tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 17, 2014 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
sanctions could becoming depending on circumstances. they froze the u.s. assets of seven you -- russian officials. is treasury department also imposing sanctions on four in a statement the white house says today's action sends a strong message to the russian government. here is what the president had to say in his briefing with reporters only about an hour ago. >> good morning, everybody. the recent months for the in thes of ukraine -- recent months the citizens of ukraine have made their voices heard. the future of ukraine must be decided by the people of ukraine. that means ukraine's sovereignty
and territorial integrity must be respected and international law must be upheld. and so russia's decision to send troops into crimea has rightly drawn global condemnation. from the start the united states has mobilized the international community in support of ukraine, to isolate russia for its actions, and to reassure our allies and partners. unity this international again over the weekend when russia stood alone in the u.n. security council, defending its actions in crimea. as i told president putin yesterday the referendum in crimea was a violation of ukrainians constitutions. ukrainian constitutions and international law and will not be recognized by the international community. i am announcing a series of measures that will continue to --
we are imposing sanctions on specific individuals responsible for undermining the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and government of ukraine. we are making it clear that there are consequences for their actions. i have signed a new executive order that expands the scope of our sanctions. sanctions oning russian officials, entities operating in the arms sector in russia, and officials who provide material support to senior officials to the russian government. if russia continues to interfere in the ukraine we stand ready to impose further sanctions. , we are continuing our close consultations with our european partners, who moved ahead with their own sanctions against russia. vice president biden departs for europe where he will meet with leaders of our nato
lithuania, and i will be traveling next week. our message will be clear. as nato allies we have a solemn commitment to our defense and we will uphold this commitment. fourth, we will continue to make clear to russia that further provocations will achieve and will further isolate and diminish their place in the world. the community will continue to and continued russian military intervention will only deepen the russian isolation and exact a toll on the russian economy. going forward we can calibrate our response based on whether russia chooses to escalate or de-escalate the situation. pathieve there is still a to solve this diplomatically and a way that addresses the interests of both russia and the ukraine.
that includes russia pulling its forces in crimea back to their the deploymentng of international monitors in ukraine, and engagement with the hasinian government, which indicated its openness to pursuing call to show reform -- to pursuing constitutional reform. stand in ourto unwavering support for ukraine. that thed states united states stands for the people -- the united states stands for the people to determine their own destiny. as we go forward i will continue to look at the range of ways we can help our ukrainian friends achieve their universal rights and the security, prosperity, and dignity they deserve. thanks very much.
>> are you surprised mr. putin has taken this force? luxe you hear the president hear the- >> you president leaving saying that questions will be answered with the white house briefing. that is set to start at 1 p.m. eastern. good a our facebook page at facebook.com/c-span. thepresident welcoming palestinian president to the white house today. this meeting coming two weeks after president obama met with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. about thetalk today israeli peace negotiations, including potential borders of a palestinian state and israeli security. if there are any remarks on camera afterwards we will try to make them available to you here on the c-span networks. >> for st. patrick's day return
to the video library at c-span.org to see how u.s. presidents marked the holiday. this, tip wanted me here. it was march 17 it was only fitting that someone dropped by who actually had known saint patrick. [laughter] .nd that is true i did know saint patrick. in fact we both changed to the same political party at about the same time. had a glass ofe guinness with a man in ireland , youhave with ryan lenihan are friends. [applause]
>> today, more than 35 million americans claim irish ancestry. america is richer for every o'sullivan.y, and i should've said mccain. [laughter] [applause] well i just did. [laughter] tohappy st. patrick's day everybody. tens of millions of americans trace their roots back to the emerald isles. on st. patrick's day millions more claim to. [laughter] concluded -- yes i
will be glad to yield. >> were you on the floor at that particular time? sites and theth only gentleman on that side that even made a move was mr. walker. the gentleman did not stand, the gentleman did not rise. i resent the statement of the gentleman. i acted in absolute -- if anybody stands i would have recognized them. don't get political with me. >> i don't mean to suggest you are acting with unfairness. what i do suggest is we have a bill hear that you have worked with the president of the united states -- >> you said i had a fast gavel. a bill of this type i would never do a thing like that. [indiscernible] -- i respectfully
suggest that i did not mean to offend you -- >> you have offended me. i will accept your apology. >> highlights of 35 years of house coverage on our facebook page. cable, created by companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. today's white house briefing is coming up at 1:00. right now, a look at the administration push to get young adults, african-americans, and hispanics signed up for health care. host: two weeks from today will mark the final day to sign up for health insurance for 2014 under the affordable care act's exchanges that have been set up. here to talk about how the signup process is going is politico health care reporter kyle cheney. what's the latest we know on enrollment numbers here? guest: it's imprecise but the white house is touting 4.2 million signups.
the number is sort of the rough number that we know. host: remind us what the enrollment targets are here. guest: there's been some dispute. i think initially the projections were that 7 million would sign up by the end of march. but then we had the collapse of health care.gov so that was reduced to 6 million. the white house now says we just want millions to sign up. 6 million, 5 million, somewhere in that range is what they're shooting for. but no set number. host: and that 4.2 million that you talked about broken down by age groups, ages 18-25% represent about 10% of those, 26-34 years old represent about 16%, 35-44, 16%, 45-5423 and above represent 30% of those who sign up. but it seems like the most important numbers at least from the obama administration's perspective is that 18-34 range. correct? guest: exactly and you noted 26% of the total signups so far in that range which is passable i think but to the administration's point of view. but i think they're hoping closer to 40% which would really suggest robust enrollment in that age group what they really need when you have older and less healthier people signing up. host: and there's been a lot of discussion about what the
numbers are needed to make the affordable care act work. this is a question that president obama was asked on friday in an interview he did with the website webmd. here's a bit of what he had to say guest: at this point enough people are signing up that the affordable care act is going to work. the insurance companies will continue to offer these plans. we already have 4 million people, over 4 million people
signed up. it will be a larger number than that by the end of march 31, the deadline to get insurance this year. if you miss the deadline by the way on march 31, you can get insurance but you'll have to wait until november of next year or november of this year to start signing up again. the impact in terms of the program has always been based more on the mix of people who sign up. do we have a mix of people who are gray haired like me, and may have some old basketball injuries and aches and pains along with young people who are healthy and don't really have any issues right now. do we have a good mix of gender in terms of men and women. host: president obama in his webmd interview that was released on friday. one of several different appearances he's made to promote
the affordable care act and this upcoming deadline. correct? guest: yes. he's been out there in full force as the deadline gets closer to march 31. you heard him talk about the mix of enrollees which i think you're hearing more and more seems to be the act warne chief there in terms of wanting enough young people again to sign up and when he talks about the mix that's what he means, young people versus older, men versus women. that's the numbers the white house is focusing on rather than the overall 6 or 7 million these days. host: as we're talking about these enrollment deadlines that are coming up. we want to take your thoughts and questions our phones are open. democrats can call republicans can call independents can call. and we have a special line set
up for those ages 35 and younger who want to talk about the subject. president obama appealing to those folks 35 and younger crowd. he went on the website funny or die to talk with comedian zach about the health care website. here's a bit from that appearance on funny or die. >> if they get that health insurance it can really make a big difference and they've got until march 31 to sign up. >> i don't have a computer. >> well, then you can call 18003182596. >> i also don't have a phone. i don't want you people looking at my texts. >> first of all, nobody's interested. but second you can do it in person. the law means that insurers can't discriminate against you if you have a preexisting condition. >> but what about this though? >> that's disgusting. how long have you had that?
