Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal  CSPAN  July 12, 2013 7:00am-9:01am EDT

7:00 am
other items on the congressional agenda. later, a conversation about the national center for education statistics and the education of young children. of nuclear options. we'd like your opinion on this story. here are the numbers to call. democrats, 202-58 a-3880.
7:01 am
republicans, 202-585-3881. independents, 202-585-3882. you can also find us on social media. send us a tweet, and we can share that on the air. or join the conversation on facebook by looking for c-span. you can also email us. t's journal the senate is at risk of nuclear option. deal to avert it is off. majority leader reid tells minority leader mcconnell after filibuster fight. they triggered the nuclear option against minority filibusters, setting up a dramatic tuesday showdown in which republicans either will have to accept seven of president obama's controversial appointments or watch as democrats change the rules and
7:02 am
end filibusters of executive branch nominees. host: here are other headlines. the senate is at war over nominees, "the wall street we also see politico. harry reid slamming mitch mcconnell, ready for the nuclear option. here to tell us more and explain how we've gotten to this point is the politico senior congressional reporter on the phone. thanks for talking with us. guest: good morning. host: first of all, give us a background of what this fight is over.
7:03 am
who are these nominees and why are they controversial? guest: well, two of those seven by nees are opposed republicans. i should say, two groups of nominees. one, the national labor relations board. republicans have balingtsd over that board for years -- have battled over that board for years, and the other being the consumer financial protection bureau. heads that organization, but they have a fundamentally change them. and i'll take you back to the beginning of 2012 when the so t over the nominees were intense and there was gridlock in the senate that president -- and lled those installed them into office. but the caveat is this happened during a pro forma session of the united states senate, and
7:04 am
republicans were furious. they said this was something that was unconstitutional, it went to court, and now it's actually before the supreme court. democrats will say that, look, this is an unprecedented move by the republicans to block nominees because they don't like their board or their agencies, and the nlrb will cease to function if it doesn't have a full board, and we need to move forward so. here's where we are. these nominees need to be in place. republicans need to drop their objections, not to approve them by 51 votes and not have to worry about getting 60 votes. if not he says he's moving forward with the so-called nuclear option, change the filibuster rules by using a process that would allow them to do it by 51 votes instead of 67, something that has not been done and carried out before, and that is what's really provoking this outrage among
7:05 am
republicans who say that once did you down that path, any majority will continue to use the nuclear option until the filibuster is gone altogether. and so we'll see this all come to a head next week. host: tell us what happens on tuesday. guest: it looks like, on monday evening, there's going to be a meeting, a very rare meeting among senators from both parties in the old senate chamber just off the senate floor. they're going to talk about the potential move. i doubt much will come out of that meeting other than the dog and pony show perhaps. but really, the more significant thing is whether mcconnell will allow these nominees to go forward by simple majority rather than do anything a 60-vote threshold to get them across, if he continues to demand that, reid is going to take this unprecedented step, and knowing that's what we'll see the next
7:06 am
several days over the next week. host: why is this so significant? how will this fundamentally change the way the senate functions, and what's been the response? guest: you know, remember, the nuclear option has been threatened over many, many years. you know, going back to even the 1970's when folks were -- folks were trying to force a change in filibuster rules, and oftentimes there was so much confirmed by using this process to change the rules by 51 votes rather than a 2/3 majority that there was -- there were deals cut to avert the nuclear option, even in the mid 1970's with the reduced threshold from breaking the filibuster from 57 down to 60. and more recently, earlier this year, when reid was once again threatening to change filibuster rules, but he cut a deal with michigan mcconnell to make the very narrow changes in fell buster rules that really didn't do a whole lot,
7:07 am
particularly in the eyes of those folks who want to get rid of it. so if reid does go down this route, he will be truly unprecedented. next congress, maybe even future democratic-controlled senates, they may look back to this move by harry reid, and they may say, you know what, it's been done before, and we're going to do it to further weaken the fell buster. what reid is saying is i want to get rid of the filibuster, lower that threshold from 50 to 51 votes on just consecutive branch nominees. so future majorities may say i want to do it for judicial nominees. that's going to have implications for the supreme court, for any lower court. and we want to get rid of the fell buster altogether for all legislation for amendments, everything, and so that can really fundamentally alter how the senate operates and turn it into more of a body in which
7:08 am
the majority really rules. critics really feared it because they feel that the senate was meant to protect the ights of the minority. >> how are democrats responding? is there any dissension among senate democrats? guest: really only a handful. i mean, yesterday at the senate democratic lunch where they discussed this issue, it was almost with a cheerleading session, at least that's how it was described, in which virtually everybody was united over this move. carl levin, michigan democrat, veteran senator retiring at the end of next year, spoke up against it. he really was the only one at the meeting to do so. it's possible they lose another vote. mark pryor, a democrat, up for re-election next year, who voiced some concerns. he told me yesterday he was
7:09 am
leaning no on the nuclear option. there are a couple who are on the fence, veterans as well, jack reid of rhode island is a possible no. although people think that he'll eventually come back, both he and max baucus of montana. even if those four do vote no, it will be 50-50 split, and that would bring in vice president joe biden, who is widely expected to vote with senate democrats if they do this. they almost certainly have the votes if reid wants to go over. reid is very confident he has the votes, because this is being driven largely by younger, more junior senators who now compose a majority of the senate democratic caucus, who actually never served a day in the minority, and they are fed one the filibusters. they see that as what has been impeding their progress over the years. host: one last question for you. one of our follow others twitter writes in, don't use
7:10 am
the term nuclear, because it makes one think of other things. why the use of this strong term? guest: it's a fair question. proceed pope he wants of this will say this is actually the constitutional option. they say the majority rules, and this is something that the senate gets to set its own rules under the constitution, and so this is actually completely constitutional. that's what proponents call it. the term nuclear option has been sort of what the media has fed on in recent years, actually since 2005 when the republican leader at the time was warning that he would use bunch of firm a george bush judicial nominees. at the time people called it the nuclear option, and it's eally caught on since. reid was furiously arguing against this move, saying it would blow up the senate, and michigan mcconnell was
7:11 am
promoting it. eight years later, it's the other side. so we'll see what happens next week. host: manu raju, politico senior congressional correspondent, thanks for talking with us. we're asking you what you think about this move closer toward the nuclear option, the so-called nuclear option. democrats can give us a call at 202-585-3880. republicans, 202-585-3881. independents, 202-585-3882. we have a tweet from don, who writes in and says, who cares about the nuclear option spoils bipartisanship. we don't need it after we end the unconstitutional filibuster. gwen is our first caller, detroit, michigan, democrat. go ahead, gwen. hi, gwen. are you with us? caller: i'm on c-span. host: what's that, gwen? go ahead. you're on the air. caller: hi. i'm calling about this nuclear
7:12 am
option. the reason they're doing that is because the republicans are just refusing to work with the president, and you lesson to what they had to say, that if they get the majority, if they will do whatever they want to do, and no things that was mentioned were things that the american people really don't want, and so they're threatening the senate to not do this. if they do the nuclear option, then if the republicans get control, they're going to do whatever they want to do with this, which is things that the american people don't want. so they tried to stop the election, stop people from voting. it was overturned by the court, but now the supreme court has allowed them to be able to do this and so they're more bold.
