tv Washington Journal CSPAN September 12, 2013 7:00am-10:01am EDT
house as members consider a bill to stop health care subsidies under the affordable health care act. in 45 minutes, we will discuss recent developments in syria with representative gregory meeks. >> lawmakers wait and watch for a diplomatic solution on syria. and whenion is whether one can be reached. secretary of state john kerry will meet with his russian counterpart today in geneva. that amir putin is reaching out directly to the -- vladimir putin is reaching out directly to the american people. we will begin their with your reaction to president putin's
message to america. republicans 202-585-3881, --ocrats the russian president has put his peace into today costs -- today's op-ed section. important at a time of insufficient communication between our societies. relations between us have passed through different stages. we were allies once and we defeated the not cease together. thennited nations was
established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again. united nations founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should only happen by consensus. america's consent, the veto by security council permanent members was enshrined in the united nations charter. he goes on to say the potential against syria despite strong opposition from many religious leaders including the pope will spread the conflict far beyond syrian borders. it will unleash a new wave of terrorism and undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the iran nuclear problem and the middletabilize east and north africa. systemd throw the entire
of international law and order out of balance. -- from from valve vladimir putin. we want to get your reaction. presidentputin -- what president putin is doing rey on ours to p sympathy. he sees what congress is doing. with the president with everything that the president says. goingesident says, i am right and congress goes left. he is playing on our sympathy. he said it was dangerous for the president to talk about
exceptionalism. it will be interesting. what else is a president supposed to say about his country? everybody thinks their country is exceptional. host: anthony is referring to the last paragraph of president putin's piece. he says, i carefully studied his address to the nation on tuesday. and i would rather disagree on the case he made on american exceptionalism, stating that the is whattates' policy makes america different. exceptionalakes us ." we are all different. when we ask for the lord's blessing, we must not forget that the lord created sequel.
-- the lord created us equal. thomas, go ahead. caller: let me turn my tv down. what is going on here is another like all ofttack the wars we have ever been in, the civil war, all in -- all of them. who is behind it is the private owners of the federal reserve. host: how can you connect the two? history oft recent all of the wars and what had and. the russiansl war, had a fleet of ships on the east and west coast.
that is what stopped the bankers, who started that whole war, from breaking up the country at that time. in the florida -- in florida, democratic caller. nobody goes for a declaration of war anymore. nobody goes to congress to give a resolution of our tea. -- nobodyare going to goes to congress to give a resolution of authority. what they are going to do is assad.ide bang -- qaddafi is out. power.n has the same host: a reminder to you and
others, you have to turn your television down when it is your turn to talk. is from facebook. don't want to hear his propaganda. yet enough of hours. -- ours. we need a states man. there is none to be found. we could be average for a long time. i will takein, america any day over russia. caller: we do not need tobomb syria.- to bomb toust do not think we need trust the muslims anymore in the middle east. we need to stick by israel.
be a little bit right this time. he does not trust the muslim community. the trouble with the muslim community is that they are too violent and they do not tolerate anybody else. they do not tolerate christians. host: you think that is true about all muslims? caller: pretty much. we try to help them in iraq and they turned around and killed us. we try to help them in -- and 9 -- 11.acked us on -- 9-11. them.nnot trust piece.ore from the putin
to use the united nations security council and believe that reserve a law and ways to one of the few keep international relations from sliding into chaos. the law is still the law and we must follow it whether we like it or not. under current international law, force is permitted only in self- defense. anything else is unacceptable under the united nations charter and would constitute an act of aggression. no one doubts poison gas was used in syria. there is every reason to believe it was used by opposition forces to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons. reports that militants are preparing another attack, this time against israel, cannot be ignored. another piece has this headline about the intelligence. ssad directlyk a
to ask a tax. ordered theresident consensus is that inners of mr.assad's circle likely gave the command. the gap in the intelligence has raised debate in some corners of the wider intelligence community as to whether assad has full control over his arsenal of bemical weapons, which can used by terrorist groups known to be operating in syria. an official speaking on the condition of anonymity. that is the latest on the intelligence. california, an
independent caller. go ahead. you are on the air. caller: good morning. -- i am kindtorial of upset to find that i agree with most of it. he is saying what our president should be saying. he has made a fool out of our president and i am embarrassed by this. host: what part do you agree with? he says negotiation versus obviously the little pin prick attack that obama was going to use. i do not agree with the exceptionalism part. we are an exceptional nation. putin did not like this because like --ds veryun-putin-
like.un-putin- of our a fool out president and i am upset about this. secretary of state john kerry is in geneva talking to his russian counterpart. there is action at the united nations as well. what do you think about that? think it is good. it is good that putin is preventing us from going into because obama screwed up so bad on this deal that the united nations will bail us out of this problem. we have no business going into syria. it is a civil war. with the confederates and the -- would the
confederates and that union army like to have england interfere with us? it is ridiculous. the kremlin thinks a u.s. military strike would roil -- east andl the middle expands the conflict beyond syria's borders. the chemical weapons could fall into the hands of radical forces. russia poses as a counterweight to the united states. its diplomatic initiative helps maintain that image. think? you caller: i agree with most of that. i think it is largely correct. once again, i am embarrassed.
the russians are looking better than the americans are on this issue. host: all right, robert. times posted this he's. the united states and russia searched for a diplomatic solution to the crisis over syria's for michael weapons, a rightsson united nations panel presented detailed evidence on wednesday of what is said were war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by pro--government forces and, to a -- fromxtent, rebels
the front page of the washington post, there is this story. the cia has begun delivering .eapons the shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks. a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the u.s. role in the syrian civil war. the shipments are limited to light weapons and began arriving in syria at a moment of heightened tensions over threats by president obama to order missile attacks over the alleged use of chemical weapons. let's go to stephen. what do you think? caller: i trained to use chemical weapons. you have to have a mask and a suit. i do not see how conventional
troops could even use those. qualifiedally well- troops that handle these weapons. host: let me have you stopped right there. you disagree with putin and the front page of the washington times. you think there is no doubt that these were used by assad. anybodyi do not think should evenht mind open that door. you have to test the warehouse to see if they are leaking. as far as putin, there are young syrian men and women rising up in trying to get upward mobility. to stop selling potatoes on the corner or drivintaxicabs all of their lives.
host: young men and women where, it in syria? in syria. this is not a war against a side bang -- assad. if democracy would ever come there, it would provide a stabilizing peace in lebanon and israel. stephen mentioned this is not a religious war. this is the front page of the kuwait times. they have two pieces related to religion. they do a profile in the kuwait u.s. congressman keith ellison, the democrat from minnesota, the first muslim in congress. said, since no other nation
has the appetite or power to resolve global conflicts, washington has to step up to the plate. representative keith ellison says he fully backs president barack obama on whatever action is needed to punish the syrian regime after it used chemical weapons against its own people. piece. another syrian christians forced to convert at gunpoint. those are two stories and the kuwait times. another story, u.s. declares with the russian plan on syrian chemical arms. star, geneva talks to test viability of russian plan on syria.
russia tells u.s. its plan to and syria arms crisis. moscow calls for the geneva conference. secretary of state john kerry and the russian foreign minister our meeting to hammer out a deal for a diplomatic solution for syria. we are getting your reaction for vladimir putin writing in today 's new york times. he says his country is not protecting the syrian government, but protecting international law. e.republican caller, dav you are on the air. i am a senior foreign policy expert. i have a phd from columbia. i do not understand the argument at all from putin. who would listen to putin in the first place? he was the one helping arm has
the law to do the damage they did in syria. he has killed over -- he was the to do theg hezbollah damage in syria. oligarch.n he has a one million square foot mansion. steal money.riends it is absolutely ridiculous. in the united states, i listen and listen. all of these guys talk about our our national security interests. there is a national security interests in making sure chemical weapons are not disbursed to terrorist agencies. we have the power and france and germany and japan and england should be involved to protect
the people of syria who are being massacred by chemical weapons. we stood by and watched what happened to the kurds in iraq. it should never happen again. force.ld not use we can decimate his chemical weapons and put a dent in his strength to crush his people and and keep his presidency by use of force. putin'sat about reference to international law that says you cannot attack unless it is in self-defense or unless there is a decision by the security council? caller: what was russia thinking when they attacked and invaded afghanistan? said they will go to the united nations and ask them. .utin will veto it
he is on the security council. chinarowley will, -- probably will, too. -- ineve in national international law. i think we should try it but i do not have hoped for it. in the end, i think they should go in there and do strategic attacks to weekend the syrian regime. the white house is saying they refuse to put a timeline on these diplomatic negotiations. i did not hear that. who said that? somebody in the president's group said they will not put a timeline on doing diplomatic negotiations? yes. this is the new york times this morning. on wednesday, white house officials refused to set a
timeline on any agreement in geneva or subsequent action on a resolution to enforce the deal. the russians have sent the americans a written proposal on assad'shandle mr. sdd chemical weapons, but it lacks detail on how the stockpile of chemical weapons would be destroyed. realistically, to do the things about stock piling -- it is not going to happen. he will not let people in there need.manitarian he is going to say, bring all of your technical people and i will show you all of my chemical weapons and you can get back to me and let me know and you can howre them and let me know
we are going to disseminate that chemical weapons. host: a little bit more on the u.s. -- on they new york times piece. complexity is the reality that even if a deal is reached, it would take a year or more to distort syria's chemical stores. syria's chemical stores. it would take at least 200-300 weapons androl the short of destruction make them unusable. this comes as president vladimir putin writes in the new york times this morning a message to american people. a plea for caution from russia is the headline. that may goes to colorado. hello, clarence.
what are your thoughts? thoughts are that putin is not defending the syrian government. he is defending truth and righteousness. the biggest problem we have on these types of issues when they come up is the united states veterans and the u.s. service members. they are the biggest problem and the threat to the world. they take an oath to defend our constitution. this is what makes obama and our government look so bad, because our military members will not defend our constitution. they will defend politicians that do not have the interests of this nation or the world at heart. other news this
morning, lawmakers wait and watch for some sort of diplomatic solution. they are moving onto to other legislative items. a washington post reports on the budget. house gop pushes vote on budget to next week. saidlican house leaders they would postpone until next a provision to cut all funding for president obama's signature health care initiative. the treasury also faces potential default as soon as october 18. house speaker john boehner says he wants to avoid a shutdown and a default, but deep division in republican ranks have left them scrambling for strategy that the
majority of his caucus would embrace. party extends its focus beyond economic issues to include the syria strike. tea party groups outside of washington and within washington have come out against military strikes in syria. front page of the los angeles times this morning. brown wants a minimum wage boost. moverare effort to legislation more quickly, governor jerry brown asked for a boost in the minimum wage. the arizona republic reports that health care rates are unveiled.