>> just four months. >> really? >> spider bite. i got attacked by spieders. >> you need to get that checked right away. you need to get on healthcare.gov because that's one of the most disgusting things i've ever seen. >> what's been the reaction to the president's appearance with comedian zack? >> well, the white house reminds everyone that became the leading driver of traffic to health care.gov. so as far as they're concerned that was the best reaction they could have hoped for. some of the firestorm where you heard a lot of criticism this is beneath the office of the the president the white house countered we're going to reach young people as they always say where they are. the media they're watching is not all reading mainstream publicications any more, they're scattered. so the reaction's been across the board but i think in some sense that advance it is white house's goal because there was so much buzz around his appearance that it got a lot more traffic than otherwise. >> making one of the header columns this week, a picture of
president obama's appearance and the headline is searching for the young invisibles. the economist magazine this week. we're here talking with kyle cheney of politico. we want to take your thoughts and comments. betty in chicago, on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. you know, america some of the people in america are really petty. regardless of the rollout, every thing like that has a side good or bad. since october look how many millions of people that didn't have insurance in this country babies old people didn't have it. they're getting it now. why can't the republicans and people like you all move on and get off that enrollment? we've got people that are being signed up, people that are taken care of, can't you all come from the past and go to the future?
also, the republicans keep talking about president obama going on that show. he reached 15 million people what's wrong with that? you get people where you can. this man is trying to get people in this country to have good health insurance. is there anything wrong with that? host: she was talking about some of the criticism that the obama administration has received on the website and its rollout. how has that continued today? guest: you don't hear much any more because healthcare.gov is almost completely functional. you hear scattered bits about people having problems. the criticism you're hearing from republicans now more is about costs, it's about is the law itself going to work or collapse on itself? to the caller's point, the administration and its allies keep emphasizing that look, millions of people regardless of its 6
million or 7 million, millions of people have coverage now many of which may not have before but we don't know how many were uninsured but we still know that millions of people have enrolled or signed up. so this is the white house's point. that's what matters here the long run this is proof that this is working. host: your story in politico, the headline, how many have paid premiums? talk about the difference between paying for the premiums and enrolling? guest: this is why i mentioned earlier the 4.2 million is imprecise. that's people who go to healthcare.gov or state exchange or sign up for coverage. to actually be enrolled for an insurance company you have to pay your first premium. and the industry is very standard for a percentage of people who sign up not to actually pay and therefore never be covered. of course the goal of the
affordable care act is to actually cover these people signing up. so when we talk to people in the industry you hear more like 80% of people signing up is actually paid and so the anrollment number may be somewhere south of 4.2 million, could be in the 3's which has some bearing on whether the administration is enrolling as many people as it hoped. host: have a special line set up in this segment for those 35 and younger. that line is on your screen. in the meantime we'll go to thomas waiting in west virginia on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: it's actually kevin. no problem. host: go ahead. sorry about that. caller: that's quite all right. this segue's perfectly into my comment. because from october to now a percentage according to the numbers, people who would have normally gone for free health care relief anywhere because of the unemployment because of the economy, because of people losing jobs, it's built on a lie. 28 different speeches. you want your doctor you can keep -- the whole thing was constructed under a wicked,
cruel manipulative lie to gain control of the economy no matter how much it takes. it's a lie. host: talk about how that what the caller was talking about the statement that the president made if you like your health care you can keep it is going to play in the 2014 elections. guest: that's been coming back to haunt him since around november when people or october when people started getting these cancellation notices that basically said their old health plan didn't meet the requirements therefore you have to select a new plan or you're out of luck. if you like your health care plan you can keep it line is a staple already at this point and it's not going anywhere any time soon. and there is actually some concern we might see another wave of cancellations right on the eve of the elections this year, although the administration has made some maneuvers to prevent that from happening. but that's going to be a potent
line again it's a fixture of the special election campaign in florida last week, that was that played front and center an a republican won there. so that was a bell weather in some analyst's minds for what we might see. >> on twitter. guest: i think the closer we get you're going to hear more of that. but the idea was always is that you don't want people to be able to sign up the second they get sick. there is there has to be a window where they have to make a decision and so the goal for the administration is to get the word out and educate people but you need that deadline for insurers in particular for this to work for their bottom line and make sure they're sustainable. they need people signing up for insurance for the possibility that they're going to get sick not when they actually are sick and picking and choosing. host: let's go to dan waiting on that line. he's in new hampshire this
morning. dan, you're on the "washington journal." guest: calling in response to the woman from illinois who called. as to why it's just republicans that are bashing obama care and why young americans aren't signing up. i'm a young american and i'm an independent. and i live in new hampshire. and we're told that we are going to have all the choices in the world and we're stuck with one insurance company now. i live in a major city, and it has enormous hospitals, and i would not be able to go to that hospital. and that's for the majority of the major cities in new hampshire. which only have 1.4 million people in the whole state. so i mean, personally i'm not going to sign up. and i think the part -- all the enrollee numbers coming out are skewed. they're not really enrollees. they're based on how many people selected a plan. so i think it's going to be a huge disappointment when it comes time to have these numbers actually come out the real numbers
on how many people actually are enrolled and purchased a plan is going to be way lower than what everybody has been projecting and how many people have been enrolled. host: when do we know that those numbers, that the caller is talking about, when are those numbers come out? guest: it may be months. there are still components that aren't built yet and the administration says they may not be built until the summer when we see that data. so it could be a few months at the least. although you can get a rough estimate around 80 to 85% of the people signing up are paying so you sort of ballpark it. the caller is correct we don't know how many people have been enrolled at this point. host: another question on enrollments. guest: that's another one of the mysteries we would like to
know. we have seen some surveys that suggest started out earlier at 10%, gone up to 25% of people who are again enrolled are new newly enrolled or newly insured. and again that's what strikes part of the heart of the law is to get people who were uninsured into coverage. so knowing that number will be a big help but one of the mysteries we don't know yet. host: on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is, with the way the government has been with the health care, with obamacare started, we had a crash with the obamacare. and my question is, how can we avoid that from happening again? thank you.
guest: talking about the website itself? when you're talking about that? caller: yes. the website itself. guest: and again, i mentioned earlier that the website is now for the most part up and running. i think one of the things that that laid bare was part of the problem with the way the federal government contracts with these massive it companies and hands out these massive contracts and the president has spoken to this and says this speaks to the need for contracting reform and the way we select our vendors and the ability to be nimble and flexible when it comes to how we contract and with whom we contract. so i think for any other large undertaking like this, which again this is an undertaking probably larger than any the federal government has ever undertaken, you probably see some kind of reform on the it side in the way the government contracts. host: as we talk about this upcoming deadline we should probably note that there is a
difference at what's happening at the end of the month and then signups for medicaid. correct? guest: exactly the march 31 deadline is the deadline for enrollment in exchanges which is the new market places available for people who are above depending on which state you live in above 133% of the poverty level. many are eligible for tax credits. that's the key component for the new law. for those people who don't have affordable coverage offered by their employers. you signed up for medicaid but medicaid you can enroll in all year. host: a question on twitter. guest: and that was one of the things we heard especially in january when coverage first went live and there were gaps and the insurers hadn't been receiving information from the website and feeding incorrect
information from the website. so that is definitely a fear i think the administration has made some maneuvers using regulations and urging insurers to be reasonable and treat each case with care and not deny someone important coverage that they need. and then they would sort it out later when they actually correct and reconcile the data. so the idea is that nobody would ever appear in the emergency room or somewhere or be told you're not covered. but again, it's been imperfect and we have heard aneck dotes where people have run into that problem. host: a special line this morning set up for those 35 and younger. we'll go to that line now. pennsylvania. good morning. caller: i was just curious. do you think the president dreamed too big? guest: when it came to the affordable care act here? caller: yes. do you think he saw something that he wants it, he saw something that would be great for this nation. but it just wasn't in reach yet?