7:13 am
we need to come together as a group. host: it was the question of what happens when the power shifts in the senate. republicans warn they could retaliate ease fill they reclaim the majority by ending other filibusters, which would let them push through their own priorities without fear of minority obstruction. david in florida, republican line. hi, david. caller: good morning. everybody needs to study history and realize that this is not actually a democracy. it is a constitutional republic. true democracy is nothing more than mob rule. scommoip how does that influence your opinion of what's happening with the fill buster? caller: well, the senate just wants to do whatever they want to do without impunity, just whatever we want to do, we're going to do. but like i said, this can turn around and bite them on the back side, because they're not always going to be in charge. and i don't think anybody should be having that kind of power to just basically ram rod whatever they want through. this is supposed to be by the
7:14 am
people, for the people, and it's not anymore. the average person in this country seems to think that they are our masters, and they're not. they're our employees, and we need to take them to task for the things that they do. host: here's a tweet from edwin, all talk and no action. he won't change the rules, because then there's no excuse for not getting anything done. the headline in "usa today" is senator reid aims to pull the plug on the senate filibuster. let's take a listen to some of the back and forth from the senate floor yesterday. two leaders in the senate, minority leader mitch mcconnell and majority leader harry reid. >> these are dark days in the history of the senate. i hate that we have come to this point. we've witnessed the majority leader break his word to the united states senate. and now our requests for a joint meeting with all the senators have been set for monday night, a time when attendance around here is frequently quite spotty, in an
7:15 am
obvious effort to keep as many of his members from hearing the concerns and arguments of the other side as possible. it remains our view for this to be the kind of joint session of the senate that it ought to be given the tendency of the senate to have sparse attendance on monday night to have this meeting on tuesday before it's too late. >> so mr. president, i don't want him to feel sorry for a senate, certainly not for me. and i'm going to continue to try to speak in a tongue that's appropriate. i guess he follows -- i hope not -- the demagogue theory that the more you say something that's false, people start believing it. it's quite ident, interesting that he thinks that that richard cartwright, who no
7:16 am
one, no one says there's a hing wrong with the man. democrats and republicans have said he's a good guy. this man has been waiting for 24 days. monetary fund governor, 169 ays. average time waiting is nine months. host: from the senate floor yesterday. here's the "washington post" --
7:17 am
host: hi, sam. how are you today? caller: i'm calling about the filibuster. the majority rules, i've always felt like, and i think the american people feel like the majority means one vote over 50. it's always been that way when we elect president as majority rules. now they move these things like 67 on the filibuster. i think they can number there if they want in there, but i would limit to so many a year, maybe two each quarter that you can fill birth, but the filibuster is killing our countryful one thing i hope that the people in kentucky can help this country, if they will get rid of column. host: 60 votes are needed to break a filibuster. what majority reid is talking
7:18 am
about is lowering that flesh hold. that's what the this so-called nuclear option s. hi, kevin. caller: good morning. the filibuster is used when people try to promote radical ideas like president obama does , all of these nominees, all of them come from the super, super radical anti-american plan, and we have every right to say no, renominate somebody else. the democrats say george bush nominates four dvent supreme court justice picks. democrats fill birthed all of his picks, but&this is my last point. the lady that called in and said the republicans are trying to stand in the way, and it won't work with the president, that's a lie. listen, 47% of the american people voted for mitt romney.
7:19 am
that's almost half. 53% voted for obama, but 47% voted against him. so the american people don't want what obama does, 53% of the american people, which is barely half, and most of those people are made up of the takers, the food stampers, as mr. obama likes to put it, the blacks and browns of this country, the unemployed. those are the people that voted for obama, not people like me that own my own company, hire people, pay the taxes, that's where you get your food stamps from. host: it sounds like you're saying that african-americans are on food stamps and it sounds like you're white, sense you're not putting yourself in that category, and so -- caller: i'm not trying to make it that cut and drismede i'm saying the majority of the people who voted for obama are the takers, not the makers. that's the point that i'm making. and biggest point is that it's
7:20 am
not that the american people want this, the american people don't want that. obama barely got over 50%. host: all right, let's get back to the question of the fill buster and what you think of that. jimmy, georgia, independent caller. hi, jimmy. go ahead. caller: hi. yes, go ahead, i just want to say a nuclear fell buster and do away with filibusters, because they do everything they can to wreck the country. there's one thing i'd like to say. i was a republican, but i was a union member, but i've heard so much stuff about the republicans, about the union members that you know why the union was ever started in the south? because the republican party paid them nothing. they were working them like slaves. i mean, if you got a job, you couldn't get one that paid anything and enough to live on, and this guy is talking about, oh, the food stamps, food stamps. well, pay them and you won't have to have food stamps. that's what makes me sick.
7:21 am
they make trillions of dollars. they like this energy partner. what do you zphp you got to raise something. that's all they ever think about doing. ake, take, take. all they can take -- all they can talk about is schools, schools, educate the people. keep your homes and stuff. host: you're breaking up on us. i think you're starting to break up on us. we are going to talk about schools later in the program. we'll focus on kindergartener education, and there's some new
7:22 am
research out on that, how america's children are doing. some comments on social media. we see on facebook, let's go there. ok, so let me get this straight. it's ok for democrats to use a fill bust neither texas legislature, but not for republicans who want to use it in d.c.? and jim says, i've been looking for leadership from the senate and watching the republican senators' statements from yesterday, i'm still looking. this goes for democrats too. on twitter, bring it on, harry, referring to senator harry reid. the g.o.p. will take over the senate in 2016, and we'll have our revenge big time. let's go to ralph in new york. democrats line. hi, raffle. caller: yes, good morning. i'm ralph, and i'm a u.a.w. member from upstate new york. what these filibusters are doing, they're getting serious now, because they're impacting work place democracy. because as your reporter
7:23 am
touched on was the national labor relations board, and there's five nominees waiting to be voted on in the u.s. senate. and if they're not voted on before august, the national labor relations board will shut down, and that's going to impact most workers in the private sector. that's why these continuous filibusters are really impacting working people. >> and we can take a look at what these nominees are that we're talking about. this is one component of what not getting dealt with in this senate. you can satisfy from the "baltimore sun," tracking talled nominations --
7:24 am
host: cloture votes were unsuccessful in the dark color, and then successful ones in the lighter color, tracking through time from 1979 up through the present congress. mary, magnolia springs, alabama, call on our independent line. hi, mary. caller: hi. i thank you for reading that, because there's a reason why there's rules in the senate, and it's supposed to give minorities a vote, because when you only are ruled by the majority, in fact, the most important thing in this country is the majority is also supposed to protect the rights of the minority. and what we are lacking in the congress, both houses, and the
7:25 am
president is the basic rule of politics, and that is to come gether and everybody get their view put through, just this idea of just ram rodding things through all the time, you've got to be pragmatic and be response i have to all the people. mr. obama's health program, if he had had more of the minority point of view and obamacare, he probably would not be in trouble with that program. because more people have had to have a voice, and the minority's rights have got to be protected. go back to senator byrd. he wanted to protect the rights and the rules of the senate, and the worst thing he thought of is when the nuclear option came through, it was the worst thing that ever came out while he was in the senate. and he was a great senator
7:26 am
because he had pride in the senate, and you've got to have both sides and both sides' rights protected. that's the fear you're going to have if the republicans take over and they had nuclear option, then the democrats are going to be crying, just like when the republicans tried to do that about eight or 10 years ago. host: here's a comment on twitter. the appropriate response to any of youth is firm action to prevent recurrence, the filibuster is no exception. jason, democrats line, right here in washington, d.c. caller: hey, how's it going? host: good. what are your thoughts this morning? caller: well, it's a filibuster, because i think it was meant to be a thribraverb body, and that taking that away takes away from the purpose of the senate. so i think what they could do is come up with some better ideas, such as maybe like a
7:27 am
three-strike rule where they put a nominee in front of the senate and it gets reject, they can possibly do that three times, and now on the fourth time, it will go through, so i think they need new ideas rather than taking it away or keeping it like it is. host: what do you think this says for the future of the senate? caller: well, i mean, neither way is currently working, so if they're going to be obstructionists and not let anybody go through, then that hampers the ability of the government to govern. but if you take away the minority voice, then that also eps them from -- like we had where the n 1913 fascist party took over. so i think there's really good reasons for having a minority voice to object against the majority, but at the same time, the government still needs to
7:28 am
function. host: dennis, upper marlboro, maryland, welcome. caller: hi, good morning. thank you for the opportunity. first of all, i want to say that i agree with the majority leader. they ought to get rid of this fell birth, because nothing is getting done, and everybody knows that. one other o make point. these senators from these red and s and some blue states in this country today, they just don't realize or remember that they lost the war, and the war i'm talking about is the civil war. everything they seem to be doing is trying to tear down this government, and like the war isn't over. if people would just realize that these people are still fighting the war from 150 years ago, if my numbers are right,
7:29 am
that they lost. and america, they're going to lose this time. america is marching in such a progressive direction that we're taking everybody, even in he red states. basic these people don't put down the stars and bars and just bring them out once a year to celebrate. i mean, they lost. they lost the war, and they won't -- they won't deal with it. host: wellington, alabama, independent. caller: hey, how you doing? host: good. how are you? caller: good. i just want to say about the democrats, the long period of time it's taken the senate to make decisions when the american people have been get an back trying to
7:30 am
answer about what happened with n benghazi and the i.r.s. and everything that happened since obama has been in office. the man clearly is trying to do away with our constitution, and if they do this with a filibuster, that's just opening up the door. he's already made it very clear in every speech he's ever given, i have noticed that he says if i didn't have to go through congress for approval, i could do this a lot faster, i'm just scared of that man. he is trying to change the world. and not for the good. if democrats are going to open up their eyes and say he's not doing anything, but just out and out lying to the american people. host: i'm talking about the fill buster and what's at stake in the senate. there is an editorial piece in "the washington post" this morning by richard, who worked on the senate and house staff
7:31 am
for 34 years, he also co-authored a book last year, "defending the filibuster: the soul of the senate," and he calls this the line the senate should never cross. e says --
7:32 am
host: back in 2055, the democrats were threnting to use the so-called nuclear option. let's listen to some tape from the c-span video library. this is back in 2005. then-smart leader bill frist, republican of tennessee, is talking about his perspective on this issue. >> we tried through the regular order of business with a rules hange, the last 2 1/2 or three months, senator reid, the democratic leader and i have
7:33 am
negotiated and talked every day , to come to a negotiated position that, from my standpoint, does what is right with principle and gives every nominee an up and down vote. senator reid and i, through very civil discussions every day, and you see us both talking on and off the floor every day, and that relationship will continue in a very constructive and positive way, but we were unable to reach an agreement, consistent with that principle of up or down votes for all nominees, and that is that you don't arbitrarily exclude certain nominees not based on credentials, but just exclude them in order to avoid the constitutional option. host: he was threatening to use the so-called nuclear option. we're looking at the history of when this has been threatened. we'll get another call in here, and then we'll listen to more audio and video.
