Skip to main content

tv   FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace  FOX News  September 15, 2013 2:00pm-3:00pm EDT

2:00 pm
sergei, done by our own james rosen who was traveling with the secretary of state. he gave it to him to try to pitch an interview. appearing visibly pleased. he said i wouldn't be -- >> john: i'm john roberts in for chris wallace. the u.s. and russia hammer out a tentative deal on syria after the president puts a vote and strike on hold. >> this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force. >> the united states and russia are committed to the elimination of syrian chemical weapons in the soonest and safest manner. >> but can we rely on the russians to get assad to comply? >> now, the russians are supposed to be the ones who are telling us that they would be in charge disarming the guy they are arming? >> russia has put its credibility on the line in pursuing this with us and others it's an important objective. what does it mean for action in congress. we will discuss with maryland congressman chris
2:01 pm
van hollen and the chairman of the security committee michael mccaul of texas. plus, with a military strike on hold, congress gets back to its battle over the budget. our sunday panel weighs in on the threats of a government shutdown. all right now on "fox news sunday." >> you can actually hear those heads but. we were discussing the president's push stir authorizing the use of force in syria. now that's on hold waiting to see if a tentative deal secretary of state john kerry brokered this weekend with russia will stand. the draft agreement gives syrian bashar assad one week comprehensive listing of chemical weapons stockpiles. calls for syria to destroy all of those weapons by middle of next year. includes some an agreement to work on a u.n. security council resolution that would allow for punishment if assad does not comply, but stops short of military
2:02 pm
action. we'll discuss what that all means for action in congress in just a moment. but, first, to greg palkot, live in damascus, syria in morning. he has been reporting on the story from the very beginning and has a look at the mood there in light of this weekend's developments, greg, good morning to you. >> >> hi, john, we have been here in damascus for about 24 hours. enough time to begin to get a sense of what is happening here. here is the front page of one of the state run newspapers as you can see, the deal regarding chemical weapons struck between secretary of state kerr i can't understand russian foreign minister is on the front page. what we haven't heard yet is a detailed response to the details of is that deal as you say described as a draft agreement or a draft decision. one of the reasons we decided to go out into the center of damascus to get a sense from the people here, what they think of the various developments of the last couple of days. as is often happens here in damascus, also accompanied by a representative of the
2:03 pm
government. take a look of what we saw. what we heard. a busy weekend afternoon in da imagination cuss with a series of strikes lessened more people are out. the war is not far away. hear the artillery in the distance. new hopes with new talks for peace. >> we didn't think something wrong would happen in syria. >> and this man says no doubt this is a good step to solve the problem and fulfill the peace. it is hot so ice cream is selling fast. this there seems to be enough of it it food fly supplies from ice to milk. prices rupp by 50%. also costly and in short supply fuel gas going to $9 a gallon. >> >> --
2:04 pm
>> busy market, one of the oldest in ancient damascus is 15 minutes from where a chemical weapon attack last month allegedly left hundreds dead. when shoppers make their rounds, they say at least they feel safe. all the while pictures of leader bashar al assad hang on walls and regime militia members lurk in the shadows. a government official helped us with this translation. >> since we have a good leader and our army is controlling things, this young girl says, we don't care about anything. >> again, the government presence here in damascus is fairly constant. but what also is constant and cannot be spun is the sound of war. throughout our visit, we have been hearing are artillery blast and air strikes hitting the outskirts of the city. and we have also been hearing some incoming. at least one mortar hit on a government building here in the center of the city. a sign that government
2:05 pm
forces still are clashing with rebel forces. in the outskirts of the city and may be a little bit closer to the center of power. a sign that this war is far from over, john. >> yet life still goes on there in the central part of damascus. the think that assad will deliver on this agreement? >> that's the big question, john. over the past week there have been some mixed signals coming from the regime. the foreign minister, when it was first broached this chemical weapons deal welcomed it, said that syria would be signing on. gave some details about how syria would be signing on. but also we have been hearing from conditions including bashar al assad in a media interview two days ago saying he has to be sure that the united states will not strike syria and also that's one
2:06 pm
of the reasons we pin it down. john. obviously the war big issue here. chemical weapons a part of that. trying to get the two sides to e peace table for a while now. is there some hope that this agreement might lead to some sort of peace conference or could this potentially be a distraction from all of that? it could be both of those things, john. we have been hearing both takes on this. this could be a watershed moment. for the first time. according to a few analysts that i have been speaking to. you have the syrian government, have you bashar al assad beginning to agree to an international track of negotiations even though as you note, it is on the narrow measure of chemical weapons here and that could, in fact, pave the way to more cooperation, not just between syria and the outside world but also the other folks that have to cooperate on this. including especially the united states and russia and other countries in the region.