he just dreamed too big. guest: host: how would you answer your own question? caller: i think that's what happened. the country's not ready for it. we have other thing that is we need to get handled. i mean, our foreign policy's gone to crap. i mean, to hear about it, to hear certain stories, it sounds like the greatest thing ever. yet i mean, have you looked at minimum wage and maybe raised that? giving us the money and the ability to pay some of these premiums and so forth, would that have helped? guest: i think your point is an interesting one because a lot of democrats and his allies in particular say he didn't dream big enough on this law, i think on the left and among democrats the singlepayer system was always the ideal. which is something that doesn't really have a lot of political traction. but it would eliminate the whole notion of private insurance,
which can be very messy and complicated. and it is in part the push to preserve that private insurance system that again occasionally runs up against what democrats really would prefer, that has created some of the complexities of this and some of the problems that we've seen. so in some sense some people would say he tried to be too -- thread the needle too much to preserve the private system but advance health care to all. and when you do that it creates such a thicket of rules and complicated processes, that that actually is the root of the issues that we've seen so far. rather than reaching too far. host: talk about some of the back and forth on the political side. there was another house vote that had to do with part of the affordable care act, a major part on friday. what was that? guest: the house vote on friday just remind me. there's a vote every week on elements. host: to delay. >> right.
my mind is going because we have a different repeal vote every week. this one in particular again you mentioned the doc fix, a major change to the medicare physician formula the way they're paid. it's interesting because there's been a bipartisan push in health care you don't see that too often these days among democrats and republicans in the house and senate to craft a solution to this decades old problem of the way medicare doctors get paid. and it was cruising along and then republicans in the house and the senate actually decide it had way we're going to pay for this change is by delaying the individual mandate which again sort of guts big piece of the affordable care act. and democrats can't support that. it has no traction in the senate. so in a sense it derailed what was actually a bright spot of bipartisanship in the health
care arena for the first time in a long time. and so it's unclear if that kills the doc fix for the year, which again is a huge goal in terms of a realigning the way medicare pays its physicians. host: what are the chances for this vote that happened in the house this week in the senate guest: they're nill. the senate won't entertain something that guts a major funding implement. they're back to square one. the policy is still there if they can come up with a pay for it. but delaying the individual mandate will never pass. host: 20 minutes left talking about the looming deadlines for the affordable care act to sign up on those insurance exchanges with kyle cheney, a health care reporter of politico. we're taking your comments on twitter. you can also e-mail us as well. kevin writes on our twitter page. let's go to diane in texas. caller: good morning.
yesterday the president was saying that he has given the green light on the affordable care act. what i would like to know is how could anybody trust that man? he said admittedly on jay leno that he doesn't know math. he couldn't even help his daughter with math. how could he possibly fix an economy and get jobs created when he doesn't know math? he's illiterate in it. he should come out right now and explain to us the truth about what's going on. tell us that -- host: can i ask you what's your health care situation and does any of the affordable care act has it affected you? guest: oh, yes.
host: how so? caller: you could ask castro here . host: how has it impacted you personally? caller: for 2-1/2 months all i did every day was go on the website. i called up the attorney general when it switched me over to expeerion. i went out of my mind. i -- a dope addict answered the phone. i couldn't believe it. and i called the attorney general. he had to call washington in the beginning to find out if we were supposed to call expeerion. there was no communications between washington and what was supposed to go on with the act. but obama's good at talking talking rhetoric. but just give us solutions. host: talking about her experience in san antonio, texas. we'll go to david in maryland on our line for those who are 35 and younger. a republican. thanks for calling in this morning. caller: thank you. i just wanted to talk to the gentleman. i'm 31 years old and going to the aca. once you turn 30, you cannot have these quote/unquote catastrophic plans any more. i wanted to say the plan that i
have currently with aetna, which they are currently going to leave the state of maryland, and i can't say it's because or not but my plan is 100% co-insurance with a 500 deductible. so the plans that are offered when the state, you know, the common ones are like a 6,000 deductible and would be 06%. even the platinum plans are only 90%. so essentially you could pay more up to a high deductible and then pay part of a cost of the actual coverage once you use the plan which currently i wouldn't pay now, plus it doesn't include anything like dental or vision where mine now covers dental. it's just so ludicrous that these people once they use these plans will realize that the plans are absolute garbage compared to what quote/unquote is junk now.
guest: you mentioned the idea about catastrophic plans which again the affordable care act allouse people under 30 as you mentioned to sign up for these certain really small-scale plans. but even some of those small-scale plans have new requirements in them about minimum standards of coverage. so if you were in a plan that didn't meet those that may not be available any more. because you're now over 30 you may not have access to the same kind of catastrophic level plan you described. although there are other exemptions in the health care law that would make you eligible for the plan. and then as you mentioned, too, some of these bronds plans are actually pretty bare-bones coverage. they come with new protections and benefits that may not have been available before the law. but because of the law, because the bronze plans themselves were meant to be sparor than some of the higher tears of coverage you may find yourself
with a higher deductible. host: on this st. patrick's day we'll go to irish eyes. guest: partly has to do with if you're eligible for tax credits and subsidies from the government, they do a -- sort of a detailed financial check on you that includes through the i.r.s. and homents and other aspects of government where they can verify your records and insure that you truly are eligible for a tax credit. that's part of the process they're using to verify the people who get those tax credits are expected or eligible for them. host: we're talking with kyle cheney, health care reporter with politico. have about 15 minutes or so left to discuss the looming deadline for the affordable care act. would love to hear your experiences.
we have a special line set up for those age 35 and younger. the number is on your screen. let's go to david in minnesota on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. my comment is pretty simple. i'm a reasonably smart guy and i did the math. when i was working for corporate america i went back and looked it up. my monthly health charge through the company insurance was $460. i called in to the -- one of the affordable care lines and got an estimate. the amount of money that i would have to pay -- and this is personally per month -- is $470 a month. so i'm looking at a yearly bill of $5,600. i am amonged the group of people who have lived a healthy lifestyle. i go out every other morning like clockworks a two-mile walk. i haven't had even a cold for 10 years. so i do myself more as being more in the 35 and under group
instead of the 55-year-old where i'm at. all i want from health care is pretty simple. pay for the medications that i need right now. 90-day supply of what i need is $100. i want regular checkups. i don't need anything else at this point in my life. as far as emergency care, i have the reagan health care reform from what was it 1998 that says no emergency room can turn me away. so at that point as opposed to the affordable care act, i am actually saving myself over $3,000 a year. and if you add in the $700 fine per year from the i.r.s. for not signing up for it, well, then it's still close to $3,000 a year that i'm saving.
guest: i am not sure -- the $700 fine. i think it varies depending on income. the first year, $95 or one percent of your income if you are supposed to get coverage and you don't. i wasn't clear from the caller if he has an employer-sponsored health land, and if the cost of that went up and if that was done by the employer may get a response to some changes. i am not sure where the caller would fit in in terms of having been subject to prices on the exchange or tax credit availability and all of that. you do hear situations where people see their bills go up and immediately linked it to the affordable care act and if it is -- and if it is not clear whether the employer made. but the affordable care act becomes -- i don't want to say scapegoat that the cause of concern about seeing premiums rise. host: little rock, arkansas. caller: i am an underwriter.