7:34 am
david is up next. orwell, ohio, democrats line. hi, david. caller: hi, thanks for taking the call. i'd like to address the gentleman that called earlier. ohio was the great state that put obama into office, was crucial in his election. we have a republican congressman here, congressman boehner, who keeps trying for, what was it, 34 times now they tried to appeal obamacare. and his excuse was that the did not have smen a chance to vote on it. they tint have a chance to vote on social security. they didn't have a chance to vote on unemployment. they didn't have a chance to vote on a 40-hour workweek, and maybe we should try to rethose those two. they're obstructionists, and there's an usual.
7:35 am
i thought that was put to bed. obama won a clear, decision ctive victory. pe lself i have a with us, i employ people, i voted democrat. you know, it bothers me when i hear this taker issue, taker, taker, taker. so i'm going to hang up and let some other callers talk. thank you. host: let's take a look at other stories in the news briefly. the nominee to head a.t.f., the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, faces a tough confirmation fight, according to the "baltimore sun" headline. the senate judiciary committee voted yesterday to approve todd jones as director of the a.t.f. -- so another story about folks looking to get confirmed by the
7:36 am
u.s. senate. the farm bill passes without food stamps, from "the washington times." house republican leaders power through a slimmed down farm bill thursday, leaving the rest of the bill, which maintains the farm subsidy system, that props up u.s. agriculture. we'll also look at a couple of other stories here from the hill. the senate, group of senators continue negotiations on the question of student loans and whether or not they can be retroactively lowered back to the rate they were at. they raised at the end of last month when congress could not come to terms on keeping them at their lower level. and this we see from "the washington post," the house has a bill in front of it that would shut down fannie mae and freddie mac. a couple of other stories here. we're looking at how the sequester is affecting communities around the country.
7:37 am
it's something we've been talking about here on the "washington journal" over the last month. this article looks at what's happening in maryland and who's being affected. it profiles one woman, a lab technician in aberdeen proving ground, getting a 20% pay cut. it talks about the measures she's trying to save money at ome -- host: eliot spitzer has submitted signatures in the race for new york city cromp trolleyer. you see here from politico. he hit the deadline that he needed to. and we see the front page of the "wall street journal," looking at stocks. stocks surged to fresh heights. skittish investors have gained courage from comments made by firm chairman ben bernanke this week. he reassured folks on easy money policy.
7:38 am
let's keep hearing calls about the question of what's happening in the senate with the fill buster and the so-called nuclear option. aaron, ventura, california, republican. caller: hi. how you doing? first i wanted to say that the caller that called in and was the war, ut who won brought up the civil war, i mean, that's ridiculous. abraham lincoln was the first republican. that's when the republican party started. so i don't know that it has anything to do with the war, civil or anyone. as far as the filibuster thing, i wanted to say that that i think that the biggest problem here is all the lying and rhetoric going on. lining harry reid was p.
7:39 am
this is according to the republican side, but i didn't hear harry reid try to refute ny of these numbers. it's taken 51 takes to confirm nominees, obama's administration, whereas bush it took 55 days, and clinton it took 50 days. so i mean, they're all basically the same averpblgs, so i think they're just pulling this -- getting rid of the fell getting rid of the filibuster thing. host: national labor relations board, also members of the president's cabinet, and the head of the consumer financial protection bureau. here's what chris in alabama tweets in. the filibuster is not being removed, it's being limited
7:40 am
with respect to obama's nominees only. chris, columbia, maryland, independent caller. go ahead. caller: that's what i was going to talk about, the filibuster is good sometimes. there's a need for it. but when it is being used to block all of the president's appointments, it's just not fair. and it's a shame that we don't have elizabeth warren coming in to protect the consumers. that's not enough. they want to block the next person. but anyways, one last comment. the republicans haven't done anything to protect minority rights in a very long time. that's all i'm going to say. thank you. host: mentioned recall why are, the history of this -- mentioned earlier, the history of this win. other leaders have threatened the so-called nuclear option. we heard a little bit from senator bill frist, who used to be the top republican in the senate, the senate majority
7:41 am
leader back in 2005. let's listen to senator schumer of new york. here's his perspective from back in 2005 when he called the nuclear option an abuse of power by the republicans. >> we are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis . the checks and balances which have been at the core of this republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. the checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote, you don't get your way 100% of the time. it's amazing, it's almost a temper tantrum by those on the hard, hard right. they want their way every single time, and they will change the rules, breakt rules, misread the constitution so that they will get their way.
7:42 am
that, madam president, is not becoming of the leadership of the republican side of the aisle. nor is it becoming of this republic. that, madam president, is what we call abuse of power. host: that's senator schumer back in 2005. now the roles are reversed, and it's democrats who are threatening this so-called nuclear option. what do you think about this? ohio on the democrats line. caller: hello. what i think is that the republicans are trying to nullify president obama's presidency. that's basically what they're doing. they're obstructing everything that he's doing, and they're trying to get they are way. the first time democrats stand up and have a backbone and try to fight for the feet, this is what we get. well, which was it ever 60 votes to pass everything?
7:43 am
they have to jump through hoops to get people confirmed. the national labor relations board is very important to regular people like myself who have to work every day and we need some sort of recourse to have somewhere to go, so the first time the democrats -- and most of the democrats i'm talking about like chuck schumer, they're all corporate democrats. we all know that they're not for us. it's the first time they do something that's for regular people, we get people, and it's so hard to listen on c-span this morning, because we have regular people getting on, talking about how the republicans are fighting for them and the democrats are gainst them. the democrats are weak and spineless most of the time, but when we finally get something to do, we get normal people, regular, middle-class people coming on and talking about how they are against them. let's be realistic. host: i'm sorry, so let's ask you this. if the roles were reversed and republicans gained control of
7:44 am
the senate next round, will you feel any differently? caller: i think if there's a republican president, he should be able to have the people that he puts in, that he wants to nominate, let them go up for a vote f. there's something wrong with them, then let the vote prove that. host: ok. let's go on to theresa, in columbus, ohio, on our independent line. hi, theresa. caller: thank you for taking my call, and i'm very much in line with the last caller. as an independent voter, i have voted in the last -- ever since i was 18 years old, i voted for democrats and republicans. i voted for mccain of the election before. i voted for president obama this election. how come we can't get anything done in washington? because boehner stood there on the day they lost and said we will not cooperate. however, what he didn't realize is by them not cooperating, we
7:45 am
still have people losing homes. we still have a mess in washington, and we have people getting paid to go up there and do nothing, but not obstructionists. as a wear, i'm sick of it. i want the independents to take over this mess, because obviously the people that we have in washington aren't even willing to sit down. it's like a bad movie of mean boys instead of mean girls, and i am, myself, sick of it. i watched people lose their home. i'm a really agent. i can't help these people. they were given predatory loans, and god bless richard cordray, he's probably the most honest man in america. when we can't confirm someone s fine as richard cordray, and as an independent, i don't have a goose in here. host: ok. let's look at what you're talking about. here's what red neck tweeted in and wrote, the best nuclear option is election reform.