2:07 pm
at the same time, though, it could very well just be a minor distraction. it could very well be just something that the syrian government is doing to fend off a possible attack from the united states and, again, as we have been hearing in our brief time here, there is no lull in the fighting between the folks on the ground here, john. >> obviously a long way to go on all of, this greg palkot doing some extraordinary reporting right from the very center of things there in damascus, greg, thanks so much. now to the mood in washington. joining us from austin, texas is congressman michael mccaul who opposes military action against syria. and here in the studio, marilyn congressman chris van hollen who supports the president and working on a use of force resolution should a vote still come to the house floor. congressman mccaul, let's start with you there in texas. do you have any hope that this is going to work? we really have to i think as americans i have said from the beginning the way to solve this crisis is to, the chief objective should be to secure and destroy
2:08 pm
these chemical weapons. not taking sides. both sides are not good actors. assad dick tartd used chemical weapons. rebel forces have been infiltrated in large part by al qaeda factions. the key threat in the region are the chemical weapons themselves. and i think this is a step forward, if you will. it will not be easy. i think the devil is in the details and as reagan said trust but verify. we owe this, we need to do this because it can be done without a shot fired. and hopefully without any american troops being put on the ground. and so i'm we're going to take a look at this. putin is in a unique position rather than the president to get this done because of his leverage over assad and over syria. putin has now come forward as a leader and he owens this now i believe that gives us ability to get this done. >> you mentioned ronald
2:09 pm
reagan and no question congressman van hollen there is going to be a lot of heavy lifting if this is going to be successful. let's listen to what secretary of state kerry said about that in geneva yesterday. >> in the case of the assad regime, president reagan's old adage of trust but verify, that is a need of an update we have committed to a standard that says verify and verify. >> verify and verify. how do you do that because as greg palkot showed us life does go on to some dedegree degree in damascus. it's difficult to do this in peace time. >> it is difficult there are clear bench marks that you can have and if you don't reach those bench marks it will be clear that assad is not living up to the agreement. i think that the path that they have set forward. yes, declare stockpile one week. november inspectors in. next year you begin the destruction of the chemical weapons stockpile. those are bench marks that
2:10 pm
are available and can be reached. i do think it's important to point out we would not be for this point had it not been for the president's credible threat of a use of force. that's what brought the russians to the table and assad to the table and the president laid out a very clear objective. he said he wanted to deter the use of chemical weapons in syria. we now in the space of a week have gone from assad denying that he even had any chemical weapons to admitting them. that he is signing the convention on chemical weapons. that he is allowing international inspectors in there and ultimately destroying them. because the president said if you don't do that, we're going to come in and use force in a limited way but we are going to use for force. >> a week on general kerry making incredible case for war to president saying i want to go to congress to john kerry free-lancing a question rhetorical answer to the president giving a kitchen sink address on tuesday. are you happy with the way the administration kind of
2:11 pm
rode the horse through this whole thing. >> there is going to be a lot of monday morning quarterbacking on that. i look at results. this result could not be more in line with the president's objective. we have gone beyond the president's use of chemical weapons to a plan to be destroy assad's chemical weapons stockpile which said this has been our' get rid of weapons in syria. >> weapons inspector also go in at some point while the environment will be somewhat permissive from the syrian government side of things, there is a war raging. who is going to protect the weapons inspectors. any discussion of that will we see u.s. troops on the ground as part of this chemical weapons inspection team? we don't have all the details of that hope russian forces on the ground. very difficult as you mentioned going into a civil war situation trying to remove and destroy chemical weapons is going
2:12 pm
to be extremely difficult in addition to the fact rebel forces who we have been arming, unfortunately, are there and many are radical types, some jihadists. the opportunity for them to possibly take over some of these chemical weapons as a process goes forward. from a security standpoint, it's going to be a huge concern. i do want to follow up one thing my colleague said and i don't think this is a time for the white house to be boastful, i would exercise humility here that this threat. the secretary called unbelievably small intervention won the day. i think what won the day here is putin looked in his own backyard and realized that these policies that he saw in egypt and libya was going to happen in syria. which could potentially fall to the muslim brotherhood. and the extremists. and you know what? he decided it was time to step in and try to fix the
2:13 pm
problem. when the president walked out of the g-20 summit with all international leaders, he only walked away with 2 that were willing to help him in this military effort. and it was latvia and france. i would caution this administration to not do a victory lap here. >> i just want to zone in on one thing that he just said there we hope that russian troops would do it -- congressman mccaul do you not think we need u.s. forces there to verify? if we leave this in the hands of the russians and syrians, are we going to know for sure? >> it will be an international coalition of forces, there is no question. i want this to be not just a russian solution, but an american solution. but i am a little weary about putting americans in that situation as well. i do know the russians have, again, have the most leverage over syria and assad and can be most effective. >> all right. we should have international inspectors on the ground, no americans on the ground.