i went through several of the aca classes here in arkansas. you can tell by the way the whole organization for this is put together that they did not bring in anybody who was an expert in any field of creating policies, such things, in the beginning. this think could not have been put together worse from word go. in the united states, insurance has been a regional animal because people make different incomes, have different health. i, and adaptable to $6,000, which is what most cannot afford but if you live in new york or california, $6,000 adaptable is probably what you will pay. you live in texas, kentucky, down south like that, you may -- not be able to get the money together. as far as people enroll now, we know at least 4 million, as many
as 7 million people's insurance was canceled but normally would not so of the people who signed up, we don't know how many are replacement policies. and all the people they put on medicaid, the reason these emergency rooms are even more full is because most doctors will not take medicaid. as far as the whole thing put together, the people thought the little too much about themselves about they could put something together without bringing expert in on it. guest: an argument you hear a lot from critics of the affordable care act, which is the law itself, they basically call it a one-size-fits-all solution where you later these very complicated policies on a nation that is extremely complex. where again, you have states like new york and california that are extremely different than states in the midwest in terms of the cost of living and the expected cost of health care. so when you later these national policies on top of the existing systems in those states and each state retains some form of autonomy over the insurance
market, it can be very complicated and you can end up with a lot of states where they are resisting precisely because the affordable care act does not work on their state. host: you talk about critics of the affordable care act. some sit on the republican side of the aisle. on the house ways and means committee, that is where health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius found herself earlier this week answering questions from congressman kevin brady, republican congressman. here is a bit of that exchange. [video clip] >> madam secretary, when you were a for the committee april of last year you ensured there would be no more delays of the affordable care act. we have had eight delays since those assurances which brings the total of 35. for families at home, what other delays can they expect? are you going to delay the mandate that individuals have to buy government approved health care or pay a tax? >> no, sir.
>> are you going to delay the open enrollment beyond march 31 question for >> no, sir. >> is it correct that you don't have the authority to extend that deadline? the position the centers for medicare and medicaid made, do you agree with that? >> i have not seen their statement, sir, but there is no delay beyond march 31. host: kyle cheney, how much concern is there that there will be further delays? guest: the line of delays said the narrative that the bill was not ready for crime -- prime time. they delayed pieces of the periodically. we are not getting a piece -- any signals that any core components of the law will be delayed, whether before the enrollment deadline or march 31 and no signal at all they will extend the deadline am a perhaps maybe for people who had last-minute glitches. i don't think you will see the sort of delays we have seen to this point, which is the big one
being the delay of larger employers providing coverage and escaping penalties if they don't. and so, we have seen a number today and republicans underscore that as we get closer to election season, the more they talk about delays and the more it emphasizes that parts of the law were not ready to go live when they were supposed to be. host: a special line for those 35 or younger. seth from here in washington, dc. good morning. go ahead. caller: i am about to turn 25 in april and i got a job. i moved down from new hampshire, like one of your previous callers. i decided to stay on my parents insurance. i was not making enough money -- i guess i am making not enough money to get a subsidy -- i guess i am making enough money not to get a subsidy. i want to the website. i was totally refused to my dad talked me into staying on his insurance for another year
because it was such a disaster area. host: and experience you have heard other people have? guest: one of the bright spots for the white house is the estimate around 3 million young adults stay on their parents' plans, and people who may not have that coverage of the wise and individual market or the jobs. when you hear white house talking about millions and they include a 3 million adults who are able to have covered to not because they stayed on the parents plan. through 26. i have not heard about people transitioning away once they hit the 26th birthday and have to move off, those people as they have to -- they have to relearn experiencing the marketplace. host: keith from evansville, indiana. good morning. colorcode good morning, gentlemen.
yes, my comment is -- caller: good morning, gentlemen. yes, my comment is my feeling is that everything is being implemented all at one time. the health care, the immigration policy, the stopping of building the pipeline, the scandal and all of that. it seems like all of this is one big conspiracy to break our country. to pile on so much stuff that there is no way we are going to get out from under it. my son works at a cemetery. he's got a children. and he was promised a job, a full-time job. now since this health care -- this health care thing is coming, he works 29 hours a week and he has to take care of eight kids. he works as but off digging graves all and freezing, 18 degrees below zero, he's got to be there and do his job. so if he is not there to help,
it puts all the work off of my wife. i just feel that all of this is one big bill to break our country. this is just a feeling i have at this moment. i voted for president obama. mr. reid is calling everybody a liar -- liar. all he has to do is call me and i can prove to him my son cannot have his job because of health care. host: concerns about the health-care law cutting back on hours that people can work. guest: absolutely. that is one of the lines you will hear a lot more of year. republicans, in the many hopes to gut the law, actually focused on the part timing of america, saying the law actually encourages companies to employ people fewer than 30 hours ago is that is the threshold that employers need to provide full coverage. they have been talking about pushing it up to 40 hours and
even some democrats are sympathetic to that. although the administration argues there is no data that suggests employers are making that shift toward part-time. host: joyce is in texas on our line for republicans. good morning. you are on "washington journal." caller: good morning. i am calling because my husband and i fall into a group -- we are self-employed. and our income fluctuates from month to month, week to week. and i called to see about insurance, because we never had insurance. but because we don't qualify for subsidies because sometimes we
make more money and someone -- months we make less money, the insurance agent said that if we went above a certain amount, that we would have to repay any subsidies that we have qualify for before. so even looking at the bronze plan, the premium would have been $850 a month and then a $6,000 deductible per person. that $850 is equal to my house payment. and our income is not going up. i just wondered if there is anything that could be done for people who are self-employed -- we kind of seems to be left out of the equation. guest: at is true. the self-employed do not always fit into a neat box limit comes to health policy. one of the things you talk about that is a real field is real fear that we will hear more of is the notion of reconciliation. it signifies if people receive a tax credit and income during the year was higher than expected,
they are actually required to pay back the amount that they shouldn't have received had they predicted the income accurately. when you talk about fluctuating income and whether you may be above or below a certain line for a tax credit, that is something we will hear a lot more about later in the year and it will impact the war self-employed. on the other side of the coin, you will hear from supporters of the law that people have more freedom to pursue their own business ventures and be self-employed because they are not locked into certain jobs where they are totally dependent on that job for their health care. so on the flip side, there are some aspects of the law that could free people up to pursue their own employment, their own business ideas, but then again, you are going to hear complications in terms of things like how do you receive subsidies. host: we talked about the tax penalty. another question from twitter -- is it true the tax penalty can only be elected from tax refunds and if you go -- get no refund and do not buy insurance, how will the tax be collected? guest: it is correct. it is meant, when you file your
taxes during tax season, the irs certifies whether or not you had health care during all the months you were required to have health care. essentially, if you had health care for anything less than nine months of a year you are subject to a penalty and it varies based on your income. it is deducted from your return. i heard theories -- although i am not 100% -- not 100th uninsured -- if you did not receive return they have no mechanism of cannot -- of collecting it from you. host: kyle cheney from politico, health care reporter. he also covered previously when he worked at the statehouse news service in boston. guest: that correct. health care is a pretty big deal and everybody thinks of massachusetts a precursor to obamacare. host: a couple of callers waiting for you. william is in durham, north
carolina. caller: good morning. i wonder what health care would look like if democrats, republicans, independents, and americans all worked together. i feel like i am looking at some kind of alzheimer's disease. president obama, when he tried to pass health care, he had so much opposition, it would not have passed. he tried to push the single-payer system, and every republican went against that. now they are still calling in shows like this, talking about the problems. but i wonder if we all worked together as americans what health care would look like question mark -- would look like?