7:46 am
elections, regardless of party, would ensure a government of the people. well, thanks for all of your calls. if you'd like more from this c-span video library, you can find that on our website,.org. you can sign some more visit cal footage there. up next, republicans congress. later on, we'll talk to the democrat of tennessee. we'll be right back. >> it is absolutely vital we i'm our enemy correctly, because it's very, very hard to find someone that you don't identify correctly. and these attacks on our homeland and others, such as
7:47 am
the 2005 london bombing, have been connected by a common motivation and a singular purpose. underwear bomber, times square attempt, the tsarnaev brothers, major house an, who announced at fort hood that he was killing in the name of allay, were all adherence to the jihadist goal of islamic domination, and the murder of free and innocent people whom they regard ads infidels in order to accomplish that goal. >> let me speak about social media and the old adage that you can't establish a relationship during a crisis. we have significant presence on social media, where we've engaged not only in a one-way community, but in a dialogue with people in the community about all sorts of issues day in and day out. we were able to use social media effectively to inform people as to where they could go, as to what happened, where they could meet loved ones. there was an enormous amount of upset that we used social media
7:48 am
to tamp it down. >> the committees lack ago the past marathon bombings. on c-span's book tv. william bennett questions, is college worth it? that's saturday night. is on american hft tv, lem tours in history, roosevelt, wilson, and the u.s. ma jeans fight the banana wars, sunday at 1:00. >> "washington journal" continues. host: representative tom price is our guest, republican of georgia. he represents the sixth district. thank you for being here this morning. guest: great to be with you. host: let's talk about the federal healthcare law. yesterday house speaker john boehner announced a vote next week to delay implementation of more items of the law. how will this be different? guest: well, the fact is the landscape has changed.
7:49 am
the president and administration have admitted with their own delay of the employer mandate for a year from january 1, 2014, to january 1, 2015, that the law is unworkable, at least from employers. we believe that's the case. and we believe that that ought to be congress to do guide, at they say yes, it should workable, and we he's not to have it there. we also have to do that for ideas. we will have a vote next week in the house of representatives on a one-year delay for the employer mandate and a one-year delay for the individual mandate from january 1, 2014, to january 1, 2015. host: there's been criticism in commentary pieces, including by dana millbank in "the washington post," that republicans want it both ways. they're critical of the law, and yet they were critical of the delay of the mandate for
7:50 am
large employers to provide insurance in 2014. >> well, many people believe it, and we've heard a lot the country, many people believe the president doesn't have the authority to do what he did, that the law is the law. and of course, the executive branch is carrying out the to you of the snand and execute those faithfully. people believe he doesn't have the authority to do what he did. we believe it's appropriate to delayed for a year. host: tell us about your bell, the combourg patience first act. guest: well, republicans, what are you going to do? i spent 20 years of taking care of patients in the atlanta area, and know there are already all sorts of problems. wonderful, they have as the fent f punt mental issue who ought to be making better decisions. do demonstrate how you can
7:51 am
this in a patient-centered ways, so you can get folks covered that they want for themselves. everybody with cooverpblg that they want, want that the government forces them to buy. you can solve the insurance challenges, and there are real ones out there for preexisting being the two primary ones, and you can save hundreds of billions of dollars throughout through lawsuit abuse form, and you can do that without putting washington in charge. we believe there are positive solutions, and that's what it incorporates. host: should every american have health insurance? guest: they ought to have access to what they want. to dictate what they have to have, that's that's not america. that's not who we are. we have a son who's 23-year-old, a healthy young fell', and there are a lot across this land. that best themself them and their bocket book, then they
7:52 am
ought to be able to do so. the a.c. currently says that, no, you can't have that. you have to have a soup to nuts health coverage plan. so every american ought to have access to health coverage. that's what it does is provide that. host: is your son on your healthcare plan because of the healthcare law's expansion? guest: he just finished college recently, and he was on through his college career. oip has that been a successful on the part of poin while they worked their way through college and figure out the job market. >> people have found it to be very helpful. insurance companies themselves have found it to be helpful, and the largest shrers in this country said they will continue that, regardless of what the law says. democrats, 202-585-3880. republicans, 205-383-3881. dependent callers,
7:53 am
202-585-3882. you mentioned patient services? guest: patients and families and doctors ought to be making medical division. we should we believe the folks in these wonderful buildings should be making your medical season or anybody's medical reasons does. that's what the law does if it's allowed to continue. they will determine and dictate exactly what positions can do for a given diagnosis or a certain set of symptoms. i certainly believe that physicians as my colleagues you know, the training they went through, the education they went through, they're the ones along with their patients and the patients' families that ought to be making these decisions. that's what patient-centered healthcare is. host: congressman tom price, vice chairman of the budget committee. he also serves on the ways and means committee and education and the workforce. as he mentioned, he's a doctor. he had a private medical practice for 20 years in his home state of georgia.
7:54 am
let's flare a georgia call, nance on it democrats line. caller: good morning. i'd like to ask congressman rice what veps have in mind td to bring down healthcare costs. that's what this is really all about. i think we need to do something this. and way the way, there's more places with the constitutional amendment. host: are you talking about that because we were discussing the filibuster earlier this morning? caller: yes, ma'am. guest: thanks, nancy, and you're right. costs of health coverage and healthcare have increased significantly, and there are a lot of reasons for. that we're an aging society, and the technology that exists, but when you look at the real cost drivers of healthcare, we haven't addressed them in the law, the law that was passed before. the biggest drivers of costs in health carry are the same as they are in most businesses,
7:55 am
with the addition of another one. there's taxation. taxes are way too high. we have the highest tax rate in the industrialized world. those taxes have to be paid, and they're not paid by businesses. here paid by businesses in the healthcare. those are paid for individuals to go to hospitals and doctors. they're paid by the patients. regulation with huge regulation and an overburdensome regulation, especial until healthcare, i know this because of my own medical practice. from my colleagues back home to find to extremely difficult to just comply with it, and they pay huge amounts of money but don't improve it earlier, and that's litigation, lawsuit abuse. we have a lit udgeous society and the costs want just of the malpractice rates for physicians and hospitals is significantly high. but the price of the -- the practice of defensive medicine,
7:56 am
which is what your doctor does and every doctor does to make sure if they're every called into court they can honestly say to the judge and the jury, i don't know what you wanted me to do, because i did everything, when, in fact, everything wasn't necessary to either treat or diagnostics patient. if you direct those issues, through the wonderful beauty and awe, the costs will come back. we just haven't addressed the real problem. republican caller, go ahead. caller: this is what i have heard in the last year on the mandate. the republican, the former republican, the senator from wyoming, said that there are 50 million people in america that don't have health, and if you're not getting healthcare, you're fooling yourself. now, i think who went to the emergency room knows that.
7:57 am
they have been receiving free healthcare, and it's said that it cost everyone who has it $1,000 extra on their if. now, obamacare will mandate that 30 medicalion of them people have to contribute to their healthcare. the 20 million that won't, the largest part of them are the i will lee. d marco rubio insists that the illegal the for obamaday, and so they will continue to that the 20 million who are illegal will still not contribute to their healthcare. guest: it's a great question. the issue is really what role
7:58 am
is the government going to play in all of this. sadly where we are right now with the president's law, the government is dictating, forcing people to buy health coverage that they think they opposed to , as allowing versions. what we believe is there are real check out there. some people are priced out of the warkt remember that's a eal problem, and we noticed to address that and make it work for patients, not government, to make it so that the individuals who are in the individual and small group market who can be coverage so personal, so he they're wonderful. again, solutions to the challenges that we face in healthcare that don't require putting washington in charge. and that ought to be our goal.
7:59 am
we'd vary patients, congress. congressman tom price, republican of senator senator, .epresent the caller: i mean, we elected him from georgia to go to represent the people of georgia, not the people. what he needs to do is change some of his -- what have they offered? what i'd like to know is what have they offered? i mean, didn't have health insurance before then. all they done is struck everything. nything that's -- even the country coming up, coming up from and what they done it this, all this would have to be something is not extraordinary. just think of all the work they could to.
8:00 am
guest: i agree. just think what we could get done if we work together. you're right. this town is extremely frustrating. it's frustrating for those of us trying to put forward positive slougs. i just talked over the last 10 months about the positive solution and others have propose the. again, it puts patients in charge, doesn't have washington dictate to you what you've got to buy, makes certain that saves hundreds of billions ofnd dollars without keeping washington in charge. there are wonderful solutions. we've talked about it in the area of student loans. we passed a bill to solve the student loan problem. we passed a budget that gets to balance over time. and some program tax reform that allows the economy to thrive. we have not had any willing partner on the other side of the aisle in the senate. there are positive solutions, you bet.