2:14 pm
look, mike,. >> would you support some u.s. troops. >> no. international team that's inspecting and holding this accountable. look, there is a reason that the russians went from vetoing every press release at the united nations for three years. press releases that just mentioned chemical weapons to getting assad to get rid of this chemical weapons. at least put a plan in place to do that the only factor that changed is that the president had the credible threat of force out there. putin was sitting there, powerless. this is his big ally in the middle east. powerless to stop a potential limited u.s. strike. and the answer is, that he helped deliver to the president everything that we wanted. so, it is a good result. as mike said. finally dealing with those chemical weapons. weapons of mass destruction. but let's not kid ourselves as to why this happened. >> to hear rand paul tell it was the opposition of the use of force in congress that brought
2:15 pm
russia to the table. let me ask you this question, our james rosen with john kerry over the weekend. asked secretary kerry if he thought assad was going to live up to the agreement. kerry told rosen, quote: we're going to have to make him. the u.s. has agreed not to put the use of force in the united nations resolution. even france said that was absolute requirement. where is the teeth? >> well, as you just said, russians as i gist said, the russians have been blocking action at the security council when it comes to use of force. they have been exercising their veto. that hasn't changed in this agreement. but there is a process now set out. so what the administration has said is that it reserves the right to move forward, to enforce this in a limited way with u.s. action. i do believe, john, that now that syria and russia have said we are going to agree to this particular destruction of chemical weapons, it's much easier for the president to rally both international and national support behind that goal.
2:16 pm
because the russians and syrians have put this on the line. clear objective if they violate that there are other ways we can enforce it. >> you have a backup resolution that would allow the use of force in the case that this agreement doesn't come to fruition. congressman mccaul do you think there wouldn't be the appetite to mass van hollen's resolution if assad plays too many games here. >> right now there is not a lot of appetite from the american people. the case has not been made use-to-use force and put american troops on the ground. having said that do i believe that when you get to the u.n. resolution and there is enforcement provision in there, they would have to go back and get an additional resolution that deals with security. i think if assad is violating those terms, then, you know, that's another issue. and, but this is what i have been arguing all along is we should have been going to the international community to help with this issue. not go it alone.
2:17 pm
the president usually rallies the international. >> the president did go to the international community he went to his closest ally britain and they said thanks, but no thanks. isn't that interesting? he has no persuasion over britain. britain backed out. the whole thing fell apart. putin came in and said you know what? it's in the global best interest to deal with this issue. and i think, you know, working, it's an odd scenario. don't get me wrong here. but i do think that again, russia has the greatest leverage over assad and in syria and we need to be working with them to do that you know, to chris' point, of course it's going to be an international coalition. you you know, we don't want american troops on the ground in syria in the civil war. in a situation that had no good outcome, about two weeks ago, we see actually something that i think could possibly be a good
2:18 pm
outcome down the road. >> put the final question to congressman van hollen, do you believe as some members of congress do that putin has outfoxed president obama on all of this? >> well, if outfoxing means giving the president of the united states everything they asked for and more, maybe that's the kind of outfoxing we need. because, look, again, the president had a clear objective, stop assad from using chemical weapons. in the last six days we have accomplished that and more and why? look, putin. >> senator lindsey graham believes putin has put the president in a box. >> that's absurd. look, putin was out there. his big ally assad is sitting there and putin is powerless to stop potential military strikes in the united states. what kind of message does that send any other allies russia has around the world? so putin was acting from a position of weakness and the reality as mike said is he has some leverage over assad. did he not want to see military action taken. and at the end of the day,
2:19 pm
he helped deliver exactly what the united states wanted, which is to put an end to assad's weapons of mass destruction. >> we will bring you back to talk a little bit more about the budget. congressman mccaul thank you for joining us as well. really appreciate it it of course watching developments over the next week there is a lot to talk about over the next few days with a deal on hand all eyes are on syria now. what does this mean for the confusing state of u.s. russian relations. our sunday panel joins us next. equipped with droid zap for advanced photo sharing that lets you swipe images to multiple people.
