or get it through your employer. i think that the way this would end up working out is that you would be sort of in a gap at the end of the process.>> and is the questions about the score and the accuracy. >> knowing exactly what they do is always very difficult. the republicans would argue that the scores for the affordable care act were way off.
but some of this, i am hesitant to go too far down this road of the discussion but some of the arguments about the scoring methodology, they operate off of assuming current law is going to remain in effect and so, when you say that 22 million people are going to lose health insurance over the next 10 years, that is based off of assumptions about certain states expanding medicaid because obamacare is staying on the books and there was all sorts of assumptions that are built off of that. >> let's hear from frank, lakewood, new jersey. republican. >> hello there. let's good morning. >> a couple of questions. are you talking about illegal aliens in this country on medicaid and if so, why? thank you.
>> we know the answer to that. illegal immigrants, can they get medicaid? >> this is something california had looked at for a while. and not just medicaid but other benefits under the affordable care act. if i recall correctly, it had a difficult time making his way through the state legislature. which is surprising because california has typically been a safe haven for illegal immigrants.but to answer the question, i do not know for certain whether they are able to receive benefits. i would say that they are not but there are protections in place to measure the medicaid benefits are offered only to citizens of the country. >> beverly and vermont, democrat. >> i would just like to ask about the people that have had insurance now but will not be
covered later. what is going to happen to them? excuse me? >> go ahead ma'am. >> i think we are still, the reason i'm going to answer by saying we are still in the legislative process is because frankly, we don't know. if you just repeal the affordable care act and get rid of the exchanges, you would be in a predicament where people had to go to the individual market to the exist that existed and by insurance however, they might be able to. and then presumably you would have pre-existing condition exclusions and say old and the like from what was experienced pre-aca. if you presumed something
people 23 is over need to get insurance there on either through their employer but could not be on their parents land.but really what happens to people that get sort of forced off of insurance is that they have to go find it somewhere else somehow. it might be unaffordable or impossible to find.>> let's walk through the next month and august and what happens after august. what needs to get done when they returned from 4 july recess?gabby morrongiello. >> it seems that there waiting now on an adjusted score to see what changes they have made to the legislation and how it will impact the previous version of the bill. and going after what mitch mcconnell has said, what john cornyn has said, all of the people in leadership that are working hard on this bill to reach a consensus i think there goal is to do this before the
senate departs for recess.if we do not see that, i think that it is going to be a thousand times more difficult for anything to get done in healthcare once congress returns from that recess. >> and after healthcare? >> the question, if it is after healthcare or before healthcare which goes to the point about how difficult it would be if things don't get done by august recess. i have in my notes here that we are going to be approaching the debt limit at some point between july, i believe the treasury secretary - cbo says -- before september 30, we need to fund the continued operation of the government likely with a continuing resolution because the appropriations process is not working. and by the way, the senate to the point of infrastructure,
they also need to do something about reauthorizing the federal aviation administration. which basically, if the faa authorization is you are not able to collect taxes that come along with your airline tickets and potentially airplanes do not fly. so, leave aside healthcare tax reform, all of the things that people want to do. we are about to run into a crunch of things that have to be done in order to keep you know, literally to keep things running on schedule. >> he mentioned the appropriation what about the budget that sets the numbers? >> house has punted once again on a fiscal 2018 budget resolution. the senate has two pretty much wait until they figure out what they are doing on healthcare before they can even do that. there is going to have to be some and they will have to be
some bipartisan negotiating on that because frankly, you cannot even get a continuing resolution through the senate without democratic votes. certainly, the budget control act and the budget levels that we were looking at for fiscal 2018 are not going to work. there will have to be bipartisan negotiation there. >> gabby morrongiello on the international front, white house yesterday sanctioning a chinese bank that they said was funneling money for north korea. there has been action in the house and senate on north korea. and on russia's sanctions. what are the two chambers trying to do? >> well, they have sent a clear signal to the administration that there needs to be further action taken on russia. for their behavior during the 2016 presidential election. and i think that what they are now looking for is to see what the white house is going to do. there has been criticism, there is testimony on capitol hill earlier this week with the form
us investments that said not only did he feel president obama has done enough of president trump done anything on the russian front. i think congress is now looking for leadership from the white house. on that and as far as north korea goes i mean the president is meeting today with the south korean leader to discuss what can be done in that region. it certainly has something that is the focus of the state department on the administration because it does not seem any more as though it is impossible that we can face war with north korea in our lifetime. certainly it is an escalated conflict that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. >> niels lesniewski, this congress wanted the white house to act on russia comes as the president next week travels to the g 20 summit in germany. and the reports that he will have a sideline meeting with the russian leader. >> right. we are expecting that the president and vladimir putin