guest: avs people a few years ago what it might look like if everyone worked together, you might have people describing the system like the one we have, at least if you talk to supporters of this law. they will say this is built on republican free-market ideas where you actually boost private sector insurance and preserved the system as opposed to what the democrats want, which is the single-payer system which would have totally scrapped everything that is there and disrupted -- been a lot more disruptive than even the admittedly disruptive system that is in place today. it will be interesting to see what it would be like in that sort of hypothetical world with everyone working together. but it may not be so far off from what we looking at today. host: concorde, new hampshire. the line for independents. you will be the last caller for the segment. caller: good morning. this personal call from new hampshire earlier and talked about only one option, one insurance company. i've done research in this because i just have the time to
do it, and everybody says this is a federal takeover of health care, but what they forget is there are 50 insurance commissioners. i am happy kyl worked in massachusetts, because when i worked in massachusetts and lived in new hampshire i had to get insurance under romneycare. the only problem was he was no good in new hampshire. i actually had to have two health insurance is, one when i was home and adding to my home state and one when i was at work. i insurance new hampshire would not cover me in math and my math insurance will not cover me in new hampshire. so for everybody to say that obamacare made all these changes, better start looking at your own state insurance commission. host: kyle cheney, in the last minute. guest: new hampshire is such an interesting situation, as the previous caller mentioned. you have one insurer in the exchange, mississippi has two. you hear a lot of situations where people are not thrilled
with the options that are out there. there really aren't options. you are hearing republican starting to put together an alternative proposal to obamacare i wanted the features is the ability for insurers to sell policies across state lines -- one of the features is the ability for insurers to sell policies from across state lines. in a mess -- it is a messy situation where each state gets to control its own insurance market and you later obamacare on top of that and he creates these complexities and conflicts with state and federal law. host: that alternative proposal from republicans making news just this weekend as well. jacob exactly. "washington post" had a story about the principles they are outlined. they are familiar principles but they are at least 30 to but together the pieces of the rebuttal. host: always appreciate you coming by "washington journal."
them a reminder that the white house briefing will come about in 10 minutes. we expect hear about president obama's meeting with the israeli prime minister. and live look inside the white house preaching room. he will have the briefing when it gets underway in just a couple of minutes. president obama had to say about the sanctions against russia during a statement to the media. >> good morning everybody. recent months the citizens of ukraine have made their voices heard, guided by fundamental principle, the future of ukraine must be decided by the people of ukraine. that means ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected and international law must be upheld.
russia's decision to send troops into crimea has rightly drawn global condemnation. the start united states has mobilized the international community in support of ukraine, to isolate russia for its actions, and to reassure our allies and partners. we saw this international unity again over the weekend when russia stood alone in the un security council, defending its actions in crimea. and as i told president putin yesterday referendum in crimea was a clear violation of andinian constitutions international law and will not be recognized by the international community. today i am announcing a series of measures that will continue to increase the cost on russia and those responsible for what is happening in ukraine. first, as authorized by the executive order i signed two weeks ago, we are imposing sanctions on specific
individuals responsible for undermining the sovereignty, rhetorical integrity, and government of ukraine. we are making it clear that there are consequences for their actions. second, i have signed a new executive order that expands the scope of our sanctions. as an initial step i am authorizing sanctions on russian officials, entities operating in the arms sector in russia and individuals who provide material support to senior officials of the russian government. and if russia continues to interfere in the ukraine we stand ready to impose further sanctions. we are continuing our close consultations with our european partners, who today in brussels moved ahead with their own sanctions against russia. tonight vice president biden departs for europe, where he will meet with leaders of our nato allies, poland, lot to be a, and lithuania. and i will be traveling to europe next week. clear, ase will be
nato allies we have a solid -- a solemn commitment to our defense and we will uphold this commitment. fourth, we will continue to make clear to russia that further provocations will achieve nothing and will further isolate and diminish their place in the world. the international community will continue to stand together to oppose violations of sovereignty and territorial integrity and military convention in ukraine will only deepen the russian isolation and exact a toll on the russian economy. going forward we can calibrate our response based on whether russia chooses to escalate or d escalate the situation. i still believe there is a path to resolve the situation diplomatically that addresses both the interests of russia and ukraine. pulling russian forces in crimea back to their bases, and engaging in dialogue
with ukrainian government, which has indicated its openness to pursuing constitutional reform as they move forward towards elections this spring. process weout this are going to stand firm and our unwavering support for ukraine. stand firm on our unwavering support for ukraine. as i told prime minister yatsenyuk last week, the united states stands with the people of ukraine and their right to determine their own destiny. we will keep working with our international partners to make sure ukraine has what it needs to weather this crisis. as we go forward, we will look at the range of ways we can help our ukrainian friends achieve and the prosperity and dignity they deserve. inc.'s very much. -- thanks very much. -- will be available for questions.
those remarks from the president this morning. as we look live again at the white house briefing room, you heard the president say that the white house press secretary jay carney would be available for questions. today the president is meeting with the palestinian president, the white house putting out a transcript, saying that the president appreciated mahmoud abbas's hospitality on his last trip to the palestinian territory. btw be discussing how to achieve a prince of peace between the -- betweenes palestine and israel. spoke to the media. >> i want to welcome president abbas. thats a year ago this week i visited the palestinian
territories. i had a wonderful time meeting with a wonderful range of civil society officials, business leaders, including young people who were inspiring. today, we are going to spend the bulk of our time talking about something that we have been working on for a very long time, and president abbas has been working on a very long time, and that is how do we achieve a comprehensive peace between the palestinians and the israelis? president abbas is someone who has consistently renounced violence, consistently sought a diplomatic and peaceful solution states,ows for two side-by-side, in peace insecurity. a state that preserves the
dignity and sovereignty of the palestinian people, a state that allows israel to feel secure and at peace with their neighbors. this is obviously an elusive goal and there is a reason it has taken a decade 4s to even get to the point where we -- taken us a decade to even get the point where we are now. i think everybody understands the outlines of what a peace deal would look like, and evolving a territorial compromise on both -- involving a territorial compromise on both sides. was would ensure israel secure, but also insure the palestinians have a sovereign state -- ensure the palestinians have a sovereign state where they can achieve what they have aspired to for so long. secretary kerry was here earlier today. he has been working diligently
with all sides. prime ministero netanyahu when he was here a few weeks ago, i believe the time is here for not just the leaders of both sides, but the peoples of both sides to embrace this opportunity. we have a lot of details. we are going to discuss -- it is very hard, very challenging. we are going to have to take decisions political and risks to move it forward. my hope is we will continue to see progress in the coming days and weeks. theso want to point out palestinian authority has continued to build strong institutions in preparation for a day in which the palestinians have their own state. -- andill continue obviously will continue the rule of law, transparency, effective
reform so alternately the palestinians do not only have a state on paper, but one that behalf of their people. the united states has been a strong supporter of the palestinian authority. we are the largest humanitarian donor. we continue to help to foster economic development and opportunity for young people, particularly those like the ones i met. look you, mr. president, i forward to our discussion. it is my hope that you and prime minister netanyahu, but more importantly the people of the palestinian territories and israel, are ready to move ofward in a new spirit cooperation and compromise. thank you very much. [speaking in foreign
language] >> thank you very much, mr. president, and thank you for ,llowing us this opportunity for us to come here to the white house, so that the efforts that you and israel have spent, and these are great efforts, to be successful so we can also reach a lasting peace. and i would like to also take
extending our hands to our israeli neighbors so we can reach a fair and lasting peace to this problem. since 1988, we have recognized the internationally recommended resolution, and this was a very courageous step on the part of the leadership. in 1988 we recognize the freedom of israel. the freedom of israel.