2:20 pm
the new droid ultra by motorola. when intelligence matters. droid does. a body at rest tends to stay at rest... while a body in motion tends to stay in motion. staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammation. plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. celebrex can be taken with or without food. and it's not a narcotic. you and your doctor should balance the benefits
2:21 pm
with the risks. all prescription nsaids, like celebrex, ibuprofen, naproxen and meloxicam have the same cardiovascular warning. they all may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart disease or risk factors such as high blood pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, like celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions, or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death. patients also taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. don't take celebrex if you have bleeding in the stomach or intestine, or had an asthma attack, hives, other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. tell your doctor your medical history. and find an arthritis treatment for you. visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex. for a body in motion.
2:22 pm
2:23 pm
>> inspection team determining whether chemical weapons were used in syria said he had wrapped up his report and would present it to the secretary general this weekend. bon can i moan is expected to present to the ask security council tomorrow. it's not clear whether the report will point to who committed the attack: time now for sunday group brit hume senior political analyst. jane harmon, bill crystal with the "weekly standard" and charles ellayna of the "the washington post." let's talk first of all. torturous road for president obama. here is now john mccain summed up the president's conduct with this with greta van susteren on sunday. >> he said he was going to strike. after saying he weigh goodsing to act. >> going to get the approval of congress now without seeking the afroofl. he wouldn't have had now he goes on national television and argues for two courses of action. one, the strike, and two the pause. >> brit, you once famously asked the president if
2:24 pm
there was a zigzag policy to his decision making process. could you ask the question in relation to. this i certainly okay i would have to look for more extreme term than zigzag. this has been quite a speck cackle to watch. in the end what we have now is a proposition that is substantively all problematic on a whole host of fronts. pillly, and you could tell it listening to chris van hollen it's quite wonderful. it gets the president off the hook. it gets the members of congress off the hook. it does everything you want to do. keeps the u.s. military out of action and for barack obama, this was an escape from a corner which he painted himself he could pardon have prayed for. >> a question i have if that correspondent had not stood up on sunday and said if there s. there any way out for assad? might would he be bosoming syria right now -- bombing syria right now? >> i don't know. the claim is that these conversations about the workout we are now going through occurred months ago. the president personally talked to putin and john kerry had been talking to putin and to it sergei for
2:25 pm
a while and it wasn't an off-the-cuff comment at all. >> it was a random question. >> it was a random question. it wasn't an off the cuff comment. >> what if he said it can't happen? >> i don't know why he said said that. >> i'm sure moving chem calling weapons is a daunting task. it wasn't worked in libya. that was the aagreement. loot of those weapons migrated to maly and now in the hands of bad guys. this can't be the end of the process. i agree the process has been messy. let me just say. this i thought that when obama was poised to strike, something i personally would have supported, looked around, nobody was with him. nobody was publicly with imhad, i thought the notion of going to congress was a good idea, because i thought congress would approve it i remember the foreign policy consensus which obviously doesn't exist anymore. where moderates in both parties would pull together. i am part of that consensus. david ignatius writes today that it is splintered, it's gone.
2:26 pm
i don't think congress will be back. i do think this route through the u.n. has some promise, if if there is work behind the scenes over a longer term in fashioning a transition government and getting bashar out of there. >> there was a lot of debate over whether or not vladimir putin got the better of president obama. lindsey graham senator nor south carolina certainly thinks so. here is what he told our mike huckabee yesterday. >> it's a blind alley. putin has led us down a road where there is just no good outcome without the threat of force, this aagreement means nothing. >> so, bill, did the president get hood winked? and we talked about verify and verify. if you don't have teeth and some sort of resolution that says this will happen if do you not. can you get volume of all of these weapons? >> -- you can get control of all of these weapons. >> i don't think the president was hood winked. he didn't want to strike it dunder out after he said he wanted to strike which was extremely irresponsible position to put himself and the country in. said no one supported the
2:27 pm
president. i supported the president. john boehner supported the. the a least 25 republicans with us in the house because they do not trust this about the to use force. they don't trust him to be serious about foreign policy. looking back on the last two weeks. i can't really blame all my conservative republican friends look in principle of course you should support a president when he goes to congress to authorize use of force against a dictator backed by iran or are you sure shah who has used chemical weapons. crossed a red line the american president put down. i don't think it's a class call. after his performance it's going to be harder i say this with great sadness and pressure to get conservatives to support him is going to be tough. on the other hand it doesn't seem he wants to do anything tough. >> if it comes down to syria playing games with chemical weapons and the president wants to go back to the idea of using force is that bell already been rung and rung out. >> there is absolutely nothing in this framework agreement that provides for any kind of use of force by
2:28 pm