$225-334 dollars is the average monthly cost of health care care act.affordable when president obama informed cio last month, he said the administration would propose measures to reduce workplace exposure to disease causing silica dust. anger under mr. obama's health-care law and provisions surrounding it, especially postponement of an employer mandate to ensure coverage for workers and the potential effects of the coming health insurance exchanges. president obama will meet with the labor leader. week in los angeles, the labor leaders criticize the
administration and congress while praising the overall legislation. the delegates passed a sharply- worded resolution that proposed changes to some of its regulations. back to our topic for all of you. vladimir putin, the russian a piece inenning the new york times saying he wants us to respect international law. what do you think? listen i think we should to mr. putin. we have never liked any president of russia. that includes gorbachev, yeltsin. we are primarily the world's aggressors. i think barack obama should do what the democrats want and that is stay out of war. host: jack, a republican caller.
hi, jack. caller: i backed the president of the united states all day, every day. the million-dollar question might be, why does russia want chemical weapons all of the sudden. gamey be a dangerous chess when we start moving chemical weapons around. we should look at it a little more closely. we should back our president no matter what he does. king in news bill jersey. he writes, the most important part is the last paragraph when he writes about american exceptionalism. it's something that many on the right have perverted in two american arrogance. it is one of the reasons much of the world cannot stand us. person writes, i cannot
find one thing i disagree with in mr. putin's message to americans. writes, potus is so weak he grabs for putin's all for like a johnny man grabs for a lifeline. todayir putin writes in grabs for putin like a drowning man grabs for a lifeline. some of the headlines for you. the washington post. sa -- theuestions then nsa data collection program. two local members in colorado losing their seats over gun
now dead legislation declared any federal policies that infringe on the people's right to bear arms. activists say they will not quit. on immigration, there is a story in usa today about putting border sheriffs -- about border sheriffs. the house and senate spent months to secure the border with mexico. the sheriff that helps control saysearly 2000 mile border both approaches are seriously misguided. from 17 borderts sheriffs interviewed by usa today. one sheriff saying congress has not asked for their opinion when crafting this legislation. they have every organization up there except for law enforcement.
mexico -- this new mexico sheriff said if we could express our concerns and would shed some light on these issues. on the nsa, immigration, health care, and the budget are sure to come up. go ahead, cheryl. caller: i am and independent of --voter. a republican and a democrat. now i am independent because nothing is working in congress. we are on a global chessboard. we have to pay attention. media is the message. have open discussions on all of this. putin is in a back corner. we are winning in this chessboard game. carry, backback
hillary clinton. back hillary clinton. i am 79 years old. i went through world war roman two. war roman numeral -- world war ii. we are all patriots. that is why i am and independent. host: all right. let's go to tom in new jersey, a democratic caller. hello, tom. world: we live in a turned upside down. here is putin in his op-ed referencing the pope. he is the head of a con -- a communist country.
had hillaryhia we clinton received the medal of freedom award. .ere is putin i saw him in the chrissy -- in the cathedral. this is madness. i can really not understand what is happening. host: there are some in congress who are wondering when and if this diplomatic solution will come into play. here is the wall street journal this morning. has calledresident for a pause, i hoped it would be more like 48 hours.
he said diplomacy could take 72 hours or a bit longer. it would take only a short period of time to determine if the talks with russia could yield an agreement. mr. obama told senators that he wanted them to continue working on a solution that would call diplomacyry force if failed. the officials didn't put a timeline on renewed diplomatic negotiations. also this morning syria, obama reportedly reaching out to the new leadership in tehran. that is having a diminishing tensions between the u.s. and iran. also, we covered a hearing on c- span recently with a scholar whose evidence was cited by
john kerry and senator john mccain. we learned yesterday that she had been fired. a woman secretary of state john cited for evidence has been fired from her think tank for lying about her academic credentials. she did not have a doctorate from georgetown university contrary to her representations. she did not respond to requests for comments. 26-year-old found herself at the center of a brewing neediest storm last week after two congressional hearings in which john kerry and john mccain cited an august 30 opinion article she had written for the wall street journal. of -- their best evidence
and that the syrian opposition trying to overthrow resident assad is not rife with al qaeda -linked extremists. with news outlets poring over her record and question her ties to syrian opposition groups. timesas in the washington this morning. we have about five minutes left to get your take on what vladimir putin had to say in his message to america in the new york times this morning. a program note to all of you. to be angoing intelligence and national security summit. rogers, who is the republican chairman of the thelligence committee and
congressman from maryland -- we will be covering that starting at the top of the hour at 8:00 a.m. be attending will that summit as well. he will be talking at 1:30 p.m. eastern time. we will be covering that on c- and on c-span radio. after james clapper speaks, michael flynn will be speaking. we will have continuing coverage on c-span 3 and c-span radio. -- floyd, a republican caller. you give me a minute or two to explain what i am saying. i wish more americans were literate on the bible. and jacob for brothers.
they were in the book of genesis. essau was hated from the beginning. somebody on your e-mails said god loved america and there was a reason for it. somebody said how could god hate a baby? there is a battle that is found in ezekiel around chapter nerdy. that is when russia -- around chapter 30. that is when russia came down against us. were called the caucasians then. host: how does that all relate --today? caller:
chapterit relates to 13. we are in that in time right now. all of these things are coming to pass -- we are in thatend time -- that end time right now. host: thank you. former presidents jimmy carter writes military strikes won't work. he says there needs to be a successful international effort. caller fromndent springfield virginia -- from springfield, virginia. caller: thank you for taking my call.
putin is the one who is giving them all kinds of web and. --all kinds of weapons. he says we have to go to the international community. go to the international community before he attacked deutsche? georgia? he attacked no. tampa, florida, democratic caller. what do you think? i am surprised that it assad against our president.
the republicans have been campaigning so hard against him saying he is not american. the democrats have never protect his back. him on them are against this issue. that is my opinion. a couple more headlines before we wrap up this discussion about vladimir putin's piece in the new york times. shares a vision for the consumer protection agency. ofis focused on regulation debt collection and prepaid cards. he will be testifying on capitol hill this morning about what sort of regulations are coming from his agencies. we will be covering that. go to our website. story forpolitical
you. front page of the washington post. to -- d.c.ve linked executive linked to secret 2008 two clinton. to interviews and court documents, jeffrey thompson, a former contractor who allegedly financed a secret inpaign for then send gray 2010, financed and independent effort to reach urban voters on behalf of clinton in texas. brianna, you are of next, a republican caller. what do you -- brianne -- brian, you are up next, a republican caller. what do you think of the message from vladimir putin?
i think obama is the weakest president since jimmy carter. i think we should have gotten him out sooner or we would not be in this position. i just wanted to say that and thank you for taking my call. host: this debate over syria continues in washington. if you go to our website, c- /syria, you can see all of the documents. we will continue to cover all of the relevant hearings.
our conversation continues about syria. coming up next, we will talk to to members of congress. later, a republican of new york and an iraq veteran will give us his perspective. we will be right back. yes, the world is changing. we cannot control every event. america remains the one indispensable nation and world affairs. as long as i am president, i intend to keep it that way. >> when the president is talking about us being the indispensable nation, what he does not want americans to contemplate is we do not know how to win wars. in the the best military
world. we spend more on our military than the rest of the world put together. what we do not know how to win wars. there should be a serious national conversation. why is that the case? where does the fault lie? is it our politicians that are too stupid? is it the size of the forces? belief,, and this is my that by its very nature, war is unpredictable? to go to war is to roll the dice. you might win and you might not. >> more with retired army colonel tonight at 8 p.m. on c- span's "q & a." a commercial ever
venture. they did not try to be self- sufficient. was basically to offset the expense of living there. they did raise hay. feed their could horses to reduce the cost of having horses here. they had a lovely garden that produced everything from corn to strawberries. eight different kinds of grapes. they had strawberry and blueberry fields. the idea was to see the family and the staff and reduce the cost of maintaining a property like this. program on edith saturday at 7 p.m. eastern. next monday, we look at first lady helen taft. "washington journal" continues.