have >> entered -- several international efforts around the world and you are dedicating your time to this area this continues to be an historic opportunity to achieve peace. >> thank you. thank you. >> and back here in the white house raving room, reporters -- whiteer shortly house briefing room, reporters will gather shortly to discuss with white house press secretary jay carney. it is expected that they will
undertaken by the obama administration and 20 nine, to help homeowners, whether it is to modify mortgages or reduce principal. lower interest rates, for people who could not refinance to lower interest rates. the obama administration hoped that happen. >> this is the your money segment. how much money was put into the program? >> the amount the federal government spent was very modest. in real terms, it is a lot of it is not a huge money thatt of the helps individual homeowners came not directly from the federal government, but through fannie mae and freddie mac. the homeowners got lower interest rate, and the owners of those mortgages, as a result, , theower payments, and we
taxpayers, were the owners through fannie mae and freddie mac. host: some stats on how many people have used to the hamp program. about 1.2 7 million mortgages have been modified under hamp. triggered 59,000 have read default it -- triggered 59,000 have redefaulted. that rate of default, is that high according to the projections for this program? yes, it is disappointing, but not unexpected. home prices are continuing to fall. some have lost their jobs, are underwater on their mortgage. they owe more than the house is worth, and there's a very substantial incentive to walk away from the home, because they handed the keys and and that is it. most states cannot go after the
car, wages. this is a very powerful incentive for foreclosure. our: we showed this to viewers watching a little bit earlier, but we want to talk about the eligibility requirements. how does one qualify to get into the hamp program. it is meant to help people who threw 2009 were stuck in an unsustainable situation, could not write fine -- the finance. it is five years later. many people have been immensely helped by hamp. they are either ok with home prices that have gone up or they have refinanced or maybe they sold and moved. a number of people are still eligible, that number is very small. host: is there an average number? guest: there is.
i'm looking at my notes. what the treasury says the median monthly savings was 530 four dollars per month, per household. again, it's not a huge amount of money -- but -- but 1.2 7 million people have used this program? guest: that is right. what is interesting, i want to make sure i got this right -- we have another 1.28 people who refinanced their mortgages on their own. everyone and their neighbor refinance their mortgage. maybe they got a good deal, all is good. those 27 million people were people in danger, who did not get help through the government. they got help through the private sector. this does not get counted in the
special inspector general's report, but this is part of the program that i think has helped. host: we are talking to fill up treasury official interim of economic policy. program hit its five-year anniversary this month. our phone lines are open. we actually have a special line set up for hamp participants. we would love to hear your stories with this program and how it has impacted you. comingd this program is to an end. when does it end? the administration formally extended it for another
year or two. it is coming to an end in the sense that there are very few people in need the help. there are not that many americans still in trouble, the difficult situation, but given the particular eligibility requirements of someone in a home before 29 and had trouble with mortgages -- before 2009, and had trouble with mortgages, that number is low. host: we're are looking at the report on the ham program. p program. on the ham here is a chart. this is the number of redefa ulted homeowners. it notes the highest reedy fault redefault rates happened in the south west, south central regions of the united states. in theparticipated modifications. itost 32,000 reedy fault
--redefaulted. 62,500 redefaulted. was there any expectation, even though they were using the hamp program? this was done on the fly, with tinkering. the adjustments kept coming, which made it difficult for the financial side to implement it. these numbersat are on the high side, but they are not unexpected, again, given what has happened over the last five years. this is where someone got assistance. they are having trouble with their loan and they got --istance whether the loan loweredan interest was
or both. then they had something out. unfortunately, that is something that is going to happen in the week economy we had. they looked good to go, maybe their spouse or themselves lost their job and they cannot do it. societytough lesson for . when people cannot afford their home to what extent should the rest of us help them out. whye is a very good reason we should, but there is a countervailing reason on the other side that says there should be a limit to public assistance. host: here is a question from twitter. powerful is a very factor. i was in the bush treasury. i was not there.
the obama administration was ,rying to thread the needle .rying to help people it is a very legitimate thing. why should this cholera help her neighbor who bought too big a home theater house. but there is a good reason, though, and this is something former fed chair ben bernanke has said. if your neighbor defaults on their home, the grass does not -- >> green ties. is not at say there lot of type talk backstage. talk backstage -- tie talk backstage. i would like to thank the owner tie forguy -- this
letting me wear it today. [laughter] i needed another. announcementsny for today. you are the president talked about the sanctions against individuals over the situation in ukraine and crimea. so, beyond the that, i will take your questions. on the sanctions, how might president putin feel about this? they do not begin them with heads of states, but are they under consideration for the future of facts under u.s. policy, and might we see more of the inner circle affected? a couple ofay things. those are all good questions. the additional executive order the resident has signed --
president has signed allows for a more expansive series of categories that sanctions can then be applied against. not a great sentence. but in other words, the individual announced today has specific desertions in the russian state government or the state duma. list, oneitem on that was individuals, there are other opportunities within that executive order to levy sanctions against other individuals who might have influence with russian governmental officials and russian policy. is one. we have the capacity and the authority to calibrate our response.