anyone to enforce it if it's violated. do we have a parallel here with north north carolina? -- north korea. brink of war president clinton struck a framework with the regime get rid of nuclear weapons which 20 years later they had then gotten rid of. not only gotten rid of but tested one and the regime is still in power. my worry is and of course this all we remains to be seen. we are setting up something similar here. most important transition out of this it agreement is that the president of the united states has identified the removal of chemical weapons as our issue in syria. it's no longer about regime change and assad must go. it's about chemical weapons. >> how do you prevent this from becoming a year's long cat and mouse game as happened with saddam hussein. >> i don't think you can under this agreement. the prak it will call difficulty of finding weapons, finding them, cataloging them and removing them in the midst
2:29 pm
of conflict with a couple -- untrustworthy player like assad in place are probably insurmountable but what this does though is it diffuses the issue. takes all the urgency out of it takes the air out of it as time goes on it recedes into the background which is exactly in my view what the president the happen. >> i don't agree. i think the it president has taken what he he can get from putin phase one. the threat of force has to remain. the president has said it will remain. our ships are still surrounding the area. but i want to put another word on the table called sochi. the winter olympics in russia. i think vladimir putin really wants to reset himself as a world player at that point that's in four or five months from now. just let me finish my sentence, my friend. i think that will cause him not only to, i'm not saying i trust and i verify but verify is the right
2:30 pm
language. but i think that will keep him in the tent. i'm not worried about bashar. i'm worried about putin. if putin figures out that moving bashar out in some period after the chemical weapons are disclosed i don't think they will be used. it will change things. >> i want to put one word on the table that's not sochi, it's iran. the president of the united states said already today on national television is he looking forward to negotiating with iran. he thinks this is a model for a bad agreement with iran. it will get him off the hook of his promise to use military force to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons and i believe the iranians think that too. >> we have got to take a break here. when we come back the syrian crisis has taken crucial time from congressional members looming budget battle. obama care at the threat of a government shutdown is worth the risk. stay with us. >> just because you are. >> anna: at this government idealogue who has landed in congress doesn't mean that you should be shutting down government. >> with these guys yet?
2:31 pm
>> no, i'm fine. >> georgia congressman tom price and chris van hollen back with us next.
2:32 pm
2:33 pm
>> this strategy is intended not to really satisfy the house. we have already voted. it's to force the vote and force the fight in the united states senate. that's where the issue is. the united states senate. let's get the issue over there and force them to actually have a vote on
2:34 pm
getting rid of obama care. >> while the syria crisis has been front and center this week in washington. a bitter battle over the budget looms large. congress has just a little more than two weeks to it approve new spending bills or risk a government shutdown. a grouch house republicans is insisting that funding for obama care be cut first. that's putting house speaker john boehner in a very tough spot. back with us is chris van hollen of maryland. and joining us from atlanta congressman tom price the vice chairman of the budget committee. congressman pryce, let's start with you, you and 42 of your colleagues have signed on to a bill that could fund and delay obama care for a year if it comes to the floor and passes it will most certainly hit a bring wall in the senate. are you willing to go as far as shutting down the government to get what you want? >> well, john, thanks so much. as the speaker said, it's time to put the ball in the senate's court. but what we are interested in is stability and security and fairness. stability for the government. funding the government for a full year period of time.
2:35 pm
security so the that men and women who protect us every single day have the resources that they need to be able to carry out that protection. and then fairness. fairness as it relates to obama care. this administration has already delayed or waived fully a third of this legislation. and we believe that it's only fair for the american people now to have that same delay. and that's the proposal i believe that will be coming forward this week. that's the proposal that we support. we hope that some of our leagues, democratic colleagues in the house support it like they did the individual mandate and employer mandate. the bipartisan position here is to delay this law for a year. i'm hopeful the administration will come on board and that the senate will see the light as well. >> again, are you willing to shut down the government to get what you want? >> well, there is 15 days between now and that deadline. and what we need is the house to act and then the senate to it act and this is the dynamic nature of legislating. >> you told our neil cavuto last week. you said if that's the only way i'm there are you still there? >> the president is the individual who is talking about shutting down the
2:36 pm
government. the democrats in the house and the senate are the individuals that are talking about shutting down the government. we want to fund the government and protect the american people from a destructive law as it relates to healthcare. i'm a physician. the last thing that this nation needs is this law that will destroy quality healthcare in this country. you have got james hoffa, the president of the teamster's association saying that it's going to destroy the 40-hour workweek. the afl-rcio this wasn't as billed. you need to change it or delay it or repeal the whole doggone thing people across the political spectrum all across this country recognize this law is not good for the american people. it's not good for our country. it's time to delay it. >> congressman van hollen let me talk about the union aspects of this. you know what happened at the afl-cio convention earlier this week. they were up in arms about it thinking that people were going to get thrown out of employer-based health care. they have wanted subsidies. let's listen what terrance sullivan from the labor's international union said about it he was incensed. >> but we will be damned if