>> gregory meeks is here. let's begin with the president's speech. what did you think. that the regime of president assad has used chemical weapons. we are going to give diplomacy a shot. the military force that we have has brought them to the bargaining table. we have to have a multilateral response to figure out how we can do this diplomatically. -- military is not a resolution to the problem. they have to be sitting at the table. i am hopeful that the president
send john kerry to geneva. i think it changes the conversation to give us at least a window of opportunity. a number of things can happen as a result of that. think the president is telling the american people the truth. it is easy to hype a war. but trying to get the american people to believe there is an imminent threat. it is hard sometimes when you tell the truth. the president told us the truth. there is no imminent threat. we can take our time. let them know that we are not going to allow you to use typical weapons. in a fashion that also gives diplomacy an opportunity.
timelineuld there be a on how long these negotiations can go on capital. -- can go on? guest: what you want to do is make sure the rest of the world is also engaged. for the first time in a long time, the members of the security council our meeting. the conversation that took place in geneva. that was not happening. the president was trying to work so that we could try to get the russians on board because we trying in syria. the timetable should be an internal timetable. if russia andsee
mr. putin are telling the truth or just stalling for time. host: where were you on the vote for a military strike and where are you now? yesterday i was -- i was undecided before the president's speech and i am undecided now. the united states cannot be the one doing the strikes with no one else. we went into bosnia. we had nato with us. the whole libya situation, we had the arabwe league. we had the u.n. at that particular point. we have to have more engagement. i am undecided. he i am an attorney by
profession. i am an attorney by profession. we do not know what is going to take lace at the u.n. for me to say i would vote gain or name without the facts does yay ore sense -- vote maine -- nay does not make sense. trust vladimir putin? is a window of opportunity to have him deliver. if he does not deliver, or world will see that he is just trying to delay and protect -- the world will see that he is just trying to delay and protect syria. i think it is important to have
him at the table. now let's see if he is serious or not. host: if the world sees he has blocked any resolution that comes up, does it make it easier for you to vote yes? multilateralhave a coalition and the world sees that he is not serious about having results and he is trying to protect syria and it is just talk, if the world says to the united states, we are with you, i am with what the world consensus is. i am with the president. one of the things that has become questionable is that there is no question chemical weapons were utilized. you can look at the video. there is no doubt in my mind
about chemical weapons being utilized and that it was ssad regime.the a , the assadst time government is saying, we will give them up. that is admitting that they have them. now we have an admission that they have chemical weapons. in the and ofss itself. -- in and of itself. host: let's get elizabeth involved. can your. meeks, answer a question on how your constituency is doing after the flood?
you and i watched a minister that was helping the people in an area where they were really struggling in an apartment building. my statement is this. why are we dealing with the weapons of mass destruction down there in d.c.? the people who are blocking jobs, education, health care, --imum wage, sequestration all of those weapons of mass destruction. the injustice system, gun control. i do not care if the world says we are on board. what about your constituency? what if they say they do not want you on board, then what? host: i will leave it there.
i will have the congressman respond. what if your constituency still says no? you will vote against what the majority of your constituency wants you to do? guest: my constituency elected me to get information and to bring back to them what that information is to the degree that i can and to make a decision based upon information notering, not just to say to do it. ' understand my constituents concerns. take into deep consideration the concerns of my constituents. what are the concerns? they are concerned about not getting into another iraq.
they are concerned about us having false information because of what took lace in iraq. -- what took place in iraq. of the questions i am asking, i am asking them with the concerns of my constituents. i am trying to get some answers that we -- to make sure we are not going to get into another war that we will be in for nine years. my job is.t i have to make sure those things are there. the facts andd on the evidence i have up trained. tell your constituents and our viewers why you do not trust vladimir putin. we had our viewers react to what he had written in the new york times this morning. they agreed said
with what he was writing. why don't you trust him? have been trying to have a negotiated seller meant that theugh i agree conversation should be had that he talked about it is op-ed pie ce. he talked about the democracy in russia. -- is thatlked about freedom? you are talking about the prejudice against gays. you talk about deep orders who get -- deporters they get locked up. you cannot talk at of both sides of your mouth. we can talk back. hopefully we can move forward.
i think that is a conversation that needs to be had and i think it is important. many of my constituents say that the united states should not be the police of the whole world. that means we need other countries to stand up on issues also. we need countries in the security council to be more partners in moving forward. the world is much more than it used to be. ony have to look inward also what the democracies are or what their policies are and to try to correct them and we can move forward in a positive way. host: we have a couple of comments on twitter. guest: then the answer both of
those questions. i do not think mr. putin is seen as a hero. i have talking to some of my allies. they are also looking at him with bated breath to see whether he will live up to something or not. everybody was talking about getting the world more engaged and more involved. that is what i am hoping is happening now. it would not have happened but for the stance that the president took. -- easiest thing to do is to it is more difficult to try to down andence, to sit have talking dialogue to resolve an issue. we used to go to that all the time at school.
ityou throw the first punch, is a fight. it takes more to step back and say, "let's figure this out. if you hit me, i have to do what i got to do." that is courageous on behalf of the president. ast: was the president schoolyard boy by drawing a line in the sand? guest: he was talking and he said that was a red line for the world. we come in as a student body, for example. we say that something is a bad act for the whole school. nobody should commit this act for the whole school. "we are not going to allow this to happen because you are hurting the entire school."
is the same thing here. is the same thing here. you cannot allow someone to utilize chemical weapons when you note it is bad for the rest of the world. we have to come together and in force eight. not just the united states is going to react. the entire world is going to react. it is not just one person. host: we will go to tom. hi, tom. caller: hello. i would like to speak with mr. meeks. has anyone considered if a --sile was fired into syria the cloud that dispersed all over syria? what is going to happen there?
how is the world going to view us then? i am sure he probably was in the congress and believed president bush when he talked about weapons of mass destruction in iraq that has proven to be a lie. forges on lying to congress using performance enhancing drugs that hurt no one but himself. president who lies to congress and no one wants to talk about that. host: ok, time. congressman meeks. targethaving a -- the would not be one of the chemical facilities because of the danger and injuring other individuals.
that would not take place. if there was a strike, there would not be a strike on the chemical weapons themselves. that would cause a greater danger. we know that chemical weapons were utilized. you do not have to try to say that we think that it happened. we know that they were utilized. it has been technology by the russian and syrian governments that they have them. --it seems that mr. putin does not deny that they were utilized by the syrian government. host: well, he does. used by opposition forces. guest: he does not go into any deeper concept as to where he has that proof.
to me, that is a throwaway line trying to protect their ally. if they have substantial proof that it was utilized by the rebels, he would be going into detail, "this is how you know it was utilized by the rebels." he has to say this because syria is basically his client. you try to negotiate the best deal. that is what he's trying to do. host: douglas is next, nashville, tennessee. good morning. you are on the air. caller: i do agree with your guest this morning. i believe we should do all we can to pursue peace and not use military force unless we have
to. they want to be sure. i believe they are on the right path. we should back our president. we should not care who gets the job done because we all should have a common interest in getting weapons of mass distraction out of our wars. guest: i agree. there is no question about military strength. nobody should question how strong we are. we have the strongest military in the world. with great power comes great responsibility and also great restraint. i think that is what the president is trying to do here. they know we have the capability to do what we say.
let's see if we can engage the rest of the world so we can have a peaceful world. the world is much smaller than it used to be. have everybody involved in diplomacy and let's see if we can move forward. let's give it a chance. host: george, a republican. caller: i wanted to say good morning. thank you for taking my call. thank you for c-span. i wanted to remind everybody russiania -- the president's comments need to be viewed with great caution. syria's weapon systems are russia weapons systems. russia sent helicopters and weapons to syria. it was all in the news how they
would go ahead with weapons sales to syria during the middle of the civil war. republicans are ready to hold obama to his red line statement. let's hold putin to his editorial. we want to hundred thousand armed u.n. troops in their. we want syria to stand down -- in there. with line to secure these things. we want to secure these things. i would like to take your comments off the year. guest: i could not agree with you more. if we want peace, russia has to be at the table. they are the suppliers of many of the weapons that syria has. we will resolve this with russia
at the table. word.hope mr. putin his i am a cochair of the russian caucus in washington. i intend to have the russian ambassador to talk to members of congress and let him know that we want mr. putin to stand up to his word. i would hope we would send a delegation over to russia to talk to some of the russian palm and terrines to let them know how we feel -- to some of the russian parliamentarians. get these chemical weapons out of the syrians and into the hands of an international force that can take them and eventually destroy them. host: we have yet to hear from the russian ambassador. this debate has been going on for a couple of weeks. guest: we are just getting back
this week. this is the first week back for congress. i am looking forward to meeting with him and reaching out. he seems willing to have a conversation. i hope it takes place some time next week. caller: i just have two observations. it surprises me that you would put it on the russian president to come into congress and give his word and speak with you when the president has not come on the hill to speak to the house, from what i understand. talk toident should the house as opposed to putting it on the russians. our government has failed in the past two and half years to educate the american people on
what is going on with syria as opposed to coming in at the 11th hour to say this is why you should care and trust us. americans do not trust the government right now. nobody wants to educate. someone should explain to the americans why we should care more about syria and the middle east when the middle east doesn't care about destroying themselves or people with a shared interest or religion. how can you expect us to take the higher road and say we care about you more than you know? we treat them as if they are a given --as if they are ignorant. guest: the president has reached out. i met with the president and vice president.
he has been meeting with members of congress on both the house and senate side. they had been available. in lot of the classified information is open for members. that he wanted to make sure he talked to the american people on the heels of coming back from g 20. saying the president by he wanted to bring this to congress wants an open dialogue and to talk to members of congress. i think the president has shown strong leadership and is done that. that is why we are having the debate today. otherwise we would not be having the debate. i believe the president have the wherewithal to just do the strike himself. but staying on this to the american people, he did not see there was an imminent threat so he said let's have a dialogue.