8:01 am
we are working on them as hard as we can. i wish we had a willing partner that was as desirous is coming to the table. host: how do you improve the relationships in congress and bend the public's perceptions of congress work? we are seeing the senate turned to the nuclear option. the senate, but what could republicans in the senate due to have a better relationship? guest: it is working together. i am always amazed at vast majority of people in congress, the 435 in the house and the 100 in the senate, most of them have done something else and their life's and their private sector. i have been wonderfully successful in their business or community or faith group or their family. yet the kinds of habits that ,hey have in those endeavors they bring to washington, and they forget them.
8:02 am
we need to recognize that everybody is not going to get everything they want. you've got to work together and come up with a solution. the challenges we face are huge. the american people expect us to get our jobs done. spent 20 years taking care of patients. i knew that when the patient came into my office, everybody office was working to get that patient well. wonderful if we were all working to get the country well? host: what should senate republicans do over nominees? should they acquiesce and be more willing to pass them through, get over the filibuster so that the president's nominees can get through? in terms of your conversation about how to have better relationships. guest: i would suggest that out of the 300 plus million people in this country, at there are
8:03 am
individuals who are qualified for the positions that are being considered in the senate who could get support on both sides. that is the conversation that needs to occur. we do not have to have somebody from the far right or far left to be nominated for these positions. how about somebody who can gain the support of both sides of the aisle? host: let's get to the phones. leroy in louisiana on our democrats line. good morning. where are you calling us from? hostcaller: lafayette. i've paid attention to the briefings that the senate had yesterday. the first thing that the republican side said was, if the filibuster law changes go through, it would immediately repeal the healthcare law, they would put in the keystone pipeline, and i am afraid that the republican party is losing their contact with the american
8:04 am
people. since the healthcare law came into law, i know for a fact that the numbers have gotten better as far as our deficit, and there are people that are now covered with healthcare who could not afford it prior to this print out would like to represent -- i would like the representatives comments on this. significant are challenges and healthcare. we believe you can solve the the challenges without pushing washington in charge. the bill i proposed is one of those ways. factld take issue with the of costs coming down. costs are coming down -- going up in health coverage. that theeen administration promised they would go up -- go down by $2500. i former colleagues, physicians across this country, i know some doctors who will have to leave rectus. they will have to end up practicing medicine not because they are too old, but because of
8:05 am
the onerous regulations and the difficulty they have in caring for patients and complying with all of the rules. in addition, we are spending ourselves into oblivion. we have nearly $17 trillion in debt in this country. thefirst four years of president's administration, over $1 trillion added to the debt every single year. more than ever before. washington is spending way too much. we are borrowing way too much. about $.40 on every dollar is borrowed. you cannot continue that. you cannot continue that in your family. the country cannot continue that either. , positiveonderful solutions grid that is what i'm working on. the: we are talking about farm bill. you voted yes on the bill that passed the house yesterday. it separated out food stamps, not a part of the bill. why did you vote yes? supportedave never the farm bill. i thought combining the agricultural portion with the
8:06 am
food stamp portion was just not appropriate. you cannot focus each of them individually and be able to get the right solution. once it was split, once the agricultural position -- portion was what, i thought that was a big victory for the american people. then you can focus on real policy. second, there was always this backstop of the 1949 law that if nothing happened in the farm subsidies that the 1949 law would kick back in. that was unworkable. when that was removed, i thought that was very positive. we're working on making certain that large agribusiness, folks making millions of dollars in the area of agriculture are not the ones getting the subsidies print subsidies are going to the farmers out there. my dad was a farmer when i was born. i spent the first five years my life on a farm. i know the challenges that they have. they need some support. it is important to appreciate that the foodstamp portion is
8:07 am
mostly, 80% of the original bill that was brought to weeks ago, that portion is mostly mandatory spending. that is the automatic spending. we believe there need to be significant reforms. chairman lucas will be working on that in his committee so that we can positively move a bill through the house of representatives that deals actively with food stamps and gives folks the kind of respect that they need and helps those who are most needy. we are going to do it in a way that incorporates the kind of fundamental principles that have continued to make america a great nation. if we are unable to get that done, it is important for the -- that people to know automatic spending, that mandatory spending continues. nobody will lose their food stamps because of the action in congress. host: congressman tom price, republican of georgia. the sixth district is his home turf.
8:08 am
reading, pennsylvania, bill is a republican. guest: good morning. caller: i've watched you guys very much grid -- much. i'm trying to abolish the property tax for old people so they do not have to move out of their houses. anyway, i just came back from europe. i got sick over there. i waited 12 hours to see a doctor. an american citizen, they sent me back. i got down here in two hours and i want to tell the american people, stop crying, you got the best country in the world. don grossman, i want you to promise me, this country is the best country in the world. we can build whatever we want. he have to compromise and work with the american people. not for republicans or democrats. boy.a very goldwater god bless you could stop playing games.
8:09 am
the american people have to start learning how to vote. they are so stupid, they have no idea. guest: thanks, bill. this is the greatest country in the history of the world. if you step back from all of the political battles, and they drive people crazy, and they drive most of us in this town crazy, if you step back, you appreciate that america has provided more opportunity and more success and freedom and dreams realized for more individuals than any country ever. it is a very special place. are here of us who trying to preserve that and make certain that that is except rented and that the policies we put in place continue to allow that to occur, then that is where the battle lines ought to be drawn. new orleans, louisiana, patrick, an independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is my first opportunity to
8:10 am
ask a question. i appreciate it. my question is off-topic. as a member of the budget committee and as a republican congressman, i would like to ask you what you are doing to promote socially conscious corporate decision-making. including potentially publicly identifying companies with factories in chinese provinces with the worst human rights violations. inc. you for your response grid -- thank you for your response. guest: the budget committee's responsibility is to set the 11 different appropriation subcommittees. it sets various levels of spending for those subcommittees. so to the specificity of your question, it is not necessarily the jurisdiction of the budget committee. however, i will say that the kind of activity in other countries from a labor standpoint is of concern, but the greatest concern is to make certain that we create jobs at
8:11 am
home, that we increase our vitality at home, that we produce an economy that is growing and thriving so the american people are able to gain jobs and success and get their dreams realized. that is the main focus of our activity in congress. as it should be. peter is aylvania, democratic color. caller: good morning. i am very interested in this health program. what is happening, i went to the hospital in an emergency, and i about the hospital with 12-15 people. when i got my bill, it was very high for three hours of service. when i called to ask why the bill was so high, they informed me, you were in a hospital room good in other words, i was paying for the people in their on emergencies without a health plan. what happens when we have about 40 million ash what happens if 100 million people have no insurance or 200 million people
8:12 am
have no insurance, how could a hospitals stay in business and keep emergency rooms open? explain to me how we could do that without forcing people to have insurance. like car insurance grid i am two years old. i've had a car, driving since 18. -- 82 years old. i've had a car, driving since 18. every year i've had to have insurance print why can i not say, i do not want to have insurance? saying, ilike people do not have to have health insurance, i've never gotten sick. everybody is supposed to have their money in the pot like everybody else. guest: you're absolutely right could we believe that everybody ought to have health coverage could we believe they ought to be able to select the coverage they want for themselves and their family. not that the government forces them to buy. the difference between car insurance -- people use this often -- you are right, what the
8:13 am
state says is that you have to have a minimum level of liability coverage, and then you take the kind of coverage that you want. if that is what the administration would have done, then they might have gained some support on our side. that is not what they did. but the president did is to say, this is the kind of health coverage is what you must buy. if you do not buy it, we will penalize you. what that means is you've got the government deciding what healthcare is. once the government defines what healthcare is than it does -- it defines what healthcare is not. if you believe that healthcare is something that the government does not believe come a discipline not going to be available. that is why we believe so strongly in patient centered healthcare. patients and families and doctors making decisions. host: congressman tom price, republican of georgia. he sits on the congressional health care caucus print we talked about his history as a doctor. he is still a licensed physician.