2:37 pm
we are going to lose our health insurance because of unintended consequences in law enforcement it needs to be changed. it needs to be fixed. and it needs to be fixed now brothers and sisters. [ applause ] >> the unions are demanding a fix there is a lot of problems with this bill. why not just delay it? delay the employer mandate. you have delayed the cap on out-of-pocket maximums. have you delayed the eligibility requirements. why not say let's take a pause for a year and figure this all out. >> let's make sure we understand what tom's answer was. the answer was he is prepared to shut down the government if we don't shut down obama care for a year. >> he didn't come right out and say that. >> okay, look. >> as much as i tried to get him to. >> he said that earlier on an earlier fox show. he just didn't stay it here. listen, the reality is that obama care is already in place for millions of americans. >> delayed for millions of others. >> no, no. the employer mandate, which effects only 5% of businesses in this country, which is a relatively small
2:38 pm
part. >> still, how do you say to employers we're going to give you a a year? how do you say to insurance companies we are going to give you a year but say to individuals in this country you are still on the track. you have got to sign up for these exchanges and as of january 1 you have to have health insurance when you have delayed it for other people? how is that fair? >> the reality is that the business piece is not central to the overall idea behind obama care. we're going to open up the supermarkets of healthcare plans. people will be able to purchase insurance in those exchanges. the position that says let's delay it for a year is to deny access to affordable insurance for millions of americans for another year. that's not acceptable. >> at the same time, unions saying this is going to make it unaffordable. >> the issue with the unions has to do with the ability to both claim tax credits in the exchange and get the tax deduction for employer provided health insurance. so, as the president has said all along, we're willing to work out the kinks in this. but we're not going to throw out the central idea,
2:39 pm
which as you know was the same idea that republicans but forward in the 1990s and is the basis for romney care in massachusetts. they didn't throw it out in massachusetts. it's working in massachusetts. >> let me bring in the congressman from georgia because he has been very patient here. treasury department through the president, i guess, affirmed congressman pryce on friday that the unions would not be getting subsidies for employer based health care plans. are you concerned that the white house because the unions are centsed about this will try to back door to satisfy them to keep them on board. >> apparently the white house said on friday they wouldn't do that the white house has always picked winners and losers in this. that is why they have chosen to delay or weigh fully a third of this legislation. we believe, however, that it needs to be waived and delayed for the entire american people. for the entire country. that's the only fair thing to do. now, what the unions have done. what the aflcio has done and teamsters have done is finally read the bill and recognize what's in it. if you like what you have
2:40 pm
you can keep it simply is not true. they believe they have been lied to and they believe that we need to step back and stop the madness and delay this for a year and see if we can't get it right. move in the direction of patient centered healthcare where patients, and families, and doctors are making medical decisions not washington, d.c. that's what we need to do. >> i didn't mean to make this decision all about obama care. they like being able to keep the kids on until age 26. preexisting exclusion they like that. the further we get into this bill as congressman pryce just said the more the problems start to arise. remember nancy pelosi saying we have to pass the bill so that we can find out what's in it now the people are finding out what's in it, i mean even your most strident supporters the unions are saying this is wrong. >> john, look, any time you have a he is poof of legislation that's this comprehensive, there are going to be issues you have to deal with along the way. we have said to our republican colleagues, we're happy to work with you to try and fix those
2:41 pm
parts where there are issues. but our republican colleagues have taken the position that they just want to wipe the whole thing off the 3457, including the important provisions you have talked, about including the core idea which had been a republican idea, that individuals have a responsibility to get healthcare, that those who can't afford it will get a tax credit to it enthem do it it that's the core idea. republicans right now i really believe are not afraid that this is going to fail. i think they are afraid it's going to work and all the scare mongering we have heard from them is going to be proven to be false. that's what's happening. now troops interesting tom said we should moved move to a patient centered healthcare. the republicans have voted in the house 40 times to repeal obama care. they have never put on the floor of the house a replacement. tom has a replacement bill. less than 10% of the members of congress have signed on. not his own party has accepted that. so they just want to take us back to the days when the insurance companies got to deny care based on preexisting conditions and
2:42 pm
that's not right. >> 43 republicans have signed on to this graves bill which might come to the floor of the house. i assume you won't be voting for it? >> that's not a replacement for obama care. that's designed to kill it. >> it is. >> allows us to do is to get to the stability for the country for a year, make certain that we provide for security and fairness for the american people on obama care. >> they just want to turn it back over to the insurance industry and let them discriminate based on preexsissing conditions and that's not acceptable. >> we have got to run. thanks so much for joining us. our sunday panel returns. >> thank you. >> looks ahead to the debate in congress over obama care and the budget coming up next. but, first, get fox news daily politics news letters straight to your inbox. fox news first gives you the scoop first thing in the morning. sign up now at foxnews.com back slash fox news first.