in other words initiate further sanctions depending on what happens in the coming days and weeks with regards to ukraine and the actions russia the sides to take. as the president makes clear, we are still pressuring russia to pursue a diplomatic resolution to the situation in ukraine. that opportunity exists. should it fail to do that, should it take steps that further violate ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, we have the authority to impose further sanctions and do so more broadly. >> could that include president putin? >> the authority exists to apply sanctions to a variety of individuals and entities. we want to evaluate what the right step is as this situation evolves. we are not going to rule out
individuals or rule out actions, except to say there will be costs imposed on russia, additional cost is imposed on costs imposed on russia, if it does not change direction with regards to the way it is handling ukraine. >> we spoke to junior administration officials. they said -- [indiscernible] can you talk more about what that evidence is? >> i don't have specifics on that evidence. i do not have specifics on the referendum itself. as a matter of policy in our view, it is irrelevant because the referendum itself is not valid under the ukrainian constitution and the actions that russia took sent the literary forces, basically seizing the peninsula and theiating a referendum --
actions that russia took sent military forces, basically seizing the peninsula and -- initiating a referendum. the entire process is illegitimate. i do not have specifics on that. i think the way the referendum happened, the fact it was called the day after russian military forces, foreign powers sees the and and select -- seized the peninsula, says basically all you need to know about the legitimacy of the process. under the ukraine laws and constitution to change the status of the ukraine or change in any way its territorial boundaries. the way that russia has pursued is obviously not legal under the constitution and not valid. us an update on
the meeting with abbas? is there any chance that the deadline could be extended or any chance that abbas could recognize -- set that we may have further information -- >> we may have further information about the meetings today. obviously the president spoke. this is such a pivotal time in the negotiations. -- prime with primus minister netanyahu, president obama made clear that he appreciates both leaders have made tough decisions, but also israelored the fact that has additional hard decisions to make to move this process forward. when it comes to the matter of the israeli state, our view is quite clear that this process in a result end that has a sovereign palestinian
and a safe, secure, democratic jewish israeli state. but we're not going to get into the status of negotiations over these difficult negotiations. we want each side to press forward so the framework for negotiations can be agreed to so the process can continue to move forward. these are tough issues. tois incumbent on both sides try very hard to put the decades of mistrust, if not behind them, as they pursue the interests of their own people, the interest of the palestinian state that will and a from a resolution, secure democratic jewish israeli state that can emerge from a resolution. as for the palestinians, they have to recognize the path to independence, sovereignty, and
security and their own state can only come through direct negotiations with israel. we have the opportunity to achieve that goal, but only if hard choices are made. believe, as is the case with prime minister netanyahu, so it is with president abbas. to bring right leader about a peace agreement with israel. say russia goes ahead and annexes crimea. a do you think they will come out with a longer list of sanctions? what is more serious, the sanctions or the military incursion itself? >> they both would be, in the case of the annexation, and certainly in the case of the military encroachment that has already occurred, very serious and a violation of international
law and ukrainian constitution. the answer to your first question is, yes, there is the authority and the first two executive orders now signed to name additional individuals, and work continues on what further steps we, the united states, can take working with our european partners to raise the cost to russia, should russia decide to continue down this path. militarybout assistance to ukraine? senator mccain keeps talking about that. have you completely ruled that out? we have not ruled any of assistance out. we are focused on what ukraine needs most at this time, economic assistance, assistance stabilizing its economy at this difficult time. we are working with congress to have that occur. we are working with the imf to provided bystance
the imf and working with our european partners and allies elsewhere in the world who are also mindful of the need to provide assistance to the ukrainian government at this difficult time. -- weou know, we are not are examining all sorts of possibilities when it comes to how we can help ukraine in this challenging environment. right now, we are focused on raising the costs on russia for the actions that russia has taken, making clear there will be more cost and more isolation to russia if they do not reverse course, and ensuring steps are taken so ukraine is getting the economic assistance it needs. point about the aid package from the imf reforms . have you been assisting? >> we are not because we believe very strongly in -- strongly the
passage of imf quota reform purpose of additional assistance to ukraine. if that is a priority for congress -- as it is for many members of congress, as it certainly is the president -- package, that should imf reforms together because that will allow the greatest benefit or ukraine. jeff? happens if russia goes ahead and makes this decision to annex crimea? what can the u.s. do at that point? you could impose further sanctions, widen the net of individuals caught up in the sanctions, but have you considered that couldn't just tin justcare -- that pu
doesn't care? >> what we have said, what the president made clear, what i am enforcing today is that further steps along the path russia is currently on will result in further cost to russia and further isolation for russia. those cost are real -- those costs are real. to thee direct costs individuals named in the sanctions announced today, to the individuals named by our european allies. there have been and will continue to be direct and russianant costs to the economy because of the actions russia has taken to rid russian stock market has decreased as a result of the actions that have happened. the ruble has lost value as a result of this. international investors who are
looking for safe places to put their money are surely considerationny they may give to putting their money in russia and russian industries. russian industries and the russian economy. will only compound as time passes and russia does not reverse course or engages in further provocations. the fact is, the more russia does to violate ukraine's territorial integrity, to unlawfully seize ukrainian assets, to ignore ukraine's sovereignty, the higher the price will be to russia, and the more intense the isolation russia will suffer as a result of it. obviously i am not going to try to psychoanalyze motivations, that russiafact
loses stature and influence in the world if it incurs these costs. significance for, i think, the russian people and russian leaders and all the individuals surrounding leaders of the russian government who have great influence, even if they don't hold positions in government, and i would point you to one of the items in the new executive order that identifies as potential targets of sanctions individuals who have great influence on the russian government and policy makers, but individuals who may not themselves hold government positions. >> it does seem this is all about putin. you can target the people around him, but isn't it all about him? him, jim,ple around
have a great deal of influence in russia and the actions of the russian government. hasn't think anyone who studied the russian government and the power structure their would doubt that assessment -- wouldwer structure there doubt that assessment. again, some of the people targeted today are advisers to president putin as well as senior advisers to the russian parliament, the duma. there are costs to them, the russian economy, to russia's world stage, if ,ou will, its prestige international organizations to make determinations about a lot of things. determinations that russia has earned a right to play a role in over the years,
but i would point you to the united nations security council --e over the week went weekend in which russia was completely alone. 13 nations voted against russia. china abstained, notably. singlealone cast the ballot against. that should tell you something about the cost these actions have incurred already to russia. on the ukraine, over the weekend the prime minister -- weekend,ane, over the the prime minister said that the plane was deliberately steered off course. does the u.s. no and no off -- to say that? >> we are working with the malaysian authorities, and that includes the fbi lending its
assistance to the investigation, but we have not seen enough evidence to support any scenario to allow us to draw a conclusion about what happened. we continue to work very closely with a host of international partners led by the malaysian government in an effort to find out what happened to the plane, locate the plane, and find out because of its disappearance. we are not there to make assessments about which scenario is most likely until we have more information, more complete information. bill? has the white house abandon your nominee for the surgeon general of the united states? dynamicr. murphy is a entrepreneurial presidents who
has dedicated a lot to the roma public health. dr. murphy, as you know, was approved out of committee with bipartisan support, but after the confirmation vote, we are recalibrating the strategy around dr. murphy's floor vote. we expect him to be confirmed and be one of the nation's most powerful messengers on health and wellness. to answer your question -- no. >> at the time, there were reports that senate democrats would not vote for him because of the opposition of the nra. if the president talking to democrats? >> we are recalibrating our strategy in light of the vote i just mentioned. after murphy emerged from committee with -- dr. murphy emerged from committee with a bipartisan vote of support.
>> recalibrate does not mean different nominee? >> correct. >> i want to clarify. you said you were not going to rule out any individual sanctions moving or word. -- forward. putinnctions on vladimir -- is that something under consideration? not verify where possibilities of live right now, --ept to say we have possibilities live right now, except to say we have an active effort underway. you have seen today the actions we have taken, the individuals we have identified. you have seen the executive order. you will,the net, if and allows for sanctions to be imposed to a broader array, ofinst a broader array
individuals. we will make assessments accordingly. i am not going to get in a game of hinting or indicating who might be next or the steps we make take next, except to clear that should russia engage in further provocation, should avail itself of the opportunity to resolve the situation in crimea, and more broadly with the ukraine, in a diplomatic and legal way, that ande will be more costs there will be more sanctions. >> so you're not taking sanctions against putin off -- >> i think i said that already. i am not putting on or off any particular individual. you can see the scope of the particular executive orders that have been signed and how individuals can follow -- fall into the categories outlined by those executive orders. but beyond saying we are assessing additional steps we
did take an sanctions we could impose, i am not going to label individuals or predict who might be next, if anyone is. by taking these actions and saying they are targeting those responsible for russia's activity in crimea, the white house is not suggesting vladimir put in is not responsible -- vladimir putin is not responsible for what was done there? >> we are certainly not. impose why not sanctions? >> i feel like this is a "groundhog day" discussion i had from last week. sanctionssidering more broadly against individuals and entities in the future, and we will do that if the costs to russian need to be increased. to berussia need
increased. what i will not do is speculate on a list of individuals who can be sanctioned in the future. i can point you to a list of individuals who have been identified today, and they include obviously advisers to president putin as well as senior figures in the duma. maint me ask you -- on the state tv station, russian tv anchor, pose in front of a mushroom cloud and warned that russia is the only country in the world capable of turning the u.s. into radioactive dust. i mention this because this is state-controlled russian television, which as we know, does not generally broadcast stuff that is not signed off at the government of russia. what is your sense when you hear something like that? >> people say crazy things on tv all the time. >> but it is russian state-controlled tv.