will meet at least some point next week and that will be interesting because we, as congress leaves, the white house just sent over formally the nomination of senator hutchison, a republican senator, a former republican senator from texas to be the us representative to nato. so certainly what's going to happen is i would expect particularly because she is a former senator that the foreign relations committee will move as quickly as possible to schedule the confirmation hearing for senator hutchison. and that will be really fascinating because it will probably be right after president trump and vladimir putin have met and perhaps even before the house acts on this
russian sanctions measure that has passed by the senate that the senate has now cleaned out the technical problem with and we are just waiting to see when the house will act on that. the confirmation hearing for the nato representative is normally probably not one that anyone pays any attention to. but when it gets called of this time they may need one of those very large hearing rooms on the senate side where all of the cameras go. >> cody in crystal lake illinois, independence. >> hi, thanks for taking my call. we have a cause and effect on this problem with the affordable care act. because is the outsourcing of all of our jobs and 94 when clinton, the democrat was president. and the industrialists, they said we don't want to pay these
people that much money to work in our factories. we rather go overseas and pay them three or four dollars an hour with no benefits. that is what they did. we had, we did not have a deficit. but now we have a $20 trillion deficit, unbelievable. things are working out great for the politicians because they took 900 billion out of medicare and they shoved it into the affordable care act. and now - >> i think cody was referencing savings from medicare. dear member the debate? it went to pay for the affordable care act. present this is money that they continually argue should have been kept in medicare at the risk of the old al gore line,
the lockbox but what has happened interestingly enough is that republicans when they became the party and powered, counted those same savings. there was never, i do not remember a budget or an effort in budget resolutions from republicans to move that money back to medicare. one of the things i think is interesting in this debate that i had never really thought of until just now is that it is not like the proposals to repeal and replace the affordable care act, i do not think are replenishing the medicare fund along the way. >> and jeff in oklahoma, republican. >> hi gretchen. i have a question. on the cbo score, the people that would lose healthcare - how many of those will actually be people choosing not to have
healthcare? >> gabby morrongiello, can you answer that? >> that is something republicans are still wrestling with. i know in the original score of the house bill, i think that it was about 14 million? i could be wrong but i want to say 14 million who under the affordable care act right now are obviously either penalized for not having health insurance because you have the individual mandate and by removing that, there would be a number of americans who would not purchase health insurance because they are either healthy or just don't feel that they need it at this point in time. this is something republicans have been working to address. there was something that came up last week. they were saying if we remove this individual mandate there might be some individuals who will purchase insurance at the last minute right after they actually need it if they are in a car accident or what have you. they have been working on putting measures into the bill
that would try and discourage that type of behavior. to make sure that the pool of covered americans is balanced with sick individuals and healthy individuals. >> let me get into maxine here in durham north carolina. hi there. >> hi there, i love c-span. i want to go on in prior cars question. what happens to the people who whatever reason with the switch may lose their healthcare? i am recalling a time many years ago when physicians were private practitioners and they also have the option in those days of treating an underprivileged or poor client for a lesser fee or no fee at all. today it appears to me with the medical groups the way they are set up, physicians have become
employees. and for various reasons, they no longer have the option of treating the poor on their own terms so to speak. and so that is my main. now there's something else - i am going to leave it there because we are running out of time. i will have niels lesniewski respond.>> that is an absolutely interesting point because i will actually say my own primary care physician is now part of a large medical consortium in the d.c. area. when he used to be a private practice physician. so i myself am well aware of that and it will be a very different situation these days if he did not have, if doctors are in fact if there is less stability when setting the rates for individual patients and people that pay out-of-pocket.
>> he can feel niels lesniewski reporting if you go to -- sooner senate staffer there and follow gabby morrongiello on ny post .com. thank you both for the conversation this week. thank you. >> next a discussion on south sudan. and marco rubio on ways to combat transnational crime in the us. after that the senate intelligence committee hearing on motion interference and democratic elections. now, a discussion on the famine crisis in south sudan and violence against humanitarian aid workers in the region and the need for more international support in helping to find a political solution.this is just over an hour. >> as we watch the last of the few the brave come in, i see