8:14 am
he is a member of the tea party caucus. a tweet primarye have jurisdiction over tax policy. we believe strongly that the tax system that we currently have punishes folks who want to create jobs, punishes success, punishes hard work, and punishes businesses who want to create more jobs. we believe that the system that we have ought to be reformed in a positive way in three ways. one, we have the highest tax rate in the industrialized world in job creators or entrepreneurs. if a business is looking at their business plan and they see the line that says taxes and they see the line that says america, then it says no, go somewhere else. the world has gotten very small. you can have a business anywhere. to bet business taxes competitive with the rest of the industrialized world. we propose that in our a just
8:15 am
nation that is forthcoming. second, we believe that individuals ought able to keep more of their money. we believe that individuals spend their money more wisely than washington spends their money. take money out of the hands of the american people, and you decrease the vitality in the economy. get that ontoould a flat and fairer system. i am a supporter of the fair tax. that is not the direction the conference is going. doing away with the irs, the income tax. i believe that punishes individuals and hard work. there are a lot of american businesses do business overseas. they are punished bringing their business, bringing their profits back here from a tax standpoint. reforming his miss taxes, individual taxes, and making it so that profits can come back here to create jobs. we are working through the committee. i know chairman cap in the house house and the
8:16 am
chairman baucus, they are working together to try to make certain that the entire congress can move forward on a piece of legislation on tax reform. host: a republican color in scranton, pennsylvania. caller: thank you for your time this morning. my question to representative price is regarding the state exchanges. i live in pennsylvania where we did not open up the exchanges. partsstion would be two -- i do understand that it is, the federal government does finance 100% fully for the first three years, is that correct? 100% or 95%.t is it ramps down. host: are you still with us? caller: after the first three years, the state will be on the
8:17 am
hook basically for the other 10%, if you will? guest: even more than that. i think we are confusing or combining both the medicaid statesion for estate -- a and the state exchanges. state exchanges are a federal strange are an insurance broker. it simply is an opportunity for individuals to find with health coverage is available to them. the reason that many of the states, i think 26, said we will not set it up and leave it to the federal government is because they would have to bear the cost of setting up those exchanges, and then again that problem with regulation, the federal government dictating what states must do without any control. many states said, we will not do that. illinois, ann independent line. caller: mr. price, i'm not sure what you're point is good assessment is dishonest. most people cannot get insurance
8:18 am
if they are not well. if you look around the country, most people are getting increasingly sick with poor eating habits, obesity levels skyrocketing. it is under the guise of liberty and freedom to go out and kill yourself. insurance print it is not my problem. i do see it as a problem for all of us. to remind the american people, why don't you tell us how well you were doing from 2000-2006 when you had full control of the government and how well we were doing in pursuing these things to solve america's problems? thank you for your time. guest: i was mentor for the the vast majority of that time. however, as a physician, i can tell you that the folks who are challenged by pre-existing illnesses, they are in the individual and small group markets. problemn medicare as a with pre-existing illness or injury. nobody on medicaid.
8:19 am
nobody on the self-insured plans. for manyeal challenge individuals in this country. those in the individual and small group market. there is a wonderful solution that allows those folks to pull together in the purchasing power healths so nobody's status drives up the cost. the reason that is important is allows you to determine what kind of health coverage you have, that the government dictating. host: we want to know it,t: if you think about you have a revenue department. every state has a revenue department. we certainly need to collect revenue in this country. the irs, it gets to the issue of the internal revenue service, and what they have done -- over the past number of months, we have seen that the internal revenue service has been doing things that they ought not do and are at have torrent to the american people. targeting certain groups based
8:20 am
upon their political ideology as opposed to collecting taxes. leaking the donor list for those groups that were targeted. not only leaking the donor groups, but targeting the donors for audits. this is chilling stuff bit when you have a government that gets so large and so expensive and so , this is not republicans and democrats, that the government coming after plain folks. it is very chilling. we are going to continue to work on it and make certain we have an irs, a revenue department that is responsive to people and respectful of the american taxpayer. host: let's talk about immigration. why are you opposed to the senate bill? , as i the senate bill understand it, is one that puts the legalization process before anything that relates to border internal enforcement, before fixing the visa system. if you think about -- you do not
8:21 am
need to go far to get the poster child for a broken system -- we have a broken system. one of the boston bombers, one of the young men who blew up the bomb at the boston marathon, one of those individuals into this country for asylum from another country and then revisited the country that he gained asylum from in the united states a number of times. it did not seem that he needed much protection from that country. when he reentered that country, he reentered on a student visa that expired. this is a terribly broken system. we need to fix the system. the best way to start that process is to regain the trust of the american people that was when in a986 bipartisan fashion we said, we will secure the border, and provide a pathway to citizenship for the 3 million individuals here illegally -- we did a whale of a job on the path to citizenship and a terrible job on border security. we need to regain the trust and secure the border.
8:22 am
then we can have a much more honest and sincere and heartfelt conversation and debate about what the immigration system ought to look like. host: the wall street journal says concerned about your party's stance on immigration and the possibility of not seeing anything pass both bodies of congress? we cani am hopeful that move forward. the system is broken. i do not think those are mutually exclusive. you can have secure borders and the wonderful country with opportunity. there is no reason we cannot do that. to think that those are mutually exclusive is the wrong premise. we are a nation of immigrants. my forefathers came here long before the revolution, but most individuals who live in this country, their forefathers and ancestors came from somewhere else. in immigration, illegal immigration. we believe it is important to have the rule of law. you cannot have a country
8:23 am
without secure borders. then it is just a territory. there are wonderful ways to solve this challenge could i hope we can get together. i'm hopeful that the president wants a solution. out of his voices administration who seem to want this as a political issue. host: looking at the politics, politico reported that immigration reform is headed towards a slow death. he quoted one of your congressman that is the politico quote. what do you think about how gruesome kings perspective? -- congressman kings perspective? guest: i do not view individuals as republicans or democrats. i view them as americans.
8:24 am
legal immigrants, i view them as potential american citizens. orential republicans democrats predict the politics will take care of itself. what we need to do is to have the rule of law, or select the constitution, excerpt and we secure the border. not just for the illegal immigration, but for safety for our country. it is the primary duty of the federal government, to provide safety for the american people. for: some more calls congressman tom price. michael joins us from florida on democrats line. caller: how are you doing this morning? my question is, how do the get preventative care, and do you believe in preventative care? guest: absolutely. preventative care and wellness and the kinds of things he tried to do for our patients as part and parcel of every single medical care in this country. it ought to be. the problementioned
8:25 am
of obesity. we've had huge problems in this country. we should be setting up a system that encourages individuals to be well, to get well, to participate in the preventative services. it might surprise you to know -- thereprivate sector is a safeway company that actually has one of the best records ever in the area of prevention and wellness, and they do seo -- do so by incentivizing their employees. to make certain that they do participate in wellness programs. of the not be a member healing arts without believing that prevention is wise. host: john, republican. caller: i just love c-span. one thing for sure, in the summer before the affordable care act was enacted on the everybody showed up in record numbers across the country at various meetings.
8:26 am
they said in no uncertain terms, if you pass this, you are going to be in trouble. in 2010, they voted the people out. this is why the people do not want it. i think we have a little bit of revisionist history when we do not understand the people were very clear, i did not want this from the beginning, and they do not want it now. guest: i appreciate that. it is true. the american people i significant numbers, some polls have it upwards of 60%, are concerned that portions of the slots ought to be ripped -- repealed. the reason is we do not want washington in charge of your health care. are good you that they people, but their bottom line is the bottom line -- it is not quality healthcare. it got to make certain that medical decisions are made between you and your family and your doctor. host: let's go to frank in richwood, west virginia. an independent. caller: thank you very much good
8:27 am
how are you doing this morning? guest: i am well, thanks. representative, i've got to ask you a couple things. it sounds like you're selling some insurance. insurance companies that made many decisions for me that were not for my health or -- but for their bottom line could i would like to know what your alternative health-care bill -- i am confused. it seems like it is all about the richest ones getting the best care, and those who are little bit less, we do not get the care. you all have a good day. host: before we let you go, what do you want to see in healthcare? what is a must-have for you? is ar: i think healthcare right. it really should not be a privilege. i feel that there are times and where you cannot
8:28 am
swing it no matter what you do. you cannot swing a copayment. they are always looking at that. insurance controls the whole way through. god bless you. he is out there. he's got guts for sitting up there and telling us of that. i think everybody should have healthcare care. i do not think it should be a choice that we have to lose something or sacrifice so much in order to get necessities. host: let's get a response. guest: everybody ought to have health coverage great you are absolutely right. there is this notion that it is either the government in charge or insurance companies. imagine a system, which i believe is the appropriate system, the patient centered system, or it is not or insurance companies in charge, but patience and you and your family in charge could a way to do that is incorporate it in my belt.
