tv Hoeven at Washington CSPAN November 17, 2013 11:20am-11:46am EST
when we don't do a good job on the rollout, we're letting them down. and i don't like doing that. so my commitment to them is, we're going to just keep on doing better every day until we get it done. and in terms of the impact on me i think to some extent i addressed it when i talked to julie -- there are going to be ups and downs during the course of my presidency. and i think i said early on when i was running -- i am not a perfect man, and i will not be a perfect president, but i'll wake up every single day working as hard as i can on behalf of americans out there from every walk of life who are working hard, meeting their responsibilities, but sometimes are struggling because the way the system works isn't giving them a fair shot.
and that pledge i haven't broke. that commitment, that promise, continues to be -- continues to hold -- the promise that i wouldn't be perfect, number one, but also the promise that as long as i've got the honor of having this office, i'm just going to work as hard as i can to make things better for folks. and what that means specifically in this health care arena is we can't go back to the status quo. i mean, right now everybody is properly focused on us not doing a good job on the rollout, and that's legitimate and i get it. there have been times where i thought we were kind of slapped around a little bit unjustly. this one is deserved. right? it's on us. but we can't lose sight of the fact that the status quo before the affordable care act was not working at all. if the health care system had been working fine, and everybody
had high-quality health insurance at affordable prices, i wouldn't have made it a priority; we wouldn't have been fighting this hard to get it done -- which is why, when i see sometimes folks up on capitol hill, and republicans in particular, who have been suggesting repeal, repeal, let's get rid of this thing, i keep on asking what is it that you want to do? are you suggesting that the status quo was working? because it wasn't, and everybody knows it. it wasn't working in the individual market and it certainly wasn't working for the 41 million people who didn't have health insurance. and so what we did was we chose
a path that was the least disruptive, to try to finally make sure that health care is treated in this country like it is in every other advanced country -- that it's not some privilege that just a certain portion of people can have, but it's something that everybody has some confidence about. and we didn't go far left and choose an approach that would have been much more disruptive. we didn't adopt some more conservative proposals that would have been much more disruptive. we tried to choose a way that built off the existing system. but it is complicated, it is hard, but i make no apologies for us taking this on -- because somebody sooner or later had to do it. i do make apologies for not having executed better over the last several months. >> and do you think that execution and the flaws in the rollout will affect your ability to do other things, like immigration reform and other policy priorities? >> well, look, if it comes to immigration reform, there is no reason for us not to do immigration reform.
and we've already got strong bipartisan support for immigration reform out of the senate. you've got -- i met with a number of traditionally very conservative clergy who are deeply committed to immigration reform. we've got the business community entirely behind immigration reform. so you've got a bunch of constituencies that are traditionally much more -- have leaned much more heavily towards the republicans who are behind this. so if people are looking for an excuse not to do the right thing on immigration reform, they can always find an excuse -- we've run out of time, or this is hard, or the list goes on and on. but my working assumption is people should want to do the right thing. and when you've got an issue that would strengthen borders, make sure that the legal
immigration system works the way it's supposed to, that would go after employers who have been doing the wrong thing when it comes to hiring undocumented workers, and would allow folks who are here illegally to get right with the law and pay a fine, and learn english and get to the back of the line, but ultimately join fully our american community -- when you've got a law that makes sense, you shouldn't be looking for an excuse not to do it. and i'm going to keep on pushing to make sure it gets done. am i going to have to do some work to rebuild confidence around some of our initiatives? yes. but part of this job is the things that go right, you guys aren't going to write about; the things that go wrong get prominent attention. that's how it has always been. that's not unique to me as president. and i'm up to the challenge. we're going to get this done. all right?
thank you, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] on friday the house debated a bill that would allow assurance companies to continue to allow policies that did not have requirements of the health care law. the white house said it would veto that bill. we talked to a reporter about what is on the agenda this week. a cq on the phone is rollcall reporter to tell us about what is ahead for congress and give us an update about possible congressional action about iran. the house returns monday for legislative business. on tuesday they will debate a series of bills involving energy security. can you tell us some of the details?