to me, that his leadership and doing it the hard way. i think the president has been very clear in what he stated to the american people. an international norm was violated. even with the strike, is not going to tip the balance one way or another. it is a civil war. of ane it is a violation international standard and when you look at the heinous actions of chemical weapons and what it does so bad that we have this convention, and of the sake of theanity, try to get the -- united states tries to get the rest of the world to stand with you and we will not allow individuals to utilize them go weapons. citesvladimir putin
international law in his op-ed. we have a tweet from one of our viewers. about then you talk violation of an international law, the utilization of chemical weapons, 189 countries have signed onto that. syria had not signed onto that. the president put a threat and they may want to join the convention, which will be good. 189ause of that -- those countries are stating this is an evil act and an act that we cannot tolerate. therefore you have to pay for that. i believe it should be done in a
multilateral way and not in a unilateral way. then it is all of the countries that are part of this convention in the international community. it is not a red line for the united states but for the entire international community. they are standing together and saying we are not going to allow something so inhumane as the utilization of chemical weapons to exist. at doing some of your thoughts -- echoing some of your thoughts. john in savannah, georgia, you're up next. go ahead. caller: good morning. the serious outbreak first happened, the president was against supplying -- when the
syria outbreak first happened, the president was against supplying weapons. with his red line drawn, he was speaking for america. was not sudden congress behind the president anymore. can you explain why? guest: i agree that some in congress, especially on the republican side, if the president says a, they say z. they are playing politics. i would hope none of us play politics in the utilization of our military. this is such a serious issue. the hardest votes i ever had to take in congress are vote on whether or not to utilize our
military. it causes me at times not to sleep at night. i have to get all of the information i possibly can get to make that decision. for thes i use -- voted utilization of force and sometimes i voted against it. i have to get the entirety of everything to make the determination of how i'm going to vote. you have to ask those individuals -- some were for it and some were against it. i would hope there constituents will look at how serious they are making their determination on what to do and not just playing politics with the issue. host: help explain a front-page story in "the the washington times." quotes anad inside, he
intelligent person saying if there was a rogue general that did it on his own accord, that would be a bigger problem for assad. the intelligence is not clear that the order came from assad himself. guest: i cannot go into a lot of the in depth information i know because it is classified. but from the information i know, wasnd it highly --if i trying the case --i think the language the secretary of state is correct. the evidence would show beyond a that thee doubt weapons were utilized by assad
and it wasn't by some rogue general. if it was a world general -- he hasa rogue general -- but the whole country at stake, in with his allies being russia. the evidence i have been able to indicatesok at, to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the assad regime knew what was taking place. , thank youry meeks for your time this morning. we will talk with chris gibson about his opposition to force in syria. we will get that perspective next. in other news, labor department divides weekly update on first-time claims for unemployment benefits.
freddie mac will tell us about weekly mortgage rates. initiated foreclosure action against the fewest u.s. homes for any month in nearly eight years in august. they should help reduce the number of homes lost foreclosure in the months ahead. the national slowdown starts -- lects and improving housing market. today the national park service launches a new website for teachers that will provide lesson plans from the national parks throughout the country. national park service director jonathan jarvis will unveil the new website today in maryland. he will join a social studies class as they travel virtually to the grand canyon for a lesson with national park rangers.
more on syria coming up on the "washington journal." >> yes, the world is changing. we cannot control every event. america remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs. as long as i am president, i intend to keep it that way. >> when the president is talking about us being the indispensable nation, what he does not want americans to contemplate is we do not know how to win wars. we have the best military in the world. we spend more on our military than the rest of the world put together. but we do not know how to win wars.it seems to me that there should be a serious national conversation. why is that the case? where does the fault lie? is it our politicians are too stupid?is if our generals are inept?
is it the size of the forces? or is it, and this is my belief, that by its very nature, war is unpredictable? to go to war is to roll the dice. you might win and you might not. >> more with retired army colonel andrew bacevich sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q&a." continues. journal" host: we want to welcome back to our table chris gibson of new york. your reaction to what the president had to say tuesday night. guest: i and encourage he will continue to pursue the diplomatic track. we are looking for a peaceful resolution to the civil war and that these chemical weapons do not end up in the hands of al qaeda. there is a lot of work ahead of
us. that there is a few points that he made that did concern me. that he ist he said coming to the congress to a vote. i think that was the right thing to do. he said he did not need to. is clear the people's representatives are the ones that are supposed to be on record declaring war, authorizing the use of force. there is an exception for a national emergency. may the commander in chief implement force. none of those circumstances are met here. i believe the president needs to come to the congress for authorization.
i appreciate that he did come to congress. the president was making a point where he said if we do not bring forward force, then we will be looking the other way. i disagree. we stand up and condemn this and say it is on acceptable. --then we say it is unacceptable. that we tighten the pressure on regime and get into yields. . that will bring a mediated settlement and it is a form of punishment. this leader is compelled the concession.ld to is that ihird thing do not agree with the risk assessment of the administration. administration assesses
low risk. that is not my read. i have had multiple contact chores to iraq. country, we this will change the international calculus. we need to bring to bear diplomatic pressures. we also will change the dynamic on the ground. we will unite muslims against us. we could impact the command and control for the chemical weapons. that could be forces getting control of the chemical weapons. host: it sounds like you're a no vote no matter what. guest: i am a no given the circumstance. if serious strikes the united states, that is another matter.
our best chance for the outcome in our best interest and the world is to continue on the diplomatic track. host: what kind of sanctions are there against syria right now? guest: there is basically three types of sanctions that we have right now. in 2004, this had to do with manufactured goods. anything over 10% manufactured in the united states is not to be treated with syria. the second came along with the patriot act. that targeted the syrian commercial bank. the third is individuals that we think are associated with al qaeda. we look at their financial arrangements. most economists assess there are 24 different institutions that are involved in moving financial services for syria.
i think that is a good start but we could do much more. to regime has about $24 billion abroad. just the way money moves inside syria. when we are doing this unilaterally, it is making a statement. it is not making the impact we want to have. we have the u.k. and canada with us now on some of these sanctions. these are not sanctions that can make a difference on the decision-making for assad. host: how do they compare to our sanctions against iran? guest: we have taken a broader look at their institutions. we are targeting their ability to move capital inside and outside the country. we have taken a stronger stance on assets abroad.
when i have heard we haven't done enough yet on diplomacy -- some people say we have given diplomacy a try. now we have to use military action. i do not agree. i think we have much more to do. especially when you consider the downsides that will occur if we strike the country. our best shot is staying on the diplomatic track. host: there is an editorial today from "the washington times." you have "the wall street saying nowsterday there is no punishment for using chemical weapons. guest: we are more towards the beginning of diplomacy. there has been some activity here.
talkse this geneva one from the summer of 2012. that included a number of nations. we brought forward the beginnings of what could be geneva 2. there has been some diplomatic activity. the president has a panoply of responsibility. i have not pointing the finger at his deficiency. we have more to do. we have to put some effort. we should condemn what is going on in syria. not only the use of chemical weapons but the fact that he has people in his own country. i want to see us bring along more nations and heightened these sanctions and target more specifically the way that they
move money. they are not looking to live --ke shaker i think if we ratchet up the pressure on assad and his regime, he is going to yield. he may leave. if he has that option. that is up to the syrian people. that is not up for us to decide. we should condemn what happened and work to change it. host: barbara, thank you for waiting. caller: good morning. the bombs and guns of today that are used in war are equally weapons of mass distraction as any chemical weapons are. i do not understand. killed with00
bombs. that is our congress know how we are involved in this civil war already? we are supporting the rebels with military aid. to recognize that to be an illegal intervention -- do we recognize that to be an illegal intervention? the world sees our hypocritical look at that area. israel should be able to bomb other countries around them. they can have a nuclear weapon. they are ok. they are a democracy. we must intervene in any islamic nation and start killing people. guest: thank you for calling in. rebels,point not aiding
i agree. i was on the show a couple months ago with peter welsh. arming the rebels is an act of war. think of another nation providing assistance to rebel groups in attacking us. we would view that as an act of war. we both work very hard to get a vote on that. the amendment was ruled out of order. i voted against the rule, which you do not see very often on a parliamentary vote. this was something so important that i thought we needed to have a vote on. we need to think and act differently around the world and recognize that our greatest strength is our ideas.
other countries want to be like us. about three different different thisries -- i have seen time and time again. they admire the way our political system is set up to promote freedom. strengthrom that core and leveraging that with diplomacy, that is enormous influence. i do not think we are using the way we should. with regard to the distinction between chemical and conventional weapons, i agree with you. i am encouraged by this talk that we are now in with russia in geneva. it should not just be the focus on chemical weapons. yieldnot want assad to
with chemical weapons but continues to kill 100,000 of his own people. andatchet up the pressure we get a peaceful resolution by getting assad to yield. host: stephen in connecticut. caller: i would like to look at the big picture. syria chemicalld weapons. how were we to think we would make an arrangement to take them away? who is to say they will not sell them more weapons after they get them back? it is absurd. even dealing with them is a joke. i think our president needs to go back to the joint board. view of would say my international relations is for informed by the idea that
countries have interests and in this case, we can find ways to have overlapping interests where we can take concerted action together. not on all issues. i have long said and believe interests in russia's to see a mediated settlement in the syrian civil war. the idea there would be an element of the regime compelled to make concessions allows russia to have influenced in syria in that region. if the assad regime completely goes, they run the risk of having no influence. i would say the last thing mr. putin wants to see is those chemical weapons getting loose and showing up in chechnya are the places.
i do not want to overstate this. there is enough overlapping interest for us to work with russia. it has to be verified every step of the way. i think we work towards these common interests. we verify every step of the way. i think we can make a difference. with regard to chemical weapons --we should demand that the warring factions have a seat at the table and we getting brokered settlement. host: this on twitter. guest: what i am saying is -- i syria,the situation in
looking at it from where we are today and what our options are. if we strike the country, we will change the international calculus. interest tosia's begin to work with us. if we bomb the country, they may haveoff and say, "you broken it and it is yours." it weakens us from the standpoint of bringing together the international nations to bring about a peaceful solution. not to mention the thing on the chemical weapons. looking at all of our potential courses of action, we have a less likelihood of achieving if we use military. i oppose the use of military force.