[indiscernible] [laughter] >> we will focus on the actions of the russian government. the aid we areon providing to the ukrainian government. we are focused on marshaling a strategy with our partners around the world, especially in europe, on how to deal with this challenge posed by russia, and we are making sure that russia thencurring costs for provocations it has engaged in and the actions it has taken. that is what we are focused on right now. are real.s they will increase if russia continues down this path. >> is it possible the united states would sanction the head of state of another nation with which it has normal relations under any circumstance? not speculate about that. i will simply say i have not ruled out any individual who might be covered under the categories provided in the
executive orders. we have identified individuals today. we made clear other individuals can and will be named if russia continues down the path it is on. isand president putin reputed to have amassed significant wealth. is any of it in the united states? is the u.s. aware of assets here that could be targeted? have information might that you provide, bill. we are focused on the actions taken today, support to the ukrainian government, to the allies in ther united states have built consensus that ukraine's musteignty and territory be respected, and we will work to persuade russia to pursue a different course, which is to address its concerns when it comes to ethnic russians in ukraine, when it comes to
interests, specifically in crimea, through internationally lawful means that will allow it arensure those interests protected and observed. we have offered and our european allies have offered a way out of and offramp,ia, that makes clear there is an opportunity for russia to take tops that do not require it violate a sovereign nation's territorial integrity and will ofow it to reduce the costs this action on russia. we will work with our partners and try to bring about russia availing itself of that option. not believe it has violated a sovereign nation's interrogate -- territorial integrity. that they are alone in that belief. >> thank you.
i want to go back to the issue -- is it something that could happen in the next few days? >> i can say that we are reviewing request by the government and military, but our focus continues to be on supporting de-escalatesures to it.situation, not escalate again, our focus is on steps russia can take to de-escalate. that includes returning russian military troops to their bases and restoring the levels of the russian military presence in crimea to those agreed to with the ukrainian government. >> you are not -- >> i am not going to speculate about what other further assistance we might provide or
actions we might take. instead we are going to ensure that we, in concert with our aid to our providing ukraine, which is what ukraine means most right now, and we are to ensure that russia is paying a price for the action it has taken and that russia understands clearly that price will rise if they continue down this path. mccain says that sanctioning seven people -- he must beadimir putin encouraged by this." can you comment on this? [indiscernible] done is namede individuals whom will be who will be-
sanctioned because of their actions that defy international law and violate ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty. we have, the president has by signing an additional executive order, created more authorities for more sanctions that can be more broadly applied against individuals, for example, that have very significant influence in moscow and over the russian government and russian leaders. but who themselves do not hold governmental positions. we believe strongly that those will are real and they grow if russia does not change course. so, that is the path we are taking. that part of the effort should include action by the congress to ensure the united states is providing loan
guarantees in the form of bilateral assistance and passing imf quota reforms so the international monetary fund can provide additional assistance to ukraine. that is, in our view, the right course at this time. >> [indiscernible] that a foregone conclusion russia is going to annex crimea. is that the president's conclusion? acknowledge the referendum -- >> [indiscernible] >> if russia continues down this will bee costs significant. it has already incurred cost to its economy and its currency. the united states will not recognize that sort of action by russia. nor will most nations across the globe. that is significant when you
that russia role seeks to play internationally. on malaysia. apparently there are only a few fbi officials there helping out and that is in part, according to a report in "the new york implementingsia is a larger scale operation. can you comment on that? [indiscernible] >> i do not have information on that specific report. i can tell you the ntsb, the faa, and the fbi are assisting in different ways. the department of defense has invited assets as part of the search effort. the malaysian government has been working very hard to deal with this unique set of circumstances and we appreciate that and understand it. we are working closely with the
malaysian government and have had and appreciate good cooperation with the malaysian government. we are doing everything we can to assist that investigation as they seek to happen what happened and what caused it -- seek to find out what happened and what caused it. to moreooking forward cooperation in that effort. this is obviously a unique and challenging circumstance that everybody involved is investigating. the president has said the costs will be significant. is there any indication that the costs are beyond what the president would be willing to pay with their foreign-policy goals? and is there any indication through the state department that crimea will never be part
of russia, at least through this process? >> we have made clear, as have our allies, and as have most nations have voted in the united nations security council, the referendum is not valid. the annexation would not be valid. it would not be recognized under international law. such an action would result in more costs to russia, more isolation and further sanctions. again, going to the discussion we had earlier -- the potential for those costs to be high israel, and the nature of the power structure in russia is such that -- the potential for real,costs to be high is and the nature of the power structure in such that we expect the costs.
it will not be the situation in russia reassesses and decides to pull back its forces in crimea, to engage in dialogue with the ukrainian government. the ukrainian government has made clear its willingness to accept the residents of international monitors who can assess whether or not the rights of ethnic russian citizens are .n any way being violated there are other means, lawful means, by which russia's interest in crimea and ukraine can be protected, and that is the path by which russia can avoid further isolation and sanctions. are real.sts they will grow if russia does not change course. [indiscernible]
is not at all heart and that russia seems willing to pay those costs? that snapshot today is russia has not changed course. there is no question. but there are costs associated with that. to can see what has happened the russian economy, the russian markets, the russian currency. you can imagine the decisions being made by the leaders of multinational corporations and other big potential investors about the wisdom of investing in a country that flagrantly is using military personnel, violates the territorial integrity of a sovereign nation in violation of the united nations charter, in violation of specific treaty obligations. those are real consequences. so, we will pursue a path that russia toto influence change course, provides a set of
steps that will allow russia's protected, and we will continue to support the ukrainian government and continue to raise the price on russia for the actions it has taken if it does not change course. ?eah? the presidenthen goes to the nuclear summit, the understanding is that president putin is going to pass up the chance to talk to other world leaders, is sending foreign minister lavrov instead. >> president obama spoke to president putin yesterday. he has been speaking with the president putin with some regularity on the situation with the ukraine. i have not had anyone phrase it that way. i think that president putin
understands the views of the united states about russia's violation of international law and it is a violation of ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. so, i don't doubt that next week while we are in europe, there will be a focus on ukraine. in addition to the business we have to get done there. but i think president putin understands the actions that are necessary for him to take and for the russian government to take to alleviate some of the costs. president obama will meet with the president of china next week? >> i don't have any updates to the schedule. >> [indiscernible] build a blowsy oh and marty blasioboycotted -- bill de
and marty walsh oil coated. [indiscernible] does the president believe this because were the right decision? a comment onave those boycotts. the resident does oppose discrimination, but i have not talked about the boycotts of those parades. >> [indiscernible] viewshave made our abundantly clear about that kind of legislation and efforts to undermine the civil rights of russian citizens. takene actions we have today and the sanctions announced today are focused on the very real violation of ukraine'svereignty -- sovereignty and territorial integrity. >> lastly -- [indiscernible]
last week, an independent commission -- [indiscernible] will the president lift the ban on transgender service? >> i don't have any comments on that. >> in practical terms, what does majority russian ethnic population of crimea wants to be part of that country, of russia, as they were 50 or 60 years ago? >> that is a great question and i appreciate it. what matters is sovereignty under international law. what matters is the ability of ny nation to decide for itself
any changes in its territory, borders, the status of regions within its borders. the implications of accepting russia's action and not sanctioning russia, turning a blind eye to it, are profound for every nation. for every nation that grapples with issues of ethnic minorities defineons that have to their relationship to the center of the country, for example. these are very important issues. fact andndful of the point out the fact that there are means by which individuals in crimea, working with the government in kiev, can take steps to evaluate and