like but theks house is planning to to is a number of measures that would expand access to domestic energy production and the movement of domestic energy. there is a national -- natural measure andmitting a measure that would essentially block the federal government from regulating hydraulic fracking in certain cases in permittinge existing regimes and oversight already exist. the house democratic leadership announced its support for any of the upcoming bills? guest: i have not heard what the house leadership plans to do.
the house republicans have said they are planning to set rules for floor debate on each of these measures, which means that you might expect there to be some sort of partisan opposition. alwaysmatters are difficult in each chamber because there are some democrats ' regional differences that cause them to side with republicans. host: in the senate, they have a series of procedural votes u.s. circuit court nomination and a bill on compounding pharmacies. nominationjudicial vote in the senate is the last of three cloture votes they have and attempt to break filibusters of nominees to sit on the circuit court of appeals in the district of columbia,
which is generally viewed as the second highest court in the land. republicans have a post the previous nominees, making a series of -- opposed the previous nominees, making a series of arguments about caseload. balancet to keep the favoring republicans despite there being a democratic president. the pharmacy compounding bill has been lingering for a while. it is designed to increase fda oversight and regulatory authority. runningbill is kind of through all of the procedural hurdles although there is no substantive objection to it at all. a dispute over an amendment not related to that bill. is set toonday, work begin on the defense
authorization bill. when might they complete work on the legislation? whenever the debate in this on that compounding pharmacy bill, there is going to be no storage of hot button debates. the one that is most directly related to the bill that is the biggest deal is the method in which sexual assault cases are prosecutors and investigated within the military. there is really a disagreement camps, one that has been led by christian jill a brand of new york and another senator kirsten gillibrand of new york and claire mccaskill. it is about how military justice matters are handled, with the
military brass generally opposing the idea of undercutting or changing the protocol regarding change of command. a timeline for the defense authorization bill? between the sexual assault issue and the other issues that might come up, oversight of the intelligence programs and this issue with potentially upping sanctions against air and -- iran, it is not clear yet because these amendments take time to process. we have not talked about any of the normal disagreements about combat systems and ships and readiness and actual nuts and bolts military issues. the idea originally was to get some real off of the senate floor before thanksgiving in time for the thanksgiving break. that is becoming increasingly
unlikely the cause of the number of issues that seem to be piling up. kerryfinally, secretary was on capitol hill to talk about relations with iran. have you heard of a plan to move forward with new sanctions against iran or not? senator carl levin, the chairman of the senate armed services committee, has been saying that he is hoping the banking committee, which has jurisdiction over this matter primarily, will move forward with marking up a new round of sanctions against the iranian regime as early as next week. is --king for that in a is asking for that in a bid to keep it from cropping up on the banking bill.
the white house and secretary kerry really do not want to see this happen at this point in time given the ongoing with of that country and the other stakeholders involved. anythingt want to see that could potentially upset the balance in the talks although there are quite a few more hawkish senators that are pushing for that. much, aank you very look ahead on what is coming up in congress. guest: thank you. >> on the next "washington journal," fixing the health care law. then a look at what types of federal assistance gets sent to the deceased because of
inaccurate records at the social security administration. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> senators talked about domestic policy recently, including the health care law and immigration. their conversation was part of the washington ideas forum hosted i the aspen institute and atlantic magazine -- by the aspen institute and washington -- atlantic magazine. i am always thrilled to hear from anybody in congress who is getting anything done. we just got off of a conference call with the white house where they were announcing the enrollment numbers for the affordable care act.
26,000 people signed up through the federal exchanges. as someone who has been putting forward alternatives, i wonder what your reaction is today. there are people totally opposed and want to repeal it. i was not here when it was passed. ofthat time, i was chairman the national governor's association. john and i worked together. i am a democrat from west virginia. i think we can do better as a nation than half people facing -- they are one illness away from being bankrupt. defectn was born with a or they have a serious illness and now because of a pre- existing condition, a are uninsurable.
there are so many good things we can agree on, but then people who want to repeal say, we cannot even agree on what time of day it is anymore. you think we can fix a few things. why can't we keep what we have? this when i was governor. we did a thing and we rolled out a new land to pay our vendors for medicaid. senator, how are you doing? >> they said you were saving gas and you do not want to have a carbon footprint. said, i amt i have not asking for a delay of implementation. i am asking do not put a crime of-- or a find on this piece legislation until january of 2015 so we can work a transitional year.