8:29 am
every person should be able to own their health coverage regattas of who is paying for it. -- regardless of who is paying for it. how a system would be if the insurance company had to be responsive to you. that is a system we believe is the most responsive to patients. it allows patients and families and doctors to make the decisions and not the wonderful folks in these great white buildings. host: congressman tom price of georgia, he represents the sixth district. he is a doctor himself. he had a private practice for 20 years in his home state of georgia. he sits on the budget committee, ways and means, and also education and workforce. next, we will talk to congressman steve:. we will look at the latest news of what is happening in the house this week. as well as has recently introduced a decision that could affect the foreign intelligence surveillance court. our weekly america by the
8:30 am
#command will look at kindergartners and how they are doing. we will be right back. -- weekly america segment will look at kindergartners and how they are doing. we will be right back. >> i wanted a representative look at american life. i needed politics, business, entertainment, food, finance, art. i also was interested in this recurrent pattern that you see z,th gingrich, opera, jay- people who begin in very humble places and are not unlike the main characters, but who
8:31 am
reinvent themselves as something new. find a new language and a new idea that is riveting. through that, they build an empire. they cannot stop building it. you have to keep growing, even .s a person eventually a decadence sets and where the language becomes a kind of parody of itself. they no longer seem to be producing something good. --y just continue to produce gingrich writes book after book. opera is on the cover of every issue of her magazine. they did -- become the celebrities we are familiar with imaginations,ur and in a way, have come to replace the institutions that have faltered in this time. >> george packer intertwines the
8:32 am
struggles of three americans whose american way of life has failed them. sunday at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues could -- continues. host: congressman steve cohen has been appointed to the commission on security in europe and -- europe. let's start with immigration. what is your perspective on the bill that passed the senate, and do you see prospects for anything similar to -- to pass the house? guest: there is a totally different orientation. i like copper hands of immigration reform. i think we need this for the improvement of our nation and workforce. for reducing our deficit. -- the cbo says it will reduce it by billions of dollars. it is the right thing to do. it is supported by large groups
8:33 am
of people from liberals interested in human rights to business people at the chamber of commerce interested in our economic engine. the senate bill has some things that i do not like. in essence, there are earmarks. designations that we buy many helicopters from specific companies to patrol borders. money, it seems wrong to designate particular helicopters to be purchased. that should not have been done. there is close to $50 billion. there is a lot of expense to the bill in terms of security that was put in that was too much. it gave up after citizenship, it visas for high skilled workers, having more border security even though it was way over the top. the house has passed for separate bills through the judiciary. they make the people in this country presently criminals
8:34 am
immediately. they give jurisdiction to local law enforcement to police those efforts. it would also have a different not be uniform in the way we apply our immigration law. immigration is a federal issue. the there are a lot of things done there that i do not approve of. i do not think the house will have a comprehensive bill. you are too many people in the tea party who do not want to have what they call amnesty. quite a few republicans voted for it in the senate, which was up bipartisan bill. -- a bipartisan bill. we cannot deport them all. they are necessary for our workforce. if they do things we asked them to do about learning english and being gainfully employed, they ought to be able to earn a path to citizenship. host: let's listen to comment by
8:35 am
the chairman of the judiciary committee, republican bob goodlatte. iswas on our program that agile to air this weekend could here is a preview of what he had people --ut ways that that people can gain status. [video clip] >> it should not include a special pathway to citizenship that is not been up -- been available to people who have worked very hard to obey the law. that does not mean that somebody -- one waygal status would be to give them legal status and say, you are not lawfully present in the -- in the united states could you are not a permanent resident, that you are lawful. make that into a permanent status by mid--- by marrying a united states citizen.
8:36 am
by have a relative petition for them. all of those are ways that they could then find themselves permanent residency. host: that is from our program that airs on c-span at 10:00 on sunday morning and 6:00 p.m. sunday evening could where does that put the house? how can that align with your goals? thet: chairman goodlett cut bill into four specific bills. that will not work with the senate bill. speaker boehner said he will not bring the senate bill up. he will not act without a majority of his majority. -- german is where on the conservative side of immigration. he was expressing that. i do not know how they will come up with a majority of the majority. i think they are going to have to democratic votes. you got a conflict on the republican side. it has been said that the republicans, to -- to win
8:37 am
national elections, they have to be more than a party of old white men. if you look at that republican convention, you had to turn your television because it looks like it was going to put -- too far to the pale side. they cannot survive without growing in the hispanic population. it -- it contributed to president obama's election. some tea party years do not think that is necessary. some do not care because they are concerned about their own clinical state -- political stake. it may be difficult for him to get a majority of the majority to do -- to deal with the comprehensive bill that can pass the senate and the house. host: our guest is congressman -- steve cohen. he is in his fourth term in the u.s. house. let's talk about your
8:38 am
legislation, the fisa court accountability act. talk about the fisa court to us and what you think needs to -- needs to change. guest: several things. the bill that i introduced dresses three different areas. one is the cap -- composition of the court. it came as a surprise to me when all the edward snowden issues came up. we had several hearings. i did -- i became concerned about the collection of metadata. it turns out that the chief justice of the supreme court appoints all of the members. chief justice roberts has appointed a low -- 11 members. and consent from the senate or input from the house. 10 of the 11th happened to be appointed by republican presidents. that shows a certain ideological perspective. i've looked at some of those judges and the cases they have had.
8:39 am
they tend to be most conservative and anti-obama on healthcare and of shoes. -- and other issues. it looks like it was a stacked deck. they're supposed to be a check and the -- and the balance. i propose that the change process, the the chief justice would three appointees, for -- for from the house, poured from the senate. two from each party. theoretically and in reality, a difference in perspective at all times so you got different -- different viewpoints. if there were democratic judges, i think they would have more of an interest in privacy. i think it is necessary to look at the composition of the court and the procedure of the court. them, ifurt ask upon the judge in as the government
8:40 am
the government can appeal. they go to a three-judge panel on appeals. if they get too out of three judges to agree with the government, they win. the reality is, that is it to- two vote. the original judge -- 2-2 vote. do original judge voted against them. the proposal says you have to have all three judges on the for thecourt to rule government to be successful. we want there to be a sixth -- a 60% relative sewed it is not -- so it is not a borderline case. 60% so it is not a borderline case. congressmanur guest , the cohen is proposing
8:41 am
chief justice would appoint a trio of judges come up then we would all -- judges, but then we would also see two judges a piece appointed by the house speaker, house minority leader, ,nd the senate majority leader and the senate minority leader. he talked about how the fisa court must informed decisions. talk about the accountability use -- you see now. how the legislative branch has anything to do with fisa and how much did you know about it prior to the edward snowden lakes? -- leaks? guest: we passed the patriot act. we passed the law. they are supposed rick -- to report to the intelligence committee. that is a very closed process. report toupposed to the judiciary. i never heard about the reports. after this, i i looked into it
8:42 am
to say, what have you done? they told us many times about different things. at first, i thought we were asleep at the wheel. i think they exaggerated what they have done. i had somebody from the judiciary show me where they sent us. they sent us two paragraphs. it did not really tell you anything. the need to be more clear on not just all other cases of what is going on and what rulings are being made and how they are --erpreting our laws that laws, and that has not been going on. clapper said it was a mistake. retrospect that he realized, i made a boo-boo, and now i need to tell the truth. goodo not lie to congress that has been going on. i understand we have a different world than the founding fathers never envisioned -- ever
8:43 am
envisioned with the threats to our security, with abilities that were never conceived, but at the same time, he still have our constitution. you have a right to privacy in this country that needs to be respected. i do not think they told us very much at all. even the people that supported the patriot act did not realize there would be such a collection. this is something that has been especially those that get their news from the comedy channel -- they think president obama is listening to their calls. we are collecting data. at one time, we were collecting information as far as not what was in your e-mails, but the fact that you were sending e- mails. they stopped that program. they did that for a while. we need to have better oversight. theas from -- provided in bill that there would be oversight, but it has not been carried out. host: we are talking about the congressman's proposed fisa
8:44 am
court testability act and other issues including immigration. first our color and -- color in a -- in alabama. i just want to know what is wrong with the term self deportation. host: self departed -- self deportation? caller: if these guys cannot get a job, they can bring their behind's home where they came from. they're not even sit -- citizens great why do you even care? i never heard the word before. i do not think i used it. i do not think i laughed about it. herenk the people that are , they are not going to go home. they are providing many jobs that are essential to our economy. the fact is we need more and more people for our economy to grow to be in our workforce. i think it is an unrealistic expectation to think that people
8:45 am
will self deport or we can deport them and sent 11 million people home. a lot of these people have been here for many years. they have provided quality care for families or seniors or have done work in many different areas. they are important to our economy. host: let's go to georgia, conrad, an independent color. -- caller. caller: thank you for being here. a couple questions -- the first is, what is wrong with securing the border first before any benefits are granted to these illegal aliens? topic --ifferent where'd you you stand on president obama's war on coal? he wants to shut up a lot of power plants. don't you think that is going to hurt our economy? the border, the
8:46 am
republicans in the senate bill, it is made clear that the border has to be secure within five years or else they will have to go to other methods. border security is important. i do not think it should cost as much as it does. it has become a porkbarrel type of situation. i'm surprised it was republicans who did that. border security isn't pertinent. it should not -- is important. porkbarrel type legislation. as far as the second question, the president like myself is interested in alternative forms of energy, renewables. more with need to do solar and wind, find ways to become energy independent, but to do it in a clean way that protects our environment. local warming is real. -- you can just said forget some of the coastlines in this nation in the coming decades if we do not do something about global warning -- warming.