2:43 pm
2:44 pm
2:45 pm
2:46 pm
>> in an attempt to prom up the scheduling healthcare law, the obama administration decided they would hand out subsidies without verify hog is eligible. they just want to rely on the honor system. not only is that unfair to hard-working taxpayers like you, it opens the door a mile wide to fraud and abuse. >> republicans devoting their weekly address to sounding off on obama care and doing away with the president's signature healthcare law. diane black of tennessee highlighting vasks bill which passed this week that would help prevent fraud in the system. we're back now with our panel. all of this is wrapped around the continuing resolution and whether or not that's going to pass. bill kristol, do you think we are headed for a government shutdown over this showdown? >> i don't think so. i don't think either party has a real interest in that.
2:47 pm
but, no one ever thinks things are going to happen and sometimes they do. no, i don't think so. congresswoman? >> i don't think so. i think if that happens again, we saw this move in 1996, it will -- 1995, it will hurt republicans a lot more than it will hurt democrats. let's not go there let's amend this law. let's implement this law and amended parts that don't work well it is a good idea to prevent fraud. good for that republican congresswoman. but, to have 41 votes in the house to repeal this, is a total waste of time. 40 of those should have been on specific well considered amendments. and then maybe it would be a better law that we are implementing now. >> do you think they are going to hold the line in the republican led house on this graves bill which does put in the actual bill itself language to defund and delay obama care? >> i don't know that the votes will be there for that. >> because the votes weren't there for the other bill. >> no, i know.
2:48 pm
government shutdowns a way of forcing policy when you control one house of the legislature is a loser. now, people like ted cruz, senator ted cruz is one of the main leaders on this issue and certainly one of its critical spokesmen believes that the critical conditions are different now than the ones that prevailed in 1995 and some respect thefers. in one respect they are different and not in a way that's helpful to his cause which is that the republican party is much of much less owner with the public than it was when people installed a new house republican majority foreign the first time in decades. axsense about this the i don't mean in washington when the government shuts down it doesn't matter who causes it, republicans get blamed is still in effect. and, this is a very risky proposition. now, cruise -- cruze and company say you can win the vote if you win the argument. out trying to win the argument now. and provoke the lines on something that happened with guns when a popular sentiment just rose up and
2:49 pm
next thing you know no bill passed. remains to be seen if they can do that. i have real doubts. >> democrats are certainly doing everything they can. while they may be divided on strategy how to approach this and saying that, you know, whatever happens, finance the republicans fault. let's listen to the way harry reid put this on thursday. >> the anarchists are winning. anything that can be done to slow down hurt or get rid of government in any way, that's good. shutting down the government obviously is what majority of the republican caucus wants to do in the house. >> charles, republicans have lost every time on obama care, is this a loser for them? >> i think their own leadership in the house recognizes that it's a loser and they are having this battle with this group of kind of diehard republicans within their own caucus. and, my goodness, privately, i think the house leadership is even harcher but its own members than some democrats. harry reid is enjoying the
2:50 pm
spectacle and it really does come down to this complete lack of unity within the republican caucus. having said that i think there is a lot of theater in terms terms of these rebels. i think they're showing off for their base back home and that ultimately, enough of them can be kproecompromised by the leadp in such a waythat a continuing resolution will get through. >> i think there is a way out of this for republicans. >> look, the entire house, by 22 democrats, voted to suspend the individual mandate for a year. president obama suspended the employer mandate. add that to the continuing resolution. the house just now voted to require verification for security and privacy concerns for the exchanges. >> so you would -- >> and that idea -- >> i would target the most vulnerable, the most unpopular, and generally the most problematic parts of obama care, delay those for a year, i think that's a tougher argument. i just delayed the employer mandate for a year, but i couldn't sign the bill to delay the -- >> but bill, it's all a game. it's blame the other side.