host: there are the reports went often. kosovo comes up what are the similarities and differences? guest: there is constitutional, diplomatic, and military. there are differences on all three levels. there was a senate vote in the case of kosovo. it was bipartisan and action took place the next day. we never had a vote in the house. you see presidents from both parties take the country off to war without addressing congress. i have a bill about this. 383.ave hr- i believe we should stay consistent with the founding principles that the people getting voice in the use of force.
i just want to draw that distinction. you had a vote in the senate with kosovo. we have not had a vote in either. i think the president was right to come to the congress. the second is diplomatic. it was more extensive in kosovo, the diplomatic efforts. we have yet to put together a substantial international coalition to make a difference in syria. there has been some diplomatic activity but we have much further to go. there are key distinctions. look in kosovo. involved0 nations coming to the assistance of a majority who were being oppressed and abused by a
minority. we intervened on behalf of of muslims. we are talking about striking a regime in the case of syria. i think that is going to have an impact on our relations across the region. when folks say is going to be like kosovo, i do not agree. on the 11th of september in 2001, in the cities in kosovo rallies.e pre-u.s. if we strike, you will not see pro-u.s. rallies. host: jean is next. you're on the air. caller: to representative gipson. gibson.
they were talking about a war, strictly air war. no troops on the ground. i am a vietnam veteran. you cannot have a war without putting troops on the ground. it is impossible. we could have fought vietnam strictly by air without a lot of loss on the ground. guest: i generally agree. when you look at this comprehensively, we have a ake.red end st when you consider courses of action --you have to look at courses of action in their entirety. this is why my assessment on the military course of action, i
sent we would have a lot of agreement here. the minute you strike the that with thehink regime will do is they will use chemical weapons against and deny it. this is what they have done. if they use chemical weapons again, where does that put us? to your point, we could find ourselves as collating because u.s. prestige would be on the line because we use military force. i am concerned about that kind of escalation. i was a young man in the gulf initiated.at effort hussein started throwing scuds at israel. he realized the strategic forces, this could be a massive defeat for him.
so he struck israel. we were advancing to get that coalition to crumble. the soviet union was still in existence then. i am concerned if we strike syria, there is more than just low risk. we could see an escalation and potentially a strike on israel. i do not want a threat inversely affecting them. host: we are talking about receptors in --representative christopher gibson. the militaryear in and served in iraq and kosovo. kevin is up next. go ahead. caller: good morning.
might another they are affiliated with each other. why is the republican party -- i think the republican party is more in danger because they do not do anything for our country and the disrespect our president, which makes him seem weak. they should be brought up on because theyelves have done nothing but disrespect this whole country. look, the general point the caller is making, i agree. i do not agree with the assessment. i try to lead by example. what i can do is one day at a time lead by example. go and lookline and at my bills, you will see they
are bipartisan bills. i have republicans and democrats call offering my bills with me. if you were to google my remarks on the floor of the house, in many cases i have been supporting bipartisan efforts. that is because i believe we need to put service first. i recognize that i am one person but i can make a difference one day at a time. the president has shown good judgment in leadership and i have supported him. i have been careful in this case. i am not pointing a finger at him for his deficiency. uniting our country and uniting the world in condemning this action and working to tie the sanctions and get the assad regime to yield to concessions. i think this is possible.
some people say where has diplomacy ever gotten us? saw the purpleu revolution, you saw the ed of nd of the cold war. that was without a shot. the berlin wall came down. we had country after country decide communism was not their preferred political system. we did that without firing a shot. see the incredible difference that dr. martin luther king jr. made in our country and in the world. you see the possibilities of standing firm on principle and bringing people to your side. i think this is possible here. i hope the caller would join me in praying for our country and hoping for more unity.
host: on your call for sanctions, richard other tweets in this. guest: i disagree. we are beginning to see changes in iran. the latest sanctions we have put in place, we have seen a change in the leadership in iran. i think you have seen some evidence of movement on the regime. the regime seems more open to these discussions then not. our relationsat over the course of the cold war, we had a persistent stand and some, the facto that the world would change so significantly without a war. from a coret strength of promoting human rights and freedom and sticking
to that in a peaceful w, absolutely. i believe we can change. iran tensionsd easing." that is starting to thaw. guest: the president has been clear on that. have nuclear capability and we have been clear on that and i want to see us continue to enforce the sanctions. i think are very targeted at their ability to move money inside their country and externally. we have put together some onerous sanctions on the movement of capital. host: pat from irvine, california. caller: good morning. i have a bad feeling about all
of this. i realized just before obama was eelected and that he was at -- he was on tv with an open microphone. getaid, just wait until i into office. [indiscernible] i have a terrible feeling about what happened. i think it is a big set up. host: referring to the conversation with medvedev and president obama. guest: i would go back to the interest for our country and russia. i think in this case with syria it is our interest to get a peaceful resolution to the civil war and to see these chemical weapons be secured. it would be helpful to have some
kind of organization other than the syrian regime to have control over these chemical weapons. i think russia has similar interests. explore where- these potentially interests may overlap, that we can get enforceable agreements in place that can be verified. i just think we have to find where our overlapping interests are and make sure there is an ability to verify each of these points. host: would you make of vladimir ed?in's op- guest: well, look. he is going to communicate in a way that he thinks he gets the most of his interests.
the track record here is not a good one when it comes to their involvement in other countries across the world and their relations. we talk specifically about who provided the chemical weapons. they are trying to position themselves in a strong place. the timing is not coincidental. i believe that we will do this and not be distracted by some of these plays. know exactly where we want to end up and get these challenging negotiations and never lose sight of vision of where we want to be. at that does not distract me. host: if there was a vote for , ittary strikes against
has been said that we need to get rid of sequestration. if i vote yes on strikes, we have to do away with sequestration when it comes to the pentagon. do you agree with that? guest: i will be voting no if there is a vote. i assume there is not a major change to the array of factors. if serious strikes our country, that is a different -- if syria strikes our country, that is a different thing. i think we need a progrowth replacement for the sequester, so any kind of activity in the congress, i agree with. next, independent caller. mark. hi,m caller: do you have a redline
about how many deaths you would tolerate? guest: i think any death is a tragedy. we should focus our efforts -- i was listing the set of sanctions we have in place right now. i think they can be much more stringent. theeed to bring to bear weight of the international community. we have these sanctions against the syrian central bank. we have not put effective sanctions across the financial institutions, much less the money that can be frozen internationally. given their close relationship with russia. any negotiations with russia, we need to work towards them to be with us. i see where you're going with your question.
i watch the images on tv and i am deeply saddened and outraged. i am responsible for making a wise choice. if we strike militarily, we are going to make matters worse. no matter how outraged i am were deeply saddened, i have to deal with the reality that i am in. our best way to get a peaceful is to stay on this diplomatic track and i believe we can make a difference. is,n we get to the end of th i believe we will be in a stronger position to make a difference in the region. a lasting peace between israel and palestine is critically important to that region.
if we bomb that country, we put ourselves in a weaker position to get that outcome. if we can get this done diplomatically, i think we are in a stronger position. rob is watching in stockton, california. caller: a lot of our brethren in andt will be beheaded killed. nobody is talking about egypt. we lost half a million people in our civil war. death comes with civil war. i agree with you that we should not get involved there militarily. it is going to stir things up worse. let them work it out themselves. we have a viable option. a peaceful option lets america out gracefully.
nobody said anything about the chemical weapons that were over in iraq. may the george bush was correct. maybe they got trucked over into syria. money was being trucked over. that is all i have to say. guest: thank you. linda make a couple of points -- let me make a couple of points. we need to be getting better, learning from our experiences. what is relevant in relation to your comment is when you look at and then you look at egypt in the last several years, you have presidents from two local parties. in our pursuit of trying to
influence other nations to embrace democracy, it is important to take stock of where we ended up. we were rushing to get elections in palestine. who is most organized? we see a regime that is anathema to many of the outcomes we are pursuing toward. we were pushing to get these elections in place. who is the most organized? the muslim brotherhood. and extremist element became in power in egypt. i am concerned about the situation on the ground in syria. perhaps a quarter of those rebel forces are associated with al qaeda. i do not want to see where we end up with al qaeda empowered forces. host: the house is about to come
into session for legislative business. we have to leave it there. i appreciate your time. christopher gibson. come back again. guest: good to be with you. host: the house is coming in early and will be recessing. we will be back tomorrow morning. enjoy the rest of your thursday. the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., september 12, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable virginia foxx to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy.
chaplain conroy: let us pray. we give you thanks, o god, for giving us another day. though having returned so recently, the house prepares to leave for a long weekend. many of its members prepare to day ve yom can purr, the of -- -- many others take pause to acknowledge past failures and renew efforts at peaceful resolutions. on this day, give the members of this assembly listening hearts and a willingness to give each other time and attention, may they be ready to respond to their spirit living in each of their colleagues and may all that is done within the people's house this day be for your greater honor and glory. men.