8:47 am
superstorm sandy was an indication that came through in new york. not just the things that happen in the typical manner. we have taken carbon and put it into the atmosphere, and that iner has held the sun's heat our atmosphere. that is warming the oceans and waters are rising. you're going to have grave problems in the future. i think the president is right to look at clean energy and to look at alternative energies. i have proposed and our bills this week to have more money put on solar and ways to economize and find ways to save energy at the expense of nuclear weapons. we've got enough nuclear weapons to -- to destroy the world more times than people can count, and yet we put more and more money into nuclear weaponry. it is shocking the money we put
8:48 am
into that and not into new ways to conserve energy and to have alternative energy and create new economy that creates creates jobs and preserve our planet. host: let's hear from valerie in new jersey, on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i will be very brief bid i hope you'll at least let me get through several statements. most importantly as a public service to viewers who listened to a lot of misinformation from representative price. the americanhat economy is no good because we have the highest tax rate in the world. versed of all, we have the highest living standard in the world. we have safety devices and health care and police and fire. sewers and storm drains. you get what you pay for. i have a corporation that i started from nothing for years. i know what the tax rate was at
8:49 am
the top. i do not pay it. nobody does. it is a magical thing called deductions and expensive. they go around eating a drum, america's taxes are too high. do is keep giving tax money away to the clip -- corporate interest. the farm bill, they take out all the subsidies for supplemental nutrition for people who are working and cannot afford to feed their kids, and then what did they do that with to they do? gigglingk in the dollars in subsidies for -- $20 billion in subsidies. these people are the devil in disguise. if you give an american who will get them to their paycheck, he is happy to sit on its c-span -- on c-span and thinking knows what is going on. the other comment is this -- i have been writing and e-mailing for years, why don't you start requiring representatives to
8:50 am
tell the truth? if they are going to make a statement about our government, i think you have a responsibility to fact check them. they should not be able to come on our public there will -- our public airways and lie to us openly. the other thing is quantity and quality. i understand you want to reach as many colors as possible. the i do not want to hear from five people over the course of six minutes was a nothing -- who say nothing. you cannot do it in 20 seconds. that is what i see is the problem. the other comment i would like to make -- thank you for the time -- the current representative cap i would like to applaud him for mentioning climate change and not global warming him a because -- warming, because it is not just about warming. it is amazing.
8:51 am
you can talk to 10 americans and ask them what the climate refugee is, and they have no idea what you are talking about. the world is changing environmentally before our eyes. everybody knows it is us. host: i will go to the congressman so we can get his response. had 1000wish we calories in my district. she knows her issues. that is great. i do think there are a lot of people who put things out that were not true. a lot of people put things about congress, which is not the most popular institution. i have been in congress for seven years. i do not agree with a lot of people. i think nearly everybody that i deal with in congress is an honorable person. they come here for the right reasons. they try to do right. we pay into social security. we live by the rules that everybody else does. we do not have special health care. we do not have lifetime pensions. we do not have pension benefits
8:52 am
that are different from members work in the federal government. you see these things sent out all the time that even intelligent people send to others, condemning on grossman -- congressman. but their pay, send them home. it is wrong. vilified, andeen valerie is right about telling the truth. i appreciate a valerie. i'm sure she's got a great representative. host: let's turn our attention to your legislation, the proposed fisa court accountability act. we will talk more about fisa. the civil liberties oversight board hearing, we heard from a former fisa court judge james robertson. he talked about what happens. he said it is not a rubber stamp. [video clip] >> the fisa court was not a rubber stamp. quotedbers that are
8:53 am
about how many warrants get approved do not tell you how many were sent back for more work before they were approved. hand -- i wish i could assure her the american people that the folks -- the fisa process as integrity. the idea of targeting americans with surveillance is anathema. to the judges of the fisa court, which they call the "fisc." i have a couple related points. if -- the fisa process is ex parte, which means it is one- sided. that is not a good thing. secondly, under the fisa amendments act, the fisa court now approves programmatic surveillance. that i submit and will discuss for a few minutes, i do not
8:54 am
consider it to be a judicial function. host: that is a former fisa court judge james robertson. what did you make of his comments? guest: it is encouraging, but nevertheless, we have to depend on on his word to know it is not a rubber stamp and they are really concerned and it is dothema to them that we certain things. should be more transparent where people have more confidence in the fisa court and the congress so more knowledge of it and if it is operating as he says it is, it would be nice if the american public would know that. it is not adversarial. there is nobody there to argue on the other side. you got the nsa coming and saying, i want this war and, in the judge listening. --tern, i do not think lester, i do not think there were were any words that were turned down. -- last year, i do not think
8:55 am
there were any warrants that were turned down. the fact that it is not transparent concerns the american public. it is the reason why people think there are all of these problems. there has been public unrest about it. i'm sure that he and members of the court or on -- are honorable people, but the public needs to know what it means to be transparent. i think all the judges coming from the supreme court justice is wrong. that needs to change so there is a little diversity in opinion. it doesn't necessarily mean there will be a difference in the app -- in the outcome, but it might. one thing we have considered is the idea of an ombudsman to raise some issues concerning privacy and to be looking out for the public's overall perspective. i do not know where he was going
8:56 am
to go with this or grammatic request, -- programmatic request. he did not think that was a proper judicial function. the fisa court is not exactly a court. it is not adversarial. rule onjudges normally evidence. they are the arbiter between two parties. it is different from a court. it does not support as we see it and know it -- a court as we see it and know it. they maintain records could we do not know much about the staff. that is the next place i will go, to request information on how many personnel they have. the number of personnel that they have in their budget. how they choose their personnel. i hope they do not have any security leaks. at the same time, there should not be a security leak the cut -- because there should the oversight. much a one party situation over there. host: some details about the fisa court, or the foreign
8:57 am
intelligence surveillance court. our congressman from tennessee has mentioned it was established in the 1970s, and the main purpose was to review warrant applications. the u.s. chief justice of the all 11 court selects judges. they serve terms of no more than seven years. seeingst has proposed that make up shifted a bit so congress appoints some of those judges as well. on ouro to jolene independent line. caller: hi there good i am very nervous. -- hi there. i am very nervous. i have a concern that millions of americans are concerned about. i feel that both the congress and senate are turning a blind eye to it. i want to quote three different terms that i heard the congressman mention when we were
8:58 am
talking about immigration. those words are checks and balances, accountability, and a system of laws. specifically relating to those phrases, i want to point out that what i believe so many people in this country, we are so terrified of immigration and the affordable care act, it is because we see more and more that we are losing checks and balances, accountability, and systems of laws because we have been promised over and over again that this law was going to be enforced and that law was going to be enforced and it is going to protect us. what we see more and more is with one person going right around all of the congressman and all of the not haveand say, we do to follow that law. my question to him is, and are we going to get back to congressman and senators that
8:59 am
assure that we are following our systems of checks and balances and accountability rather than any one human being whether it is republican or getting or independent all the power in america, because that is what we see happening? a mentor -- i'm interested to hear his response. you.: thank you did a great job calling in. i think your first time was a success. i would say that we do have a system of checks and balances. sometimes we fall down on that. before i came into congress, president bush took us into two wars that cost us a lot of money. a tremendous amount of money that could have been spent on border security or health care. it could have been spent on other issues. it costs us a lot of lives. i seem a lot of wounded warriors. -- i have seen a lot of wounded warriors. women who lost their limbs because they went to war for our nation in iraq and afghanistan.
9:00 am
that was done without the proper to her -- the proper advice and consent. -- what youxactly sure are referring to when you bring up the affordable care act. i do not know how many children you have, if you have children, but if you have a child, they can say are your healthcare insurance until you they are 26. if you have a pre-existing condition or they do, you cannot be denied coverage. and you are a woman, being a woman was a way that you could be charged more money. back no longer can happen. that is not a basis to charge you more. if you have a community health center out there, there is more money for those healthcare centers to provide healthcare for people. the affordable care act is going to do do a lot and have already done a lot. free non-co-pay checkups, mammograms, colonoscopies, different routine procedures that we need to find illness,


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on