2:51 pm
>> is the individual mandate a -- >> i don't think it should be where you play this. >> but pass the individual mandate -- >> as harry reid said. >> they passed serious bill in the house. >> and whatever happened to simpson/bowles? why don't we get back to -- >> senator reid will not take it up in the senate. >> -- the only way we can actually considering it. >> the only way to get it in is to add it to continuing res lau lugs. the old days -- >> i understand all of this question. why would it be so terrible to delay everything for a year, to line it up with all the other things that have already been delayed? >> my answer to that is because most of the bill is going to be implemented. the bill did pass. it was signed into law. and i voted for it as a member of the house, because i thought we need to reform health care, rather than do nothing. i think we need to amend this bill, but not end it. >> there's ran why the president then and his fellow democrats do not want to delay this by, pass
2:52 pm
this for another year. and that is that in january, the subsidies for purchase of insurance kick in for a great many people. and the belief is, based on much history, that once the subsidies begin to be provided and start flowing to people, they will like them. people tend to feel that way about money coming your way. and the unions will -- well, the unions may feel differently about it. the point being, once a government benefit like that begins to flow, history shows that it is very hard, ever, to reverse that. and that that would mean that obama care is here forever, and any chance of ending it is probably over. >> the underlying model for the bill is a competitive model. it was actually invented by republicans. it started with richard nixon. it went on to bob dole, and then it was implemented in massachusetts by mitt romney, where it is not run perfectly. >> i understand all of that. >> this isn't welfare. the point remains, once the subsidies begin, it's more difficult to repeal the bill. >> but the good news the subsidies, they're not checks for people. they're reductions in the
2:53 pm
insurance people pay. they're still going to pay a fair amount. politically, i'm a little more optimistic than ted cruz is that even if some of it goes into effect on january 1st, i think this thing is unpopular and can work poorly enough that it can be repealed. >> if this is any sign of the debate we face over the next 12 legislative days, it's going to be a doozy. thanks for join us, panel. our discussion continues every sunday on panel plus. you can find it on our website. and make sure to follow us on twitter @foxnewssunday. up next, our power player of the week. the unofficial recordkeeper of the presidency. you won't want to miss this.
2:54 pm
2:55 pm
2:56 pm
the president sat down for sit network television interviews monday. it was the most that he had done in a single day. twice before he had sat down for five. this statistic, courtesy of a report that we first introduced you to back in february. here's chris wallace with his power player of the week. >> reporter: the numbers really help tell the story in an important way. >> i'm going to call on mark nolan. where's mark? there you are. >> mr. president -- >> reporter: the numbers, cbs white house correspondent, mark knoller is talking about, are meticulous records he keep on almost everything the president does. think we're exaggerating? >> i keep logs on number of speeches. did he use a teleprompter? how long did the speech run?
2:57 pm
where did he go? how many times has he been there before. number of flights on air force one. number of flights on marine one. >> reporter: we squeezed into knoller's cramped booth in the press room, where he showed us his file on each of the 114 rounds of golf president obama has played. >> i keep logs, what date did he play, how long did he play it, who was in the foursome. what time did the golf game begin? what time did it end? >> reporter: you love this stuff, don't you? >> at least now i've got an aspect of the presidency that pretty much i own. and i like that. >> reporter: and knoller does own it. his colleagues in the press corps come to him to find out how many news conferences the president has held and when national security adviser tom donilon was briefing reporters on the economic summit last year, he deferred to knoller. >> always risk this too presidential historian, mark noer in the room, but i'll do
2:58 pm
this they. at the risk of being corrected immediately. >> how do you feel being the unofficial records keeper of the presidenc presidency? >> well, it certainly wasn't what i set out to do. >> reporter: knoller started his recordkeeping a couple of years into the clinton administration when he noticed the president kept going to california. >> i tried going back to reconstruct how many trips he had made to california and it took all day. >> reporter: so knoller started keeping his own records. he spends 60 to 90 minutes at the end of each day logging every presidential activity. the presidents have noticed. when knoller reported that george w. bush had spent more than a year at his texas ranch, it came up at a white house christmas party. >> i come up to shake his hand and he says to laura, this is the guy who tells everybody how often we go to the ranch and if we get there at 10:00 in the evening, he counts it as a full day. and i corrected him, i don't
2:59 pm
count it as a full day, and he seemed glad to hear that. >> do you think it's a tad obsessive? >> okay, i'm obsessed with doing my job well, doing it thoroughly. you got me. >> reporter: knoller has been covering presidents since jerold ford. at age 60, he's never married. but he has no regrets. is this job, is this roof, is this your family? >> sure. it's my life. i'm able to cover this place exactly on my terms. and i find that very satisfying. >> since we brought you the story in february, the president has added 29 rounds of golf, including 27 holes yesterday. and on a personal note, i sat elbow to elbow with mark knoller in that little booth for seven years and every day of it was a joy. that's it for today. have a great week. we'll see you next "fox news sunday."

275 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on