the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal f the last day's proceedings and announces her approval thereof. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. johnson: mr. speaker, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the journal stads approved. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. mr. tonko: i ask that guests please join us in pledging
allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. johnson: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: madam speaker, we're living in a dangerous world abroad with challenging economic times at home, but america has been here before. on tuesday, americans witnessed the embarrassing and dangerous results of this administration's lack of a coherent foreign policy. vladimir putin filled a global leadership void. what happens next with syria and that region is anyone's guess, but it's clear that
america is not in the driver's seat. the president failed to convince me and most of the american people that military action in syria is in our best interest. this debate was not conducted from a position of foreign policy strength because syria was allowed to fester. flawed attempts at coalition-building failed. iran is ever closer to a nuclear bomb. iran funds terrorist organizations. iran's influence in the region is significant, and the middle eastern arms race would likely follow, the results of which could be catastrophe. the world is looking to america for leadership. the american people are looking to this president for leadership. mr. president, it's time for you to step up to the plate. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and
extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. tonko: thank you, madam speaker. hurricane sandy, troom lee, have tested the resiliencey. bridges failed, blackouts occurred and communities were devastating by flooding at the same time that our water supply systems failed. it took weeks to restore these vital services. our electricity, pottable water and transportation networks must be reliable, even in the face of severe storms. the american people need and deserve a congress that will work together to address the present and growing threat of climate change and do what is necessary to ensure the resiliencey of our roads, bridges, electrical dams and water systems. accomplishing this would create jobs and support our communities and our economy. this week the national oceanic and atmospheric administration reported that sandy-like flooding is now twice as likely due to the sea level rise associated with climate change.
one need look no further to understand that the time is now to act on climate. thank you, madam speaker, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. duncan: madam speaker, millions all over this country are not being hired because of the so-called affordable care act which is really unaffordable. many thousands more are seeing their hours cut so they do not over the 30-hour-per-week threshold. some say the new normal is two 20-hour-a-week job. nevada noticed 16,000 tennesseans they can no longer have coverage under cover tenn, health care insurance for low income or the self-employed. it doesn't meet all of the
requirements of president obama. lamar alexander said it destroyed a innovative health plan that is helping thousands of tennesseans to health coverage. when president obama sold this to americans he said again and again if they liked their insurance they can keep it. tennesseans are among the thousands of americans who are being forced to buy new, more expensive plans with much higher premiums because of the unaffordable care act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. ms. wilson: madam speaker, it's now been two years since
president obama stood before a joint session of congress to present a comprehensive and cost-effective plan to address our national jobs crisis. with all eyes now on syria, the c.r. and the debt limit, we cannot forget that the emergency for tens of millions of americans is still painful and pervasive joblessness. it's now been two years and the president's bill, the american jobs act, has still not even received a vote in this house. madam speaker, it's time to commit to a serious jobs agenda that stops sequester layoffs and provides real options for long-term employed people in our nation. it's time to bring the american jobs act of 2013 to the floor. madam speaker, the mantra of this congress should be jobs, jobs, jobs.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, my colleagues and i have returned to washington after spending a week back in our districts with our constituents and it's clear we've got our work cut out for us. already, we've been hearing personal stories and i know i did of the folks in our districts who are having trouble making ends meet in the new normal under the obama economy. and last week we found things were only getting worse with unemployment. this rate has been too high for too long. millions of our fellow americans are unemployed with an average of 8.5 months out of work. the simple truth is they
deserve better. mr. meehan: house republicans put americans -- have a solid plan to put americans back to work and secure our future, and to do that we believe the solution lies in expanding our freedom and opportunity, not restricting it. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in the united states congress to celebrate and honor our local television station, started 60 years, ksbw, an nbc affiliate in the central coast of california. it stands for the salad bowl capital of the world which is what the salinas area is known
for. it proudly represented the whole feeling of the central coast to have a first television station. mr. farr: i was 12 years old. i remember sitting with my father as he was being interviewed on that television station. it went through decades of being the area's first station to provide local news. it was the first nation to broadcast in color. it was the first to broadcast news reports from the field. it was the first to broadcast in high definition. for the past 15 years, the station has been known by the -- owned by the 126-year-old hearst corporation and led locally through joseph w. heston as president and general manager. it continues to operate the full-time washington, d.c. news to provide g kscw direct reports from washington to local constituents. congratulations for 60 years of first. i wish them another 60 years of great success on the central coast.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: madam speaker, i rise today to recognize national suicide prevention week. suicide is a serious public health problem that takes an alarming toll on so many individuals, including our military personnel and veterans. a growing number of returning service members and veterans suffer from posttraumatic secure, acute brain injuries, severe anxiety, depression and a variety of other mental illness, from battle. the u.s. department of veterans affairs released a study in february of 2013 which estimates approximately 24 veterans commit suicide every day. our highest priority must be the mental health and well-being of our friends, our colleagues and loved ones and also the brave men and women who serve our nation. should one fear that someone they know is in crisis or depressed, giving that person an opportunity to open up and
share their troubles with you can go a long ways. national suicide prevention week is a time for all of us to learn more about suicide, its warning signs and what can be done to help those in need. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to draw attention to a disease that plagues our nation and my home state of florida, that is pancreatic cancer. mr. garcia: unfortunately, pancreatic cancer remains the fourth leading cause of cancer death with a five-year survival rate of just 6%. is 013, pancreatic cancer 3,380 new hit
cases for that year. last year, congress passed the recalcitrant cancer research act which calls on the national cancer institute to help develop a scientific framework for combating pancreatic cancer. this was an important step forward, but there's clearly more that we can do and need to be done. we need to fund the national cancer institute's research so they can better understand how to prevent and treat this disease. therefore, i urge my colleagues to support this critical funding and to renew and strengthen our commitment to combating pancreatic cancer. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam speaker. in less than three weeks, the special immigrant visa program
expires. this is something we created to help bring people who served americans in iraq and afghanistan as interpreters, guides, drivers, people who helped our soldiers who put their lives at risk be able to escape to safety. there are people with long memories who are there seeking revenge, but sadly this project has been hampered by what can only be charitablely described as bureaucratic ineptitude. the state department can't even tell us how many thousands of people are in the backlog. chairman rogers just this week told me that an interpreter for one of his heroes is trying to seek refuge in the united states, and the program will expire september 30. if we can't help the state department fix it, we can at least extend it in the
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on h.r. 2275. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam chairman, i yield myself -- such time as i may -- the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlewoman seek recognition to call up the bill? >> yes, ma'am. the speaker pro tempore: would the gentlewoman please state the bill that she is -- wishes to call up. >> h.r. 2775. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2775, a bill to condition the provision of premium and cost sharing subsidies under the patient protection and affordable care
act upon a certification that a pr to verify household income and other qualifications f such subsidies as operational, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 339, the amendment printed in house report 113-206 is adopted in the bill as amended and is considered as read. the bill shall be debatable for one hour with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on energy and commerce, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. the gentlewoman from north carolina, mrs. ellmers, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, each will control 20 minutes. the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 10 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina, mrs. ellmers. mrs. ellmers: madam speaker, i rise today to speak about the economic disaster facing all
americans on october 1. nearly three years ago i decided to run for office for one primary reason, to defeat and repeal obamacare. three years later this terrible law is set to be implemented and the dire warnings and predictions are already coming true. this past summer alone we saw three major delays in the law's implementation. from the employee mandate to consumer price caps to the issue we are debating here today. congresswoman black's bill, h.r. 277 a, the no subsidies without verification act, is the first step at attacking the latter. the premise of this bill is quite simple, serving as the stewards of taxpayer dollars, it is one of our most important jobs as members of congress. after all, dollars wasted by congress or improperly spent by the executive branch, has a direct impact on the budgets of
families across this country who are struggling to pay their bills. this is why i was appalled by this summer's announcement from the department of health and human services in the 00-page rule issued during the july 4 holiday, h.h.s. stated that they would no longer verify income for obamacare subsidies. instead, the obama administration would now rely on self-attestation, and sample audits when launching obamacare exchange subsidies. an initiative that is estimated to cost over $1 trillion over the next decade. after receiving criticism, h.h.s. announced that they would reverse course and extend audits to all applicants, yet to this date the administration has issued no formal change in the rule to codify this policy. in other words, they are saying
one thing and doing another. as it stands today, the rule issued by h.h.s. reads, the exchange may accept the applicant's application without further verification. and yet while verification has been removed, the fines remain in place. any applicant who enters information improperly could possibly face a $25,000 fine. if the mistake is knowing and willful, the fine could grow as high as $250,000. as ronald reagan famously said, trust but verify. if history is any guide, these claims of accountability will be disregarded unless oversight is enforced. this only reinforces the need for the no subsidies without verification act. the bill would simply require certification systems to be in place so that the administrators can successfully and
consistently verify eligibility before any premium and cost sharing credit are paid out. similar language is adopted by the senate, but the bill before us would implement a bipartisan consensus and protect taxpayer dollars. it would do so by requiring the inspector general of h.h.s. to certify that income verification is in place before precious taxpayer dollars are wasted and abused. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of h.r. 2775, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. mrs. ellmers: yes, the gentlelady reserves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, madam speaker. the bill before us today is nothing more than another page out of the republican playbook to delay, derail, and otherwise repeal the affordable care act.