period of working time. we may not have the program they intended. i am trying to fix things. as a governor, that is what we are expected to do every day. senator hoeven, you have been voting to repeal the affordable care act. on the republican side of the aisle, we know that there is indignation around the ac a. tore used to be a call repeal and replace.
do you feel there is any real movement on the right to formulate a viable alternative? first of all, it is great to be here and great to see you. joe and i worked together on many issues. he is a good guy to work with. question,e to your from the viewpoint of our side of the aisle and most conservatives, this is really a law that does not work. it needs to be repealed and replaced. it takes us to government run health care. individual should choose their own health care, their own health care providers and their own health care insurance. it should not be a system where everything is final and government and government exchanges.
it is a fundamental disagreement and how health care should work in this country. >> do you think there is momentum to develop whatever that alternative is? >> i do. it is based on competition and choice. i think it goes to things like expanded health savings -- with high deductible policies. reforming medicare to create the right incentives. right now you have a medicare program that pays more for higher-lost operations regardless of outcome rather than incentivizing lower-cost, better outcomes, and preventive care. medicaid, giving states the flexibility to run programs -- i know joe agrees with me on that one. also for situations where you have pre-existing conditions, really empowering the state in high risk health care pools.
35 states have these kinds of pools. i think west virginia probably has one. i think a step-by-step comprehensive approach like that is what we advocate and we have legislation that we are putting forward to do it. >> i guess on that note about state and federal government working together -- >> here is where john and i have total agreement. the 10th amendment to the constitution gives the states rights. i am a defender of that, john is that. it is not democrat or republican. we are the laboratories of experiment. our founding fathers gives that power in the 10th amendment. certain things that states can do are more flexible. we have a mandate for balanced budget. every tuesday, i don't know what day, but every week the governor sits down with all their budget people and says, here where we
are. we are above, we are below. we had that or make some adjustments. you had better be that quick. you have got to make decisions. you had better get your financial house in order. the whole thing with health care and we were governors, they said we are going to go to 133% of the poverty guidelines. do you understand that 48 out of 50 states don't cover the people that qualify? you don't cover individuals because we can't balance their budgets. we want to do more. we are trying to do more. massachusetts -- it worked, and god bless them. we were all looking for ways to expand to more people. this comes down and he jumped to
133%. i said, i am not worried about the computer glitch. it will fix that. they have a product problem. the product problem is this -- if we want to give the best care we can. if i met 100 and -- 133%, you might have more access than something i am forced to buy or that is a product -- that is a product problem. how do we give a young person the incentive to say, -- >> you're talking about sub standley up about trying to fix things.
a lot of it is bridget. we are done with the. there are a lot of questions about what are the lessons learned about the shutdown and nearly breaching the debt ceiling. some people are saying that the tea party fire has been quelled. other people are saying you have ted cruz as popular as ever. you have people in the tea party who are ready to go. it does not seem to have the zeal for repeal and was skeptical about the mallet -- merits of a government shutdown. what you think things are as far as power in the republican party these days? i think we agree on the end goal. >> that is why we talk in terms of a market-based approach to
health care that really focuses on competition and choice. it empowers individuals to make their decisions. the goal -- we all share the goal. some of the tactics you refer to, as far as how we get there, there are differences of opinion. i think it really is a fundamental belief in a market- based system that emphasizes choice and empowers us powers individuals. >> he is a coffee drinker. >> what i'm saying is that for all of us on the conservative size of the equation, we share the same goal. >> as a red state democrat, there is talk right now of real frustration among democrats.
specifically with the white house. their feeling that the white house has put democrats in an untenable position. you are seeing some tensions there. from your vantage point, should the administration be doing more for the party? >> first of all, no matter who the president is, that is your president. i want my president to do well. i came here to be constructive. i have never been against something if i thought there was a better way to do that and i have a right and responsibility to reflect that. my daughter will tell you that. good, bad, indifferent. i got she was kind today. >> she loves you. >> i love her, too, but i was concerned when she started talking. [laughter]