rather than a productive bipartisan effort to ensure successful implementation, republicans will instead waste more precious floor time to take their 41st vote that undermines and repeals the affordable care act. h.r. 2775 is based on the flawed premise that h.h.s. does not have the verifications in place to ensure that families who are getting financial help are eligible for that help. my republican friends that's simply not true and your bill will do nothing but prevent millions of hardworking american families from gaining affordable health care coverage. first and foremost this bill is totally unnecessary. h.h.s. already has stated in regulations that they will check and verify income on 100% of the applications. and if someone receives payments that they determine aren't substaniated, those payments will have to be paid back. 100% verified and reconciled. here's how it works. to get subsidies to make their
health insurance affordable, hardworking americans and families will submit their projected annual household incomes through the marketplaces. the data will then be checked against i.r.s. data, social security data, and current wage information. if there is an inconsistency, the marketplaces will require additional documentation from applicants. in addition, marketplaces will check employer coverage information from the applicant and the employer against data from a number of employer data sources approved by h.h.s. to verify eligibility for the subsidies. if applicant information and other data do not match, the marketplaces will ask for further supporting documentation. and lastly, all payments of premium tax credits are reconciled by i.r.s. the following year. the income data submitted to the marketplaces are reconciled against the actual wages and health covered information on the individual's income tax return. if there is an inconsistency, the applicant pays back the
excess. so let me repeat that part, that last part, madam speaker. because it's the most critical. even after h.h.s. has verified wage information on each individual situation that arises before tax credits are sent out, the income information will still be double checked again against actual wages on the individual's income tax return the following year. so if there is an inconsistency, the applicant pays back the excess. there is, again, 100% income verification and reconciliation on the back end. now, madam speaker, both c.b.o. and j.c.t., joint committee on taxation, confirmed this. stating that the program h.h.s. has in place satisfies the certification requirements under section 1411 of the law proving, again, that this bill is simply irrelevant. but of course in light of this report, our republicans at the 12th hour have hasseyly amended the bill, the -- hastily amended the bill. the new language will basically
ask to formally certify or ask the i.g. of h.h.s. to formally certify these verification systems which does nothing but delay the start of the law and deny millions of hardworking americans from getting the tax credits that clearly eligible for. i maintained in rules last night and i'll maintain again, this is not the responsibility of the inspector general. the inspector general doesn't do this. they probably can't do this. the i.g.'s office has confirmed these implications by stating that this new language places unworkable requirements on their office and that it has no resources to perform this, and that it is outside of its traditional role. so the republicans know very well all of this and that's the exact reason they made this change. it's simply a delay tactic. again the i.g. won't be able to do this. this is not their traditional role. the only thing that happens here, madam speaker, is that this is the legislation which will never pass, but if it did pass and got signed by the president, which would never
happen, it would simply delay implementation of the affordable care act, and that's what the republicans want. repeal, delay, defund. this is what they are all about. the 41st vote, again, to repeal the affordable care act. madam speaker, today we are 20 days away from october 1 with millions of uninsured americans will finally get access to quality affordable health care. no longer will hardworking families worry about getting sick, injured, or losing coverage bought of the loss of a job, because the affordable care act gives health security and peace of mind. for those hardworking feaments that need additional tools to help them afford their coverage, the a.c.a. will make it a reality. despite the delay tactics in this bill and millions of hours and dollars spent to derail the a.c.a., the law is moving forward. organizations are -- across this country including labor, small businesses, and employers, health care provide e., advocates, religious leaders, and others will continue to focus on helping uninsured americans gain access to health care.
i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. it again is unnecessary delay, but i at least am optimistic the a.c.a. will move forward and the republicans will not have success. i reserve the balance of my time, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. mrs. ellmers: i yield to mr. pitts for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. pitts: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 2775 and commend the lady, congresswoman black, and congresswoman ellmers for their leadership on this issue. earlier this year we found out that the i.r.s. flagged for further review 90% of americans who claimed the adoption tax credit. 70% of the adoptive families faced at least a partial audit. on a minuscule of the tax
credits were disallowed. many needy families saw their returns delayed for months. we also found out this year that hundreds of conservative nonprofits had their applications for tax-exempt status delayed for months and years by i.r.s. agents. ask millions of small business owners who have spent hours laboring over tax returns. the government doesn't typically operate by the honor system. but when it comes to doling out billions of dollars in new obamacare subsidies, the government is just going to accept applications without question on the honor system. this is all in the interest of getting obamacare up and running as soon as possible without any regard to potential fraud. and it's after the old pay and chase model. we're entrusted with protecting taxpayer dollars, not watching them go out to people who don't need them. if the treasury department can't figure out how to prevent fraud, then subsidies shouldn't
be going out the door. and if the tax subsidies is overpaid to the insurance companies for the tax credits for individuals, guess who pays back the overpayment? not the insurance companies. t comes out of the individual's pocket. i'm sure i am not the only one to recall president reagan's trust by verify. the obamacare is just trust. they don't trust adoptive parents or conservative nonprofits or small businesses. but for the purpose of getting the president's signature legislation up and running, they're perfectly willing to get taxpayers policed. we need to demand the administration follow the law. obamacare was such a landmark piece of legislation, why does it have to be ignored at every turn? i urge members to support the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized.
mr. pallone: madam speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, a member of our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina s recognized for four minutes. mr. butterfield: thank you for your extra leadership on our economy and delivering affordable health care to every american. madam speaker, i rise this morning to oppose h.r. 2775. this bill, if passed by the house and passed by the senate and signed by the president, hich i would say is highly unlikely, would require the secretary of health and human services to certify to congress that an income verification system is in place before any subsidies can be distributed for individuals to purchase health insurance through the marketplace. here you go again. repeal effort number 41. the republican majority is obsessed with discrediting the president of the united states by using every procedural
maneuver imaginable to weaken in law which was passed by the congress and upheld by the united states supreme court. i invite my republican colleagues to read a report published by the congressional budget office which states that h.h.s. already has in place sufficient safeguards for distributing subsidies to assist uninsured americans with the purchase of insurance. this is not an honor system, mr. pitts. it is written into the law, and the congressional budget office recognizes that we do have in place a system to verify the incomes. mr. speaker, i'm still fuming -- madam speaker, i'm still fuming about the 15 republicans on the energy and commerce committee who on august 29 sent a multipage investigatory letter to community nonprofits who have been approved to
assist in grants to assist in the process. i simply don't understand how a chairman of a committee and a few like minded committee members can simply offer a letter to grant recipients demanding, demanding that they answer questions and produce documents. i suggest that this letter exceeds the authority of these individuals to harass and to intimidate grant recipients. i urge the republican majority to stop trying to discredit president obama, stop trying to defund and repeal the affordable care act. it is the law of the land. millions of americans are benefiting from it today and in the future. energy d be using the you're using this morning to pass a budget and lift the sequester which is hurting families and communities all across america. my friends, get serious, and let's stop playing games with
the american people. thank you, mr. pallone, for the time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. mrs. ellmers: i now recognize congresswoman blackburn from tennessee, vice chair of the energy and commerce committee, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam chairman. i want to commend mrs. black from tennessee, my colleague from tennessee. she has done a tremendous job on bringing this legislation forward and she brings it forward because of the experience we have had in tennessee with a program that s called 10-- called tenncare. it was called just in time insurance. guess what, it became too expensive to afford. when you do not exercise appropriate oversight and verification, that is what happens. you incentivize the use. those that really do not qualify come onto the program.
indeed, we had a governor, democrat governor, by the way, that removes 300,000 individuals off this program. i am pleased that as we discuss and stand in support of h.r. 2775 that my colleagues across the aisle are getting our message when it comes to obamacare, yes, delay, defund, repeal, replace. that is exactly what we want to do because this law has become so amazingly unpopular with the american people, indeed with women over 65% of all american women oppose this law and the implementation of this law. the reason we are bringing this legislation forward is because there is a gaping hole. we know that having self-attestation for getting these taxpayer subsidies in this -- in these exchanges is going to lead to an incredible
amount of fraud. we're even having estimates as much as $250 billion worth of fraud that could be going into this program. we're not acting on theory. we're looking at what has previously happened with programs such as tenncare. indeed, my colleague from new jersey has heard me talk about this for years and knows that when we look at something that is public option health care, that is the public option from which we draw our experience. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, who's a longtime supporter and person in the mix on health care, certainly, as a nurse and health care
professional. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for three minutes. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. chairman, my friend from new jersey, and madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this bill. our nation is facing a host of challenges. we need to end the sequester. we need to fund our government properly to avoid a shutdown. we need to increase the debt limit so we can pay our bills and maintain a strong credit rating, and we must have a full and open debate about what to do in response to chemical weapons used in syria. but instead of any of these pressing issues, here we are again at the insistence of the house majority voting for the 41st time to repeal, defund, obstruct or derail the affordable care act. and they want to do so as more and more americans, including my constituents on the central coast of california, are now beginning to benefit from the law.
already 11,000 young adults in my district have gained health care insurance coverage under their parent's plans, allowing them to pursue their education or start new ventures without the fear of going bankrupt if they should get sick. almost 300,000 of my constituents are now able to get the preventive health services they need without worrying about the cost. and 10,000 seniors have already found relief when falling into the dreaded prescription drug doughnut hole in medicare. and in less than one month, california families, who for so long have been priced out or denied coverage in the private health insurance market, will finally get the coverage they want and deserve. throughout the program, we call it cover california exchange, look with health care marketplaces all across this country, families, individuals
and small businesses will have a transparent one-stop shop to look at all policies and sign up for high-quality, insurance coverage and they won't have to worry about being denied coverage for their pre-existing conditions. but this bill before us will erode all of these benefits, essentially blocking hardworking families to get the affordable insurance coverage they need. american people have moved on. they want us to come together to improve our nation, not to divide it, so i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill. let's get working on the critical issues facing our nation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. mrs. ellmers: madam chair, i recognize congresswoman mcmorris rodgers from washington for two minutes. she is the chair of our republican conference. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from washington is recognized for two minutes.
mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam chairman. in less than a month, enrollment for obamacare's largest entitlement program will begin. subsidies will go out the door on january 1, and they will go to anyone who claims they're eligible, no verification, no accountability. g.a.o. has told us and the inspector generals for both health and human services and the i.r.s. have told us that the administration's verification system is extremely vulnerable to fraud. but the picture gets worse. in 2012 alone, health and human services gave out more than $64 billion in improper payments. in fact, the department of health and human services, the agency charged with implementing these exchanges, has the highest annual improper payment rate among federal agencies. the department of treasury, which is responsible for enforcing 47 different tax provisions, is second only to health and human services.
"the wall street journal" recently reported that not varyfying eligibility could cost taxpayers more than $250 -- verifying eligibility could cost taxpayers more than $250 billion in improper payments. the administration doesn't seem to care. we have seen the wheels fallen off. the delay in the employer mandate, the cost containment rule, the delay in the finalizing agreements with insurance plans and now this delay in ensuring the verification mechanisms are in place to protect taxpayers. this administration has made one thing clear, it will stop at nothing to ensure that seven million people are enrolled in million in 2014, 2.7 must be young in order to make it work and that subsidies must be handed out to as many americans as possible. the administration's decision to allow enrollees to self-attest to the information
provided to the exchanges is not only irresponsible but ripe for fraud. the only real solution is the passage of h.r. 2775, and i urge our colleagues to support this bill. . search the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from nng new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you very much. madam speaker, this is sort of a charade that's going on today. our republican friends in many other areas allow, for example, businesses to self-certify in a whole range of areas. this is not about that. what this is is another attempt to sabotage health care reform. america's involved with a grand reform. some of us are in states likes oregon, california, washington, new york, maryland where we are actually working to implement the reform. and our citizens are going to
have lower rates, more choices, and subsidies for individuals and small businesses for better coverage. in a lot of america right now, some of our republican friends have he decided to sabotage it. customers won't get extra help until alabama, oklahoma, texas, or wyoming where insurance commissioners won't even review health plans to make sure that they are offered in the new marketplaces to provide consumers with required benefits and protections. in missouri, believe it or not, the republican legislature has made it illegal for new health insurance marketplace for state employees to tell people what they are eligible for. and today this is one more effort to throw sand in the gears. now, the republican response who have no vision for health care, who refuse to acknowledge that what we are working on now they
call obamacare actually had its roots in a bipartisan consensus of what's necessary to get more value out of american health care. the health care reform train has left the station. we simple reject today this misguided attempt to sabotage it and will be able for americans from coast to coast to see the difference from communities that are embracing it and implementing it versus those that are trying to sabotage it. and in the course of the next two years, the facts will be clear, mercifully what they are going to pass today is not going to be enacted into law, and the rest of us can get to work implementing reform. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. mrs. ellmers: madam chair, i'd like to yield myself 45 seconds just to outline some of the things that have already been repealed in obamacare.
as a consequence of congress passing obamacare to find out what is in it, we have found some terrible ideas in the law. to date the president has actually signed into law seven bipartisan bills repealing or defunding parts of the health care law. h.r. 4, repeal the small business paperwork mandate, the 109 . h.r. 1473, cut $2.2 billion from a stealth public plan. h.r. 674, save taxpayers $13 billion by adjusting eligibility for obamacare programs. h.r. 2055 made more cuts to owe ops, and the i.r.s. h.r. 3630, slash billions from obamacare slush funds. i could go on madam chairwoman, i would like to now introduce my colleague from pennsylvania, congressman pat meehan, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes.
mr. meehan: thank you, madam chair. i rise today in support of the no subsidies without verification act. legislation of which i'm a proud co-sponsor. october 1 is only days away and almost every day will see a brand new headline about obamacare, demonstrating the train wreck. as one senator put it, that is their words, not mine. the thousands of rules and regulations and mandates are only increasing the cost of health insurance and dramatically extending the bureaucracy in our health care. the implementation of he obamacare has been one disaster after another. buried in the hundreds of pages of regulations that have been released this summer, including a rule change announcing that the government will no longer verify whether applicants for obamacare's insurance exchange are actually qualified for the aid. instead, they will simply rely on the honor system. madam speaker, we are talking about billions of dollars here. how can we possibly be relying
on an honor system? according to the "wall street journal," it's estimated that not verifying the elinlibility could result in approximately -- eligibility could result in approximately $250 billion in fraudulent payments. the no subsidies without verification act will stop any taxpayer funding subsidies until an accurate real-time verification system is in place to ensure the applicants are indeed eligible. it seems like common sense to me. we need a trusted system in place to stop any waste, fraud, and abuse resulting from not verifying eligibility for obamacare insurance subsidies. this is being operated through a data hub which will have millions of persons personally identifying information, most concern this is going to be a honey pot for identity theft, and the very purpose for which it was put in place in the first place. this income verification is not capable of being accurately done
because this administration has refused to allow the businesses who will give the information to apply. i am a proud co-sponsor and i urge passage of this bill. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman from new jersey. i rise today to ask the incredulous question of how many times do we have to say no? and how many times does the american people have to say, take your hands off my good affordable care act that has allowed millions of americans to have preventable care? that has been poised to attack the scandalous high percentage of uninsured in the state of texas being the number one state with uninsured persons. how many times? first of all this bill is frivolous. and the reason is because there is a construct in this bill, the affordable care act, to deal with all of the questions that they have asked.
first of all it will require that individuals will have to submit the projected annual household income. all income data submitted through the marketplace will then be checked against i.r.s. data, social security data, current wage information. if there is inconsistency the marketplace will require additional documentation. marketplaces will check employer conching information from the applicant and their employer against data, o.p.m., and shop marketplace, as well as other data sources. it is absolutely absurd for this bill to place more responsibility on an already sequestered government. if my colleagues want to do anything to provide any substance to what they are talking about, let's put a bill on the floor to end sequestration. there is no resources that would add to the inspector general's ability to do all that they have said. let me add further insult to injury, and i want my constituents to listen closely. $67 million was given to navigators to provide the kind of oversight and instruction
that these individuals on this bill have suggest they had need. what i find appalling and what i have not seen in my tenure in congress is the numbers of members of the energy and commerce committee that have sent a letter to the 51 navigators governed by the health and human services to require them to send information. i want my navigator that received a grant from h.h.s. to refuse to do anything with that letter. and i'm going to ask the secretary of h.h.s. to reject this letter that has no authority in law again trying to abuse and reject the idea -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: this bill should go down and don't answer the letter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. mrs. ellmers: thank you, madam chairman. i would like to point out to my colleagues across the aisle in
the latest "wall street journal" article of september 10, one of the things that he they point out again is in the senate, which is a democrat majority, they put in an h.h.s. funding bill a sense of the senate that the provision for income verification be in place. this is something that is very important. it is common sense. and madam speaker, wouldn't it be just a major commonsense issue to just simply put in in place a proactive prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse? i would also like to point out to my colleagues that have discussed the issue of whether or not the i specter general has the ability -- the inspector general has the ability to do so. first and foremost we wouldn't be approaching this in this manner if the rule had not been removed. and yet we have to have a system
in place that will address these issues. there is no reason that we can't approach it from this again very commonsense approach where we ask that we actually have a rule put in place. he we can't simply move forward -- we can't simply move forward on this incredible disaster of a law when we are not asking for some verification. i think it's a he very simple move. i think it's a very common sense move. i yield back the remainder of my time for now and reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: ask i ask how much time remains on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey has five minutes he remaining. the gentlewoman from north carolina has six minutes remaining. mr. pallone: i yield three minutes to the chairman emeritus of the energy and commerce committee, mr. dingell.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized -- mr. dingell: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. dingell: here we go again. the time of the house is being wasted. the business of the nation is being obfuscated. the republicans have got more nonsense to put on the floor. we are told that this is important. that's baloney. this is the 41st time that the republicans have tried to gut the affordable care act. they don't understand that you are supposed to respect the will of the people and carry forward the business of the nation. what a shame that we have such kind of behavior on that side of the aisle. all members agree that we have to verify the incomes of those getting subsidies through the marketplaces. and that is exactly what is going to take place starting october 1. this is obfuscation and deceit. all income data will be submitted through the marketplaces and will be checked against data from both the
i.r.s. and the social security administration under existing practices. this is a lot of witchcraft and baloney. if there is an inconsistency, then additional documentation is going to be required. furthermore, all the subsidies are reconciled by the i.r.s. when an individual files their tax returns. this is just spinning of people who don't want the legislation to come to be. and again this is the 41st time we have engaged in this silly exercise. the practical effect of this bill will be denying millions of americans from getting subsidies for purchasing health insurance. its purpose is to delay and obfuscate the implementation of the legislation that it is supposed to be helping. to pass this bill is simply going to prove to be a malicious assault on the most vulnerable people in our country. and those most in need of the affordable care act.
we have seen this song and dance before. as i mentioned this is the 41st time we have engaged in this nonsense. wasting about a million and a half dollars each hour we are doing this. i urge all of my colleagues to join me in opposing h.r. 2775. this is political gym i canry -- gimmickry. it is going to have harmful effects. and it is intended to do so. i urge that the legislation be rejected and that we stop this nonsense and he we get to going forward to trying to see to it that we do implement it in a proper way, the affordable care act. i thank my good friend from new jersey for yielding this time to me. i urge my colleagues to reject this nonsense. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina. mrs. ellmers: i'd like to have two minutes to respond to some of the comments from my esteemed
colleague. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. ellmers: as the rule was removed the week of the fourth of july, there has been no rule put in place to replace it. so basically what we are hearing is the description of how it would be run if the rule was in place. mr. speaker, august 5, frequently asked question document, was given out by h.h.s. and the administration, which basically explains the verify process. the federal exchange -- of the federal exchange but outlines no details on how it will occur. additionally this fact sheet has no force of law. even worse, the fact doesn't even pretend to address the verification application submitted to obamacare exchanges administered by the state. it simply says that the state can choose whatever sample size
it wants to audit. meaning no actual verification may occur before millions of dollars of taxpayer finance benefits are paid out. while i believe america is a nation of honorable people, we have to remember there are always those who will abuse the system. the f.a.q. sheet from c.m.s. doesn't change the status of the rule. states can continue to audit whatever sample size they see fit or simply not audit at all. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i entertain a unanimous consent with mr. green. mr. green: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to place in the record opposing this unnecessary piece of legislation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from new jersey.
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on